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

Star trek online

Star Trek Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Can we get some eyes on this article - I've just become aware of it in the last ten minutes and even a cursory glance suggests that either there is an off-site campaign to get certain (unsourced) information into the area or it's someone using a lot of sockpuppets. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi is probably the best bet. Set for 24 hours for now. –xeno (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - as best as I can determine they are pissed off over a competition to win a beta key where the winner actually run 200 words more than the rules allowed and they see the entry as being important to "get the truth out there!" and so on.. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I find it bewildering that you went to such lengths as to report this factual and accurate account of what transpired between the STO developers team and the community members and enforced its deletion on the strict, absolutely riduculous, in this situation, policy and standards of 'reliable sources' (official game forum is as reliable a source as it will get, it might be a petty and circumstantial matter to the exterior observer but it was a huge deal to many of the folks involved). Also, at the same time, you seem to trivialise the whole situation in which you otherwise acted over-zealously, particularly our motives behind editing the entry. What's more you got your facts wrong (you didn't research the source, i.e. the STO official website and its forums); it was a "maximum 300 word" writing contest, the STO team picked one with 609 words claiming they liked it the best and hadn't noticed it was twice the length of their own requirements. Then they tried to blame the perplexed and disappointed contestants and other community members and accused them of bad sportsmanship and as a punishment they stated that there will be no more creativity competitions. Faced with rising outrage they issued an apology and eventually, the next day, they awarded another first place to the guy who had actually abided by the rules. So it did have a happy ending. And it is all there, on the forums. I think that anyone interested in STO would be better off with knowledge of all this, even if it is trivial or insignificant in the long run. It is knowledge nonetheless, first hand. There is no vendetta here, no petty remorse. I am truly sorry that you decided to act upon this with strict, completely unnecessary, in this case, "by the book" approach. Shame, real shame, especially as one can see how much spiteful, innaccurate, fictional, unfounded stuff, that really requires attention and immediate action, there is on our dear wikipedia. GoGolan (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"it might be a petty and circumstantial matter to the exterior observer but it was a huge deal to many of the folks involved"
Er... that'd be fancruft, right?. Lychosis ^T/C 03:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. See, I know you didn't read the whole post of mine. Well done. GoGolan (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this right: the Star Trek Online people didn't act according to the rules, and that's bad. We are acting according to the rules, and that's bad too. Would that basically be the gist here? //roux   11:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, please read my post before posting your oh-so-neat repartees. THank you. GoGolan (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I did. Get over it. The incident is, in your own words, trivial and meaningless. In other words, not notable. There are no third-party independent references. And again: you're bitter that they didn't follow their rules, so in return you want us to not follow ours. Guess how much it doesn't work that way. Yeah, you're butthurt that you lost the competition. We get it. That doesn't mean this belongs in Wikipedia at all. Everyone except for you is in consensus about this. Start paying attention to that. //roux   21:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

5 things:

1) Do you have any third party sources to demonstrate the notability of this incident outside the STO fanbase?

2) In what sense does this require 'attention and immediate action'?

3) Will this have any effect on the game itself, and will it matter if people don't know about it?

4) Can people find out about it without using Wikipedia?

5) Why are you bringing this to here? It's the developer's contest, they can run it however they want to. If you have an axe to grind, or feel hard done by, tell it to someone who cares. It`s highly unlikely that this little (yes, little) incident will feature prominently in the game's history.

Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You have to remember that MMO players are a fickle bunch; a minor incident like this could result in a 5% loss in subscribership, or more. That said I don't feel it merits inclusion in the article Riffraffselbow (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Axmann8

Resolved

 – Ban enacted.

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

---

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

Userbox discussion belongs at WP:MFD. –xeno (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

---

I asked Axmann8 (talk · contribs) about his "This user is a proud skinhead" userbox. He compared it to other users displaying political party, "commie" and "prosecute Bush" userboxen. With the potential offensiveness, not feeling his explanation substantially adequate, and previous issues from this user, I've brought it here. Grsz¹¹ 19:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My question would be whether his topic ban from politics include a ban from political content on his user page? Not sure what the answer to that is, but if it does, he is in violation and either needs to remove it or face sanctions. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I say let it go. The fact that we do allow userboxes of this sort, probably means this should be allowed. It isn't an attack, i.e. it's not a userbox that says "I hate insertgroupofpeoplehere" (though one could argue that's implied). As far as editing around him, i'd rather know that he's a proud skinhead than not know. And one needn't ever visit his userpage. The problem is we've allowed all kinds of user boxes that are upsetting to some people ("Support Israel" "Support Hamas" etc...) so until that changes, probably stuck (i think almost all these userboxes should be disallowed, but that's not current practice).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Want a substantial explanation? Here. I believe that is substantial enough. -Axmann8 (Talk) 19:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You have no right to free speech here. WP:NOTFREESPEECH. However, see below. Black Kite 19:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The 1st Amendment? Oh dear me, no. That's of no relevance here whatsoever. The private website wikipedia can decide to limit speech in any way it sees fit on the private website wikipedia. The 1st amendment does not address these sorts of things. You really don't know that? It's like this -- the amendment protects your right to be a "skinhead" and to publish a skinhead website, or whatever, but if you came into my house I'd immediately kick you out for spouting that racist garbage, and you would find no legal protection to remain.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course I know this. It would be nice if Wikipedia followed the supreme law of the land, though, instead of ruling out free speech on user namespaces, which is a bit oxymoronic. I am a skinhead, and proud of it. If I cannot declare it in my personal page, frankly, I'd rather not be a part of a website that refuses constitutional concepts. -Axmann8 (Talk) 19:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

? What part of "Congress shall make no laws..." and/or the 14th amendment makes this private website subject to restrictions put in place to diminish the power of governments? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also of note is Axmann's recent agreement with the phrase "chocolate messiah". Grsz¹¹ 19:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't he simply quoting CENSEI? --Ali'i 19:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Grsz¹¹ 19:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Whilst he's being typically pointy with this one, given his previous "interesting" edits, if you take this userbox in isolation it's not technically offensive. As our article points out, skinheads are not necessarily associated with any particular viewpoint. My own opinion is that we shouldn't be wasting our time with any non-collaborative userboxes, but we've been here before. I suspect an MfD would be a waste of time. Black Kite 19:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to let it go. It certainly fulfils the primary purpose of userboxes, which is to inform the reader about the editor in question :-/ SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 2) Sigh...why is it that every time we get dragged in here over a really blatantly inflammatory WP:POINTy userbox 9 times out of 10 the author is someone with mediocre contributions, a recent block log and an "axe" to grind? This is why I hate the damn things. We should be operating under a "likely to cause disruption and drama" cut off for these boxes. This box neither materially improves the encyclopedia nor aids in fostering the editing environment that is beneficial to the construction of an encyclopedia. In fact, its sole purpose appears to be a combination of soapboxing and juvenile negative attention seeking. Anyone who shows up, names himself after the Commander of the Hitler Youth and brags about being a skinhead is probably not here to edit harmoniously. Bullzeye ^contribs 19:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

He removed it once, and I myself urged him not to do so, since it's a simple declaration of a fact about him, no worse than many other userboxen out there and in fact pretty darned innocuous. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me at all, personally. But that doesn't mean its not a useless piece of self-aggrandizing Nazi crap. "Impeach Bush" or "commie", while polemic and potentially cause for drama, simply don't cause the same universal revulsion that advertising an affiliation with a Neo Nazi group does. Imagine trying to have an article discussion on Judaism or The Holocaust with somebody sporting that kind of an agenda on their user page. Also, it's feeding the trolls. "If I cannot declare it in my personal page, frankly, I'd rather not be a part of a website that refuses constitutional concepts." Bluster all you like, but threatening to take your ball and go home doesn't work well around here. Bullzeye ^contribs 20:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh...why is it that every time we get dragged in here over a really blatantly inflammatory WP:POINTy userbox 9 times out of 10 the author is someone with mediocre contributions, a recent block log and an "axe" to grind? Selection bias. If a quiet, well-behaved editor who spent most of their time on Wikipedia copyediting and improving sources had such a userbox on their user page, what would be the chance of anyone starting an ANI thread about it? None whatsoever. But if it's a user with questionable and annoying behaviour, the userbox will be noticed by more people and provoke more outrage than it otherwise would. Reyk _YO! 22:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As a side, where I live, "skinhead" literally means "bald person". I guess I'm missing something.  GARDEN  19:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The technical difference is whether being hairless is voluntary. Terminology is slippery. When I see something that says "proud to be a skinhead", I wonder how that differs technically from "proud to be an idiot". (As with this live-action mockup of a Gary Larson cartoon: [1]) But everyone is proud of something, ja? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering the disruption that Axmann8 has created in his career, why are we being so indulgent? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No formal community consensus that they're disruptive? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a funny little dance. Not only is he some sort of white supremacist (the Axmann name is a giveaway), but he wants to rub everyones faces in it. Why? He'd like to be blocked, to justify his rage, the feeling that the world is out to get him and is "censoring the truth." In his quixotic crusade, a block would show that he's on the right path. It would affirm him. Best just to ignore him at this point, and if his editing is disruptive (he seems to spend all his time in userspace, so who cares?) he can get blocked for behavior then (rather what he imagines is some ideological crusade at the moment).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that he had doubts himself and asked an admin about it and was told by Orange Mike that it was ok[2] it would not be fair to hold that userbox against him. henrik•talk 20:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why bother talking about the userbox? Whatever makes him just go away is what's good. We don't need editors like this. Friday (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that a) he's not very old, b) his conduct has improved considerably with coaching, I disagree with your assessment. henrik•talk 20:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

His behaving like a child is the problem, not an excuse for his behavior. Friday (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with you henrik. I am unfamiliar with this user (this being the first day I ever saw him). I decided to review his edits outside this thread as a non-biased third party and it is a little troubling. Besides the rude comments about the Skinhead userbox and saying he will leave if he can't invoke the First Amendment, other edits like the ones on User talk:CENSEI where he stated: "All he did was call Obama a "chocolate messiah" ... which, personally, I agree 100% with" [3] , attempting to override his own topic ban with edit summaries like "Constructive, good-faith suggestion, topic ban overridden by WP:IAR". [4] and calling for the Geocaching article to have more anti-geocache opinions he likes to call "Geotrashing" [5]. And these contributions are from just today. If his conduct was worse than it is at present as you seem to imply, it's a miracle he wasn't indefblocked for whatever he did. — Moe ε 20:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Having followed this from the beginning, this edit is highly troubling. The strict condition of his unblocking was an agreement to stay away from such topics and blatantly violating it whilst snidely quoting WP:IAR should be grounds for immediate and lengthy reblocking. It shows complete disrespect for the community and the good faith he has been repeatedly, and perhaps over generously, shown. Mfield (Oi!) 21:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hah. Yes, it's indeed a miracle he isn't indeffed (take a look at his block log). One of my motivations for trying to work with Axmann instead of just taking the easy route out and banning him is that we're creating a monoculture of editors here; those who instantly know to not express unpopular opinions and argue, those who readily grok how all our myriad of intricate policies work and how things are done here thrive, those who take longer to learn are met with a, frankly, pretty hostile environment. I think that, once in a while, we should take a chance on some users who don't fit the usual mold and see if we can help them become productive editors. Countering systematic bias isn't just to write more about non-American topics. henrik•talk 21:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Geez, his block log is lengthy for someone who has been here for only little more than a month. He does have some productive edits outside of the ones I pointed out, where he navigates newly created articles and tags poor articles for speedy deletion. It's a start, I suppose.. I agree, there can be productive editors with alternative or unpopular opinions, but the difference between Axmann8 and those kinds of editors is being able to accept changes to articles, talk about topics civilly and cooperating with the community without pushing a particular agenda. From his block log he seems pretty intent on editing controversial articles like Ann Coulter, Neo-Nazi topics like Skinheads and the like, which is fine unless he is topic banned (which he appears he got himself a 5 month long one). Wikipedia is a pretty hostile environment indeed, but I think he is making it more hostile than it has to be. When disruption outweighs the good edits, thats when indeffing the account is needed. If he continues down this path, he will probably end up being there soon. I commend you on your willingness not to use the banhammer, henrik, but if he is going to seriously change, I recommend you use the rainbow trout firmly. :) — Moe ε 21:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The only topic for which we walk people right out the door with a permanent disinvitation is pedophillia. I personally find racism offensive, however, a racist who is generally abiding by Wikipedia policy and not trying to soapbox, advocate improperly, etc. is not someone we need to push out the door.

If he's editing in a problematic manner, that's actionable, but he seems to be working with the community here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, he's been editing in a problematic manner. Check the block log; check the concerns given above. Personally, I've already seen enough to know that nothing good can come from keeping him around. Whether we've reached the point where this is generally apparent to others is debatable. Friday (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This blowup is entirely caused by his userbox and not any new actions he has taken. His userbox is not evidently actionable. If his userbox isn't actionable, and he's abiding by currently in force behavior restrictions from his last unblock, there's no justification for us to be doing anything about him at this time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you block someone who states pride in being black? If the answer is no, then you're being blatantly racist against whites. -Axmann8 (Talk) 21:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Bogus argument. "White pride" is code for "white supremacy". It's akin to "male pride", which is code for "male supremacy". Those terms do not correspond to the concept of minority pride. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal to Block indef

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

Resolved

 – with an earth-shattering 'Kaboom'... HalfShadow 01:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't see a conscructive contributor here, and I realize I can only speak for myself, but really, his actions speak louder than words. He was topic-banned away from articles, and then he goes to blantantly violate it with the edits noted above using WP:IAR. IAR is not some kind of tool to circumvent solutions found by the community, it's not meant as a catch-all to get yourself out of any situation, it's meant to be used to improve the encyclopedia. To make bold edits, not snide remarks in violation of one's topic ban. If he can't learn to follow policy, and his own topic ban, he needs to be shown the door.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, considering that I originally removed the userbox, even stating that it was probably "too polemic". Then, Orangemike (an admin, mind you), advised me that it was not too polemic, and he suggested I should put it back, since it's a stark statement about the person I am (which is the purpose of userboxes). An admin giving advice to re-add the userbox, then an admin blocking me for having it, would seem highly hypocritical and a lose-lose. Also, per Henrik's statement that I am, in fact, improving. -Axmann8 (Talk) 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Conflict of interest. This user is the subject of the proposal. Grsz¹¹ 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a block would be for a userbox, rather, treating Wikipedia as your battleground. Grsz¹¹ 21:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest here as well, considering you complained about the userbox initially. Also, treating Wikipedia as my battleground? Lol. You're the one who complained initially, or that comment would have never been added. Stop trying to find loopholes to get me banned, kthx. -Axmann8 (Talk) 21:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm waiting for someone to pull out WP:NOSKINHEADUSERBOXES or WP:NOSKINHEADS, of which I see are both redlinks. -Axmann8 (Talk) 21:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, it's time. He won't stop grinding his axe long enough to listen to a word anyone says. It should be clear from his conduct that there's precious little chance he'll ever become a constructive contributor. Friday (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to note this user's conflict of interest, considering he's been critical of me before this proposal. -Axmann8 (Talk) 21:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why?  GARDEN  21:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• cmt axmann. You violated your topic ban. You're stirring the pot now. I advise you to either A. Apologize for violating the topic ban and promise not do so again, for any reason. Or B. Just back away from the carcass and be quiet here. Further attacks on the motives of other editors may sway more people into supporting a block of you just to get rid of the disruption. Up to you.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, though if Axmann doesn't shut up pretty soon, he'll dig a deep enough hole that I'll change votes. I like the people who 'open their mouths and prove it', to take half an adage; those are the people who can easily be evaluated for their agendas. Axmann's on a short enough leash now, far better to have him wreck himself on actual content realted problems than this stupidity. -- ThuranX 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Ditch him. He's not worth the trouble. He's not a fabulous researcher, he has zero FAs to his credit, and if he tried to so much as fix grammar or phrasing on one of our really good articles I daresay he'd be reverted due to making the article worse, not better. In short, I believe in leeway for good contributors; I believe in more leeway for truly outstanding contributors, but this jerk? No, he gets no leeway at all. In short, Delete as antiencyclopedic. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I've every been involved with this editor so have no COI as far as I am aware - all I see here is a timewaster, I know we have our cadre of social workers ready and willing to leap in to enable people like this but come on.. He knows he's taking the piss, we all know he's take the piss. Let's just get it over and done with. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Reblock, but not indef Administrator henrik is willing to work with Axmann8 so his problematic behavior can be corrected. He was unblocked and given a topic ban of five months so he could continue editing Wikipedia. However, given his recent conduct and him violating the topic ban, he should be blocked for a set amount of time for violating it. Give henrik a chance to continue working with him and if he doesn't improve, then indefblock him. — Moe ε 21:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Where did he violate the topic ban? I don't see any article space edits which are problematic. Please provide diffs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• I believe it's these admissions: [6], [7]. "Per IAR" is a slap in the face to the admins who were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Grsz¹¹ 22:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Indeed, per his own admission, he was violating his topic ban 'per WP:IAR' with the diffs above and [8]. He was topic banned from editing articles and discussion (which he agreed to) related to politics in exchange for a unblock. Why bother setting topic bans at all if the disruptive users can go and violate them willingly? Either he gets a block for violating the topic ban, or there shouldn't be any pseudo-restriction (which ultimately turns out to just be a threat) at all. — Moe ε 22:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Why the heck is henrik willing to waste his time? Wikipedia is not therapy, last I checked. henrik, you have better uses for your time than trying to talk sense into a neo nazi skinhead who seriously seems to think the US Constitution grants him the right to piss in our living room. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• As much as I despise polls, from his conduct in this thread and his block log longer than Gatsby (one block for every 300 edits? No thank you) I don't believe that this user will be beneficial to the project if he stays. We don't need a toddler rubbing crayons on the couch with both hands over his ears, singing "lalala" loudly.  GARDEN  22:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Is The Great Gatsby considered a long book these days? :P MastCell ^Talk 22:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, first book I could think of. :)  GARDEN  22:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose and close - WP:IDONTLIKE objections notwithstanding, this user hasn't come anywhere near our normal threshold for community patience exhaustion. His viewpoint being offensive to many (me included) is not grounds to block or ban him. Barring specific evidence of more severe ongoing behavior problems, this ban proposal should be closed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not based solely on this issue.  GARDEN  22:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • There's nothing he's done in the last few days that justified more blocking, as far as I can tell. The only reason further action is being discussed is the userbox - and the userbox appears to meet our current policy. If he manages to take more disruptive actions and gets himself indef'ed and it sticks - so be it. But this call to ban him is based on ... nothing, since he was last unblocked. We don't ban people for behaving themselves after being given another chance. If he stops behaving himself I or another admin will apply appropriate sanctions up to and including a block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
      • If your assumption on why this indef blocked is being discussed is in regards to why I brought it up, you're wrong. I did not bring it up in regards to the userbox, but in regards to his violation of his topic ban.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Would someone please provide the diffs for what he did that violated the topic ban? People keep saying that, but I've been through his edit history and I didn't see it. Evidence, please? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Please see the links by myself and Grsz11 where he even self admitted it was a violation of his topic ban. [9], [10] [11] The topic ban, if you review his talk page history and his block log, is on all articles and discussions related to politics which he was the one who proposed himself in exchange for an unblock. [12] — Moe ε 23:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - You guys have already indef'd him twice and you keep letting him off the hook. He's under a topic ban, so...

  Enforce the topic ban already. Anything that violates it in an article, revert it on sight. And let him keep his white supremacist garbage on his page, so that there's no doubt where he's coming from. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  Idef'd twice shows that he's been given two more chances, not that he's somehow immune to indefing. Your argument supports re-instituting the indef rather than not. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  If it were me, I would have blocked him for good the first time. This episode needs to serve as an object lesson to overly-lenient admins. This guy came in here with guns blazing and a mind full of Limbaugh mush, but the youngsters running this place somehow couldn't see it. So he needs to stay on here until he's unwound enough rope to hang himself and stay hanged, i.e. so that no admin would be foolish enough to trust him again. But he's not there yet, and he shouldn't be blocked yet. And, who knows? Miracles still happen. He might wake up some morning and become productive. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to move to close this, an admin said it was ok for him to have the userbox, so that issue belongs at MFD and henrik has already addressed him about the topic ban issue which is self-imposed. –xeno (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  Object to closing. Its not the ubox. Its not even the violation of topicban, altho that's bigger than the ubox. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) Wait a While. The box is annoying, but he is allowed to have it. It's a good thing to the extent that it gives insight into his character.

I'm impressed by henrik's dedication, and I hope, sorta, that it isn't misplaced. But Axmann is going to keep getting in trouble until he (at least) 1) respects the topic ban, and avoids nibbling lagomorphically around its edges, and 2) comes to understand that all the trouble is not the result of a cabal of leftist editors drooling for his scalp, but a product of his own intransigence and churlishness.

My feeling is that there's no way he'll last five months. PhGustaf (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Move to close this, as it is leading no where, and is only wasting time. Landon1980 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• You are under no obligation to participate further, or even to read. Kindly do not prematurely close this while others are still discussing. It is very rude. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking to me I wouldn't dare close it, I was just rendering my opinion. You are wanting him blocked for past behavior, not how it works. Landon1980 (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I was talking to you, and you are completely wrong about what I "want". KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: You do realise he's probably named after Artur Axmann? Which makes a potential WP:U violation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well its pretty obvious that its a play on Artur Axmann, but since its just Axmann8 it isn't much of a problem, (not to mention Artur Axmann has been dead for 12 years, and WP:U is only applied on living peoples names). — Moe ε 23:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Block, not necessarily indef. It seems odd to indef over a userbox - which is clearly some people's view of the debate here. It's also confusing to think that a user, whose indefinite block was replaced with a topic ban, would not be indef blocked again for blatantly violating that ban - which is the view that others are taking of this. I'm inclined to split the baby down the middle and issue a short-term block as a means of ban enforcement, since this editor obviously isn't respecting the ban voluntarily. IF henrik wishes to continue mentoring after the block, then that's fine. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? He should have most definitely been blocked the second he violated his topic ban. The only reason he was unblocked is he voluntarily agreed to it. I think his unblock was premature to begin with, and was asking for further disruption, but he was unblocked. There are plenty of people watching him, and he if he makes so much as a single mistake he can be swiftly reblocked. I feel blocking would be rather punitive now, as he stopped violating the topic ban. Some have said it is not for the userbox, or the violation of the topic ban, so what then. Can you list some diffs (dated after his last unblock) that will reasonably justify a policy-based block, that is preventative in nature? Can we not assume good faith and give him another chance? Landon1980 (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• (after ec) Well clearly I'm of the "he was indef'd; indef was replaced with topic ban; he blatantly violated topic ban ergo the indef goes right back up" opinion. I see no benefit to splitting the baby, but as so many here seem to be confused about the issue, I won't object too darn much either. However, if he violates again after his last,last,last,really truly last chance, I suggest we indef. Enough already. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you more than you know. I just think that Henrik should have blocked him the second he saw he was violating his topic ban. I am reasonably sure that Axeman will inevitably land in the indef block zone though, so maybe it is better to get it over with. After all, the best predictor of the future is the past. Landon1980 (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You've got it right. Hey, you're conservative, and you've been on here more than a year now without getting blocked. Maybe, if you're in a masochistic mood, you could visit with Axman and 'splain a few things to him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ignore the userboxes, they're just a smoke screen that's distracting us. He was unblocked under a condition, and he willingly violated that condition soon after. He should be blocked for a substantial time at least, probably indef. Seal the vault. Dayewalker (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wow... Anyway, in my defense, this whole convo started over my userbox, which has already been ruled by an administrator as compliant with Wikipedia policy. I followed another policy, WP:IAR, by ignoring a rule to make a constructive edit to Wikipedia to make it more neutral, therefore I completely complied with WP:IAR, which is a policy. It states, "If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it". I did just that. I made an edit to the warning on the politics userbox page, in order to make it more neutral, therefore improving the encyclopedia. If you don't want people to follow WP:IAR, then why don't you get rid of it as a policy? I haven't violated a thing, so I am not very clear about why we are having this discussion. -Axmann8 (Talk) 01:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR is a rule for the improvement of wikipedia, not a way to get around an agreement you made with an admin to get unblocked. Dayewalker (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What takes precedent: an admin's topic ban, or the need to make the encyclopedia a more neutral, intelligent website? It's like someone under a politics topic ban reverting a correction to a spelling mistake on a political article. Does bureaucratic policy, or the need to make this a better encyclopedia, take the front seat? -Axmann8 (Talk) 01:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Your topic ban takes precedence. Dayewalker (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Addendum comment to Baseball Bugs' comment about White pride: So, by your argument, "female pride"=female supremacy and "black pride"=black supremacy? Interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong, "bugs", but don't we allow "Feminist" and "Masculist" userboxes? Okay, don't correct me, because I'm not wrong. Anyway, why are people allowed to express "black pride" and "female pride" if we're not allowed to express "white pride"? I'm proud to be white, and I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but that doesn't change the fact. Blocking me would only show the persistent insecurity of the black race, which is pretty pathetic considering "they" got their President. Why is the chip on their shoulder still? I'm proud to be white, and I'm not ashamed to say it. -Axmann8 (Talk) 01:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Blocked indef for this comment alone. Why on earth are we still putting up with this editor? If anyone can be bothered to provide a fair unblock reason after this, feel free, but this is an encyclopedia, not a playground for racists. Black Kite 01:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Endorse. –xeno (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks Black Kite. Now we can all go back to what we were doing. Grsz¹¹ 01:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now, we can close this. HalfShadow 01:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I really hope no one is willing to unblock axeman in the near future, just because he tells some story as to how bias we are and how this proves it, and that he will blah blah blah ....... if unblocked. Every bit of this disruption could have been, and by all means should have been prevented. If nothing else, this is the "proof" axeman was looking for. Landon1980 (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Axmann8 late intervention

Hate to bring this up, but... When I brokered the topic ban, I deliberately did not mention talk pages as off-limits, as I had assumed he knew how to use them properly. I am indeed concerned about him invoking IAR, but I'd rather give him the best chance to work constructively. I clarified it in a thread up top, which has since been archived: The topic ban did not extend to talk pages unless he started being disruptive on them, and it doesn't apply to AN/I unless the thread he's editing applies to a political article. Apologies, my friends. If you want anyone to blame, I'm your guy. I did not speak here because I've been busy with El Machete Guerrero and the harassment of another user and haven't had the chance. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive524#Allegedly Racist comments by CENSEI. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there you have it. There is no valid example cited here of Axmann8 breaking his topic ban. He has been banned by popular acclaim, because we don't like his political views, not for doing anything wrong. Injustice writ large. Paul Beardsell (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Note I made the above comment before I saw his comment above about "blacks getting their President". I have no objection to the block given that racist comment. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 22:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why that should be seen as an unacceptably racist comment. What WP rule has been broken? Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing. Check out the proposal to ban him below, as he has now started to sockpuppet in order to evade his block.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not arguing that he should be unbanned/unblocked. I am simply trying to impress on everyone (or anyone who will listen) that we have not gone about this in the best way, far from it. I am trying to have a discussion about the process. I believe that the charges made against Axmann8 should have been explicit, and that they should have been valid. The possibly valid charge, of disruptive editing, was made after his unwise/intemperate response to a false charge, of having an illegal userbox. I suggest that therefore he was, in some small way, provoked. Now we scrabble about looking for the reason we blocked him, as all now agree he did not break his topic block, and it appears what he is guilty of his the racist(?) remark "blacks getting their president". But I cannot find that an egregious example of any racism, one that breaks any rules. Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(OD)PSB, this section was closed more than 24 hours ago. There was no discussion on the details from anyone else in that time because everything here was wrapped up. We don't "all agree" he didn't break his topic block, you're assuming consensus when one absolutely does not exist. You're the only one making your case that you don't understand why he was blocked.

