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

ChildofMidnight on Barney Frank BLP

Initial ANI post with timeline of edits on article

ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) has shown a disruptive, tenditious POV pattern on Barney Frank article. Frank heads the US Senate Finance Committee and is very prominent in mainstream media. He is also one of the most visible LGBT politicians, possibly in the world. He is also a continual source of derision from right-leaning commentators and our article is regularly vandalized. ChildofMidnight has made a few constructive edits but has been edit-warring to remove positive content overviewing Frank's career from the lede while inserting badly or unsourced negative-ish content. For instance we have that he's a defender of civil rights but ChildofMidnight insists we need to wedge in gay rights as well. The lede is rather short and the only other civil rights anyone wants to mention is also from ChildofMidnight as they want to insert marijuana reform, which does not seem to be a prominent issue. They may be doing other good work but I think their contributions to the Frank article have been a net loss and major time-and-energy-suck for the community.

Timeline of ChildofMidnight's edits over the past 2.5 weeks on the Barney Frank article.

17 March

Here they remove a positive, sourced and attributed statement and replace it with a "criticized by conservatives" one that is sourced to an editorial and a second source which doesn't support the statement at all. I reverted edits pointing out the sourcing problems. They repeated the edit almost exactly (slightly different placing in lede) with the same bad sources. These are again removed with explanation why the positive content is valid and the negative content is poorly sourced.

They insert "Frank supports gay rights and medical marijuana." Even though a statement regarding Frank's civil rights support is already there and little evidence supports adding medical marijuana to the lede, both are covered in the article. It's removed with explanation.

18 March

They remove the positive (attributed and sourced) quotes again stating "per NPOV. We can have balance. but not just one side". I reverted and encouraged them to find reliable sources for any criticism. They then simply move the lede content overviewing the subject's career to the "Early life" section which is illogical at best. I reverted stating rv, please stop edit warring over this. Per wp:lede and WP:Notability we should spell out why this person is notable; no one is stopping you from adding notable criticism if it is sourced well

19 March

User is asked directly on thier talpage why removing sourced content.

They again delete from lede stating - "does not belong in the lead unless balanced". Reverted with explanation - wp:NPOV does not state we have to tack on negative content to BLP ledes if there is positive content.

20 March

Repeats removal and reintroduced badly sourced negative content; it's reverted (again with explantion) and note concerning the sourcing problems.

Again moves the content (overviewing subjects career) to "Early life" section with edit summary "reorganize". This was reverted and they move it again. It's reverted along with clean-up of poor sourcing regarding Frank and the Fanny/Freddie regulating content which seem to be pointing that Frank should be held responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and by extension, the financial ecomonic slowdowns.

21 March

Removes sourced content written by the BLP as not reliable and POV; although one source is the subject's own website and the other http://www.house.gov. Deletes sourced and NPOV content unfavorable to Republicans citing "reliable sources needed". Inserts "Frank opposed increased oversight and reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while in the minority." and "Frank is an advocate for gay right and legalized marijuana." prominently into lede. Reverted with explanation "the press release here is actually reliable as people are considered experts about themselves".

24 March

again deletes positive and sourced content from lede with edit summary "Put in body (as I did in the past) or leave out." Inserts somewhat negative and vague "His role on the Senate banking committee and overseeing the financial sector and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has been scrutinized." It too was reverted.

25 March

Removes the same (sourced) content with edit summary - "not discussed in article so doesn't belong in lead. the Fannie Mae subject matter is discussed extensively and should be noted along with gay rights advocacy." This is untrue. Franks civil rights work is discussed in the article and the Fanny/Freddie material doesn't suggest a big Frank controversy or that the current info about him being in charge of the Senate Finance committee needs to be expanded on in this way. Reverted with explanation "a "defender of civil rights issues" of which LGBT issues are a part; Fannie/Freddie bits are a current event that Frank is being blamed for by some"

Reverts it again stating "irrelevancy" and advocating for Fanny/Freddie content to be added to lede. Reverted as "notable biographical description".

27 March

Nicholas.tan now enters the picture and reverts after siding with ChildofMidnight in the thread on ChildofMidnight's talkpage.[1] Nicholas.tan edit summary is "WIKIPUFF" which per wp:Wikipuff is innacurate as ... the sourced content is true. I revert with "sourced and speaks to this career politicians notability" explanation. ChildofMidnight reverts falsely claiming "not appropriate for lead. not discussed in article".

Nicholas.tan reverts more sourced positive ifo from the lede again citing "puff". They are both reverted with explanation. ChildofMidnight again deletes the same content stating - "against policy. this is promotional POV. totally inappropriate for introduction".

(article fully protected)

After talkpage consensus, content is restored.[2] ChildofMidnight edit wars against several editors here and here and here where he also reinserts "Frank is an advocate for gay rights and the legalization of medical marijuana". It's reverted with explanation these other issues are not considered mjor issues for lede (beyond what we have). So naturally they revert again, which was reverted. They then added "and conservative critics note that he contributed to the housing crisis by opposing Bush administration proposals to increase oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." to the lede with no sources, and against the talkpage consensus that this was appropriate. It's reverted so they again revert and stopped after it was again removed, likely because of a 3rr warning on their talkpage.

They were subsequently warned about personal attacks on three talkpages.

They then started a rather pointy "Notable content replaced with cheerleading" talkthread with the intro - Some of Wikipedia's most notorious POV pushers have been removing Frank's most notable work. It has been refactored after several requests.

They also brought the excitement to My talkpage accusing me of deleting "notable and well sourced content" and insinuating my homophobia, which is pretty far-fetched even with a quick glance at any of my work here.

Based on this I wonder if the article could use a break from this help? They may have issues on other articles but my interaction has been limited, as far as I know, to the Frank one. Would a pageban make sense? -- Banjeboi 01:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would endorse a topic ban for ChildofMidnight on any article to do with politics. He created his account on election day in 2008 and then began a systematic campaign to attack anything vaguely liberal, particularly President Obama and anything associated with him or his administration. Frankly, it is astounding that he has managed to avoid bans and blocks all this time. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The trouble has at times extended to Israel/Palestine articles as well. I have been reluctant to broach the subject here because this has been going on so persistently for so long, but there is a large swath of incivility, accusations, edit wars, administrative notices, and protected pages. BTW, has anybody notified the editor yet? No doubt they will arrive and promptly accuse me, ScJessey, Benjiboi, and others of bad faith, POV pushing, and all the usual. Those accusations have been a big part of the overall problem. Wikidemon (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Other editors

I'm moving this header here because we really do need to separate the original issue from the ensuing mud slinging - Wikidemon (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is usual for you to be accused of bad faith editing and POV pushing, then perhaps it is you and not the "accusation" that is the problem. Rklawton (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty shocking comment from an administrator - all the more so because you just said it on this noticeboard. On what basis do you justify this off-the-cuff comment? Have you studied Wikidemon's edit history and found it to be problematic, or are you just making an unwarranted assumption? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As a clue to the uninitiated, the accounts responsible for the majority of such complaints are now indefinitely blocked and/or banned from Wikipedia, in large part for being sockpuppets of the same editor. No, I am one of the harder working non-administrative article patrollers, as well as a frequent commentator on meta and process issues, not to mention a longstanding, very productive article editor. Wikidemon (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon is rehashing an old issue where I responded to a third opinion request and found Wikidemon blocing compromise over a well sourced content addition for months. He refused mediation (the only editor to do so as I recall). He's a very problematic editor whose edit history shows he only works on political articles and only makes political edits. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. The price of editing here should not be responding to month after month of fabricated nonsense accusations from this editor, so I won't. My editing is simply not the issue here. ChildofMidnight was a terribly disruptive presence at the BLP to which COM is referring, Rashid Khalidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). COM repeatedly made overt accusations of bad faith there too, and by revert warring BLP-violations into the article again and again while alternately ignoring the talk page discussions or hurling insults in them, helped get that article edit protected three times, the most recent one indefinitely. COM also helped get Barack Obama protected during the most recent flare-up, and has lately been coaching and inciting other disruptive users, edit warring in talk pages, on and on. It's quite extensive. I would not have chosen this occasion to finally deal with the editor but now that the subject has come up, we need to put an end to it sooner or later. Wikidemon (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a continuation of the personal attacks and harassment against me. I've tried to be as patient as possible and I welcome anyone who wants to weigh in on the actual content that is at the core of this dispute and have suggested an RfC as a way to get more involveAIDSment.

The content has already been discussed in some detail on the article talk page, and numerous editors have stated the obvious. I know this noticeboard doesn't deal with content disputes, but let's be very clear about the content in dispute and the nature of my "tendentious" editing.

I've tried to add:

• A statement that Barney Frank is an advocate for gay rights to the last paragraph of the introduction. This is, of course, very well sourced and covered substantially in the article. It's unclear what the objection to this NPOV statement is, and I find it disturbing and possibly homophobic.
• A statement that Frank is an advocate for medical marijuana. Also discussed at length in the article with ample sourcing.
• Something about his role as the leading Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee (in the minority and now in the majority) and his role and positions overseeing the banking sector. (I'm refactoring to add this point. I forgot it initially)

They've been adding to the introduction:

• The opinion of Bill Clinton's speechwriter saying how wonderful Frank is. This obviously doesn't belong on the lead and has been noted repeatedly by various editors in discussion on the talk page. If it is included it should be balanced with other notable opinions of Frank's work. And of course this trivial opinion isn't discussed anywhere else in the article.
• A New York Times quote taken out of context saying Frank is a bipartisan bridge builder (seriously!) doesn't belong in the introduction and is misleading. I've provided reliable sources that contradict this statement on the talk page. It's not discussed anywhere else in the article.

I'm happy to compromise and have made that clear all along. I've tried to use the talk page, but discussion gets hijacked with soapboxing and personal attacks from Wikidemon and Scjessey (whose been warned repeatedly by various editors and administrators). The opinions of good faith editors are disregarded and the pattern of reversions against consensus and guidelines and without explanation continues.

I know ANI doesn't deal with content disputes, but that's what this is about. Even the thread title seems inappropriate. Where are the supposed BLP violations?

These are some of the same editors who have been attacking anyone who makes suggestions on the Obama article talk page. Their editing is very limited to certain politicized articles. I welcome any and all help and suggestions for how to proceed to achieve an NPOV article that is consistent with guidelines. I am happy to compromise and happy to consider any and all suggestions. I don't hold grudges and if Wikidemon and Scjessey can cease their personal attacks, soap boxing, and other inappropriate actions I will certainly do my best to work with them. I'm not big on ANI reports and diff digging, but their inappropriate actions are there for all to see. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If he is, as you say, the most prominent LGBT politician in the world would it not make sense to include his efforts on behalf of gay rights? Is it just CoM on the one side and everyone else on another, or would mediation or an RfC perhaps make headway on this situation? Unless there is a history of formal dispute resolution or user conduct issues with CoM that haven't been outlined, it seems like some intermediary step might be useful. Also, sidenote, the Senate has a banking committee and Frank is in the House on the financial services committee. Pedantic, of course, but I just can't help myself! Avruch ^T 02:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

CoM's reasoning above sounds, well, reasonable to me. Rklawton (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As usual, CoM has completely misrepresented the details here. The introduction of the article already notes Barney Frank's work with civil rights (which encompass gay rights, of course), and the introduction already notes Frank "has become one of the most prominent openly gay politicians in the United States." CoM inserted an additional line about gay rights in order to act a substitute for the far more expansive line about Frank's civil rights activity. Upon reversion, he promptly accused editors of being homophobic - a disgusting tactic. I said at the time that I didn't think anyone would fall for this ploy, but it appears as if that may not be the case. Please review his activities carefully and do not take any comments he makes at face value. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first article where I've had to re-add gay and gender related content after it was repeatedly removed. I'm not sure what motivates the removal of this content against guidelines. Anotehr editor made a wikialert report on Scjessey's recent over-the-top personal attack against me and he or she has been warned numerous times about their personal attacks and other inappropriate behavior. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition to Scjessey's edit war warning to ChildofMidnight, I also warned ChildofMidnight about edit warring not knowing he'd already been warned by Scjessey since ChildofMidnight immediately removed the first warning from his talk page. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 02:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Franks career is quite extensive and a well written article may do more than it currently states - in the lede, that is - but no, it is indeed CoM's POV being injected here against concensus. Their edit-warring has been extremely antagonistic and now they claim censorship and persecution which is rubbish. No one counters that well sourced criticism can't be in the lede. It simply needs to be reliably-sourced and demonstratable that it's notable. Injecting vague and disparaging statements badly sourced or tied to opinion peices is against policy. Yet they tried it many times. No one disputes medical marijuana is an issue - among hundreds - that Frank has worked on but it is being used in a disingenuous way that is not supportable that this is a major issue to Frank. In a prior discussion we decided to weight the policy issues of Frank by the volume of content. None of them are featured in the lede. This has been pointed out to CoM many times yet they choose to edit-war again and again. So the two items stated above they wish to add ... are already covered in the lede under the quote regarding Frank being a leader on civil rights. It would be silly for us to spell out a laundry list and no one has done a good overview of his career to see what issues are most important to him. He's been a politician for decades so this is not surprising - it's a lot of work. The two items CoM is again railing against were agreed by concensus to re-add after CoM's ongoing edit-warring. The New York Times is generally considered reliable on these things. I've listed fuller quotes in part to build consensus in the talkthread so others are welcome to look if our collective sourcing of these quotes is indeed accurate to the sources and presented NPOV; despite CoM's claims they aren't. And CoM's compromise tactic's? I think again deletes positive and sourced content from lede with edit summary "Put in body (as I did in the past) or leave out." and the concept that we can't say positive things unless we also say negative ones. I missed the section in BLP where mudslinging a BLP should balance out their accomplishments. -- Banjeboi 02:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, the content here is not the point nor is the dispute significant content-wise. Who cares whether the Barney Frank article mentions his civil rights position in general or detailed terms in the lead, or whether his anti-regulation record is in the lead or just the body? Reasonable editors can work together on over time on this without revert warring calling each other names. The problem is yet another article fully protected due to edit warring (I'll have to look around to see which), and bald accusations by COM across multiple articles and talk pages that others are problem editors, acting in bad faith, homophobic, trolls, POV warriors, and who knows what else? It's gotten so so bad I don't really bother reading what particular insult COM is making at the moment. Wikidemon (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Process suggestion

Can we simply stop answering or responding to COM's mud-slinging at other editors? Every time COM's behavior has been questioned the editor makes up a lot of stuff and accuses everyone in sight of all kinds of nonsense, and it devolves into a horrible mess. I suggest we thread COM's complaints into a special place, and keep the focus on COM. If we need an RfC to do that, fine, but it would be a lot simpler if some admins can simply make the effort to look at COM's behavior over time and decide whether a block, topic ban, or no-nonsense editing oversight would best deal with this. Wikidemon (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is another attempt to hijack the discussion. Wikidemon recently made another report against me (I think it was recently archived) and he was advised that treating editors with respect is important. I would like to return to good faith editing which is what I enjoy rather than these endless dramas. But I do feel it's important that this type of inappropriate behavior stop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon here. Once given a 3rr warning COM switched tactics to, IMHO, talkpage baiting and claiming censorship while accusing teh rest of us as homophobes. -- Banjeboi 02:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• comment : the content issues are not the point, as a variety of editors were not having a problem discussing and reaching consensus, except when ChildOfMidnight was being unCivil, edit-warring, and not waiting for consensus when multiple editors had already politely informed him of those particular places where they felt his bold work was not representative of a neutral construction. The behavior is the point; as far as the content, we were a diverse group of editors with different political, sexual, and economic POV but we were working along rather well until COM was disruptive, which then opened the door to some poor imitative monkey-see monkey-do attempts by other authors to slip a little bit of non-neutral and non-consensus material into the recipe while it was skewed so severely by ChildOfMidnight's actions. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 02:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think any editor reading the lead's second paragraph will have a hard time siding against CoM. That 2nd paragraph is the worst bit of rubbish I've read in a long time. I doubt even Franks would write that sort of crap about himself. We're not here to write glowing articles about politicians. There is ZERO content about Franks being a bridge builder in the article - and yet there it is in the lead like he's some kind of bi-partisan saint - just as CoM indicated above. Rklawton (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec - responding to Teledildonix314) Agreed, so let's not worry so much about the content details. The point is simply that COM has systematically, across many politics-related articles, edit warred against consensus to force a highly partisan conservative POV, sometimes alongside other editors but much of the time as an army of one. The status quo consensus he fights is not obviously wrong and any arguments pro or con are simply content questions. By the same token, the objections to COM's edits were principled, and in many cases spurred by good faith concerns about BLP, POV, WEIGHT, RS, COATRACK, etc. Whether those concerns were ultimately correct or not is also besides the point because we are supposed to operate on consensus, not confrontation. Wikidemon (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And the line about Franks supporting civil rights is supported by a source which ONLY mentions gay rights. Content is the issue because CoM is correct in his assertions and his approach, and the editors opposing him are being quite unreasonable as evidenced by the content. Rklawton (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of this specific content issue. If you feel the article needs improvement, why not go there to participate in a consensus discussion? Article talk pages are not the place to accuse other editors of things like homophobia and bad faith, and AN/I is not the place to decide what an article should say. It will help keep both venues on track if you keep that separation in mind. Wikidemon (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I second that: please join the article talkpage, your improvements are welcome, we were working by consensus, we will certainly continue to do so. We are here at ANI about the disruptive behavior of COM, not about the content which deserves to be discussed at the article talkpage. And if you look at the talkpages of the people COM edit-warred against, you'll find weeks of unCivil confrontational POV with strangely yo-yo-ing tactics, mostly in a badgering pattern. Think for a second, if you will, at the absurdity that COM repeatedly insisted there must be a homophobic agenda at work when COM didn't get their way; does anybody think the eight or ten editors doing most of the work on that page were "homophobic"? Hello, i'm amazed there wasn't an explosion of Flames much sooner, usually in real life we don't find that many happy gay editors holding back their retorts with such patience and civility for so many weeks. "Homophobic"? I almost fell off my dildonix. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 03:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No one is opposed to civil discussion but that has been completely absent from CoM. The methodoly has been edit-warring reverts, and now, accusations galore. And Rklawton, there is content about Frank working with Republicans and building bridges. We don't bludeon anyone with it but neither are we at even a GA article, it's been a slow vandalistic process to improve the article. And that civil rights quote? It's verbatim, - Frank has since proved to be one of the brightest and most energetic defenders of civil rights issues. If the source had stated something else we likely would have worked with it but there it is, civil rights. -- Banjeboi 03:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

See: Barney Frank#Intro Paragraph for what happens on the article talk page. A small pack of editors who work almost exclusively on partisan content engage in personal attacks and soap boxing, thereby hijacking a reasonable discussion of content. You'll see also that the discussion was archived. Wikidemon likes to archive and/ or remove discussion he doesn't like or disagrees with. I think a topic ban from partisan editing would be a good outcome given his behavior. Even in this discussion we see Wikidemon engaging in refactoring and thread titling to obfuscate and prevent a reasonable discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually you have that exactly backwards as you were injecting the partisan content, engaging in personal attacks and soap boxing, thereby hijacking an article. And I archived that discussion as you have been injecting your comments in the middle of previous conversations. This is about your behaviour on that article, and when you didn't get your way with consensus against you, your behaviour towards other editors. -- Banjeboi 03:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As a favorite target of COM and presumably one of the "small pack of editors" he's decided to antagonize I'm not even going to respond to the heaping on of pointless untruths. This would be at least the 50th time that COM has made up something out of thin air to say I did, and I'm not going to waste my time anymore or let COM change the subject with each one.Wikidemon (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

