Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User mcjakeqool's block was unfair and disproportionate

I am rasing the concern that User mcjakeqcool's block was unfair and disproportionate, and it should be investigated by Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. In my opinion the biggest flaw was not letting User mcjakeqcool have his/her say at Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard/Incidents, I have other concerns but I am not certain they are appropriate for Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. Also may I state that I have taken on board the unsolicited comments User Guyinblack25 has made on User mcjakeqcool's talk page, and I have taken on board what he/she has said or typed to be more acuate and I will work from NOW on with User Guyinblack25 and other users & may I state I have already worked with him. As I said above, the block was unfair & disproportionate, User mcjakeqcool should have had his/her say & finally I am working with user User Guyinblack25 other users, aswell as already doing so. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously referring to yourself in the third person? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The block has expired. Learn from it and move on. Under Preferences > Editing there is a box marked "mark all edits minor by default". Make sure it is unchecked, that way you will have to fill in the check box to mark an edit as minor. If you forget to do that when making a minor edit no harm will be done. Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And yet, every edit, including this complaint is still being marked as minor. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jauerback - yes, he pretty much always refers to himself in the third person. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

McJ - as far as I can see you've never 'worked with' GuyinBlack, or me, or Tim Song, or anyone else who has offered to help you. Could you define what you mean by 'work with'?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

IIRC there was substantial support for indef at the last thread, but I was of the view that Tan's one-week block might have some effect so as to avoid the need for indef. I think it is now apparent that he has no intention to follow WP norms, even after Guyinblack's detailed explanation on his talk page, and after Tan's warning that continuing his behavior may result in an indef block. As such, per Tan et al. and my comments on his talk page here, I'd support an indef block. Four ANI threads later, his presence is still not a net positive. Tim Song (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Mcj, it was the folks at WP:AN/I who imposed this ban on you. Any reasonable person would assume that any investigation by WP:AN/I will simply confirm that decision -- especially with the lack of evidence you have supplied to show that this decision was "unfair and disproportionate". (see this archived thread for further details.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said on his talk page, McJackqcool has obviously learned nothing and refuses to edit according to how the community wishes, as such he's left us little choice. I support an indef.--Crossmr (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with those above who find Mcjakeqcool's actions bothersome. They have received multiple warnings and comments on his talk page to not mark non-minor edits as such and even received a one week block of editing privileges for it. What is the first thing Mcjakeqcool does when the block is lifted? Create a new section here at ANI and marks it minor. This is the fourth ANI discussion about this editor (admittedly, they opened it on themselves this time.) Mcjakeqcool does not get it, does not listen, does not cooperate. This has gone on too long. I'd support an indef block of editing privileges. --TreyGeek (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I haven't opened a thread to discuss a community ban about this user is that maybe he is actually working with Guyinblack. (It's what Mcj claims on his talk page.) So the moment Guyinblack reports here that mentoring Mcjakeqcool failed -- or he has not even heard from this alleged Brit rapper -- we should take that step. -- llywrch (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Guyinblack if he cares to comment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, I'm a bit confused by Mcjakeqcool's comments. My communication with them has been very minimal. Though I've posted comments to their talk page, I have only gotten two responses back: first to "deny" adoption, and second to enlist my help. However, Mcjakeqcool have never come to me after that for help on articles or discussions.

So I can't say that we've ever worked together. Not like how I regularly do with WP:VG members. I would welcome a collaboration with Mcjakeqcool, but no such discussion has occurred on or off the Wiki to lead to that.

The only conclusions that come to mind are:

1. This user is not a fluent English speaker and has a limited and different understanding of many English words used here.
2. This user is just trying see what havoc they can cause and attention they can get.

I hope it's the first one. Either way, not being able to communicate with someone because they are unable to or unwilling to gives us few options. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

Agreed. But I'd rather exhaust all reasonable options before we resort to a community ban. The grounds for one would be, to put it bluntly, he's too stupid to edit Wikipedia. We should use that rationale as rarely as possible due to endless opportunities for misuse. -- llywrch (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the term "stupid" but WP:COMPETENCE is sometimes cited with certain editors. A person who is absolutely brilliant but can't type well enough to be understood, or a person whose poor grasp of the English language precludes any positive contributions to the project are examples of people who aren't stupid at all but are still incapable of properly editing the encyclopedia. It's seems cruel but just because anyone can edit the encyclopedia, that doesn't mean everyone should. -- Atama頭 23:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

We've exhausted all reasonable options at this point. He's been blocked twice, he's had several editors reach out to him, his behaviour is evident elsewhere on the internet as I pointed out before and goes well beyond wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't reform school. The only willingness he's shown to "work" with the community is when facing an indefinite ban and so far that has proven rather fruitless. I cannot see any compelling reason to keep beating our head against the wall here.--Crossmr (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) According to off-wiki sources, McJ is born and raised in the UK. Now we do have a few communities where children are raised in a native language and start school without a full grasp of English, but McJ doesn't appear to belong to one of these communities. This is what McJ says himself about his grasp of english: I can speak in english, however I can only speak politically correct jargon, think of a MP and the houses of parlament, medical communication, police delacet etc. And also I do have poor english skills, and I am not reluctant to admit my english teacher gave me a F- in english. Also this is wikipeida, so we are MEANT to speak in jargon! This was in response to Chocobogamer and myself both asking him what this meant: I have seen proof that it exists with my own eyes, however I still it's existence and it is therefore orignal research In reply, he copied the text, and reposted it below our queries, as if we hadn't heard him. If you try saying his comments, and imagine a dub beat of some kind behind them, you can almost hear him speaking, so I think it's fair to say that his problems aren't just because he is being asked to use written English -he may be hard to follow when he is talking as well.

For me, he is more a nuisance than disruptive. Even the thing about the minor edits is just a nuisance - he never actually says anything on talk pages that make much sense. As I said before, he made a mistake a year ago about minor edits [1] and promised at that point to do it properly [2], but for some reason when he made the error more recently, he decided that he was right and Wikipedia was wrong. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is the rub. There have been a few people who make good faith edits, yet just not capable of contributing to Wikipedia. We shouldn't ban them unless we are sure we are doing the right thing. -- llywrch (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

But once again, wikipedia is not reform school. If he is incapable of editing and yet persists, then there is little choice. He shouldn't be banned, he should be blocked. If at some future point he can demonstrate that he can write an article or contribute positively, then he can be unblocked. Beyond his nonsensical talk comments, he has had issues with article creation and other main space problems. So long as that is an issue and he fails to recognize what is wrong, we can't force him to edit properly. I don't think anyone expects Elen to go to his house and stand behind him and watch him edit and barring that, I can't see how we're going to make a change here.--Crossmr (talk) 06:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I'll pass on that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I've read the discussion above and the recent contributions of Mcjakeqcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and agree that the lack of quality in his contributions, which mostly create cleanup work for others or are meaningless talk page comments, is a serious concern. I'm blocking the user indefinitely until he can prove to an administrator's satisfaction that he is competent enough to contribute productively to Wikipedia.  Sandstein  07:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

He has requested an unblock[3], but added the request to that interminable blog of his at the top of the page, instead of using the unblock template - which he previously used correctly (ie he managed to add it to it to the page with the words he wanted to say in the proper place) but unsuccessfully (because he never gave a reason why he should be unblocked). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is, of course, part of the problem. I've never liked WP:COMPETENCE for a number of reasons, but Mcjakeqcool is practically a walking advertisement for it. NYScholar (talk · contribs) was indef blocked for being systematically incapable of following the norms of interaction here IIRC and he was a far more productive contributor. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Good block. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Sandstein has not been involved in this matter previously, & his block is the judgment of a disinterested party. In other words, a decision has been made & the matter resolved. If Mcjakeqcool wants to be an accepted member of Wikipedia, he's got some larnin' to do. -- llywrch (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that User mcjakeqcool, should be unblocked, ONLY if he can follow wikipeida guidelines. 86.21.66.162 (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

He has posted another unblock request [4] It is addressed to me, and in that wretched blog. This is what it says

I have decided that if I am to be unblocked, to some exstent I have to change my tactics, I will seldem argue against wikipedia and when I do it will be in a professional manner, I am going to create a restraint order, which will NEVER allow me to mark any wikipedia edit as minor, article space or talk page and I will take a english course of some kind, however I can not promise good english as my english is very poor, I can speak english fluently but my gramma is not far off abysmal. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Would an admin like to look at it? Should I post it into an unblock template for him (I have a feeling that will bugger the template up and the admins will think it is me making the request). Should I take up Crossmr's suggestion and stand over him until he gets it right? I feel involved because it's addressed directly to me. Advice would be appreciated. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

He's been told what he needs to do. He's not a child. If he cannot (or will not) follow simple directions, nobody else should help him and we should just leave him be. He's not the first and won't be the last editor who demands that we change the entire encyclopedia for their ego, so I say ignore him and move on. He's not worth the energy and in my mind, further help just tells him he doesn't have to follow any rules to get what he wants because someone will always be there to follow him around. Besides, he's acting like it's some sort of negotiation where if he promises to do one thing, we'll get the benefit of his help here, not that he'll do what's needed to continue the privilege of editing here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, while he's amazingly not marked those two edits as minor, he has continued his ability to create more work for other editors as it necessitated elen posting here, or creating the unblock request for him. Unless he can demonstrate, completely on his own that he is a competent editor, I can't see the point of spending any further time here.--Crossmr (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel because User mcjakeqcool has changed his tactics in a postaive way, he should be unblocked. 217.204.11.196 (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jake. HalfShadow (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

WHAT?! 217.204.11.196 (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A geolocate lookup assigns the IP address 217.204.11.196 to the National Autistic Society in London, England. If this actually Mcjakeqcool, that would explain a lot. Doesn't excuse his behavior, though. -- llywrch (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Edits aren't consistent with Mcj - for one thing this editor identifies and corrects typos and poor spelling. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about, Elen; this IP has not edited in more than a month before suddenly coming out of nowhere to defend McJ. The old edits are of very limited value here, as this is probably a shared IP address. No, this is most likely a sock. The ducks are quacking loudly. Tim Song (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Tactics gives it away.--Crossmr (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

D'OH! Should have spotted that the first post here has a typical McJ spelling error. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No comment. User mcjakeqcool should still be unblocked though. 217.204.11.196 (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

and that more or less cements it. I don't even think a CU would be needed at this point. The IP should be blocked for a week for block evasion.--Crossmr (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you guys want another neutral, uninterested admin to process that "unblock" request above, I'll be happy to do it and take whatever flak comes as a result. Given the history on this guy, that unblock reason is not even close to adequate to show that the user will not continue to be troublesome once he's unblocked. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I for one would appreciate that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've interacted with MJC, notably when I patched up an article he created, and I was involved with the 2nd ANI thread. Back at that thread, I proposed a course of action which was adopted, designed to mend MJC's ways before resorting to indef. I also said, though, that if he showed no sign of improvement, I would support indef. MJC, I think, has not generally been out to cause trouble (though the whole minor-edit thing does seem disruptive), but his edits on the whole have been counter-productive as demonstrated. MJC does not seem to have the ability to be a productive Wikipedian. I support indef, but it's right we leave the door open for him to appeal in the future when he might be more suited to editing correctly. HonouraryMix (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Attacks at AfD

• Request for arbitration filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Skipsievert. Please comment there iff you feel your comment will increase the signal to noise ratio. Protonk (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Various articles in Category:Technocracy movement have gone to AfD recently. Pro-technocracy editor User:Skipsievert has attacked many of those who have initiated the AfDs or have spoken against the articles; these editors include myself, User:Lawrencekhoo, User:John Quiggin, and User:Beagel. I am concerned that Beagel in particular has today been drawn into this, see [5] and [6], as he is a very hard-working editor who is always civil and considerate to others. I am also concerned that the situation is escalating and that SS is discouraging editors from airing their views at the AfDs, and that a distorted outcome may result. The AfDs in question are:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technate (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urbanate (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Survey of North America
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technocracy Study Course (2nd nomination) -- Johnfos (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There was an aborted mediation attempt between many of these users. I recommend a conduct RfC. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've not been involved in any aborted mediation attempt; could you provide details please. Johnfos (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

here's the abortive mediation attempt, with some context for why it ended here. I don't really recommend spending much time on it if you weren't involved. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. My main concern here is that many editors are being subjected to repeated personal attacks at Technocracy AfDs and so are being warned off registering their views and comments at AfD. Johnfos (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I also received attacks from Skipsievert accusing me of tandem editing and have already set up a discussion at WQA.[7] The Four Deuces (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert causes grief with other groups as well, but Wikipedia seems to have no procedures for countering an editor like this. Some administrators enable him. For example, this admin offers him protection and tutors him on how to play the system, while this admin blocked an attempt to seek community redress. Apparently all is well, and we should just let him get on with it. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Inform me on my talk page for future violations of conduct. I'll see what I can do... before this hits arbitration, which seems otherwise likely. I hope this sounds OK. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert's conduct is a frustrating problem for numerous groups. Regarding Geronimo20's problem with User:Protonk, I couldn't follow the dispute in detail, but I'm confident Protonk was acting in a good faith attempt to make the procedures work. JQ (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly something needs to be done. There is also this very recent ANI discussion regarding this editor: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#Incorrigibly disruptive editor. Rd232 ^talk 08:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this has been dragging on, and obviously there are bigger issues about SSs behaviour to be considered here. But what are we to do with the AfDs where SSs intimidation has derailed the process? What about the hard-working editors who are getting innocently caught up in all of this nonsense? Johnfos (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

But that is the whole point John, that probably nothing will be done. Wikipedia processes seem broken, and without oversight, when it comes to an editor like this. Yet another thread on Skipsievert has been started at Wikiquette alerts, but I doubt anything will come of it. We bluster impotently on various noticeboards while Skipsievert marches happily on, leaving behind an ever enlarging trail of discouraged editors. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talk page, Skip has consistently refused to compromise and listen to other people, and he's spinning out of control into paranoia, wasting a lot of people's time. I'm one of the very few people who was able to work with him in a few times, but even I can't handle it anymore. He's using Wikipedia to preach Technocracy and thermoeconomics, and when people call him out on he says they're all in a conspiracy. Harassing people who disagree with you is disruptive and shouldn't be allowed. II | (t - c) 22:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I ran into Skip in Representative money and you can read my complaints in sections 5-8 of Talk:Representative_money, total POV misuse of sources, deleting WP:RS info in favor of WP:OR, etc. I haven't been involved in the AfD issues mentioned above, but have seen the accusatory pattern. Skip is the first editor I ran into who got me so frustrated that he alone made me want to quit editing - and I'm someone who constantly has been drawn into various Israel-Palestine related disputes over the years. At least one knows the opponent's motivation for policy violations in those cases! Wikipedia can't have credibility if this sort of chronic violation of Wikipolicies is allowed to continue. It just drives editors away. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

In my view, the only workable remedy for Skip's conduct is a ban from editing Wikipedia, for a period long enough to discourage him, and with the prospect of a permanent ban if he does not reform. Is there an admin willing to implement this?JQ (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Encyclopedia_of_Earth_.28eoearth.org.29 where editors who don't agree w/ Skip are lumped into a collection of "mainstream economists" with a COI who can be treated as "one voice". This appears to be the default mode of disagreement for Skip. Anyone against him is a solitary POV pusher until more than one person is against him, then it is a conspiracy. Protonk (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

There has been another personal attack reported here. But apparently nothing can be done because WP processes are broken? Certainly Wikiquette alerts, ANI, User conduct RfC, and Mediation have so far failed as far as Skipsievert is concerned, although they have provided some opportunity for editors to share their views. Johnfos (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the next step an RFC/U??

Haven't we already tried that? JQ (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, RfC. Isn't that the board especially designed so nothing happens, and people just vent? Perhaps you are right, John, and the admin boards are broken for cases like this. Surely SS is the most intransigent and destructive editor on WP at the moment, wreaking havoc among many content editors across several different topic areas. Please, anyone, correct me if that is not the case. The recent An/I called for a topic ban in one of those areas, with 13 agreeing (mainly the affected content editors) and one opposing admin. Now you would think that was a fairly strong consensus, yet nothing happened. The An/I was left to drift off into oblivion, with no action taken by an admin, and worse, no concluding comment by an admin that could have allowed us miserable content editors to make any sense of it.

Later, I discovered SS had asked an admin for guidance, and was advised thus. Apparently a consensus among affected editors is called a "tag team" by admins, and that is something that "most admins should see through". So now we know, there is a tacit rule, understood by admins, that nothing will happen in a case like this if there is consensus. When I tried to ask another admin for some guidance on how to best proceed, I just got the bums rush.

With the failure of this An/I, the sustainability project has attempted to regroup. There are nine committed editors (plus skip). However, the project seems bogged in a somewhat stunned state. This is the end result of a year of aggravation and attempts at mediation. And still nothing. SS is effectively still in control, with what is, in effect, the blessing of the admin community.

My impression is that there are a relatively small number of admins who patrol a given board, and effectively control what happens on it. Over time , they build tacit agreements among themselves about how and when they will proceed. So they operate background rules, not always made explicit, and which you can be privy to only by following the activity on a given board for some time. Now that is precisely what dedicated content editors do not do, and do not want to do. Their interest is in contributing to WP, and they should not be expected to be privy to every quirk on the various admin boards. But I know for myself, that lately I've stopped adding serious content to WP, and instead scan the often strange stuff that goes on at the various admin boards, trying to understand their failure to protect content editors. I wonder how many other editors have recently become unproductive as a result of our inability to reign in SS, and what the collective cost is to WP.

Is there a graph that shows the content added to WP over time, comparing it with the volume of text added to the various admin boards. Are we nearing the crossover point, when wiki dramatising on admin boards exceeds content contributions? I started out with the idea that the role of administrators was to provide a workable environment for content editors. Now I'm not so sure what they are about. It seems, often, that content editors just get in the way, and at times like the one in this thread, content editors are just left to wither on the vine. Anyway, I charge the admin community with a failure to address situations like this one, and invite them to consider whether a better approach can be found. --Geronimo20 (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Skip Sievert is the most disruptive editor I have ever had the mis-fortune to encounter. I've taken a partial wikibreak from editing because he gives me stomach cramps. I've seen him drive other editors away as well, something which his style of passive-aggressive comments and 'warnings' seem designed to do. If any admin is reading, can you advise on how this large group (I would guess more than 20) should proceed with this complaint? LK (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems like this large group, which I could consider a faction that edits together toward mainstream views, in my opinion is using the thread here as mostly an attack post blog/forum. I see no diffs that back up points given, and I think a large point of what this may be about is related to editors that prefer a certain viewpoint as being weightier in regard to editing practice on Wikipedia. Mostly this chain of events with LK above leading it, started here, when I thought he was being unfair to another editor on the Wiki econo project page here. Then a group of these editors that edit articles in a similar way, in the sense of mainstream presentation having weight started organizing and making a series of personal attacks such as this by Cretog8 that edits with Lawrence Khoo and John Quiggin often on economics articles, both of whom have gone from page to page inciting people such as this which points out related problems. Also Lawrence Khoo was warned to not remove cited information for various reasons on the main economics article which he and Cretog8 and John Quiggin were doing as noted here.

I am a neutral pov editor. And try to stick with r.s. and generally do not bring personalities into things, but the general un-diffed attack stuff above is not really appropriate, and there probably is a larger issue of a faction with a pov... being a desire to consider some things fringe or not mainstream enough and a desire to make some sources more weighty connected with so called mainstream, that may motivate negative comments on another editor, rather than actual conduct. No, I am not a conspiracy person, mostly it seems that conflicts of interest toward a certain viewpoint regardless of reliable sourcing to other viewpoints is at issue, and possibly some people that are uninformed as to some related viable information. Mostly I have tried to explain and defuse aspects of this, but have been met with a lot of negative commentary. More information on this issue here :::here's the abortive mediation attempt, with some context for why it ended here -

So, this may point out larger issues connected with factions editing to a pov... maybe equaling conflicts of interests in some cases, in my opinion, on some article topics, mostly related to energy and economics by people regarding themselves as expert editors that seem to be editing toward weight being determined by in their view mainstream. as expert editors expert editors which seems problematic in regard to issues here now. Both L.K. and J.Q. are known economists and appear also to be on a tangent to edit to a pov in regard to conflicted in regard to other information that is viable and reliably sourced. Also the person that started this thread has a long history of following me around and making negative commentary such as this, which are just the older ones. - Sorry about the length of this. - skip sievert (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As requested, here are some diffs:

• [8] Skip posts elsewhere about a possible topic ban for LK, in spite of it being an informal discussion with no support beside Skip.
• [9] Skip again posts that LK "is currently under consideration for being topic banned". Accusations of "tandem editing" and wikihounding.
• [10] Skip responds to editors weighing in on the "topic ban" by implying those editors are part of the problem.
• [11] One of several places Skip refuses to accept consensus on the reliable sources discussion, at the same time accusing several editors of being so compromised that they should be judged a single entity.
• Talk:Economics_and_energy#eoearth.org This discussion at Talk:Economics and energy, where I had gone through several additional hoops to get Skip to recognize the consensus.
• [12], [13] Skip accuses me of wikistalking and tells me to "Go elsewhere".
• [14] Weighing in on a user talk page notification which was on a completely different topic with accusations involving the posting editor and others who were not involved.
• [15] another accusation of wikistalking.