The discussion has turned now to a permanent ban on Axmann8, as seen below. If you still want to talk about the process here, I'd suggest opening up a new thread at another point on the page, as everyone else seems to have moved on and this topic was about to be archived. Dayewalker (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And the motion has passed. Hey, fourth time's the charm! →Dyl@n620 12:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Axmann8 block

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

Consensus has been reached, no need to drag this out any further.

---

I come to this late, not realising it was going on, and I realise that it's all labelled as resolved. But what has happened seems more than a little unfair. Having recently rubbed up against Axmann8 I understand truly how annoying he can be, but he ought not to be blocked just for being annoying. Seems to me what has happened to him is pretty close to entrapment. He puts his skinhead userbox up (and identifying as a skinhead is not against any WP rule I have seen) but someone here asks him what he means by it, he says it's a statement of a political view. We identify that as being a racist view. Once again, being a racist isn't against any WP rule I know. The seeming nail in the coffin is the "chocolate messiah" remark which is not, in itself, uncontroversially a racist remark, and not even his. [In some circles "blackboard" is seen as a racist remark for a teaching aid, but that would widely be agreed by us to be ridiculous.] Essentially Axmann8 hasn't identifiably done anything wrong on this occasion that he hasn't been pushed into by our questioning of him, and even then, I'm not sure I understand what it is specifically he has done, it's difficult to see what rule he has broken. Certainly any prohibition from political articles here cannot really include a userbox on his own page. His userbox in support Cain is political but no one is bothered by that. No, this all seems summary justice by a lynch mob. Unless you think the only lynch mobs are right wing racist ones. What I want to know is: What precisely have you blocked Axmann8 for. That plain statement of wrongdoing is missing. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that he came here with a specific agenda, and he kept coming back to that agenda, because that was his reason for coming here. He repeatedly pushed the envelope to see how far he could go. He would promise not to do politics, but then would do so anyway and try to justify it based on "someone else can do it, so can I" until finally the preponderence of opinion was, "enough, already." I didn't want him blocked yet, because I'm almost certain that's what he was hoping for, in order to use it in some way to dis wikipedia further on some other venue. Of course, that's a fairly good-sized club by now, so maybe that's not important. And I can't disagree that the apparently wishy-washy responses of the admins did not help matters. But he can't use the "look what you made me do" argument. He was given plenty of chances to straighten up and fly right, and he just wouldn't or couldn't do it - because he was, at the end of the day, either a single-purpose account, or else the latest poster child for "doesn't get it". There are other conservatives here that are not blocked or topic-banned. Maybe he could have looked up to them as models of behavior. But somehow that just wasn't in the cards. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't (or shouldn't have been) a discussion about his user box. He was indef blocked and agreed to stay off of political topics, then a week later he invokes WP:IAR and goes back to one. Then in the ensuing discussion, he makes an edit that indicated to Black Kite above he had no desire to get along with others, so he was blocked. He wasn't "pushed" into anything, he was the one who chose to claim IAR over his own promise to stay away from political articles. Dayewalker (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So, you've blocked him over his conduct defending against a proposed block? What you're saying is this: The proposed block should never have been proposed as having the userbox is not against the rules. During his defence of the block-which-should-not-have-been-proposed he says something else you do not like, so you block him anyway. It's the Salem witch trial all over again. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take the time to read. I never proposed anything to do with his userbox, my proposal had to do with the fact that he purposely violated his topic ban.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please drop the stick and move away from the horse. Axeman was blocked for being disruptive, it has nothing to do with his userbox. It was for his racist comments, and for repeatedly violating his topic ban, either of those are more than enough to justify an indef block given his block log. Landon1980 (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You see, the two posters above do not agree why he is blocked. All I am trying to do is get a clear statement as to why it that is. A consensus. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I deny that anyone has cited edits where Axmann8 violated his topic block in article space. Daedalus has not done so in his recent post above. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I am glad Axmann8 has gone. I want us to be clear why that is. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(editconflict)And I say you are are being disruptively lazy by not taking the time to read through this thread. I proposed the block in regards to his violation of his topic ban, which was cited in several diffs in the thread above the proposal. Either take the time to read all the material or don't comment.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Address the argument. Assume good faith. I think I have followed every ref given. I can't see anything political except HERE where we trapped him into a defence of his views. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well then why don't you read the above threads? "I deny that anyone has cited edits where Axmann8 violated his topic block in article space" what gave you the idea the topic ban only applied to the mainspace? Here is not the place to drag this out, as consensus has been reached. Landon1980 (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Provide the refs. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The only consensus was "block". The reasons for the block are not consensual. Everyone deserves to have stated, plainly, what rules they broke. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your agenda is, and why you insist on dragging this out, but if you have a problem you should take it up with the blocking admin(s). The diffs you are asking for are posted multiple times in the above threads, axeman even admitted to violating it and used IAR as an excuse. You are being disruptive, take it elsewhere. Landon1980 (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what your agenda is. The silencing of dissent? My agenda is to make sure we are being seen as better than a lynch mob. The diffs are cited but they are not what those citing them say they are! Essentially there are three. One I discuss below. The other two are back here to this proposal to block. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the diff [13] where he clearly, cleanly, purposefully violated his topic ban. He's well aware of what he did. Rather than just repeatedly asking for the ref Paul, you could have looked it up yourself. It appears four times in the above discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll quote your citation: I think the "controversies" should be on a different page, possibly as a "See Also" link. I don't believe that all of these criticisms should make up the bulk of her article. This article is about her, not her controversies. What's wrong about that? Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Query on Axmann block

I concede his actions are certainly pushing the limits, but that is also part of the learning process to learn your limits. I agree the comments are, at least, racially tinged. I also agree with Paul Beardsell in that his reasons for a block don't seem to be clearly and explicitly delineated. Commenting about another user is not within his agreed upon topic ban. His incivility (racist comments will not be tolerated) certainly needs to be addressed, but that doesn't mean he should be indef blocked due to another unrelated matter. I also support a temporary block (a week or two) to emphasize this point. But what if this were a WP:3RR situation? Would we indef block him because he had another issue? Of course not. They are separate things. I also don't think his agreed upon topic ban explicitly included talk pages (if it did, then I am in error and a long block is in order here). The edit in question doesn't seem to be problematic in any way other than he agreed not to contribute to the article (which he didn't). This could also have simply been handled by pointing out that WP:IAR doesn't really apply to agreements made between users and politely asking the user to remove said post instead of immediately going to WP:ANI.

I would also like to unequivocally state I do not share this person's views. I find the general concepts disgusting with regard to white supremacy, but that doesn't mean he should be blocked/banned. I also agree that this appears to be a lynch mob (amazingly ironic given the context) descending on a single individual.

In short, I think the block should be for 1-2 weeks for incivility. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that's necessary. We don't block just for racism. If he's going to be a productive editor than let him be a productive editor. Having a reprehensible viewpoint isn't a reason to block. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

He's not blocked solely for racism.  GARDEN  17:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

His civility issues would not by itself have earned him an indefinite block. Maybe a few hours at most. The racism is what is pushing that to an indefinite block and that's not ok. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is / should be punished for being a racist in their hearts. However, it is fair to adopt a zero tolerance policy for acting on racism around here, particularly in a way that belittles, incites, or threatens other editors. Racism is, along with some other ills (violence, legal threats, sexism and sex abuse, various forms of persecution) one of the more traumatic forms of victimization that one group can inflict on another. It has no place in a civilized project. Wikipedia is an egalitarian, international, cross-cultural project open to all in the world. We are all equal here, judged only by our abilities and contributions. We give a little room on the user page to express some pride in your differences, but if it ever crosses the line to making others feel intimidated, harassed, or put down because of who they are, allowing for that to fester would be a serious break-down in the function of the project.Wikidemon (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, sexism and racism are viewpoints. Legal threats and threats of violence are not viewpoints. We cannot maintain an NPOV encyclopedia if we block people solely for their viewpoints. Racism that is not directed at editors is just like any other prejudice. It shouldn't be treated any differently than a user who thinks that everyone of other religions is going to hell, for example. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What Wikidemon and JoshuaZ said. Endorse block. Shall we WP:BAN Axmann? It's a stretch, but it's a proposal I wouldn't mind seeing. →Dyl@n620 17:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not so much the isolated fact of his extremist point of view, it's that it was totally consistent with the point of view he was pushing in his edits to articles. He demonstrated that he could not adhere to a topic ban - and the reason he could not adhere to it is that he was a single-purpose account - that purpose being to push his extremist point of view. Now, having said all that, I opposed the block yesterday when it was being debated, because it was not clear, and still is not clear, just precisely what it was he was being blocked for. The racism charge itself, while obviously having factual basis, was not sufficient, especially given the wishy-washy nature of the complaints about the userbox and so on. Rather than getting mad and blocking him, you all should have simply enforced the topic ban. Telling him the racist userbox was OK was a big mistake. Anything he did that violated the topic ban against politics should have been removed. End of story. His argument that he was "baited" by various users, which is a stereotypically liberal "look what you made me do" game, nonetheless has some merit to it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(OD)I endorse the block whole-heartedly. This was a twice-indef-blocked editor who couldn't keep to his topic ban for more than a week. Although I couldn't care any less about his userbox, the fact he felt so strongly about it (in the face of multiple prior bans) shows he wasn't here to get along with everyone else on a long-term basis. Lately here at ANI, we seem to be bending over backwards to offer olive branches and multiple chances to people who are only here to push their POV and create drama. Dayewalker (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I said the right answer was to strictly enforce the topic ban, to revert anything he wrote of a political nature (including any politically-related complaints on this page), and see if he had anything else to contribute, which I seriously doubt. But that approach was not taken, so he's blocked, and I don't agree with how it was handled, but unless the block is reviewed by an arbitration process, it's probably a done deal. The folks here just need to learn something from this and do better the next time one of those characters comes along. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My proposal goes ahead. →Dyl@n620 18:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Medias del hacha

In a somewhat amusing twist, either Axman himself or an admiring troll has twice today (so far) tried to create apparent sock synonyms: Axmannate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Hombre ocho del hacha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Spanish for literally "Man eight of the ax/hatchet"). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

And in a possibly unintended coincidence, "hacha" is also akin to "hack". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Add Hatchetguyfed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to this list. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I've seen Hatchetguyfed come up on WP:AIV and to be honest I don't see any evidence, apart from what may be a coincidental username (and I don't see where "fed" becomes "8"), that they're a sock. No edits at all apart from removals of sockpuppet tags from their user and talk pages. OK, I'm naïve, but isn't a checkuser called for? Tonywalton ^Talk 00:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There's this - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hombre ocho del hacha - which Ched began a few hours ago. The point is, this guy either is Axmann8, or he's a troll trying to make us think he's Axmann8 - and either way, he's serving no purpose except disruption. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And I'm a little slow, but I do catch on... "Fed" is like a synonym or cousin of "Ate", which he used earlier today as a homophone of "8". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

::And now Hatchetguyfed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This guy is unbelievable. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 23:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

And now, there's Naxenamight (talk · contribs) to take up his cause. Dayewalker (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC) An interesting edit by Ax. Grsz¹¹ 00:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Boy howdy I wish I had more eyebrows to raise! //roux   00:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And now it's 3-up, 3-down today. So far. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And apparently the checkuser confirmed they were indeed his socks. Está pan tostado. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

Resolved

 – Ban enacted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

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

---

For incivility, edit warring, pushing his own personal agenda, failure to abide to his topic ban, and racist attacks/threats, I believe that Axmann8 (talk · contribs · block log) has reached the community ban threshold. Thoughts before I get back to RC patrolling? →Dyl@n620 18:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. He's creating socks like crazy now. He has no future here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Common sense would have seen him indefed as a garden variety troll and total negative for the Project right from the start. But hey, 5 ANI threads spent feeding and caring for yet another painfully obvious troll is always good for a lol. I bet he's having it right now. Bullzeye ^contribs 00:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. In addition to my comments above, he's now socking to disrupt and attack. Dayewalker (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban per my nom. →Dyl@n620 01:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The man is toying with us. Not once in this whole adventure has he considered, even briefly, the notion that it's mostly his fault. Given a free ride and a topic ban, he almost immediately started nibbling at the edges of the ban to see what he could get a way with. Given a helping hand, he bit it, and the next one too. Fuck him and throw him to the wolvesEase him gently yet permanently from the wikipedia environment he hates so much. PhGustaf (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Fuck him and throw him to the wolves? I wish for Axmann to be banned, not killed! :P →Dyl@n620 01:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support Landon1980 (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support — Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - for all the reasons given PLUS uploading copyrighted images for use in his skinhead userbox. In addition, the retaliation against me for !voting to delete American College of Pediatricians in said article's AfD, by trying to have an image on my userpage deleted, and then his AfD nomination of a highly notable individual really put me off to even remotely being able to work with him on Wikipedia as it was so painfully obvious that he has an agenda against gay and lesbian related articles. All of that said to say he's obviously only here for 1 reason and it isn't to build an encyclopedia. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 05:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support Sweet merciful heaven. I've gone to great lengths to bend over backwards for this guy, but this is too much. I think a ban is certainly appropriate here with a long-term block on the IP address as the only way to go to prevent further problems. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose but not against a longterm block for incivility and pointy behaviour. His argument here was logically valid and nobody refuted that other than with a swift block. I'm sticking my neck out here but minority/fringe points of view of editors shouldn't be abolished from the encyclopedia as long as they are presented in a way which is in accordance to our civility policy. The issue of "white pride" is notable enough to have its own article here and the link to double standard in the "see also" section is highly relevant to what Axmann's point was. That being said, his general pattern of editing before that comment was highly disruptive and pointy and he deserves to be reprimanded for that. This community ban would be akin to saying "we don't like any of your type here" and would be reverse discrimination. A block for his long-term conduct, and not his viewpoint or his response to Baseball Bugs would be much more welcome. ThemFromSpace 06:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• I must disagree, the very comment you linked to has "Blocking me would only show the persistent insecurity of the black race, which is pretty pathetic considering "they" got their President". That is not just advocating white pride, but attacking other races. There is nothing logical or valid about that. Chillum 06:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not saying I agree with him but using power to silence him instead of explaining what is so erroneous about his claims isn't the way to go about dispute resolution. ThemFromSpace 06:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Have you ever tried to explain to a racist why racism is wrong? Have you ever succeeded in changing said racist into someone that openly welcomes other races?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• No, nor do I feel the need to. Different strokes, different folks. If I don't like somebody I don't become friends with them. If they continue harrassing me I call the cops; not gather a torch mob in the village square and declare a witch hunt. That's what I feel is happening here. He's already been blocked indefinitly, we don't need to go any further than that. ThemFromSpace 06:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Bad behavior is one thing, but making all those socks is a strong indication this person is not willing to change. Chillum 06:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose because not every charge is true, and we must take care to see that justice is done and seen to be done. The socks thing is a "might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" behaviour, in my view, and was irrelevant to the result here, in my opinion. Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Ban Skinny87 (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• I already thought they were banned. Support. Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 10:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Ban and block are not the same thing. Blocks can be done or undone unilaterally. Bans and un-bans require consensus. That's one major difference, and there are others. For example, Axmann8 was already topic-banned, but was still allowed to edit otherwise, until he was indef'd recently. However, an admin could overturn that indef on a proper appeal by Axmann8. But once he's fully banned, it's a lot more permanent. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• I would have been fine with a block, to be fair. An unblock request might have been accepted in a few months time. But he has single handedly blown this whole incident out of proportion. I can't believe he has the audacity to create all of these socks when it could be argued he hasn't done much wrong. I'm going to abstain from this discussion although it looks like he's clearly going to be banned anyway.  GARDEN  10:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - regardless of race, gender, class, cultural identity or socio-political ideology, the conduct exhibited was grossly unacceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly support indefinitely banning this user, especially after the blatantly racist remark they directed at myself in a private medium only two days ago. Daniel (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support Some say racism is a POV, others say it's a sickness. Science says, that all of mankind traces its roots back to some folks in Africa, some of whom stopped in India on their way to Australia. In order to counter the "less" sunlight, skin colours changed - and those that eventually moved even further north got even paler. As such, racism is a lack of knowledge of mankind's history, and we rarely block or ban for sheer stupidity. That said, we do block or ban for actions and activities that are detrimental to the development of an encyclopedia. Some of those actions may indeed be stupid - and stupid actions are blockable/bannable. Initially, a long block would have been the most appropriate choice based on the actions. Indeed, I feel a couple of months off might be the best choice for this editor. However, the layers of bad actions are getting too deep, and it should be clearly noted that he is not being blocked/banned for being racist, he is being blocked/banned for the additional activities contrary to good relations and contrary to building an encyclopedia, and indeed outright hostility to others, no matter what its genesis. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban along the lines of BMW; blocking and banning for racism on its own likely detrimental to the project and its goals, but when (any) personal beliefs fuel disruptive and tendentious editing, there's no place in the community for such a person. The sockpuppetry is just the final nail in the coffin, so to speak, that push this from an issue whose remedy is temporary blocking or topic banning with mentorship into a full community ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Axmann8 - Email

Axmann8 has sent me this following email:

Subject: I'm not using sockpuppets.‏

“ If you're familiar with my edits, you would know that using sockpuppets is not my style. First of all, they are idiotic, and second, it's impossible to do such a thing, as I have a static IP address (I use Firefox) and I only have one computer. It would also be idiotic because if I used a sockpuppet account on this computer, it would be detected immediately and then I would NEVER have a chance at un-blocking. I don't contest these kinds of things by being a nuisance. I use logic. Furthmore, if I WERE to use a sockpuppet (I have sent an affidavit to ArbCom affirming, under penalty of perjury, that I have not been using them), I certainly would be as idiotic as to use a name that resembled "Axmann8". And also, (this is the stinger), why would I use a mexican username? I'm a skinhead. I wouldn't care use a trash language (not like saying that will win me any friends, but I think it's pretty damning evidence against whoever is trying [and IMO, failing miserably] to pin sockpuppetry on me). Anyway, I would appreciate it if you relayed this EXACT message (maybe copy and paste) it to that "sockpuppet" discussion. ”

I'm not sure about his statements, but they do have a point. -download | sign! 03:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the point that the socks are not at all in Axmann's style has been raised at the SPI case, which is awaiting a checkuser to clear things up. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Socks or not, the place is doing fine without him. HalfShadow 03:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've copied my above post to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Axmann8. -download | sign! 04:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Now, that e-mail is consistent with his editing style - assuming it's also genuine, of course. But this is why we need the checkuser. If it's not him, we need to find out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotta love the "trash language" bit. "I'm too much of a jerk to be guilty." Yes, that's Ax, or a really good impersonator. PhGustaf (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's endorsed for CU, so just as soon as a CU gets a tuit. Mayalld (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm now fairly convinced he's not the guy creating the sockpuppets. But his capacity to make that fairly convincing argument, while at the same time deepening my belief that his POV is so strong and ridiculous (spanish a "trash language") that he could never be a productive editor here, is stunning.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Every time he speaks, it's another nail in his wikipedia coffin. He contributed nothing here as an editor, except the waste of a lot of people's time. That, at least, he has in common with the real-or-fake sockpuppets. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

According to a comment on the checkuser case, it is doubtful that Axman created these puppets. The question then becomes, would the ban discussion have turned out any differently? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any admins stepping forward to offer another unblock. Therefore, he is de facto banned anyway. –xeno (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, alot of the commentary above speak of the socking as "the final nail in the coffin", or similar sentiments. It may be a bit like setting OJ free because a court clerk forgot to dot an i and cross a t, but the indef seems to have been tainted by the impostor. Tarc (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The indef block was already there, so the issue is whether the ban question should be raised again in light of the apparently fake socking. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Why waste our time? He's indef'd. Whether it's a block or a ban isn't important. If an admin feels the urge to unblock, then a discussion about that should be initiated. If not, we've already wasted enough kb's on this SPA. –xeno (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Promotion from banned to indef'd with no talk page is just fine. Good call asking for the CU, Bugs. PhGustaf (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've boldly enacted my suggestion, removing the suspected sockpuppetry and ban notes "promoting" to indefblock'd. Again, I see no need to waste our time going over the community ban proposal again because of the poisoned well, in fact, I thought about saying "why bother" when it was originally proposed. –xeno (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

He said it's out of his style to sock, and yet one was found to be related to him, Nut25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Anyone have anything to say in regards to this?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Who cares? Per xeno he's indeffed, it's over, drop the stick etc. //roux   00:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusations made by User:Pixelface

During User:Someguy1221's RfA, Pixelface made an accusation that Someguy1221 was a sock puppet of User:Jack Merridew. This allegation was found to be untrue on the basis of two CheckUsers 1, k2. PF insisted on the second because, apparently, John Vandenberg isn't impartial enough.

It's no crime to voice one's concern about possible sockpuppeteering. HOWEVER, consider Pixelface's subsequent petulance, this thinly veiled accusation that Jack Merridew is running or intends to run a sockpuppeteering operation, and continued refusal to explain just why he thought there was something dubious going on- this leads me to believe that this was nothing more than a dirty and bad faith attack on Jack Merridew, an editor Pixelface dislikes on purely ideological grounds.

Pixelface has a recent record (complaint of disruption and edit warring, complaint of incivility and hounding, complaint of belligerent editing) of objectionable behaviour and this cheap shot is just the latest escalation. I am concerned that Pixelface will continue to use cheap tricks like spurious accusations of sockpuppetry to sink the boot into other editors he comes into conflict with. Reyk _YO! 03:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW recent history also includes Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Terima kasih (thank you). For the record, I am editing with no other accounts than this one, as the AC has directed. All prior accounts are listed in;

• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Davenbelle

For background, see

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Indefinite block lifted with editing restrictions and
• User:Jack Merridew/History

Pixelface is in full battleground mode re myself and has been since E&C 2. When my unban was being discussed, he stated his view rather clearly; archived here.

There was an RFC/U re Pixelface recently which he basically blew off;

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface

I have no idea why Pixelface believes, or believed, I and User:Someguy1221 are related. I'd not heard of him previously or crossed his path in any way I'm aware of.

I would like some action here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser cannot prove a negative. Durova^Charge! 05:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know that. He has admitted that he was wrong; that's not really the issue. His battleground approach to me, others, and various policies and guidelines is of wide concern as the links I and others have offered show. And of, course, there is more if one digs. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, what are you looking for that isn't being addressed at the RFC? What admin action are you seeking? Durova^Charge! 05:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the User RFC garnered a fair number of comments but no real change in behaviour. As to actions, I would think a stern admonishment and warning from the community would be the minimum and a community ban the maximum. Pixelface is relentlessly disruptive. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As a note on the User RFC, PF has not performed any more than 1RR changes on policy/guideline pages since the RFC. But the other factors mentioned do not seem to have changed. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As noted by Masem, the only behaviour that Pixelface has changed is the edit-warring on policy pages, and all the other problems remain intact. Since he has already been blocked multiple times for this, I think a 72-hour block is in order, with an eye towards eventually making it indefinite if he cannot learn to civilly engage with other editors.—Kww(talk) 15:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Are we blocking people for 72 hours now for filing SPIs on self-admitted sockpuppets? And I believe you made a comment at my user RFC about your own civility Kww. Like I've said before, when I'm treated in a civil way, I typically respond in a civil way. --Pixelface (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Masem, your desired outcome was fairly vague. And I never agreed to follow 1RR on policy and guideline pages. Which reminds me, I still need to start a thread about that change to WP:POL which came about in October. --Pixelface (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't blow off that user RFC, although it looks like most of the community ignored it. It was archived by Ncmvocalist after two weeks of no comment, and I had plenty more to say. I edited the page 11 times[14], I edited the talkpage 25 times[15], and I was the first to propose a solution. I promised to not edit WP:NOT during January before you did, and that policy was unprotected as a result. I also promised to not edit WP:NOT for two more months. However, you agreed to avoid all disruptive editing as a condition of being unbanned and you were warned by one of your three assigned mentors after your edit-warring on WP:NOT[16], where you just happened to accuse me of "vandalism." Now there is a baseless accusation. I suggest that if you don't want people to think you're operating sockpuppets, don't operate sockpuppets to begin with. Dominic can verify that he received an email, over 200K, with evidence that led me to believe that you might have been Someguy1221. I really think you should have told Reyk about your history before you let him start this thread. Oh, and please don't leave any more trout on my user talkpage. Cheers, --Pixelface (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, there are three problems with Pixelface's conduct in this issue:-

1. An unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppetry by, and disruption of the RfA of, Someguy1221 - someone completely uninvolved and blameless in this matter. Fortunately this did not affect the outcome of the RfA, and an apology has been made.
2. An unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppetry against Jack Merridew, which was not so much withdrawn as laughed out of court. There's been no apology for this and judging by the apparent past history between these editors, there is unlikely to be.
3. An unsubstantiated accusation that John Vandenberg isn't impartial - to the extent that he would falsely report checkuser findings. I'm not aware of any withdrawal or apology related to this. I'm aware that there is no explicit accusation of falsification, but it makes no sense to say "I question your impartiality, and I've emailed the evidence to another Checkuser" unless one believes the report of the first checkuser to be false.