How is providing a link to a discussion hijacked by personal attacks and soapboxing an example of a "pointless untruth"? All you have to do is quick the link and you can see who launches the personal attacks and who hijacks the discussion. Same old story. You've shown the same behavior here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I was referring to your previous comment which is, like the one immediately above, both pointless and false. It would be very nice if you could confine yourself to the truth and not make stuff up. Not being the subject of this incident, I'm not going to bother defending myself for the 50th odd time against nonsense you care to throw my way.Wikidemon (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have fully protected the page for one week and encourage the involved editors to work it out on the talk page. LadyofShalott ^Weave 04:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That's all very good and everything, but it does nothing about the disgraceful behavior of ChildofMidnight documented above. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Diffs please. Here's one of Scjessey's talk page comments [5]. Speaks for itself. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for linking to it. It saves me having to repeat it here. I stand by the comment. At least I didn't accuse you of being a homophobic POV warrior. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The comment by Scjessey to which ChildofMidnight objects is correct in substance if not tone and placement. ChildofMidnight had launched a campaign of harassment against other editors, and out of nowhere came up with a nonsequitur, ad hominem falsehood about what was supposedly going on in an Arbcom case. He was grandstanding about that, egging on a newbie editor who had made a bad edit, and then lashed out at other editors. All on the Obama talk page, which COM knows to be on probation. That's before COM began to actually edit war on that page, reverting at least three other editors to try to delete a long string of comments from the talk page. Here are the diffs from that revert war, which has already been discussed here at AN/I. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. I have no opinion on socking, but the manipulative gaming, fabrications, and toxic attitude are a playbook out of last year's now-blocked sockpuppet accounts. The number of diffs it would take to account for COM's bad behavior would fill an entire Arbcom case. The case, if it is ever presented, would be pretty staggering. I'm hoping we can dispense with this more simply. The editor should have been blocked or banned for any of these incidents - edit warring on the Obama talk page alone could have used administrative intervention. It is very sad, and a complete waste of our time, goodwill, and hard work on the project that we have to deal with this awful vituperative nonsense. I really hope an admin can see fit to deal with this. Dozens, probably hundreds of editor hours now, have now gone down the hole for this one editor's needless trouble. Wikidemon (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

LadyofShalott, I appreciate the full protect, this is the second time in a month the article has needed this and only because of CoM. The rest of the editors have been able to work fine with each other - even when we disagree - and have kept pace with CoM's reverting and POV action. CoM has proven themselves unwilling or unable, despite their claims, of even working towards collaborative editing. When they didn't get their way it jumped into a new gear of accusing others of the same behaviours they have employed. Wikidemon's take on this seems most accurate and based on my limited but unfortunate interactions with CoM - an experienced editor with 16,000+ edits on 5,000+ pages - they seem to be gaming to play us for fools here. Looking through CoM's previous visits to Admin pages shows a very experienced editor so this is smelling more like a sock than I had first thought. I haven't a clue who but experienced ANI editors might be able to sniff them out. I suggest looking into the Barack Obama-related articles although there may be smarter ways of sussing it out. -- Banjeboi 13:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban ChildofMidnight

From their very first edit to their many drive-by comments on admin boards this is a very experienced editor. Whatever their intent, I have little doubt they will find other ways to contribute to Wikipedia and hope those contributions will be collegial and collaborative. Despite red herrings and CENSEI's entanglements it seems apparent that ChildofMidnight is more interested in engaging other editors than in improving the Barney Frank article. Every opportunity to explain policies on reliable sourcing, due weight on BLPs and neutral POV on content has been met with silence and quick reverts from this user until a fullpage protect resulted in a consensus also against their edits. They continued to edit-war despite the concensus and page-protect until served with a 3RR warning. At that point they proceeded to personally attack other editors and post a contentious pointy thread to the article talkpage with more personal attacks and red herrings. When confronted on this ANI board we've had a parade of red herrings including the CENSEI drama and an almost mythical misrepresentation of events by ChildofMidnight as the victim of censorship which is in complete opposition to the diffs and edit summaries laid out above. That one editor can disrupt a single article in less than three weeks leads me to believe they have also participated in dramatic activities on other political articles as suggested by other editors here. The case here, however concerns mainly the Barney Frank article. It is absurd to pretend the editors on the Frank article are in any way trying to surpress any information, in fact, great effort has been taken to present all uncomfomfortable content in a RS and NPOV manner. No credible evidence suggests otherwise. I have little doubt that ChildofMidnight has caused problems on other articles but the evidence here doesn't support a community ban, IMHO, as of yet. Socking concerns are also alarming but also need their own evidence. For now I think a topic ban from Barney Frank, and articles/content regarding Frank be enacted. A sourcing ban - if we have such a thing - prohibiting the use of opinion peices may also make sense. Any thoughts? -- Banjeboi 22:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I would endorse a topic ban, but extended to cover articles related to Barack Obama (broadly construed). At the very least, ChildofMidnight should come under close scrutiny in the Obama-related ArbCom case. Running around calling everyone homophobic should've landed him a block. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm unfamiliar with their contributions to Barack Obama, do we have a record of their efforts there? -- Banjeboi 09:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that CoM deserves a topic ban. I can understand and sympathize with his outburst if he has had to deal with the same sort of stonewalling and bad faith I've had to deal with. Soxwon (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A topic ban may be in order for all politics-related topics. The problem is the editor has somehow managed to avoid being blocked, and hardly even warned by anyone in a capacity to back up those warnings. If not a ban, is any admin willing to step up to the plate to block COM next time they begin lobbing accusations against other editors, or edit warring articles to the point of blocking? And if we're instead going to send the signal that behavior and policy procedures mean nothing what are we responsible editors supposed to do? Edit war and flame in kind? Ignore it and let important articles degrade? Wikidemon (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It was ChildofMidnight who took us to task for defending the Obama article against the WorldNewsDaily siege 30 days ago. [13] That did not leave a positive impression of that user's credibility. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, not finding his/her satisfaction at AN/I COM began edit warring the Obama article page eight hours after starting that thread and was the editor most directly responsible for getting it edit protected.[14] I've seen COM's edit wars result in five or six edit protects, and I'm vaguely aware of a number of other instances. All done with impunity. More than impunity, really, a sense of entitlement. Wikidemon (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't that aware of his work in the Obama article, largely b/c we had Freeps and the like. However, in the Barney Frank article, I have met with a lot of assumptions of bad faith and stonewalling in any attempts to change it. I can understand frustration boiling over in that article. As for Obama, I'm wondering if perhaps the editors in question are blowing his roles out of proportion due to the frustration and annoyance caused by the Freep incident? I remember being accused of being a Freep and/or being an extreme POV pusher for suggesting anything contradictory to what Tarc and the like proposed. While I do not blame them (extraordinary circumstances) I do wonder if the harsh editing environment might have led all to edit in ways they are not accustomed to and if this ill will has carried over. Just a thought. Soxwon (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually you have been met with the same standard for content regarding BLPs. In response you, despite all the previous dialog on the exact same issue, presented opion editorials to introduce negative content to replace the positive content. Stunning. No one is opposed to improving the article with sourced content and that article is a hit list of against Frank already. The only thing we don't talk about is his speech impediment and being obese, I have little doubt as to those being injected as well. It's already been suggested. This is a BLP and these standards apply to all BLPs. The same standard is applied to all editors as well. -- Banjeboi 01:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

NO NO NO, from the first I said to remove the cheerleading. Soxwon (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And then presented opinion peices supporting negative content as the way to go. Neither is supported by policy or consensus. This thread, by the way, is regarding conduct, not content. -- Banjeboi 03:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, those were arguments against inclusion and not seriously meant for inclusion, as for the subject with the assumptions of bad faith and other comments I have received in the past 24 hours, I can understand his reaction of an outburst. Soxwon (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

CoM's tenditiousness, edit-warring and bad-faith accusations against other editors was not an outburst. It has been an ongoing campaign to remove content they think casts the subject of the article positively and replace it with coatrack-ish POV content - marijuana reform, gay rights, controversies, etc. You seem to be doing the same now filling the talkpage with arguments and, IMHO, disingenuous suggestions which parrallel the same problems CoM had. We don't want opinion peices and mud-slinging on BLPs. "Controversies" need to be well-sourced, presented neutrally and with due weight. -- Banjeboi 10:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Despite my far-left credentials and disdain for CoM's political beliefs, I tentatively agree with him on the Barney Frank article that the quotes in the lead are cheerleading, unnecessary, unduly opinionated, and possibly misleading. I think people can fairly disagree as to whether Frank is really a "bridge" between right and left. I disagree with CoM that the propaganda about Frank's influence Fannie/Freddie needs to be emphasized in the lead. His bad-faith, civility problems, and edit-warring are only marginally greater than the average Wikipedian. There has been a refusal to compromise and present a neutral lead from both sides here. II | (t - c) 18:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying it is okay for someone to edit war an article to the point of edit protection so long as you agree with their content position? I hear you but disagree on the civility - COM overtly accused a number of editors of bad faith in so many words, and then started accusing them of homophobia. Wikidemon (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, CoM is an experienced editor with plenty to say on admin boards, they know better than to editor war and disrupt, make bad-faith accusations and misrepresent their actions when called to task. That they completely fail to acknowledge thrie behaviours as disruptive and tenditious and continue to disparage other editors and mythologize their actions also fortells of even more problems to come. -- Banjeboi 01:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• The lead on Barney Frank may need to re-worked, but CoM's behavior, and advocacy, on both it and about Barack Obama is not good. --David Shankbone
• Oppose For reassons stated. Soxwon (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as premature and unfair given that there is no block history or authoritative administrative warning that this behavior could lead to a ban. But can we please do something about this editor? It's gone from merely annoying to intolerable. Disrupting Obama articles on probation, filing false administrative claims, making stuff up to harass people with with. How long do we have to suffer this? I'll file an RfC if I have to, but if a topic ban is too drastic for now it would be a lot simpler if someone can just watch over COM and step in next time he/she crosses the line.Wikidemon (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban WQA or DR are better first stops; this really didn't need to wind up here. Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, take it to DR - while initially strongly supportive to the issues with CoM's obvious POV, the sentiments expressed in this thread by Benjiboi/Wikidemon/Scijessey have become increasingly shrill and demanding and, frankly, indicate quite clearly a much more two-sided POV struggle to me than is being advertised. Two-sided disputes require even-handed intervention, such as you would have found in the dispute resolution process, had you gone there first instead of hopping on AN/I and begging, pleading, and shouting for an admin sympathetic to your POV to simply summarily declare your ideological opponent to be the loser. That's not how we work here. Bullzeye ^contribs 19:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have basis for making that accusation, or are you assuming that because there is a dispute there must be two sides and both sides must be POV? Opposing disruption does not make one POV, nor does asking the body of administrators for help make one "shrill" I happen to share the concern that a topic ban is premature, and on some of these issues I agree with COM's content position. But we have to do something in the meanwhile short of giving COM a free ticket to continue the trouble. Dispute resolution is for content issues and this is not a content issue. The problem is battlefield behavior, incivility, and edit warring that happens to have a consistent POV. Edit warring articles on probation, and directly and repeatedly accusing editors of bad faith, is not something you can resolve as a content dispute. We're supposed to resolve whether I'm a bad faith editor who is "one of the worst", a liability to the project, and whatever other insults we constantly get? Or that Allstarecho is a homophobe? Administrators have the tools to stop disruption; dispute resolution forums do not. That's the very reason we have article probation in the case of Obama articles, and AN/I in the case of flare-ups that should be addressed sooner than later. I'll add that while COM seems to have a special disdain for me personally, and more recently a few other editors, allowing him/her to make it personal in that way just plays into it. COM has probably insulted, offended, and gotten into edit wars with a dozen editors in the last week.Wikidemon (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I guess I must apologize for not writing up a better report, or something. ChildofMidnight turned the Barney Frank article into a battleground and still claims to have no idea why the edit-warring, personal attacks and using op-ed peices as sources for negative content in the lede of a BLP is problematic. Sadly I see this revisionist take on events as part of the problem, ergo they have the last, and seemingly reasonable, word. My note here is a bit of an "I told you so" post as having spent an unfortunate amount of time looking through thier edits on admin boards and elsewhere I am convinced they are simply playing us for fools with red herrings and other diversionary tactics so no real consensus ensues. Sadly, it would be better if I were wrong on this and they turned around to treating articles and editors, the entire project that is, with respect. Unfortunately my time spent on this report looks to be wasted for now but at least will serve as a more accurate picture of their disruptive editing. Hopefully this will balance out the disingenous bewilderment ChildofMidnight presents as to why they are repeatedly reverted and called to task for problematic content and behaviours. That myself and other editor's motives and actions were questioned, and mischaracterized is unsurprising but that this turns out to simply be the latest round of problems on political events articles foretells this will hardly be the last problem. That they potentially do good work elsewhere seems promising but likely they need to be restricted off areas where they are causing disruption. My, somewhat limited, experience is that this level of disruption combined with such pronounced denial and unaccountability is a recipe for future problems. I don't watch ANI per se so feel free to ping me next time CoM is called to task and I can offer whatever insights might shed light. p.s. Also I have just little more than the sniff test here but isn't a user name of Soxwon (socks won) and their appearance here and a near seemless hand-off at the Barney Frank article all just a bit ... dodgy? -- Banjeboi 13:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. [This] (not the location: on SA's user page) seems hard to explain other than with trolling or roleplaying. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The same can be said of this bizarre contribution [15], quite out of the blue, after the brief unblock of Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He had never before that interacted with this user. He just seems disruptive, with more than a small hint of exhibitionism. As Hans says, he is dissimulating and, so it seems, seeking out danger spots on WP in the public gaze. Mathsci (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sake, ban him! Do we have to go through an RfA? We already had one painful with, this would be even worse.

I resent that accusation thank you very much. I'm not aware of where CoM is from, but my name references the Red Sox winning the world series, and I'm from Virginia. I've nothing to hide nor am I anybody's sockpuppet. Soxwon (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, based on your assurance you are not a sockpuppet, I apologize and thank you for setting the record. Hopefully your working in concert with them on both the Frank and the Obama articles will evolve into strictly constructive and policy-compliant content and behaviours. -- Banjeboi 22:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If no ban, then what?

If we're not going fashion an administrative remedy based on this report it would be useful to know what the next step is. Anyone want to propose where to go from here? Wikidemon (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Do nothing?
• Behavioral RfC?
• Warn ChildofMidnight?
• Warn other editors?
• Editor probation for ChildofMidnight?
• Other?

As it seems admins either don't notice that an actual request to deal with CoM's behavior has been made, or are just ignoring it, I think the next step would be WP:RFC. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

If there's issues on anything Obama-related (which seems so) just put it in the arbitration evidence if that hasn't already been done, and that will be dealt with if needed. As for Barney Frank, an RfC may be the best option. Wizardman 22:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

POV

I'm not sure why I keep getting accused of POV editing. If someone wants to explain how it's unreasonable to suggest noting Barney Frank is a prominent advocate for gay rights in his article's introduction, or that he's the leading Democrat on the Financial Services committee, or that Obama is a Democrat (which, if you can believe it, keeps getting removed from the Political positions of Barack Obama article) I'm all ears (and eyes too). And as far as the controversies and criticisms, yes I think that notable ones belong in the encyclopedia with appropriate weight and according to guidelines. Hasn't that been our policy all along? But this stuff isn't even controversial. Does anyone approaching these articles fairly really think that Obama's political party affiliation shouldn't be included in an article about his political positions? I feel like I'm dealing with craziness, and I know if I dare call the actions of Wikidemon et al. for what they are I'm going to get in trouble. But seriously, this is what it's come to??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"If someone wants to explain how it's unreasonable to suggest noting <insert any descriptor that, when shortened and not explained in full, lengthy detail, can be interpreted in many controversial ways, here> in his article's introduction..."

I'm not going to explain it to you, because I think you already know the answer. Would it jog your memory if you thought back to this discussion, where you fought to keep similar descriptions (even though you agreed they were accurate) out of the article lead? Wasn't it you that said,

Let's include the characterization along with others that are notable in appropriate context and with appropriate explanation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Just an observation. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

These relate to content disputes. You know why - repeated explanations on talk pages have not stopped your from ignoring consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The talk pages show that consensus isn't against these reasonable edits, how could it be? You can't even argue the content issue here because your position is so obviously preposterous. The comments here and on the talk pages clearly show that you and Wikidemon are being unreasonable and behaving inappropriately. By all means lets do RfCs, as I've offered repeatedly, if that's really necessary. But this pattern of obstruction has been the case again and again and includes refactoring, soap boxing and personal attacks. So the real question is how to deal with you and Wikidemon when you refuse to act appropriately? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, personally, because I have not acted inappropriately. I agree with you half the time on the content. But the fact that I agree or not, or that you have a POV, is not the issue here. People can have POVs. It's the resulting article that should not. You could mend a lot fences by cutting out the constant accusations of bad faith, edit warring, and declarations of consensus that don't jibe with other editors. An RfC may be a last resort but it would be a lot of time and drama, and we still need to stop the edit warring and all this other stuff while the RfC is in process... plus an administrator to interpret and enforce the results. But if things can be calm for 30 days why not make that permanant? And if the outcome is simply going to be that an administrator says "no more", why do we need an RfC to establish that? It would be vastly simpler if everyone can simply agree to follow the letter and spirit of our various policies, and in the case of the Obama articles, especially so given article probation and the circumstances that make it necessary. Wikidemon (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If you check his edit history, you'll find that Wikidemon has been active in a long string of attempts to ban editors (such as this one). In fact, the cases are remarkably consistent. They involve disputes like (as ChildofMidnight points out here), whether certain facts should be in an article because Wikidemon feels discussing facts conflicts with his idea of what NPOV is. Not only does Wikidemon aggressively push his version of npov (even to the point of removing factual content). He even removes dissenting opinions from view on article talk pages and, as I said, he's got a long history of removing editors (through banning attempts such as this one). Before anyone pursues action regarding this, people really need to examine Wikidemon's edit history pretty closely.-32.166.117.139 (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I must agree with a lot of what User:32.166.117.139 has just asserted, after looking at Wikidemon's history. Wikidemon has attempted to ban editors. (He has not succeeded often enough.) He is remarkably consistent. Wikidemon aggressively pushes for his version of NPOV (which, by the way, is everyone's version, by its very nature). More people should aggressively push for NPOV. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon's version of NPOV involves the persistent, deliberate removal of factual content, the removal from view of dissenting opinions regarding the article's content in the talk page, and an ongoing campaign to ban editors whose views are counter to his own. If this is what NPOV means to you, then we have widely divergent ideas regarding NPOV.-166.197.92.181 (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The above (the IP editor) is almost certainly a block-evading IP sock that has been trolling Illegal immigration to the United States long term. We might have to start doing checkusers soon. For now please ignore.Wikidemon (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, unless the topic refers to an IP address specifically, I consider all IP edits to be suspect. HalfShadow 03:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the overwhelming majority of sock puppets are -named- accounts, I feel the same way about named account.-32.166.47.15 (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(OD)For both (and any future) IP editors, if you have a problem with an editor, don't waste our time here. Open a thread elsewhere on the page and bring the correct DIFFs to back up your accusations. You're not winning anyone over with drive-by allegations. Dayewalker (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

3 IP editors, two of which have almost identical IPs, suddenly decide to make their first ever Wikipedia posts here? Methinks roolz be brokd! -- Scjessey (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA?