• After I had attempted a rancor-free discussion of the substance of some material causing conflict [16], one editor responded productively, and then Skip responded with an attack [17]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cretog8 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Good lord I have no specialist knowledge in economics, but focusing on this guy skips behavior it's just... godawful. Topic ban him from economics articles, broadly construed and be done. Until a firm line is taken on stuff like this, tendentious game players have the upper hand over well-meaning editors.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am not a tendentious game player. You probably ought to do some research, and not add to disinformation for an editing faction here without knowing some background. Notice the way the editor above has treated me in the past. You want to ignore that Bali ultimate,? and disregard others opinions? Think about the bigger picture here and how a group of people, with an ax to grind can use an attack mode on others here. skip sievert (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, everyone's out of step but Johnny. I get it. That people get fed up with this kind of endless BS is natural, and I don't blame them. Hopefully you'll be dealt with appropriately soon.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• No, but coming here to make an attack is pointless, you maybe should comment about the actual issues here, comment on content, not on contributors. Maybe you should read the related material instead of pontificating. skip sievert (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this speaks louder than my words here as to your approach toward me Cretog8 making an extreme personal attack. It seems to me that an effort to confuse normal editing and, and trying to bring out issues in regard to actual Wikipedia policies and guidelines is happening. - skip sievert (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has attempted to work with Skipsievert on the Sustainability pages without success, it is distressing to see that this pattern of personal attacks not only continues, but intensifies. A block would be in order, IMO. Sunray (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sunray and L.K. edit together in a group and Sunray has gone from article to article with an accusation that I am a sock puppet. among other things. This proved false. Sunray edits with Lawrence Khoo here and is part of other efforts in regard to attacking me in general. Mostly this thread is a poor excuse for an attack. This editing team to faction aspect is now piling people here again. The person that started this thread also edits there user Johnphos. - skip sievert (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This is one of those conflicts that leads people to avoid -- for good reason. It's hard to tell whether the problem is Skip Sievert's behavior itself, or he's behaving this way because he's championing an opinion the folks at this WikiProject disagree with. (I say this as someone who has little exposure to contemporary currents in economic thought, & was surprised at some of the answers in the mediation over what is "mainstream" vs. "heterodox" & "fringe" theories.) The simplest solution here, IMHO, would be for Skip Sievert to concede some ground here in order to show good faith to those who aren't experts on economics. Stay away from economics-related topics, & edit other articles & show us that you are capable of working with other people. (Free clue: people often start resorting to name-calling when they are frustrated & see no way towards working out a compromise or understanding.) The alternative would be for an uninvolved party to perform a thorough study of this conflict & state her/his findings -- as Bali ultimate has. And a second investigation might just confirm B's opinion -- although perhaps with different words. -- llywrch (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe llywrch, but there is an ongoing effort to attack an editor instead of the actual issues involved, so that to my mind is the real issue. I edit a wide variety of things on Wikipedia now besides Economics articles. Also Bali showed no indication of being familiar with any aspects of the actual background issues concerning this, but seemed to be going completely by others opinions that are editing in a faction aspect in my opinion mostly. You at least seem to understand the actual background issue in regard to this and I appreciate that. Note the kind of canvassing going on at page after page concerning an attempt which is pointed, to bring people here. I will concede some ground, as I normally do when reliable sources are used and ordinary editing practices. I try to stick with reliable source and n.p.o.v. - I do see a larger problem of faction editing and then that steam rolling in attacking another editor as I think this may show. I do believe this is the larger issue and connected with weight and fringe aspects according to some editors, that some disagree with, and those discussion have turned into a hunting down of people that dissagree. For this reason I think this boils down to a content issue, and probably this larger issue of weight to mainstream and Fringe issues needs addressing more than anything. Thanks. - skip sievert (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This stuff sickens me. Seriously. One user has been been holding up efforts for months. Literally, months. Many places. For better or worse? I don't know your subject matter, so I can't comment on that precisely. It's really this simple; Skip is of the opinion that 1 person alone can be consensus and is the ultimate truth to the world, even in the face of literally very other involved (and some uninvolved) persons on Wikipedia. It's not because it's Skip, but anyone who tried to get away with stuff like this I'd be disgusted by. I'm not going to pretend to know anything about all your projects so I literally have no opinion of the content. Seriously. I've tried to read some of it and kind of spaced out for awhile :) Does not matter who, though. Some of his regular "foes" in editing don't look like saints, either, but they're at least speaking with consensus, and that means a lot on Wikipedia. Skip-- just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're out to get you. It just means they can't find any logic in how you think Wikipedia policies and guidelines work, since it's clearly not the view that anyone else shares. Putting a WP:DGAF box on your userpage isn't an excuse to force conflict. Consensus is consensus. You go with it. That's how it works here. Period.

No type of dispute resolution on Wikipedia has ever worked, all the way up to mediation which Skip walked away from. No ANI is ever actually closed in favor of Skip's position (5+ of them, but rather the entire complaint and discussion are clogged with text from the solitary conflicted person and point of view and no admin seems to be able to jump in to render a decision before it gets too large to follow it all. Literally, canvassing discussions with Skip's own user to shove everyone away. Literally! Sixteen edits to this page over the course of 2 hours just to try to put static into the consensus of everyone else. Ironically, Skip complains of canvassing quite often, just in the opposite direction. I can't seem to ever see Skip actually answer someone's question with anything other than "yes", "no", or "u tandem". Messages in left in good faith get deleted with harassment warnings sent back. Oh, then there's the whole matter of Skip replacing large sections of text in articles with 100% new content, then complaining after it gets reversed for "see talk page" because there "wasn't consensus to stop him"? Very rarely does Skip actually ask in advance about making changes. Results as pathetic as this[18] and here[19] show where Skip seems to think it's okay to add text cited from the NY Times and leave it infallible in the article even if it's seen as fringe and not related-- just because it's the NY Times means you can't remove sourced into! Really. This is not cool to look at from any angle. No one is blameless, and levels of frustration from "mildly peeved" to "holywtf?" that I have of persons dug far deep into this. Sorry Skip, but as the sole outlier you makes the situation far too obvious even if the hubris of many is open to interpretation. Everyone involved seems to be at least a little insane, but at least most will pause article changes to discuss at least at least. Anyway, I'll just sit back and wait for Skip to come around a yell at me for ... I don't even know what. I'm just some freaking loser lowbie editor who that responds to misc help and comments in posted discussions. I bet s/he'll claim everything has been a neutral view from his point so s/he is infallible, then forget that an overwhelming consensus decided a source Skip used was not reliable and is very literally continuing the discussion on WP:IDONTHEARYOU. Sigh. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

S.S. almost singlehandedly motivated me to come up with a list of fixes for the MetaPolicy Taskforce advertised on top of pages maybe 6 weeks ago. Now I can't find the link. Anyone know where it is now so I can give them the list of things to do to get more editors in to help out in these areas?? )(Beside of course just becoming an editor who opines more on the various Notice Boards!!) Thanks!!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert has said above: "I am a neutral pov editor. And try to stick with r.s. and generally do not bring personalities into things...", but what has happened in relation to the Technocracy articles over a period of several years demonstrates that this is simply not the case. My opening post in this thread shows that SS is regularly bringing personalities into things, and judging from my own experience and from what others have said here, SSs repeated personal attacks have resulted in much time-wasting and in some editors leaving WP (or at least thinking of leaving) and others taking wikibreaks. Moreover, I have never seen such a blatant case of POV-pushing and poor sourcing, across a whole suite of articles as in Category:Technocracy movement. POV pushing was an issue that was discussed at SS's 2008 user conduct RfC, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Skipsievert.

I am concerned that SSs own brand of pro-technocracy views have unbalanced articles such as Technocracy movement, Technocracy Incorporated and Energy accounting, and SS's agressive promotion of his own agenda and personal attacks have resulted in many hundreds of posts from him to the Technocracy movement talk page. There are many scholarly books written on the issue of Technocracy but these are not being referred to, and the WP articles typically rely on the slanted views of a few self-published and wiki sources. One of these dubious sources is Encyclopedia of Earth, which was discussed here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Encyclopedia_of_Earth_.28eoearth.org.29.

There is a lot of overlapping content in the Technocracy articles (ie., particular paragraphs and chunks of text appearing in several articles), see Talk:Energy accounting#More repetition and [20], and it appears that repetition of content across articles has been used by SS as a way to blatantly push technocratic ideas. And there are many separate articles on individual jargon words used in Technocracy, such as Urbanate and Technate, which again represent repetition and just seem to serve to increase the footprint of Technocracy issues on WP.

I would also mention that I first became aware of Skipsievert and Technocracy issues when SS posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy in February 2009, requesting help with the Energy accounting article, see [21]. And I responded to that request in good faith and offered advice. Previous to reading the Energy accounting article I had never heard of Technocracy Incorporated or the Technocracy Study Course. So I don't have anything against Technocracy per se, but there are many problems with the way the subject is being presented and dealt with on WP. Johnfos (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not pro anything or pushing anything, and I find the above disturbing. Wikipedia is only about sources and verifiablity, not truth. See also the disclaimer. I also have not canvassed anyone to come here or to other pages, and do not plan to. The person that started this thread has on multiple pages... one example of many, I could list many. Here is another place you have canvassed called Please see, here. There are multiple other ones connected with yourself and a couple of others here that have gone from page to page to solicit people to come here. Since you started this thread this maybe should be known that you are beating the bushes for contributors. Also noted again from user User:Johnfos, that you have trailed my editing negatively in the past Johnphos past connection. - skip sievert (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this whole thing should be thrown out as it is noted that the main contributors here have almost all canvassed each other to come here for a negative attack... another canvassing action from a poster here. I could give other multiple examples of this. - skip sievert (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

At the very least could an admin speak to him about using 'it has been noted' and 'it is noted' to preface his own personal opinion? They imply a consensus (or at least a plurality of opinion) that is not there. In almost every single one of his edits it should be appropriately replaced with 'I feel that'. Everytime I see that phrase used dishonestly by Skip, it gives me a stomach ache. LK (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

All this business from SS about "canvassing" is nonsense. The instructions at the top of this page clearly say "You must notify any user that you discuss", and that is what I did following my opening comment on this thread.

SS, you need to be aware that you are highly visible on WP now. Many users know who you are and they watch what you do. There is no need to follow you around or canvass, because the disruption you cause is highly visible. Johnfos (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Here we have a case where a single editor is having a disruptive impact across multiple articles over a period of years. The community's response? Discuss this user at length, not noticing that this attention seems to be precicely the thing he most enjoys. The process itself is broken, but there is an opportunity to discuss the process and how it could be improved here [[22]]. It seems completely clear that nothing will happen as a result of this notice unless through some wider review of the whole process.--Travelplanner (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• New Topic? With Skipsievert holding up discussions from being closed on 3 different comment/incident areas at the same time, something new is going to need to be put up somewhere. Really, I don't see what's stopping closure. How many other times have admins been brought in over and over again like this and zero action was ever taken? Lack of action is pretty much admitting that someone can WP:GAME his or her out of any trouble. Things like this are why some aspects of Wikipedia lose credibility or stop new editors from coming in. I seriously have no idea whatsoever if what Skip is standing up for by himself in article content is correct/proper/worth it or not, but it is never acceptable for someone to hold up anything so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datheisen (talk • contribs) 13:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Moreschi

User:Moreschi with the help of User:Grandmaster tries to merge the article of Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan while no any consensus (3v3) at the talk [23] and no admin made any decision on merge. Using his admin privileges, Moreschi is supporting one-side actions at the Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement area which is quite dubious and a neutral view on these actions could be very helpful! Gazifikator (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

it does look to me that he is abusing his privileges. maybe his administrator status should be challenged. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Gazifikator, if you want this to be able to stand on its own, you need to expand Islam in Azerbaijan to the point where summary style article is warranted if that article is not to become grossly swollen. Please read that guideline and abide by it, otherwise you are just disruptively content forking. Moreschi (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

so should we merge Fundamentalist_Christianity and Christianity or are those two separate things? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could read Wikipedia:Summary style as well, and stop sticking your nose into areas where you patently have no clue just to piss me off. Shoo. Moreschi (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

man, are you unpleasant type. i'm going to "stick my nose" where ever i want. piss your self off as much as you want, i don't give a damn. Shoo you. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi, the policies regarding civility and no personal attacks apply to administrators even more than to other editors. Please observe them in the future.  Sandstein  10:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, since when is "shoo" incivil? As to the rest, it was a factual description of what this IP is doing. He's pissed off because I blocked his friend Ludvikus, posted in this thread, not because he knows anything about the long-running armenia-azeri wars, but just to annoy me. Moreschi (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I know what it's like to do admin work in a highly contentious ethno-political subject area. Just keep your cool and try not to sink to the level of discourse preferred by the various ethno-warriors, is my advice.  Sandstein  11:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

i really don't need to have a harvard education to be able to make a distinction between radical islam and islam. it is quite obvious to me. no need to look into talk page archives for the "reasoning" behind their merge. (ps. i saw this thread only because it was right above my thread below -- i didn't "chase" you through this page to find you and "piss you off") 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

p.s. Ludvikus is NOT my friend, nor do i know him/her. I simply don't like seeing unjustice, and i see it quite a bit here on wikipedia. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Harvard education or no, you have clearly not read Wikipedia:Summary style, or, for that matter Wikipedia:Content forking. If you had, you might understand why it is the correct style to treat "radical islam in X" as apart of "islam in X" until the "radical" section becomes too big and has to be spun off into its own child article. Which it probably will do in most cases, but clearly not here. Moreschi (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

you're right, 212.200.205.163! That's what we discussed with other users, while Moreschi preferred to merge the article with no explanation and in the same 'civil' manner he/she has. Admins with such a 'civil' language and no interest to discuss or even explain his views do not add any honor to Wikipedia! Like in our post-soviet semi-democratic countries where the government is less civil than the citizens. That's sad... Gazifikator (talk) 11:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You are being highly disingenuous. I quick glance at the talk page shows 5 users supporting a merge with 3 opposing, one of whom just said "per Gazifikator". Looks like ample consensus for a merge to me, particularly as all the actual content is retained at (you guessed it) [[Islam in Azerbaijan, without, it seems, overburdening that article. Wikipedia guidelines take precedence over your desire to create your own content fork. Moreschi (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

your mention of Wikipedia:Content forking shows that you don't understand the distinction between radical islam and islam. they are not POV's, they are different things. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• To address the original point made by Gazifikator, after looking at the history of Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) it does appear that Moreschi has misused his admin tools to win a content dispute. After having revert-warred over the merger of the page to Islam in Azerbaijan previously ([24], [25], [26]), he protected the page in his preferred (merged) version ([27]). That is a very serious matter. I do hope there is a good explanation for this, because otherwise a request for arbitral removal of tools will be unavoidable.  Sandstein  11:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, please. Have you bothered to have a look at the history? 5 users support the merge, 3 oppose, all the content is retained at the target article, I do the merge as uninvolved admin. This is how consensus works, no? A couple of SPAS and IPs (presumably socks/meatpuppets of Gazifikator) revert, they are in turn reverted and the redirect semiprotected. Locked out because of the autoconfirm requirement, Gazikikator immediately logs back in to revert himself. The original consensus stands, so he is reverted and the redirect locked. This is in no way violation of tools, just administrative enforcement of legitimate talkpage consensus. The fact that I happen to agree with the merge is irrelevant, as I did not participate in the original talkpage discussion. Moreschi (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) I assume you refer to Talk:Islam in Azerbaijan#Merge. It is not common practice to enforce a merger consensus with page protection, since consensus can change (and 5 to 3 doesn't look like a consensus for merging to me). Should there be edit warring about a contested merger, your duty as an uninvolved admin would be to sanction the edit warriors or protect the m:WRONG version, not revert to your preferred version first. It is also not clear from the history that you acted as an uninvolved administrator in this merger discussion, and contrary to what you say I can't see where you made the merger. Your contributions to Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan are limited to repeatedly reverting the unmergers of others, without discussion, and finally protecting the page in the merged version.  Sandstein  11:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please bother to review the history? The merge was made (can't remember who by) Gazifikator reverted, I reverted back. By doing so I was signalling my approval as uninvolved admin that the merge should go ahead. Which it did with no dissent, apart from IPs, SPAs, and Gazifikator, who seems to have reverted to meatpuppetry. Gazifikator does not get to ignore a perfectly valid talkpage consensus (and, frankly, not only did the mergists not only have better numbers but also better arguments by far, and yes, we are supposed to evaluate that) simply by reverting back to his content fork. Edit warring, ignoring consensus, content forking, and apparently meatpuppetry. This is disruption. Moreschi (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You may be right that there's disruption going on, Moreschi, but (a) admins have no special authority in content issues, and (b) one can either act as an editor or as an administrator in a content dispute, not both. At no time during your reverts of the unmerger did you indicate that you were acting as an administrator to enforce a consensus (even if "enforcing consensus" was an admin job, which it is not). This means you acted as an ordinary editor, and can't later put on your admin hat to stop an edit war that you were a part of. I'm sorry, but I am very disappointed.  Sandstein  11:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I'm sorry: it is generally accepted practice that admins close contested merge discussions. We have a whole page for it. The only valid criticism to be made here is that, yes, I arguably should have explicitly stated on the talkpage "I am closing this merge discussion". Calling for an arbcom case just because I didn't fill out all the form is just bizarre. Why not just AGF that was I not trying to edit war, and was instead trying to close the merge discussion? Clearly it seems I should have posted on the talkpage, although no one seemed to complain at the time. FFS, I think dealing with disruption is far more important than making sure each microscopic step of process is followed to the letter, in triplicate. This is process wanksterism, and it's highly unconstructive. Moreschi (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The page you link to is WP:RM, which is about moves, not mergers. Maybe you meant WP:PM, but that page does not mention the intervention of admins anywhere. I am sorry, but I do not see you acting as an administrator trying to close a merge discussion. Had you wanted to, you would have actually closed it. Rather, you simply reverted to a redirect multiple times without any discussion whatsoever. That would be bad editing practice for any normal editor, let alone an administrator.  Sandstein  12:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, why not AGF? Why are you assuming I am lying? The discussion had been done on the talkpage, and IPs, SPAs, and the article creator were trying to ignore it. Since we can assume the IPs and SPAs to be meatpuppets of the article creator, this is disruption in the form of ignoring consensus. While the vast majority of merge discussions need no admin intervention, it is common practice in nationalist disputes to get an uninvolved admin to help out (my talkpage archives are chockfull of such requests) as the parties realise any attempt to deal with a contested merge themselves will simply lead to a vast bout of revert-warring. Moreschi (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd very much like to see it your way, because I appreciate your work in these topic areas, and fully agree with your essay, User:Moreschi/The Plague. But what I see in the article history simply does not match your explanation. All I see are three reverts (1, 2, 3), with no useful edit summary or talk page explanation or anything. That is typical edit-warring behaviour, but more importantly, by repeatedly reverting to your preferred version (whether or not it has consensus behind it), you became an involved editor in the content dispute. That was why it was completely out of order for you to suddenly put on your admin hat after the last revert and protect your preferred version.