Provided that Pixelface accepts that these are serious conduct issues and undertakes to address them, then I think no further sanction is necessary. I am well aware that the editors on the receiving end of Pixelface's problematic conduct are respectively an admin (now), a veteran editor, and a checkuser, and that as such these people ought to be able to laugh off such attacks. I trust that they will be able to do so, but our discussion here ought not to be about punishment for past actions, but prevention of future disruption, in particular prevention of discouragement to the much less-experienced editors that Pixelface will surely come into contact with. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, my accusation was substantiated, to Dominic, who had previously performed a reliable checkuser on Jack Merridew. Second of all, Jack Merridew is a self-admitted sockpuppet, and is apparently proud of that fact. Third of all, I had no intention of ever submitting my evidence to Jayvdb, one of Jack Merridew's three assigned mentors, who Jack Merridew contacted by himself. I don't think any of his assigned mentors should be performing checkusers on Jack Merridew. In addition to being one of Jack Merridew's mentors, Jayvdb said that Jack Merridew had "earned" a final chance in December and Jack Merridew voted for Jayvdb in the 2008 Arbcom elections. I expect Jayvdb to recuse in any further checkuser requests related to Jack Merridew. It does make sense to provide the evidence which led me to believe that the two accounts may be sockpuppets or meatpuppets to a checkuser, and I did so. Reyk certainly didn't seem to be aware of Jack Merridew's past history and frankly, Jack Merridew should have told Reyk about that history when Reyk told Jack Merridew he was thinking of starting an ANI thread. I have already apologized to Someguy1221 for thinking that he may be Jack Merridew. He is the only editor in this situation who deserved an apology. --Pixelface (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There was no need for Jack to tell me anything. There is a rather conspicuous disclosure of his past on his user page- coming clean about his past is, I think, good evidence that he's acting in good faith now. Reyk _YO! 01:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Above at the start of this thread you called this comment by me a "thinly veiled accusation", which seems to indicate you were totally unaware that Jack Merridew is a self-admitted sockpuppet and has edited under several sockpuppets in the past. Jack Merridew has done several disruptive things since being unbanned in December, but that's a topic for another thread. I'd be happy to list them on a user subpage. --Pixelface (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree with Pixelface's suspicions in this particular instance and encourage him to be cautious when alleging sockpuppetry (perhaps consulting with a trusted fellow editor before making an allegation in an RfA?), he is by and large a constructive and good faith editor who is frequently hounded by those on the opposite end of the inclusion spectrum. A good deal of what is typically alleged against Pixelface is partisan in nature and frequently hypocritical, i.e. dismissing him because of his beleifs when those doing the dismissing engage in the same allegedly poor behavior or worse. Few try to make attempts to reach out and in fact only perpetuate and escalate tensions. It becomes an effort to stifle the dissenting view rather than trying to reach an amicable understanding or a polite agree to disagree. Everyone should spend more time working together to rescue and improve articles rather than on trying to see sockpuppetry under every corner (unless it is blatantly obvious as in the recent report I filed that turned up 25 socks!) or tattling on each other at ANI. WAAAAY too much time is wasted in these discussions rather than on actually building Wikipedia and besides as Sheffield suggests above, it is really not that hard to ignore others when the accusations seem baseless. We typically only encourage people or make things worse by feeding into or getting up in arms over some things that can easily be ignored or passed over. In other words, to Pixelface, please help us work on article rescue and ask someone you trust first if you think sockpuppet looks possibly, because say if you asked me for example first in this case, I would have discouraged making the accusation in the RfA. To everyone else, please stop trying to bait Pixelface and enflaming tensions. We are here first and foremost to build "the paperless encyclopedia anyone can edit". The priority should not be trying to get each other in trouble. Have a wonderful weekend! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that anyone can gode another into behaving improperly, PF is the only editor in these cases that seems to be throwing personal attacks around. There's obviously animosity between Jack and PF, but I have yet to see an instance of Jack attacking PF on a personal note, even when PF starts off that way (I'm not saying there not might be any, I'm just not aware of any). We've been through this before that PF needs to stop engaging in personal attack, even if there seems to be an overwhelming number of more vocal editors that are against his position which may mirror an even larger number of non-vocal editors. WP is not a battleground - calm and rationale discussion is the means to settle disputes, not attacks at editors themselves. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with the characterization of Pixelface as being "by and large a constructive and good-faith editor". He is by and large a chronic source of low-level disruption and bad behaviour. His RFC demonstrates his general unwillingness to recognize the problems he creates, and, if this event isn't sufficient to cause him to be blocked, it should at least put him at the final warning stage.—Kww(talk) 14:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of sock pupperty are common, and often they are proven wrong. Maybe Pixelface had a legitimate reason to worry about Jack, since he has been blocked multiple times for sock puppet abuse:

1. 16:46, 31 March 2008 Ryan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs) blocked Jack Merridew (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts)
2. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive142#Jack_Merridew, listing EIGHT sock puppets of Jack.

To paraphrase Reyk's bad faith attack on Pixelface, now we have "editor[s who] dislike [Pixelface] on purely ideological grounds", Kww and Masem joining the argument.

If I were Pixelface I would have consulted the three admins, Casliber (talk · contribs), Jayvdb (talk · contribs) and Moreschi (talk · contribs) which are mentoring Jack to make sure the bad behavior does not happen again.[17]

Pixelface apologized that he was wrong, but that wasn't good enough. Jack Merridew added a huge trout to his page, but that wasn't good enough. Why can't editors accept this apology? Ikip (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't dislike Pixelface on "purely ideological grounds". I maintain a civil and friendly relationship with DGG, for example, who is certainly as ideologically my opposite as Pixelface. I dislike Pixelface for edit-warring, incivility, and a complete inability to work with people that disagree with him.—Kww(talk) 14:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Struck comment. So do you agree that Pixelface dislikes Jack on purely ideological grounds? Maybe Reyk should strike that comment too. Ikip (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Judging only on what I've seen, the language that PF uses in talking about Jack is complete dislike or disrespect for the person, not ideology, due to Jack's past sockpuppetry that he was banned for. At the same time, PF also is very opposite in ideology from Jack. It's fine for PF to comment and debate the ideological differences, but I've seen PF engage in attacks against Jack as an editor (including calling him out by his real name). (And to echo Kww, I certainly don't dislike PF as an editor, and respect that his ideology reflects numerous unvoiced editors of fiction and thus useful; I dislike the means which he approaches debate which edges on the border of appropriate behavior.) --MASEM (t) 15:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's hard for me to evaluate. I strongly opposed the restoration of Jack Merridew's editing privileges, and still think it was a mistake on philosophical grounds (I'm equal-opportunity on that aspect as well ... I think it's a grievous error to allow A. Nobody to edit, as well, and he's on the opposite end of the exclusionism/inclusionism spectrum from Jack). That said, I'm not aware of any explicit misbehaviour by Jack since his unbanning.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Kww, so I guess now would be a bad time to bring up this[18][19] edit-warring by you, which immediately followed my edits to those articles? At that time, there was no consensus to merge at Talk:List of characters in Watchmen. And there was no consensus to merge at WikiProject Comics either[20][21]. That first thread is basically WesleyDodds telling WikiProject Comics that he boldly redirected them and another editor saying "yay." Look at all the complaints at Talk:List of characters in_Watchmen since then. Are you seriously saying that the characters Ozymandias is not notable? I can work with people who disagree me. But can you? --Pixelface (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I had reason to believe that a user might be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Jack Merridew, and I think Dominic may agree with me. He did perform a checkuser after I sent him my evidence afterall. I admit that my edits to articles have drastically fallen off as of late, but part of that is because of editors like you Kww, following me around and reverting my every edit. Like this[22][23][24] for example. Have you noticed how I'm not hounding you and reverting your edits to articles? I would appreciate it if you (and anyone else) didn't do so to me. But even considering all my edits in WP/WT-space lately (which many people support[25][26]), over 50% of my edits are still to article-space[27]. Most of those edits came at a time when people were not hounding me, and I was free to improve any article whatsoever, articles like GTD-5 EAX.

Arbcom has never considered a topic ban for me, something that cannot be said about you Kww. I don't know what problems you think I've "created." I'm not the one who said over seven years ago "I agree with this one completely" when someone said "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia." Take it up with the editor who said that and the people who listened to him and followed him. I've never understood your attitude towards me. One of the very first things I remember you saying to me was "Be grateful that I'm not an admin, so I don't have a block button on my screen." And believe me Kww, I am grateful for things like this. --Pixelface (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Pixelface is NOT "the only editor...throwing pesonal attacks around." On his talk page, for instance, someone makes a play on his username by calling him "egg on face" or something to that effect and if necessary, I am sure we can turn up a number of diffs in which editors were incivil to him as well. I don't condone incivility by anyone, regardless of inclusion stance. Pixelface should remain civil, but so should others as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If people are ploying him on his talk page, that's a violation of WP:NPA and they should be brought forward as well. I don't watch his talk page, I know what I see through the various talk page discussions on certain policies and guidelines, and clearly there PF is pretty much the only one that engages in personal attacks. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Kww and User:Jack Merridew routinely engage in incivility and personal attacks. The parole of the latter does not seem to be working as the demands upon his mentors indicate. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for this? I don't see it on the policy/guideline talk pages, but it would be helpful to know if it's happening on user pages. (as to justify any addition behavior remedies) --MASEM (t) 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in evidence that I "routinely engage in incivility and personal attacks" as well.—Kww(talk) 17:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to provide diffs Masem. --Pixelface (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I realize that alleging that a user may be Jack Merridew can be insulting, but I've already apologized to Someguy1221. And Masem, if the user RFC you started on me hadn't been archived when it did (organizing a timeline from last April was proving to be difficult), you would have seen me present plenty of Jack Merridew's inciviilty towards me, going back to December 2007. I didn't start it. But I may put all that on a user subpage. You're right Masem, Wikipedia is not supposed to a be a battleground, which is why I would really appreciate it if would you stop starting threads about me that go nowhere — your recent AE thread comes to mind. You know, a recent paper has found that Wikipedia's dispute resolution system does not actually resolve disputes — and I've certainly found that to be true in my own experience. And I think it's worth noting that the user who intiated E&C2 and listed me as an involved party is now banned from editing Wikipedia. --Pixelface (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I realize that alleging that a user may be Jack Merridew can be insulting- again with the churlish personal attacks. It never stops with you, does it? Reyk _YO! 01:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

One striking element of the RfC is that Pixelface entered no response to it. Also, Pixelface was more recently the subject of a Wikiquette alert. Due to the nature of the surrounding environment (inclusionism/deletionistm) it is unlikely that consensus will form at a community level. So one possibility would be arbitration. There have been enough recent formal DR attempts to justify a case. Durova^Charge! 16:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

PF did respond, but on the talk page, as well as offering one possible remedy that wasn't accepted by the editors involved (including myself, full disclaimer). But there seemed to be no effort by PF to work out towards other remedies given. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, past experience with established editors has been that unless they do something really obviously bannable (legal threats, etc.) it's difficult for the community to take action. Action may occur, but generally slowly and with plenty of drama. Since Pixelface has 12,000 edits and is a participant in a polarized wiki-ideological debate, perhaps the best approach would be:

1. Try a little more dispute resolution.

2. If that doesn't succeed, initiate RFAR.

In the meantime, please exercise care to avoid provocative action. Place trout on the grill, not on the editor's talk page. When a first trout doesn't succeed later trouts are rarely effective. Just be as reasonable as possible. And for editors who agree with Pixelface ideologically, please encourage Pixelface to pursue that belief without sniping at others who disagree. No one likes arbitration, so let's do our best to resolve this amicably. Durova^Charge! 17:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Masem created that user RFC about me 5 hours and 20 minutes after Jack Merridew started an ANI thread about me on December 30, following these edits[28] by Jack Merridew and me to the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, where Jack Merridew stated he was reverting "vandalism" by me. The section of policy I was removing does not have consensus to be policy, it has not had consensus to be policy ever since it was proposed, and many threads at WT:NOT have been devoted to it. The policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not was protected for a month, and was unprotected after I promised not to edit that policy at all during the protection period, and after I requested unprotection. In addition to that, at the user RFC, I promised to not to edit that policy at all during February or March 2009, and I've kept that promise. Jack Merridew agreed to avoid all disruptive editing as a condition of being unbanned in December 2008 and was warned by one of his three assigned mentors about his edits to that policy.

In the Statement of the dispute, Masem objected to my long responses and use of diffs, which makes crafting a response a bit difficult in my opinion. I asked Masem and Protonk for a wordlimit, and received none. Nevertheless, I edited the user RFC page 11 times[29], I edited the talkpage 25 times[30], and I was the first editor to propose a solution.

I am still unaware of which dispute it was exactly that the four certifiers made previous attempts to resolve, and when they attempted to resolve it. Diffs were never provided. I did respond in several areas below on the user RFC page, saying much of what I was going to say in the Response section. IIRC, JzG entered no response at his user RFC. I considered (and still am considering) putting a response in my userspace, going over Masem's complaint line by line, as well as others. The user RFC about me was archived by Ncmvocalist after over two weeks of no comment. During that time I was busy doing other things, and I was actually quite surprised when I noticed it had been archived. I had typed up a fairly long statement by that point. Protonk had also started an RFC on a proposal during my user RFC, and that consumed much of my time.

Bignole did file a recent Wikiquette alert against me, but he seemed to misunderstand some things I said to him, although I admit many were uncivil. That WQA thread was archived with no action. Masem did file a recent AE thread against me, after I suggested a thread about Bignole might be warranted because Bignole was arguing over a page that Arbcom explicitly mentioned during E&C1, an arbitration case which lists Bignole as an involved party. The AE thread about me that Masem started was also archived with no action. I am getting really tired of Masem starting threads and pages concerning me.

John254 listed me as an involved party of E&C2 (but is now banned), and Masem's RFA occurred during E&C1 and Masem edited the E&C2 case pages quite a bit. I think arbitration is a bad idea, since I believe E&C2 only served to inflame the dispute and make it worse. Many of the current arbitrators would also have to recuse. I think the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy is lacking in several ways, and that seems to be supported by a recent paper which found that Wikipedia's dispute resolution system does not actually resolve disputes. --Pixelface (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This complaint was filed by User:Reyk. This [31] suggests that the complaint is ideologically motivated. It is uncivil to use AN/I to play the "ban my opponent game". I suggest Reyk drops this mode of operation. Arbitration is probably not necessary here. Judicious application of WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA should be sufficient. Jehochman ^Talk 18:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you point out where Reyk asked for a ban? I don't see it. It was Jack Merridew who stated I would think a stern admonishment and warning from the community would be the minimum and a community ban the maximum. Mentioning a possible ban as the extreme end of a range of possible remedies is a bit different, and it was not Reyk who made the mention. Unless there's another post to that effect? Durova^Charge! 18:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if Reyk had brought it, that wouldn't invalidate it. Nothing about being an exclusionist means that he has to accept misbehaviour from anyone, including ardent inclusionists. This board should be about behaviour, not ideology, and Pixelface's behaviour is certainly open to question.—Kww(talk) 18:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit more worrisome to see an outright accusation of game playing against one editor, based upon a comment made by someone else. If this dispute does sink to outright game playing (which I hope it doesn't) a mistaken accusation by an administrator could be used against Reyk. It would be more helpful of Jehochman to either substantiate the accusation better or else withdraw it. Durova^Charge! 18:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

After getting a new source in the mail today, I have made a suggestion for Pixelface to help me at User_talk:Pixelface#Something_different_to_work_on, but I extend the request to help to everyone. Let's all stop trying to get each other in trouble, escalating tensions in AfDs, etc. and work together to use such sources as the one I mention on Pixelface's talk page to bring these articles concerning the most "notable" fictional characters all up to DYK, Good, and/or featured status. We know the sources exist for these ones and now is the time to pool our resources together to bring them to these statuses. I trust any editors who in good faith are not here to perpetuate ideological disputes will put that all aside and work for the good of the project and who knows maybe and hopefully in doing so, we will all gain better respect for each other in the process. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

While there is absolutely nothing wrong with this effort, it doesn't address why this ANI exists: PF's means of editing. We will never get rid of inclusionists vs deletionists, even if we work towards good middle ground efforts, and it is important to keep civility in line regardless of where one is editing. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think editors would be more civil with each other if they have some constructive interactions as well. One editor a while back referred to me as an "extreme inclusionist not welcome" on her talk page. So, rather than just take her to ANI for being incivil or what have you, I helped identify socks that were harassing her and we've had various other helpful gestures toward each other. Sure, we'll still be on opposite sides of AfDs, but it isn't mean when we debate anymore. Rather than trying to defeat opposition by calling for blocks that tend only annoy editors, why not try a more carrot approach? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we need editors to behave civilly toward those they disagree with. Behave is the operative word. Speaking polite words while sticking the knife in another editor (and twisting) does not count as civil behavior. The attempt here to get Pixelface sanctioned might have been taken seriously if it had been filed by an uninvolved editor. Disagreements should not be escalated with WP:AN/I filings. People aren't given flowers here--they get blocked or banned. We all know that. Jehochman ^Talk 21:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Make tulips, not knives.

This thread is not about me. It's about Pixelface's pattern of escalating belligerence- behaviour for which I and others in this thread have provided actual evidence. Which is more than I can say for your vague and spurious notion that, just because Pixelface and I don't see eye to eye on the inclusionism/deletionism debate, my objections to his behaviour must be politically motivated. Reyk _YO! 22:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It is unclear how uninvolved Wikipedians are to become aware that a problem exists, if involved parties may not post evidence to a noticeboard. Question to Jehochman: what avenue would you recommend as appropriate for Reyk, if you find this so objectionable? Bear in mind that user conduct RFC and Wikiquette alert have both been attempted already. Durova^Charge! 22:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There was an RFC where plenty of uninvolved Wikipedians reviewed the problem, and you'll notice that WP:ANI is not listed on WP:DR. If a user is making snarky comments, WP:WQA is often a useful. "Help me with difficult communications I am having with this user" is a better approach than "sanction this user for being rude." If a sanctions request is made, the prior dispute and the prior RFC should have been disclosed. Both important pieces of context were left out of the initial complaint. That's what made me skeptical about motives. We're here to help each other, not to assume bad faith and bash each other. Jehochman ^Talk 00:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Many editors aren't talented at initiating noticeboard threads; they don't know what to say. Yet it certainly added to the appearance of good faith that two prior types of dispute resolution had been tried: these people attempted DR over a conduct issue, then sought administrative attention when the conduct failed to improve. This board would be a more orderly place if more editors followed that approach. WP:AGF is indeed a good idea; best to lead by example. Durova^Charge! 05:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Reyk, first of all, it's not "bad faith" to think that Jack Merridew may have another sockpuppet, since he is an admitted sockpuppet and has edited under multiple previous usernames (D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5, Davenbelle, Diyarbakir, Moby Dick, Note to Cool Cat, Senang Hati, Thomas Jerome Newton), he has previously lied on a noticeboard about it[32][33], and is apparently proud of being a sockpuppet ("This account is a sock puppet of Davenbelle, and has been unblocked indefinitely.", "for great justice and epic lulz" [34])

My suggestion that Someguy1221 might be Jack Merridew was also not baseless. After MSGJ told me to file an SPI, I began gathering my evidence together. My email to Dominic, who previously performed a checkuser on Jack Merridew during the arbitration case E&C2, was over 200K. Dominic can verify that. During the time I was organizing my evidence, Jack Merridew contacted Jayvdb to perform a checkuser, an editor who said Jack Merridew had earned a final chance when Jack Merridew petitioned to be unbanned (from abusing multiple accounts) in December. Jack Merridew voted for Jayvdb in the December 2008 Arbcom elections and I voted against Jayvdb. Jack Merridew contacted Jayvdb before I could email Dominic, and I questioned Jayvdb's impartiality regarding Jack Merridew. I was not going to send the evidence to Jayvdb.

After jeers and sneers yet another unwelcome trout on my talkpage from Jack Merridew, and after what could be interpreted as insults to me from Jayvdb and Sceptre and MSGJ, I apologized to Someguy1221 for thinking he might be Jack Merridew. No insult was intended to Someguy1221. I think I behaved quite civilly, considering.

I would like Sceptre and Jack Merridew to stay away from me. One thing I was never able to bring up at my user RFC (which was apparently closed by Ncmvocalist after two weeks of no comments) is that last May after I got into an argument with Sceptre's friend Seraphim, Sceptre photoshopped a "badger ring" to mock me and showed it to Seraphim. Then Jack Merridew commented, while banned. Sceptre mentioned that "badger ring" just a while ago at WT:RFA.

Jack Merridew has already been ordered by Arbcom to stay away from one editor. And I want him to stay away from me, although that may be a matter for RFAR and not ANI.

I didn't disrupt WP:N like Karanacs claimed, I never called Bignole "pathetic", and Masem apparently only opened that AE thread (yet another thread Masem has started where zero action as taken) because I told Bignole that Bignole's recent actions at Talk:List of South Park episodes (which Arbcom explicitly mentioned in E&C1, an arbitration case Bignole was an involved party of) might violate the ruling of that case.

What admin action is necessary here Reyk? I suggest you brush up on the following pages: [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] --Pixelface (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, my "involvement" in E&C1 was when I stated that I would not be taking part in said discussion because I didn't have the time to devote to it. So, please stop saying that I was an "involved party", because I wasn't. I have one comment, which was given right when it opened. I never ventured back to the page again. Secondly, I made not "actions" on the List of South Park episodes. Discussions of mergers is not a violation of anything, especially when I did not start said discussion of merger. The E&C1 says, "The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute." Dicussing a merger is exactly that. As for the "pathetic" bit, you called my actions "pathetic", which is the same thing as calling me pathetic. I let it slide, but considering that that wasn't the last time you said that to me at the LoSPe page, that was why I filed that Wikietiquette alert about your behavior. The fact that you cannot even recognize when you are being incivil to other editors shows that there is a problem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I know that Jack Merridew has done some shady things in the past. I also know that, for the last ten months or so, he's scrupulously kept his nose clean. All the evidence suggests that he's a reformed character and almost certainly innocent of continued misbehaviour, and deserves to be treated with the same respect and decency given to any other productive member of Wikipedia. Having a bad record does not make him an open target for your frivolous allegations.

You made a baseless accusation in a very public place rather than going through SPI like you should have. You dragged an innocent person into your attack on Jeck Merridew. You insisted on a second checkuser after the first one told you something you didn't want to hear and called another editor's impartiality into question in the process. When conclusively proven incorrect you refuse to apologize to the person you've wronged and continue to insist he's currently sockpuppeteering. And throughout the whole thing you have not provided the community one shred of evidence that you were actually acting in good faith; you refuse to, because apparently Jack might use it improve his nonexistent socking campaign. Personally, I think if your "evidence" was ever released the community would ridicule it as obviously desperate and contrived flim-flam.

Now you say you want Jack Merridew to leave you alone. Well, why don't you leave him alone? Why provoke him into "sneering" and troutslapping you with this muck-raking, when otherwise you have not much to do with him at all except maybe the odd encounter in policy and guideline talk pages?

You are in the wrong here, Pixelface, and your behaviour is getting more and more obnoxious. It needs to stop. For your own sake, listen to all these people who say your behaviour is poor and consider they may have a point. Otherwise, one day, you'll go that one step too far and wind up with a lengthy block. Reyk _YO! 01:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It probably would best for those on both sides to disengage and avoid each other. Wikipedia is a big place and as such there are plenty of articles needing improvement and people can and should focus on what interests them while ignoring those trying to bait them. There's been clear incivility and escalation all around and nothing good or bipartisan is coming from anything. As I've suggested above, we should focus on specific article improvements. We should not just beat dead horses on ANI. Pixelface had suspicions, checkuser didn't confirm them and he said he was wrong and apologized on his talk page. All this thread is doing is escalating things. When I recently asked for admin input on ANI when I suspected canvassing, the editor in question notified other editors and that's that. Just as I asked a question in my thread title rather than asserting he had done wrong as if it were a fact. No need to assume I'm right and no sense going on and on any further against him. I should not and have no interest in demanding anything else or needlessly escalating things. I had a concern, it was addressed and that's that. It shouldn't be about venue shopping or trying to squash our opposition. Thus, this thread too is moving away from constructive discussion and is not going to result in anything worthwhile by continuing it. I hope that Pixelface consults with trusted editors before making any accusations public that may be unwise to make and I hope that editors on both sides will not be incivil toward each other. Moreover, I hope that editors will devote the bulk of their energy to improving articles rather than adding to a battleground atmosphere in discussions. And finally, it would indeed be wise if the various editors with argumentative pasts avoid provoking each other further, and I mean all of us. Let's start the week on a good note, disengage from escalation, and all see how many DYK, Good, and featured articles we can get! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this entire long discussion can be summed up with this sentence found in the first paragraph:

"It's no crime to voice one's concern about possible sockpuppeteering." Ikip (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. Suppose I were to accuse you and some random editor of being the same person. Then, when proven wrong, I profusely apologize to the other editor but sullenly refuse to apologize to you. And when asked why I thought the other editor was your sockpuppet, I refuse to answer, saying "Ikip will just use the information to continue his sockpuppeteering". You'd say I was gaming the system, assuming bad faith and being provocatively nasty to you. You'd be justified to feel that way. Well, that is exactly how Pixelface has behaved toward Jack Merridew. Reyk _YO! 08:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Meh, this is a mess. Reyk, I doubt you're going to get the concrete resolution you want here. I'd recommend filing a WP:RFAR. This has gone through plenty of channels and I don't see anything short of arbitration putting down something strong enough to stop his behavior. The thread here has degenerated rather badly, and is far too muddled with random accusations for an outside observer to make any sense of it. A RFAR would be a better and more organized step. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that the WP:BATTLEGROUND has gotten so bad that people tend to assume bad faith and refuse to apologize for anything, because their apology will be used against them as evidence of their bad behavior. I disagree. I really appreciate some acknowledgment from Pixelface that some of the things he said were incivil, at least to one editor. Let's just drop it for now, because the goal is to correct the bad behavior rather than engage in a witchhunt. Everyone deserves another chance if they acknowledge they got carried away. If Pixelface tones it down and stops focusing on the character/intelligence of other editors in discussions about content/policy, we won't have any problems. Moreover, I think he might actually find that he'll attract more bees with honey than with a stick. Randomran (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

General comment: I have two concerns with what seems to be double standards in this thread:

• Outrage over unsubstantiated sockpuppet allegations: Pixelface suspected sockpuppetry; checkusers did not substantiate these suspicions. Pixelface acknowledged his error and apologized. So, he gets a big trout on his userpage (by the way, the same editor trouted Pixelface before...), and taken to ANI... Now, I have had four checkusers done on me. One confirmed my two alternate accounts that have been abandoend since 2007 and another said an account that never edited at the same time as my main account was only "likely" me (that account is also inactive). Yet, in there, I have had a few accounts alleged to be mine on even more baffling of grounds than Pixelface's suspicions regarding these other users. Checkusers naturally did not subtantiate these accounts either and in fact if one editor's username and userpage is correct, he is not even on the same continent as me! So, should someone demand that apoligies be given to User:ISOLA'd ELBA, User:Testmasterflex, and User:Fairfieldfencer? Should those who made unsubtantiated allegations against these editors be blocked for filing frivolous requests? If not, then we should not be up in arms over Pixelface's suspicions as well.
• Concern over suspected incivility: I do not blindly support editors because they are fellow inclusionists. When I asked him to refactor a statement he made, he did indeed stike the word in question. Indeed, incivility should not be acceptable from any of us; that should be a bipartisan stance. As such, it strikes me as not right to demand Pixelface be civil while ignoring how he has been personally attacked and baited by a multitude of editors. Here are just some relatively recent examples: Pixelface opposed in an RfA and so a user says to Support per Pixelface, obviously mocking the opposer (imagine saying to oppose in an RfA because someone supported the candidate...); regarding the same RfA, another editor accused Pixelface of having OCD (a mental disorder); another editor made a play on Pixelface's username and called him "egg on face"; another editor called it an "oddity" that someone would be nice to Pixelface and later referred to Pixelface as "Agitated Toilet Dwarf'; he has had disgusting talk page personal attacks made against him; notice the edit summary as well; etc.

Thus, what we should be saying is that 1) everyone should be more careful about throwing around sockpuppetry accusations; however, at the same time making the accusations especially if an editor in question has a certain kind of past, should not result in sanctions and in all instances if the allegations are not substantiated apologies probably should be made; and 2) everyone should be urged to be more civil and to avoid their opponents. It should be clear that Pixelface should refrain from insulting editors, but it must also be made clear that we will not tolerate personal attacks or baiting of him either. Now as I said above, everyone should try more of the carrot approach and if not then just disengage from opponents. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure why you're calling me out, considering I'm all for letting Pixelface get off by acknowledging some wrongs. But I think you've failed to recognize two factors that distinguish Pixelface's wrongs from others:

1. after accusing someone of being a sock, he went out of his way to freeze out and isolate one of the editors. That's not only a continuing assumption of bad faith on his part, but it's the epitome of violating WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND by using the selective apology to fuel a grudge against that editor. He'd have been better off not apologizing to anyone at all, rather than offering this kind of backhanded apology.
2. His civility is a repeated problem, and indiscriminately targets anyone who disagrees with him. People he has virtually no history with, and certainly no history of being incivil towards him, will find themselves on the receiving end of a personal attack, or an incivil snide remark about their intelligence or honesty. I agree with you that no one is without sin, but we give much more attention to repeat offenders.