Is this - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ChildofMidnight - serious? Things are taking a curious turn here. Wikidemon (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, this should be fun. Bring it on! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, we all need some Schadenfreude now and again. PhGustaf (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion indicates that it is indeed a serious nomination. I'm at a loss to see why he specifically picked this time and nominator, though. Chamal ^talk 09:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As much as I despise the mindless bleating of AGF that goes on around here, we probably should. I think the simplest explanation for the timing is that COM simply doesn't get why people are concerned about his/her editing patterns and is disregarding them--as any of us would do if we were convinced of our rightness. //roux   09:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's all an accident - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 09:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I just saw that, and your response. Two things:

1. Please, please back off from COM. It can only end badly.
2. That sort of canvassing, especially the meatpuppet comment, is deeply concerning. //roux   09:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got already about half a dozen reasons to list in opposing CoM. The list keeps getting longer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Assuming he will see this new sub-thread, I hope he will go on and accept his "nomination" so it can be transcluded and the voting can begin. Or go on and withdraw the "nomination" before it gets ugly. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 09:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

He's already been commenting on his page about the "jokers", i.e. those who would vote against this joke of a nomination. My guess is that come morning he'll see which way the wind is blowing, and if he has a lick o' sense, he'll abort the mission. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I see a poor dead equine and people hitting it. Hint. //roux   09:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You're just being a neigh-sayer. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, this might me a good time to rein in your wit for a while. As Bali suggests below, it's probably best to let the matter pass pleasantly, like a good bowel movement, whilst even a whit of wit might make it pass like a kidney stone. PhGustaf (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole RFA thing is just pointy/a joke. If it does go live, i suggest those who would oppose this candidate would simply type "oppose - not good admin material" and move on. If you don't handle it that way, you'll be feeding the three-ring circus this fellow is currently assembling. Like a lot of POV pushers, he enjoyes feeling "marginalized" and a "pariah," convinces him he's fighting the good fight. Why waste any of our time feeding his ego?Bali ultimate (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hi. Sorry, I wasn't aware of this discussion until just now. I had approached an editor about a possible nom. I was curious what he would say. I know there was a big brouhaha about his consistent opposes at RfAs. As far as the timing, I had not really planned on going ahead immediately, truth be told, and it certainly seemed unlikely that he would say yes.
• I would like to respond to some of the comments here. This discussion is a classic example of trolling. It has absolutely nothing to do with article content. It's a series of snide comments bantering back and forth and it fosters a hostile atmosphere. I am not upset by any of the comments, and some parts are amusing, but there is no question that it is inappropriate and inconsistent with the purpose of this board. Let's be clear, it has also involved some inappropriate canvassing (I will let PhGustaf explain) and personal attacks that if they were going on in reverse would most certainly result in my being blocked. And before anyone rehashes the jokes I posted on an editor friend's page and misrepresents them as being serious, if you care to look through the history, you'll see that we have had a collegial banter back and forth for a long time. If attempting to make someone laugh is a crime I am certainly guilty. I do think Wikipedia should be fun. I also think the snide comments and attacks carried out by the self-righteous editors above put Wikipedia in a very negative light. The civility policies and guidelines are all about treating other editors with respect. So if it's a friend and you want to make a joke that's fine, but to come here and make jokes about banning people and attempting to bait and provoke editors is inappropriate and shows poor judgement. I'm not perfect, and I'm not a saint, but I edit in good faith and I try to treat my fellow editors with respect even when I disagree with them. Sometimes my sense of humor is misunderstood and conveyed poorly in text, and for that I apologize. But I will not apologize for being willing to sometimes take unpopular stands where clear violations of our policies are hurting the encyclopedia and our community. Wikidemon's divisive and disruptive behavior is totally unacceptable. His willingness to behave like an animal in a pack and to muscle other editors with whom he disagree is shameful. I may in fact be banned some day, but I will never attempt to coordinate attacks and to carry out obstructions in such a disgraceful way.
• If he chooses to turn a new page and to edit in a way that abides by our guidelines and treats other editors appropriately I will be happy to let bygones be bygones at any time. We all make mistakes and I hope he will stop to correct his. I don't hold grudges and I believe people can change. I don't spend a lot of time here, so I may not have time to respond to any comments that follow this one. I hope everyone has a great weekend. Thank you. That is all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• What a noxious personal attack. You have not let bygones be bygones. The personal attacks have gone on, mostly in reverse. You have waged an ill-tempered campaign of harassment against me and a few other editors for months, ever since you joined the project, making up one bogus accusation after another. If your RfA is real it is a problem because the prospect of you having the power to actually block the people you have said you want to block in service of your conservative and sometime fringe agenda is spooky. The thought of you backing up with wheel wars and obstruction on this board the insults you regularly hurl at administrators when they handle disruptive editors you have been championing is also alarming. Sometimes it is hard to tell if you are sincere and simply have terrible judgment, or all this is some kind of a ploy. Whatever it is you need to stop. ANI is the most efficient place to address that but if necessary we can do it in Arbcom or via an RfC. Getting the Obama page edit protected, then edit warring its talk page, then getting Barney Frank edit protected, all the while accusing your fellow editors of homophobia and trolling, is not a good move. You have called me an animal, shameful, disgraceful, a harm to the encyclopedia, worthy of a topic ban. Under those circumstances I cannot reasonably deal with you as an editor, but neither can I allow you to mangle Wikipedia's most important articles and forums. Much of the rest of the community is fed up with you as well. I did not choose for you to have a vendetta against me, and I did not choose the timing of this report. But we are here now, and it is time to do something about it. Wikidemon (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As usual, I see you, ChildofMidnight, have resorted to your tried and true method of the "they are picking on me!" defense. You says above, I had approached an editor about a possible nom. I was curious what he would say. I know there was a big brouhaha about his consistent opposes at RfAs. As far as the timing, I had not really planned on going ahead immediately, truth be told, and it certainly seemed unlikely that he would say yes. If it seemed unlikely User:DougsTech would say yes to you asking him to nom you for RfA, why'd you even ask him to do it? I think it's because you're using him as a pawn in another one of your "bait & hook" games on Wikipedia. As I told you at User_talk:ScienceApologist#RfA?, it's hard to walk into doors when you ask others to hold them open for you. But after asking DougsTech to nom you, you then belittle his own RfA battles? Uhg. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't drag in other editors who have nothing to do with this. If and when I decide to run for RfA you are certainly welcome to weigh in with your opinion. If there is no further request here, these abusive threads should be closed. This is a board to report incidents requiring Admin attention, not a playpen to launch malicious attacks. I'm sorry Wikidemon dragged you into his disruptive activities. Have a good weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You are not allowed to come here, post attacking diatribes, and then decide this thread is to be closed. Thanks. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 02:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• If CoM has the time to reply at length here, then he certainly has time to accept the nomination, and I encourage him to do so rather than continue to try the community's patience. Grsz¹¹ 02:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • He's unlikely to actually accept. He's already framing his exit strategy: [16] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for your suggestion Grsz. Are you volunteering to be my scheduler? I wasn't aware that I was under any time constraints. Is that a policy? As to the abusive reports have been responded to repeatedly already with a clear indication that Wikidemon should cease disrupting, I once again suggest these numerous threads be closed. Further attempts at disruption and smearing are highly inappropriate, particularly on noticeboard. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It would certainly be awkward to be running for admin at the same time there's a still-open thread advocating a topic ban. That might cast some doubt on your fitness to be an admin. Of course, personally calling for it to be closed doesn't help your credibility either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• There's a good chance I would support per User:A_Nobody#Favorite_userpages and as I have found him open-minded in AfDs when he initially argued to delete, but the article was improved, and as such was willing to reconsider. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing?

I have noticed that Scjessey has been posting links to CoM's RfA on talk pages of people who have had disputes with CoM with the subject line of "Joke?" This smacks of canvassing to me. Anyone else see it that way? LadyofShalott ^Weave 04:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I was asking people if it was a joke. I was unaware that the possibility had already been discussed because I didn't know about any of the threads discussing it. I found out when Allstarecho responded to my query. If it looks like I was singling out people who have disputes with CoM, that's because everyone I know on Wikipedia has had a dispute with CoM. Calling that canvassing is a mighty stretch. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've become pretty well convinced that it is a joke. He asked for the nomination, he got it, but now he has to "think about it". Maybe he should just take a poll on his talk page, asking whether he should run or not? That might be a time-saver. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As the 3 edits appear to be so close together (14:50, 14:51 and 14:52) but none since 14:52 or after my reply to him (my reply was at 15:48), I think this isn't a case of canvassing. as it appears to me that he didn't know there was already several discussions taking place about the RfA. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 04:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Normally I'd love to call for canvassing on this one. However, given the length of time this RfA has been sitting without going active, and the amount of discussion going on at so many talk pages, it's kind of tough to call out any one editor this time. Probably better to AGF, at least until we see how the actual RfA goes. — Ched :  ?  07:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Three messages does not canvassing make; even less so when the recipients are arguably the 3 editors on all of Wikipedia most likely to already be fully aprised of CoM's endeavors (see all the ongoing discussions involving them). Calling that canvassing is as silly as suggesting the good Lady is trying to chill any unfavorable examination of the afore mentioned RfA applicant, just because she made a few posts[17][18][19]. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've decided to semi-protect this article for 2 weeks. If anyone feels that I'm out of line, please discuss it here and then change it. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, the article is fully protected and was done so on April 6. It appears all you did was add the PP template to the article. Did you mean to change the protection from full to semi? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It's still fully protected, as of 30 seconds ago. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Review of block; invitation to deliberative participants, please

Resolved

Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under 24 hour sanction for violation of WP:NPA. I have opined at Giano's talkpage that he has not violated the policy, and have some support, while the blocking admin remains content in their interpretation, and also has some support. As Giano + sanctions related issues have some history in growing into major drama, can I ask some of our more even tempered and less politicized contributors glance over and give a calm consideration of the case. My hope is that when we do block Giano it has to be seen that the community is largely content that violations have indeed taken place, and a dignified discussion there may achieve that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A claim was made on his talk page that there was an off-wiki aspect to this, but it's not evident to me on first review. Can someone clarify that please? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The off-wiki context was here (scroll down to the replies, or search for "Giano"). Quite frankly, if someone were posting the kind of abuse about me that Neurolysis was posting about Giano on a national newspaper's website, I'd be more than a little snarky as well. – iridescent 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the situation on his talk page, and I'd rather see a wider discussion on this situation. I believe its getting heated, and conversation needs be moved here if we're going to poll for his unblock. Synergy 23:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Preemptive oppose unblock. Giano knows precisely what he is saying and when, and he is under zero misapprehension about what the rules call for here. He knew what he was doing, the block is entirely justified. We have to stop coddling him because he lashes out--he needs to stop lashing out on a depressingly regular basis. If it were once a year? Fine! It's not. //roux   00:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Synergy)I feel the discussion there is more civil than has previously been the case when on the 'Boards - which allow passing comments to be made that doesn't help with considered debate. Hi, Roux! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of the argument on the talk page seems to be about whether terms effective through February are still effective. Avruch says they are not. If there are no specific statements to the effect that the term was prolonged, and it doesn't seem that there were, I have every reason to believe the block is probably perfectly acceptable. I can't see any immediate need to lift the block, particularly when it is as short as it is. John Carter (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

@LessHeard vanU: Civil is subjective, which is why I chose to say plainly, that it was getting heated. Regardless. A poll should be done here, not on a blocked users talk page. My primary reason for posting here. Synergy 00:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

@John Carter: the summary for the block was NPA violation - my and others comments can be found below. Synergy: Well, it has been done. I felt the less visited area of Giano's talkpage was easier to moderate, but transparency is also a creed to me so I am content for it to be here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved from talk page. Seddσn ^talk 00:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• (sigh)Is there a link to the Giano ArbCom where blocks, particularly under civility/attack criteria, are only to be made after consultation... Do I have to don my fucking "Protector of Poor Giano" every fucking time someone blocks Giano without reviewing the history (and if said admin isn't aware, on what basis are they blocking without warning or discussion). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the substance of the block... You are referring to the enforcement motion from the SlimVirgin case, which applied specifically to Giano's civility parole. That parole expired in February, presumably rendering the enforcement restriction moot. Avruch ^T 20:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Do you refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin#Restriction on further enforcement? I was vaguely aware that there was something like that, so I looked it up before issuing this block. The motion prohibits "enforcement action relating to Giano's civility parole". I did not block this user to enforce any civility parole, just to prevent ongoing ordinary policy violations that I came across when viewing an ongoing RfA. Moreover, the parole that must not be enforced according to this motion appears to have expired anyway. But if you feel that the motion must be construed so as to prohibit any block of this user for civility reasons ever (which would surprise me very much, since it would in effect exempt him from the policy), we can make a request for clarification to that effect.  Sandstein  20:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein did provide diffs, so perhaps perusing them before passing judgement might be a good way to go. I think it's fair to say Giano did not take the "high road", and a 24 hour block seems like a pretty appropriate action in this instance. Giano's opinions have certainly been noted, but I think it's reasonable to expect conduct that is slighlty less confrontational. Sorry Giano! I can certainly understand where he's coming from. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Although upon reflection there is a question about whether a warning was given? Rules is rules... ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)*That is the one; fair enough it has expired, so there is no need for it to be examined. As for the purported violations of NPA, I would quote Wikipedia:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack?, bullet point (4) "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki...". Giano has made it quite clear, since it has lead further editors to oppose or strike their supports, that this is in regard to off-Wiki comments made by the candidate in respect of Giano and the Hattersley claims debacle. Unless you are arguing that Giano's perception of events are wrong (which would make your block problematic under COI) I suggest that Giano has provided reason for his claims of the candidate being capable of pronouncing falsehoods; I am uninterested in the veracity of Giano's claims, other than he has provided sufficient evidence to make it fair comment rather than an attack on the individual. Lastly, I have seen worse in the bearpit that is WP:RfA - it isn't right but I have not seen editors blocked without warning before. I feel you should reconsider your action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

To CoM, of course I reviewed the diffs - which is why I am making the point that Giano is referring specifically to events/comments made by the candidate (in an off-Wiki but public page) which he considers varies considerably from the truth to which the comments cited by Sandstein refer. I do not don my mask and cape without making sure that the stitching is still in place... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets take as granted that any one of Giano's comments were correct and not personal attacks. In fact, lets take them all as true and not uncivil, not personal attacks. Does the collective effect of Giano repeating himself stridently and in multiple forums create a significant problem? Perhaps a more useful and functional test: "Did Giano's comment disrupt the normalized editing environment?" I have no answer yet. Also stopping in to confirm that Giano's probation has expired, and thus the related ruling has no effect as well. Its a wash: Giano is, procedurally, like any other long term contributor.--Tznkai (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)My apologies LessH. I misread your "Do I have to don my fucking "Protector of Poor Giano" every fucking time someone blocks Giano without reviewing the history" comment. Clearly you were referring to the Arbcom issue and not the history of today's edits. And I see you had in fact noted that a warning wasn't granted, and that would most certainly have been best protocol. My apologies to you and to Giano for cluttering up his page. I suggest an unblock would be appropriate, as only now with the block has warning been clearly served. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My exasperated comment did, in fact, refer to the deprecated civility parole - so my bad there, and therefore nothing for you to apologise for. However, when I reviewed the basis of the block as logged I found another problematic area. My luck not to appear a complete bozo (the mask and cape helps a lot, too). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Concur with CholdofMidnight; unblock is indicated. Also, I have to wonder, did Neuro lie? Its not a personal attack if its a just charge, as there is no nicer way to phrase it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As I just said on my talk page, in view of the block log of Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I believe he did not need a warning to know that we have a policy prohibiting personal attacks, and that it may be enforced with blocks. A warning would accordingly have been superfluous. I'll be offline for about 24h soon, and assume that any administrator considering an unblock will be so collegial as to seek consensus for it in an open forum such as WP:ANI. I'd like to note that, if the diffs cited above are not incivil and disruptive, I do not know what is, and accordingly would not support an unblock absent a convincing apology.  Sandstein  21:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

On the merits, even if one were to consider "liar" not (as I do) to be a personal attack, "deluded" and "half baked candidact" (sic) certainly are personal attacks.  Sandstein  21:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have invited (dignified) discussion to take place here, where it might not descend into the two usual warring camps, over at ANI. I have made my position clear, so I shall act further only as a moderator to hopefully stop excessive and off-topic postings. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec):::You could have asked him to stop first, before blocking. If what he claims neuro did is the truth I would be upset too, especially if he never apologized until his request for adminship. Giano's comments were certainly uncivil, but blocking was getting pretty carried away IMO. Landon1980 (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

E/cIn an attempt to head any possible drama off at the pass (and in the spirit of the season for certain folks), would you consider an unblock as clemency? That is, Giano requests an unblock, neither denigrating you, nor Neurolysis, nor apologizing either, and that it be granted time served. The implicit understanding of course, is that Giano leave the issue alone, which is biw moot now I believe as Neurolysis has withdrawn.--Tznkai (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Doubly moot as Giano has surely gone to bed. Talk amongst yourselves. Bishonen | talk 22:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC).

• He is not enjoying an evening that may end with a Midnight Mass? I am disappointed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A quick word on the matter: there is no possible situation under which calling another editor a liar is remotely acceptable. Accuracy of statements can be disputed, certainly, but "liar" means someone who makes intentionally false statements or willfully deceives. Given that it posits malice (which is the opposite of assuming good faith), it cannot be anything but a personal attack.

I make no comment on whether a block was an appropriate response, or whether its duration is adequate, but arguing that it was not a violation of NPA is ridiculous on its face. I'll grant that no warning was given, but I am under no delusion that Giano is not aware of the meaning of the terms he uses, or that he has somehow forgotten our policies. — Coren ^(talk) 23:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That is clearly untrue. If an editor has admitted to being a liar, or has been demonstrated to be a liar, then the statement is simply one of fact. Is it your intention to suppress all statements of fact, or just those that you find inconvenient? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I, of course, disagree. A statement made without regard to the facts, and not corrected in the face of such evidence, which impunes the integrity and contributions of another person, may be termed a lie - and the utterer of such statements is thus a liar. I am using the term "mistruths" because it sounds less offensive, but the fact remains that the candidate was caught in a lie, Giano provides the evidence of it, and therefore NPA is satisfied. NPA defends editors against unfounded claims, not protects practitioners of poor behaviour, conduct, morals whatever from being castigated for their actions. Finally, Giano's obvious contempt for abiding by certain policies does not constrict our absolute adherence to the word as well as the spirit in sanctioning violations of them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

But how do we know that Thingy deliberately lied? He might have been mistaken, or just giving his opinion. To WP:AGF or be collegial, we should say he was mistaken, rather than lied. Sticky Parkin 23:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The same AGF that Giano is justified in terming it a lie. I may have given the impression that I am sold on Giano's interpretation - I am answering for him in reply to Corens points (I am sure I am going to be royally thanked and praise by G for doing so...) without taking a view upon it. Neurolysis may have been in error for all sorts of reasons, but in only admitting the error when deeming it expedient for the purposes of applying for adminship but being content to allow the mistaken comments to remain unaltered for that until that time is extremely insulting, I suggest. You might not wish to take such liberties with the many calm editors of this project; doing so with Giano invites responses that we are very familiar with. Again, we appear to be punishing the bear for responding to the poking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear, there was incivility here. Giano went too far and should have received a warning to cease and desist. He's now been blocked. We've had the ensuing drama. I don't think asking Giano to apologize is a good idea in this instance. I suggest he be unblocked in good faith and asked to refrain from engaging further with Neuro. He is of course reminded that no matter the provocation, editors are expected to abide by the civility guidelines.

• Support Unblocking. No need for futher drama. Message has been communicated. Giano knows what is expected of him. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Coren, whilst your statements are correct, we also know that Giano flies off the handle the odd time or two. In statistical terms, we ignore the outlier data and we also correct for systemic bias (read here, poke Giano - Giano snarls - whack Giano - Giano roars - block Giano - hilarity ensues) The present case is an obvious injustice done off-wiki, which should be considered as a provoking factor. It's pretty well-established that if you hit Giano with a stick, he doesn't react well. Neuro hit Giano with an off-wiki stick. Support unblocking. Franamax (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What was done offsite in this? Please provide context... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry GWH for not providing a link, for some reason I thought everyone else clicked the same things I do. :) Anyway, what LHvU says just below. Franamax (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This 09:48 post]. He misrepresented Giano (I suggest - you may disagree) in making points which, later, transpired to be not altogether accurate either. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia is NOT a battleground, remember? Don't hit people with sticks, and if someone hits you with an "off wiki stick", don't bring your anger and aggression on wiki. Flame away, but go elsewhere. Further, wikipedia isn't therapy. If you've got a bad temper and fly off the handle, don't expect us to make allowances for you. Keep you temper off the wiki. But really? This is the same old script, with just a few actors changing. Can't we get a new script? These repeats are boring me. And, for me, boring is worse than incivility. (Oh, and I don't care whether you unblock or not. Frankly it will not make any difference to the boring script.)--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • DocG, you're right - but whoah, statements on the website of a national newspaper? Where is the "go elsewhere"? You really can't get any more uncivil or NPA or whatever you want to term it - calling out another editor in front of the world and basically saying "he's not one of us". Hell no, Giano bloody well is one of us, dysfunctional family that we are. I'd support your imprecation to keep our temper off of the wiki (in fact I do, wholeheartedly) - but what about the sarcasm; talking-down, references to inferior knowledge, experience and/or scholarship; use of wikinyms (TLAs) to cow new editors; or any of the myriad ways that editors are mean to other editors? It certainly is easy to pick out a well-definable instance from a known editor and say "this one thing is wrong". I'm not sure exactly how that solves the overall problem. Franamax (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think I support Giano's underlying point - Neurolysis' behavior on the blog post wasn't remotely good form. I can understand why Giano would still be angry about it a couple of months later.