I would like to have a committment from you that you will not use admin tools again to enforce what you perceive to be consensus in content issues, and that you will more generally not use admin tools again while involved in a content dispute. If that's fine with you, the matter is resolved as far as I am concerned, and we can go ban a few nationalist trolls together.  Sandstein  12:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverting a single-purpose account, or a random one-edit IP address, is not edit-warring. It is responsible use of the revert button in accordance with maintaining encyclopedicity and consensuality. Yes, I should have posted on the talkpage, but since everybody concerned knew who I was and what I do, they understood perfectly well what was going on. You are wikilawyering, enabling trolls and forum-shoppers, and seem totally unable to understand that banning or blocking nationalist trolls is only a means to an end, not an end in itself. That end is encyclopedicity. You can either take this to arbcom or quit this thread. I am not going to change my methodology. I have used admin status and tools to nudge the nationalists towards WP:ENC for 2 years now. It has worked well, far better than any robotic enforcement of the rules, and is not going to be altered. Moreschi (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I'll drop it here, if only because I have no intention of supporting whatever assortment of POV-pushers are on either side of this dispute, but I do believe your approach of involving yourself in content disputes with admin tools is profoundly mistaken, and very likely counterproductive.  Sandstein  13:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Unfortunately, if admins have no authority in content issues, Wikipedia effectively has no way to enforce consensus. There's a highly mistaken notion out there that consensus will enforce itself just by the continued editing of the community. In areas like this one that are classic nationalist hotspots, this is more or less guaranteed not to happen due to the truth crusaders who will stop at nothing. This leaves us with a need for occasional bending of the rules (which, may I point out, is entirely accepted within policy). Also, Sandstein, your patronizing attitude is not helping anything. If you cannot see that Moreschi is trying to enforce Wikipedia's content policies, you're missing the point completely, and being patronizing toward someone like that is also missing the point completely. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not mean to be patronizing, but please show me the policy that says that admins have the authority to enforce consensus with administrator tools. The proper way to deal with truth crusaders is to ban or block them, not to take sides in their content disputes, as Moreschi did here.  Sandstein  12:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, lord. You just don't get it, do you? Our job is the maintence of encyclopedicity. Everything is secondary to that - everything. The nationalists actually understand that, which is why, by and large, my role as a neutral voice settling their disputes is largely accepted. The encyclopedia is the patient suffering from plague. Our role as admins in curing the plague consists largely of minimizing disruption, yes, but this dependent upon establishing which side of the dispute is most in accord with encyclopedicity. If we don't do that, we're doing more harm than good. Acting out of ignorance is worse than not acting at all. Encyclopedicity here means Wikipedia:Summary style, incidentally. Moreschi (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good, but of course it assumes that we administrators are the judges of encyclopedicity. Wikipedia just does not work that way. Content is determined by consensus, not by decree, and we were elected as administrators, not as content moderators.  Sandstein  13:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Heimstern's post is correct, of course, but doesn't actually go far enough. People like Gazifikator are always going to revert as much as they can even when consensus is against them. They'll use up their 3rr allowance, and the other editors (Grandmaster, etc), if they are to "enforce consensus", have to revert as well. Of course, to people like Sandstein, this will look like nationalist gang warfare (as indeed it would be, to a certain extent). So everyone gets blocked and heaven knows what happens to the article.

This is clearly not sustainable, hence we have admins (that's me) dealing with disruption, closing merge discussions, and enforcing consensus. Yes, this may be skating on thin ice as far as WP:ADMIN is concerned, but the alternative is far worse. At the price of (arguably inflated, yes) sysop power, we get a massive reduction in disruption and drama (or we would do were it not for Sandstein stirring the pot here). A price worth paying? You decide. Moreschi (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"..At the price of (arguably inflated, yes) sysop power.." You said it all with that statement. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Shrug. The disruption that caused 2 massive arbcom cases has not revisited arbcom since - and that's only in this topic-area, let alone the other areas I monitor. I'd say it works fairly well, given the passion of the editors at hand. Moreschi (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • While I accept Moreschi's explanation in principle, I agree it looks a little bit borderline; however, I too find that in light of relevant guidelines and on the basis of strength of policy-based arguments there was a valid consensus to merge, so I have removed Moreschi's protection and replaced it with my own, as an entirely uninvolved administrator. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The article was a clear POV fork littered with weasel words and original research, and note that at least four editors including Moreschi were redirecting, versus Gazifikator, an IP and a clear sock. Whilst in a perfect world Moreschi should've asked someone else to protect it, There's certainly no need to get all dramatic and start asking for an ArbCom case. There's nothing here that demands that. Black Kite 11:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Just an example of OR from the article, please! And could you explain, why the only 2 uninvolved users are supporting that "weasel worded OR"? Gazifikator (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• In fact the far more serious issue appears to be that Gazifikator has either been sockpuppeting or soliciting meatpuppets. It is certainly highly suspicious that the minute my semiprotection locks out the IPs and SPAs he reappears with his main account to revert again. This suggests either a highly improper degree of coordination or just plain socking. Moreschi (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Quite possibly, but that is a matter for a WP:SPI investigation. Though I am frankly tired of seeing Gazifikator and Grandmaster (talk · contribs) repeatedly involved in every one of these A-A wars; maybe both need a long topic ban.  Sandstein  11:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well, yes, this is a tempting way to look at it. Unfortunately if I banned every single one of these people, they'd be replaced by a new crowd of nationalists within about six months (including some reincarnations). And we wouldn't get anywhere. We just have to deal with the disruption as it comes and keep things at a low leve, periodically blocking those who sock, edit war or violate WP:BATTLEGROUND too blatantly. It's a perennial problem that has to be solved by constant supervision. There is no way around this. Moreschi (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again we have this [28], so I prefer to not be called a SPA-user by Moreschi. He can't attack me using non-confirmed accusations! Gazifikator (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't call you a SPA. Stop being silly. That comment was for the one-edit account who did a revert. Moreschi (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • The only 2 uninvolved users voted 'oppose', and what's wrong if one of them preferred just to support my view. While you failed to express your views on support of under AA2 users (you know, I mean the Azerbaijani users who obviously dislike the existence of such an article: one of them vandalized the article previously and another was noticed for non-civil comment). And about "SPA"'s and IP's - they have no relation with me [29] (I wasn't the only active editor), others also just see injustice in your unexplained actions! And FYI: there is still no admin's decision in your "5/3" Gazifikator (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Note: I have blocked the 212.200.205.163 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) for disruptive editing. It also appears to be a duck test sock puppet of, or else somebody with an identical agenda as, Ludvikus (talk · contribs), who is indef blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 13:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the IP's use of English was better than Ludvikus. Then again, I appear to have already made an blunder by WP:AGFing on Ludvikus for so long. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Involved admin in topic areas shouldn't be using ops in any kind of regard. Ryulong was desysopped not too long ago with ArbCom making very clear statements to this effect. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocking of “A” “nationalists” [30] – looks like support of “B” "nationalists" [31]. May be such definitely not easy issues better to be handled not by opera prolific editor with a big admin guns?94.179.181.178 (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm late for the party, but if you read the entire talkpage, there is 5v3, not 3v3 as indicated above. Hope, that says it all. Moreschi's actions are entirely justified, no need for a storm in a teacup. Brand[t] 21:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The blocking policy makes it clear that involved admins are not justified. By making such a claim as you do above, you do not benefit to Moreschi, but you undermine your future credibility in responses. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, the majority of your response is quite counterproductive, and I think you appear to have troubles accepting that anyones opinion can be different to yours. This is highlighted by your choice to focus on Brand's last sentence which is his opinion on the merits of this, rather than on his first sentence which notes a useful fact that there were clear issues with the filing complaint to begin with. This is further problematic when you bring up a user's credibility - neither is it needed at this discussion (or by policy), nor is it appropriate. By contrast, your first sentence would have been both appropriate and sufficient, on its own. You really need to start taking on the advice you were given during your previous block (or when it was lifted): to change your approach in responding to others, particularly those you disagree with. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocking policy is rather clear. It is not "opinion" based. If you disagree, please look at many ArbCom cases with such individual desysopped. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand why Moreschi is being criticized here. Let's have a look at the history of the article. The article was merged after the discussion at talk by User:NickPenguin [32], an editor, who has previously never been involved in AA issues. Gazifikator reverted the merge, [33] and started an edit war, despite the fact that he was placed on 1 rv per week parole. Gazifikator got blocked twice for edit warring on this article, trying to undo the merge. First time he was blocked by Sandstein, [34] and second time by Moreschi: [35] When edit warring on Radical Islamism became problematic for Gazifikator, it was suspiciously picked up by SPAs and anon IPs. First it was reverted by an obvious SPA Ptrustct (talk · contribs): [36], and then twice by 91.210.40.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). [37] [38] This pretty much looks like meatpuppeting, as the sock and the anon were continuing the edit war led by Gazifikator. Note that once the article got semiprotected, and edit warring using anon IPs became impossible, Gazifikator resumed the edit war on that article: [39] To me this looks like an off-wiki coordinated effort. And then when the redirect got permanently protected, Gazifikator took it here, complaining about the admin who protected it. I'm surprised that no one takes any notice of disruption by Gazifikator, of the off wiki coordinated edit warring with the use of SPAs, but the admin who tried to stop the disruption became a target of criticism. If someone is not happy with the merge, there are procedures for contesting it, but edit warring should not be tolerated and encouraged, especially when it involves violation of editing restrictions and apparent meatpuppeting. Grandmaster 06:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:7107delicious - seeking attention

I'm sure that 7107delicious (talk · contribs) has nothing but the best intentions leaving unwarranted username warnings, "clerk" notes, and now oversighted messages on Jimbo's talk page, but perhaps they could use a mentor? They are apparently the same user as "retired" RuleOfThe9th (talk · contribs). Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The user name warning appears to be a good faith edit - possible suggestion of paedophilic tendencies. Agree re the clerk note though. That template should not be used by anyone except clerks. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(interjecting) No, what 7107delicious said is that "Kidshare" "matches the name 'Rapidshare', which is a promotional username". Given that "share" is a common word, this comment doesn't make sense. —Finell (Talk) 17:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I took off the bad use of template from User talk:Kidshare (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Another unusual behavior of User:7107delicious is that this user's displayed signature does not in any way resemble the actual user name and this user changes the displayed signature frequently. This, in effect, disguises who is posting and also makes it appear that the posts with different signatures are by different users. However, I have not seen this user use different signatures in the same discussion, which would be a new form of socking. —Finell (Talk) 17:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You have never read the username change request page. On there, it specifically recommends changing one's signature in lieu of changing a username: "As an alternative, please consider changing your signature. This will change your "public appearance" on talk pages and other places where you sign your username with ~~~~." In situations such as votes in an AfD, an Admin would look carefully at the sig links. Pretending to garner consensus through multiple sigs (making it look like more people) would be bad. Some links to where this might have happened would be beneficial. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

But to change it so often? Why? Also, I specifically said above, "I have not seen this user use different signatures in the same discussion", so I don't understand your request for diffs. —Finell (Talk) 18:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to WP:AGF, so let them "personalize", as long as they don't disrupt. My comment about posting diff's refers to "if you ever actually see a violation in the future". Sorry if it was not clear. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked 7107 recently [40] about this and he did say he thought he'd settled on something he liked. Kidshare could potentially be a promotional username [41] [42] [43] [44], so a little more AGF wouldn't go amiss. Also 7107 reported here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#It.27s_User:Mikhailov_Kusserow_up_to_the_case_again. that he was having problems with a user who appears to be definitely bad faith templating editors (sticking on half a dozen vandalism templates without any vandalism reverts......what's going on there then?) Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I did not say that 7107 did anything in bad faith. Again, I explicitly said in my first post here, "I have not seen this user use different signatures in the same discussion". Nevertheless, I'm satisfied, and I'm done with this issue. —Finell (Talk) 19:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. You certainly didn't. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, thanks. —Finell (Talk) 19:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The user changed their name, and deleted the userpage at the old name, because they wanted to move away from a warning template on their page. (See their edit history for the conversation. ) I don't think they'll accept mentoring, but someone could try. Remember Civility (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I was only changing due to the fact that I can't seem to change my username. Again, the username is less frequently changed. And would you explain why your thoughts are thinking of incivility and WP:SOCK? I have never stated that I expected this account for any disruptive contributions, or for any incivilitized activities. Do you guys mean that I am following the bad faith duites of Mikhailov Kusserow?--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 12:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, ok, ok, so I see that this all began with WP:CHU, the Kidshare issue, and my signature. First off, what's a clerk? If anyone joins a CHU discussion, other than a 'crat, who could that be? Next off, I just took a look at the link, and I see that this username (Kidshare) is something from an educational link. Thank you for the help, but why should the template be removed? I am concerned of the username given. And, to finish today's "script", I liked unique signatures. Then what signatures should I use? 7107delicious|Spricht mit mir?--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 12:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the angry-expressed posting, BTW.--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 12:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHU is not a discussion - unlike say ... where we are now. CHU is the technical process. A Clerk is someone (usually an admin) who understands the related policies and has volunteered/been assigned the task of pre-vetting the requests for completeness, etc. A Bureaucrat then performs the actions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 14:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I just picked a few recent examples, but there are plenty more where those came from. They have now declared Das Sicherheit (talk · contribs) as an alternate account but it has no contributions yet. They also appear to be connected to 202.47.69.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which is a school IP. If I wasn't brimming over with good faith, I'd suggest blocking the IP for persistent vandalism with account creation disabled and being done with it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not using Das Sicherheit (in which I am currently logged on) for sockpuppetry activities. I have never used this IP for a single month. And I am not committing to sockpuppetry.--Das Sicherheit ^{SPRICHT MIT MIR, ODER...} 02:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW user 7107delicious has been above board with his changing of accounts, and his asking permission for a new account. Hopefully he will stick with his latest signature, as it is getting a tad confusing... LOL! Anyway, I have had a fair few interactions with the user over the past couple of months (both old account and new), and my general opinion is of someone who is very keen to support Wikipedia, but a bit too keen to respond to others on someone elses talk page (which is why I think Mikhailov Kusserow responded the way he did). With a bit of nudging in the right direction when required, he will make for a fine editor. Stephen! ^Coming...

After posting a notice that they are on "wikibreak" until 15 December, they subsequently left some a note for a newly banned user which doesn't seem very helpful. When does the "nudging" begin? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just looked back over the edits of the user since he went on this wikibreak. It looks very much like he is still adding comments to people's talk pages which might not be adding value. I did talk to him about it a while ago, but I suspect that a bit of reigning in on his edits on peoples talk pages wouldn't go amiss. I am not sure of the motivation behind some of his edits are, in particular this one. At a guess, I would say that he is trying to behave like an admin, to prove that he is ready for the mop (his recent application did not succeed). Unfortunately, he appears to be stepping on toes rather than getting on with the job of proving himself. Also, the disparity with the notices on his user page and what he is actually doing does appear to be causing concern.

If anyone has any ideas as to how he can be nudged in the right direction, please suggest it! Stephen! ^Coming... 17:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Still adding "clerk" notes despite the earlier discussion. Just block the accounts and school IP already... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, seeing as he hasn't been given any warning (other than general cautions), I would say that is a bit harsh. I would like to hear his explanation as to why he is adding comments that amount to little more than "I agree" and add no value whatsoever. I did drop a note last night on his talk page asking him to come back to this discussion. Hopefully he will (although I recognise that the clerk notes happened after I dropped the note). I'm still holding out on WP:AGF to explain his edits! Stephen! ^Coming... 09:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

First off, I must ask you guys. Should I be an administrator to be a clerk on WP:CHU? And second of all, I decided to call my Wikibreak off (again, I did this on my old account), since I can't seem to take my mind of Wikipedia. As for you, Delicious carbuncle, why block both of my accounts? Am I using Das Sicherheit (talk · contribs) absuviely, and that I am a sockpuppeter and must be blocked?

Back to the topic. I just edited Indonesian National Police and some Indonesian articles, and went back to the general discussions of Wikipedia-related articles. And I apologize, but I had a blackout last night and couldn't seem to respond to your discussions, and to explain my previous edits.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten} 10:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:ADMIN for info on being an admin. You will need an good understanding of wikipolicy, and even from the posts you made at WP:CHU you have a long way to go. Based on the fact that you only have about 140 edits, you have a real long way to go. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Kurt Weber

Kmweber (talk · contribs) has begun editing again, and asked on GlassCobra's talk page for his user and user talk pages to be unprotected. I have done so, and have also undeleted the histories of both those pages. I vaguely remember some drama around the time that Kurt left the community, so I would appreciate it if someone could look over my actions. Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the user vanished. Vanished means vanished; it's not the same as a wikibreak. Majorly talk 18:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This was the state of the ban proposal during which Kurt retired. I don't think there was consensus to ban then and he seemed to acknowledge that his behaviour had been disruptive in a way that he had not intended, so unless there have been developments between then and now, I don't see why he does not deserve a wait and see approach.  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the consensus to ban was pretty apparent, but was made moot by the retirement of Kurt. If Kurt wants to edit again, then the obvious thing to do is to make a new account; if he stays away from the type of interaction that got people so exasperated then there will be no reason for the accounts to be linked. I don't know why Kurt is so keen to reactivate the old account, and am afraid that is indicates that Kurt still does not "get it" why people previously complained about him. That said, I would not be adverse to the content editor that previously edited as Kmweber returning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would want him to create a new account. We should encourage him to stick to the old account if anything. Whether or not he should be allowed to edit is another matter altogether. And he did not vanish, he left. That's not the same thing at all. He left, he can come back, if he wasn't banned, he can edit; if he was banned (or would have been) then he can edit only if we let him. BTW, protecting his talk page was out of process.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Doug is right. Creating a new account would make it look as if he tried to trick the community into thinking he was a new user. Just let him edit from the old account, if he does exhibit a problematic editing pattern again, we can act upon it when it happens. It's not as if he does not know that. Regards SoWhy 19:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And looking back at the discussion, I do not see a consensus for an outright ban. A topic ban restricting him to article and article talk space does appear to have been getting solid support but I concur that we should let him edit and wait and see what he does. Has anybody talked to him about his choice to come back?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I just notified him of this thread on his talk page. I note that he returned on the 9th with four edits in the article/talk space and two edits yesterday, one in article space and one requesting assistance from an admin with a deleted page. That plus the request for unprotection don't give me a whole lot of concern yet. I think we can close this thread as resolved in that no one has suggested that NW's unprotection was improper.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I unprotected the talk page to let him do what he needs and so the tabs look right for other editors.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 20:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the community ban part, but it's certainly clear that there are a lot of people who would be happy if he refrains from posting in WP:RFA indefinitely. If he wants to prove to his detractors that he is interested in making good faith contributions to Wikipedia, I strongly advise him to stay far away from there. -- llywrch (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The rfa stuff is fine; there's a fucking huge slab of text there now about ignoring some votes. anyone running for admin who doesn't even read the rfa rules doesn't deserve to pass. anyone who thinks he's trolling shouldn't be feeding his. anyone who thinks his point needs rebuttal can e pointed to the fucking huge slab of text, and reminded that closing vote counters ignore his votes. He's a lot less disruptive than many other editors. (eg most frequent poster here) Remember Civility (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

With a name like that & all of those f-bombs in your post, I figure you live under a bridge yourself & have nothing to contribute here. -- llywrch (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A general comment. Please stop recommending that past banned users should start up new accounts. Apart from the fact that such an action is technically possible (thought see Durova for an argument that evasion is eventually futile), it does us no good to suggest that obscuring account history is valuable. We have this bizarre community hallucination about the ideal banned editor who starts up a new account and edits productively outside a narrow topic area that got them banned. That either describes an exceptionally narrow band of editors or stems from rampant wishful thinking on the part of a community known for wishful thinking. I'm not disputing that some bans are de facto topic bans and that circumventing those bans may actually result in a net-good, just arguing that the track record is pretty shitty. The blanket suggestion should look like this: for bans imposed hastily or unilaterally, some unblock or unban without conditions should be considered (or with a topic ban as a sole condition). For bans imposed after some time (as KM's was), the standard offer should be extended. Not this garbage about starting a new account. Protonk (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also a specific comment. Linking to the most recent ban for KMW obscures the fact that prior bans and topic bans had been enacted. Full disclosure, I supported one of the ban proposals after he left a particularly nasty comment to a new user on AN. But if he is back and wants to act like an adult, then welcome back. Protonk (talk) 08:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I was going to make a rather snarky addition to this discussion, but re-wrote my comment here because Protonk is 100% correct. The Wikipedia community has an amazing capacity for giving people second chances and AGF in the rehabilitation of formerly-former editors. If Kurt is willing to stop doing the things that nearly got him banned last time, then welcome back. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, let's give Kurt a chance to show us what he can do, and hope that he knows enough to stay away from RFA. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm no fan of Kurt's, and I never have been, but he's been away for almost a year, lets at least give him a chance to prove that he's changed his ways. He can easily be banned if he starts up with the same stuff as last time, but I think that the potential good if he just sticks to contributing in the mainspace is too tempting to just pass up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