• Now, I think there's been progress if Pixelface recognizes that he hasn't been civil. And like I said, I think this problem would all go away if Pixelface focused more on the substance of Wikipedia in talk page discussions, rather than peoples' character or intelligence. But we have to stop with this false equivalency of "everyone is to blame, so no one is to blame". Some people are clearly bigger problems than others, and have not yet taken personal responsibility. Again, it's not about doling out penalties. It's about Pixelface finally taking responsibility for a consistent pattern of bad behavior. I'm glad that you finally agree that Pixelface should refrain from insulting other editors. But if others are prodding him, he needs to learn to resolve those conflicts productively rather than turning every comment that irks him into a battle. If you're suggesting that one insult will give Pixelface a free pass to go buck wild on anyone he wants for the remainder of tat discussion, or that one person's past transgressions will give Pixelface a free pass to indefinitely treat them like dirt, then we're never going to foster a positive environment where we can build consensus. In fact, the bad attitude will spread to other editors, unless we put a stop to it every time it reaches a boiling point. Randomran (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Randomran, where did you think I was calling you out? My post above was a general reply to the thread in general and not directed at anyone specifically. It is below your post solely because your post was the bottommost post when I posted my overall thoughts about the discussion as a whole. Anyway, my recommendation is that everyone refrain from incivility and personal attacks and that those with obviously tense pasts either make good faith efforts to reach out to each other or disengage from each other altogether. We spend too much time going back and forth on ANI, guideline talk pages, and in AfDs as a whole that really could be more effectively spent actually improving articles. Maybe it would be best if all of us involved in some of these disputes to let others give them a try and instead focus on article improvement. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that was a little confusing. Try to keep Wikipedia:TALKPAGE#Indentation in mind, because it usually indicates who you're replying to or which thread of thought you're following. It's not always best to just tack your comment onto the bottom. ... as for this situation, as much as I think a blanket warning is accurate, I don't think it's appropriate to just skirt over the repeated problem with Pixelface. When an editor is the victim of incivility, should they: (A) hold an indefinite grudge with the incivil editor and treat their opponent poorly until they feel vindicated, or (B) use that incivility as an excuse to be belligerent to everyone that disagrees with them? My answer is neither, and probably points towards WP:DR. But I'm legitimately curious to know what you think. We can only make progress here if your recommendation is specific. Otherwise it's just an abstract re-statement of our policies, and you shouldn't be surprised when that accomplishes nothing except postpone the AN/I until next time: with Pixelface acting incivilly, and someone jumping in to say "that's okay, other people are doing it too". Randomran (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Seriously, where is this heading? If it settles in polite agreeement (or even polite disagreement) between the parties, then all is well. But if this is likely to fester into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 3 then maybe a small arbitration now is better than a big arbitration later. As most of the participants know, I've got no dog in this race. But a small case is bigger than a big case. Can (and will) this dispute get resolved amicably on the community level? Durova^Charge! 04:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, a small case will be dismissed. A good, clear, specific warning would accomplish more than a small case. Even if it affects multiple people, a warning would be helpful so long as it is specific. "Everyone drop it and be nicer" is probably the best way for this problem to keep going until it hits something big. Randomran (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see this getting dismissed if it goes to arbitration. The combative attitude is pretty apparent and the exhaustion of all previous aspects of dispute resolution (WQA, RfC/U, ANI) would give such a case some credibility. I'd like to agree with Randomran in that the notion that everyone can "drop it and be nicer" is plausible, but I don't see anything short of arbitration changing behavior at this point. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I think "drop it and be nicer" would be a complete failure, inviting more minor incidents before another explosion. But I don't think ArbCom will be effective, because the other methods of dispute resolution have been undone by the WP:BATTLEGROUNDish defense of "if other people are bad, then Pixelface is allowed to be bad too". I'm not sure why ArbCom would be any different, and would likely end in "we don't take the case... everyone drop it and be nicer". And I've already told you where that will lead. Randomran (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is that the battleground defense is used when it doesn't even apply. I've been accused of chronic incivility twice in this discussion, for example, but no one can show evidence of me being chronically incivil (or even occasionally). Do I hold opinions that Colonel Warden and Pixelface detest? Certainly. Do I consider undoing redirects on articles that fail WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT without making any effort to repair that failure to be disruptive editing? Certainly. Do I think trying to hide the fact that you are doing so by not putting it in your edit summary is deceitful? Absolutely. Am I uncivil about it? No.—Kww(talk) 17:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the whole point of arbitration is to put down something binding and concrete that is a bit more substantive than "drop it and be nicer". Again, I don't know why you think ArbCom wouldn't accept this. There has been multiple avenues of dispute resolution that have been exhausted, and as Protonk emphatically said below, this is a conduct issue, which is what ArbCom was made for. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm disheartened that we seem to come to the conclusion that PF's hostility toward JM is okay because Jm socked before. This isn't just accusations at Someguy's RfA (which can poison the well like all get out). almost every thread w/ the two of them includes the same tired litany of JM's former socks and PF's insistence that JM's contributions are null and void because of it. Taken by itself, an accusation of socking isn't actionable, and it shouldn't be. Presuming that some reasonable grounds fos suspicion might exist (and you could argue they did), we should not generate a chilling effect for accusers. But this wasn't isolated. PF seems incapable of engaging w/ "deletionists" without trotting out JM's past misbehavior and incapable of dealing w/ JM without having things descend into a slugfest. JM isn't blameless here, I've contemplating blocking or waring him for goading PF a few times, but this needs to stop. Also. STOP CONFLATING THIS WITH CONTENT. Stop stop stop stop. This isn't a content issue. This is a conduct issue between editors who happen to stand across a content divide. The content issue is an impetus, not the crux. This isn't a potential E&C 3 and I'm good and tired of hearing that all conduct issues between deletionists and inclusionists be resolved as content issues or dismissed as based hopelessly in wiki-philosophies. Protonk (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn straight. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Elisabeth Hasselbeck marriage date & DOBs

redpen keeps reverting. I have made the concession of the bio section being named early life. Having DOBs & marriage dates doesnt make her more likely to have her identity stolen. Mariage dates & DOBs are all throughout wikipedia. So please you alll intercede as redpen keeps reverting. Thanks. 70.108.79.147 (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see the above thread as well as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/70.108.110.22. MuZemike 16:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As I had to explain on my talk page here, user is demonstrating a patent unwillingness to work with others. IPs keep adding back in falsified material (violation of BLP) and repeatedly breaking 3RR for it (this is clearly laid out, diff by diff, at SPI). This has also caused Elisabeth Hasselbeck to be protected. IPs are also causing a bit of disruption by placing {{HELPME}} and {{adminhelp}} templates all over the place. I think a rangeblock is necessary here. MuZemike 17:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been informed that a rangeblock would case a bit of collateral damage. I would then request that Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth, Carson Daly, and Girlfriends all be protected (note I am requesting it here since we are already here, or I can go to WP:RFPP if not appropriate). MuZemike 17:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to work with others. I havent added false info. EH page is locked bc redpen successfully manipulated you all. I have not abused helpme or adminhelp tags. Y do u want to lock these pages but not tell redpen to stop editing the pages? 70.108.102.252 (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Iliijapavlovich

Resolved

 – User has been blocked indef for continued personal attacks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Iliijapavlovich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has made it apparent on their talk page that they do not wish to follow policy, besides that, they appear to have been trolling several users pages, not to mention the article space with inserting NPOV violating content. When made not of this, they did not seem to care. This was taken over from AIV. Anyone feel like blocking this obvious SPA?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

24 hr block, along with explanation on NOT, BATTLE, NPA, NPOV. If they repeat after this, longer block to come... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Check the user's talk page. They apparently disagree with you, wikipedia is censoring the truth, blah blah blah blah blah. Soapboxing, POV pushing, etc. He obviously doesn't want to abide by our policies here, I believe a block is in order to prevent further damage from him. He has made it quite apparent what he's going to do by the time his other block ends.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I would really appreciate if someone could block this guy with the ability to edit his talk page taken away. He is continuing to soapbox, and is now personally attacking us.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd just leave him alone on his own talk page for now, Daedalus. He's only got a 24 hour block, but he seems like the kind that won't last too long as soon as he's able to post again. No point in scrimmaging with him while the clock's not running. Dayewalker (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The user continues to personally attack others and use his talk page as a soap box. Can someone please block him with the inability to edit his talk page? Wikipedia is not a blog, and we are letting him treat it as one the longer he goes without a block.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Before totally blocking his talk page, maybe he could have 1 day deducted from his indefinite block, if he could explain how his user ID is pronounced. An English approximation would do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably "Iliija Pavlovich", with a less common spelling in English of what's normally "Ilya".

This case didn't make me feel good - I hate to indef someone this fast, but they really were just running around insulting people for no good reason and no good edits. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The user is contiuing to attack and insult on the talk page: the first objection came from some Chris who was found to be a Nazi on at least three prior occasions, (along with) Not to say that Daedalus has problems with essential English and the exotic art of spelling happens to elude him. Someone please blank his user talk page except the block, and take away his ability to edit it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Muscovite99 evading block

Muscovite99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently blocked; initially for repeated edit-warring, and then whilst serving his initial block he had his block extended for evading the block with a sockpuppet User:MastM. He has now evaded this extended block as Special:Contributions/217.26.6.12. Please note this in which the IP editor removed dispute tags, which User:Offliner has almost instantly reverted, only to be almost instantly reverted by Muscovite. The aggressive removal of dispute tags is the first indication. Then note this history in which Muscovite and the IP editor are the only contributors - the IP editor adding interwiki link to the ru article which Muscovite worked on during this time. Then note this removal of information, which Muscovite also aggressively removed from the article (I am certain Offliner or User:Ellol could provide specific diffs there). Note at ru:Википедия:Заявки на арбитраж/Muscovite99 he was found to be socking with the IP 217.26.10.144 (amongst others), which is in the same range and also belongs to Tascom. This is obviously Muscovite99, and this has occurred whilst he is under an extended block for sockpuppeting/block evasion, a further block (even indef given history evasion of blocks and sockpuppetry) is warranted. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear. Re-blocked for 2 months. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Question if I may, just so I can understand how such blocks work. On 2 March he was blocked for 2 weeks, then on 4 March this block was extended to 1 month, and you have just now extended to 2 months. Does this mean that he has in effect been blocked for 3 months 2 weeks? Or does it work differently to that? --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the new block I put in today replaces the old one, and the two months start counting from now, so in the end he will have been blocked from 2 March to 28 May. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Muscovite99 was blocked for a further 2 months for evading a block he was currently under. An IP editor has now made the same edits that were made (edit here). This edit was made by Special:Contributions/62.118.179.114, and it should be noted that he was also found to be socking on ruwiki (ru:Википедия:Заявки_на_арбитраж/Muscovite99) with 62.118.179.117 and 62.118.179.115. A further block, if not indef, is now in order here I think. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruwiki is irrelevant, blocks are preventive and not punitive, and unlike some others here he is not disruptive in his edits, quite to the contrary. Indefblocking a productive user for evasion of a block, not a community ban, few days before its expiration, is a bad idea. He is blocked for two months now, what's the problem? This is not a venue to win content disputes forever. Colchicum (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I suggest you look at his block log -- blocked for 2 weeks for edit warring, then blocked for a month 2 days later for socking, then whilst blocked for a month, he is blocked for 2 months for evading that block, and now this. This is more than enough to show that he does not take blocks seriously, and hence should be indef block as a disruptive editor. Just how many concurrent blocks is an editor entitled to here on enwiki? And as blind freddy can see, the ruwiki has only been mentioned to demonstrate that this is in fact Muscovite99; and whilst what happens on ruwiki stays on ruwiki, evidence raised there as to IP's used to evade bans and engage in sockpuppeting can clearly be used and taken into account. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I have actioned the indef block, since the last sock ip edited after Fut.Perf had extended the sanction above - there seems to be no apparent desire by this editor to comply with WP policy, so there is no need for the named account to be able to contribute. I see that they use a reasonably stable range (62.118.179.11X) to sock from; is it worth contacting a CU to see what collateral damage potential there would be in placing a range block to cover these addresses? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree. I believe this is block shopping by Russavia (talk · contribs). Muscovite99 previously came to my talk page with complaints about Russavia [40]. The indefinite block is not justified taking into account the long-term animosities between these two users.Biophys (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, was the sockpuppetry confirmed by Checkuser? If not, the indefinite block is not justified.Biophys (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Honestly, what part of Wikipedia:Blocking policy, Wikipedia:Banning policy and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry don't people understand? If one is blocked, they are NOT permitted to edit WP. People are blocked not without good reason, and when one ignores this block not ONE - not TWO - but THREE times, then in my mind an indef blocked is warranted. I also find it funny, because I guarantee that if I were to have been blocked and did what Muscovite did, Biophys (joined by some others) would be the first to run here; the difference being, I am not stupid enough to even try and evade a block, and if I were that stupid I am certainly not stupid enough to make the same edits to the same article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Take it down a notch everyone. Issue number one is that Muscovite has broken a completely seperate policy, which is the use of multiple accounts against policy. The new two month block is for that action and for no other. Don't pretend that this is about extending the edit war block. There was a new rule violation, and we need to enact a new block to prevent those rule violations. If Muscovite wants to edit again, he will stop vioalting the rules. It is that simple. Issue number two is that the blocking admin will give whatever length block he feels like. Not to be blunt about it, but there is no point in argueing over length. If Muscovite abides by his 2 month block, there will be no more problems. If he socks again, someone may or may not block the main account for longer. In any event, it is not anyones position to beg for a longer block here. He's not editing now, and that is all that matters... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I would clarify that I blocked indefinitely as Muscovite99 evaded his block immediately after Future Perfect had increased it. When I reviewed the block log prior to placing the sanction I found that I had previously blocked this editor for edit warring on the Putin article, and then reblocked for longer since they immediately evaded the block by socking many months ago. Several blocks later, all for edit warring on Putin or for block evading, it seems that this account has no intention of abiding by Wikipedia policy in pursuit of their singular mission to have the Putin article reflect their viewpoint. On that basis I decided that the editor had shown no effort to comply with WP policy and that they no longer had any reason to expect that they would be permitted to return as a regular editor. As such, Russavia's report was properly appropriate and I stand behind my subsequent block. If Muscovite99 wants to seriously return to the community, then they had best stop breaking its rules. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Muscovite99 is back with yet another IP: Special:Contributions/213.221.0.102. He made this series of edits: [41], and launched a personal attack against Russavia: [42]. Offliner (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• If only these IP edits were really made by him. This should be supported by Checkuser. In fact, even the previous investigation was inconclusive. And we are talking about indefinite block here. Biophys (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the diffs provided here should put the matter beyond any reasonable doubt. The IPs are doing the exact same edits as Muscovite99. Given the latest personal attack by Muscovite99, it is quite disturbing that Biophys is trying do defend such horrible behaviour. Offliner (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not obvious at all, taking into account the previous claims by Muscovite99 and Russavia. I am not judging who is right, but that could easily be done by other people if there is any truth in claims by Muscovite99.Biophys (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I would draw your attention to WP:MEAT, point 3. It is the basis of WP:DUCK. Even CU cannot prove two accounts are linked, but only draw conclusions. On my review of the edits, my opinion is it is likely that the ip address is Muscovite99 evading their block again (and now engaging in NPA violations). Since the account is indef blocked there is little to do except block the ip, and take into consideration these further incidents should Muscovite99 request unblocking, and consider semi-protecting Putin related articles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Drawing conclusions is also not as simple as it seems. On the basis of WP:DUCK, if the next time when, say, Russavia or Offliner get blocked, within hours a new user (an impostor, I mean) pops up making a couple of edits imitating their habits, will the block be automatically extended? And then again? And how far could this go? And will this be taken into consideration should they request unblocking? I am just curious. Have you ever heard the story of Bogorm (talk · contribs)? Colchicum (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact this IP has also taken to editing Bulgarian Exarchate, WP:DUCK would tell one that this is clearly Muscovite99. Whilst I might have agreed that a reduced (yet still lengthy block) may have been warranted, given the latest round of block evasion and attacks, I say good riddance. Plain and simple. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have also requested semi-protection of the article in question at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Putinism_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I took a look with CheckUser, with the reasoning that regardless of he duckhood exhibited by the IPs, it's worth checking if he also created accounts to circumvent the blocks. I can confirm that the IPs cited above are indeed block evasion by Muscovite99. No obvious accounts sighted. Dominic·t 09:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe need usury rules for such blocks: only so many percents may be added for block evasion. In any case, restarting the block upon evasion seems to be the maximum reasonable action; extending the blocking period for block evasion is certainly too harsh. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:JoeJohnson2

I am very concerned about this user's ownership behavior on Kobe Bryant. On one occasion, he removed a paragraph about Kobe's sexual assault allegation [43] in the lead without discussion. I added it back citing WP:LEAD. But he removed it again [44] even saying that "if [I] have problems with this undo please contact an administrator". [45] A discussion on the talk page then ensured and most editors agreed with me. But he still disagreed as evident by these comments [46] [47] and later removed again [48]. Now, he escalated the dispute to images by removing one he disliked [49] and create another discussion which he announced that "the image will not be used in any Kobe Bryant related articles." [50]

I think a warning by an admin is warranted to prevent further ownership behavior from this user. Thanks.—Chris! _ct 20:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I too am concerned about the tone of debate with JJ2. In my experience at WP, I have never had such resistance against the inclusion of PD images. His thinking makes little sense to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This probably is not the best forum for this since no admins have commented -- this is not really a matter that requires an admin. You will probably have better luck at a more appropriate forum. After reading the talk page, I think Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is ideal for this type of content dispute. --64.85.214.246 (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

But he exhibits ownership behavior, not just involving in a typical content dispute - doesn't that require admin attention?—Chris! _ct 18:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ownership of articles states problems of ownership should be handled via Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution unless it involves admins using their tools improperly. --64.85.211.242 (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Martinphi requesting unblock

User talk:Martinphi - Don't know the backstory on this in full but I do know it's a long, drawn out, and unpleasant one, so I send the unblock request to the only place suited to dramafests of this nature for community review. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

For convenience here is the ANI thread in which the ban was imposed. Looie496 (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

For further convenience; the ArbCom to which Martinphi alludes and which made a decision upon his actions specifically can be found here; it should be noted that the Arbs decided to return to the community any decision of what restrictions might be applied should the indef block be lifted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to unblock him, I would ONLY support doing so if we he is placed under editing restrictions such that he is banned from editing any articles and talk pages related to "Fringe Science" topics (homeopathy, chiropractic, astrology, witch doctory, and snake oil sales, etc. etc.) as broadly contrued as possible. Seriously, I (and I think many others) are well tired of all of the bullshit that has gone on around this topic, and I think if we let Martinphi back into the fold, he should prove that he can be a contructive editor in some other topic than this one. As long as he doesn't edit the articles, talk pages, or attempts to discuss or in any way reference these topics I would support an unblock. However, any unblock which does not place strict restrictions on him against editing in this field will only lead to more of the same crap we just got rid of. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Unblock From what I could see MartinPhi managed collaborate well with OrangeMarlin who is not the most fringe friendly editor around. MartinPhi seems to be genuinely contrite regarding the 'outings'. From what I have seen MartinPhi has been a valuable and sane contributor to wikipedia as a whole before becoming embroiled in the SA drama. See this for an example. I honestly do not see any problem with him being involved with fringe or pseudoscience articles, I think the underlying problem is that some other editors think that there should be flashing lights, loud sirens and 2 layers of 'are you sure you want to read about non-mainstream topics yes/no ' along with disclaimers declaring that reading such material may rot your brain. There is nothing keeping us from blocking him again should he prove to be genuinely disruptive in the future. Unomi (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Dispute that veered off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As a relatively new user with far more knowledge about the inner workings than a new user should have (hence previous RfCU on you), you can be partially excused based on lack of knowledge of the history, but you share Martin's fringe POV and tendencies to edit war, and that waters down your input here. Even Martin knows better than to make statements like yours. They say alot about your tendencies, which have been apparent in your persistent and slow edit warring. It's simply exhausting. SPA accounts should be prohibited. -- Fyslee (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC) To the best of my knowledge I have not had an RfCU raised against me I have however had an ANI here and a SPI here. The recurrent allegations of 'fringe POV' are unfortunate and I thought we had discussed that sufficiently here. I also don't think that eidt warring is an appropriate way to characterize my actions. If anything I was the victim of disruptive editing, not the instigator of it. As for 'knowing too much' I think the blame has to fall on having to constantly counter those that 'know too little'. The allusions to 'slow edit warring' are baseless, slanderous and I would recommend that you back them up or strike the comment. Unomi (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC) You were User_talk:Unomi#Indefinitely_blocked_-_apparent_sockpuppet_of_User:Immortale and a CU was indeed performed, which you did slip through. See case again. Your SPA editwarring style and vast knowledge for a supposed "newbie" was the reason why the charges were filed against you. Those problems are still very much an issue. You're a classic tendentious edit warrior. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC) @Fyslee, it appears that you are very nearly a SPA and one that has been cautioned about your questionable use of sources in health related articles. Finally, admins, please have a good thorough read of all of Blocking policy. Consider that this is not a vote, but a forum for establishing consensus regarding policy interpretations. Unomi (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC) You apparently don't know what SPA means. You have been a classic SPA on the Aspartame controversy issue, even refusing to follow the advice of several editors and admins to edit other articles for awhile. I edit many different articles and therefore have well over three thousand articles (excluding talk pages), on my watchlist. I just happen to edit primarily on alternative medicine subjects, which is a huge area. As to the "caution" (to do exactly what I had been doing, since no evidence to the contrary was provided), that case has been amended and I have been vindicated. It's not everyday that an ArbCom case gets modified. Quackwatch is no longer deprecated (it was never forbidden as a source), and I was absolved of a false accusation, so using that old ArbCom against me isn't proper. Keep in mind that my accuser was banned by the ArbCom (for a year) and indef banned by the community. You're choosing the wrong side on the issue of my ArbCom, as well as on this issue (birds of a feather do flock together and sometimes get banned together). Keep in mind the expression "look who's talking". Participants here do take into account the source, and when an SPA and defender of fringe POV like yourself defends Martinphi, you weaken his case and alert admins to start looking at you as well. Since this matter is getting good coverage, I'm out of here. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Interesting interpretation. Arbcom agreed that they wouldn't rule on content; a quick search on RS/N shows that quackwatch is considered an RS, but only for the opinions of the authors. The caution to you regarding proper sourcing and complying to NPOV still stood but seeing as how you are able to parlay their subsequent amendment into a 'vindication' I fear it is for naught. This is not the place for it but hit me up on my talk page if you want to discuss further. Unomi (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Hi, please keep discussion focused. The Barrett v. Rosenthal arbitration closed two years ago and Martinphi played no role in it. As ScienceApologist's mentor, I recuse from comment on the proposal to restore Martinphi's editing privileges. DurovaCharge! 17:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Fyslee's attacks against Unomi amount to a character assassination and cannot remain here uncontradicted. An SPI against Unomi was opened on very flimsy evidence (he was told he was "approaching tendentious editing", which prompted him to quote an old Arbcom case that is linked from WP:TEND#Characteristics of problem editors) and came out with a strong negative result. Fyslee: If you retract your attacks, please remove this comment as well, to reduce the noise. Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep him banned. The trouble he caused far outweighs his useful contributions. Raul654 (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep banned or at least a topic ban from anything fringe It will only end in tears if we don't. And if we topic ban him that should include related policy and guideline pages. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• @Raul654, @Dougweller, For those that have not followed the entire drama, could you point to what 'trouble he caused'? From what I understand the arbcom rulings already point to him being restricted from editing policy pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unomi (talk • contribs) 06:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• The vast majority of Martinphi's edits are to pseudoscience topics, especially to paranormal topics (he's very nearly a single-purpose account). His edits are biased, and he frequently edit wars with other contributors in this area. The other people who have to clean up these articles are tired of dealing with him. In short, he's a crank, and he shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. After his bad editing got him hauled before the arbcom - I admit here that my understanding is less than perfect - he started "outing" others who edit on paranormal topics. Raul654 (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep banned or topic banned. Not worth it if there isn't some form of control. Who wants to be part of a 24-hr babysitter posse who won't be able to do anything else constructive? Any volunteers? -- Fyslee (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• We are all babysitters anyway, that is the result if not the point of community editing. Doesn't matter if it is MartinPhi or any other editor, we are free to bring them here should trouble arise. Unomi (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep banned: Unless the issues that lead to the indefing have magically gone away, then it's only a matter of time before another indef is applied. Does the Community want this? Shot info (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep banned, Martinphi has wasted enough editors' time, and has made enough of their wikipedia experience unpleasant. Bishonen | talk 08:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC).

• Keep banned or topic banned. He has wasted many people's time (even during the Fringe science ArbCom) and there is no indication that this will change. Mathsci (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sustain ban. Even a cursory examination of Martinphi's history shows he uses Wikipedia as a platform to further his fringe beliefs. Wikipedia can roll downhill on its own; it doesn't need any help on that path. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep banned Per all the above. He's had his chances. --Folantin (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any unblock. Mr. Phi edit warred, repeatedly attempted to change policy to support him in these edit wars, claimed Arbcom decisions vindicated him when they clearly did not, and affected an obnoxious martyr complex in order to paint himself as the innocent victim after being restricted by Arbcom. He sockpuppeted during an arbitration in order to character assassinate his opponents while evading scrutiny. Finally, he outed several editors on his talk page post-ban, which required oversight and page protection. Really, Jayron, if you're tired of the bullshit, do not allow this editor back. Skinwalker (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting [link] regarding what he used the 'sockpuppet' for. The link also shows the extent of community patience that is normally extended to errant editors. Unomi (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep banned: Drew up far too much drama. The pseudoscience articles are actually manageable, for the most part, because we aren't playing tit-for-tat games anymore. seicer | talk | contribs 13:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned - I think Skinwalker says all that I'd want to say about it. Maybe after rather longer, with a topic ban to start, but it's too soon. Frankly, I think the only reason he wasn't banned long ago is that he "retired" any time anything looked to be going against him, then unretired once things had blown over - for instance, he said he was retired all through the events that led up to his ban. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned for now - a ban commuted to two months? That's not enough time. Maybe, at some point in the future it could be considered, but from his statement on his talk page, he doesn't seem to think he did anything wrong. I'd consider (and probably endorse) unbanning after a year provided that there is a willingness to admit that he was wrong and to change, but two months is not enough. --B (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks to Skinwalker for notifying me of this discussion, and a finger wag at the rest of you lot for not informing me. As the blocking admin, I'll note that I blocked Martinphi essentially because he was treating Wikipedia as a battleground - and will be disinclined to unblock him myself unless I am convinced he will actively create a productive, collegiate and safe editing environment. I would be inclined to unblock if he has a proven track record of such collaboration on another wiki.--Tznkai (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support unblock. He was blocked for disruption stemming from the view that he was treating Wikipedia as a battleground in a personal dispute with ScienceApologist and showing a battlefield mindset with opposing editors. I am satisfied with Martin’s statements, his recognition of what the issues were that led to his block, and his positive affirmation that he will be seeking true consensus in a very civil and non-battlefield way. Dreadstar † 16:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm missing something, but I've read his statement on his talk page and it sounds like a defense, not an apology. So long as he is interested in defending his behavior, I don't know how he could be said to have demonstrated recognition of the issues that led to his block. --B (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I think where you see defense, I see explanation. He said he's going to be doing things differently from here on out - which I think is clear indication that he sees his former pattern of behavior was wrong and he is going to change. He also explains how he's going to change; and I don't see any belligerence or statements along the lines of “I’m right and all of you are wrong”, I see a genuinely contrite statement and a willingness to change to become more of a consensus-building editor, and instead of engaging in “long winded” disputes, making more use of the appropriate processes. I say we extend him a little good faith and give him another chance. If he pursues a course that is the same that led to his banning, then we can just simply ban him again. Dreadstar † 00:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned too much drama in the past with the guy, so how could we convince a similar degree of dramas not happen in future.--Caspian blue 16:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Wait another month or two and bring it up again. Keep banned, didn't know about the outings. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned -- his edits were extraordinarily disruptive, and he has a long, long history of uch behavior he was also a party to an arbitration case that kind of punted on him once the community ban came down, so unbanning him would mean he dodged the potential consequences of the arbitration. He's never shown any remorse for this agenda-advancing edits and coordinated WP:Civil POV pushing. He's gamed the system for years, and this looks like another attempt to do so. If he does come back he will need to be under some severe editing restrictions. DreamGuy (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Unblock. This edit seems genuinely remorseful for the actions which lead to his/her block and has pledged not to do such actions again. I'd say that the indef block has worked to correct behavior. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Unban A truly collaborative community of editors is meant to guide and help other editors. A knowledgeable, experienced editor who acknowledges the concerns that led to his ban, and makes a strong comment and commitment to correct those concerns as MartinPhi has done should be given a chance to become part of the community again, to contribute. As per WP:AGF, we don't assume future behaviours. To unban and allow an editor to have another chance is in the spirit of Wikipedia. To not unban runs counter to that spirit.(olive (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC))
• Keep banned. People with such a clear agenda, and who have caused this amount of disruption, should not be editing, no matter whether they make promises to try and be nice or not. If you perceive of Wikipedia as a battlefield, it makes little difference whether you promise to be fair in battle or not, it's the battling that matters. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Nyet. Old Russian saying, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned and this disruptive, unrepentant POV pusher from causing more trouble.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned - why are we wasting our time? He was permanently banned and people think he has magically changed in two months? Come back in a year. And as SBHB was saying: fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool us several dozen times and use a sockpuppet while doing so? Shame on everyone. //roux   22:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - whatever the outcome of this, it ought to be shared equally by MartinPhi and ScienceApologist. MP was not worse than SA in this war (in many ways he was more civilized about it, IMO), but as it stands he's getting a dramatically worse punishment. What I would personally like to see is both SA and MP come back under appropriate restrictions, with a very clear impression that neither of them won. if SA comes back to edit while MP gets banned (or if the tables were turned, and MP came back while SA got banned), it would send the message that this is a useful and effective way of ridding wikipedia of opposing points-of-view, and we'd set a precedent for editors taking kamikaze runs at each other. not good, that. --Ludwigs2 02:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please reread the findings of the recent Fringe Science arbcom, which apply here, like it or not. It was MΦ, not SA, who was attempting to create a place for unencyclopedic content on WP, not SA. SA was subsequently blocked for violating the terms of the arbcom findings; that was not the case for MΦ, who, during the arbcom case, was blocked by Tznkai for long-term disruption. Mathsci (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and SA has demonstrated a loooong history of sockpuppetry and markedly uncivil, aggressive tactics to push his own POV (tactics he used on MΦ in excess, which is a big part of the foundation of this debacle). we're not talking about an old-style western here, Mathsci, where there's a guy in a white hat who you know is noble, good, and kind. This is more like a 70's western, where everyone's hat is dusty gray, and both sides are obsessively, arrogantly bent on violence. MΦ's biggest problem here is not that he's pushing a POV (at least not more than SA is), but rather that he's pushing the wrong POV (where SA is pushing the right POV).