But I think two months is long enough that the initial poke should have faded, and Giano should have expressed himself in a civil way regarding this. Especially to the RFA supporters he went after [20] [21].

Even if we absolve him of guilt in the direct attacks on Neurolysis, the attacks on others were temper getting the better of him... fahadsadah and FlyingToaster are certainly innocent victims in this.

I propose that for the purposes of this unblock discussion, administrators ignore the attacks on Neurolysis and consider whether the behavior against the other two was sufficient to justify retaining the 24 hr block, or not. Whatever the anger at Neurolysis justifies or doesn't, it clearly should not extend as far as allowing anyone to go off attacking random third parties. If those two attacks are sufficient for a block then he should remain blocked. If not, then not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Question: does the allowance for the statements apply to only those on the RfA? .. or do they also extend to the attacks made on Neuro's talk page? Note: Giano did request that Neuro not post to his talk page, and Neuro did offer an apology. I would think it could be expected that the claims could stop after the apology. — Ched :  ?  00:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there's some disagreement in the discussion over whether the Giano / Neuro back and forth justifies the block. I think it's less ambiguous, considering the unblock now, to consider the other two victims separately from the Neuro stuff.

I have an opinion on the Neuro stuff but I also have a history of controversy with Giano blocks, so I think it's easier to not push my opinion on that out into the debate here and possibly go sideways over that history. The issue with the two innocent bystanders is easier to define and review without having to delve into the things we're likely to not get consensus on. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - Reading over that blog, Neuro's behavior was slightly troubling, but I honestly couldn't agree more with Roux. With how UNBELIEVABLY MONUMENTALLY GINORMOUS Giano's block log is, I think that Giano's lucky that his block isn't a good 5 or 10 times longer than it is. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Coren: "there is no possible situation under which calling another editor a liar is remotely acceptable.". I'm sorry, but if I have diff evidence that an editor has been lying about an issue, I'll call them a liar. To do otherwise would be lying myself. Withdraw that one, please. Black Kite 00:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  You could have evidence that a statement is false; not that the one who made the statement knew it was false when he made it— for all you know, they might have been mistaken, deluded or just confused. Arguably, even an admission of lying is no proof given that the admission itself might be mistaken and such.

  That's entirely besides the point anyways, even if the accusation is absolutely true, it would still be an attack and not acceptable as such. There are many ways of calling attention to a statement that is false that are not attacks; calling someone a liar isn't one of them. — Coren ^(talk) 01:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  I agree with your exceptions, but you're skirting round the issue there really; accusing someone of being a liar when they have clearly and deliberately lied about an issue is not a personal attack. it's merely a factual statement. Black Kite 01:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  Nice of people to tell me about this thread. Is the suggestion that I have blatantly lied, and if so, where? — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 01:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  I wasn't actually making a comment about yourself; I was merely replying to Coren's comment. Apologies for going off-topic. Black Kite 01:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• (e/c) Yes, heh, don't worry too much Neuro. This discussion has gone far beyond what you may or may not have intended to say at the newsblog and is soaring to the meta-sphere of the wiki. :) Do you think Giano should be unblocked? Franamax (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

He may have made the wrong decision in making such comments as he did, but I also made the wrong decision posting those comments on the blog. I see no reason to keep him blocked, no, it takes two to tango. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 01:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm not condoning anyone's actions, and I can even understand Giano being upset, even if I do question the timing of it all. But, I really think that this is over the top. Neuro apologized, and the badgering continues. I understand emotions, but refusing to not only accept an apology, but continually berating another editor simply isn't right either. — Ched :  ?  01:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Giano has a point about both the location and timing of the apology in my opinion. Assuming that neuro never made an apology before the RFA (I never saw a link to an apology aside from the one he made on the RFA, if one exists sorry for not seeing it), and assuming that he never apologized on the forum where the post was originally made, his apology is indeed both rather belated and in the wrong forum. The damage the post made was done there, and if no apology is made there than the damage will continue to be done every time someone reads it. Furthermore, (and I know this isn't even remotely assuming good faith) the fact that he only apologized for something like that when called on it during an RFA would give the appearance that the point of the apology was to mitigate damage to his RFA. If Giano honestly believes those things to be true, his reaction is rather understandable. Even given that though, I'm not sure I would support an unblock because of his treatment of the other participants in the RFA, which I do not believe was justified under any circumstances.--Dycedarg ж 01:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC) (Note that the preceding statements were trying to see this from Giano's points of view. I'm not really sure of what comments Neuro made where aside from the initial posts on the blog and the ones he made on the RFA and I don't know enough about Neuro to be able to judge whether or not he was lying/mistaken/what have you.)--Dycedarg ж 01:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If I apologised, it looked like I was simply trying to sway voters. If I didn't apologise, it would be the incorrect thing to do. What would you have suggested? — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 01:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What I would have suggested? Apologize. It was the only thing you could have done under the circumstances. It just would have been a good idea to have apologized sooner, preferably within a week or so of the incident. Belated apologies coming months after the initial incident just don't have the same impact.--Dycedarg ж 01:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You are right Neuro - a very tricky (read no-win) situation - would have been prudent to apologise at some stage before RfA. However, the nature of the comments was such that you should have made a considerably more concerted effort to really put them in the past and make up for it. The airing of dirty laundry like that is hard to get over. I do feel for you man, but it makes pretty poor reading. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As I have said, I had believed I did, until Giano told me otherwise. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 10:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support unblock of Giano. As someone who's recently went through Wikipedia drama related to off-wiki communication, and after reading what Neuro posted at telegraph.co.uk, I'd say Giano's human reaction is appropriate. Would we even be having this discussion if Giano had called Neuro out at telegraph.co.uk instead of here on-wiki? I doubt it. Nevertheless, it has been done. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support unblock of Giano. I feel his reaction was understandable given what was written in the blog of a national newspaper. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock A 24 hour block on someone with a history of incivility for bringing off-wiki anger on-wiki and lashing out in an RfA seems lenient and just. Serve the block and learn from it. --John (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Giano can't have it both ways, he can either consider neuro "unworthy of my time and attention" and leave it at that, or he can turn up at the time of the comments and call him a "disgrace to the project" and a monumental liar and everything else he wants to, at a time when it was actually relevant. I don't think for one minute he would have accepted any earlier apologies had they come, but turning up 60 days later to grandstand over the guy's RfA that he didn't even put himself up for, crowing that it's too late/the wrong venue for sincere or even insincere apologies, is just a bit lame really, and should not detract in any way from the fact the language used by Giano in the prolonged exchanges constitues a nailed on npa block, from someone who should know better. MickMacNee (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock, The reasons for blocking are consistent with the evidence and the relevant policies. Come on community, how many times are we going to do this? Chillum 04:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support unblock of Giano per Casliber. - Josette (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Casliber's rationale might be true, except, I don't think that it can be considered so mitigating when commentary that can legitimately be perceived as personal attacks, extended to users other than just Neuro - see here. The meaning of 'deluded' can vary in harshness depending on how it was perceived, but I know my own interpretation would not be on the softer side. I don't see how I could've support an unblock in light of this; FlyingToaster's concern should have been handled with more care. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• in the meantime I have a block log (thoughtfully linked to from a newspaper website by Neurolysis) claiming I have personally attacked and harassed someone, with no mention as to exactly what happened or who that "someone" was or what terrible form this personal attack or harassment took, for all the readers of that newspaper know, I may be in the habit of mugging and attacking old ladies for their pension, but of course that would not be a wiki-crime. Not one Admin has the bolox, gumption or integrity to sort that misunderstanding on the block log out, and yes, I have emailed some Arbs about it, and to date nothing! So much for Wikipedia and its sense of honour and justice - quite frankly , it stinks. Those who supported such a state of affairs are, in my view, a bunch if shits, or in Wikipedia language, if you prefer "a collection of editors who seem intentionally unable to see the reality of a situation, brought about my me being hostilely referred to on the website of national newspaper by a Wikipedia editor who was confused as to the truth and failed to do his research." Giano (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

PS:I don't mug old ladies, as much as some of you would like to beleive I do! Giano (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This matter is now resolved to my complete satisfaction, the block log is suitably ammended to reflect the situation. Those who supported this wrongful block remain "persona non grata" on my talk page, that situation will not be changing. Giano (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"X-Y" relations stubs

Hilary T (talk · contribs) has created 16 stubs of the type Greece-Nepal relations [22] since April 1, when the account went live. These stubs are controversial; many editors (like me) consider them in most cases content forks from, say Foreign relations of Nepal. The editor has been made aware of this, yet continues to create such stubs (it appears at an accelerating rate -- Mongolia-Vietnam relations Australia–Vietnam relations and Egypt-India relations all created today, while the editor also removed a prod from France–Nauru relations). The intervention i'm seeking is an admonishment to stop creating such stubs, until we got some kind of RFC/consensus building mechanism in place to determine the conditions under which bilateral relationships are considered encyclopedically notable and useful (i must admit some editors think all of this stuff is worth having, it is a matter of dispute). But for now the serial stub creation (most without inline citations or reliable sources) is becoming disruptive. Here's a discussion of this sort of issue from earlier this year involving Groubani (talk · contribs) which seemed to yield a very clear consensus that such serial stub creation was disruptive and should stop [23].Bali ultimate (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am creating stubs on notable topics. They all have reliable sources, and the new ones even have inline citations. They also seem to have a reasonable survival rate at AFD. I'm fully aware that people like Bali ultimate don't like them, too bad. Hilary T (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

And can someone please tell Bali ultimate that my articles do have sources, since he won't listen to me. Hilary T (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: ignoring the prior precedent, Hilary T, keep on creating them if you wish and people like Bali will keep on listing them for deletion. The smarter strategy for both of you (especially Hilary) is to wait on a few of the AFD nominations and see what sort of precedent we have (not all get deleted but clearly most aren't staying). I don't care either way but Hilary T is the one who is going to be wasting the most time at this. Spend more than a few minutes at each one and you may have a few saved. I say take the same attitude here we do with our most famous serial stub creator. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The only constructive solution here is for Bali (being the only one really concerned as I see it) to draft up WP:Notability (bi-lateral relations), defining what a bi-lateral article should contain to satisfy WP:NOTE, and then take it into the field and start quoting it at Afd, to force people to read it, and edit it if they disagree with it, or say in afd why they disagree with it. It's obvious this editor is not going to give up while consensus is in limbo, and he's not going to get banned simply because it is in limbo (although obviously, there is a line between working in a vacuum of consensus, and editting tendentiously). A good start to get underway would be to simply start the page, cut and paste all prior discussions onto the proposal's talk page, and then start to distill the arguments into proposal content for the main page. What I do know is arguing the toss every time at Afd or at AN/I is a pure waste of time. At the very least, a proposed guideline that becomes a train wreck is still a usefull archive record. At the very least Bali, it will save you repeating yourself at Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ricky gives sage advice. Just keep creating and nominate as necessary. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Mick, I don't think anyone is going to create a specific notability argument for bi-lateral relations, as it's just too specific. Let a few of the AFDs settle into place, and consensus will form (wasn't that how fiction, porn bios and other specific ones came about?). If anyone is really interested, I'd suggest a couple of user-space tables of all the various incarnation of bi-lateral relations, so that both sides can see what's red and what's done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The advice above to continue this conflict does not make much sense to me if meant seriously. Hilary, though deletion processes can be unpredictable, there is no chance whatever that these articles will stand unless there is more material than just their mutual ambassadors--even when they have ambassadors, which is not the case for all of them. If you want to establish an actual precedent for articles like this, then work on strong ones and strong ones only. Once you have established these, then try some somewhat lesser ones and see the reaction. When creating, it pays to start at the top (and when deleting, at the bottom, which by and large Bali is in fact doing, appropriately. I saw a number of prods, & as I don't think the articles have a chance, I'm not going to deprod them.) DGG (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't do "mutual ambassadors" articles, that was someone else. Hilary T (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You have been doing ones with similarly sparse material, such as a single visit of foreign ministers and nothing else--and where there are not even mutual embassies. DGG (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what is more important that the presence or absence of embassies, especially when one of the countries is extremely poor, is the question of whether or not their relationship "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I think you are confirming my suspicion that these articles are being deleted just because they short, and/or to punish that guy (and now me) for creating them. But because there is no policy that says you can delete articles for being short or in order to punish someone, I see all kinds of ridiculous distortions of your actual policies, like "sourced to newspaper articles = fails WP:News". Hilary T (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that regardless of how you view notability, DGG's views (and the views of others) are more in line with general consensus and as such will probably survive over time? Unless your plan is to just create articles and argue the same points in AFD after AFD until you find yourself blocked or topic banned, I'd say try another tact. Some articles are surviving, others aren't. Again, try to figure out what is acceptable and work on those, leaving the more fringe ones for later. You should add in reference tags, and other minor details but generally I have no problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

If the general consensus is completely different from your written policies perhaps you should think about updating them. Hilary T (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

(od) Wikipedia:Starting an article specifies that articles should only be created if the notability of the topic can be verified through reliable sources. User:Hilary T is participating in the current AfD discussions of obscure bilateral relations stubs and is aware that the notability of these relationships needs to be demonstrated. As such, it seems to be disruptive for her to create further stubs with no real attempt to demonstrate WP:N is met at the time of their creation, even allowing for her newness. The most charitable interpretation of this behavior is that she's relying on other people to bring her articles up to the required minimum standard, which is fairly unhelpful behavior. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. It's clear that some of his article are worth keeping (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazil–Vietnam relations is going his way), so I'm not sure a blanket ban on creation is appropriate nor really is warning. He has a reasonable interpretation of notability that possibly could survive here and in my opinion, I don't see it as vandalism or even WP:POINTy-ness. I'm not saying he's new or not. I'm saying I think it's reasonable interpretation. Again, if we allow a certain user to create dozens of unsourced articles like Carl Eugen Keel and Albert von Keller, what's wrong with relations between nations? Both of which are on a case-by-case basis debatable. Look, if he was just creating completely moronic things like relationships between micronations or dead civilizations with literally nothing there, I'd have a different tune, but some of these are actually useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. While a lot of these articles simply have no way to expand, a blanket ban would harm some notable subjects. However, it would be better for everyone to devise a notability guideline, since WP:N tends to be too generic to allow for easy immediate evaluation of the new article. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This comment from Hilary T is rather unsettling: "I'm going create as many articles he [BlueRaven] doesn't like as possible for as long as possible". Promising to go on a spree of creating non-notable articles just to spite another editor is not very constructive. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

They aren't non-notable. Hilary T (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point. Creating articles simply out of spite is highly inappropriate and you'll see a complete block for that, not just a topic ban. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not prepared to just accept these edit summaries so you can go ahead and block me now. Hilary T (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Even more unsettling stuff from Hilary T: here, she turns her user page into an attack page, declaring herself "motivated by hate", while here she says, "I just want revenge now". Do we really want someone with those motivations going on an editing spree? - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not thinking "spree", I'm thinking long-term here. Hilary T (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, my input was requested. Anyway, here are my thoughts: The two diffs cited by Birutorul that mention the other editor are a bit unsettling as userspace should not be used to critique other editors. Concerning the main topic, I don't think creating the articles on relations is really a problem so long as they can cited through reliable sources. We are after all an encyclopedia/almanac and foreign relations are unquestionably an encyclopedic/almanacic topic and something people have an obvious and valid interest in. I can easily see someone thinking, "You know, I wonder if France ever had any significant foreign relations with (insert random country)" and coming here to find out. Many of these AfDs seem premature, i.e. not adequately taking into account WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE and that may be a bigger concern. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying no such articles should be created, and in any case that doesn't require intervention on this board. What is troubling is that the user is promising to create articles just out of hatred for another user. That seems a little dangerous. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit of a paradox, then, because I agree that if the motivation is to annoy aother user, then it is misplaced motivation, but if the articles themselves are worthwhile, then what? If someone started an article on (pick random president), because he hates that person and wants to annoy people, well, we wouldn't keep the article redlinked, because American presidents are encyclopedic topics, so it's a riddle here. The reason for creating the aricles is questionable, yet the articles themselves seem worthwhile. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point, although the close proximity of these users (as opposed to, say, a user and a President) makes the bad blood between them more likely to have a corrosive effect. Regardless, it's a situation to be watched. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

In my view, regardless of the quality of a user's content, that sort of incivility should not be tolerated, and as such, I am removing it from his user page as an G10 attack page and am warning Hilary. I could care less about the dispute but this sort of conduct will not be tolerated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

How come you tolerate edit summaries like "burn with fire" anyhow? Hilary T (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Because burn with fire is a view about an article, not a specific editor. Also, he isn't the first to use language like and honestly most people don't care. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Similar behavior

Didn't we have someone creating similar "X-Y Relations" articles last year? Anyone recall what the result of that drama was? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Groubani was banned and his sockpuppet User:Plumoyr has been inactive since February. He was annoying, but at least he didn't make threats of the sort Hilary T made just above (he didn't know English). - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make any threats, I just explained what I am doing and why. Hilary T (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

My response to the announcement of a plan of revenge was: "If you act on that basis, you will soon be blocked from contributing, and very rightly so. You may accept that, but it will also harm the possibility of anyone working on these articles, because such actions will taint them". I regard he attempts to introduce the articles in exactly the same way as I do the campaign to delete a large number of articles of the same time, some but not all of which ought to be deleted. We will lose some good articles, which is not unusual at Wikipedia, and also tie up Wikipedia process in our trying to sort it out with as little damage as possible. The temptation is of course for us to respond by deleting all the articles, just as we delete everything submitted by a banned user. If there is any way to turn her into a responsible contributor, I do not know, but certainly I would not proceed in the absence of further disruption. If there is, I suggest another checkuser. The first was declined Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Plumoyr/Archive

as for the content issue, I suggest my usual remedy--combination articles until expanded. DGG (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually the first IP check was Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WilyD/Archive. If you don't want to create disgruntled users, you could try not insulting them by calling them "meat puppet", not lying about their contributions to "help get them deleted", not ignoring everying they say in 9 different debates and lacking the decency to admit it, and not deleting good faith contributions with edit summaries like "kill it, burn it, then kill it again". Most sensible people would have left after first one, I'm just too ornery to be driven away. Hilary T (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You should take a look at the "combination articles" which exist at the moment. What does Foreign relations of Pakistan say about Pakistan's relationship with Japan? What does Foreign relations of Japan say about the same thing? Hilary T (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, generally, I would say we should be looking for there to be enough information until it's necessary to split it and create a separate article. That's the way I think about articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Editors who believe that bilateral relations are inherently nonnotable are going to use whatever tricks they can to get you banned Hilary. Certainly you've already seen specious sockpuppetting allegations, misrepresentation of the facts in your case, et cetera. Similar silliness has been flung at me. Here, you have to just take the high road. Create your articles, source them impeccably so no one can plauisbly argue they fail WP:N, make the cases at AFD when they're nominated regardless, and be nice. If you don't misbehave, there's nothing that'll get done to you, so be good. Don't worry that some editors want you banned, and don't give them fodder they need to see you banned. WilyD 00:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Romila Thapar: False Allegations of Sock Puppet: Please Investigate.

Resolved

 – Already posted at WP:AN

Wknight94 and Beechmont (New Rochelle) area article

User:Wknight94 just deleted a New Rochelle area article, Beechmont (New Rochelle) which was under active discussion at my talk page User talk:Doncram#This New Rochelle business. Wknight94 just recently commented further down in the same discussion. In context, it seems that the deletion is done in anger.