Weber was facing a total ban for months of trolling and harassment, and there was finally a consensus forming to get rid of him, and we allowed him to vanish on the proviso he wouldn't come back. However, I'm showing him some good faith, because he might have grown up over the past year (although, if he's still an Objectivist...). So I support allowing him back, on the provision that this is absolutely his final chance. If it even looks like he's going to start trolling or harassing people, he's gone and won't be back. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Doug Hoffman promo photo.JPG

Resolved

The image File:Doug Hoffman promo photo.JPG is under a disputed fair use claim, but the subject is a living person, which should be replaceable under Wikipedia:Non-free content. Could a sysop review the situation and determine the appropriate action? This will be a touchy situation, because Doug Hoffman is currently running in the New York's 23rd congressional district special election, 2009--Blargh29 (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• The same goes for File:Dede Scozzafava promo photo.jpg--Blargh29 (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Both are replaceable and should be deleted and replaced with File:Replace this image male.svg/File:Replace this image female.svg. This will hopefully motivate their campaigns to donate free images. If not, their loss.  Sandstein  06:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

They DID donate free images. They provided hi rez images for download and/or media use. Notice that "media" is in the very name of the Wikimedia Foundation. The only thing missing is associated legalese. Another triumph over bureaucracy over common sense.Bdell555 (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• • They are both tagged as such, but awaiting a sysop to delete them. I am not one, which is why I made this note here.--Blargh29 (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

IP posting about blocked user FrancisLightHouse

Resolved

 – IP blocked, talk page locked. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP 74.99.83.3 (contributions) is posting all over the place with demands that all "content" about User:FrancisLightHouse should be removed from Wikipedia. No actual legal threats, but needs to be nipped in the bud all the same, I think. It's probably a sock of the user. --bonadea contributions talk 16:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Left a stern note/final warning. If they post again, they'll be blocked. TNXMan 16:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not having read this message, I have blocked the IP 6 months for block evasion as well as deleted and salted the previously-recreated user talk pages. If any other admin desires to undo my block and/or deletions, I am open to that. However, I know that everytime this vandal comes back, he is up to no good (just like a similar vandal that deals with courthouses). MuZemike 17:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Tnxman, for going over your head. MuZemike 17:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries here. TNXMan 18:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see this thread until now. Reviewed an unblock request, then found the IP refactoring my comments, adding their own unblock accepted template, and other, similar shenanigans - so I locked the talk page. I think we're done here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring over 30 Seconds to Mars

I already reported it at WP:AIV and even told this admin and even tried to settle it myself through discussion but this IP has continuously edit warred regardless of the fact that this is fully sourced content and doesn't even have a valid reason to what edits they have been making. Their edits have been continuously reverted (since ysterday and not just by me). There's absolutely nothing I can do, I've tried everything, I'm now at this point leaving the IP address warnings for the disruptive edit wars. -- GunMetal Angel 18:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't care one way or the other, but the IP has made almost no attempt to open a discussion concerning their changes beyond screaming about it on the talk pages of the article in question and then deciding that they'd 'discussed' it. I'm only reverting because he appears to be doing this without consensus. HalfShadow (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

All Music Guide says post grunge and neo prog. if A Beautiful Lie is an emo album, under the heading "Styles" there was written "emo". So, there aren't the sources thay say "30 Seconds to Mars is emo". Please, read the review.--151.49.225.4 (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to thank the IP address for pointing this out, the source that they are referring to is being misinterpreted. Let me explain; the "styles" section are not genres and do not warrant what is written on a Wikipedia article's genre section. Either way or another, this still would have "emo" stated, because emo is mentioned at the end of the allmusic review for 30 Seconds to Mars' A Beautiful Lie album. This IP address continuously denies this, and continuously edit wars, I've left this IP address already four warnings and should be blocked. -- GunMetal Angel 18:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

To GunMetal Angel: Please don't use WP:AIV for content disputes. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's kind of my fault; I wasn't sure exactly where he should being this up. AIV seemed the best place. HalfShadow (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point, on the content dispute, both parties appear to be in a 3RR violation on the page. I've posted warnings to the talk page of both 151.49.225.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Gunmetal Angel (talk · contribs). This needs to be resolved on the talk page, not endless reverts. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: A new IP (95.239.182.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)), which is demonstrating an interest in the same articles, is now also editing the 30 Seconds to Mars article. A checkuser would be needed to confirm; but the quack test suggests the new IP is being used as a sockpuppet to attempt to circumvent the 3RR warning. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If the review says that the album is emo, it was referred like here. Please, discuss on the talk page.--Loverdrive (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi violating the terms of his probation

Resolved

 – Both Muntuwandi as well as Captain Occam are placed on a 0RR restriction for 1 month

--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In July, the user Muntuwandi was unbanned from Wikipedia under the condition that he follow 1RR and avoid engaging in disruptive behavior. However, over the past three weeks he has been violating these conditions, and multiple attempts to resolve this issue with him on his userpage have been futile.

Most of Muntuwandi’s disruptive behavior has been related to the Race and genetics article, and his desire to remove a certain image from it. Each time that he tries to remove it, he’s cited a different Wikipedia policy that he claimed it was violating; justification he’s given for removing it include original research, unreliable source material, that it’s “misleading”, and the availability of a better image. He’s also nominated it for deletion at Wikimedia commons based on based on the claim that it violates its source material’s copyright. Since none of these claims from him are rule violations per se, I don’t think it’s necessary to provide diffs for them, but the relevant point is that his desire for this image to be removed is not based on any one specific policy. Each time that one of his efforts to remove it based on a particular policy has failed, he’s begun a new attempt to remove it based on an entirely different policy; I don’t think he disputes this fact.

The important point here is the one reason for removing this image that Muntuwandi has brought up again and again, which is based on a personal attack and nothing else. Muntuwandi has found some of what I’ve written about this topic at a website outside Wikipedia, and based on what he’s inferred about my motives from what I’ve written there, he’s come to the conclusion that my motive for editing this article is not acceptable. Several of the times that he’s removed this image from the article, it has been because he dislikes my motives and for no other reason, such as this diff—he did not explain this removal on the basis of anything wrong with the image itself, but only that he believed me to have been intending to push a POV when I added it to the article.

WP:NPA states that in content disputes, arguments for the removal of content should be based on what we think is wrong with the content itself, not based on attacks against the editor who added it. Since Muntuwandi has been arguing for this image’s removal based on my motives for adding it, in some cases to the exclusion of all other reasons, I think this is a pretty clear violation of NPA policy.

Here’s a brief history of Muntuwandi’s use of personal attacks as a justification for this image’s removal:

Oct. 24: (1): “Occam on his talk page and blog has stated that he believes that there is a "biological basis for the concept of race".”

Oct. 25: (2): “On your blog, you state that this image proves that there is a biological basis for race. You have introduced the very image into the article race and genetics. It is pretty clear to me that you are trying to use this image in the article to prove that there is a biological basis for race.”

After the first two examples of this, I warned him on his userpage that this behavior from him was a violation of NPA policy. However, his behavior did not change.

His next personal attack, on October 28th: (3): “Occam stated on his blog that he believes that his image proves that there is a biological basis for race, though the authors of the image make no such proclamation... Occam has been insisting on using this image and he would like the community to pretend that the comments on his blog don't exist.”

At around the same time as this comment, his violated 1RR on the Race and genetics article, with two removals of the image (1) and (2), which were a little less than 21 hours apart. Because of this violation as well as his continued personal attacks, I warned him about this behavior on his userpage a second time.

Here is his latest personal attack, from earlier today: (4): “Naturally I don't expect you to care about such, since the most important thing for you is to show an image that you believe proves the existence of biological races.”

As can be seen from his response to me on his userpage the first time I warned him about this, Muntuwandi has tried to justify these personal attacks based of the fact that I linked to my DeviantArt gallery (it’s not actually a blog, but he can call it that if he wants) in a discussion with someone else in my user talk. However, this is irrelevant to the problem I have with his behavior, because my problem is not that I mind anyone knowing about what I’ve written elsewhere. As I’ve explained to him multiple times, the way in which he’s violating Wikipeda’s policies is by trying to get this image removed by attacking the contributor who added it, rather than the content itself. As pointed out by Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing, everybody has a bias, and the fact that any particular editor is biased does not matter as long as their contributions follow Wikipedia’s policies. But despite how many times I’ve pointed this out to Muntuwandi, he is continuing attack my motives as a reason why my contributions to this article aren’t acceptable, regardless of whether he can find a policy that my contributions violate or not.

There’s no end to this in sight. Neither of my attempts to resolve this issue with Muntuwandi on his userpage have made any difference, and neither does the fact that of the four editors currently involved in this article, (him, me, Varoon Arya and David.Kane), he is the only one who wants this image removed. His repeated attempts at this, citing a new Wikipedia policy after each of his earlier attempts based on another policy has failed, have filled more than half of the article’s total discussion—that is, including all of the archives—which could be considered a disruption even if it weren’t for his violation of 1RR and his repeated personal attacks. I think some admin intervention is necessary at this point. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User notified per WP:NOTIFY. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, and not the central point, that image is from 1994, and there ought to be a more accurate one available, considering all the work that has been done in the following 15 years on genetics of human populations. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There might be, but the section of the article that currently includes this image is discussing the research of one specific person--Luigi Cavalli-Sforza--and this image is one of the most frequently-reproduced representations of his results. The current reason for including it is just as an illustration of Cavalli-Sforza's research in particular.

In any case, I'd rather not debate about the content of the article here, since a content dispute wasn't my reason for posting here. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where to begin so as to add as little to the [[WP::DRAMA]]. What Captain Occam fails to mention is:

• Captain Occam has been reverted on this by several other editors. One of the main objections (raised by at least 4 editors that I'm aware) was that the graph was not taken from Cavalli-Sforza, but from Jensen, who has been criticized for misinterpreting Cavalli-Sforza's results for his own ends.
• Muntuwandi in his objections has always relied on content policies (he's cited more than one, true) and not on Captain Occam's words on his own site.
• I fail to see how most of Muntuwandi's observations can be construed as personal attacks (personal attack = "you're an idiot" or something similar), although I can understand that Muntuwandi's guessing about Captain Occam's motives may have irritated him.
• Captain Occam's behavior, both on that page and on Race and Intelligence, has in fact benn called tendentious editing in its own right.

In conclusion, all I see here is basically a bitter content dispute, and little in the way of sanctionable behaviour. I'd say let the drama end here and point this dispute back to its talk page where it belongs.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of raising this issue at ANI as well. To start with, there is an essay at WP:TLDR regarding long threads. There has been a recent surge in editing activity on a number of race related articles. Much this recent activity can be accounted for Captain Occam's edit, which at present are consistent with WP:SPA. Captain Occam made this image file:populations.png, and uploaded it to the article Race and genetics. Captain Occam also placed a link on his talk[45] to his personal blog in which Captain Occam states about the image

This image can be considered a visual representation of my argument against the claim that there’s no biological basis for the concept of race, which is a popular belief among sociologists.

It is not unreasonable to think that Captain Occam is insisting on using this image, because he believes that "it proves that there is a biological basis for race" as stated on his blog. I have therefore suggested that Captain Occam may be violating WP:NPOV by WP:ADVOCACY. This is because the author of the original image, Cavalli-Sforza, stated that this image should not be interpreted "racially". Captain Occam's racial interpretation of this image is his own original thought and personal opinion, and it would appear that he is trying to use this image as a way to skillfully advocate his opinion on wikipedia. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ramdrake, I’m not sure why you’re getting involved in this issue, since you’re no longer participating in the discussion about this article. Probably because of your unfamiliarity with it, most of what you’re claiming here is simply false.

“Captain Occam has been reverted on this by several other editors. One of the main objections (raised by at least 4 editors that I'm aware) was that the graph was not taken from Cavalli-Sforza, but from Jensen, who has been criticized for misinterpreting Cavalli-Sforza's results for his own ends.”

Not anymore, it isn’t. When this objection to the image was raised originally, I found Cavalli-Sforza’s original study online, modified the image to be based on the original source material, and cited it to Cavalli-Sforza rather than Jensen. It no longer uses any information from Jensen and is no longer cited to him, and this has been pointed out on the article talk page. After I fixed this problem, Muntuwandi was the only editor who continued trying to get this image removed.

“Muntuwandi in his objections has always relied on content policies (he's cited more than one, true) and not on Captain Occam's words on his own site.”

If you look at the diffs I’ve linked to, as well as the explanations Muntuwandi has provided in his edits themselves, you’ll see that this is false also. Several of the times that he removed this image, my motives for adding it were the only justification he provided.

“I fail to see how most of Muntuwandi's observations can be construed as personal attacks (personal attack = "you're an idiot" or something similar), although I can understand that Muntuwandi's guessing about Captain Occam's motives may have irritated him.”

Actually, Muntuwand’s behavior is a perfect example of the description of an “ad hominem” attack at WP:NPA.

“Captain Occam's behavior, both on that page and on Race and Intelligence, has in fact benn called tendentious editing in its own right.”

Yes, primarily by you and Muntuwandi, and several other users have said the same thing about you. Let’s not distract the administrators by bringing up irrelevant issues here.

Muntuwandi: continuing your personal attack in this thread is probably not the best way to defend yourself here. Everything you’re saying here has not only been addressed, but is a further example of what I’m talking about. But just to summarize:

The current discussion about this image is whether, as an illustration of Cavalli-Sforza’s results, it belongs in the section of the article describing Cavalli-Sforza’s research in this area. The image does not mention race, and neither does the section of the article which includes it. For this reason, the image is being used in a way that is consistent with how its author intended it.

However, whether there is anything wrong with the actual content of the article does not appear to matter to you, because you believe that my motives are unacceptable, even if there’s nothing wrong with my edits themselves. You are supposed to criticize edits on the basis of the edits themselves, not the motives of the editors who made them. This has been pointed out to you multiple times, but each time you ignore it. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User Mutuwandi has clearly broken his 1RR condition by repeated removing the graph. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a semi-formal community, one cannot make comments off-wiki and expect wikipedians to switch off and pretend that those comments were not made, especially if they relate to a wikipedia article. I have cited many policy issues regarding the image but this has mainly because Occam has shown little interest in the surrounding text and the article in general, which I believe is consistent with WP:ADVOCACY. Apart from introducing the image, Occam has made no effort whatsoever at integrating the image with the surrounding text, as a result the image improperly sourced. The image is from one publication, History and Geography of Human Genes and the surrounding text is from another, Genes Peoples and Lanuguages. Simply inserting an image from one publication into text based on another creates WP:SYNTH issues. I have removed the image for this reason. I have further stated that if indeed Occam had good faith intentions with using the image, then he or Aryaman, should write up text that is consistent with the source of the image and include it in the article. Occam or Aryaman have yet to do so but are claiming that I am edit warring when I have suggested what I believe, and hope others will too, is a reasonable compromise that an editor acting in good faith would definitely consider. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, this isn’t the place for a content dispute. It also isn’t the place for making allegations against me that aren’t relevant to the topic of this report—although your claim about what contributions I’ve made to this article is false, I also know that debating about this will only serve to distract the administrators from the topic of this report. What this thread is about is your personal attacks and your violation of 1RR.

Once again: I am not expecting anyone to pretend that my comments elsewhere were not made. What I am expecting, as I have explained both on your userpage and on the article talk page, is for you to only point out problems with the content of the article itself, rather than with the editors who added it.

Claiming that the article has synthesis issues is acceptable, although Varoon Arya has addressed this point the previous time you made it, and I suppose we can discuss this issue on the article talk page after this report is resolved, if the resolution doesn’t involve your ban being reinstated. But you’ve already made it clear that the reason you keep searching for new policies that you think this image violates is because you don’t approve of my motives for adding it. That’s the one point that you won’t stop bringing up, and as such it’s what I’d like to discuss here. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi has removed this image, which was added on July 4th with (as far as I can tell from the history) no negative response from any of the other involved editors, at least 5 times:

• October 16 ([46]) with the edit summary: "image meant to push a POV".
• October 24 ([47]) with the edit summary: "removed misleading image"
• October 27 ([48]) with the edit summary: " caption says "one of eight genetic groups to which all human populations belong", not what Cavalli-Sforza says"
• October 28 ([49]) with the edit summary: "replaced image with dendograms related to genetic distance matrix"
• November 1 ([50]) with the edit summary: "some reorganization especially human genetic variation"

Muntuwandi is fully aware that his/her actions are considered unwarranted by at least three other editors, and yet persists in removing the image with the apparent approval of one other editor (who has also removed the image at least 3 times ([51], [52], [53]). The reasons Muntuwandi provided for his/her actions changed every time s/he removed the image, and even when Occam made efforts to satisfy his/her concerns, Muntuwandi persisted in having the image removed.

I tried to diffuse the situation by suggesting a compromise between Muntuwandi and Occam in the form of an entirely new image, and began trying to discuss the issue with Muntuwandi in a rational manner. Just when the discussion seemed to be moving in a positive direction, Muntuwandi performed this edit, which not only removed the image yet again, but which also made substantial unilateral changes to the very section under discussion. Now he refuses a compromise, and instead insists that his preferred text and image be presented along side what other editors are proposing.

I was only recently made aware of the fact that Muntuwandi was formerly User:Earl J. Redneck III and was banned for disruptive behavior. I have tried hard to help resolve this dispute, but I find Muntuwandi unreasonable on this point. --Aryaman (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that you have cherry picked your diffs

• Image removed on 22 October by Ramdrake
• Image removed on 25 October by Wobble
• Image removed on 25 October by Ramdrake

So please don't give the impression that I have been unilaterally removing the image, or that there is near unanimous support for the image. I am no saint, but Aryaman is not exactly a saint either. I have seen some grumblings from other editors about Varoon Arya and Civil POV pushing [54]. His introduction on his user page is quite provocative. I believe he is entitled to his own opinion, but one wonders whether he can be neutral party in a dispute. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, a prime example of Muntuwandi's weird style of argumentation. This incident report is about Muntuwandi's behavior, not about the article, and not even about the image. I limited my comments to the appropriate scope accordingly, but he criticizes me for "cherry-picking" my diffs, ignoring the fact that such a thing in this context is expected. And what does my personal opinion on another, tangentially related topic have to do with Muntuwandi's behavior? Only Muntuwandi knows. --Aryaman (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, I think it’s worth pointing out that since October 26th—that is, for the past week—you have been the only person who’s continued to remove this image. You’re removed it a total of three times since then; this can be seen from the last three diffs that Aryaman posted, as well as the article’s edit history. You may not be the only editor who had issues with this image at first, but now that I’ve addressed some of the concerns that were originally raised about it, it appears that at this point you really are the only editor who still wants to remove it. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed that no decision was ever made in response to this report from September about Muntuwandi edit warring on another article. Since that report apparently remains open, I encourage administrators to consider it in addition to this one in whatever decision they make. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's make this easy for you...

You're both edit warring over the image. I don't care to delve into correctness of the content issue.

Rather than pick one of you as "at fault" here I am simply imposing the following - you are both on 0RR (may not revert, in any way) on the article Race and Genetics, for the next month (as you've been doing this for at least that long so far). You both should have known better than to do this, and could have handled it in another nonconfrontational manner. Both of you are playing the abusive edits game - and you're both on time out.

If you can edit the article without reverting anyone over the next month, feel free. I don't see any sign you're being disruptive other than with the edit warring. But revert and be blocked.

Cc'ed at ANI, User talk:Captain Occam, and User talk:Muntuwandi Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and:

WHACK!