I mean, let me be frank about my concern here (I'll provide diffs for all this if you like). a good while ago (when I was just starting out editing here), SA and I had been having a really mindless content dispute over something. He decided to log out and log in as an IP in order to make some very contentious edits and some rude comments towards me (I'm guessing to try to bait me into a 3rr violation). when Elonka left a note on my talk page pointing out that the IP was SA, he laid into her at ANI for 'outing' him. so here's a guy who thinks that he can break the rules about sockpuppetry because it's an effective way to break the rules about baiting, and feels so entitled about it that he bitchslaps the admin who catches him at it. now I'm more than willing to give SA his due - he's apparently done enough good stuff on wikipedia to generate some loyal supporters - but it would be just plain stupid to encourage him in this kind of behavior. If you treat him like the white hat in this conflict, that's what you're doing, and wikipedia is going to suffer for it. --Ludwigs2 19:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a radical idea: consider MartinPhi's case on its own, according to its merits, and consider SA's case on its own, according to its merits. If you want to start a separate thread on SA's current status by all means go ahead but the present topic is whether to unban MartinPhi. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

here's a better idea: see this as a dispute between two editors - each of whom has his own problematic issues - and reach for a fair and balanced resolution. I commend your loyalty to SA, but I respectfully suggest you look at the bigger picture here. --Ludwigs2 21:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

P.s. before the other members of the ScienceApologist fan club chime in here (and we all know who you are...), please note that I've made my comment, and I think it's reasonable, and I'm not inclined to be swayed by partisan logic. I mean, I'm more than happy to keep addressing the same point as different editors bring it up, but that's going to get boring for everyone else, very fast. so... --Ludwigs2 21:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Two things - 1. Who are these "ScienceApologist fan club"? 2. Who are the "we" in "we all know who you are"? Shot info (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I knew you couldn't resist that. consider it an early April Fools'. --Ludwigs2 22:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And I knew you couldn't answer a straight question. So care to have another crack at evading it? Shot info (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

sure! --Ludwigs2 01:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Coming from a completely disinterested spectator to this morass but I tend to agree with the above observation by User:Ludwigs2. Both protagonists seem to have used Wikipedia as a battlefield and have caused more distress than it's worth. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC).
• Maintain Ban or, at minimum, ban from all fringe topics and all policy pages. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Sustain ban per SheffieldSteel. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned as we should for most long-term nettlesome editors who have been community banned. Protonk (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Curesearcher

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

New user registered, somehow creates userpage and uses edit summary on first edit [51], then proceeds to spam user talk pages [52]. Claims to be "a graduate student with the University of Colorado Boulder", and yet for a "graduate student" this comment contains multiple spelling errors and also grammatical errors. I would like to assume good faith - but would like to get others' thoughts on this. Cirt (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks quite fishy. Misstates the name of the university, posts a gmail address instead of a university address. Goes directly to specific user pages to request information, rather than posting to Village Pump. Durova^Charge! 03:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

funny...no one has contacted me through my colorado e-mail adress... just saying that may add credibility, especially if you link through your own google search rather than the link I provided.Curesearcher (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, another comment in all lowercase, if anything I'd think "Colorado" as a proper noun should be capitalized. Also note that the user misspells "adress" (again). Cirt (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(copied from Curesearcher's user talk) Respectfully declining the offer. It's a bit unsettling to see this approach, particularly where people who have recent or ongoing involvement in a sensitive arbitration case appear to be preferentially targeted for no explained reason. It does not impress that the editor posts to the admin boards while failing to note that he provided a university email only after concerns arose. Durova^Charge! 03:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I smell an attempt at scamming going on... --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 03:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so maybe he's not scamming but it's definitely spamming, whether he realizes it or not. Asking users to fill out a "questionnaire", provide contact info, I don't think that's allowed on any basis around here. Maybe the user is a teenager who thinks he might be taken more seriously if he says he's from college. Or maybe he's from a rival encyclopedia. Or maybe he's a user who previously had an account that was blocked for persistent spamming, who knows, but this isn't something to be ignored, that's for sure. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 04:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

durova, no offence is taken at your decline. I would like to clarify the order of events in order to show that it was good faith errors on my behalf. my plan was to e-mail the editors from wikipedia, but that link disappeared from the last time I saw the user pages. so plan B was to post the survey on my user page but then I realized that posting my Colorado account e-mail was probably not the brightest thing, so I set up a g-mail account (you are not the only guys who don't want to be spammed, I am sure that you understand why I wouldn't want my Colorado e-mail on wikipedia for all to see...) for the purposes of this survey. Then I hit the random page button, and started asking users who where participating in discussions.

Some users where not random, but I have no idea about an arbitration hearing (although looking at your talk page, you are frequently involved in higher level discussions, so I assure you that it is coincidence). In casing Wikipedia a few editors discussions showed a higher proficiency in Wikipedia rules and their comments tended to steer the discussion, so I made sure to ask those editors as well. The choice however rested entirely on talk pages.

Some of the not random came from:

Scientology

Alcoholics Anonymous

Since those tend to be heated topicsCuresearcher (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry curt, again this feels more like everyone taking out their grammar ruler and whipping me, than anyone wanting to actually contact me and find out the truth. I don't think I have broken any Wikipedia rules...I am sorry I don't spell well (you fret at peoples spelling, I fret at people using fallacies in logic and not understanding how to critically asses their mediated politics...everyone's educational bias comes out). I do understand that in an electronic medium that bad spelling and form provide the same visual clues that dressing up in a dirty suit does in real life, and I made some mistakes...I wish people could look past that, but evidently that is not the case. again I ask you that if you are conserned about a spammer, you could contact me...if you want to use this as a forum to make an example of a poor speller...well that is what is going on...Curesearcher (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

something has really been bothering me...and I figured out what it was. in good faith, I have placed my personal information on Wikipedia, including my employer, my friends names and faces, the town I live in, and enough information that anyone who logs on can find out who I am...and because I made a typo... well what??? under the guise of "he may be a spammer" I was personally slandered, had my integrity questioned not because anyone really cared, but because some editors thought it would be fun to make fun of a typo.

you could have e-mailed me but you didn't because that would have probably cleared things up and stopped what I can only call a grammar Nazi orgasm... the thing was I am not on wikipedia only as "Cu Researcher" but as my real identity...I am not hiding behind an anonymous screen name, I was personally slandered...and there was no "good faith" involved. I know I put myself out there, but I feel like you guy's fished personal information from me, then spent time making fun of me (you didn't check the e-mail, just poked at my spelling) and now what??? what are you going to do with my real identity now?Curesearcher (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:School and university projects (also known as WP:SUP), Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination. Post there and follow their advice and the recommendations it gives. It's intended to help students and to teachers to avoid exactly the problems that you are having now. Sorry if nobody pointed you before at those, they are not very well known. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:CANVASS too. Aside from that, when someone opens a new account and straight off shows some understanding of how Wikipedia works, along with making blatant spelling mistakes whilst saying they're from an educational org, it'll stir up some worries and some editors will want to look into why this is happening. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind, Curesearcher, that some editors have actually been targeted by phishing attempts and other problems, because of their editing. Durova^Charge! 17:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why Curesearcher needs to go to WP:SUP and WP:WPCC and get his research "oficialized". Unfortunately, any researcher trying to investigate wikipedia has to either go through these hoops or be subjected to harassment lots of questions and proddings and being nailed with strict interpretations of policies that don't take into account the needs of their research project, and risk blocking (too long to explain here why, I ought to, for example, search the ANI thread for the last incident where a teacher asked his students to write articles here and the poor kids almost got all indef blocked for sharing their accounts instead of having one account per person, or something like that, it was decided that it was a special circumstance and WP:IAR was applied for the good of the encyclopedia, I think). The members of the wikiproject will also advice him on to avoid giving the wrong appeareance and point him to past surveys to see what methods they used. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid hyperbole. Last year, due to Wikipedia volunteer work, I was the target of genuine harassment: the FBI actually opened an investigation. It cheapens that serious term to use it loosely. It hardly constitutes harassment to question the authenticity of a new account that claims to be soliciting information from particular individuals, on behalf of a university whose name the user misspells. Given the circumstances of the initial approach, our skepticism was very reasonable. Durova^Charge! 20:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Enric speaks English as a second language and the French verb harasser, while cognate, means "wear down" rather than the English meaning of to harass, to torment or persecute. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Durova^Charge! 21:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Hans too, I struck that verb and made a more accurate description. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem then. Striking through post. You write so well that I never checked to see your native language. Good faith on all sides, and best regards. Durova^Charge! 23:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

first off Durova, I am wondering when I misspelled Colorado...Cirt's complaint was I didn't capitalize it...but I have checked all the spellings and they appear to be correct...my complaint is that 1. you asked for valid credentials those credentials were given...including my personal identity, a verifiable e-mail address that is tied to a educational institution, My personal photograph, list of classes I teach, my office hrs. all of my friends in the department, the faculty who I learn under, my home town, and you can even find my address with a small amount of searching...and then I am placed through the ringer including a AIN (whatever this is) not because any of these things are in depute (they weren't, no one even questioned if they were valid), but because I made some typo's. why was that? you guy's came up with the following theories 1. I am a blocked spammer who has hacked into the CU e-mail system and am going to get e-mail addresses from you once you e-mail Marc Rich and I fish them off his account, 2. I am a teenager working with a school project who wants to give himself validity so he hacks into the CU system, somehow comes to the comm department homepage and places a picture and name on there and sets up a CU e-mail account to gain access to those survey results for his high school class, 3. I have some interest in a Wikipedia review and am fishing for information about your edit history and personal opinions in the form of a medium that I will not be able to tie to Wikipedia identities but I am still looking for that information for some unspoken but hostile purpose so I use my real name and e-mail account that is traceable and monitored through CU. (you guy's who spell so well didn't do well in critical thinking did you)

so...either 1. good faith, you really did question my identity and set this review up because you are trying to protect the Wikipedia community from spammers, and since you doupted that I was really who I claimed to be this investigation was justified...but if this was the case you would have questioned the credentials, or checked the e-mail address because it was a valid university e-mail (exactly what you asked for), and if you recieved a responce from me through that address it would tie a name and employer to the address which NO REAL SPAMMER WILL EVER LET HAPPEN!

2. you just don't like surveys...so why didn't you just delete the comment and move on with your life besides harass me?

3. I unknowingly violated some rules of wikipedia...but you didn't mention that in your opening e-mails, in fact you appeared to want to help out until you got my personal information and then you proceeded to harass me (no it wasn't like the FBI, just because it isn't the extreme that proves the rule doesn't make it not harassment).

so based on this, my conclusion is that some Wikipedia administrators fished my personal information (note the pleasant tone and "well we would like to help you, but we need to trust you more...will you please give us the following information") and then proceeded to employ tactics designed to hurt me personally for no other reason than you don't like people with dyslexia (another reason people have trouble spelling...but still get into grad school...there are those critical thinking skills showing up again). Curesearcher (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

←Please calm down. Nobody is trying to hurt you personally. If you could take a look at some of the comments made by idiots who are trying to hurt editors personally you would see the difference - try "Then im (sic) going to fill a sack with swallows and throw it at your car while you are driving to work [so you crash]", aimed at an editor by an idiot some time ago.

The comments made about your unorthodox spelling and capitalisation meant no more than "here - this is odd". As you said yourself, "the equivalent of dressing up in a dirty suit". If you were approached in the street by someone who claimed to be a bona fide market researcher but was wearing torn jeans, a holed "I ♥ John Prescott" sweatshirt and a stained baseball hat you might feel justified in having a degree of suspicion, however much they claimed to be from Gallup, mightn't you?

As for placing your personal information, and that of other people, on here that's your choice (and a particularly bad one, if the other people aren't aware of it); if you later decide that doing so was inappropriate then following the instructions on WP:OVER might be appropriate. As you've already been told, there are channels for researchers - WP:SUP - which exist for the mutual protection of all parties. Using them would be a good idea. Regards Tonywalton ^Talk 21:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

...ok, I am not helping this at all by venting my frustration at this incident, and I am probably trying to slander some good editors who are in truth just doing what they can to help Wikipedia, and that is just unfair for them. While I still do think that there was probably a better way to go about this and get the same results (quicker I might add), that would be a personal opinion, and Curt, Dorvia, and the others know a lot more about wikipedia and its policies than I do and I should assume good faith rather than hostile intent. I am truly sorry for my comments, they were obviously designed to hurt people which is not what this is all about.

no one has done anything with my information so far (haven't checked the Craigslist M4M casual encounters section for my picture yet, but I trust it isn't there) so I shouldn't be too worried. It is funny how much more electronic debate becomes personal once it is actually you on the medium though...

in conclusion, I am sorry and will work with the wikipedia community decisions in my research.Curesearcher (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What's odd about the comments Curesearcher directs at me is that either s/he hasn't read the links already provided here and at user talk, or else is deliberately ignoring them. On a previous occasion when the community in general reacted poorly to a request for information, I approached that individual in a friendly manner and offered to introduce them to site standards. Two years ago I founded WikiProject Classroom coordination. The fact is that Curesearcher's request was done in the least credible manner of any such request I observed in three and a half years of editing. If Curesearcher really is a serious graduate student, then there is a lesson in this worth taking to heart for the future: when one's approach is so weak that normally cooperative people become worried about possible phishing, then greater professionalism is advisable. Durova^Charge! 02:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agenda/POV pushing re: User:Ejnogarb

I think it's time an admin or 20 look into Ejnogarb (talk · contribs)'s edit history and have a word with him/her about ownership and such. I think a topic ban is in order. The user appears to be agenda driven in removing valid, sourced content dealing with gay rights issues or adding POV content against the subjects. The latest edits to American Family Association where the editor is trying to strip the article of valid, sourced content that points out how the AFA is against all things "gay" is the last straw so to speak. His/her edits to that article alone have been reverted by several users but he/she continues to edit war. We don't whitewash articles on Wikipedia and this should be stopped across the full medium of topics this editor is doing this to. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The article in question had a source from Southern Poverty Law Center, which first of all isn't appropriate for a controversy section given its bias. Second, the primary sentence in question asserted that the AFA was implicated in hate crimes against gays. Given that this is such a licentious assertion, and that the article doesn't mention any such action by the AFA, I repeatedly tried to delete. A content-ban is entirely out of order, considering that I've never even been temporarily blocked. I see this move as an attempt to prevent neutrality in Wikipedia. Ejnogarb (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because you haven't yet been blocked doesn't mean your work is above reproach. In general people post here because a user is persistently disruptive in some way and therefore using up the community resources which are generally better saved for improving articles. -- Banjeboi 07:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Every article I would have interacted with this user the edits have already been reverted by a number of editors but all their work is apparently for naught and very little of it hasn't been quickly reverted which does seem to add credibility of concerns about draining the resources of the project. ASE, for a valid ANI report you, or someone will need to do a bit of legwork to provide diffs on at least a few salient points. POV edit-warring examples, BLP violations, etc. and a pattern of disruption on a set of articles to show any bans or blocks are warranted. They have less than 500 edits so far but IMHO there is a pattern more aligned with social conservatism culture warring than just anti-LGBT rights per se. To me, a more appropriate route might be an editing watch as there have been at least some constructive edits in the past but also some extremely POV-pushy ones. I suggest a concise overview of diffs to move this forward. -- Banjeboi 07:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • @Benjiboi: I don't know if you realized you even did this, but how appropriate is it to acknowledge the user is a social conservative, possible anti-LGBT, and then you slap File:Drawing-Gay flag.png on his talk page in your "welcome" message? Seems subtly inflammatory, extremely rude or just plain insensitive to me. Not commenting on the topic at hand, but please remember to be considerate of other user's personal beliefs, especially if you are trying to quell a possible conflict. --64.85.214.246 (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Did you forget to log in Ejnogarb? It's a template he uses on everyone's page when welcoming them to Wikipedia so it certainly wasn't done on purpose, at least not to antagonize anyone. Of course Ejnogarb continues his own provocation with posts like this on Benji's talk page. If I didn't know any better, I'd think Ejnogarb and Axmann8 were brothers, if not the same person. The tendentious editing of all things "anti-conservatism" by both make it hard to believe otherwise. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 15:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't know if Ejnogarb forgot to log in or not, but implying that my IP (64.85.xxx.xxx) is Ejnogarb is overly presumptuous. So if it is a template he uses on everyone's page, then it is just plain insensitive. Please remember that all sorts of editors use WP and one should not make assumptions of other's views when leaving welcome templates. That assumption can put a new user in an awkward situation. Not commenting on the issue at hand, only inquiring as to the nature of the template on the editor-in-question's talk page. --64.85.215.213 (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I've never used a different account or IP address, and I'm always automatically logged on. This whole process is nothing but a personal attack, which is additionally evident in the snarky templates and insults on various talkpages. Ejnogarb (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Here you removed POV and Refs needed tags from Men who have sex with men with the edit summary No section contains more citations (and there are no "citations needed"), and there are no positive health side affects for homosexulaity (but if there are, please add them). This is unhelpful and antagonistic. The whole section needs clean-up and several editors are working to sort out what needs to be done. -- Banjeboi 19:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't say about past versions, but the current version of Benji's "welcome" is the usual stuff, just decorated a bit (I'll leave out the obvious stereotype joke there) and the flag in question is very small, in the upper left corner. If a new user gets upset about something like that, then they must be coming here looking for a fight - hence the tendency to compare the new user with someone like Axmann8, who came in with guns blazing and went out hanging by his socks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I should quickly add that any comparison between Axmann8 and Ejnogarb should not be intended to suggest they're actually the same user, as it's obvious they're NOT. Also, the IP in question is obviously not a new user, so it probably has a floating IP address. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the only version of my own welcome template I have ever used. And yes the flag is as small as imaginably could be so I see this rather as a red herring. Ejnogarb has brought the concern to my talkpage and I have now apologized twice for welcoming them. Can't say I've ever even heard of someone being upset for being welcomed but I hope we can back to the more substantiative issues of edit-warring and POV-pushing that brought this thread into existence. -- Banjeboi 19:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand why someone would find it offensive to be greeted with an image of a rainbow, in which all the colours peacefully co-exist despite the fact that they're different. The appropriateness of that image to an online community such as Wikipedia ought to be self-evident. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think Bugs has already provided the answer - he came here looking for a fight. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that what that tiny little thing is -- a flag? Sheesh, if I hadn't gone looking to see what all the drahmaz was about, had I otherwise seen Benjiboi's welcome template, I'm not sure I would have even noticed the thing. -- llywrch (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I was simply stunned myself but others can judge for themselves User:Benjiboi/welcome. -- Banjeboi 20:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This whole allegation is obviously frivolous if the only thing that is being discussed is a flag that I never complained about. Ejnogarb (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Other than calling it a "snark": [53] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I called the whole template a snark when I deleted it from my talk page. I found it mildly insulting considering that a user with whom I had already spoken a few times was sending me a "welcome" template as if I was confused about what Wikipedia is. Ejnogarb (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Given thier editing interaction, the template was obviously subtle baiting. CENSEI (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You been on vacation? Axmann8 could have used your help the other day. He stood up for you before. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this thread? I have something called a "job" ... requires a bit of my time now and then. CENSEI (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Psb777

Resolved

 – User been asked to stop. henrik•talk 06:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Psb777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user apparently has an axe to grind as well as the one that Axeman apparently had. After Axeman's indef block was issued, this user promptly decided to go to the talk pages of admins complaining, instead of heading to ANI and starting a thread about it. So far, the edits this user has made to the said talk pages don't appear to be anything but disruptive, not to mention that it looks like that was his/her intention(Maybe I am hitting a nerve. Good!). Could someone possible tell him to stop? Mayhaps issue a warning? I don't see him stopping otherwise anytime soon. I, along with others, are growing tired of this.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I do have an axe to grind. Several. I want a good encyclopedia where editors, especially new editors, feel welcomed. Where admins behave properly and courteously, and where they too follow the rules and guidelines. I have discussed the Axmann8 issue in several places. I note that Daedalus has followed me about trying to turn the arguments I am making into ones about me or about my supposed disruptive conduct. I admit being disruptive, and deliberately so, but not in the sense that Daedalus means. I am disappointed in the way the Axmann8 matter has been pursued, and I am glad that what I have said has struck a nerve with some. I ask that Daedalus be admonished not to relentlessly respond to almost every post I make with an unsubstantiated accusation of bad conduct: That he be politely and ever so gently be reminded to AGF. Thanks. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Psb777 certainly appears to be in the midst of some tenditious editing. In addition to the above admission of pointy editing [54], he's also just flat out refused to get the point above in the Axmann8 case. He's made false assertions of consensus [55], and reopened a thread closed 24+ hours prior [56] just because he was unhappy with other editors making their opinions known [57] on Jeske's page. For several days now he's been asking for explanations, and refusing to acknowledge them. He's quite draining to talk to, because nothing satisfies him and he doesn't make any positive contributions to the discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious is good, or can be. I wish Dayewalker would not engage with me if he finds me tiresome. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Tendentious is not good when trying to build consensus. After trying to discuss things with you days ago, I realized you're asking questions with no intent of listening to the answers, so I disengaged. Tonight, you came back to ANI and opened a thread 24+ hours old simply because you refuse to get the point. Then, I saw you had gone to other pages with the same non-consensus bulding attitude. Dayewalker (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

He has been torturing everyone the last couple days, yet he has not stated what he wishes to accomplish. I have told him to come here and state exactly what he thinks should be done, and let others comment on his suggestion, and then to drop the stick and move on. I don't know if he is being so on purpose, but his comments are creating conflict, and disruption. Landon1980 (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This user was the topic of a thread on here a few days ago as well. Ironically enough started by none other than axeman, complaining about his behavior. See here Landon1980 (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a polite note asking User:Psb777 to stop. But you also need to disengage from him, simply not replying if you find the discussion tedious is one the best ways to avoid issues dragging on forever. So, in that spirit: Unless there are any more events, I don't think dragging this thread on any more will help. henrik•talk 06:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking to me, I have ignored him on many occasions. I just wish that you, Henrik, would have left well enough alone regarding axeman. I know you meant well, I just find the whole mess frustrating. My account was compromised during this whole ordeal, and I have my suspicions that axeman was tangentially involved with that. Landon1980 (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Axmann isn't involved in this issue, except very tangentially. One thing I've found that helps alleviate frustrations if you're getting stressed is answering questions on the help desk, or doing some substantial article writing. Really, try it: It does wonders when you've been caught up in some conflict. henrik•talk 06:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I know he isn't. Thanks for the advice. Landon1980 (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec*272!)

Perhaps the main reason I got involved with the Axmann8 case is that a short while ago I was rude to Axmann8 who had just deleted an article I had created one minute before. But Axmann8 had made an honest mistake, of that I am now sure, and he reacted very badly (as we know he can) to my rebuff, complained about me here but found his argument swatted aside. He presumably expected to be on the giving rather than the taking side of WP discipline. So I had left him annoyed. But he had been behaving quite well around that time. So when he got pissed off with WP I felt somewhat responsible for an editor going bad whom Henrik had been coaching into being a rational deletionist (if there is such a thing!).

I am very comfortable about my conduct during the Axmann8 case. Seems to me everyone deserves to have someone on his side. But no one was, not even me, all I've been arguing for is due process. That some fail to appreciate that, I contend I am not wholly responsible for! However, I know not at least three of you do not agree. I appreciate deeply Henrik's as always constructive approach, and I do not mean to be seen to be demanding the last word. And I'm not.

Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying this over and over, yet you still have not said what you want done. What, exactly what, do you think should be done? Consensus appears to be that Axeman has been banned from editing wikipedia, so you need to let it be known what you want or either drop the matter. Landon1980 (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Landon has hit the point, and I've also said previously that the way this indef-block was executed was not exactly a sterling example of how to conduct such things. The question at this point is what administrative action, if any, does Psb777 think should be taken?

Axman kind of put himself in Groucho's defiant shoes in this dialogue from Duck Soup:

Angry Minister of Finance (Wikipedians): "Sir, you try my patience!"

Groucho (Axmann8): "I don't mind if I do! You must come over and try mine sometime!"