I had put a proposal to merge and redirect the article on Talk:Beechmont (New Rochelle), and have previously merged and redirected many other NR area neighborhood articles. Wknight94 previously asked here for another admin to delete one or more of those under merger proposal, and administrator Tiptoety judged it was not necessary to delete them. The problem, if any, with the article was under control and would get resolved. An AfD, or discussion at the Talk page, would have been more appropriate in my view.

The arguments for or against AfDing New Rochelle area articles are also somewhat under discussion within ongoing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Orlady‎, where links to 2 previous wp:an discussions and a request for arbitration regarding New Rochelle area articles, one or more persons involved in a sockpuppet case, and enforcement by Orlady and Wknight94 can be found. In the arbitration request (declined), it was offered by one arbcom member that perhaps a change of enforcement type personnel might be appropriate.

Could the Beechmont article and its Talk page be restored with their entire edit histories? It undermines ongoing discussion. Also, could Wknight94 be advised not to delete others in this way? Also, could it be determined whether he has deleted others? doncram (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Notified User:Wknight94 about this discussion. Exxolon (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me, Exxolon... There were at least six socks (some or all of which were checkuser-confirmed) of banned User:Jvolkblum creating and edit warring on this article and fighting for it not to be merged. WP:BAN says I can delete such pages sight unseen. To make things worse, as shown numerous times, Jvolkblum is a serial copyright violator and has been caught plagiarizing and adding misinformation on numerous occasions. See this investigation by User:Choess catching Jvolkblum red handed. BTW, before the latest checkuser-blocked IP's edits, the article was all of 796 bytes long, and User:Doncram was advocating that it be merged into another list article. So he doesn't even want the article to exist! Much ado about nothing. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Doncram -- your forum shopping is becoming unseemly. You should really desist. Wasn't your last intervention here to urge the unbanning of an editor with over 200 CU confirmed socks? At some point community patience with your crusade against editors who disagree with you (you think vandals are to be coddled and supported; others think they are to be blocked and ignored) will wear thin. Free advice.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

See also short followup at my Talk page User talk:Doncram#Beechmont (New Rochelle) deletion. Wknight94 suggests that i would be able to perform the merge, but actually i don't have access to the article, because it was deleted. The discussion should continue here. doncram (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I reviewed Doncram's contrib history, and note that they are an active participant in many area's - so I thought I would request comment upon my belief that an indefinite block upon the account, until they re-align their enthusiasm for taking up the causes of banned editors without consideration of the consequences, for disruption to the encyclopedia should be executed. I am serious; vandals, pov warriors, and the like are reasonably easy to detect and remove, but an otherwise valuable editor who decides to proxy for those who the community have decided have no place here is quite difficult. I understand that in many cases the argument for the particular edit is reasonable - which is of course exactly how the banned editor seeks to prove their sanction is unjust - but it is still against established policy to allow it. Any sanction upon Doncram will be lifted as soon as they acknowledge that the policies in place regarding edits by banned persons are to be upheld. Comments please. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• (Not an admin myself) I am sad that such an option even has to be considered, and I am not yet convinced that it is necessary. But it seems that Doncram is getting deeper and deeper into a conspiracy theory. There have been several attempts (by Coren, Elkman, Choess and Wknight94 on User talk:Doncram) to talk Doncram out of this, but so far all in vain. They are either ignored, or the people giving the advice are made part of the conspiracy of unjust admins and their supporters. (To be clear: Of course there are some pretty unjust admins with uncritical fans around, but not where Doncram is looking for them.) Perhaps our good faith specialist GTBacchus can help, if he has the time. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Links to the previous discussions:

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive188#Long-running problem with respect to New Rochelle area articles

Note also Wknight94's warning to Doncram in the second AN thread ("Rehashing the same argument over and over is disruptive. Disruption is grounds for a block. I recommend blocks be handed out if it continues and nothing new is added."), which I am afraid Doncram may not have taken seriously. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support (non-admin) LvU's excellent and well thought out proposal. Doncram would be better off (less mean things said about him) Wikipedia would be better off (less support of a vandal + the excellent contributions Doncram often provides) and business could resume as normal. Only loser is Jvwhateverhisnameis -- who's 200+ Cu confirmed socks guarantee he will never be trusted -- on any edit -- again.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose blocking at this time on grounds of inadequate warning. I would support a formal admonition that continuing to advocate for banned editors will be viewed as disruption justifying an indef block. Looie496 (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose at present. I've been discussing this with doncram on his talk page, and have hopes of moving towards a productive resolution. I think part of the problem is simply that we need more eyeballs here. Right now, the burden of identifying copyvio/dubious information being added to New Rochelle articles seems to be falling mostly on Orlady and Wknight94, and it's a heavy burden. I've spent the past ten minutes or so examining reliable sources, writing a capsule history of Beechmont at List of New Rochelle neighborhoods, and then re-creating Beechmont (New Rochelle) as a redirect to the former. More useful to the encyclopedia than speedy-deleting? Yes. OTOH, given the length of time this disruption has been going on, I think Wknight94 was within his rights to speedy delete as created by a banned user, rather than expend time to check and rewrite it, and then to fight off the inevitable unsourced/unreliable additions, and so on. Under those circumstances, it's more or less inevitable that the few people dealing with it will have very little interest in doing lots of verification, sourcing, and rewriting. I'm going to try to involve myself, and I hope a few others will too—the more people who are willing to do this kind of work, the less brusque enforcement is going to be. Choess (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose at present. I'm not familiar with this general issue, but if Doncram (talk · contribs) is making content edits as a proxy of a banned user, a block is warranted. Of that, I see no evidence here, though; instead, it seems he is simply (and probably misguidedly) advocating on the general behalf of the banned user. I'm not convinced by what I see here that this advocacy rises to the level of blockable disruption, though I am open to be convinced otherwise. As to the original request, it is of course far-fetched and not actionable; contested deletions belong at WP:DRV and this one seems to be clearly proper as it concerns an article made by a banned user.  Sandstein  05:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to withdraw this wp:ani request. I thought it was appropriate to open a wp:ani on the narrow question of whether an administrator, Wknight94, was engaging in some unhelpful activity out of anger or otherwise. I sense from the LessHeard vanU and Bali ultimate's remarks that it is not possible to have that narrow discussion, and I am not ready or wanting to have a larger discussion about what might resolve the New Rochelle area mess more broadly. Indeed i have received feedback at my talk page and want to further follow up with Choess in particular (and others) before I would seek broad community attention for any new proposal. I'll take this chilly reception as some kind of feedback, too.

For the record, on the portion of the New Rochelle area which is about neighborhood articles, I believe my approach has been working. I've pursued a strategy of merger proposals and redirects to one central list article about all the neighborhoods, where discussion about sources etc. could be handled centrally. Some time ago I tagged a bunch of neighborhood articles for merger with discussion to happen at Talk:List of New Rochelle neighborhoods, and gradually with no contention i merged them all. Apparently there were 21, because there are 21 inbound redirects. There seems to be tacit acceptance by Orlady and NR area editors of my management of those articles as I have been doing. I am not aware of any discussion about my proposal to merge this new-to-me Beechmont neighborhood article. Wknight94 refers to discussion of the proposal there being contentious. In this new case I had not yet placed a merger proposal tag for discussion to happen at the central list-article, and it seems i missed any discussion that happened at the Beechmont article. I am at a disadvantage here because i do not have access to the article.

I do not have a big conspiracy theory going. I think person or persons associated within the big mess have behaved badly and have been treated badly; I think enforcers, mainly Orlady, have behaved badly in some ways; I think there needs to be some process followed to wind down this big case which has indeed been disruptive. But i am not wanting to insist on consideration of those broader views of mine here now. If anyone wants to give me other feedback by email or to my Talk page i will listen. I don't think that blocking me would help or should be a part of any solution. doncram (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, blocking you would stop the constant forum-shopping and put your crusade--for which you've received no support--to final rest, so yes, it would be helpful. Not that I'm suggesting or endorsing that particular course of action--yet--but indeed it would be a solution, albeit a drastic one. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC).

It is not an attempt to chill the discussion about Wknight94's actions - they were explained quite promptly by him noting that he was reverting a banned users edits, which is advocated within relevant policy. That part is over. Discuss your preferred edits in the effected areas all you wish, but you will need to find your own sources and develop your own arguments - taking the cue from a banned user is still proxying, which is violation of policy and may lead to sanctions; it is also disruptive, because any consensus and actions arising will have to undone and started again meaning more time being spent addressing the issues. Lastly, the consensus is that certain former editors are banned; you may not have to agree with the consensus but unless it is changed you do have to follow it - the alternative is to block you, or ban you from these areas. Nothing personal, it is simply ensuring policy is properly applied. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as I have not made it clear above, I no longer propose the immediate blocking of doncram - there is no consensus apparent, and other editors have taken the time to engage with doncram in further efforts to dissuade him from his recent position in these matters. I am content that doncram realises that further incidents will result in a block, likely indefinite, and that other parties may (request) blocking should they re-occur. I think I am finished here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Doncram, maybe some of the energy you're expending on behalf of Jvolkblum would be better spent on improving your own articles. One of your articles, Art Troutner Houses Historic District, is an embarrassment to the project: "The houses are, indisputably, houses. At least one looks like an A-frame. At least one has a carport." And even if you don't get blocked, I could stop you dead in your tracks by taking down the NRHP infobox generator. Cease and desist, now. I'm losing patience. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I won't pretend that I'm fully aware of the circumstances (I casually skim through ANI sometimes), but Elkman, why would you take down a tool that many people use in order to "punish" one person? I've used your NRHP infoxbox generator several times, and appreciate the work you put into making it, but you'd be doing a disservice to many people if you took it down because you're upset with one user. Killiondude (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not punishment, it's preventative, to forestall further creation of crap articles. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, that is still punishing many users for the actions of one user. Killiondude (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem: you're having some difficulty with the meaning of the word 'punish'. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me my problem. It was very thoughtful and insightful. Regardless of the term you'd like to use, a tool that many people use would be taken away because of one person. Killiondude (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

previously blocked IP for unnecessarily archiving discussions is back trying to archive the same discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.11.100.50 was previously blocked for a week for disruption via repeatedly trying to archive this same talk page and they've started again. first they started slowly, now they're back to edit warring at full pace to archive the discussion. they've been warned repeatedly. [[24]] [[25]] [[26]][[27]]. Here is their response to their final warning: [[28]]. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, regardless of their conduct, why the warring by others to keep the old discussions on the talk page? I'll shoot a request at the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll ask for some outside review because I can't figure out why User:Theserialcomma is now reverting my archiving. And because someone else wants it archived seems like nothing more than a WP:POINT argument to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Rschen7754

Resolved

 – There is no consensus for administrator action against Rschen7754. I-15 (talk · contribs), you should heed the advice of many and perform edits in compliance with policy, guidelines and general common sense. Continued disruptive editing can lead to a block. seicer | talk | contribs 04:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

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

---

Can someone deal with this issue here? This has become extremely frustrating for me to let this administrator to try to cause me more problems than good. --I-210 (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Try making good edits rather than bad ones like [29] and [30] and you might have better luck. --NE2 20:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

How is that an issue? It's a legitimate warning. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It seem obvious to me. --I-210 (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not obvious to the rest of us, and you're trying to convince us, not the other way around. —kurykh 20:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

My viewpoint on the matter is that we've given this editor way too many chances. We need to consider banning / blocking this user in order to protect the encyclopedia and not have to repeatedly clean up after this user. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This question you answered here Rschen7754, is irrelevant and hearsay. How do you know about this We need to consider banning / blocking this user in order to protect the encyclopedia and not have to repeatedly clean up after this user. Mgillfr and i are not going to buy that question anyway. --I-210 (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia, Mgillfr, i have real life consequences here, Wikipedia is not a video game and we don't intend to play policy games to make a point. --I-210 (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Also i didn't even use the twinkle at that time and i was a good vandalism reverter and deleter by using twinkle. --I-210 (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

If Friendly was a twinkle then i would have not commented, even it is not a twinkle then i would have commented to try to stay active for me from this outrageous block as long as possible. --I-210 (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't even know what the above statement means, but if you are blocked and you come back and edit as another user or as anon/IP while your main account is blocked, that's block-evasion and is a serious problem that as you have seen leads to rapidly-escalating consequences. If you have a problem with a block, you need to resolve it, not dig a deep hole for yourself. Secondly, once you come for mediation/dispute-resolution, you need to accept that everyone will look at all facets of the dispute, including your own behavior and actions, not just the narrow problem you mention at first. I've seen you have a long history of tenacious editing and repeated and long blocks for IP-based block-evasion. DMacks (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

DMacks, no one will ever respond to this question by answering it like that. --I-210 (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's not a valid one. —kurykh 21:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys, i'm not going this question here again since this situation is starting to get much worse than better since Wikipedia is failing. --I-210 (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming here because I-210 (talk · contribs) left this message [31] on my talk page. I don't really want to deal with the drama, since I really don't care about it anyway. But I do want to say that most of I-210's edits are basically "fixing" stuff, including fixing redirects. I'm not defending I-210's position here, but it seems to me that I-210 makes changes to articles similar to what I would do if I had the time or patience. However, there are times when I-210 edits by putting tags up other people's userspace, including mine. That can be very annoying. Basically, the moral is that I-210 makes legitimate edits, with a blend of bad faith. Again, I only posted this up because I-210 has been trying to get me involved in his situations, which I really don't want to. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 21:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think its best we end this now, because its getting its getting way out of hand. Rschen did nothing wrong in this case, and as much I have been mad at him the last few days, I can say I am still willing to back him up. I-210 is not a great editor, causing more problems than we need for a project. Can we put a (discussion header Top & Bottom) on this. There really isn't going to be a solveable ending.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 21:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"I feel like I'm babysitting children on Wikipedia. This is awful." [32]

Just in case you didn't know yet Rschen7754, it's your own choice whether you want to revert after people on Wikipedia or not. If you don't like babysitting, you can just stop reverting our edits. -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you tell the people who revert vandalism that. That would be great. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, User:I-210 has been renamed to User:I-15. DMacks (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Planecrash111

Resolved

 – Continuing to edit war, and attempting to hide the fact by use of misleading edit summary? Blocked indefinitely. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Would an admin mind stepping in to have a few words with Planecrash111 (talk · contribs)? The user's had a brief career here punctuated by a block [33] for copyright violations and confirmed socking through it. Since his return, PC111 has gone back to updating baseball articles and adding game-by-game summaries and stats, sometimes while the game is still ongoing [34].

I've tried to explain to him politely on his talk page that wikipedia isn't for running play-by-play or posting in-game stats. He responded by telling me to [35] "just fix it," and continuing to update career totals for players[36] while the game was still ongoing. On at least one occasion, his totals were wrong [37].

I explained the best way to update stats was to wait until after the game, then use reliable sources to update the totals. There's no need to do the math in-game, especially when you've been shown to be wrong before. However, he blanks the discussions [38] and continues to post stats from games he's watching. As I write this, he's also inserting large game summaries again [39] even after a discussion about that very topic [40] on the WP:BASEBALL page.

He seems like (and I've mentioned this to him) he could be a productive baseball editor, but multiple editors have tried to talk to him and he seems to ignore every piece of advice and request for discussion. Would an admin mind having a word with him? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That "dude" needs to be blocked. Here he is deleting discussion from the project talk page [41] just because he doesn't like it. That alone is a rules violation, on top of his notion, ignoring all advice, that he has the right to treat wikipedia like a game-action blog. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As an update, Planecrash111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now also using deceptive edit summaries to avoid seeming to edit war, as he did here [42] where his summary said "just taking out the update on the k's" when in reality, he was readding a long play-by-play section that's been removed by several other editors. I've tried to talk to him several times, he just refuses to listen or discuss. Dayewalker (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

He's right at 3 reverts on Randy Johnson, but he might have quit for the night. As have the admins, perhaps. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User is now requesting an unblock. After my failed try to settile Planecrash111 after his run-in with another user, I would ask that the admin who looks at the unblock request look into my posts with him and his actions with User:JustSomeRandomGuy32 before thinking about unblocking. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 12, 2009 @ 21:29

Declined. I suggested he might be able to be unblocked if he agrees to listen to other's concerns and some form of editing restriction, but that's up to the community. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparent campaign to accuse Google of censoring Norman Finkelstein search results

There appears to be a campaign by multiple accounts (socks?) to accuse Google of censoring Norman Finkelstein's website from its search results, lacking verifiable evidence from reliable sources. See histories at Censorship by Google, Norman Finkelstein, Internet censorship, and Internet censorship in the United States. Involved accounts include Kennedypie (talk · contribs), Eva SK (talk · contribs), and Bendelay (talk · contribs). What is the appropriate response? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Assuming they're obvious socks, play whack-a-mole, or get a checkuser to hardblock a range for a few days. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that "http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/robots.txt" is a redirect to ""http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/robots.txt/" (note trailing slash), which is an error. Try putting the robots.txt url into this robots.txt checker, and you will get the message "ERROR: Redirect detected. Please insert the actual file URL". Google may have interpreted this as an opt-out. --John Nagle (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Trains

Resolved. Wrong venue. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Getting ready to work on the end of the article: What would be the plural for "Caboose"? Not sure if it pluralizes as does Moose, or if it changes as does Goose?22:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.152.202.31 (talk)

Your question would probably be more appropriately answered at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. I'll just mark this as resolved, and leave you to your moosey fate. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Gotta be "cabeese". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, please don't contradict my responses at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Trains. You'll just make me look bad, and I'll go ballistic and do things you won't want to contemplate. :-) Deor (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like fun. :) Without looking at that page, I can say with confidence that the actual plural is "cabooses". It follows normal English pluralization rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No no, caboosi Soxwon (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Caboosim have been out of fashion for many years now. They have been replaced by blinky lights on the hindmost couplers. 03:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, here's something weird: I checked under "Caboose" and it redirected to Jennifer Lopez. Complete with blinking lights. Go figure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

So many sick and twisted puns come to mind...Soxwon (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If the Baseball man wants to comment, perhaps Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Bugs on my car! would be the appropriate venue. I know that if I owned a car, I wouldn't mind seeing Bugs splashed on its foreparts! Deor (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Eww. Gross. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If the plural of Bug is Bugs, would the plural of gross be grease? — Ched :  ?  07:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitive answer: "cabooses", per Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen and Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Clinchfield Railroad Company, Defendant-appellant, United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit. - 407 F.2d 985 [43] --John Nagle (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought we had a rule against legal threads. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy, now we're training lawyers... HalfShadow 02:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Rouge admin required

Hi, apologies if I'm posting this in the wrong place - this is nearly a breach of etiquette issue, but I believe it goes a little deeper. User:Fasach Nua appears to be following a pattern of behaviour that may be problematic.