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi George, I understand that you have tried to create an "easy solution" to the crisis. But I have to disagree because this is not an necessarily an "easy problem". Captain Occam has been described by other editors as clearly "belligerent". He has already racked up two blocks for edit warring within the last month per his block log. He has openly asserted that he will engage in edit warring [55] and he has also stated that he intends not to engage in consensus building with myself because there is no need since I am on a 1RR probation, he will simply revert my edits [56]. Per his blog, Captain Occam has stated on his blog that he has a particular point of view, and that he intends to advocate it on Wikipedia. I have no demonstrable point of view regarding this article and I am simply interested in improving it. I don't know whether removing the image 5 times over a period of about 3 weeks is intense edit warring, I recall Occam having made about 10 reverts in a single day. My removal of the image may in fact help to improve the article. Occam stated on his blog that he hadn't read the original paper in which the image was published, stating Since I haven’t read Cavalli-Sforza’s original paper, this image is based mostly on Arthur Jensen’s analysis of Cavalli-Sforza’s results in The g Factor. After others had pointed out that Jensen is not a specialist in genetics, the general consensus was that the image could easily be misrepresented. Since then Occam has said he has read Cavalli-Sforza original paper and changed the sourcing from Jensen to Cavalli-Sforza. Lastly I have not said that I oppose the images that Aryaman and Occam propose under all circumstances. I have suggested that they can use their image if the cited correctly WP:Citing sources and if they avoid WP:SYNTH by not combining information from several different sources, all of which are Wikipedia guidelines. All this is on Talk:Race and genetics. Should I therefore have restrictions placed upon me for following wikipedia's guidelines to try to improve the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Man, what’s the point in even responding to you about this anymore? Apart from the things you’re saying that are completely irrelevant (such as my content in unrelated articles), it’s been explained why the rest of what you’re saying here is false in this thread. But you aren’t attempting to address my or Varoon Arya’s explanations of what’s wrong with your claims about this, or why these kinds of personal attacks don’t belong on Wikipedia at all; you’re just repeating them.

What will it accomplish if I explain all of this again? This has been explained to you so many times before that I don’t think it will change very much as far as your behavior is concerned. And it will make the discussion even longer, and confuse the administrators into assuming my report is about topics that have nothing to do with what I wanted to discuss here. Your use of this tactic so far has already apparently made this topic look like it was about a content dispute, despite my efforts to avoid that, so I suppose this is working.

There is one thing you’ve said here that I simply can’t ignore, though: “Per his blog, Captain Occam has stated on his blog that he has a particular point of view, and that he intends to advocate it on Wikipedia.”

That’s a pretty serious accusation, but it should be easy for you to support if it’s true. If I’ve specifically said not only that hold this viewpoint, but that I actually intend to engage in WP:ADVOCACY about it, it should be easy for you to provide a quote in which I said that. If you can’t, then you’re in direct violation of this part of WP:NPA:

What is considered to be a personal attack?

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users.

But you wouldn’t be violating that policy, now would you? --Captain Occam (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don’t think this is the best decision. The relevant point here wasn’t the edit warring; it was that Muntuwandi was violating the 1RR that he had been placed under when he was unbanned. Since I didn’t have this restriction, the fact that I was reverting this article as often as he was shouldn’t have been the same type of problem in my own case.

This isn’t a content issue, and I’ve been trying to avoid the content disputes that other editors have been bringing up in this thread. It’s just an issue of whether Muntuwandi’s conduct has been violating the terms of his probation.

The fact that he’s been making personal attacks isn’t a content issue either, and that was the most important issue I wanted to resolve here, since both of my attempts to resolve it on his userpage have been unsuccessful. Is no one going to respond to this aspect of my report? --Captain Occam (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You are both misbehaving in a very public manner and place. The fate of editors who do that is usually short and unfortunate. Would you both please accept the Trout of Shame and knock it off, before I or another admin takes sterner action? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I’m willing to accept your 0RR decision, but I’d like you (or someone else) to do something about the original topic of this report, which is Muntuwandi’s continued personal attacks. 0RR will not do anything to stop him continuing to make these attacks against other users on talk pages. The newest one in Muntuwandi’s last comment here is probably his most serious so far—claiming that I have specifically stated that I intend to engage in WP:ADVOCACY. I’m quite certain that I’ve never said this, and that Muntuwandi does not have any evidence to support his claim that I have.

Because of ongoing nature of this issue, and the fact that resolving it with Muntuwandi on his userpage has been impossible, I’ll probably need to file another AN/I report about it if it can’t be addressed in response to this one. Since this issue was intended to be the primary topic of my report, though, I would prefer if it could be resolved here. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I (FWIW) support Georgewilliamherbert 0RR on the disputed article on both editors for a month, this still means that you can add as much cited content to the article as you like, and can join in or start discussion on the article talk page. This editing restriction will hopefully help to reduce the tension between you two. Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the perfect solution because Captain Occam and Varoon Arya work in tandem while Muntuwandi seems to be working alone and will likely suffer more with a 0RR restriction but, short of delving into content, I can't see anything better. Muntuwandi, if you remain unsatisfied with the compromise being worked out on the talk page you can always consider an RFC to attract wider input. Meanwhile, I guess this thread can be closed. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Suspected Bambifan sock

Please see Scratte Lover (talk · contribs), I'm not quite sure this fits the exact pattern however it does seem suspicious. Triplestop x3 22:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I'm curious as to how exactly you can discern a pattern from two mainspace edits, one of which was reverted and marked wrongly as vandalism, and one which appears to have simply been a name correction and can be easily verified (I know IMDB doesn't qualify as WP:RS, but I checked it there...and the edit was accurate). I'm going to ask that an admin close this as no issue. Also, I've left a note at the talk page of the user who marked this user's first edit as vandalism about "biting" newcomers, and asking for an explanation about why they marked that edit as vandalism. Frmatt (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing biting about it. Pure vandalism. Either from Bambifan, or the pain in the butt sequel vandal who has repeatedly thrown a ton of fake and incorrect sequel claims on a ton of these b-movie articles. As noted below, I suspect more Bambifan just trying to be annoying. Further reply on my talk page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There is already a new SPI checkuser being done. That one I'm less sure of if he is Bambifan or the sequel vandal User:A4d49f4a, but from his creating Scatte and his name, I'm inclined towards the former. Unfortunately, one of Bambifan's fun ways to try to get my attention is repeating another vandals vandalism. The CU will help clear which it is. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the bad grammar fits BF101's pattern well as well. Triplestop x3 00:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

On a semi-related note, Pe De Chinelo is back, too. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have left an apology for User:Collectonian on their talk page because I didn't notify them that I mentioned them here. Frmatt (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So that's his name!!! He's been driving us nuts at Green Mile and Shawshank too! Already had like 2 IPs blocked today-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at User_talk:Tiptoety. He/she's been good at swatting all the socks. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think Tiptoety has retired; he last edited in August. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

To Frmatt - It's amazing how easily some administrators can identify a sockpuppet after they've blocked so many of them in the past. I suppose that when you see so many of them what may not be apparent to people like us would be obvious to them. -- Atama頭 02:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Tiptoety went on a wikibreak shortly after his application for checkuser failed. (Sorry, I've no idea whether these two events are related, or whether he intends returning, I just recall the event). Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Socialist Alternative (Australia) and IP conduct in relation to the inclusion of office holders in Student Unions.

User:118.138.192.123 has been slow edit warring on Socialist Alternative (Australia) over the inclusion, or non-inclusion, of various student union office bearers. The problem isn't the content dispute; but, rather, that the IP has stated they will continue removal, and has ignored Talk: and User talk: discussions on the point, and warnings. What do you do with an otherwise well behaved IP who has a bee in their bonnet and won't discuss?

Discussion attempts: Talk:Socialist_Alternative_(Australia)#Notability_of_current_members User talk discussion attempts and warnings to discuss: User_talk:118.138.192.123 Example of stated willingness to continue without discussion: User_talk:Fifelfoo#Re:_Socialist_Alternative Edit history of nine reversions without discussion since September: Special:Contributions/118.138.192.123

Advice, help? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from a non-admin: Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people does not specifically mention student union office bearers. It mentions alumni, but says that "only those with verifiable notability" should be listed. It also says "On the other hand, a list within an article of past school presidents can contain all past presidents, not just those who are independently notable" - but whether this would include Student Union office bearers is debateable. My take on this would be that Union Office bearers should only be included if the appointment is for more than a year. Some offices are for a few years, others for one year. I would say that any President/VP/General Secretary could possibly be considered notable, whereas "Education Officer", "Welfare Officers" and the like would not be. But that is merely my take on this - the policy does not appear to be clear-cut in this particular case, so I would be interested in what admins would say. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  Hi Steve, I don't know if you know the Australian union systems, but usually the President, General Secretary and Education officer (due to disposable budget) are significant local positions. VPs tend to be sinecures in non-militant student unions (cough cough). The other context is that Australia's relatively unitary student unions system means that holding local yearly positions influences the weight a faction exerts on the National Union of Students (Australia). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for that, Fifelfoo - but as I said, I'm not an admin! I'd be interested in seeing what an admin will have to say about this though - this is a learning opportunity for me to get to know policy better. Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 02:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• User:118.138.192.123 advises that they can't edit this page to comment here. They've noted their opinion at Talk:Socialist Alternative (Australia) Fifelfoo (talk)
• In my defence, I am only removing irrelevant information. The people are not notable, they are student representatives within a group. Why not mention in the Labor Party's page people from Labor aligned groups who are office bearers? Or members of other groups who are also? I'm making the article concise, and contain only relevant information. The people are not noteworthy, and thus do not need to be mentioned on wikipedia. The only reason it seems these people would want their names to remain on the page is to gain some form of recognition by the public, which shows they'd only be using their positions as a way to become known and get somewhere further in life. (Career Politicians?) Either way. I will not remove the information until I've been given the go-ahead to do so, but I do not see why these people require their names up there, nor how they'd be considered 'notable' enough to be mentioned anyway. The NUS people, yes, I understand why they're notable, they represent the australian student population at large, but office bearers of individual universities do not and thus do not seem as noteworthy. Either way, as per what was said, these people do not meet the "only those with verifiable notability" criteria. 118.138.192.123 (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is primarily a content dispute, and administrators aren't "super-users" in the sense of possessing extra authority in content disputes. Whilst there may come a time when administrative action against one or other party is required for edit-warring, I don't think that point has been reached yet. So I don't think there's really a need for admin intervention; the solution will hopefully come if participation in the discussion can be broadened in an effort to reach consensus. The suggestion of a Request for Comment on the issue is a good idea; neutral messages inviting participation could also be left at the WikiProjects with tags on the article, as well as WP:UNI and WP:BIO. Bencherlite^Talk 15:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Severe Wikihounding and Disruptive Editing by Arthur Rubin

I first crossed paths with Arthur Rubin on October 30th while making my first ever edit to the page on New World Order Conspiracy Theory at 19:00 Oct 30 Diff1. My attempted contribution was simply to add an entry to the book list, Windswept House, and this included a wiki link to the book title as well as the ISBN number, and I left an edit summary that reads, "addition of one of the most well-known and important books on this topic that is strangely absent." A mere four minutes later at 19:04 on Oct 30, Arthur Rubin reverted my edit, and rather than asking for more information (which I would have been happy to provide) or stating a valid reason, he identified it as vandalism, and marked his revert as a "minor edit", Diff2. A mere three minutes after this at 19:07, Arthur Rubin visited the page on "faction (literature)" and reverted a change I made, a page where he had again no previous editing experience faction (literature) Diff3. I had changed the page on "faction" to redirect to the page on "roman a clef" because I believe the literary device of faction is equivalent to that used in a roman a clef and the second page was more developed, with "roman a clef" being the much more well-known term. Arthur Rubin notated his edit summary, identifying it as vandalism and marking it as a "minor edit." A mere one minute after this at 19:08, Arthur Rubin did a batch reversion of my contributions at the "roman à clef" page, another page where Arthur Rubin had no previous editing experience Diff4. He removed the aforementioned book from the book list, and removed the term "faction" that I had added to the page as a related term. Rather than give reasons for his edits or requesting talk on the discussion page, he marked his reversions as "minor edits" and identified my contributions as "vandalism" in the edit summary. A mere one minute after this at 19:09, Arthur Rubin did a batch reversion of edits I made to a recently created and rather undeveloped Wiki page for Windswept House, a page where Arthur Rubin again had no previous editing contribution Diff5. His edit summary stated that, "Changes appear not to be helpful." For example, one these changes I made was a conspicuous correction of a spelling error for a character in the book, "Maestroianni". Another change I made that he deleted was a switch of the descriptor of "Irish writer" for the author and substitution of "Catholic priest", since he was actually a U.S. citizen and lived and did all of his writing in the U.S. during the last 35 years of his life, and this "roman a clef" book was about the Catholic Church's role in a New World Order Conspiracy. He made no other edits to the page except to revert "my" contributions.

I'd like to point out the timespan over which all of the above occurred. It occurred apparently over a span of around 9 minutes. I posted a simple addition of a book to a list on the New World Order Conspiracy page, not exactly something that should cause alarm, and over the course of the next nine minutes, Arthur Rubin not only reverted this edit and labelled it as vandalism, but hounded me by visiting multiple other pages I had contributed to where he had no previous editing experience and did batch reversions of my contributions calling them also vandalism or "not helpful", even if it included the fixing of spelling errors.

I did make limited attempts to undo the reverts that Arthur Rubin made to most of my edits, as can be seen in the history of the aforementioned pages after October 30. For convenience, my attempts to undo his reverts can be seen on one screen at my user contribution page. If you take a look at the history page for faction (literature), you can see where Arthur Rubin initially reverted my edit and labelled it as vandalism. This was followed by my undo of his revert with an explanation to him that it wasn't vandalism coupled with a request for him to open discussion on the talk page if he had other reasons to revert my edit. Rather than do this, Arthur Rubin again reverted, and again labelled it as "vandalism" calling his revert a "minor edit." When reverts are labelled as "minor edits" for vandalism, I believe this keeps other editors from bothering to investigate when they have pages in their watch list.

I have made efforts to reconcile this directly with Arthur Rubin on his talk page, and also included multiple warnings in edit summaries as can be seen in my contribution page after October 30. Despite this, Arthur Rubin continues to block and frustrate any attempted contribution I try to make to any page, and he'll make successive excuses to keep me from contributing to any page. If you look at the history page for roman à clef, you'll note that Arthur Rubin made three reverts of my contributions that included my inclusion of the book "Windswept House" to the list of roman à clef books. The first time he called it vandalism(1). The second time he called "Windswept House" a "film" even though it's a book, and this was after he reverted multiple edits of mine on the Wikipedia page for this book (2)! The third time, on November 2, he took out the book again and noted in his edit summary that, "still NOT notable."

After all this, Arthur Rubin also posted warnings to my talk page telling me I was coming close to violating the 3RR rule. Notice of this complaint has been posted to Arthur Rubin's talk page. MeSoStupid (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be more impressive if you had made a correct, constructive, edit. Perhaps we could have a discussion on the relevant talk page, noting that WP:BRD suggestion you should not reinsert your preferred version until you obtain consensus. Windswept House is not very notable, whatever medium it's in, and is clearly not appropriate to any New World Order article. Whether Windswept House fits Roman a clef and/or faction is a separate question, but it's not particularly relevant to either article.

It might be noted that your addition of Windswept House to New World Order (conspiracy theory) was removed by two or three established editors.

Some of your edits to Windswept House may have been appropriate, but it seems clear that none of your other edits in the field have been appropriate. To the extent that your edits were corrections of errors in fact, I apologize for reverting them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have previously suggested to Arthur Rubin that the use of the word "vandalism" in edit summaries and reversions for edits that are not clear vandalism is more harmful than helpful. I'm disappointed to see that it continues.

(I'd also suggest to User:MeSoStupid that his concerns are more likely to be addressed if they're described a bit more concisely. :) ) kmccoy (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What kmccoy said. I also happened to notice Rubin's rather inflammatory blanket use of the term 'vandalism' in edit summaries, and have left a message with a few diffs where I hope he can see for himself that he's been using the term inappropriately although the underlying edit may be supported by one of our policies and guidelines. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel no need to post a rejoinder to Arthur Rubin's response. I'd only like stress that I believe my particular case extends beyond inappropriate use of tagging good faith edits as vandalism, and into the realm of Wikihounding and Disruptive editing. MeSoStupid (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see why you as a new user might be taking it personally, but what he did is not hounding or disruptive so far. Please focus on editing - if you make good content edits nobody will be bothering you about it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. In my opinion, it's a clear case of Wikihounding, and the core summary of my complaint as to this can be found in the second paragraph of my original complaint, with the tedious details and proof noted above and below this. Thanks. MeSoStupid (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I respect how you feel about this, but as I said, I don't think his actions rise to that level. Could he have handled this better? Sure. But it's not the sort of thing we typically sanction anyone for.

You have had feedback on the issues with your edits, and I think that you can succeed at editing articles going forwards if you listen to the good advise above and try to focus on content. That's what the encyclopedia is all about, after all. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a littled bit bothered, georgewilliamherbert, by your suggestive comment in this context that "if you make good content edits nobody will be bothering you about it", as if the real problem is with quality of my editing, and if I had simply made good edits in the first place Arthur Rubin would have never bothered me. That's not what the problem is here, and even if my good faith edits were poor in quality, which they're not, it would have no effect on the abusive pattern of behavior I outlined above. In my opinion, you're coloring this dispute in a fashion that it should not be colored, and then based on this false coloring suggesting that this isn't the type of behavior that's usually sanctioned, which is false. I've been looking at case histories. I'm not going to take the bait and fall into the trap of letting this turn into a quality of contribution dispute. That's not why I'm here. MeSoStupid (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In your last edit here, georgewilliamherbert, you noted your edit summary as "redirect towards content. we're an encyclopedia 8-)." This isn't a venue for arguments over content. This is a forum to report abuse. If you want to contribute your opinions as to the quality of my edits, feel free to voice your opinion on the relevant talk pages; I look forward to your contributions. Thanks. MeSoStupid (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. But from what I can read, it's a simple case of a disputed edit from a new wiki account being reverted (which is okay) zealously by an editor who is on article patrol (which is common) with an unfriendly edit summary accusing the edit of being vandalism (not okay, but also common). It looks like Arthur Rubin was engaging in what some editors consider vandalism fighting... a fairly thankless task of patrolling the encyclopedia looking for problem edits and simply reverting them. Most of the time that's just fine, and they pick up where the bots leave off. Occasionally, as here, in their hurry they flag a good faith edit as vandalism. Perhaps he's using a semi-automated tool or something. It's also fairly normal, common, and desirable, for people when they see what they consider a bad edit from a new account, to check in and if necessary correct the other things they've been doing. That's not hounding, it's only common sense. Problem edits often are made in groups. When you see a new account adding a book to a list of references, then edit warring over it, it's fairly normal to suspect the person is spamming or on some other kind of agenda. The best thing is for Arthur Rubin to slow down a bit and avoid calling things vandalism, and for the OP, MeSoStupid, to calmly explain the edits and be ready to talk. Escalating with this long thread, and the indignation over people who are commenting here, is not going to make matters any better. How about just hitting the reset button, engaging Arthur Rubin politely, then moving on? - Wikidemon (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You write above, "When you see a new account adding a book to a list of references, then edit warring over it, it's fairly normal to suspect the person is spamming or on some other kind of agenda." If you read even the first three sentences my original complaint, you'll discover that that's absolutely NOT what happened. There was no edit war before this. I made a simple addition of a book to a reading list and four minutes later he reverted for vandalism and in the next five minutes chased me to other pages and did batch reversions there over a course of five minutes labelling as vandalism or not helpful, even spelling errors or correction in biographical errors. I provide evidence on the book for example, that not only did he not know what the book was about, he didn't even know it was a book at all, labelling it as a film in his edit summaries, and this was after he reverted multiple edits of mine at the book's webpage! The content wasn't what this was about. And then he continued with disruptive editing after I engaged him in conversation explaining to him that his original reverts for vandalism weren't appropriate; he's blocking any attempt of mine to add anything to any page, making successive and new excuses each time. This isn't a content dispute. I only mentioned content to the bare extent necessary to show that he didn't even know what it was that he was reverting, and that content quality wasn't the reason for his reversions. Then you also write, "The best thing is for ... MeSoStupid, to calmly explain the edits and be ready to talk." That's exactly what I did as I again explained in painstaking detail, and I've contributed to the talk pages for each topic. I'd be happy to consider your input after you read my original complaint. I explained all of this in painstaking detail in my original complaint with all of the diffs; I'm not going to list it again down here. Everything I wrote here was already above. Thank-you for you consideration. MeSoStupid (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of us have had a look at the situation and you have not been wronged in the way you think. Several above have commented that Arthur Rubin should not be using a "vandalism" tag in edit summaries for the cited cases (and I would argue, per WP:DENY, that "vandalism" is probably never useful). You are correct to point out that your edits should not have been reverted with that tag. However, your claims of hounding are simply wrong: as explained above, is it is standard practice (and common sense) to check other edits made by an editor you have just reverted. Your first edit six days ago was to replace an article with a redirect with no explanation. You were bold; you were reverted. It's time to move on. Johnuniq (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not accurate -- at all. Who is the "us" that you start your reply with? I would like to request that you speak for yourself only in your reply. And I haven't seen any evidence that multiple persons have actually gone through my original complaint and tried to understand it. Rather, I found clear evidence to the contrary. And he didn't originally check my other edits over that course of the nine minutes I detail in the first paragraph of my complaint. That's whole point of my complaint. He wasn't doing this to monitor content quality. Checking involves checking the content. Had he checked, he wouldn't have reverted spelling error corrections and errors in biographical information that I corrected. Had he checked the book that I originally added to a simple book list, he would have found out what the book was about, or at least asked about it. And you know what, he didn't even know it was a book at all, despite the fact that he had reverted multiple edits I made at the book's wiki page. After reverting multiple edits I made at the book's web page, he again removed the book from reading lists, where he called it a quote "film" in his edit summaries (1). Then after I corrected him on it being a film, he removed it because he says it wasn't "notable". And as far as the redirect I made that you say was my first edit, why don't we look at the history of that since you brought it up. Click here to see the page history. You'll see I first redirected, noting where I was redirecting to. Then Arthur Rubin marked it as vandalism and reverted. Then I undid Rubin's revert, explaining that it wasn't vandalism and inviting him to have discussion about it. Rather than enter into discussion or enter an alternative reason for the revert followed by discussion, Rubin instead again reverted the page and again marked it as vandalism with a "minor edit", something that keeps other editors from taking notice. And this is only part of the story. It's the big picture that counts, and I meticulously explained all of that in my original complaint. The big picture reveals a very provable clear case of wikihounding and disruptive editing. It was until after reporting him that Arthur made comments to a discussion page or two as if he's genuinely interested in the content. And I'm not really saying anything new in my respones. In all of my responses here, all of the information is in my original complaint. Thanks. MeSoStupid (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Again - I (and the other admins and editors who have reviewed and responded here) have reviewed the case and your claims. We aren't ignoring what you said, we listened and checked.