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

One man show? Not funny though.--Caspian blue 07:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You had to be there. In any case, wikipedians said they had had enough, and Axmann came back with more (i.e. sockpuppetry) and some of us who had been trying to defend him against a somewhat ambiguous block finally said, "See ya!" So the question is simply what administrative action Psb777 thinks should be taken, if any. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I was there and read it but did not comment. Thanks for the summary it a bit.--Caspian blue 07:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I meant it would have helped to have seen Duck Soup. Meanwhile, I haven't seen any new socks from Axman yet. Even puppetmasters have to sleep sometime. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Your joke is sometimes too sophisticate for non-native speaker like me to follow up (but I get it now, Quack, Quack? )--Caspian blue 07:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That works. But I admit my jokes are sometimes too obscure. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Due to the notability of the film, I have to spend too much time correcting linked articles after I made the page as a dab. But you inspire me to create Oritang, a duck soup.--Caspian blue 16:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yummy! I just hope you're making enough for everyone here. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been asked by Henrik to stop. So let me talk about horses.

I know not what to do. I have been criticised for beating a dead horse. I disagree, I am standing over the dead horse saying this horse has been very unfairly put to death. Some of those who (coincidentally?) put the boot in disagree, and say I won't listen to reason. They present their hastily post hoc constructed case. The evidence is not what they say it is. They could have chosen better evidence, perhaps, but the evidence they show to me is of the horse kicking after they improperly started to chastise it for having an inappropriate horsebox. Now the horse struggles to its feet - it wasn't dead - but it's shitting all over the place so they shoot it. And I'm asked what to do?

I think we should be more careful with our horses in future.

Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then please do stop. The blocking admin weighed in all the history and found that in the end that this project was not helped by his user. We sometimes have to make judgments on the totality of the situation, not just looking at individual events. A ban isn't a judgment on a person, it simply means that Wikipedia was not an ideal site for him to help with. In many cases we are too hasty, but I'm not sure that was the case here.

Next person to post in this thread gets a 24 hour block! (no, not really, but wouldn't it be great if I could do that? :-) ) henrik•talk 08:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Henrik makes excellent points and shows great wisdom. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• For the record, I felt that Axman was blocked largely due to his personal opinions. I honestly believe that if the same situation (posting a reasonable post on a talk page after a self-imposed topic ban) had been done by someone without the "wrong" opinions and userbox this block wouldn't have occurred. That said, I strongly suspect the user would never have been much of a constructive editor. But I don't think that had been shown clearly yet. I'm not going to debate the topic beyond this one post here. But I feel the whole thing was poorly done. My 2 cents. Hobit (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

He has made 2 more socks today, the latest of which he even added himself to sockpuppet report. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Note from Jéské

From what I can gather, he's wonking because I took offense to Axmann saying that "blacks got [their] President", and demanded a response from me - about two or three hours after I had left for the weekend. I only just got back on to find the thread here and on my talk page, and, honestly, I'm a bit agitated - the last thing I wanted was an Axmann thread. As the thread on my talk page indicates, he's missing the point - I said only that I do not object to the block because of that statement, because I see that as blatant racism and a polemic political statement (which his topic ban did still disallow). I apologize for this. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 03:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:66.229.250.178 3RR violations and legal threat

This IP has edit warred Menudo (band) by putting a blog link in the article as a source but was reverted because it violates WP:External Links. I put up a whois template on his page identifying the ISP and he reverts that saying it's private when everyone knows that whois information is public and it can be looked up. While trying to restore the whois tag, he makes a legal threat over the whois information. Momusufan (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: I made a report to WP:ANEW about this user, but seeing that this is probably a static IP and considering the new legal threats, a longer sanction outside the one expected for the 3RR violation might be a good idea. Regards SoWhy 18:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked him for making a legal threat, per WP:NLT. He can sick his lawyer on the Foundation all he wants, but if he is going to do so, he can do it without editing. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your help! Momusufan (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Part 2

IP has been unblocked for retracting legal threat, but he has gone to a user asking for a review of Menudo (band) saying he actually used a newspaper for a source. But looking at the DIFF of the edit, he actually labeled the blog as "Globe" and "New York Daily News" respectively for editors to believe that they are clicking onto those real sites. Momusufan (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith here. Those links have scans of the actual newspapers. Those links need to be tweaked, but I wouldn't call them deceptive in purpose, just a newbie mistake. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you for the clarification. Momusufan (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Rice University residential colleges dispute becomes a Facebook cause

I have disputed the notability of individual articles for residential colleges at Rice University rather than there being a list of residences as is the practice at many universities: New York University residence halls, University of California, Berkeley student housing, List of MIT undergraduate dormitories, House System at the California Institute of Technology. I initially boldly merged these articles into the list, but a number of editors reverted on various grounds, so I began the bold, revert, discuss process in good faith. However, after the editors exhibited characteristics of ownership and conflict of interest in their discussions, I began the dispute resolution processes such as WP:3O and WP:RFC. However, it has been brought to my attention that these editors have now gone to Facebook to rally support to their side rather than engaging in consensus formation such as commenting on the RFC. The facebook group includes personal attacks such as "This guy who knows nothing about Rice has declared war on all of us through wikipedia; and unless we make the articles more professional, he will succeed." "Look at all the b.s. being shot around",

List of articles affected:

• Baker College (Rice University)
• Will Rice College
• Hanszen College
• Wiess College
• Jones College (Rice University)
• Brown College (Rice University)
• Lovett College
• Sid Richardson College
• Martel College
• McMurtry College
• Duncan College
• List of Rice University residential colleges

Other editors involved:

• User:Mphornet
• User:AniRaptor2001
• User:Postoak
• User:Georgewebb

Facebook rallying support:

• [58]

I'm obviously not opposed to these articles being improved, but I frankly am at wit's end with how to deal with editors who have no interest in having meaningful consensus-formation and view this as a cause to the point of recruiting meatpuppets. I don't know if page protection is in order until the RFC closes or what, but I need other editors' advice and assistance in dealing with this escalating issue. This notice was also posted at WP:EAR and WP:COIN. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Immediate admin intervention is needed because...? —kurykh 20:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors are engaged in WP:COI editing, recruiting meatpuppets, engaging in personal attacks on an external website, all to undermine good faith consensus formation? Madcoverboy (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If new editors can improve these articles in line with our policies and expectations then they're welcome to do so, even if they were originally directed here by a silly, over dramatic Facebook group. It sucks that you've been singled out but I don't think it's worth worrying about unless something bad happens as it appears to be a ridiculous over reaction (and I suspect that many involved know that already). --ElKevbo (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Broadly - you are shit out of lucky, they will just edit-war to keep the articles as they like them and you'll get no support here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Why was I listed on this incident report? I don't even have an account on Facebook. Madcoverboy, you have made an accusation with no proof or evidence - a direct violation of WP:NPA. I have participated in the discussion just as you and the other editors here. Please remove me from this incident report. Postoak (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the individual notability of the articles, many of them are stuffed with unencyclopedic crap which needs to be removed. Doing that (which I will start now) is not controversial, and should be a starting point. Black Kite 22:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• I tried to remove unsourced trivia from Sid Richardson College but I guess not. To say an editor is SOL who reports coordinated editing patterns of meat puppets doesn't seem the best approach. Anyways, we'll see what happens I guess. --Tom (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Rice's "college" system is unique in American universities. They serve a dual role as residence and fraternity. Indeed, Rice students sign a contract promising not to start or join a fraternity while enrolled. Non-alumni would not necessarily be aware of this, so the confusion is easily understandable. On the other hand, the article's editors can not ignore our standards of verifiable, reliable sources for encyclopedic content. I strongly support the cleanup of these articles. I am a Rice alumni, so I'm familiar with the subject. However, as a graduate student, I was never a member of their college system, so I have no stake in any of their college-related articles. Rklawton (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

These should probably all have short articles (given wikipedia's current low bar for notability -- i'd personally prefer these to be short sub-sections of the Rice article). However, coordinated groups of WP:SPAs insisting on keeping in unsourced trivia about the "Sid Finch residential college 80s party is the wrawkingest on campus LOL" (i'm only slightly exageratting for effect) should not be tolerated. If they continue to reinsert, let's give short blocks to the SPAs, clean the articles down to what's citable, and semi-protect for a week until things settle down.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's actually not unique - there are probably several colleges in the US and a number internationally that have residential colleges, e.g. Category:Colleges of Princeton University. If the university is at all prominent then all the colleges are likely to have at least some minor notability. Wikidemon (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than hashing out the notability debate here, there is an RFC on the issue of (1) how to establish the notability of individual residences at universities/colleges, (2) the notability of the residential system, (3) what to do with this content. I would encourage editors who have opinions on this matter to leave comments at the RFC rather than here. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation question

Resolved

 – //roux   00:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't do SPI's very often, so I'm wondering if Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Axmann8 is set up correctly, and whether there's a corresponding checkuser case somewhere that I can't find? Thank you all for your help. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I added in the CheckUser request (code E) for you and moved it under the list of SPI cases awaiting CheckUser. You probably submitted the case without the checkuser request likely by axcident :) MuZemike 22:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

By axcident? Hey, that's my schtick! Well, I don't do these kinds of cases very often, although if I'm ever proposed for adminship again, maybe I had better learn. Thanks for your help! Now I have to go take some pun-ishment. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I was around there quite a bit in 2007 regarding some socking and at the time I noticed that the procedure for raising a checkuser was quite difficult. I'm glad things have improved since then. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Problems at DreamHost with an SPA

This is so minor, I am almost embarrassed to bring it up here; however, I would like to request administrator review at DreamHost, where I have been variously accused of WP:OWN and WP:COI issues. This relatively low-trafficked article has few editors, with only 19 edits in 2009 (this far). The accusations have come from a disgruntled SPA: Judas278 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He/she keeps disruptively tagging the article with unwarranted COI and SELFPUB tags, and this "slow motion" dispute has continued for several months. I have tried to improve the article, but I find my efforts thwarted by this individual. The claims of a conflict of interest stem from the fact that I am a customer of DreamHost (I have some websites hosted there), but I fail to see how this would disqualify me as an editor. My suspicion is that the SPA is a former, disgruntled customer of DreamHost - other such people have vandalized/abused the article in the past. I would appreciate any advice on how to solve this "dispute". -- Scjessey (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously an SPA, first created about 3 weeks ago and went straight to this subject; and near as I can tell, he has not made one iota of suggestion on how to actually improve the article, so it does indeed look like either trolling or agenda-pushing of some kind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The editor made this reasonable edit, which Scjessey reverted. The editor tried to discuss, got nowhere, and offerred to go to mediation, which Scjessey ignored. I don't see why a possible disgruntled former customer has less right to edit than a current happy customer. In short, this is a one-vs-one content dispute, and this is the wrong place to bring it. Looie496 (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The SPA on his first edit took out language that does indeed look like editorializing, except that the cited source supports that viewpoint. My guess would be that the SPA had some sort of bad experience with them, and is thus also guilty of conflict of interest. If the SPA were a little more up front about his agenda, maybe things would be going better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is the "wrong place to bring it," could you tell me where? Bear in mind that this is not a content dispute, but rather it concerns editor conduct. The SPA has not made any effort to improve the article, but has instead made accusations about conflicts of interest and engaged in what I call "drive-by tagging". You claim I "ignored" mediation, but this is incorrect - I do not know anything about the mediation process, and I assumed that if an editor "accepted" the role of a mediator the parties involved would be informed and mediation would proceed. Is this not correct? Also, does it not look like a bad faith call for mediation, given that no attempt at talk page discourse has occurred? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

In Sept. '08 JaverMC concluded "Neutrality is in question on this article." and "...having read the discussion under this section of the talk, leads me to believe there is a possible WP:COI and an even more unsettling WP:OWN tendency." The two cited reference problems remain, including the blog mentioned above; however, his tags were removed on Feb. 26. Please judge whether the COI and OWN tendency exist in the article edit history and talk. --Judas278 (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What's your personal interest in this subject? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Though the most recent complaint was brought by an SPA, there are issues lingering from last fall, where neutrality of the article was questioned in this discussion: Talk:DreamHost#Neutral third party view. If agreement to mediation cannot be found, I suggest a Talk discussion or an RFC on exactly how the quality of DreamHost's customer service should be described in the article. If that issue were settled, there might be no need for tags to remain on the article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has evolved since last fall, with better sourcing. With the exception of the SPA, the only other person to engage in talk page discussion agreed that the article "seems fine", which is why the COI/NPOV/SELFPUB tags were removed and replaced with a request for better referencing. My requests on the article talk page for thoughts on how to improve the article have, thus far, fallen on deaf ears. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the COI/NPOV/SELFPUB tags, but it could still use better referencing. And yes, I'm a Dreamhost customer too.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I was a customer. They were not transparent. I left. I didn't want to remain silent here when I saw appropriate tags being deleted from this article. It is not neutral. Editors have COI. Readers should be warned. The biggest changes since last fall are deleting 3 self-published references and one reference on being an (unsuccessful) .LA registrar. I acknowledge this is something, but 5 of 13 references are still self-published, by the company. --Judas278 (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So essentially what you are saying is that your personal bias has led you to engage in agenda-driven editing. You have made claims about conflicts of interest and self-publishing, although you have no evidence to support either. You claim a lack of neutrality because of an over reliance on primary sources, and yet that is exactly what I said on the talk page (and tagged the article for). You are here to right some great wrong - to exact revenge. Your actions, therefore, are clearly not in the best interests of Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Shamanlim

Is it appropriate for a User who is editing in the English Wikipedia to have their Talk page redirect to a page on another language Wikipedia? 216.93.215.181 (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Not according to Wikipedia:USER#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. I'll remove the redirects and leave a message explaining the policy. -- Donald Albury 00:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I thought that was OK. Perhaps this user isn't very active on the English Wikipedia and is more active on another language Wikipedia (bit like, say, me and the French Wikipedia), although a cross-wiki redirect acts more like a soft one. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The policy reads, to me, to disallow redirecting to other pages on Wikipedia, so that people aren't confused when they try to leave a message and get redirected to some random place. Redirecting to a user talk page on another wiki so that the comments will be seen seems harmless enough to me. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Cross-language redirects between a user's talk pages are common on several other language wikipedia. What is the harm? --Una Smith (talk) 05:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, soft redirects says it's discouraged! Oddly enough. I don't think it really does any harm and the redirect rule, to me, reads to prevent users from redirecting their user (and/or user talk) pages to articles in mainspace (like I think there was a case where a user whose username was similar to a celebrity redirected their userpage to said celebrity, causing lots of unnecessary drama). x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Themightylubu246

User:Themightylubu246, in a space of two days, has been creating a bunch of biographical articles supposedly about the Three Kingdoms period in China. The problem is, his creations are not referenced and anyone with some knowledge of that period would not recognize any of those supposed characters. This leads me to believe they are hoaxes and should be deleted (I'm wondering if a mass-AfD is appropriate), but the user created them at such a rate I think further sanctions are required. Can someone help look into this? _dk (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note on his talk page warning that he stop; if he does not, I will block so that he will engage in discussion. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

*sigh*. Continued editing, so I softblocked and left another note on the talk page. If I step away and the user begins discussing the articles and edits in question, any admin should feel free to lift the block. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* x2. Well, softblocking was a poor choice, as the user simply logged out and continued editing. I blocked for a month since the IP is static (see contribs), though, like above, any admin is welcome to lift both blocks if the user begins discussing the edits in question (or if they think I've blocked inappropriately). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, the IP is 66.68.247.104 (talk · contribs · 66.68.247.104 WHOIS). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruption of on-going RfC

Please, there is a now-active, ongoing RfC here on date linking. An editor, User:Pmanderson has disrupted the voting via struck text and this {disputed} tag on month-day and here too on years. Please also note that this issue had been thoroughly addressed by Ryan, the clerk, here on his talk page as well as (in depth) here on the RfC talk page. The structure of the RfC was made the way it was by Ryan’s hand in the last 12 hours. Ryan is asleep right now. I ask that PMAnderson’s disruptive edits be reverted, my counter response deleted, and that PMAnderson be blocked until Ryan can get back. Greg L (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This RfC has a format widely opposed in the discussion, now archived. That format is chiefly the result of this edit-warring of GregL himself. Links follow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

For what's it's worth, I have protested, and struck; I may respond to Greg's comments, but that's about it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't strike other user comments and leave that for an administrator to handle. Thanks, seicer | talk | contribs 01:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

They weren't his comments. GregL unilaterally inserted instructions into the poll; and they were objected to on talk by three other editors, almost immediately. They have now resurfaced, and I think editors should have their choice whether or not to follow Greg's whims. Having said so, and !voted as best I could, I am now done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly urge all contributors who have been involved in this dispute to not make any further modification to the RFC page. None! You have had your chance to have a say in how the RFC is conducted. If you have concerns, please voice them on the talk page and let someone who is uninvolved make any changes deemed necessary. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit the page, but it's untrue we have had a chance to say how the RFC is conducted. The "vote for one" section was added less than 6 hours before the lockdown, after Ryan had had second thoughts about it being appropriate; his (Ryan's) last comment on the archived talk page was that it wasn't appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Does this apply to anyone, or are these edits by Ohconfucius exempt?
  • Four edits blanking the existing discussion of the question.
    • 01:40 30 March, as all of these
    • 01:43
      • 02:47
    • 02:48
  • Breaking up a !vote
    • 02:24
  • Blanking comments
    • 01:42
    • 01:43

Recommendations for how to deal with this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Location for ban and unban discussions

Some time ago (before the ArbCom elections), I changed the header for AN and ANI to indicate that ban discussions (and presumably unban discussions as well) were better suited to take place at WP:AN, rather than ANI, on the basis that ANI is for immediate incidents that require speedy attention, and that AN is for discussion that can take longer, or may need to take longer, to reach a conclusion. However, the change had little effect. I suspect most of the ban discussions (some present on this noticeboard right now, including an unban discussion) have still taken place here. Given that some of the bans appeals that come to ArbCom (see here and here) are of community bans, and that one response by ArbCom might be to examine whether the community ban discussions took place for long enough and had adequate input, and that another response (if sufficient time had elapsed and certain conditions had been met) might be to ask the community to reconsider the ban, where would be the best place to start a discussion on the mechanisms of community bans and unbans? One question I would raise would be whether an unban discussion is an incident or not, and whether AN or ANI is best as a location. Carcharoth (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that most ban discussions arise from incidents, and become subheads of the parent thread, so anyone with an interest is going to be watching specific sections on a specific page, and won't necessarily think to look elsewhere. Conversely, unban discussions are rarely the product of a specific incident, and so probably AN is the best place. The only thing I can think of is to create WP:AN/B-UB (or similar) to centralise all ban/unban discussions. Unfortunately that doesn't much address the fact that ban discussions arise organically out of other concerns, but it does create a single place where these things can be discussed. And may also lower the drama content of such threads, due to being (hopefully) slightly less well-travelled. //roux   02:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe someone can take a new look at WP:RFBAN and see if it can be adapted to those concerns, I agree the current method is quite unsatisfactory. MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised to see that change in the header, because I think it's exactly the wrong way to go. AN/I is for specific incidents, AN for general concerns. Dealing with particular problem editors goes in the incidents category. The one thing we do not need is to divide up noticeboards further. There are already too many to keep track of, Large as this is, its easier following just one or two. DGG (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

But consider the timescale. A ban discussion can take days, and even a whole week (it certainly shouldn't be over in less time than we take to discuss, say, deletion of an article). If a ban is so obvious that it doesn't need discussion, then a block and de facto ban is a better way to deal with it than a ban discussion that takes up people's time. An incident can be dealt with in less than a day sometimes. ANI is archived rapidly. AN, not so rapidly. So where is it more logical to have the longer discussions? Here, or there? A notice can be left here, certainly, but ANI should have a rapid turnover and things should be dealt with efficiently and quickly, rather than with longer discussion (as there should be in a ban discussion). Carcharoth (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I wish that WP:CN was still around, as that made infinitely more sense than moving ban discussions here (since community bans are supposed to come from the entire community of editors, not just administrators), but it seems to me that anyone who watches WP:AN would watch WP:AN/I, so the distinction is largely without a difference. Is my impression incorrect? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Most ban discussions may arise from incidents, but not all do. There may well be a triggering incident (the straw that broke the camel's back for the person who decided to take the step of proposing a community ban - though there should, incidentally, be consequences for frivolous or excessive failed proposals of community banning - it is not a step that should be taken lightly), but it is rare for the reason for the community ban proposal to be one single incident. A single incident shouldn't be what leads to a community ban (a single incident can lead to a block, maybe even an indefinite block and de facto ban), but rather, a range of unrepentant and unacceptable behaviour over time should be what leads to a community ban. And those that participate in a community ban discussion should be a wide representation of the community, those aware of the background, but not just those directly involved on either side of a disputed area, and there should be an agreed timescale (rather than an open-ended discussion that is closed when someone thinks consensus has been reached), and the person closing the discussion must be completely uninvolved. Oh, and the paperwork should be completed and the list kept up-to-date at Wikipedia:List of banned users. The subject of the current unban discussion doesn't seem to be listed there for some reason. Carcharoth (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) (big big friendly wink) Is this a suggestion that WP:CSN might not have been such a terrible suggestion? Carcharoth, you're a new arbitrator. Please search the archives for a proposal I sent in late November last year. You arbs get a substantial amount of traffic that consists of ban appeals, more by accident than by design. Appeals of community bans would be one of the simplest things for you(plural) to delegate in order to address other priorities. Intuitively, it makes sense for the people who were involved in the implementation of a ban to have a hands-on role in reviewing the ban: people who know the history don't have to be brought up to speed. If you see the proposal you'll know there's a special example I don't want to turn into a poster child, which is the only reason that solution hasn't been presented to the community at large. Warmest regards, Durova^Charge! 03:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Amolz

Could someone uninvolved please talk to User:Amolz about having an actual discussion not creating content forks? He's been edit warring at List of television stations in India and created a fork, Indian Satellite Television Channels, and refuses any discussion beyond this page move. The first report resulted in me speaking to him and I just got so angry with him that I blocked him which clearly looked bad. Could an outside admin help? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Daeg Faerch editing his article

Daeg admitted on a (now deleted) post on his MySpace that he was editing Wikipedia under User:75.33.204.197, which he is still doing. Should anything be done about this?--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My take on this is that WP:COI says it's not really a problem. Is he inserting problematic edits? If not, then this isn't a real issue. We don't disallow editors writing about themselves, we just strongly discourage it. Having an underage actor's static IP address publicly available might be an issue, though... Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, a lot of the information he's adding is unsourced. Also, there's this issue with his role in the Halloween sequel. He was originally cast to reprise his role from the first film as young Michael, but was recast after some shooting because he was too big. Because of this, he keeps on adding that they might use his footage anyway because the studio still retains the rights or something.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Montanabw bites Buttermilk1950

On Talk:Rodeo I have twice asked Montanabw (talk · contribs) to stop making ad hominem remarks.[59][60] However, she has continued, making ad hominem remarks to me[61][62] and to Buttermilk1950 (talk · contribs)[63] that I feel are disruptive. Would an admin please look at this? --Una Smith (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a huge issue in the rodeo articles over a POV fork created by the user Buttermilk1950, which has already resulted in her being blocked once, in part because she is being mentored and encouraged by User:Una Smith. See Rodeo in the United States and Animal treatment in rodeo. To the extent my frustration boiled over, I apologize. (And have apologized on the relevant article talk page where I made the "go play" comment.) However, before anyone takes further action, please also note that this editor who has filed this AN/I and I have a long and contentious history. She has previously filed an AN/I on me here, resolved in my favor, a WQA here, resolved in my favor, and, completely unrelated to me, herself has been the subject of at least three previous AN/I reports herself that basically died because of the total exhaustion of all involved: here and here and a related incident here, plus earlier a set of related incidents here and here

In short, this is a long game of "gotcha," and I for one am sick of it. To close, my real life is extraordinarily busy at the moment, which has prevented me from accessing wiki on a daily basis. If there is a need for me to respond within 24 hours, please send me email. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 04:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Una has got this rather the wrong way around, I'm afraid. Montanabw is not the issue here, and her description of the background is accurate. Apparently new editor starts POV forking, and is being egged on by Una. Characterizing Montanabw's comments in this matter as ad hominem attacks is very wide of the mark. ++Lar: t/c 06:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has interacted with both parties I would like to note that Montanabw does display a maked tendancy towards "ownership" of articles and often unilaterally reverts to the revision which she approves while telling the other editor/s that edits need to be approved by the lead editors of the article , usually Montanabw. It was noted already by a different user here that Montanabw is showing ownership. Heres areseveral other instances of users noting the propencity toward ownership. [64], [65] [66] and [67] -- Kevmin (talk 01:37, 30 March 2009

Without disagreeing, Una is still wide of the mark, which I think is the more important issue. ++Lar: t/c 07:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the larger issue is that Montanabw does exhibit ownership but Una is the only one who actually brings this ti AN/I. But once here the underlying problems may people have with Una serve to sidetrack the issue and there ends up being no actual discussion regarding Montanabws actions rather the problem is dismissed each time. Thus the cycle starts again. I commented here in hope the Una/Montanabw issue would be skipped and the ownership issue be addressed --Kevmin (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Another instance of ownership. Please see the talk page especially here and edit history starting on 00:13, January 22, 2009 for Template:Equine--Kevmin (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this, and I don't want to be, but I'll post a little because Una left a message on my talk page asking me to.

Because of the message on my talk page, I looked into this a little earlier, and I felt that this AfD is of concern to me because it apparently shows a new user in an emotional state as a result of interactions with this user. I would tend to suggest that the ownership issues Una alleges are real, as shown by this diff.

This AN/I entry appears to show that there's more substance to the ownership issues than can be explained by a dispute between Montanabw and Una/Buttermilk.

On the more positive side, this request for mediation appears to show an ability to compromise on both sides when under scrutiny.

All in all, I think both sides genuinely believe that the other is acting unreasonably, and because both sides are active in horse-related articles, there will be regular, repeated drama between these users. It's a long-standing pattern and needs outside intervention.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the Rodeo article, but from my contacts with Montanabw at Cowboy, I would not use 'ownership' in describing his approach. He is passionate about the subjects he works with, shows a great deal of knowledge on them, and prefers history over legend. I have had no problem from him when I have added well sourced material to Cowboy. -- Donald Albury 10:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The wider issue happens to those who do not seek her permission to edit an article she owns. The common response is many times wholesale revert to her last edit and generally rather snippy comments either in the edit summery or on the persons talk pages.--Kevmin (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on my recent (and brief) involvement in this article, Montanabw doesn't try to 'own' articles she edits, but rather, takes active interest in the edits other make to the article. I would also say that just because you warn someone for something, Una, does not mean they actually did anything wrong. One of those 'warnings' you gave happens to contain a comment by Montanabw explaining why she didn't believe she was making attacks. To that response you simply repeated the original warning! Una needs to deal with other active editors on pages he/she edits. I encourage everyone to discuss before editing. Prodego ^talk 21:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply I have had a long history of Una accusing me of article ownership and any number of other thngs when I challenge her for advocacy of fringe theories. Any issues here must be examined in light of the general disruption Una causes all across wikipedia, not just in the articles where I edit. I am one of the few people to consistently challenge her, and at this point I am convinced that she is trying to run me off of wikipedia. Una has repeatedly engaged in the same pattern with many users and articles: She makes significant edits to an article, often advocating fringe theories, often disturbing a long-stable article, then reacts with hostility and aggression when these changes are challenged. The AN/I above on Tumbleweeds (The WP POINT link), which I was not involved in at all, is particularly illustrative of this. The result is that even when she occasionally makes a useful edit, and she does, her contributions are viewed with distrust. I must point out only a few days ago, I encouraged her to continue editing an article here. I have made repeated efforts to negotiate, to work out a truce, to have a meeting of the minds, all of which have been rebuffed, often rudely. I can provide diffs if requested.