• Fasach objects to fair use images on Wikipedia as a matter of policy. I infer this from his reference to User:Angr#A_parable on his user page. Many of us are not delighted about the need for non-free images on Wikipedia (owing to the world unreasonably failing to recognise our monopoly on Truth and Beauty), but the argument regarding whether they should be allowed or not should not be conducted via FAC reviews.
• I offer Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zanzibar Revolution/archive2 as an example. Fasach writes "oppose the article has three non-free image none of which are allowed under WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)". This continues Fasach's long history of similar opposes - as is blatantly clear from the 16 messages on his talk page requesting review of his oppose votes to articles containing free-use images (which he typically declines to do). No specific comment regarding how or why images violate fair use is given: complaints are pure, meaningless boilerplate.
• Whether this constitutes something to panic about I don't know. It 'merely' puts many articles in arts and history at a one vote disadvantage. I suspect that it may become a problem if others choose to join his crusade. On the other hand, maybe a rouge admin would like to eviscerate him for disruptive, unethical wikilawyering. I don't know. Dhatfield (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the assistance of a beige admin would be more effective in this situation, as rouge admins lack the necessary l33t skills to get around this particular crusader's immunities. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't that really be Admin Rouge to get that proper Franco-Marxist flavor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd just say that I doubt the arts articles are at a "one vote disadvantage", as FAC is no more a vote than any other process. I very much doubt either Raul or SandyGeorgia are terribly swayed by Fasach's frivolous opposes at FAC. As a note, however, he has been the subject of at least two RFC's regarding his image-related zealotry. Resolute 23:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The word "frivolous" here makes it very clear how clueless most editors are in terms of non-free images. Many articles have been promoted to featured status despite clearly violating WP:NFCC. Those of us that acutally understand that concept of fair-use images have realised very quickly that pointing out NF violations on articles that certain people want to promote is pointless, so largely we have given up. I can only assume that that those that promote articles don't really care about the "Free" part of "The Free Encyclopedia". Such is life. Meanwhile, Fasach Nua is usually correct in his edits, not that this matters to those that want to plaster copyright violations all over Wikipedia. Black Kite 23:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What gets me about that is that he makes the allegations that free use photos are available without any evidence, and then doesn't listen to reason.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

His objections in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zanzibar Revolution/archive2 were far from frivolous, though. The images he objected to don't really belong in that article ... it's pretty hard to make the claim that they significantly enhance the reader's understanding.—Kww(talk) 01:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Now we can have a real conversation regarding what is appropriate with regards to the use of non-free images in articles. I believe this gets at the heart of the non-debate Fasach has been having with himself for some time. Dhatfield (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Game Swap

Resolved

 – article gone, requester pointed to appropriate venue for future reference. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi I tagged this page for deletion, and the author keeps removing it. Help?? Leaf shaped ant (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is deleted. In future, authors removing CSD tags can be reported to WP:AIV for generally quicker responses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Vicini

I was adding internal and external links, and also category to this article Vicini and this user reverted them with these messages (cur) (prev) 03:28, 12 April 2009 Fastily (talk | contribs) m (3,992 bytes) (Reverted edits by Juliaaltagracia to last revision by 205.132.42.220 (HG)) (undo) - April 2009. Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Vicini has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Fastily (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the page to one of the edits. My question is, is it really productive to revert edits so fast and to create a problem without even asking the editor? Is this right? I'm I taking the risk of being block? --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The edit in question seems to be this, made by Fastily (talk · contribs). The revert could have been a mistake or maybe he thought you were making the edit in bad faith. I suggest you contact him on his talk page and ask what was the reason for the revert. Reverting must be quickly done in the case of unconstructive edits like vandalism and there is no need to contact the editor in such a case. This is perfectly acceptable by our policies and guidelines, but honest mistakes do happen. And no, there is no danger of you being blocked right now either. There is no need of administrator intervention here. Chamal ^talk 04:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... taking a look at this, it seems User:Fastily has started using huggle recently. He's still probably a little too lose on the revert button. Maybe he should AGF a bit more as well :) Chamal ^talk 04:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing user fastily talk page. Somebody should warn him, because it consumes to much time for inexpirienced users like me to edit correctly a page, and to include reputable sources and then to have it revert it. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's very likely that he hit the wrong button in Huggle. I've seen this happen before -- not very often, though. For future reference, if somebody makes a revert that doesn't make sense to you, try asking them why. It's very rare for Huggle (HG) users to revert maliciously, but mistakes do happen once in a while. Looie496 (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You will see from his talk page that he has received a few complaints, also see his revert on 'ask a ninja'. Also done some good vandalism fighting, but should take extra notice of edits by non-IP users to make sure. Unomi (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This user seems a bit 'fast' on the trigger finger... Nantucketnoon (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Not again.... and he doesn't seem to want to respond to our messages either. Everybody makes mistakes in reverting vandalism, but this is quite a lot. He needs to be more careful or he's going to do some real damage to the articles and also to himself. Can an admin talk to him about this, before something like that happens? Chamal ^talk 09:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response, I have been trying to fix several other reverts I made. After seeing all the errors made, I will definitely be sure to slow down and take more caution in pressing the revert button. And, I'd also like to the take the opportunity to publicly apologize to anyone whose hard work was reverted. Regards, Fastily (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Technical Problem?

Probably the wrong board for this, but I am currently experiencing a technical issue with Wikipedia that others might be experiencing as well. When clicking on the history tab for any page, the history will load partially, then freeze my browser up. All other aspects of Wikipedia do not do this. Not sure if this is an ongoing issue, but needed to be addressed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 12, 2009 @ 05:22

I've had this as well (though I am not overly concerned). I suggest you join in the discussion at WP:VPT.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data

Anyone suddenly getting this a lot and finding yourself logged out? rootology (C)(T) 05:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I get this if I have had an edit window open too long. Copy the information you added to the page, refresh your browser, and then try again. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 12, 2009 @ 05:35

Its happening more frequently, as are warnings of time delays. --Snowded (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it is associated with my problem above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 12, 2009 @ 06:25

Lucas081094 and Brazilian IPs pushing incorrect info

Over the last few years (first try here), there has been a consistent pattern of Brazilian editors (usually from unregistered IPs, but lately with usernames) continually inserting false and/or unsourced information into some articles (Timeline of CGI in film and television & Computer-generated imagery both now semi-protected because of this) about Cassiopéia, a 1996 Brazilian film - usually claiming it to be the first CGI film, when the true first CGI film was 1995's Toy Story. I'm frankly at a loss as to how to deal with this - the fact that Toy Story was the first CGI film is well documented, and unassailable, as far as I'm concerned - but these editors refuse to discuss. They rarely provide edit summaries, refuse to discuss their reasons, and consistently fail to provide reliable sources. The latest attemp has been by Lucas081094, who was recently blocked for 72 hours for this - Lucas081094 first edit after the block was lifted was to immediately resume pushing his change, with no discussion. I could certainly use some eyeballs on this, and hopefully another block on Lucas081094. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Rockiesfan19 and misuse of Twinkle

Rockiesfan19 (talk · contribs) registered on April 3, but did not edit until April 7th. His first edit was to install Twinkle and he apparently activated Friendly using the preferences. His first edits are "okay" tagging articles, though usually with stuff that doesn't need tagging (like tagging a stub with expand - well duh). However, today he used Twinkle for the first time. He reverted an edit on one article that doesn't look like vandalism to me, then proceeded to nominate the on-going AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Buffyverse objects for MfD[44]. I reverted the nom and tagged the MfD as being disruptive, but this seems like a pretty clear misuse of Twinkle. He also then used it to report a new user to AIV for non-vandalism.[45] On my talk page, he says "he's new to twinkle" but considered his first edit was adding it,[46] I smell something off here. In either case, his Twinkle access be removed until he learns what he's doing? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, something seems off. An editor doesn't add TWINKLE to the account for their first edit unless they are a sock of some kind. Erring on the side of caution, I would recommend a checkuser. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 12, 2009 @ 06:37

Sorry for this incident i will stop the use of twinkle. I was just wanting to help out but i see i caused a problemRockiesfan19 (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this is handled, but let's all assume good faith here; unlikely as it may seem that a new user would know about Twinkle, keep in mind that a link to a page showing how to install it is in every edit summary made using it. Something like this should be handled by contacting the user and asking them to quit it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. We need to drop the "proper newbies must be dumb" kind of idea. It is possible that someone may be fairly familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines if he has contributed to or at least been reading our pages for a while before deciding to create an account here. I know that's what I did, and I got a "OMG SOCK!" message on my talk page one month later. Rather than being a sock, it might be an actually useful editor who wants to get his facts right before jumping in. We all see a lot of new editors who don't know what they are doing and receive a "welcome to wikipedia. the recent edit you made to..." messages after their first edit. Once in a blue moon we get someone who actually has read and understood the thing before making his first edit, we ABF and kick him out calling him a sock! There's no harm in at least monitoring him for a while before coming to that conclusion is there? Accusing him straight away is likely to scare him off and we lose a potential contributor who might have been of good use to Wikipedia. BTW I'm sorry if this seems too heated, but since this is something I came across during my early days here, I kind of lose my patience whenever I see this kind of thing. Not meaning to offend or accuse anybody here, but I'm talking about the whole community's attitude in general. Chamal ^talk 07:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And a lot of us lose patience with this "AGF at all costs" approach, when experience tells us differently. When a "new" editor won't answer the question, "How did you know about this?", it undermines "good faith". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I try to AGF, but when one's first edits are a certain way, I do find it hard to do so, particularly when one of the edits is to try to delete a very heated on-going discussion debate. And then the other edits I see are also using what are generally "advanced" tools, but misusing pretty much all of them. It just concerned me enough that I felt someone else should look at it (and admin attention was needed in either case to remove that MfD). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying "AGF at all costs", and nor am I saying that obviously bad faith edits can be treated that way. Only thing I'm saying is that we shouldn't be too hasty in straight away accusing a new user because he does something "advanced". I'm also not denying that a sock is likely to behave this way either. But if we react in the wrong way to the wrong incident, it will just harm the project. As I said, I wasn't addressing it to any one individual and I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case here. Chamal ^talk 07:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, Bugs, the only indication he got that something was wrong was a templated warning that he might just have assumed was the result of a simple mistake (especially considering the deliberately non-BITEy wording of level-1 UW templates). The immediate next step was ANI and suggestions of sockpuppetry. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The next step was not a suggestion of sockpuppetry, but just a concern that something was wrong and asking an administrator to look at removing Twinkle until he learned how to use it (particularly, when I could have sworn you had to have a certain level of edits to use it) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I was familiar with Wikipedia before i created the account. I just wanted to go start using twinkle after i discovered the twinkle app by researching the different gadgets wikipedians can use. It caught my eye sorry i didn't use it wisely yall just need to calm down i made a simple mistake. Rockiesfan19 (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

After the notes above, Rockiesfan19 also attempted to file an SPI on User:NuclearWarfare[47][48] and User:Mikey50[49] and is continuing to make false/incorrect AIV reports. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

At the very least take his toys away from him. HalfShadow 20:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the toys need to go back into the toy box until he learns to play nicely. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 12, 2009 @ 21:31

per: "I was familiar with Wikipedia before i created the account. As Rockiesfan19 has released us from the newbie clause, perhaps taking away the toys isn't all that can be done here. Looks to me like it may be getting very close to a "being sent to your room" issue. — Ched :  ?  23:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, something needs to be done, because accusing well established editors of sockpuppetry is going a little too far and is just plain disruptive. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 12, 2009 @ 23:02

To be fair, he did revert himself perhaps a minute later, and the original case was somewhat understandable, as I had created an account with a very similar name for ACC perhaps a minute before. But this recent edit suggests to me that he clearly needs to have his monobook cleared and fully protected. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Being sent to your room comment is unnecessary. I apologized and when i make a mistake i revert it! Lets follow wikipedia guidelines that comment about sent to room is unneeded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockiesfan19 (talkRockiesfan19 (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars ([50], [51], [52]), and, unless it's vandalism, don't ever revert edits to another user's page ([53]) HalfShadow 01:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please answer this question: If we can't trust this user to not to troll with Twinkle (or Huggle or AWB or any other tool), why would we trust him not to troll without it? Thanks. — CharlotteWebb 01:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikistalking and harassment by User:Jack Merridew

I don't know what more to do, but even after Casliber's talk page warning in March he still sees fit to comment to or about me at every turn. See, for example,

• Notice the "jeers": [54]
• At the top you see that he inaccurately assumes I was talking about him and he also edits my post: [55]
• Think of all the other supporters who do not see fit to mention me specifically: [56]
• Mischaracterization of my merges, which the closer ultimately agreed with: [57]

• I work on rescuing an article and his sole AFD contribution thus far today is to say to delete it (note I have avoided saying anything in the discussion).

• I tag an article for rescue, and his sole AfD comment for the day is also to delete it.

• Saying someone should be blocked for opposing, which even those who disagreed strongly with me thought not right (by the way, I have switched to neutral in that RfA anyway).

• I work to rescue articles on the 3rd through 5th of March (see [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]) and he shows up on the 5th with copy and paste WP:ITSCRUFT comments (see [63], [64], [65], [66], [67]). Someone who makes those kind of "arguments" has the audacity to criticize my participation in AfDs (see below)?! Similarly, please note the edit history of this AfD, i.e. who came to the discussion first and second.

For background, Pixelface and I were among the few editors convinced by White Cat’s evidence that Merridew was indeed a sock and had to contend with the usual hyperbole about us assuming bad faith until it was confirmed and Merridew was blocked as a sock of Davenbelle who had several socks with which he used to harass various inclusionist editors FOR YEARS. And now, after arbcom unblocked him under strong conditions that he not antagonize anyone or cause any disruption of any kind, he is making a joke out of his being a sock account: [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], etc. The "lulz" is also consistent with the attack site Encyclopedia Dramatica. Given that he was blocked for long term use of socks as harassment, it is hardly "funny" about his being a sock and given what’s on ED about various editors, why use that site’s catchphrases? Would you think it would be a big slap in the face and insult if say I did the same thing? There is also this pointed use of the rescue template: [73]. I am increasingly seeing it as a bad idea having allowed him back as he has numerous instances of pointed or bad taste edits with limited good edits to boot, whether it's the above or other instances where he referred to me by my old username mockingly. Casliber has recently reverted an edit Merridew made to my talk page and then told him to leave me alone: [74], but… I comment in one AFD on one day and argue to delete and notice the post immediately after mine... [75]. That AfD is not an April Fools prank for one thing... Now see this. If you check, his so called apology is [76], i.e. a post by Pixelface.

This has been going on for quite sometime. Even a few months back, I and another user have cautioned him for making unproductive comments as seen at User_talk:Jack_Merridew/Archive_3#Less_than_civility. Instead of responding to this good faith feedback from myself and User:Randomran in a civil manner, he instead has an edit summary in this edit that links to an account other than to my or Randomran’s accounts, which is deliberately antagonistic. You would think someone coming off an indefinite block would not say or do anything overly hostile. Neither Randomran nor I linked to any of his previous accounts or said anything else to be sarcastic to him. Moreover, he seems to be making Encyclopedia Dramatica allusions in various posts as well (see [77], for example) as well as other odd or unconstructive/non-serious posts as seen with such edits as this. I am therefore concerned that he is 1) needlessly escalating tensions; and 2) uninterested in good faith cautions (after all, Randomran is pretty neutral in all of this and as seen above, Casliber is even his arbcom agreed mentor even if one thinks I am not). The bottom line is that many are all trying really hard to come to a compromise concerning WP:FICTION and anyone mocking editors and dismissing even those who reached out to him (for better or worse, I even said I supported him being mentored when he requested being unblocked back in December…) is remarkably discouraging if not detrimental to the attempt to compromise. Please notice item 5 at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Indefinite block lifted with editing restrictions.

Even after that, I have had to endure his insults, while he makes swear-word laden joke "votes", or attempts at humor rather than approaching these things seriously and with policy/guideline based reasons.

I tried to welcome this user back, I tried to help him work on an article that became a DYK, and I have even tried avoiding replying to him given Casliber's warning. So, efforts to reconcile have apparently failed. And my efforts to ignore him and an admin's warning that he avoid me is not succeeding either. I want this user to leave me alone already. He harassed White Cat for years and I don't want to be his new target. As can be seen in several recent threads, I am avoiding responding to him. Given that after ArbCom allowed for a mentor who has outright told him to leave me alone and given that arbcom has told him not to do anything disruptive, this is entirely unacceptable. Once someone is told by an admin mentor to leave someone else alone and I am doing my best to avoid him and even reiterated as much at 17:14, 11 April 2009, it did not stop him from making no less than five times afterwards on the 12th still commenting to or about me in a confrontational manner. I am not asking for a request for comment on him or even for him to be blocked; just to not become the new White Cat for him. I don't know if this is revenge because I was right back in Episodes and characters 2 when I accurately believed White Cat or what, but Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've told Jack about this thread; interesting that you didn't have the common courtesy to inform him yourself. Reyk _YO! 08:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to comment on everything else (I have to go do stuff) but his "swear-word laden joke 'votes'" appear to be just that; jokes. I hesitate to really use the plural since you've only provided evidence of one, but I thought it was worth mentioning that I, at least, see it as nothing more than an attempt at humour. Ironholds (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much those ones as it is making a joke out of being a sockpuppet. His account is a block evading sock that was used to harass another editor (White Cat) for years and when called out for it, those including myself were treated like massive assumers of bad faith. Thus, making a hoke of that is not really funny and I guarantee if I were to do the same thing it would insult some. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that JM has an abrasive attitude. However, your stalking seems unfounded: JM probably looks at your contribs the same way you keep a gander on other editors' (I imagine that's how you settled on spamming an ARS banner at astromech droid and something-something space navy). I also check out your recent contribs to amalgamate diffs for your bound-to-happen-eventually RFC, and occasionally this also prompts me to respond and follow-up -- that's why the link is there, after all. His "insults" at your editor review were not insulting at all -- although they ruffled your feathers by diverging from the complimentary stuff. The "swear-word laden joke 'vote'" included one word -- "shitty" -- to describe an article about poop -- lighten up. It's a crass sense of humor, but you're really grasping at straws and looking for a reason to be upset. Rather than digging up every single potential diff in an attempt to be exhaustive, how about instead confining yourself to examples that actually hold water (here, and in general). --EEMIV (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

People should be here to edit Wikipedia, not follow around others contribs. I come upon fiction articles by going to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. As I know I have had disputes with certain editors, such as yourself who has seen fit to laugh at me and others in your userspace, I deliberately avoid commenting in every AfD you start just so you don't feel overly hounded. He however is being deliberately antagonistic to me after being told by his arbcom approved mentor to not comment to or about me further. Ergo he is violating his agreement to return to editing. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want an answer as to why we're not coming to mutual terms as discussed on my talk page, it's that you continue stuff like this. Jack isn't stalking you, none of this stuff falls well short of WP:CIVIL, and you're only working to incite more drama on the subject by bringing it to ANI. The Jimbo Wales comments are jokes; there's nothing disruptive about them, especially since it was April Fools and intended to be jokes as such. The editor review comments are critical but not insulting, neither is his RfA comments, and there's absolutely nothing disruptive about "delete cruft" !votes in AfDs as much as it's against your inclusion philosophy. Also, as a general note, giant stream of consciousness posts make conversing with you extremely difficult, and you'd be better served by stating your points much more concisely. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If I made jokes about sockpuppets how do you think people would act? You don't seriously think that would be received as a slap in the face? I am tired of being treated hypocritically. And as regards you, notice in Kww's RfA, for example, I did NOT reply to your specific support. You however see fit to reply to me there and in other RfAs. So, no matter what I do in good faith with regards to certain editors, they just won't give me a fair shake. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And you can't complain whilst you do things like badger people who don't agree with you and slander RfA candidates that you don't want to succeed, notably at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kww_2, and including this oppose on a different RfA which was a personal attack on both the RfA nominee and Kww. If you do things like that, what do you expect? 81.157.94.61 (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: The above is the IP's first edit... Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of this has been posted to this page before; last week re Pixelface. My editing is rather widely watched, and my older contributions have been well reviewed. Anyone who cares to, can check what they like.

So, I commented on Le Grand Nobody's actions at Foxy Loxy's RfA and suggested he should be blocked and that

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody was overdue.

There's more on all this at;

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#A Nobody's oppose vote on Foxy Loxy's RFA

He gave this edit above, where I referenced his blocked sock in the edit summary. Note what I said to him:

• If Pixelface, and others such as yourself, don't want to be the subjects of my comments, be better editors.

G'day, Jack Merridew 11:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is this, his admin mentor has told him to leave me alone. It is absolutely unacceptable for someone who is arbcom sanctioned for long term harassment and stalking of another editor to resume his antics instead with me. He continues to mockingly refer to my old username as above and is disregarding Casliber's instructions. He continues to arrogantly critique my contributions, while most of his edits are just joke edits rather than being here to seriously edit Wikipedia. I am leaving him alone, he needs to do the same for me already. Any continued comments to or about me beyond this post will be blatant and obvious ongoing harassment and I hope that his mentors will see fit that it does not continue. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You are trying to game the system to avoid being held accountable for your bad faith, battleground mentality, and disruption. WP:DUCK. It's late here. G'Night, Jack Merridew 15:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just stumbled into this thread, not read any links or looked into any past history. However, one thing that is obvious from the last three comments alone, is that A Nobody doesn't like you referring to him by his old username. And you still seem to be doing it. There's no reason to; he's perfectly accountable, with redirects and rename logs etc. - and if it upsets him, please just don't. As I say, I've not looked into, and cannot comment on, anything else. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

He is also seeking to avoid accountability for actions he engaged in using those prior accounts. Now after midnight — G'night, Jack Merridew 16:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sweet dreams!