There seems to be a general consensus that what happened to you wasn't entirely right. You aren't misjudging that point.

However, "wikihounding and disruptive editing" is a judgement call and depends on the wider Wikipedia context and social and ethical standards. There's also a general consensus among experienced admins and other editors that the incident does not rise to the level of wikihounding or disruptive editing. He did something somewhat wrong - but didn't harrass you elsewhere, file false reports, make a personal attack, etc.

If you haven't worked on Wikipedia for a long time, not knowing the context or expectations of editors, bringing the incident here was fine and you did so appropriately. But the system works by uninvolved administrators and interested users reviewing reports and making our own judgement, based on experience. I know what you think this amounted to, you've stated that since your first post. But the system doesn't work that you get to accuse and convict someone in making the report. Someone else has to review it and make up their own mind.

As I said - This was unfortunate, but not in my opinion serious abuse at the level you felt it was.

We do care about civility and how people respond to each other. Someone else already left a note for Rubin about that. But not every incident is serious, and not all incidents require or justify any sort of official response.

It's important that people who feel abused be able to come make reports here, and you had justification for feeling abused. I am not blowing your complaint off at that level at all. But the severity was, by our standards and policy, not that serious. The informal note that someone else left is about all we typically do in situations like this. We want people to be adult and communicate responsibly and respectfully - but we know that at times people fall short. Most of the time that's not that severe. Sometimes we have to leave official warnings, or if it's very bad or repeated a lot block someone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I'm surprised you posted another response after what happened the first time you responded. I thought maybe you would have chosen to recuse yourself after that. Anyway, at this point I'm leaving Wikipedia because this has soured my interest in this project. Thanks. MeSoStupid (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Wreid

Hi. Wondering if someone could look at the edits by User:Wreid. There has been admission of some kind of off-wiki dispute between him and Alexander Halavais (who edits as User:Halavais, and they had an edit war recently that has seemed to calm down. However, Wreid seems to have taken interest in Halavais's article (which I fear might be a COI), and also went so far as to include critical commentary about Halavais at Criticism of Wikipedia. I feel this most recent edit is quite problematic, and that their off-wiki conflict is spilling into this space. Thx. 130.132.143.49 (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wreid has been notified of this thread. Basket of Puppies 02:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I tried my best to deal with this when it was on my talk page (section). I told both Halavais and Wried to stop editing articles related to their field (internet studies), but both of the users did not take my advice. However, Halavis made suggnifigant improvements to the article Internet Studies, in the process adding a wikilink to his Center's wikipedia page. I felt that the wikilink was a good compromise to the external link that they both appeared to be debating. Tim1357 (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Terror threats

Resolved

 – — Jake Wartenberg 03:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

122.104.198.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at Talk:Barack_Obama. Dr.K. ^praxis_logos 03:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a clear terror threat, bust out the hammer.--SKATER ^Speak. 03:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Got it. This kind of thing can go to AIV in the future. — Jake Wartenberg 03:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought he had to get a level 4 for that. Thanks for the tip anyway. Dr.K. ^praxis_logos 03:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh my. What is the thing to do in cases like this, other than revert? Basket of Puppies 03:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not resolved just yet. Some admin, please expunge this item [57] from the history, as was done with a similar threat a day or two ago that was posted in the OBL page's history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Gonna need a steward for that one. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Needs not a steward, but Oversight. Beyond the reach of admins because the page is too large. Needs an oversighter since the devs seem to be sitting on bugzilla:21165. — Jake Wartenberg 03:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Revdeleted an Oversighter. — Jake Wartenberg 04:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock for University of Maryland vandal?

For the last six months, an IP user from the University of Maryland, College Park (UMD) has been vandalizing articles, primarily inserting defamatory information about Wikipedia users. We block the user's UMD IP address, and then they show up again at a different UMD IP. Most recently, they were blocked at 128.8.73.83. This user has abused their user talk page when blocked, impersonating UMD staff in their unblock requests. A sampling of this user's work:

Selected contributions histories:

• Special:Contributions/128.8.193.130
• Special:Contributions/128.8.73.77
• Special:Contributions/128.8.73.61
• Special:Contributions/128.8.73.76
• Special:Contributions/128.8.73.72

User talk page abuse (impersonating UMD staff):

• User talk:128.8.79.2
• User talk:128.8.193.115

I've discussed this matter with Mentifisto at User talk:Mentifisto#UMD vandal, and with Arjun01 at User talk:Arjun01#128.8.73.83. The discussion with Mentifisto included an opinion about notifying UMD of the abuse (which I haven't done, since this seems better handled in-house), and then Arjun01 suggested a rangeblock. I was a little wary of rangeblocking because it would affect a large chunk of innocent users, but considering that legitimate users could still request accounts and log in through the block, I've warmed to the idea. What do others think? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock them and notify UMD, providing diffs of each abusive edit so that they may be able to discipline the wayward student. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 05:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Should I also notify the Wikimedia Foundation, or do you think that is a shade over the top? SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A courtesy e-mail wouldn't hurt, as there may be PR concerns if UM (or the student community) flips out about it. If nothing else, it would give them a starting point if questions are raised later on. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll get all my ducks in a row, fire off the necessary notifications to UMD and the Foundation, and then execute the rangeblock. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems I'm not smart enough to actually put a rangeblock into place. I've notified UMD and the Foundation via Email, and in my messages, indicated that the entire 128.8.x.x range would be blocked until January 1, 2010, blocking anonymous users only and preventing account creation. Would someone who is more competent with rangeblocks please help implement this? SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done [58] J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see this got sorted out, thanks to all involved. Good job! ~ Arjun 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal Threat

Noticed this from a Wikiquette thread. User:190.25.80.226 has made legal threats (claims he is being discriminated against) on Talk:Involuntary_euthanasia. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 05:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Which specific edit are you referring too? It would help a lot if you provided a diff. Chillum 05:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to get a diff, but the user makes many edits in succession, and I can't yet find it. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 05:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Got it. [59] [60]. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 05:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a description of the "Euthanasia is murder" multiple IP spree disruption incident up a few incidents. I have blocked this IP for 48 hrs. Please block any more IPs participating in this as well.

If they won't slow down generating new IPs, consider rangeblocks and/or semiprotection of pages. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive/warring editor (and perhapsdefinitely blockable on that alone), but not legal threat IMO. DMacks (talk) 05:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Tweaked after looking at previous discussion of this edit pattern. DMacks (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Disruption and whining, but I don't see a legal threat there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the article for two weeks. Hopefully the block works, but he jumps IPs pretty often. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Why you protected the article? why you blocked me? It was not a legal threat, even the user who asked if that was a threat realized it was not a threat, that happened more than two hours ago, the thing was resolved and we continued discussing the article content!!! Now you blocked me saying that I was editing warring, but since we were discussing in the talk page two hours ago, I made no editions to the article. Should I think that this is a way to avoid the discussion because a lack of arguments and sources? 190.25.110.56 (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

¿Cómo se dice "disruptive" en español? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"...The Committee is well aware that the new Act does not as such decriminalize euthanasia and assisted suicide...The new Act contains, however, a number of conditions under which the physician is not punishable when he or she terminates the life of a person"

UN - Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee : Netherlands.[61]

And involuntary euthanasia is defined as a crime, be it as a murder be it as a assited suicide, that is a legal fact, why do you think it is disruptive and a pretext to block me??? see the source. Actually we were not discussing if that was true but if it was pertinent to include that information on the article and where. 190.25.110.56 (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not what it says in the quote box you posted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

To the anon - we will block any IP you use in this series of edits and protect any page, until you agree to stop vandalizing and inserting your own point of view into articles rather than relying on published sources, and agree to not use wikipedia to fight your external political or social battles.

What you are doing here is a gross violation of why Wikipedia exists and is offensive to our core goals and purpose of existence. Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Then what is the source saying? it is an example of the Netherlands, and says that euthanasia has not be decriminalized, it means it is still a crime. And I refered to the Netherlands because it is the only country were the involuntary euthanasia on new born has beeen declared not punishable and you can read that the definition of involuntary euthanasia in this wikipedia refers to that specific case!!!. 190.25.106.87 (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop this. We can block the entire IP range you're coming from if need be, and protect this page if necessary, along with all the others you're contributing to. You're being unspeakably rude to us by behaving in this manner. Stop now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Instead discussing the thing you are just blocking me. Even although I'm not editing the article, and eventhough I'm providing the reliable sources and arguments anyone asks for. I'm just inviting you to the discuss page. Let us continue in the talk page of the article instead of threating with blocks. When you arrived with your blocks we were already discussing the thing there, and I was trying to reach a consensus, for example, I was asking and waiting for a reliable source which demonstrates that the legal definition of involuntary euthanasia is NOT relevant to define it as whole. Now I will also wait for a reliable source showing that involuntary euthanasia is not a crime in some country on the world. Asking for those sources is a violation of the wikipedia policies? 190.25.110.182 (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your contributions to date, and your approach to "discussing this", have been unspeakably rude and abusive by Wikipedia standards. If you do not stop this behavior we will stop you by blocking anonymous editing on the pages you're discussing on and if necessary blocking the IP ranges you are editing from temporarily.

Please believe me when I say that both:

• Your behavior has been unacceptable over the last day or so.
• We can stop you, and we will if you do not stop behaving badly.

If you actually intend to discuss this in a reasonable manner and in the appropriate places we will not do either of those things. But your comments so far have been grossly unacceptable. Please stop that behavior rather than force us to stop you. What you have done is grossly counterproductive. If you actually care about the topic and point you are trying to make, please look back at your behavior and think about it, and then change that behavior.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for the sources and the arguments. You are the one accusing, threating and blocking. If you think you are right, it is not my ethical problem. Three hours ago when I was warned and invited to discuss in the talk page instead of editing, I understood the right proceeding, I went to discuss the thing and I stopped editing, and anyone can see that we were discussing, in fact I was waiting for the answers to my questions, until you arrived blocking me and the pages. 190.25.98.152 (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This page has been semi-protected for the next six hours (or until another administrator judges that this incident is over). If you continue this harrassment behavior on other pages we will block your IP range. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

190.25.0.0/16 is soft blocked for 6 hours. Note that J.Delanoy had to do this on Sept 27 of this year over their earlier behavior - this user is intermittent but persistent. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

*sigh*

• Folks, I would like to begin by apologizing to anyone who has been reading this noticeboard of late for what I am about to do, but here it is nonetheless: User:Malleus Fatuorum, apparently unsatisfied with amount of drama that came of his issues with certain editors suggesting they might be "on acid, " came by my talk page today to poke me with a stick as well [62]. I gave a very brief response which I felt made it clear that we did not see the situation in the same light [63]. Then he proceeded to edit war with me over the content of my talk page:[64][65][66][67]and the last time going back to the tired drug related accusations in the edit sumarry [68]. This is sooo lame. That is all I have to say on the matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Don'cha love it when other editors conduct a fight on your talk page? There's an important point to be considered, though. This is the second time in recent memory that an admin has made some stupid comment about being under the influence of something and as a result all hell broke loose. Some weeks or months ago it was an admin claiming he mistakenly indef'd a user because he was drunk. And then this recent stuff about an admin being on LSD or something. Comments like that guarantee a firestorm of uncivil yet theoretically justifiable remarks. Admins need to try to keep their personal lives out of the discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but edit-warring on someones's talkpage in a manner that can only be described as trolling isn't helping either. Soxwon (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

For sure. And Beeblebrox could have protected his talk page if necessary, but sometimes it's better to let the trolls combatants run their course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me put my foot down on that point. Calling someone who is genuinely working for the betterment of Wikipedia a troll is a personal attack, and not OK. Even if you see someone who is a longtime editor do something like that, please do not personalize it in that manner. When used in behavioral or content disputes where neither side is being intentionally provocative or disruptive it just lowers the conversation level and makes it harder for anyone to resolve it or let it go.

That said - Malleus earns himself a civility warning for the sequence. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask a totally ignorant question, which is one thing I know how to do: What practical effect does a civility warning, or any kind of warning, have on anything? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The above was a fair question. Where does Basket of Puppies get off deleting my comments here, including reverting my striking of my uncivil comment about trolls? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question:

1. Civility warnings are a mirror held up to your behavior. Sometimes people look at their own behavior and change it. That's the goal.
2. If they do not, the warning serves the same purpose as other behavioral warnings do - put it on the record, and if the behavior continues past multiple warnings, leads to a block.

There's no template for civility warnings because they're impersonal, which is the exact opposite of what we want to do with civility warnings (hold up the mirror and ask people to be reasonable and human and adult). See Wikipedia:Civility warnings - my essay on this point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the second point would be far more effective if users weren't allowed to delete them. Currently the only restriction is that they can't delete their own unblock notices while they're blocked. Otherwise, anyone looking for such warnings would have to look through the history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What, you don't check the talk page history before leaving warnings? For shame...

Seriously, though - you have to do that. The current policy on talk pages explicitly allows removing warnings, and that's considered a feature (although with the downside you noted). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeh, that's the point. Perhaps there needs to be a way to formally log warnings along with actual blocks? In response to your semi-rhetorical question, I seldom issue warnings to established users, and only when necessary to IP's and redlinks. They all pretty much know what they're doing. The one thing admins could do, in the absence of a separate log, would be to HIGHLIGHT such warnings in the edit summaries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to want to force users to keep warnings and such on their talk pages as a sort of record of their misdeeds, to warn others of their past, etc. But this really isn't all that beneficial. It places more focus on punishment and labelling of "wrongdoers" rather than encouraging positive contributions. It's no accident that the tone of so many of our principles is about redemption and assuming the best rather than the worst and allowing people to recover from previous mistakes.

Edit warring with users on their own talk page is also especially distasteful because of the generally wide latitude that users have over their userspace. And it just starts to seem petty, forcing this user to fight over every edit, over an attempt to no longer be seen as incivil or whatever. People have pride, and many of us use our user space as a place to show off a bit, within the context of encyclopedia building, preferably. If someone wants to remove warnings from their talk page, then let them. The encyclopedia will continue. kmccoy (talk) 07:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

George's argument is that the warnings serve as part of the user's record, like demerits on a report card or something. But unless it's easy to track, it's really of no value... unless it's mentioned in the edit summary IN ALL CAPS, or in some yet-to-be-determined style, contained within the edit summary so admins can see it. Otherwise it just gets buried. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

But, au contraire Bugs, there are plenty of editors who will have that diff ready and will produce it at the exact moment their wiki sense goes off that the particular editor has been called upon again. That is its purpose. I'm quite impressed at people's ability to pull random diffs out from the wiki-space. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Then why the exception for the unblock notices? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is really silly. It's already a bad idea to replace another editor's comment on your talk page by a picture, while leaving the signature [69], and then edit war in order to keep the fake on your talk page [70]. But then you run to ANI complaining about the other editor's lameness and provide links to your own? What are you trying to accomplish? Hans Adler 10:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Colour me confused, but I don't see anything in the provided diffs that warrants administrative action against User:Malleus Fatuorum. Categorising this post as "[poking] me with a stick" comes across as somewhat thin-skinned. Whether or not Beeblebrox disagrees with the post, I'd still class it as little more than a correction of a seeming misconception. And the evidence of Malleus' "edit warring" seems to be a couple of attempts by him to remove a borderline-abusive refactoring of his previous post by Beeblebrox to ... what, call Malleus a troll? As such, I strongly disagree with Georgewilliamherbert's hasty issuing of a "formal warning" for "atrocious" behaviour to Malleus before any consensus had been reached here, and suggest he removes it until it is. Steve ^T • C 12:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is clearly very little honesty here, and more than a little gleeful handrubbing that Malleus is going to get what many think he deserves. The facts of the matter are very clear for anyone with eyes to see them. Beeblebrox accused me of starting yesterday's shitstorm over Chillum's admitted drug taking, and I made a posting on his talk page correcting his misconception. He subsequently deliberately and abusively altered my posting and then edit warred to keep his abusive version. And I'm the one who's being accused of being incivil? Sheesh! --Malleus Fatuorum 13:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• It is inappropriate to alter someone else's comments to change the meaning of their comments in this way, regardless of where the comments were made. If Beeblebrox felt the post did not belong on his talk page, he should have removed it entirely. Replacing it with this type of image while leaving Malleus's signature was wrong and served only to escalate the dispute. I find the edit summary to be incivil as well. An adminstrator should know better; it saddens me that so many don't. Karanacs (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • And out of fairness, I've left a warning for Beeblebrox [71]. His behavior, in my opinion, was worse than Malleus's, so if Malleus deserves a warning, Beeblebrox does as well. Karanacs (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• I replied to the warning on my talk page, but I'll sum it up here: I acknowledge that blanking the message instead would have been a better, low-drama route to take, but the idea that Malleus was simply trying to "correct a misconception" is ridiculous. He came to yell at me, and to drag out the drama that he stirred up with Chillum. The fact that he succeeded is probably my fault, but his insulting, condescending posts on my page saying I was "clearly confused" and "can't read" were trolling. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I take very strong exception to this repeated accusation of trolling, which is completely inappropriate and inaccurate. That you persist in making the accusation does you absolutely no credit whatsoever, but your attitude is all too common amongst administrators sadly. The fact of the matter, like it or lump it, is that you accused me yesterday of having started the Chillum fiasco, and I was merely pointing out to you that you were incorrect in that belief.[72] You then went on to alter my posting, which is completely unacceptable. Frankly I think that you're a disgrace as an administrator, and your childishness in initiating this report simply beggars belief. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs has said the same thing I was going to. Beeblebrox, removing Malleus' comment would have been ok, and putting up an image would have been ok, but leaving his signature attached to the image as you did here wasn't; that makes it look like modifying another user's comment, and thus Malleus had the right to undo it. No comment about the messages before that, but as for the "edit-warring" that's that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have pretty clearly conceded the point that simply blanking it would have been a better idea. However, I stand by these two points: that Malleus did indeed throw the first stone that started the prolonged discussion about Chillum, and that his posting to my talk page were trolling, in that they were insulting, condescending, and intended to cause problems rather than solve them. His remarks were no more an innocent attempt at explanation than his remarks to Chillum were an innocent question. As for me being a "disgrace as an administrator," I don't see anything anywhere in any of these threads that remotely relates to any of my admin actions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not admin actions per se - however, admins have a higher expectation of proper behavior, due to the position of trust in the community. Even if you're being abusive in normal editing interactions with people, never threatening or misusing admin powers, it's still more of an issue than for normal users.

It's hard not to poke back, but the job requires that we respond to provocations in a professional and polite manner. One can be firm and act decisively without being rude or abusive.