As for myself, my position is that quality control and respect for past consensus is not ownership. Yes, I am quick to question new edits, but I have ALWAYS been willing to engage in good faith negotiations with anyone who can explain the reasons for their views with good, solid info, and is willing to engage in mutual listening and cooperation. I have changed my own viewpoints on many occasions and all I ask is that people explain what they are doing and why, backing it up sources that are not fringe theories or otherwise poor. On the other hand, trying to bully me or dismiss my concerns is generally counterproductive. Montanabw^(talk) 23:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've looked into this and I urge them to seek WP:DR, either RFC or mediation, in the hopes it helps avoid a deeper look by arbtration. Something deeper is going on here. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Link spam on Conficker

Resolved

 – Inspire007 (talk · contribs) indef blocked as spam/advertising only account, IP blocked for 1 week Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I've noticed that 1nspire007 (also 24.110.250.120) has been persistently link-spamming the Conficker article in an attempt to drive traffic to their site. What can be done? —78.46.104.168 (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

1nspire007 has been warned somewhat as has the IP address. They can be blocked if they continue again. The articles could be protected but I think a better solution may be to add them to the spam blacklist. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

Could somebody have a look at this? I used to edit under my real name until bogus accusations regarding my editing started appearing in my own google hits. I changed my user name and purged my old pages so that this would not happen again.

Note that my previous user-name has nothing to do with the dispute being discussed on that page and is mentioned gratuitously. This is, in my opinion, a clear-cut case of bad-faith outing. Could an admin please purge this from the page and history as soon as possible?

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 30.03.2009 06:24

It can't really be described as outing; the information (your name) was already made available by you. Ironholds (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Changed my mind; WP:OUTING should cover this sort of thing. Ironholds (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup. And subsequently purged when I realised what a bad idea that was... The editor in question knew that this used to be my user name and knew that I had changed it. Since my real name (or previous user name) had nothing to do with the debate, I can see no other reason for him mentioning it other than to out.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 30.03.2009 07:43

P.S. To quote WP:OUTING, "It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Edits attempting to out someone should be promptly reverted, and a request for oversight made to permanently delete the edits from Wikipedia. [..] attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block." Cheers, pedrito - talk - 30.03.2009 10:35

I have informed the powers that be (those who can delete revisions). Pedrito, there actually is a good-faith reason as to why Jaakobu made the mistake he did. There is another, well known editor, User:Pedro. The edit summary in question is "Undid revision 201429048 by Jaakobou (talk) Stop it, you're becoming a pain. Pedro, your turn next if he does it again ;}." It is very feasible to believe that Jaakobou was trying to show the connection between your account, now named User:Pedrito and the party engaged in edit-summary repartee with User:Nickhh. I agree that it was not wise, and this information should have been sent to ArbCom via e-mail as opposed to onwiki, but I do not think it was a deliberate attempt to "out" you as much as it was trying to show the source for his claim. I will drop him a note about this, and, as I have said, I have contacted the revisions deletion unit. -- Avi (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have been a tad bold and performed a "poor admins oversight" on the page. The details are no longer available in the generally accessible history. -- Avi (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Borderline disruption by User:WilyD

Resolved

 – Compromise reached (I hope). henrik•talk 19:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

For about a year (hopefully) ending in February, hundreds upon hundreds of articles on bilateral relations (eg Bulgaria–Thailand relations) were created, either way too short or simply not notable, by User:Groubani and his sockpuppet User:Plumoyr. Consensus has generally been moving in favour of deleting ones where the mere existence of such relations is all that can be said about them (eg, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laos-Romania relations). However, User:WilyD has found it fit to stand in the way of this consensus, though he has received no traction at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian-Moldovan relations despite his insistence of notability there.

Some days ago, after prodding a few of these random articles, I was upset to notice WilyD had removed the prod tags, with a rather dismissive edit summary, no less: "rm silliness" - [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73]. Well, I was not being silly, I was being perfectly serious and I resent being accused of silliness. However, he's now ratcheted up the rhetoric: "Don't be crazy" ([74], [75]) he says while de-prodding two more ridiculous "articles". Even if he isn't actually accusing User:Yilloslime of being mentally ill, these edit summaries are inflammatory and should be policy-based, as he at least had the decency to do during this earlier spree of prod removals. We are not silly or crazy; we are simply applying common sense and doing our best to avoid flooding AfD with long and tedious deletion discussions that routinely end up in deletion.

I thought seriously of taking this to WP:WQA. However, the incivility combined with rigid defiance of increasingly clear consensus is starting to border on disruption, and so I have taken my complaint here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing this with User:WilyD before bringing it here? henrik•talk 08:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

We've met in repeated discussions, but he seems fairly impervious to my arguments. You're right, though. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

These articles contribute more to the encyclopaedia than I could ever hope to. If people decide to lynch me over it, I know perfectly well the loss will be insignificant compared to the damage Biruitorul is raining upon the project in this area, so it can be thought of as no loss at all. WilyD 10:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

WilyD, no one is trying to "lynch" you; let's relax a bit. And let's pretend neither that "these articles" as a body contribute much at all (consensus says otherwise), nor that I am "raining damage" - I'm working well within the bounds of consensus. The issues here are your edit summaries and the repeated, counterproductive prod removals. Granted, you are within your rights to do the latter, but just how long are you intending to stand in the way of consensus? - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether the articlles in question are appropriate for this encyclopedia is a question for a different forum. But that doesn't change the fact that removing PROD tags with no other explanation than "Don't be crazy"[76][77] is inappropriate, poor wiki-etiquette, and a borderline personal attack. Yilloslime ^T_C 15:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

While it could perhaps be expressed better, calling it a "personal attack" seems to be stretching it quite a bit. It's not really helpful to look for insults wherever one can possibly find one; it's usually more productive to discuss the issue itself and ignore any real or perceived slights unless and until they become obvious.

As for the issue itself, it does really seem to be a fairly firm consensus that not every country relation is notable from the AfDs. Deprodding when the conclusion at the AfD seems fairly given beforehand could perhaps be avoided? henrik•talk 15:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I said it was a "borderline" personal attack, acknowledging that to call it on full on PA would be stretch.  ;-). Yilloslime ^T_C 15:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The conclusion at AFD is far from given. The AFDs I've seen have been decided something like 50-50. Most bilateral relations are probably notable. Depending on the countries, sourcing is sometimes harder (if neither are english-speaking countries, how much their news makes it onto the internet, et cetera), but the pairings are generally notable (per WP:N, at least - there're a handful of editors who really want to see them deleted for reasons I can't puzzle out, which's skewed the AFDs) WilyD 15:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I searched for a bit, and only found delete afds. Would you mind sharing a few links to keeps, just for my curiosity? In any case, there doesn't seem to be a consensus that they are automatically notable, so maybe handling them on a case by case approach is the right answer (unless someone is willing to write down some kind of notability guideline). henrik•talk 15:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Holy See relations closed as keep, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Singapore relations closed as no consensus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada–Mongolia relations closed as keep - I can't recall others specifically, but I think there are some. WilyD 15:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

When such a consensus exists, one might be able to ask that seriously. Many bilateral relation articles have been kept at AFD, since most bilateral relationship pairs are notable, and if someone has the time to defend them, it becomes very difficult to fool enough people into thinking they should deleted. Beyond this, I'm volunteering to help write an encyclopaedia, and aim to improve the project, this necessarily involves opposing attempts to damage/degrade it - I'm not sure why I'd just go with the flow when someone out to wreck up a bunch of the project. WilyD 15:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And that's the problem right there. You're assuming people are "out to wreck up a bunch of the project," as opposed to what they see as improvement. //roux   15:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Err, it's pretty clear Biruitorul and whose-have-you are not hitting the wrong keys or clicking the wrong buttons. Biruitorul is very clearly taking deliberate actions to achieve a specific end, and that specific end is an enormous negative for the project. WilyD 16:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It may result in what you perceive as a negative to the project, but your wording indicates that you think they are actively and deliberately trying to harm the project. That is precisely why this issue was brought here, your assumption that they are deliberately working against the project's aims. //roux   16:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't assumed anything. It's transparently obvious the actions are being deliberately taken, and it's transparently obvious they're a large negative to the encyclopaedia. Whether they're motivated to do it because it's harmful is not something I've speculated on. WilyD 16:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Disingenuousness doesn't become anyone. Oh well, I should have known that anything which attempted to get you to actually look at your own actions through the eyes of others was an exercise in futility. //roux   16:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And you're ascribing far greater powers to me than I have: I'm not "fooling" anyone into supporting deletion; my fellow editors are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Anybody who spends a few minutes thinking about it and a little time investigating it will find that the articles are very notable. WilyD 16:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I find that presumptuous. You find these "articles" to be "very notable"; but many others, having done their own thinking and investigating, have come to a radically different conclusion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay guys, isn't the solution to this obvious? (1) Everybody stop bickering. (2) Wily, please don't remove PRODs with inflammatory summaries. (3) Biruitorul, please don't PROD further articles of that sort, since you now know there's likely to be opposition; instead bring them to AfD directly (where many will probably end up deleted). No admin action needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• This is probably all true. I can't think of any essay to cite that says "When everyone is irritated with everyone else, ratchet up the bickering", so unless anyone else can find it, we may have to do as Fut.Perf. suggests. WilyD 16:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• I find WilyD's obstructionism on the most obvious of cases to be rather tendentious, but be that as it may. This thread has probably run its course. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Manhattan Samurai IP socking

Resolved

 – Blocked by Gwen. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 13:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Our old indef-blocked buddy Manhattan Samurai (talk · contribs) is back as 82.195.149.119 (talk · contribs). His very first edit (and most of his content) has been to the William Monahan article (which MS has promised to continue editing even while blocked), which admin Gwen Gale quickly locked [78] as "ongoing, unending edits by banned user." His comments on the Monahan talk page have also been reverted by Gwen [79] and Bali Ultimate [80], both of whom easily recognized him as a sock.

From there, the IP has also edited MS's old talk page [81] and his own (MS's) article about Google [82]. For some reason, he's been reverted and recognized, but not blocked. Can someone please slap a block on the IP, he's starting to troll user talk pages now. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been having troubles with Dayewalker for a few hours now. He's been erasing questions I'm asking on William Monahan's entry. This is the first time I've seen him actually talk to me and its some gibberish. I verified the article about Bruen's film by William Monahan and it was truthful. Now I've been trying to find out why the quote was erased from that article. ( 82.195.149.119 (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC) )

You can see the facts on the www.kenbruen.com site and on the Daily Mail newspaper. ( 82.195.149.119 (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC) )

And for those of you who don't recall MS, this fits his MO exactly. He adds to the Monahan article (and related ones, such as Bruen). Some of what he adds is true, some is fabricated. From there, he tries to lure WP editors into reverting his "proper" edits so he'll be able to trumpet how wrong we were to remove his "truths." He once described himself as the "Lex Luthor" of wikipedia, and has sent conflicting emails to editors on many occasions just to confuse us. Dayewalker (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had any troubles with other articles like this one. ( 82.195.149.119 (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC) )

Dayewalker did it again. I asked him a question and he erased soon after. It's just been going on like this. ( 82.195.149.119 (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC) )

WP:RBI. Dayewalker (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm writing an essay about how the Celtic Tiger shows up in Bruen's novel. Bruen's early novel is actually being made into a film right now. I found this out on Bruen's site. There was a really smart comment about his novel and how the movie is going to be different in William Monahan's entry... there was yesterday. ( 82.195.149.119 (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC) )

If he's a sock (and I don't know enough of the pattern to confirm it), someone should set a short block to stop his continued disruption here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What just happened on the Celtic Tiger's entry? ( 82.195.149.119 (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC) )

Looks like another editor who's spotted you as an obvious sock reverted you. Really, MS, this one was beneath you. Dayewalker (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you donig? How do I get back the references? ( 82.195.149.119 (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC) )

Enough quacking, blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

compromised account

 – no biggie

— Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 09:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Steve_Crossin has informed me on IRC that his account has been compromised. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 08:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hi. Midom has helped me secure my account again. Apologies that this happened. Steve Crossin ^Talk/₂₄ 08:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Indef block of User:Alastair Haines

User:Alastair Haines was indefinitely blocked by me last week for violating WP:NLT (this was mentioned on WP:ANI as well). Now, Alastair Haines thinks it is time to lift the block: User talk:Alastair Haines#Time to lift the block. I'll not unblock him myself, I've not seen an unequivocal withdrawal of the legal threats, but I have no objections to another, uninvolved admin going over his talk page and doing whatever he or she thinks is the right course of action. Fram (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I told him to ask formally for it. Frankly, his attitude is not the type I'd like to see and would suggest converting it to an indefinite block and moving on. Arguments that "A legal threat may exist, but it is no longer being made" are just asking for trouble and against the spirit of NLT, in my opinion. As User:LisaLiel noted, this doesn't look like a withdrawal of threats, but a declaration that they exist but he won't announce them. We don't need inferences like that here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

His language is difficult to decipher at times. LisaLiel is not helping. I interpret it as maybe a bit of obfuscation perhaps, an unwillingness to make any promises as to future possibilities, and a withdrawal of any immediate intent to take legal action. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Alastair is not helping himself very much at the moment. If he can make a clear and short statement (one unequivocal sentence?) of his positive intentions towards wikipedia, then I hope the block can be lifted. I agree with Doug that there is no current threat of legal action, just rhetoric that is sometimes not so easy to decipher. The only thing that I take seriously on his talk page is his intention of attending one of the next Ozzie WP meetups. Mathsci (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Block of Alastair

To keep things from getting messy, as discussions usually do, I'm putting this here. In my opinion, due to this editor's recent behavior on the talk page(demanding apologies, idea that he did nothing wrong), I

• Support - That his block remain.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. "I observe that one week has now elapsed. The original block should now be lifted. There are now 51 weeks remaining for the grounds of that block to be admitted to have been erroneous, and a notice be published to that effect. On the matter of whether I would take action to secure such a public retraction and apology, as requested, I withhold comment.

• In regard to alleged legal threats I also, as requested, withhold comment. It is quite true that I am under no obligation to signal legal intentions in advance in the forum of a talk page. But it is also true that I cannot deny the fact that, among the uncertain possibilities of the future, such professional courts of appeal are deliberately made available, to allow suitably qualified persons to balance the vital necessities of both permitting responsible and fair criticism and preventing irresponsible unfounded criticism." taken from his talkpage. He hasn't retracted any threats, he's basically gone "Alright, so I won't sue you now. I'm not saying I'll sue you in the future, just that there are ways in which I could." He doesn't say what would happen in 51 weeks, but it is fairly obvious. This goes right against the grain of the spirit of WP:NLT, if not against the letter. He obviously hasn't learnt anything, and still doesn't see what he has done wrong. Let him maybe or maybe-not sue WMF in the future; I'd like to see him use Australian law against a company registered in Florida and with no Australian presence. Ironholds (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Suppport block - Legal threats of any kind must not be tolerated. There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support block. If he hasn't withdrawn the legal threat (and, as far as I can see, he hasn't), then the block should stay in place. Obfuscation is not helpful here, and the fact that time has passed, as it inevitably does, is not relevant. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support block per FisherQueen. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support block what semantic rabbit-hole is this? He says he won't promise not to make legal threats in future. He says he won't comment on the "alleged" legal threat made in the past. And then he blabbers about an uncertain future that might include "courts of appeal" and then "there are now 51 weeks remaining for the grounds of that block to be admitted to have been erroneous, and a notice be published to that effect." This all sounds like an implied threat to sue if he doesn't get an apology in writing. And he's being weasely and evasive. ("Are you threatening to sue, yes or no?" A: "I can not say. I am keeping my options open as to how i will handle these false and likely libelous claims made against me. YOU still have 51 weeks to do as I demand, which will make my decision easier...") Throw away the key after this display is my advice.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support block. We don't care whether a person actually pursues legal action, as long as they don't threaten it onsite. It's simple enough to withdraw the threat and promise not to repeat it. Alistair, if you are reading this and wish to be unblocked, please copy and paste the following: "I withdraw any threat of legal action and promise to make no onsite threat of legal action in the future." Clear direct prose is best in this situation. If Alistair does copy/paste the suggested text, then count this statement as a support for his unblock. Durova^Charge! 20:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with Durova. I just suggested a similar sentence on Alastair's talk page. Now it's up to him. Mathsci (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• support block per Durova. I'd prefer a slightly stronger statement of the form ""I withdraw any threat of legal action. I have no intended or ongoing legal actions against the Wikimedia Foundation or any Wikipedia editors." JoshuaZ (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block - Legal threats need not be tolerated, and the nonsense on his talk is really just disruptive. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

Guys the problem here is not whether we can or should unblock Alastiar, the question is does he or does he not understand what the ArbCom ruling was. This is not just a WP:NLT issue, this is also directly related to the ArbCom ruling and problematically to Alastiar's repudiation of that ruling (see relevant diffs, logs and sectionshere, here, here and here. I have the feeling from his comments and his series of blocks since then that he does not accept the restrictions placed on his account by the ruling - I believe that he maintains his actions prior to, during and currently are 'above reproach' even though there is a clear issue regarding his use of the revert function. Basically the current issue is merely a symptom of the underlying problem. We need to address that one way or the other--Cailil ^talk 12:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll just reproduce what I said at the AE discussion.

Alastair Haines...continued to violate his own sanctions. I previously left an "additional comment" (see here) for John (and Casliber) noting that if (1) Alastair did not understand what the problems are, and (2) did not have the willingness/ability to deal with those problems, he would find himself prevented from editing. It seems that it has come to the point where my words have come into effect (again); Alastair failed to give enough regard to the remedy that was imposed wrt Abtract (for Alastair's own benefit), but Alastair also apparently still has issues he needs to deal with when it comes to legal threats - one of the original reasons Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alastair_Haines was opened. The block, and block extension, were needed.

In other words, there are 2 ways to address the underlying problem - by someone getting through to him, or by blocks that escalate in duration (or by keeping him blocked until he does). I doubt that there is any other choice or option in the matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is a legal threat on the table, and his comments (as reproduced above by Ironholds) indicate that the threat is unlikely to be withdrawn, then his failure to understand the ArbCom ruling is irrelevant. Those comments point up several misunderstandings, both of his actions, Wikipedia policies, the nature of Wikipedia and its parent organization and his rights under any law. Unblocking him, or endeavouring to further exlpain, seems pretty pointless. Avruch ^T 19:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. If he is to be unblocked, I shamelessly plug this proposed remedy as a possible restriction that could be imposed by the community. Daniel (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Anon has too much free time

Resolved

 – Blocked by Henrik — Becksguy (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Needs admin assistance to seek other outlet: 86.143.158.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). See the last 20 or so revisions - going through my contributions history and reverting, apparently at random. Possibly as a result of my removal of material added contra to WP:BLP (see [83] for example, or [84] for general theme of edits). Orpheus (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried reporting him to WP:AIV? Its comments always say "unexplained..." yet the latest one, for example, was in fact explained by in the edit summary, so it's just vandalism or trolling of some kind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not current, so a block wouldn't be helpful - it's more of a "heads up", awareness raising type thing. Not current enough for AIV, not long-term enough (yet) for LTA, so I thought I'd get a few more eyes on it as a bit of a check. It's definitely trolling - his edits (see also these IPs, same person) are along a theme. The "unexplained reversion" is a result of the last little contributions trawl he did, which I reverted with that summary. Basically it's your run of the mill little teenager loose on the web, who throws a complete tanty when somebody says something about it. Orpheus (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I warned him with uw-vandalism4im for several vandalism edits, including to American Family Association. However, it's now moot, as the IP was blocked a few minutes ago for 31 hours for edit warring. — Becksguy (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Help needed - important

Resolved

 – BLP violations have been reverted, and the reporting user has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Jamie^☆S93 18:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a serious issue, needs quick response.--For you whose eyes were open wide (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• As I noted at the BLP noticeboard entry (linked above), all of these BLP violations (now reverted) were inserted in the last 24 hours by users with no other edits. That's odd, and it's even odder that User:For you whose eyes were open wide's first action on registering a new account was to report all of these. Seems like a checkuser might be in order. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Never mind the CU, admitted socks of User:ByAppointmentTo, all blocked. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Alan Cabal

Resolved

 – Sent to WP:DRV which was probably the right venue in the first place.

This article was deleted by a rather overwhelming consensus at AFD two weeks ago [85]. It has just been quietely recreated. I've put a speedy tag on it etc... but this article has always been attended to by great drama, since it's creator and main guardian in the past was found to have a large sock farm (which he has vowed to use to fill the encyclopedia up with disinformation). The recreator is not this puppetmaster, but i suspect he'll be along shortly. This is a preemptive requrest for eyes.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the sock user who managed to cause so much trouble was User:Manhattan Samurai who is still very active (there's a current thread on this page about him a little higher up).Bali ultimate (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I agreed that this was a completely different article and removed the speedy tag, but it was then deleted G4 anyway. Having said that, DRV would probably be better anyway. Black Kite 11:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Was exactly the same sourcing with some cosmetic changes. At any rate, gone now.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the only thing that truly was the same was the dislike for the subject of the article. Black Kite did recgnize that it was sunstantially different... however that was not the opinion of the person who speedied it, and who then did not note nor care that it did indeed have new sources... Newsday, Billboard (magazine), The Jewish Press, and the book "Our Gods Wear Spandex". Repeating over and over that it "Was exactly the same sourcing with some cosmetic changes" is quite pointedly incorrect. I agree that a DRV of the unusually fast speedy, even after a correct removal of the tag, is perhaps a correct course. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Before the removal of the tag from my point of view - yes, technically the tag was removed just slightly before I deleted, but I was in the process of deletion when the tag was removed, the version I saw before I clicked delete had the tag. I looked at the old and new articles, I looked at the talk page, and made a judgement call. DRV is the way to go now and in my opinion would have been a better option than recreating it two weeks after the AfD. Dougweller (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Those have all been brought up and chewed over at the previous three AFD's. But this really isn't the place. DRV is.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That is an unfortunate error of statement. The only ones brought up previously in AfDs were Our Gods Wear Spandex and The Jewish Press... and for some mysterious reason, The Jewish Press was ignored and Our Gods Wear Spandex was curiously dismissed even though it was a book published by a reputable published with its own Wikiepdia article: Weiser Books. Newsday and Billboard (magazine) were never discussed nor presented. Finding new sources and fresh ways to interpret old ones was kind of the reason to try to fix all the stuff claimed as wrong. But yes... this is not the place to decry events. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And isn't WP:CLEANUP all about the "cosmetic changes" that make articles properly encyclopedic? Just a thought. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No. The mcallaster newsday (nassau county and suffoulk edition) with the passant mentions about his role in the band were examined and present in the past versions of the article, as was the passant billboard mention of the band. "Our God wear's spandex" and his support for holocaust denier Zundel covered in the Jewish Press were, as you noted, already examined. So what do you mean when you write "indeed have new sources" and then list these four items? Did you mean "indeed don't have new sources, but i really feel this article should be recreated without going to DRV?" See when you write "for some mysterious reason, The Jewish Press was ignored and Our Gods Wear Spandex was curiously dismissed" that's insulting to other editors assessed these things and found them wanting, and built a consensus on that basis. What you find "curious" and "mysterious" is that a consensus of editors disagreed with you.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me yet again, but you are incorrect. Neither the Newsday nor the 2 Billboard articles were in the earlier versions, nor were these three presented at or discussed at AfDs. They are most definitely new. Heck, it was my finding them that made me decide to try making a silk purse out of an onerous sow's ear. I listed these 3 as new sources above, because they were new. And that reliable sources can be dismissed and ignored is always a curious mystery. I am sorry if you feel my surprise at this is insulting. ANd yes... this is not DRV. Sorry to have bothered the wrong venue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• The best place for this discussion is DRV, so I have moved it there. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_30#Alan_Cabal. Black Kite 12:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Probable sockpuppeting at William F. Schultz

A series of single purpose accounts have been making one or two edits each to William F. Schultz, mostly of removing content that is not sourced or which they say the sources don't support (I have not yet checked that). This pattern began in December, but seems to have escaladed. User:Amnesty2009, User:JammyBear, User:Paulist, User:Bennieandthejets01, User:JAKO09, User:2008Bhutto, and User:Welch52 have all made one or two edits only to the Schultz article. Could we get some more eyes on this, please? Thoughts? Aleta ^Sing 13:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The subject of the article appears to be still living, so WP:BLP applies. I see no problem in removing unsourced material from the article. If properly sourced material that does not violate WP:BLP is being removed, then that issue should be dealt with at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Sockpuppeting allegations should go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. -- Donald Albury 14:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. KillerChihuahua semi-protected the article. I have opened a sockpuppet case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amnesty2009. Aleta ^Sing 23:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please add a lock to Master Exploder!

Resolved

 – editor blocked. Also, wrong venue. Also, insufficient recent vandalism to justify protection. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

To prevent others from adding lyrics to this article. Can you please add a lock, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorheadfan7707 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Wrong place. Please report to RFPP and please remember to sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats it I have something to admit

Resolved

 – Wrong venue, should use {{unblock}} — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i am sorry to all the admins that I broke hearts to but I'll admit this right now so I don't keep it in, I am motorhead69, you know that guy blocked indef for vandalism, you can give me a ban if you want but I think i have changed. David S. (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Motorheadfan7707

Editing patterns show this is probably true. I've blocked for block evasion, but I'll leave a note on his talk page explaining the correct way to ask for unblocking (creating a sock is not it.) Anyone who wants to unblock go right ahead; just drop me a note after the fact to let me know.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The second declined unblock on User talk:Motorhead69 gives good advice, David: Follow the directions at {{2nd chance}} carefully, remembering that we are looking for very substantial improvements to an article, not just spelling checks or minor changes. Remmber that you may still edit your own talkpage despite the block (unless you really screw up and we have to protect it). Tonywalton ^Talk 18:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Buaidh in a blanking rampage of redirection pages.

User:Buaidh has been doing hundreds of page blankings on a suppossed redirection endeavor. All are List-of... redirection pages. When asked to stop and explain, he answered "We have many articles being moved around" (whatever that means). User has been advised to stop and take it here for discussion. Comments? -- Alexf^(talk) 17:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Alexf may be a wee bit deluded. The only article I've moved in the past month was within my own user area. I have no idea where these hundreds of articles I've supposedly rampaged through may be. The only work I've done today is to clean up some double redirects that have been created by other users moving articles twice. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you've got the right username there, Alexf? (I just looked up "cromach" on Wiktionary by the way, Buiadh. That's a relief ☺) Tonywalton ^Talk 18:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit slow moving about, but I get there eventually. --Buaidh (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure about the username. Please look at today's contributions for user User:Buaidh. I used AGF and did not block outright, but asked the user about the blanking behavior (actually mass replacing redirects in article space with a comment and a signature). The behavior continued and then there was some explanation which was not satisfactory. A case was opened here for him to comment. The blanking has not stopped. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Buaid, Alexf did not state that you were moving articles. You were going through a number of List of ''some-county''-related Topics articles and replacing redirects with signed comments. For future reference, that is not the way to prepare for a change, and you should never leave your signature on an article page. -- Donald Albury 18:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Mikeedisson and his sockpuppets

Resolved

 – Deleted and blocked. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user Mikeedisson continues to recreate a deleted (through AfD procedure) article Tarek Khalil Atallah. His latest reincarnation is user Jjexport, who created an article Tarek Khlil Atallah. Beagel (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

New article deleted, current sock blocked. You may wish to wander over to get a checkuser done to see if there are any other accounts involved. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement over YouTube links

TPTanque (talk · contribs) has added/replaced a number of links to music videos on YouTube, all posted by the account LosCangriInc, which claims to be the account of El Cartel Records. El Cartel's main artist is Daddy Yankee, and the label's website is DaddyYankee.com (and here's the label's MySpace page). The label's website links to (scroll to the bottom of the page and wait a few moments for the flash to load up) a different YouTube account, DYNATION, and the videos on the label's MySpace page are also all linked from that account, too. While the LosCangriInc account might be legitimate, there is no indication that it is. Since that's in doubt I feel that including links to those videos would be potential copyright violations. I replaced the links with ones from the DYNATION account where possible (most of them) and removed the links where no legitimate substitute could be found. I have explained this to TPTanque on my talk page but the editor has reverted my edits, accusing me of bad faith. I really don't want to get into an edit war over this. TPTanque is also guilty of spamming links to this one YouTube account. Please advise; thanks, TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you try going to the conflict of interest noticeboard? MuZemike 17:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't really think this was a case of conflict of interest. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that is the labels website? It is the website of it's owner and main artist Daddy Yankee (daddyyankee.com), but how do you know it is the record labels website? The website for Daddy Yankee links to his youtube account DYNation. But I am adding the record label's account which is the first time I have come across it and it seems to only now be active. The videos on the myspace are infact linked to DYNation but this may change in the following days as it looks to be a newly active channel. Jazz says there is no proof it is legitimate, but there is also no proof it is not. And there is no proof the website or myspace are lehitimate either, but aswell there is no proof there are not legitimate. And why is this a conflict of interest? Is it because I like Daddy Yankee? TPTanque (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

From WP:COPYVIO: "media which is not available under a suitable free license, and which does not meet the non-free content criteria, should be assumed to be unacceptable"

From WP:EL: "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright."