However, for the morning... Surely the two most obvious means of accountability is a redirect from the old userpage. I don't see that WP:CHU requires anything else. Sure, the log seems to have been scrambled for some reason, but that's not anything that can be changed by anyone now. He seems to be perfectly open about the issue, and even if he wasn't, he clearly dislikes you using his old name, and there's no real practical reason to that I can see. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I explain my edit history at User:A_Nobody/RfA#Comments_regarding_block_log. Durova, DGG, and Randomran can all confirm that I have shared photographic evidence substantiating my claims of harassment that I would be foolish to post on wiki or to share with anyone of questionable trustworthiness. The facts are that as I am a strong inclusionist who does have success in keeping article histories at least as seen at User:A Nobody/Deletion discussions, I am a magnet for deletionist sock farms. Good faith deletionists get along with me fine. In many ways, I respect Collectonian, Stifle, and others. I have at times even regarded Reyk and EEMIV as reasonable and fair. I don't want enemies. But I have been the target of the following now indefinitely blocked account and their literally scores of associated accounts that have perpetuated a distorted version of my edits that some unfortunately continue to either believe or find convenient to also perpetuate for self-serving purposes: User:AndalusianNaugahyde, User:AnteaterZot, User:Lord Uniscorn, User:Eyrian, User:Graevemoore, User:Dannycali, User:Blueanode, User:Everyme, etc. These are so numerous as to not be isolated incidents, but rather what has dogged me in my whole time as an editor and some of these aforementioned users have sent me swear-word laden emails, posted stuff on Wikipedia Review, etc. Every time there has been any discussions on me here, it has been blown out proportion thanks to the hyperbole, lies, and mischaracterizations by these and their various associated accounts. When there's enough of them (I have been targeted by at least a half dozen differnet sock farms) it is usually after the fact when it is discovered that many of the comments in any given thread on me where made by one or more of the socks associated with the above. I am tired of it already. If I was such an evil person as they paint, I would not have User:A_Nobody#List_of_editors_who_have_agreed_with_my_arguments_or_made_other_nice_observations_about_my_efforts and User:A_Nobody#Barnstars.2C_cookies.2C_smiles.2C_and_thanks. Again, we know the subject of this discussion has done this stuff in the past as well. I really wish some of the above could put down their disdain for me and not be blinded by that. As I said recently in Kww's RfA, perhaps he was right and I was wrong when it came to undoing this user's indefinite block, because he is outright saying above that he still wants to follow me around and does so while still mocking me. I don't come here to drag him through the mud or to avoid scrutiny for myself. I am know I am not perfect. I know I have made mistakes. But no one here should have to put up with someone refusing to let them be when their arbcom sanctioned mentor has already told them to in fact leave that user alone. I am tired of faux and needless tensions and drama. And I am not going to be called out on my past when someone makes a joke of his being a sock. I am not going to be belittled for my AfD contributions by someone who uses copy and paste posts that cite no policies or guidelines or just let's have fun posts. As at Foxy Loxy's RfA, I am happy to reconsider my stances. I am not always right. I know that. I admit as much. I nor anyone else should have to be bullied beyond that. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Way WP:TLDR

I understand that other users in the past have agreed to not edit the same pages. Is this something that may work for both parties?

It seems obvious to me that there is some stalking here....Ikip (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree generally with User:Sephiroth BCR. Folks reviewing this thread to determine the merits of the complaint are invited to look hard at the accusations and ascertain whatever meat they may have. It is my opinion that JM takes some measure of pride in being prickly when the inclusion/deletion debate comes up and that he is much less civil than I would like. However A Nobody is not blameless, most of the complaints made here are, in my opinion, without a strong basis in fact, and it would be improper to treat this as an "one the one hand" sort of dispute. I'm 'involved' as it were, so I won't fully express my opinions here, but admins and editors are asked to please avoid taking claims made here at face value. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

They are also invited to see that for someone who allegedly "don't want to have anything to do with you", you have a strange habit of continuously showing up in practically every AN/I thread I start, which is great because I don't see fit to comment in everything you do... As such, any objective admin would see that only those with past incivility and hypocrisy against me would not surprisingly come to the other editor's defense. Again, please don't be blinded by your own animosity towards me. But you can say that you said yourself you didn't want anything to do with me, so you're only going against your own words. JM, however, was sanctioned by ArbCom not to do anything disruptive and assigned mentors to see to it that doesn't happen. One of those mentors told him to not comment to or about me any further. While I have followed that advice even though I am not under the same restrictions, it has not stopped him. As such, he has violated the terms of his unblock. It's not a matter of opinion or interpretation, it is glaringly clear. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about me and you. I'm sorry that you can't move past things and that you mistake disagreement and frustration for hypocrisy. I really do pity you. Protonk (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't and it's disappointing here, because we are talking about someone who used multiple accounts to harass another editor for years (by contrast, I had two confirmed accounts and one likely and I was never subject of using them by arbcom for long term harassment). When White Cat presented convincing evidence to that effect and I agreed with him, both he and I had the same hyperbolic denigration as if we were the ones assuming bad faith, i.e. the kind of stuff we were right about, but was used to damage our reputations. And now after I actually supported allowing him back and as his talk page shows welcomed him back, you would think he would be apologetic if anything. Instead, he treats me high-handedly and when an admin operating in the specific function as his own wiki mentor tells him to just avoid me, he blatantly disregards it. All I want from this thread is to not have someone who bullied another editor now take up the bullying and mocking against me instead. I already tried to proactively edit nicely with him. It was rebuffed. I tried avoidance, but it's not stopping him even after a warning from an admin. I am here to build a paperless encyclopedia, not to be bullied. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If that's all you wanted why didn't you say that in your first response to me? why bother accusing me of hypocrisy and what-not and dredging up that archived conversation? Protonk (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Because you seem to be dismissing something I have had to put up with for long before you and I ever clashed, although way back to when he denigrated those his disagreed with as [sinners whose day will come. It is remarkable frustrating given these past experiences to have it trivialized. Oddly enough, you were someone with whom I really hoped I'd eventually come to friendly terms with again and so when I see things like here, it's just a let down of sorts. Please review the editor we are discussing's history. What I am saying here is consistent with how he targetted another user and whether he's going about it more craftily or if I'm getting flak because of some's experiences with me, I don't know, but it's there and I don't want to be harangued by someone with such a history. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is your primary problem. Somehow you have confused the fact that I question the veracity of your claims (I do) with the possibility of us coming to some friendly terms. It is not a requisite that I agree with you on certain issues for us to have some sort of mutual respect. I have serious concerns that you are misrepresenting JM's behavior in this report. The fact that I voice those concerns shouldn't impact a 'friendship'. That's why I feel sorry for you. Protonk (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Then just go with the undeniable docuemntable facts: 1) he has been sanctioned by arbcom for long-term harassment; 2) he is unblocked per an arbcom agreement with multiple restrictions including mentoring by Casliber; 3) he has done unwelcome things with regards to me such as mocklingly referring to me by my old username; 4) after an escalation of tensions, he was warned by Casliber to not comment to or about me any further; 5) despite that warning he has continued to do so. Within there, I tried welcoming him back, I tried helping him get a DYK, etc. and in both instances was received high handedly. So, I tried avoidance even with his on-wiki mentor warning him and he still saw fit to comment to or about me. If he does so even after his arbcom appointed mentor says not to, I don't know what will prevent him from policing my edits, i.e. what else can I do? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That's FINE. Going with the undeniable facts and making accusations based on concrete evidence is good. I was making the point that not all your claims were backed by such unimpeachable evidence and that we would be lead astray should we take them on face value. I think that when this all comes out in the wash, we will find that JM messed up in a big way and may be sanctioned. I just don't want to do so under a flimsy premise. Protonk (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Mutual topicban proposal

Proposed: A.Nobody and Jack Merridew are hereby completely forbidden for six months from:

1. Commenting to each other anywhere onwiki, including each others' talkpages, with the sole exception of formulaic community-mandated notifications;
2. Commenting about each other anywhere onwiki, with the sole exception of responding to AN, AN/I, AN3, WQA, RFC, RFARB cases brought by the other;
3. Starting any AN, AN/I, AN3, WQA, RFC, RFARB cases or threads about each other without the blessing and approval, onwiki, of a neutral admin; (NB: I suggest a list of such admins be drawn up so there can be no shopping.)
4. Commenting on AFDs or article-rescues started by the other--e.g., A.Nobody tags an article for rescue, Jack Merridew must stay away from both the article and the AFD discussion. Likewise, Jack starts an AFD, A.Nobody must stay away from both the article and the AFD discussion.

It should be emphasised that in light of points 1 and 2, any attempt by either of these two to game the proposed restrictions via baiting, veiled references, or any other type of wikilawyering end-run should be viewed extremely dimly by admins. Infractions to be met by the usual series of escalating blocks. ADDED: To put it in a much simpler way, I propose the two of them be told to stay the hell away from each other, permanently.

Thoughts? //roux   17:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This would keep each other from accusations of gaming the system (although XfD would be more effective). I see no reason for them to continue going off on these fora unless their interactions in the past have produced something worthwhile to the project. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A while back I tried a proactive approach with regards to this editor as seen at User_talk:Casliber/Archive_23#Moon_of_Pejeng. On one hand, the article did become a DYK, but as you can see his reaction was once again mocking and unreceptive (I have Casliber's page watchlisted as he is someone with whom I interact frequently and my edits to my RfA criteria on my userspace are general and can apply to several editors--that's at least twice now that he assumed I am referring to him when I actually wasn't). Anyway, when the effort to help out was met poorly, I instead tried to avoid/ignore, which even with Casliber warning him to do the same just hasn't worked. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

So yes but really no. Is it agreeable that if this is the last thread either of you will need to directly communicate (or indirectly, as it were), we'll all be in a better place? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we would be best not to comment to or about each other on user talk pages, in RfAs, on AN/I, in AfDs, or in RfCs as doing so in any capacity beyond this thread is detrimental to the project. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I can agree to the above, but also suggest that it include: "Neither editor nominate articles for deletion for which the other editor created or significantly worked on." Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If both of them are comfortable with it, I wouldn't mind being the contact for #3. So long as they understand that I'm usually only available for short periods twice a day. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell per this and this, you are indeed a neutral admin when it comes to us. So, fine by me. It may be wise having a few though. I think we both respect Casliber, so he seems a natural possibility. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, many hands make light work. I'm volunteering because I've seen your names many times in many fora, and haven't the faintest idea what the problem is. So you two will need to fill me in, and I'll try to help you bring this to a mutually satisfying end. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• • No.4 is impractical, because this could be used to pre-empt Jack from making comments to any of a wide range of AfDs, or similarly to prevent A Nobody from defending a wider range of Afds. Similarly for A Nobody's own suggestion. Let's see how 1, 2, and 3, work by themselves. DGG (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I would rather not comment in some AfDs and have us avoid each other. AfDs won't suffer if either of us don't comment. The key is here is that he isn't given free reign to just go after every article I do try to defend just becasue I am the one defending it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Let's wait for Jack to weigh in before making any promises, OK? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Nice job roux, if both parties agree you deserve a peace barnstar. I think A Nobody's suggestion to add: "Neither editor nominate articles for deletion for which the other editor created or significantly worked on." is fair. With 2 million articles, that leaves a lot of articles to delete which A nobody didn't signifigantly work on. Ikip (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the suggestion (#1) that they can only communicate with each other via templates. We don't need to be encouraging formletterspeak, especially not for users between whom personal relations are already strained. I also object to the last suggestion (#4) on the basis that improving articles and preventing bad deletions should supersede any kind of wiki-restraining order, at least in my mind. However, the others (#2) and (#3) are trivial things to sacrifice. — CharlotteWebb 01:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Given how many articles we have and how many AFDs take place, I am willing in the interest in deescalation to avoid each other per #4 as well. There's always something else either can work on and given that Wikipedia has no deadline, if something is deleted that shouldn't have been, it can always be brought back and vice versa. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Question:

If Jack Merridew was indef-blocked as a sock of a banned user, but the account was subsequently unblocked with specific ArbCom admonishments, but has now returned to habits that led to the original scrutiny and blocking, then what is this discussion about? What were the admonishments that allowed the return of an banned user? Have they been violated? And if so, why not simply reinstate the block? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

He appealed to ArbCom, and it was granted in part because of his good contributions. If it appears he's walking down this road again, the above proposal seems a particularly fine idea. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm sorry it seems this way. After asking my question, I went searching for the answer and found Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion, which ban was lifted BUT with SPECIFIC conditions... with condition #5 possibly being percieved as having been inadvertantly ignored. I trust that ArbCom gave long and careful consideration to the lifting of the ban... and I am worried that their best hopes inre the user's return might not have seen fruition, as good contributions do not condone any disruption of the project, real or perceieved, in the face of their stern admonishment to avoid such. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree there are sufficient diffs above to invoke #5, though obviously I am not going to be the admin to do it, having had too much prior discussion , friendly and also critical, with both parties here. DGG (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll block, if he doesn't agree to Roux's compromise solution. I didn't know about the Arbcom decision, but now I do. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoa now. I'm not comfortable with that. Protonk (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

More precisely, Roux's remedy is either a compromise or a compulsion. If it is a compromise that JM isn't comfortable agreeing to, I don't think that we get a free pass to turn it into something compulsive from the ARBCOM reading. IMO, we either determine that he is engaged in disruptive editing now, and block him accordingly, or we determine that he is not and we proceed through some process of negotiation to stop him from going down that road. We can't have insufficient evidence to accuse him of DE but sufficient evidence to enforce a proposed remedy and if we have sufficient evidence to accuse him of DE, then we don't need to propose a compromise. Protonk (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Protonk here. I've gone through the diffs, and, while I get an eerie feeling of deja vu, I can't describe any of them as "disruptive". A wikilink correction to turn a redlink into a bluelink is usually not thought of as disruptively modifying another's statement, and the AFDs are AFDs where I would normally expect Jack to comment in the way he has, even if A Nobody hadn't been involved at all. I've asked A Nobody to provide a single, well-described diff clearly showing disruptive editing, and he hasn't produced it. If he can, then Jack should be blocked immediately, with no need for a compromise ... Jack is on his last chance and on a very short leash. If he can't, then there's no basis for blocking Jack, and A Nobody deserves a little chastisement for bringing in a blizzard of diffs that don't stand up to scrutiny.—Kww(talk) 02:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

He replied, and I agree that this is clearly an intentional misuse of a template with the intent of causing trouble. I'd have no objection to reinstating Jack's ban on that basis.—Kww(talk) 02:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

While we are asking questions, where are the restrictions on A Nobody documented? I've tried a few times to find a discussion where people explicitly decided to allow him to edit despite having abused the right to vanish, but have never located where that occurred. I never thought bringing Jack or A Nobody back were very good ideas, and it may be time to re-examine both decisions.—Kww(talk) 00:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You can't find any, because there was no agreed upon restrictions a la JM. I did not harass another editor for years. The only thing people believe I did was create another account after abandoning my main account. Neither account edited in tandem with each other. Nor was this alleged new account used to harass anyone. I have over 30,000 edits and yet the "likely" account has edited all of 3 of the same pages. As such, once that account was blocked, if I agreed to anything, it was to only use my main account and any checkuser can see that I have done as much. If you actually think my history is the same as his then you are wildly mistaken. And I really hope you are not now seeking revenge for your RfA. You'd think instead of demonstrating the vindicative attitude I cited, you would actually instead try to be conciliatory rather than prove that particular argument correct. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

A Nobody: now that you're on my radar, you need to avoid saying things like "And I really hope you are not now seeking revenge for your RfA.". JM isn't here (perhaps celebrating Easter?), so maybe you'd consider dropping this until tomorrow? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I really wish this could be resolved promptly. I am in what seems to be the final phase of my doctorate (I am making revisions to the last couple chapters with an upcoming oral defense planned) and as such was hoping to take a break until the end of the quarter. I just want to be sure that when I come back, I'm not going to have to contend with being followed around and antagonized again. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I simply refrained from commenting while it was ongoing, in order to avoid accusations of attempting to draw attention to a losing RFA. I'm not going to step up efforts against you as a result, but I've maintained since your return that that your return should not have been permitted. There's no reason to expect that to stop.

I don't equate your behaviour to Jack's. Jack lied for years, and attempted to deceive us all, all to the detriment of another editor. I tend to agree with Jack on policy issues, don't care much for White Cat, either. In spite of that, I supported Jack's blocking and opposed his return. If you could show me concrete evidence of disruptive editing (not disagreeing with you at AFDs, not correcting wikilinks, but actual disruptive editing) I'll support blocking him again under point 5. To be honest, I find his behaviour towards you eerily familiar, and I have to work hard at not letting my personal opinion of you keep me from seeing his behaviour as upsetting. That said, I've gone through your links, and I can't find actual disruptive editing. The AFDs you point at were all AFDs that I would expect Jack to say those things during even if you weren't involved anywhere in the process.

But getting back to my original point: you specifically violated the language under RTV which states that The right to vanish is only available to users who are also exercising their right to leave, and no discussion was made that specifically allowed you to create this new account and continue editing? No explicit discussion about the posthumous account linkage? Even after Elizabeth Rogan was blocked with the accusation being that it was you attempting a silent and anonymous return? I had always assumed that the discussion had gone on somewhere, and I had just missed it. You do fail to mention that Elizabeth Rogan edited essentially only AFDs, which means that an intersection on particular articles is unlikely to occur. You won't find many people that doubt that that was you, which explains the indefinite block on that account as being your improper sockpuppet.—Kww(talk) 01:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are you trying to derail a discussion on another user? Okay, say you think she was me, i.e. an account that never edited while my main account edited, you seem to conflate me with someone who by contrast had a couple times as many admitted sock accounts that were used to harass another editor and to evade a block. By contrast, I was not blocked at the time nor previously the subject of arbcom cases. And are you surprised that I did oppose so strongly when you keep denigrating me as an editor, even though since my return, I have dramatically cut back my participation in AfDs and everyone of them has had an acceptable conclusion (see User:A Nobody/Deletion discussions) as everyone I argued to keep still has its edit history and every one I argued to delete has been deleted. I also gained a few DYKs as seen at User:A_Nobody#Barnstars.2C_cookies.2C_smiles.2C_and_thanks, welcomed thousands of new users, and even colloborated on a Good Article. I seem to get along fine with people except for those from my old name who are unwilling to cut me any breaks. Do my net positive contributions mean nothing to you? I have been much more successful than I was before my rename; I have conciously and voluntarily tried to change how I do things and so now I absolutely am not okay with JM disrupting my efforts to improve Wikipedia. And anyway, the question here is not about me. If you want to iron out differences with me, drop me an email and as I said elsewhere if you want to reconcile our differences, I am open to that. If you think I would never give you another chance, you are mistaken, because I believe just about everyone can come to terms eventually. It would actually not have been impossible had you taken a different tact to have even persuaded me to weaken or strike my oppose regarding you. But anyway, right here and now, my concern is that someone who was blocked for harassment and put on clear editing restrictions was told by his arbcom appointed mentor to not comment to or about me any further and yet continued to do so anyway. That seems a pretty clear violation of his agreement and if he is not willing to do what his arbcom appointed mentors tell him to do, then what? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to derail anything. Many editors have told you that your report was full of diffs that didn't support the accusations made. This is precisely the kind of report that has been the basis of my objection to you in the past. I reiterate: show me one diff of something that can truly be classed as disruptive editing on JM's part, and I will support reblocking him under point 5 of his arbcome restrictions. I agree, he's on a short leash, and his comments toward you give me concern. Cooperate by providing one, solid, accurately described diff showing disruptive editing, and you get help getting what you want. Go forth in the future making only reports with solid, accurately described diffs, and 90% of the difficulties between us will disappear.—Kww(talk) 01:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, on 24 March 2009, his arbcom appointed mentor told him “Please leave you know who alone, and leave off allusions to you know what. WP is a big place.” This edit coincided with this removal of text from my talk page and it is well understood that Casliber refers to me as JM’s subsequent reply acknowledged. Since then he has accused me as being part of a tag team, made it a point to in the only two RfAs he commented in since April 4th was on the 11th be a comment to me and in the only RfA he commented in on the 6th was yet again a comment about me. The last two RfAs he comments in and the only two for the past 8 or so days are in ones after me and about me. In addition to those two RfAs, I commented in I think every other one that is ongoing and I absolutely did not focus on any one user in all seven or eight of these RfAs. So, if he is instructed to not risk escalate things with a specific editor (me) and yet his sole RfA participation is to take an accusatory approach against me, he is blatantly ignoring his arbcom appointed mentor and as such disrupting the project by escalating tensions with someone he was instructed to avoid. It is not as if others (you, Reyk, Sephiroth, etc. could not adequately handle challenging my oppose in Foxy Roxy’s RfA, which I did indeed strike) or for others to critique my oppose in your RfA. Now, what about stuff unrelated to me… Revert warring ([78], [79], [80], [81], and [82], for which he was warned, but notice the times continued doing (April Fool’s or not, you would think once someone warns you, stopping might be a good idea). Then there’s mis/mocking use of the rescue template here, i.e. prods something and slaps on a rescue template before an AfD is even underway? Is that some kind of provocation the Article Rescue Squadron or to any editor in particular? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll withhold judgment on the April Fool's stuff. I disagree with 90% of the crap pulled on April Fool's Day, and it's a day that I will take off if I ever have an admin bit. Casliber's role is specifically to mentor Jack in regards to White Cat, so I don't see violating his injunction as automatically disruptive (if Casliber blocked for disobeying, and people upheld it, I wouldn't kick up a fuss, though). That leaves [83], which is clearly an intentional misuse of a template with the intent of causing trouble. I registered a comment above, so I will repeat it there.—Kww(talk) 02:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

WTF

Resolved

 – copyvio deleted from Commons - issue explained to presumably confused user

My userbox image says "non free image removed" even though the image I used is from Wikipedia.WorldChampion392 (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed it back, but it could change to that image again. WorldChampion392 (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've changed it back, and explained why on your talkpage. Black Kite 12:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The user is now using File:Partido Republicano (logo).PNG instead, which is exactly the same logo but claims to be in the public domain. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion from Commons. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've just fixed this; two places: [84] [85]. G'day, Jack Merridew 14:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

  He's tried restoring it again ;( G'night, Jack Merridew 14:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Reuploading deleting image

There has been a long running disagreement at Spanish Empire about the various headline maps that have graced the article over the last couple of years. One involved party, User:EuroHistoryTeacher, was active from November to February and uploaded a series of maps that were in contravention of WP:NOR. He left the project (temporarily at least), things moved on and we got a new map. However, since a serial sockpuppeteer started adding it back (in spite of the talk page consensus) I requested that EHT's map be deleted [86].