I had a long go-around with Ottava on my talk page last night, who insisted that your actions were the worst part of the series of incidents. I disagreed with that - I warned the one person I felt I had to, on seeing the series of events and incidents - but I think that your response was not in keeping with the expectations that we set for admins and not entirely civil. It's bad enough when normal users do that sort of thing. When admins do it, it creates a perception of "them vs us" and lowers community trust in admins as a whole.

I don't want to belabor the point too much. I hope you don't do that again, and if you start doing it all the time it would legitimately be a Big Deal problem requiring some sort of action. But in the spectrum of events over the last few days it was only notable not excessive, IMHO. But every little bit of drama adds up. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Admins make plenty of mistakes, nobody's perfect. But I can't think of any mistake worse than an admin openly stating that they are under the influence of something. Unless it would be being caught socking. Those two scenarios undermine an admin's credibility far more than mere bitterly-exchanged words as we have in this discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly it's not allowed to draw attention to that fact though. Another lesson learned; wikipedia's governance is even more corrupt than I'd imagined. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A rather disingenuous rewriting of history GWH. Beeblebrox accuses me of starting the Chillum shitstorm; I correct his misconception; he alters my posting; I revert his alteration to my posting. You warn me, but you don't warn Beeblebrox. Enough said. Your credibility is zero as far as I'm concerned. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not quite 3RR

Could we get some more eyes on Thomas Suozzi? There appears to be some concerted vandalism in the last couple days by at least two users who reverted right up to 3RR (but didn't technically break it...yet), as well as some vandalism by some IPs. I know that this isn't the greatest place, and a request has been put in at AIV and an RFPP will be put in shortly, but some more eyes would be helpful. Thanks! Frmatt (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The RFPP was declined, but there is now a third user making the exact same edits to this article, all three of them appear to be single-purpose accounts, specifically to vandalize this particular article. Frmatt (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, taken care of...ignore this section! Frmatt (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Note. Sockpuppetry by Lemonyellowsun (talk · contribs) has gone underway to violate 3RR and I've filed a report at WP:SPI, if there are any interested uninvolved admins to issue blocks quickly. — ξ^xplicit 06:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Socks confirmed, blocked, can someone mark this as resolved? Frmatt (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Threat of Violence

Can someone ask the foundation lawyer if there's specific action we need to take if there's any death threat against the US president, even if those threats aren't particularly credible? I think the feds take all such things seriously, and want them to be reported. I don't know if not reporting them is a problem or not. Please could that be clarified, by the person responsible for WP legal stuff? Remember Civility (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Such things are almost always reported, for two reasons - first, to stop the harm from occuring, if it's indeed going to occur. Second, we're not equipped to judge which threats of violence are credible and which are not - so if someone threatens to kill someone, and we ignore it, and they actually do kill someone, the project and the foundation are placed in a tricky legal situation (and, obviously, we have the tragedy of someone dying as well). So, both to discourage such things, and to prevent harm, we report them. Reported or not, do you have the diff or article where the threat is? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In general, the way it works is:

1. A diff or user is reported here; they get blocked.
2. If necessary, a checkuser finds a general location for the user making the threat so that law enforcement can more easily pinpoint the perp
3. A user in the area will contact local law enforcement (or in this case, anyone in the US can call the FBI). If a checkuser was needed, the checkuser can provide limited information to the user calling the cops to assist in their investigation.
4. Cops take it from there. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I agree we should not leave it up to our volunteers to decide which threats are credible, pass it on to someone whose job that is. Chillum 16:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. Sorry for the odd placement of my question and lack of heading. I'd meant to add it under a relevant AN/I report, where it seems like stuff was just being blanked without authorities being informed. Remember Civility (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on my user page

Resolved

Could some one please delete the record of the recent IP vandalism on my user page from its history? Thanks, --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

TYVM sir. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ill-considered article moves

Resolved

 – An administrator has rectified the situation. --Favonian (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

We have a bit of trouble with an editor who on three occasions ([73],[74],[75]) has moved articles about fairly notable athletes to names under which they are not commonly known. According to the edit summaries this was done in order to make room for the creation of articles about other persons. The first two moves were undone by administrators, but now he is at it again. The third move is in fact a repeat of the first one. The editor has been notified that such moves are not appropriate, but this does not seem to have had the desired effect. Favonian (talk) 09:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bose products deletion redux

A recent multi-article AfD was less than cordial, with warnings for off-wiki canvassing, allegations of being a corporate flack, WQA, socks / SPAs, the works.

As it hardly surprisingly closed non-consensus, the same nominator, Snottywong, has now (quite properly) put forward a merge proposal (effectively the same goal as the multi-AfD, but without the visibility). They then canvassed a partisan selection of those who'd commented on the AfD in support of their position. I would however see their recent bulk deletion of content across these articles as prejudicial to a consensus merge process and beyond a GF action. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rude anon

Resolved

 – IP user temporarily blocked. Syrthiss (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not talking about myself! I could use a little help: [76] 24.148.0.83 (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I warned the IP with a NPA template. Syrthiss (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

...and since they blanked my warnings with abusive edit summaries, they are now blocked. Syrthiss (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll keep an eye out, although this user seems to have created a sockpuppet to continue reverting. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Vicious Personal Attacks by Dubbawubba (moved from WQA)

An SPA by the name of Dubbawubba (talk)(contribs)has been posting extremely offensive and threatening personal attacks on my user page. I have followed procedure in responding to the attacks, leaving NPA templates 1-3 on their user page already, to no avail.[77] The last attack was particularly vicious and violent with talk of celebrating my death etc.[78][79][80] Please intervene. This user needs to be blocked ASAP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

NO NEED to block me as I came here only to update simple information to update wiki and make it accurate to the minute, but RED will have none of that!, but please do block me to appease Red, as that's his game. He pisses editors who disagree with him off, till they explode and then he reports them. It's his MO with many more than me, that's a fact. It would take a brain dead moron not to realize that I meant to and wanted to be out of line, over the top and make a point in doing so. I KNEW where this would lead.

Rhode Island Red has been allowed to hijack the Juice Plus page for over 5 years, he has chased away people wanting to take part in this article. He clearly thinks he "owns" the article and refuses to stick to the NPOV(if over 3000 edits doesn't shout this to someone of authority here, NOTHING will!) Countless people have tried to reason with him and he exhausts everyone who will listen, says they are attacking if they dare to disagree with his stand point. Celebrate his death? We all die, and this ass wipe will too someday and yes, hope to be around then and figure out his identity by cross referrencing every death in the world on the day after his last edit because the ONLY way this person will EVER stop owing the juice plus article and acting like a jerk is if he is dead and buried. he drives anyone to this point. READ his history if you want to see why someone would act like I did.

Block me, ban me. but of the love of God, would someone look into this whack job and get real. He has NO business doing anything on what is suppossed to be a NPOV resource article site. He is more prejudice than Al Sharpton.the all knowing 06:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC) the dubber!

Yeeeeah, I'm going to go out on a limb here and call WP:DUCK. I'd just go ahead and take this to WP:SPI and find out who the sockmaster is. Soxwon (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Dubbawubba is probably a sock based on behaviour and apparent familiarity with the page in question; but I don't know if that is sufficient for WP:SPI. A block certainly seems appropriate. Issues at Juice Plus appear to be engaged in talk as appropriate. I've read the history a bit; and there is long standing bad feeling between active editors. However it does not appear to warrant the behaviour of User:Dubbawubba. There has been a RfC on Rhode Island Red now over two years old where issues were able to be aired. It is clear that the issues involve multiple editors, not just one. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This was moved to ANI from WQA by User:Looie496. All the content above was originally at WP:WQA. I am not sure if this kind of transfer is kosher, and as yet no notice of the move to ANI has been given to Dubbawubba. I am not sure what is best to do next. If this alert is still here half an hour from now I'll go ahead and add a notice in his user page. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at the WQA section saying that I had moved it; I don't see why more is needed. This case obviously requires admin action, and WQA doesn't generally get that, so a move was necessary. Looie496 (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This user is clearly not here for any constructive purpose. I have blocked them indefinitely and, except for any possible sockpuppet investigations, we should probably just wash our hands of the situation and move on. Shereth 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I was simply concerned about the requirements for prior notification in the case of a move like this; but as you say it's pretty clear what is going on so its all good. Adios —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 16:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dubbawubba was already participating in the WQA thread. The tag

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

had been added to the thread in WQA, and therefore Dubbawubba was theoretically aware. Back in my days in WQA, I wouldn't move the text - I would open a new case here as an escalation, referring to the old one in WQA so that it was archived with the rest of the cases. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sincere thanks to all for your prompt attention and expert assistance. There are lingering sock/meat puppet, SPA, COI, and DE concerns, so user conduct issues on this article might end up back on the ANI radar again someday. Any suggestions for prevention and future action would be appreciated. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

IP User:65.204.124.131 making legal threats

This IP is repeatedly throwing around the word "libelous" in edit summaries and on talk pages. Since I could be interpreted as involved in a content dispute with him/her, I don't want to do an NLT block myself. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC) (Yes, I have templated them about the NLT policy.) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Since that address belongs to Extended Stay Hotels and only edited for a few hours, we have probably seen the last of it. Looie496 (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTWEBHOST, some think we are..

Htw3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Seems an Assistant Professor, is using wikipedia as a webhost. Has a few edits outside his userspace (back in 2007), however the last 2 years seem to be userspace exclusive[81].

• User:Htw3/1:10 PM Section
• User:Htw3/9:10 AM Section
• User:Htw3/Autumn 2008 Projects
• User:Htw3/Digital.projects.2009
• User:Htw3/Early Projects
• User:Htw3/GP.Projects.2009
• User:Htw3/GP Projects 2009
• User:Htw3/Group Processes
• User:Htw3/Internet, SE Asia, and cross cultural comparisons
• User:Htw3/Intro to Sociology
• User:Htw3/ResourcesGreen
• User:Htw3/ResourcesOrange
• User:Htw3/ResourcesPurple
• User:Htw3/ResourcesTemple
• User:Htw3/Sociology of the future in Rainbows End
• User:Htw3/Spring 2008 Contributors Page
• User:Htw3/Spring 2008 Project Page
• User_talk:Htw3/ResourcesOrange
• User_talk:Htw3/ResourcesTemple
• User_talk:Htw3/Spring 2008 Contributors Page

--Hu12 (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Informed editor of the discussion here [82]. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a bit more to this than meets the eye at first glance. The editor (claimed to be a college professor) appears to be using these pages to coordinate teams of his college students while they are working on pages in the Sociology Wikiproject in return for credit. As the pages may *potentially* be in the service of the overall project, I'm not certain they are absolutely violations of WEBHOST. (This is not my final opinion by the way, just an mild caution that we should not be overly hasty). Manning (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

From the user page, it seems that the last school project was in 2007. Netalarmtalk 03:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There is some coordination of class projects for Wikipedia (which isn't a problem - see WP:SUP). However, this may be going towards some WP:WEBHOST problems. For example, User:Htw3/Spring 2008 Project Page is being used as a host for a school project where students are told they have the option to work on Wikipedia or an option to do a YouTube and/or Flikr project. I would call that borderline. User:Htw3/Digital.projects.2009, on the other hand, is for a school project that doesn't even contemplate the use of Wikipedia. That is definietly beyond the scope of Wikipedia-related school project.

Ultimately, I think it's important if we explain to User:Htw3 the policy of WP:WEBHOST, and that we welcome him using Wikipedia as a school project, as per WP:SUP, but that we can't host his school projects that are unrelated to Wikipedia. Singularity42 (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds ideal. Manning (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Person has not edited in 2 weeks and this ANI thread may very well be archived by the time he sees the ANI template Bfigura left him pointing to it. I will leave a permalink and some advice about migrating the pages off-wiki. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've left some starting advice for the user at his talk page here. Hopefully that will lead to resolving the situation. Singularity42 (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

A good deal of this material is specific course syllabi. Unless Wikipedia is the subject of very major component of the course, this is not appropriate. If no response is forthcoming, I shall be taking those ones to MfD and asking for a snow closing. But I hope we can persuade him to ask for their withdrawal. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be nicer to not ask for a snow closing. Let it run the full week pro forma, so that he has an opportunity to show up again and move the stuff. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Htw3 as not been online since 14 October, so I sent him an email to get his attention. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello folks. Your comments and concerns about possible webhost issues are appreciated and well taken. I believe that some of the pages that I have created and encouraged contributions to are borderline to the overal mission of Wikipedia, though I think also that additional context might help establish how my efforts are more clearly within proper use expectations that it would seem.

1. *User:Htw3/Internet, SE Asia, and cross cultural comparisons This page is clearly outside the wiki-project. However, this page was simply an illustration for the group of scholars I work with, designed to convince them that we should create a wiki elsewhere that would allow us to coordinate our efforts. They were convinced, a Wiki was established for members of the VOSON project. I should have gotten rid of it already, but basically I had been distracted from the task of cleaning it up.
2. The vast majority of the user sub pages were created as organizational tools to help student groups coordinate around projects, primarily wiki projects, and are no longer needed. I don't know what the procedure is to delete pages (separate from editing the content to nill and removing links to them).
   1. Along those lines I would be happy eliminate much of the pages.
3. What is the role of Wikipedia, and contributing to Wikipedia in my courses? And why might it be legitimate to use a Wikipedia user page to describe a course and to integrate course materials?
   1. I see my role in Wikipedia primarily as a recruiter of contributors. While I may have some of my professional time to devote to making edits directly, I can, by virtue of my institutional role, potentially benefit the mission of the project in far more profound ways by bringing others into the role of Wikipedia editors.
   2. When I first started these projects, I had a very simplistic notion of what it meant to contribute to Wikipedia, and how to encourage participation: require all students to make improvements to existing pages in the Sociology Project, or add pages related to important concepts in sociology that did not yet have entries.
      1. I think that strategy made more sense when I began a couple years ago than it does now. The quality of many of the pages that the students encounter have improved to a level that edits from the lowest common denominator student are likely to be counter-productive rather than helpful.
      2. In short blanket assignments where all students are required to be contributors are less helpful now.
   3. Now, my strategy is to raise awareness of Wikipedia as a community, to encourage students to develop basic editing skills, and to turn them on to pages related to their interests. This is why I, for the first time this fall, presented the syllabus as a Wiki page. My goal is to normalize the notion of making small helpful edits in the context of Wikipedia. Now, of course there are other Wiki platforms that could be used. However, I am very interested making the connection to the actual Wikipedia concrete. I am less interested in students learning a bit of mark up than I am in the notion of cultivating identification with the role of becoming a contributor to Wikipedia.
      1. What sorts of contributors are needed in Wikipedia now? From my observations, I can see two main paths that are most needed.
         1. First, are Wiki-gnome like contributors. Basically people who a capable of making small contributions on a variety of types of pages, performing relatively simple edits. This is why I wanted students to get normalizing experience editing a small part of the real Wikipedia.
         2. Second, are contributors that have high expertise in an area and can help pages that are 90% good get the rest of the way to a top quality page. There are still many pages in the Sociology area that would benefit from that last 10-20% improvement.
4. To summarize--- I feel like my use of Wikipedia userpages in relation to my courses are consistent with my ongoing role of trying to encourage productive contributions from others. My strategy has shifted from blanket required projects to one where I try to encourage awareness, basic skills and role familiarity and ultimately adoption. I hope that because of my current course treatment Wikipedia will benefit from a host of new Wiki-gnomes, and hopefully from one or two dedicated contributors. Only time will tell.
   1. Finally-- I could clearly move my entire presence away from my Userpage. My university has hosting capability and Black Board offers a version of a wiki related to courses. However, I would view this as a loss for Wikipedia, since those systems, though they have equal or even better affordances for the class related functions, would not have the role socialization benefits that I have been trying to cultivate. Best, Ted Welser --Htw3 (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just talking to my wife about this business. She had just made me a lovely cheese sandwich with chilli sauce and mustard, which is one of my favourites, and in between mouthfuls I described the situation on-wiki. After I had polished off the lovely sandwich, we came to the agreement that if the pages are being used, both by someone who contributes to wikipedia and encourages their students to do so, with some inoffensive pages in userspace, then why shouldn't they be there? People have much more unusual and pointless things in userspace - I say keep the lesson plans. Would removing them make Wikipedia a better place? Bravo, Ted! Bravo! (the second bravo is from my wife). See you guys around, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Wikiversity actually hosts several userspace projects like this for active classroom use. If they are seen as problematic on Wikipedia, the creator(s) can always be noitfied and the pages imported.--SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have pulled the above thread out of the archive for further discussion, since it technically hasn't been resolved yet. Htw3 commented on my talk page that he would appreciate a final answer from administrators of whether he provided a satisfactory reply above. Thanks! Singularity42 (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

With not much googling you can find services that provide free wikis to people. They are just like Wikipedia except that they don't have the limitation of scope that Wikipedia has. For $11 a month you can rent a simple server and install mediawiki on it. E-mail me if you want details, as it could be seen as advertising services if I posted the details here. I run a few mediawikis to manage my personal projects, I did so because I knew my userspace on Wikipedia was not an appropriate location for projects unrelated to the encyclopedia. That being said, as long as the papers they are drafting are released to GFDL and they are using reliable sources then it is very possible they the encyclopedia can benefit it. My suspicion is that some of the pages are useful to our scope, and others go beyond it. Chillum 16:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Chillum) I, for one, feel that Htw3's response was more than satisfactory. If he/she could tag the unneeded pages as G7 using the {{db-self}} tag, that would be appreciated. Tan | 39 16:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I find the explanation surprising but totally convincing. I fully agree with Tan. Hans Adler 16:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind attention to this discussion. I have followed Tan's recommendation and placed a {{db-self}} tag at the top of all of the pages that I do not have any use for. I kept a couple of the pages I used to organize past student projects as models, so that I can copy aspects of the structure for an upcoming course. I will house the organizational structure of much of the sign-ups for my upcoming course on an internal Wiki, but I would like to keep some of the pages as instructional examples. I would like to keep the pages that I have not tagged active (for instance my current syllabus page), as they continue to contribute to my pedagogical goals in Wikipedia role socialization. I only have 18 students this quarter, and prior to my course only 3 of them had ever made an edit in Wikipedia before. In class today we discussed my research on social roles in online community, and highlighted the role of Wikignomes. I am not sure how many will chose to act on their awareness of Wikipedia editing roles. I hope that one of them will make it a topic of discussion on the course blog, but that is their choice. Finally, if you wanted to know more about me and my research and teaching, I have a google profile page under the name Howard(Ted)Welser. Cheers and thanks for your efforts --Htw3 (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Repeated violations of WP:OWN on Mallika Sherawat

Resolved

 – Edits were only enforcing BLP; note left at User_talk:Jeppiz informing him about this crucial policy. Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Since quite some time, User:Shshshsh has appointed himself the judge of what to include and what not to include in various articles related to Bollywood, with the user removing everything he does not agree with. While this is repeated on several pages, the most recent conflict concerns Indian actress Mallika Sherawat. Starting months ago, the user has removed almost every addition, as can be seen from the articles editing history. The user's reason for editing comes very close to censorship. It is a well-known, and easily sourced, fact that the age of Mallika Sherawat is controversial. This has been discussed extensively on the talk page, and is often added to the article, yet consistently removed by Shshshsh. The user, obviously being a fan of the actress, has decided that we should give her birth year as 1981. When an IP added a comment about the age controversy [83], it was immediately removed by Shshshsh [84]. The user's argument that the source is not reliable may seem credible, but the user has removed four differeny sources claiming that non of them are credible [85]. What makes this almost comical is that his prefered source is a gossip article about buying condoms. In other words, his version is if anything even less sourced by WP:RS. His main argument for removing virtually everything added to the article is that we should "respect her privacy" and [86], [87], [88]. In short: Since months, user Shshshsh removes almost everything added to Mallika Sherawat, especially material he thinks is unfavourable to her. This violates WP:OWN and reeks of censorship. He gladly removes four different sources about the age controversy, yet insists we should accept his source, a gossip article, as the only credible source. The user is well aware of the rules, as I've warned him about it and he has a history of blocks for similar actions.Jeppiz (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:OWN? You cite santabanta.com, apunkachoice.com, imdb.com - all unreliable sources, you are warned for edit warring even after being asked to reach consensus, and after all that you accuse me of owning this page? This is quite funny, more because I cited a fair reason to the reversal. After that I asked another editor to interfere on the talk page and stepped out.

For the record, Mallika Sherawat is on my watchlist and is mostly vandalised by users. Most of the time the page is highly filled with gossip, and yes, I was the one who did the most edits to the page. Nothing WP:OWN here. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And one important thing: "a gossip article about buying condoms"?? It's an interview by Rediff.com - one of the best known and most reputed sites in India. Get your facts right before trying to mislead people because of a title. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points.