It is safe to assume that a YouTube account linked from an artist's official website has permission to upload those videos. A random account that you just happened to "come across" cannot be given that same benefit of the doubt when it comes to copyright. And considering that you started adding links to these videos immediately upon creating your Wikipedia account, and only a few of your edits are not related to adding links to these videos is also suspect behavior per WP:SPAM. TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There are reasons other than just copyright questions for not providing links to YouTube, per WP:EL. Focusing solely on this one issue misses the point that we generally don't link to them at all. We do some videos, but normally only on official sites and for encyclopedic information purposes, not merely for entertainment/promotion. At any rate, if we already link to the artist's professional site and that site links to their own YouTube then we certainly don't need to provide another link to it. DreamGuy (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Suspension bridge

Resolved

 – Speedy closed. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Would someone please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suspended deck bridge? Deleting that article would delete over a thousand edits over the last almost seven years. While you are at it, you can move it back to Suspension bridge, where it has been for all but 5 hours of its 7 years, but that is not as urgent. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy closed. Further discussion should be on move, not delete.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING by User:Husond at Talk:Greece

Husond (talk · contribs) recently set-up a poll in Talk:Greece. In order to prove his point he decided to out all voters' nationalities (whether they're real or false is irrelevant)[86]. I consider this is as WP:OUTING since Husond did not ask permission for this nor this information was readily available in user pages. He did it only to promote his point, which was to virtually disqualify the votes opposing his POV due to ethnic background (which might be another punishable offense in the grounds of WP:NPA since he is attacking implicitly a whole ethnic group).--Avg (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Avg's loss of sense of reality really approaches danger levels here. Somebody seriously needs to topic-ban Avg for his endless disruptive filibustering on that talk page. Seriously, the level of nonsense from this person is unberable. (But whatever, I've removed that list for now. It's not needed; anybody can see the facts even without that simple visualisation.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is incorrect that the information was not readily available in user pages: in many cases, the identification is specifically tagged as being from the user page. In other cases, it's inferred, but I don't see anyplace where OUTING would apply. FP, please skip the personal attacks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry but I won't. We are dealing with blockable levels of disruption here; we need to be able to talk about the fact of this disruption, and there's simply no polite way of naming this particular kind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"endless disruptive filibustering" is not a personal attack. "loss of sense of reality" is. Don't defend it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. I'm sorry to say that the primary person who causes disruption to the article is you. The sheer amount of revert wars you're involved in the last days and of personal atttacks to a plethora of users and to Greeks in general ("obsessed", "trolling") is sufficient proof. --Avg (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Come off it, Avg. When you have a phalanx of editors from a particular community all taking the same line in a nationalist dispute, it's plainly obvious that the agenda being pushed is a nationalist one, in defiance of NPOV. Let's not forget that NPOV is non-negotiable; Fut. Perf. is quite right to point out what's going on here and to object to it. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is one thing to object, and another thing to insult.--Avg (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my comments at Talk:Greece. These accusations are ludicrous, clear retaliation for exposing some pretty obvious facts on that talk page. There's no outing whatsoever, just the exposition of facts everybody knows at the talk page; facts that the users themselves disclosed. I just compiled and added some visual effects. Húsönd 19:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a rather straightforward case of racial profiling. Truly emetic. I must also note FP's own attacks on Greeks in recent days.[87][88] ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Visual effects or not, I object to my personal information being used to dissect my contributions here and therefore cast aspersions on my motives and character. The talk page of an article is for improving the article and not to investigate the motives of users based on their personal information. As an eponymous user I find this to be covered under WP:HARASS. Dr.K. logos 19:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal information? Was it, like, confidential information that you accidentally posted on your userpage for everyone to see and edit?! Húsönd 20:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No. It's the way you used it. I object to you analysing my motives based on my personal information, draw your own arbitary conclusions and then publish them on Wikipedia. This is simply not done. I am an eponymous editor and I object to this treatment of my personal information. Dr.K. logos 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I object to you objecting me, so we're even. Húsönd 20:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not funny. Dr.K. logos 20:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I would put it more simply: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. It's silly to object to someone pointing out the duckness of the duck. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately what you are saying applies equally well to English, American, Portuguese, French etc. ducks. Let's ban all ducks from editing Wikipedia. Dr.K. logos 20:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The background to this is the interminable Macedonia naming dispute yet again. I can well understand the frustration that this is producing; unfortunately Talk:Greece has been swamped by a wave of bad-faith, disruptive nationalist point-scoring and POV-pushing over the past few days, in which every single Greek editor who has commented has lined up in favour of an approach which turns that article into a little island of Greek nationalist POV, divorced from Wikipedia's policies or, indeed, common sense. It's not "racial profiling" to point out that every single editor from a particular group - be it religious, political or ethnic - is lining up in the same way; it's just a statement of fact. It's sad to see that the previous arbitration case on this issue has been completely ignored. I suspect a fresh arbitration, and probably some topic bans, will be required. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Chris, if anything, probably someone should ensure users are not subjected to continuous insults, racial or other.--Avg (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering that you and others apparently consider that it's a grave insult to even use the word "Macedonia" for anything other than a part of Greece, I don't think I can take that complaint very seriously. Honestly, from all the fuss that's made about it you would think that saying "Macedonia" chops an inch off every Greek's manhood each time. It's like the Monty Python "Jehovah" sketch or something. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's all one big joke to you. Why would you take a nation of "crackpots" seriously? We know how you feel. We don't care. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 20:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I never know you were a fan of Millwall F.C... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So what if "every single editor from a particular group is lining up in the same way"? A voter's ethnic background bears no relation to the value of their vote or the outcome of the straw poll any more than, say, what his or her favorite food is. I find it objectionable that some users are using the ethnicity of those who participated in the straw poll in an attempt to invalidate the outcome. Let me remind everyone that the poll was comissioned by Husond, who, when it became apparent that his side would lose the poll, proceeded to publish the list with every voter's ethnicity. Now what could be the purpose of such a move other than to imply "the oucome is invalid because all Greek users voted "oppose"? --Athenean (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Now he's created a subpage for this ([89]). I can't help but wonder how he/she got to be an admin. This is very immature. The Cool Kat (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be immediately deleted. It's unencyclopedic WP:OR and serves no other purpose than to malign a group of editors based on their ethnicity. Dr.K. logos 21:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it should be deleted, this might be over-reacting, but maybe block would be appropriate, although i'm not sure that would work with an admin. The Cool Kat (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, userspace doesn't have to be encyclopedic, and WP:OR is very much welcome in that space. Block? No wonder you wonder how I got to be an admin. Húsönd 21:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

But he did not fail three times on something.--Caspian blue 23:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User space can't be used for ethnic profiling. WP:OR or not. Dr.K. logos 21:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's just plain nastiness. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 21:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So, we've established that Greeks overwhelmingly want to refer to the republic as the former yugoslavian republic, in order to distinguish it from the region. Why the drama? I thought we already knew that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, indeed. But right now it's the added question of how to deal with the effects of this polarisation in a Wikipedia decision process. How do you evaluate a straw poll where it's a 100% one nation against the rest of the wiki community? This is really an issue of project-wide governance. How much power can we afford to grant to closely-knit determined POV teams of this kind, which have all the wiki-resources to outlast any opposition by force of sheer numbers and sheer obstinacy? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is interesting to mention that the straw poll started against WP policy which states we should not change a controversial name with another controversial name (WP:NAME: "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain."). Out of nowhere a group of editors (FP included) started to edit war in order to change the status quo that existed for years in the Greece page. Every invocation of WP policy, guideline or MoS to them (which sometimes they have written themselves!) was met with ridicule and insults. When it became apparent that the poll was turning against their favour, they filed Arbitration Enforcement cases, posting anonymous reminders about banning and blocking and started threating users with topic bans. This is a very unhealthy environment indeed. For anyone interested of the story of this (and with a lot of time in their hands) please read from Talk:Greece#FYROM onwards.--Avg (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. No need for straw polls and ethnic-based lists. Dr.K. logos 21:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Husond Touche, but maybe it's not such a smart idea to make a personal attack on a page full of viewing admins? The Cool Kat (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If you put information on your userpage, don't be surprised if people use it. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, it is well within what Husond is permitted to do to have this page, and a far better use of userspace (analyzing something in the mainspace) than, for example, a userbox. Prodego ^talk 21:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So you approve of ethnic profiling. Dr.K. logos 21:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I approve of any analysis anyone would care to make, with publicly available information. I may not find it helpful, but I still see no reason to discourage it. Prodego ^talk 23:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You're evading the main point.--Caspian blue 23:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Husond did wrong in this case. Administrators are elected to help resolve disputes, not to inflate them with inflammatory behaviors, especially on highly sensitive matters. I'm quite disappointed at anyone who supports this racial profiling. The subpage should be deleted as soon as possible or WP:MfDed.--Caspian blue 22:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Admins are users before being admins. There is no rule stipulating that admins cannot be involved in disputes, just rules preventing them from using their admin powers in those disputes they're involved in. Besides, this dispute has never been anything less than inflammatory, I just made it a bit more visual. WP:MfD? You can't be serious. For someone who's just accused me of inflating disputes, you seem to be looking forward to have yet another discussion with plenty of drama amid another Greek mass voting. Húsönd 22:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec2) Admins are users with the admin tools and are required to have and behave "high standards" on any aspect. If you do not find any differentiation, then why do you hold the title? Besides, the visualization makes you land here with the various accusation, so I'm not kidding with the MfD thing. There is no wonder for anyone here to request MfD on your page that has caused nothing but troubles. Since the racial profiling has caused anger, I don't see why it is not due.--Caspian blue 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Being an administrator means you have access to technical tools to maintain Wikipedia, because you are trusted not to misuse them. You are expected to behave in accordance with good practice, as is everyone else, nothing more, nothing less. Prodego ^talk 23:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Then, this thread is a clear evidence of "distrust" against the admin in question. Good to know.--Caspian blue 23:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would say that the first step in resolving a dispute is to identify its scope. Husond's subpage may be controversial but it does demonstrate graphically what Fut. Perf. has pointed out - "it's 100% one nation against the rest of the wiki community." The substantive question before us is how we can deal with that, since it's completely obvious that we're faced with politically-motivated POV-pushing. The fact that it involves Greeks is extraneous; it could just as easily be Iranians, Scientologists, Republicans or any number of other groups. The outcome is the same. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So I gather that: a) Greeks mass vote everywhere, even at MfDs. b) Greeks are politically motivated POV-pushers. Conclusion: It's open season on Greek Wikipedians. Dr.K. logos 22:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be silly. Some Greeks oppose this FYROMization, and they will not be affected; some don't care, and will not be affected. It's the other way around; those who mass-vote for this POV are (overwhelmingly, if not entirely) Greeks. Open season on nationalists of all flags is long overdue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. But I don't appreciate the incivil remarks at the beginning. Please be more civil. Thank you. Dr.K. logos 22:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I dislike nationalists as well. Perhaps I may ask why do you label certain Greeks nationalists just because they have a certain opinion on a certain matter?--Avg (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Husond observed the obvious: that one strand of opinion on this matter is confined to Greeks and those of Greek descent, and to international organizations where the (present) insistence of the Greek Government has swayed the organization (chiefly the EU).
• Observation suggests, in fact, that some Greeks and persons of Greek descent do in fact hold the other PoV - it is, for example, a political issue within Greece - but they are less strident about it.
• Husond was relatively moderate in observing nationality; there are several users whom he counts as indeterminate who, for example, use we and our of Greece. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Egad, this might be the first discussion where you and I won't have to butt heads, apparently. The Greeks must be VERY wrong, for the BOTH of us to disapprove what they are doing. Húsönd 23:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that Husond published his "list" after it started to become apparent that his side was going to lose the straw poll which he initiated. --Athenean (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it was actually after it started to look too much like fraud. Húsönd 22:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of fraud, or else this is another one of a series of false accusations of yours against an ethnic group.--Avg (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I said started to look like fraud. Obviously if I had evidence that it was fraud then the poll wouldn't be open now, would it? But lack of evidence doesn't mean that someone here was born yesterday. Húsönd 23:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So you do not have evidence but you do suspect fraud. What kind of fraud? By whom? Care to be any more specific?--Avg (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, I have created Special:AbuseFilter/119 (log page) which is intended to provide a log of when non-admins change "Republic of Macedonia" to "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or vice versa. It will have some false positives and it is only a log. What people choose to do with that information is up to them, but constantly going back and forth is no good and this should help identify the conflict points and edit warring. Dragons flight (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Husond/Straw Poll‎. I MfDed.--Caspian blue 00:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Caspian, let the voting begin. The Cool Kat (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Could an administrator...

Do something about User:Dico_Calingal, this particular user keeps readding fair use images to his userpage, despite both getting warned more than once (see his talk page). NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 19:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the images from the user page and left the user a personal message asking them to refrain from doing it again and also to refrain from uploading any more images until they have read and understood the relevant policies on copyright, licensing and fair use. Will watch also. Mfield (Oi!) 20:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Chandler ‎

The template Template:Defunct_national_football_teams is up for deletion, and this user is trying to supress discusion by limiting it to only a few participants, and has been repeatidly hiding the Template:TFD notice on the template, that was placed their to encourage others to participate, I feel that these actions are contrary to the community nature of wikipedia Fasach Nua (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding right? Your reputation as uncommunicative and tenditious hardly puts you in a position to be tagging Chandler for this. I note that beyond calling his edits vandalism and posting a threatening warning template you haven't made any meaningful attempt to communicate with him on this issue. Merits of this particular template aside, your inability to talk to other editors and do little more than engage in a serial edits without comments attached is helping foment this problem. Trying talking to him in a meaningful manner instead of engaging in a silent duel. You're causing your own problem. Wiggy! (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiggy, please don't make accusations like that without diffs to back them up please, otherwise you are just sitting on a ball of personal attacks, really. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's his style, always has been his style. Just have a graze through his talk page. You can't just perpetually stonewall other editors and refuse to answer legitimate pleas for help or clarification. Have a peek at my talk page here. That was my introduction to this guy and I'm not some sort of clueless newbie. That's pretty much his approach to every other editor in the place. Just a bully cloaking himself in what he perceives to be the rules. My concern is not baseless. Standing up to that kind of stuff is necessary. Wiggy! (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Merged from a separate section - it's the same issue. Black Kite 23:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Fasach Nua

Fasach Nua (talk · contribs) is currently vandalizing {{Defunct national football teams}} through edits like [90] and [91] just because the TfD he filed don't seem to go the way he'd like. And after that go on to harassing [92][93][94]. So I would appreciate some help. chandler · 22:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me feeling some deja vu here, or have we not had precisely this problem before with FN? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Search the Incidents archive for "Fasach" and you'll see where that deja vu feeling might be coming from. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ban review for Guido den Broeder

Guido den Broeder was community banned in December 2008 and his user talk page was protected. Generally in this situation editors direct their appeals to the Arbitration Committee. He has done so, and apparently has been having difficulty getting a response. A similar situation happened late last year with another editor (banned, not getting replies from the Committee), and the fellow made a quiet and successful return after community discussion. Not certain whether we can duplicate that success, but opening discussion.

Guido asked me to post the following statement on his behalf:

"In December, I was community-banned after a discussion on AN/I. The procedure did not satisfy the criteria recently suggested by ArbCom member Carcharoth at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Location_for_ban_and_unban_discussions. It was cut short, and users that were working with me did not got the chance to participate, so certainly the community was not widely represented; there were mostly passers-by. As a consequence, both an essay that I wrote and my block log got misinterpreted, and calls for evidence remained unanswered.

The ArbCom has subsequently promised me a ban review after 3 months if I would show good editing on another project. When I met their criteria on nl:Wikibooks (as well as on various non-foundation projects) I asked for this review. Unfortunately, it seems that the ArbCom is currently tied up, and they did not respond to my request.

Since December, many users that have worked with me expressed their disagreement with my ban when they found out. Administrator Seicer has apologized to me for repeatedly blanking my user page. My essay has sat at meta without complaints for all this time.

I repeat here what I said to the ArbCom: I will not try to break or circumvent any restriction that is imposed as a condition to my unbanning. My goal is to collaborate constructively with other good-faith users. I do not expect to have many dealings with the users that banned me, since they contribute to entirely different sections of Wikipedia, but if I do meet them, I will do my best to get along.

I believe that I have always acted with the good of the project in mind, even while I criticize the way it is set up. I fully intend to continue thus, as I do on various other projects to everyone's satisfaction. If there are any remaining concerns, I suggest to put me on probation, monitored by former administrator Durova if she is willing, and restrict me to 0RR during that time."

These are the other WMF projects where he is active:

• Dutch Wikibooks
• Meta
• German Wikipedia
• Dutch Wikipedia

He is in good standing with a clean block log on three of those projects; at Dutch Wikipedia his record would charitably be described as spotty. Due to unrelated considerations I would request that another Wikipedian step forward as official mentor, although I would gladly asssist that mentor if the need arises. Guido den Broeder and I have had no contact before this week, and I was uninvolved in the disputes that led to his siteban. Submitting for discussion and consideration. Durova^Charge! 21:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for an Arbitration Committee member to comment here, because I know for a fact that his unban requests (he sent quite a few) were received and discussed by the Arbitration Committee. --Deskana (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

He sent me copies of those emails. This came to my attention a few days ago because he was petitioning the unblock IRC channel for a hearing. Reminded me of a specific instance that I was involved in last October-November; while the community's unblock discussion was ongoing an administrator in good standing stepped forward to announce that he had been advising that other editor through seven months of attempted ArbCom appeals: four different arbitrators and a clerk had each responded with initially positive signs, then failed to follow up. The community unbanned the other fellow in three days and I gave him a resilient barnstar recently for a drama-free return. Was a bit concerned a similar problem might be brewing here. So since he appears to have satisfied the conditions set by the Committee (and my own standard request), it seems reasonable to take it back here. The community doesn't need the Committee's permisson to review the community's own bans. Durova^Charge! 21:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

A few more thoughts on the prior instance: it was quite an unpleasant surprise to discover the Committee had let a valid request slip through the cracks for over half a year, and although I promptly submitted a proposal to prevent such things from happening again, the Committee has apparently taken no action to remedy that problem. A problem obviously does exist: at least two arbitrators had drafted similar proposals, neither of which have been implemented. The only reason I didn't take my proposal directly to the community was because I didn't want to make a poster child of that individual, who had been through the mill already. Now I don't know whether Guido's request is equally meritorious, but he does deserve a hearing. Durova^Charge! 22:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, Durova, but you are being quite inaccurate in your assessment of the situation. His request did not "fall through the cracks", it was responded — several times — in the affirmative, with a topic ban. That Guido chose to dispute and refuse that condition does not mean that he was not replied to promptly. He did not get "no answer", he got a "no" answer. — Coren ^(talk) 22:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The above description refers to this person and is quite accurate. He did indeed fall through the cracks for one month that I observed directly, and others independently confirmed the rest. He approached me on October 20, 2008--very politely. I promptly wrote to the Committee in support of his request, got a request for details from one arbitrator, and followed up immediately with the requested information. Exactly one month later that editor followed up with me: nothing had happened. Since I was the original blocking administrator in that case, if any one of the five people who were supposedly reviewing his case had looked into it seriously at all, it is reasonable to suppose they would have contacted me. None did; shall I also post their usernames? Check your facts, sir, before you accuse me of misrepresentation.Thank you, Coren. :) Durova^Charge! 22:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I had not noticed the shift in subject; "this user", when discussing a specific user, is inherently ambiguous when you mean some other user than the one under discussion. At any rate, I did not "accuse" you of misrepresentation but simply stated that your assessment of the situation (if it was Guido's) would have been inaccurate— which it would have been. — Coren ^(talk) 23:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I do not believe Coren is disputing what you are saying about Bus stop, but he is disputing what Guido has said about his case, and I can confirm what Coren is saying regarding that is accurate. --Deskana (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If Guido has misrepresented the sequence of events then I withdraw support for his appeal. Durova^Charge! 23:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support unban - Per Guido's voluntary probation and mentorship. I firmly trust Durova's judgment (and STRONGLY think that she should be resysopped, if not made an arbitrator or bureaucrat); if she's standing for Guido, then so am I. (Although, I will admit that if I had participated in the ban discussion, I would have endorsed a ban.) Just please, Guido, drop the social experiment. →Dyl@n620 22:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Should be noted that Durova doesn't appear to take a firm position on the question of unbanning Guido, more that the process of appealing to ArbCom is flawed and she would like a community re-review of the prior ban. It does seem like this ArbCom is as swamped as the last one, but they've been making some good strides in improving workload management and perhaps this will inspire them to take steps on Guido's request to them.

What I would like to see from Guido is some allocution to what led to his December ban. His request makes no mention of his actions that lead to it, and without some admission that his conduct played a role I'm not sure a probation agreement will really cut it. Avruch ^T 22:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just a comment - I would hardly call his record at nl.wiki "spotty" - [95]. Black Kite 22:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• He's currently banned at the Dutch Wiki for making legal threats, that ban was reviewed the the Stewards at Meta (m:Requests for comment/Dutch Wikipedia - unblock request) and found proper, he has 27 edits on dewiki and 134 on Dutch Wikibooks. Much of his edits to Meta have been ont he topic of his enwiki and nlwiki bans. Enwiki held a community ban discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive500#Improper_use_of_MfD_page.3F where the result was overwhelming in support of a ban. We really need to move on from this issue, there are better things to do. MBisanz ^talk 22:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Would someone unprotect Guido's user talk please so that he can respond to the questions that are being posed here? Durova^Charge! 22:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That much I'm prepared to do (and have). I also have serious reservations about the "spotty" record on nl, though. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Could be charitably described as... is normally prelude to understatement. I share your concerns, of course. But if what he's told me is honest and he hasn't socked or anything else, then this does fall within the realm of reasonable discussion. It's been three months since the ban, not three weeks, and he's done what he's been asked to do. Durova^Charge! 22:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, you accidentally unprotected the user page, and not the talk page (presumably because you didn't notice the redirect). Fix't. — Coren ^(talk) 22:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
        • D'oh. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on "not getting replies from the Committee" this is not true. He got a response, a "No" response, which is different from "no response" and kept submitting repeated and frequent emails as that is not what he wanted to hear. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

May I ask how recently that was? He led me to understand that he was instructed to make positive contributions to another wiki, so he joined Dutch Wikibooks. Durova^Charge! 22:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Less than a month ago, although there is a more recent email from him (4 days or so) which may not have been answered yet. — Coren ^(talk) 22:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it not true that he was asked to contribute constructively to a WMF site where his editing privileges had not been restricted, and asked to wait three months from the time of his ban? When I approached him I told him the one thing that was absolutely necessary was for him to be totally honest with me, and if he hasn't then we can mark this thread resolved. Durova^Charge! 23:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I really would not consider 134 edits to prove he has reformed from his problems on enwiki, maybe 1,034 edits would be more convincing, but I have about 120 edits on Wikisource from fixing broken redirects alone. MBisanz ^talk 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That, indeed, is one of the conditions (there was also the alternative of waiting six months overall instead). I don't think there were misrepresentations more than partial disclosure. — Coren ^(talk) 23:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, what I advised him was to be totally forthcoming and anticipate any possible objections to his return. Also that the longer he waits without taking an appeal live, the better his chances that it would meet acceptance. An unsuccessful ban review would likely push the timetable back for an eventual return. So it looks like we can let this run until the community has spoken. Durova^Charge! 23:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• I participated off and on in some of the discussions surrounding this user, so I'm not really a fresh set of eyes. In my opinion this was a classic case of exhausting community patience. He was on an apparent crusade to get the Truth out about a few issues and when stymied by unpleasant restrictions like UNDUE and RS, proceeded to wikilawyer endlessly, causing avocational editors to abandon his preferred stomping grounds over time. I don't think that he should be unbanned. Protonk (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with Protonk. I ran into him once and had pretty much the same experience: a lot of WP:IDHT. From what Rlevse is saying, that personality hasn't changed. I didn't have much experience with him, though, and I can be unpleasant at times as well, so my opinion may not carry much weight. SDY (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose unban. This user has been contentious on more than one wiki. Why should we believe he will change here? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. GdB's entire career at en.wiki was an obnoxious breaching experiment (c.f. User:Guido den Broeder/Wikipedia, the Social Experiment), if he himself is to be believed. Not to mention his repeated legal threats. Skinwalker (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Guido's entire MO was far too contentious for Wikipedia. Additionally, his insistence that anything provocative, pointy, or just plain wrong was due to the experiment he was conducting failed to be convincing, especially after it was repeated several times. Hermione1980 23:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let him go conduct his experiments somewhere else. Like maybe conservapedia. That could prove interesting. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

  Not really. They would just summarily block him and move on with no further discussion. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Here is a quote from Guido's previous ban appeal: I am however not aware of having caused any kind of disruption and have seen no evidence to substantiate such a claim. On the contrary, I believe that I have been extremely patient with users that have incessantly harassed and stalked me and purposely keep adding false information to medical articles to promote their opinion that a whole range of neurological diseases don't really exist or are psychosomatic in nature. If he still believes these claims, as I think he does, he needs to remain banned or the disruption will resume. Looie496 (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support unban: In all honesty, we've given unbans for conditionally releases that were less than what Guido is offering. If unban is not supported at this time, then I would like the community to review within a few months time. seicer | talk | contribs 00:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

  What about his breaching experiment? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I know nothing about this fellow, have never crossed paths with him, but have now looked at the history, the lies, the evasions, the failures to own up, the game playing, the disruption, the apparent deceptive claims in regards to Arbcom's responsiveness to him, and can't see any possible good that could come by unblocking him and a great deal of harm.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned - No evidence of a change of heart. Shot info (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Guido den Broeder claimed to be using Wikipedia to conduct some type of social experiment, this is seriously disruptive behavior and he has yet to acknowledge this issue in any way. --Leivick (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. We're an encyclopedia, not a bunch of lab rats in a cage. Ironholds (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)