EHT returned for one day in April and uploaded the image again [87] in - seemingly - a fit of pique. [88] Note, he hasn't used the image anywhere, he's just uploaded it because it was deleted. Is this acceptable? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Since it appears to comply with the license requirements, it is likely permissable. Of course, it is when it is placed into an article it becomes problematic... Perhaps we should consider it then? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. It's just that it seems to me like a misuse of server space and the Wiki infrastructure in general. Disk space isn't free, after all. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleting images does not save space. Disk space is not recovered when an image is deleted; the image is generally retained but inaccessible and can be restored by an admin. --Gadget850 (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless the image itself is blatant original research or otherwise in violation of image policy, per WP:OI it's fine to keep up here. We generally don't worry about performance issues. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies: A statement of principle

The situation with the failed RFA of Neurolysis had several bad aspects, but I would like to highlight one that has come up before and which I think we should prevent from coming up again by a clear statement. Apologies, if they are supposed to ameliorate a situation or mitigate guilt, must go to the aggrieved individual(s).

Hypothetical #1: If I steal John's car, and I apologize to the policeman who arrests me for stealing it, the arrest will take place anyway. John is still out a car, a theft has still occurred. If I sleep with Mark's wife and then apologize to Mark's her friend, Alice, Mark will still be outraged.

Additionally, apologies should come upon discovery of the injury, not discovery of the consequences for the injury. This is, of course, why we dislike politicians who accept bribes, write legislation making bribery illegal, accept more bribes, and then, when caught, burst into tears before television cameras. They repent when caught. We don't believe their apologies, because we see them not only as not signs of contrition, but as signs of further criminality -- as mechanisms for continued operation of personal graft.

Hypothetical #2: If I insult the boss with my co-workers around the water cooler, and they laugh, I feel like a big man. One of them tells me it's wrong to do that. Next lunch, I come up with an even funnier, nastier insult. Again, big laughs and frowns. Finally, the boss comes in and wants to fire me, and I go into a long apology. He fires me anyway, most likely.

The point I am making is that we should establish these as general principles. I am not saying that apologies can't be offered in general or to other people, etc. Of course they can. However, if anyone wishes for an apology to be part of mediating an offense, it needs to be before the consequence and to the aggrieved party. If it's only one of those, it's natural to expect the wounded party to still be sore about it. If it's neither of them, then it's natural for the wounded party to be in full outrage, whether the person should express it or not.

Can I get an amen? Footnote for the suspicious: (I'm not imputing malice, by the way. Neurolysis "apologized" to Ryan Postlewhite for something he said on the Observer blog, but no one else heard of the apology, that I'm aware of, and so he said he'd apologized, past tense, and Giano said, "What apology?" The point is that we need to make it clear that even saying, "I apologized" needs to be understood before we start wheeling that out in explanations of actions.) (I.e. Those agreeing with the above indicate by signing below)

1. Geogre (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Option #2

Let's not extend the drama

1. Support - //roux   16:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Support - Geogre, make this an essay. I will support and reference it in my future admin actions where appropriate, but this is too soon and the wrong venue to make it a point of division between the sysop (and wider) community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. Let's abide by the KISS principle. Agreed, this could sort out a lot of unblock requests and I don't mean any offense to Geogre, but this is probably going to start some nasty wikilawyering. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose. If you're going to solicit support for a proposal, you need to state clearly and unambiguously what you are proposing. I can't support because I only have a general idea what I would be supporting. Looie496 (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Comment. I have strong opinions on the apology issue, but second the advice above that you take this to an essay page in your userspace where it can be discussed in greater detail. Cla68 (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I think the moral of the the story is that if you believe you should apologise for something you've done, you should do it to the face of the person you've wronged. Whether that be in private or public depends on what you're apologising for. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

biut if the appology is so private that the person being appologised to, has no idea the appoloogy has taken place, what the fuck use is that? Giano (talk)

Ryan, I'm not talking about Neurolysis. I'm not talking about Giano. I'm talking about Kelly saying she "had apologized," about Tony Sidaway saying he "had apologized," about David Gerard saying he "had apologized," and each time to someone other than the person who had been offended. I'm talking about people using "I apologized" as a "Get Out of Jail Free Card or the legendary "Free Pass." I'm saying that we, as a community of administrators, need to set out a clear set of expectations about what apologies are and when they should be employed rhetorically to have weight. If we're going to keep seeing them as counters in these "dramas," as yet another person quoting drag queen slang says, then let's at least set forth some rationality for them. Myself, I don't think apologies have any weight in these matters, but everyone else disagrees, so, since they do, let's have a minimal standard for reasonable definition. Geogre (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't mean to be rude, but...

What incident here requires immediate attention? Protonk (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the posting of the "Resolved" template? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The ability to spell "Apologised" seems the only likely one. Americans eh? :) Seriously - Archive. Pedro :  Chat  21:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Or, if you're a droogie, it's appy polly loggies. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Bloody Brits and their peculiar spellings... ;) —Travis^talk 22:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, if only it were that simple. – ukexpat (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Flooding edits

Resolved

 – Use of (possibly) a bot that was non-disruptive, but not approved. Frequent edits has ceased, and couple of people in conversation with the editor now towards proper approval. Sancho 18:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bugboy52.40 (look at the time stamps)

Can someone look over what this person is doing? Im not sure if he is doing anything wrong but this seems to be a bit disruptive Leaf shaped ant (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

He's fixing self-referential links with a bot. It isn't harmful, but I don't know anything about bot policy. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No sign that he does either. I left an inquiry on his talk page. Looie496 (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Certianly not disruptive. WHy is it when somebody creates lots of articles people come running to ANI. This editor needs to be whitelisted so his articles get automatically patrolled and if possible get permission to create them at a high rate from WP:BAG Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I didn't relize you people were talking about me, but I would make a useful coment, if I new what you were talking about, whitlist? Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

sock frenzy

Resolved

 – Possibly under control. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

We have some pretty frenzied multi-socking going on -- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SchnitzelMannGreek. The latest sock has just vandalized the SPI page and my user page. This affair would benefit from a bit of energetic intervention -- maybe giving a short semi-protect to everything in sight would be a reasonable start. Looie496 (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The SPI page may not need protection. User:Ged UK has just blocked two of the socks. Your user page can be protected on request. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

distorting other users' comments on talk pages

• MultiScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) refactoring comments on talk page by other users to yield opposite meaning. No warnings issued before, but blatant vandalism which merits an immediate block in my opinion [89] Jasy jatere (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

add one more instance of vandalism http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACanada_Merit_Scholarship_Foundation&diff=283269261&oldid=269441824 Jasy jatere (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The editor hasn't vandalized since being warned. Note by the way that your own template was malformed -- not sure how you added it -- and didn't include a time, date, or signature, which makes it not very useful. I added a clearer warning on the editor's talk page. Looie496 (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

While this editor edits relatively infrequently (fewer than 30 edits in four months), I see a lot that troubles me. I suspect that if he were a more frequent contributor he would have been banned already, but as it is he's flying under our radar.

This isn't the first time he's (ahem) rephrased a talk page comment to invert its meaning, and he seems intent on doing so to comments which have some pretty heavy racial overtones. Recently: [90], [91]. In January, he made a very racist attack on another editor's userpage ([92]). As his third edit (in late December), he made a similar modification to another editor's comments, again inverting the meaning: [93].

I am inclined to argue that we're past the 'warnings' stage here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. This editor needs an indefinite block IMO Theresa Knott | token threats 20:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I am totally out of my allotment of "Blocked Indef per Discussion Elsewhere" sanctions, else I would have done it. (I also have a COI since I have past very pleasant experiences of Sri Lankan hospitality and cuisine.) I support a block for both the attitude and the methods. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I am a college student living with 4 other room-mates. The 5 of us share one desktop computer (mine). I frequently use Wikipedia but seldom edit / alter anything (simply read articles that are interesting to me at the time). I often forget to log-out and I imagine one of my other 4 room-mates use this as an opportunity to make nonconstructive edits and reversions etc. I sincerely apologize for this and assure you that such forms of blatant vandalism will not occur in the future. Please note, however, that Jasy jatere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted, without explanation and without reason, a well-researched and sourced edit I recently made to a talk page that was a continuation of an intellectual discussion with another user. This is a form of vandalism and, in my opinion, Jasy jatere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) requires a stern warning as one has not been previously issued (to the best of my knowledge). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MultiScholar (talk • contribs) 23:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Allegedly compromised account. Should be indefinitely blocked, yes? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

A compromised account, that logs on only to read stuff, yet is very adamant that another editor should be sanctioned for removing one of the very few edits they have made... Perhaps it would be best if the account was confined to the graveyard, and they start again with a new identity and a secure password. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive IP on Talk:2009 Pittsburgh police shootings

Resolved

 – range 4.155.117.xxx blocked for a period of 1 month. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

and user matched with a past blocked user - FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

To start I am not sure if this is the correct location, the incidents in question are a combination of ongoing vandalism, civility issues, socking issues, and everything else, so I'm going to post here. There is one particular person who has an IP address that keeps rotating around the 4.155.117.xxx location. For example 4.155.117.213 (talk · contribs), 4.155.117.131 (talk · contribs), 4.155.117.254 (talk · contribs), 4.155.117.112 (talk · contribs), 4.155.117.214 (talk · contribs), 4.155.117.116 (talk · contribs), 4.155.117.252 (talk · contribs), and 4.155.117.235 (talk · contribs). Hence force he will be referred to as "the individual". The individual has been disrupting the Talk:2009 Pittsburgh police shootings, see Revision history of Talk:2009 Pittsburgh police shootings for the multiple edits by the individual.

A few highlights of the individual, the individual will refer to other editors as "gringo" [94] and has done this on other articles in the past [95]. The individual keeps ranting about crazy conspiracy theories and wants to turn the talk page into a blog about Zionist conspiracies and the legitimacy of the neo-nazi site Stormfront see [96] and [97]. The individual doesn't respond to the reasoned arguments provided by me [98] where I explain that we are not calling Richard Poplawski a racist or a skinhead or a neo-nazi, we are pointing out that he visited websites, such as Stormfront, that are considered such. The individual responds by saying "Are you americans stupid on purpose, or is it genetic?"[99]

The individual has posted a rant that ends with "You, Anglos and JEWS of the USA, YOU created him and the millions to come. What goes around comes around...!" [100]. This sort of hateful rhetoric with no connection to the incident does not belong on talk pages. The individual also keeps trying to bring up Hardy Lloyd [101] whose website can be seen here [102]. The individual also keeps mentioning that he is not from America, yet his IP address traces to Pittsburgh, PA. I am positive that the individual has engaged in this same behavior in the past, but I am unable to trace their full history as the IP address keeps jumping around. Also note that he has introduced Hardy Llloyd into other articles [103], and that Hardy Llloyd is based out of Pittsburgh, and on his blog he keeps using the term "gringos" like the individual does.

The individual been blocked multiple times before, stating "Also, OR WHAT? I've been banned 20 times!! LOL" [104].

Can some administrators please look into this and suggest what can/should be done? Any input and actions are greatly appreciated. Thanks! TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 18:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've filed a request for semi-protection at WP:RPP. Looie496 (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the range for a month. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the disruptive history and above posts, checkuser work on the /16 suggests that this IP user is on the /24 only (many IPs from 4.155.117.3 to 4.155.117.254), plus is also  Confirmed as Josh Dean Roy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an indef blocked user.

The articles they are recently active on, are:

• 2009 Pittsburgh police shootings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Creativity Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Creativity Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Julius Evola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of fascist movements by country U-Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Third Position (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wotanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An SPI page under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Josh Dean Roy, may be helpful for future; I've copied the salient points from the above thread into it and a full list of IPs.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User:ArnoldZippo

Resolved

 – Articles redirected - editor informed of issues

• ArnoldZippo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Undertow (CHiPs episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dog Gone (CHiPs episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Moving Violation (CHiPs episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• CHiPs (Pilot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User has been copying and pasting content from http://www.chips-tv.com/wiki/, which I do not believe is GFDL-compatible with our Wiki. In other words, they constitute a series of copyvios. I have tagged all four above articles as possible copyvios (and hence reported to WP:CP, but the user as reverted them without explanation nor any responses on the article talk pages or his or my talk page. From looking at the user's contribs and other warnings given on his talk, I am not sure that this user understands our copyright policy; that is unless I am wrong and the content on that Wiki is GFDL-compatible and hence okay to copy and paste here. I don't want to revert-war over this, and I realize that copyvios are obviously very serious issues, so that's why I'm bringing this here to hopefully have someone look into this. MuZemike 19:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"Chips Wiki" apparently contains no explicit copyright statement at all, which of course means that everything there is copyrighted, but it seems possible that this editor might not have understood that, since in appearance it very closely resembles Wikipedia. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Looie496 (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the possible issues with copyright I have redirected the articles to List of CHiPs episodes for the time being. In any case, since the episode articles consist of nothing but plot summaries with no real-world analysis at all, they also fail WP:NOT#PLOT. I will notify the user. Black Kite 20:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There's also a concern in that overly detailed plot summaries become derivative works of the original (ala Copyright#Derivative works). I don't know the shows, but they were rather brief, weren't they? It seems like going into great detail could cross that line. (Let me also publicize {{Plot2}} while I'm here. :) TV shows are a big problem for copyright infringement.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have seen a few here that did come close to that line, but very few. They usually far exceed the common-sense idea of a reasonable summary long before they start having trouble with fair use. There remains no real agreement about just what NOT PLOT should say, though we are getting there, so I do not think any thing can fail it at present. In my view, it applies to total Wikipedia coverage of an entire fiction, not individual articles, which are just convenient devices for rearranging it. But copying from a non-GFDL compatible wiki, if that's the direction of the copy & not the reverse, is of course another matter & nobody will defend that. My own feeling is that in deleting copy vio, it's usually clearer to stick to that reason alone. DGG (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

BUG: Unfixable categorizing problem, manifesting on the ext4 article

Resolved

Problem/Bug: Category listing rendered at bottom of page persistently includes an entry for a category that:

A) Doesn't even exist B) the article doesn't even ahve a Category membership template for the non-existent category.

Refreshing the page in question has been absolutely no help. Adding and removing the category templates didn't even work either, although I would surmise such a workaround shouldn't even be needed.

There's some strange voodoo going on that I don't understand, don't have requisite access to fix, or both.

Shentino (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's the {{condense}} tag that's causing it ... looking now. Black Kite 21:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. Black Kite 21:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirming that it now works. Thanks for your promptness. Shentino (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban: Neutralhomer

Hello, in this discussion, Neutralhomer was asked to adhere to (and agreed to) a topic ban that prevented him from engaging with and commenting on the actions of Betacommand. When he was unblocked last year, Neutralhomer was warned that engaging with several users would result in his reblock. Betacommand was added to this list per his constant actions involving him (including revert warring through Twinkle and the like).

In the last few weeks, Neutralhomer has been going against this ban in commenting on discussions regarding Betacommand. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Betacommand#Return_of_Betacommand? and this comment. I believe that Neutralhomer should be blocked as it is obvious that he cannot adhere to the ban. either way (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You know what, that is on me. I actually forget of that ban. Honestly, it slipped me. My sincerest apologizes. I will strike my comments on Betacommand's talk page. Again, I apologize. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 13, 2009 @ 01:57

Comment struck per the above. I would also like to note that it would have been a tad polite to remind me of the ban before calling for my head. People forget, it happens. Either Way could have politely reminded me of the ban and I would have gladly struck my comments and backed away slowly. Calling for someone's head over what amounted to suggesting a checkuser is a tad rude. Again, I apologize for jumping my ban, I forgot and it will not happen again. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 13, 2009 @ 02:05

It is not our responsibility to remind people politely that they can't do certain things. You should remember your own restrictions. You commented, so far as I can see, four times in the last week or so on Betacommand. either way (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Being that Betacommand is banned and not likely to be allowed back for quite some time, if at all, doesn't that render the topic ban moot? Betacommand is gone; the whole point to the topic ban was so that they wouldn't snipe at each other, and you can't have a fight with one person. HalfShadow 02:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Betacommand's talk page should be cleared and protected, and that should take care of it. And there should be a new sweep for possible socks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

But, in essence, that allows Neutralhomer the ability to snipe with no return. Stating that the ban (on Beta) "hasn't gotten through his thick skull" isn't exactly a civil, polite comment to be leaving at the talk page of someone you're banned from interacting with. either way (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Banned users shouldn't even be on their talk pages unless they're posting a request for being unbanned. And none of us, me included, should be on his talk page. Clear the junk from it and protect it, and that should end any sniping in either direction. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, run for socks, protect the page, archive all the dicussion and if Beta comes back to raise hell, then we start up another discussion, but it's time to take out the trash and not bring it back in. User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 02:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Do you remember all the restrictions you give out from week to week? Beta was silent for some six months. I should have, yes, been able to remember the topic ban from November, I didn't. That is on me. I take full responsibility for it. But calling for my head without so much as a warning...little much. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 13, 2009 @ 02:13

You're topic banned. That itself serves as the warning. either way (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to argue you on this. I have struck my comment, I have apologized, I think that is enough. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 13, 2009 @ 02:19

This is probably done for now. The topic ban wouldn't go away since Beta is gone for now; technically no user is truly banned "forever". You reading this from me is hint enough of that. But... unfortunately, Beta and Betacommandbot should be CU'd, probably... then we can archive this. Someone ping the CUs on IRC? rootology (C)(T) 02:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)