• I most certainly accuse you of trying to own the page. Your repeated claims that we should not add this and that because we should "respect her privacy" speaks for itself.
• Where in that article does it say that she is born on October 24 in 1981? Nowhere, so it's useless as a source. You know as well as I do that her age is controversial, yet you want to ignore it and use a date for which we don't have a single source while other users and I want to mention that several alternative birth dates have been given.Jeppiz (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeppiz, Can you provide diffs for specific edits by Shshshsh that you find problematic ? All the edits you point to in your original post, are perfectly fine and consistent with wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons. Abecedare (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC) PS: Is there a source for her being born on October 24, 1981; the rediff interview only says that she was 21 in 2003. If we don't have a reliable source, the data should be excluded. Abecedare (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare, thank you for the observation with which you treated the case.

Jeppiz, of course I know her age is controversial. Did I deny this? No. She does not even look like 28 years old. But my opinion does NOT matter. It's just that your sources are not reliable and Rediff is. Additionally, I remember watching an interview in which she said she was born in 1981. She may be lying, but it's her own thing. Rediff.com does support that she was born in 1981, as she was 21 in June 05, before October. The fact that you removed it only goes agains you because it shows you have an opinion you want to enforce. I don't. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source that explicitly mentions her birth-date or year, feel free to add it to the article (with attribution if needed), but make sure not to extrapolate from sources. I'll watchlist the page, although I don't plan to contribute content.Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Is rediff a reliable source? I think a discussion about that should be taken to WP:RS. It doesn't look exactly like a peer-reviewed site. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a news site; as such the criterion to use is reputation and editorial control, not peer review. In my estimation, it is an ok source for such information, on par with celebrity and entertainment magazines, that are likely to be the only alternatives available for such topics. Of course, RSN would be the right venue to discuss this in greater detail, if somebody is interested. Abecedare (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Even Rediff gives different birth years for Mallika in different articles. In the one Shshshsh mentions, she was described as being 21 years in in 2003. In this article, also from Rediff, she was described as being 36 years in [2008.http://specials.rediff.com/getahead/2008/aug/25slide1.htm]. Given this, Rediff cannot used to claim her birth year as 1981 while ignoring other articles in Rediff giving different birth years.Jeppiz (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima "community" sanction

Original thread

Resolved

 – The editing sanctions placed on Ottava by Jehochman and listed in Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community are confirmed (22 supports, 8 opposes -depending on how one counts some of the comments not clearly marked as support or oppose).

--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community indicates that Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was sanctioned by the community, with Jehochman imposing the sanction in this ANI discussion. Ottava Rima has since claimed that there is no sanction as deemed by the community, and that Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) imposed it himself unilaterally, without a community consensus, and that Jehochman was involved. [89]. The sanction, which requires immediate review, is:

The user may be blocked if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

The following other recent discussions and diffs are clearly relevant to the conduct of the user in question: Nov '09 ANI, Oct '09 ANI, May '08 ANI, Aug '08 ANI - blocked, May '09 ANI.

• Does the community believe this restriction should be in force, and should therefore stay listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community?
• Would the community prefer adopting an alternative, which would allow for page bans - including user talk and Wikipedia pages as appropriate:

Should Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive or unseemly (including personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, or incivility), he may either be blocked, or banned from the affected set of pages for a specified duration. Any page bans will take effect once the administrator has posted a notice to his talk page and logged it at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Community sanction/Ottava Rima.

Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support alternate as first choice- --SKATER ^Speak. 17:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I would suggest replacing "an administrator" by "an uninvolved administrator". Count Iblis (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support alternate as first choice, support current restriction as second choice... I don't see any particular need to make Count Iblis' proposed change - if the incivility is clear enough to block, it's not going to matter whether Ottava has ticked off the blocking admin or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ncmvocalist is clearly forum shopping and operating inappropriately. He made multiple disruptive comments on the page as in violation of WP:TALK. Two arbitrators were already directly contacted and this will go up before RfAr if the restrictions are not taken down as not having any appropriate sanction to begin with, and thus an abuse of an administrator of an ArbCom related board. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose both "alternatives" - There are already civility rules. Either enforce them, or don't. No special rules are needed for individual users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• (several ec's) Procedurally opposing the first because it put the cart before the horse; individual administrators simply don't have that power except in in the rare context of arbitration enforcement. Unsure about the alternate; would like to hear from Ottava Rima before deciding. Without opining on the rightness or wrongness of his opinion in the most recent issue, it was exactly the sort of matter that ought to be handled with discretion and decorum. These pages are public, other sites do discuss what happens, and some of them go out of their way to discover and publicize real names when a dispute arises. In the long run it doesn't serve the project's best interests if people become fearful that volunteer work for this website would damage their employability. Ottava Rima's content work is outstanding--absolutely outstanding--so here's hoping an appropriate balance is possible. Durova³⁵⁵ 17:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Ottava, would you prefer arbitration? Durova³⁵⁵ 17:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • As per what has been stated on that page, an appeal can go through Request for Arbitration/Clarification. I think it would be optimum to have the ArbCom rule on the matter on if Jehochman's actions were appropriate to begin with. As per how the page operates and the statements by Carcharoth on the talk page (and even Jehochman's), there was nothing following protocol in placing my name on that list. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't quite understand; why would this go to clarifications requests? It doesn't appear to be an outgrowth of any arbitration case's discretionary sanctions. Durova³⁵⁵ 20:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Both suggestions are silly, added to which who's going to trust a drive-by administrator to act fairly and honestly? Certainly not me. The "definitions" of personal attacks, incivility and the rest are routinely twisted by administrators to justify their high-handed actions in doing whatever it is that they please in a misguided attempt to exercise some grudge they have against another editor. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a broad-brush attack which is mostly false, but is sometimes true, unfortunately. And is not helped by admins admitting claiming to being under substance influence. (That might be funny in some circumstances, but not when coupled with enforcing the rules). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It's a realistic view of what actually happens. I would not trust a single administrator to be imposing such blocks as are being proposed on anyone. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • PS. I don't mean that there isn't an administrator that I'd trust, I mean that I wouldn't trust an administrator acting alone to impose such blocks. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Bugs, were I under the influence of psychoactive substances like pot or acid, the last place I'd want to be is on Wikipedia: that would make for a truly bad trip. ("Acidhead Wikipedian freaks out over AD/CE edit war, claims it proves the remaining Tuesdays have been mailed to last month.") -- llywrch (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose both. Admins are incapable of evenly and appropriately enforcing the civility policy. Such restrictions will just cause more drama. Regarding the suggestion for Arbitration, it would most likely be rejected. Lara 17:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either Remove Ottava's immunity from sanction. --Folantin (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment (ec) This is an issue; period. I highly admire O-R's article work. However, their actions when confronted are not community-minded. They have a unique take on what WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are, and claim that their actions never violate their take on them. As such, the violations of the spirit of the policies in question are extremely problematic. How does the community deal with someone who seems so anti-community? Prolific article work is not a "Get out of Jail Free" card. They cannot ever be immune. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My statements on NPA are 1. to always talk about an editor's actions as I never make any comments regarding race, sex, sexual preference, etc and 2. I ask that people provide diffs when making accusations, which, per NPA, is a requirement. These are traditionally held and orthodox interpretations. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

At no point do the definitions in NPA and civil ever try and mimic those for "hate crimes", nor is it at all related to harassment - and nobody "holds" your "interpretation" as valid; only you (it appears). No personal attacks means not attacking anyone in any manner: this includes "idiot", "moron", "inept", etc. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The policy makes it clear that it is about -personal- attacks. It spells out clearly "comment on edits, not editors". Furthermore, what you claim as "attacks" is spelled out at WP:NPA as clearly being within the realm of complaints about inappropriate actions, which is perfectly acceptable. Furthermore, I don't comment on people's intelligence, but it is nice of you to accuse me of doing so without proofs and in direct violation of WP:NPA. The standard is really, really clear and you are violating it. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt at all that the following falls under WP:NPA: "You bully, threaten, and what state of mind are you even in? You lack the capacity to be an effective admin, and your inappropriate attacks verify that." [90] (From WP:NPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." You provided no evidence for bullying, threatening, or for an altered state of mind at the time. You provided no evidence for lack of capacity... or for inappropriate attacks. And this was not an isolated attack. You harassed Chillum over several hours.) Hans Adler 20:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I provided you with about 15 diffs and User:Hans Adler provided you with another 10 to demonstrate. In both cases you shoved them off the table, in my case actually accusing me of personal attack with this edit. You actually managed to claim i didn't provide any diffs while there were 15 above your comment. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

At no time did those diffs show any incivil comment or attacks of any sort. This was explained to you and you kept going on. You have yet to provide anything. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The only person refuting my diffs was you Ottava, while User:Ks0stm and User:SqueakBox supported my conclusions. You are suggesting that because just you state there was no incivility evidence there was none? Also, for the record, "I just kept going"? For someone demanding that everything has to be proven with diffs i find this rather amusing, seeing i just made 1 comment (The initial one) in that entire ANI thread? So for now i demand a diff showing that A)i kept going and going, and B) that someone else then you refuted the diffs i provided. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the disruption; making a large amount(unjustified) accusations against 9 other people (More by now actually) is what i call disruptive and assuming bad faith. Yet having read trough your entire recent comment history i doubt that any words i say could per sway you to think otherwise - not because they are wrong but because you just don't seem to listen. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose As Baseball Bugs said, why do we need special civility rules for a particular user when the current ones are perfectly applicable? Master of Puppets 18:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: In my opinion, what should or should not be done with Ottava depends entirely on what what kind of encyclopedia we think we are building. If it is an encyclopedia that relies primarily on a few content builders, then it makes sense to ignore the drama, give an occasional rap on his knuckles, and either grit your teeth or smile in an avuncular fashion each time he goes off the rails. If, on the other hand, we are building an encyclopedia that relies on huge numbers of editors, each contributing a little to the knowledge base, then it makes sense to put sanctions on any disruptive editor immediately. Personally, I think that project will only succeed with a large and diverse body of editors because that is what distinguishes us from the dedicated content editors that define traditional encyclopedias, and, unless incivility is addressed immediately, people will continue to be turned off from editing here. Is it surprising, one asks, that the number of people who edit wikipedia is declining if we tolerate gross rudeness from some individuals but are quick to block even the smallest infractions of others? The question each one of us should ask ourselves, which is more important - an encyclopedia with a few strong content editors who can be as disagreeable as they like, or an encyclopedia that is a welcoming place that discourages gross incivility and strives to create a collegial and collaborative atmosphere? That question is far more important than the fate of an Ottava rima for which the only two meaningful choices are, IMO, an outright ban or letting him continue editing with an occasional off-the-rails episode. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a coincidence that the same group of people who complain against me have a long record of tag teaming, edit warring, POV pushing, having discussions skewed by their members using socks, etc. That isn't building an encyclopedia, and the single common denominator there is not me. The problem existed before I was here, and would exist after I go. Until Jehochman, Moreschi, Folantin, Akhilleus, Antandrus, Bishonen, etc, and all of their supporters are kept from editing Wikipedia, there will always be these major disruptions by them. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh here we go. It's a conspiracy. You forgot to mention WikiProject:Georgia. I'm sure Stalin is after you too. --Folantin (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You are rather open about targetting me. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support both, with alternative as first choice; Count Iblis' modification acceptable but not necessary. I don't remember ever seeing a single conversation involving Ottava Rima in which he wasn't absolutely, over the top uncivil. I haven't seen a single instance where he reacted to the fact that someone disagreed with him (let alone when someone warned him about his misbehaviour) with anything but strong personal attacks. Often they lack any foundation, and often they are accompanied by conspiracy theories.

Moreover, while a lot of people say very positive things about his contributions, I am not going to trust that before I have checked some of his articles (which is probably going to take a huge effort). I often get the impression that he is making up things on the spot all the time in disputes, trying to pass off his personal, sometimes eccentric, opinion as verifiable truth. If the impression is correct there may also be very serious OR and POV problems in his articles.

I would also like to point out an important difference between Ottava Rima and another prolific content creator with civility problems: Ottava is showing no signs of emotional intelligence whatsoever, it appears to me that he is looking actively for ways in which he can disagree with other editors in order to start huge disputes out of nothing, and it seems he is never willing to let a dispute end before a new front has been opened somewhere else. Hans Adler 18:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: Here is a permanent link to my dialogue with OR where I present diffs and he denies there is any problem at all. He also denies having bullied Chillum to answer a question, followed in the next sentence by a complaint that Chillum didn't answer. Hans Adler 18:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support, or just block now. I'm getting sick of the accusations that I'm part of a vast conspiracy to destroy Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus, you have posted on multiple talk pages defending actions and speaking for others. You have tagged teamed at the Persian Empire page, and involved yourself in discussions with the same group of people ranging on many different topics, including Ludovico Ariosto. The range and constant backing up of the same people is in direct violation of our standards. This has been pointed out to you by multiple people for quite a while now. Do you intend to destroy Wiki? Who knows, but you do have a proven record of meat puppetry. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"a proven record of meat puppetry"? Really? This is news to me. Where was this proven? And how was I sanctioned? Or does this exist only in your own mind? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There have already been diffs showing where you have backed up the same group of people on multiple topics. It isn't coincidence that you never disagree with Folantin, Dbachmann, Moreschi, etc, but you have appeared with them at dozens of pages all in areas you were never involved in previously and chiming in support of them. That is clearly not accepted by our policies. And yes, three Arbs publicly stated there was a concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Either. I have no preference in which, but some steps must be taken to prevent this from happening again (Par my summary regarding this issue in a previous topic, and my investigation into the nature of the previous bans). Normal civility guidelines are apparently not enforced well enough as i deem it highly uncivil to cry WP:NPA against other editors who caution or warn, while also threatening them with reports to ARBCOM or ANI. Similary O.R seems convinced of complete innocence and shoves of any diffs against her as personal attacks. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• General comment without taking a position wrt Ottava specifically. I disagree with Baseball bugs that "No special rules are needed for individual users", and find RegentsPark comment wrt disruptive editors who make otherwise good contributions to Wikipedia (" ... then it makes sense to put sanctions on any disruptive editor immediately") highly ironic considering his part in a similar "mentorship". ArbCom has taken recently to trying to mediate rather than arbitrate via sanctions intractible behavioral problems from editors who make otherwise good contributions, so that it's apparent that the community must take these matters into our own hands. Clearly, special rules are needed in some cases. To that extent, I'm glad the Community restrictions page exists (I wasn't previously aware of it), but I also caution that it not go the direction of the now defunct WP:CSN, where individual admins held court in cases in which they were involved because the board didn't receive wide readership. In terms of Ottava specifically, I have always opposed bans of any editor from FAC or FAR, unless ArbCom specifically finds those editors disrupt FAC and FAR, so I hope the board will not be used to ban anyone from those pages; all feedback in those processes is useful, and the delegates can sort any disruption without outside interference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you develop further why you disagree that "No special rules are needed for individual users"? What special rules are needed for which users? Leaky Caldron 18:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I won't. Anyone can follow ArbCom cases; this case is about Ottava. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything particularly ironic about my views expressed here and my willingness to mentor Mattisse (and do note that the irony cuts both ways). I realize that my opinions are just opinions, are not particularly well-formed, and that I have no particular claim to being right. Color me wishy-washy but I would be equally willing to mentor Ottava if that was what the community concluded was the right approach. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it very helpful that you introduced her name into this discussion, but do wish to point out the difference between "advocate" and "mentor". She has one mentor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries Sandy. We obviously differ on both the definition of irony as well as when incivility is acceptable but I can live with that. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Of all the mistaken memes that surrounded the dismantling of WP:CSN, that's the oddest one yet. Please post examples; I don't recall such a thing ever happening there. Durova³⁵⁵ 20:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't remember or weren't aware, but no, I don't think we need to introduce another tangent here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Was very aware, thank you. Also coauthored the disruptive editing guideline and argued vigorously for the retention of the guideline's uninvolvement clause; got overruled and had a monstrous time with the board afterward. Filed several arbitration requests procedurally in order to manage the involvement issue at CSN. It's gross distortion to assert that the editors there actually fostered such a problem. We did all we could to prevent it. Durova³⁵⁵ 20:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Only an uninvolved admin should allowed to rule on an sanction - on any editor. And then another uninvolved should review the case. Note the comments from Baseball Bugs (17:42, 3 November 2009) and Lara (17:53, 3 November 2009) However, Ottava is a terrific editor and can also be very tactful, he gets far too involved in whatever content he's currently working on, and this keeping wearing. --Philcha (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• It does, huh? Will the irony never cease ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• (ec) I submit that, when an editor is involved with as many articles, as many editors, and indeed as many incidents as Ottava, it becomes difficult to find an uninvolved admin. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• And I countersubmit your submit :) When an "otherwise good editor" has a corp of advocates who facilitate the disruption, admins can be afraid to block (as recently occurred in a sockpuppetry case, where the blocking admin admitted he did so with fear). I submit that this is an important test of whether the admin community can enforce Wiki policies when ArbCom hasn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I tried, but Deacon reversed me without discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Clarification I was not referring to Ottava or Sarek. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• You previously edit warred closed a thread that was perfectly valid while being an involved user, then, involving yourself again, you decided to make threats and apply blocks in direct violation of WP:ADMIN and WP:BLOCK. There was no discussion necessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Any sanction that keeps Ottava's repeated and bilious accusations off my back is welcome. I am fed up of being accused of being part of some grand conspiracy of drive Ottava off the wiki. Nothing could be further from the truth. All I and others want is for Ottava to abide by our traditions of compromise and consensuality, instead of instantly calling for bans, desysoppings, blocks etc the minute he gets into any sort of dispute, and then holding grudges from those disputes for long after everyone else has stopped caring. His forum-shopping on #wikipedia-en is also highly unsatisfactory, where he has recently called for editors in good standing to be banned, and has remorselessly attacked his so-called opponents in a forum where they cannot respond. Moreschi (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can take a look at Moreschi's indef block with Bishonen's ban proposal following my successful DRV when Geogre deleted a page of mine. They can then look at multiple pages and disputes surrounding Talk:Ludovico Ariosto, Talk:Pesian Empire, Talk:Oscar Wilde, etc. And not trying to drive me off wiki? [91] "If he had the same treatment the average editor gets then he would have been banned long ago." You already tried to ban me quite a few times so far. What else would this be called? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - I agree with Bugs and Lara. iMatthew ^talk at 18:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It looks to me like a lot of the editors voting above are those who have personally had run-ins with Ottava in the past, and I don't know if community sanctions should be imposed for vendettas; I too have disagreed with Ottava before, but I wouldn't support sanctioning someone now because of something I didn't like months ago. I am refraining from comment here because I don't really know what circumstances led to this particular dispute and, to be honest, will probably not read the whole background. I do think, though, that Jehochman's sanction is not a "community-imposed" sanction but is one editor's interpretation of a community discussion, and is probably not the only possible interpretation. No sanction like that would be legitimate unless the wording of the sanction itself were determined by the community (through a discussion like this one) rather than just made up to try to summarize a different discussion. So if this discussion yields a unified result then maybe that can be called a "community sanction", but the one in place now holds no water. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support, either option. While Ottava's dedication to adding content to Wikipedia is above reproach, his approach to interpersonal disputes is disruptive and inflammatory. I hope that this particular parole will encourage him to focus on the work that he does best. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose No, I have no idea why a superset of the existing civilty rules imposed on a single user makes any difference, given that the existing civility rules are perfectly applicable im the vast majority of situations. Of course, the way they're applied is inconsistent, but that logically means that these rather vague options would be as well. Pointless. However, I agree with Moreschi and others, and Ottava - making completely unfounded accusations such as the meat-puppetry one against Akhilleus above is really not a good idea at all. <Black Kite 18:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ottava can be annoying, but this is a disproportionate response. Also, rewarding attention-seeking behaviour with attention isn't always wise.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either, but if this doesn't work, we should proceed with the RFC Lara suggests above. Have to start somewhere. It should be obvious to all observers that Ottava has some special immunity from sanction and block. Antandrus (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either, with Alternate preferred. The editor's behavior has been incredibly disruptive. His responses in this thread have lacked both good faith and civility. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff to said lack of civility or claims made by myself about anyone's motives (as that is what "good faith" is about)? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This should be enough:

non-WP:AGF:

• assume that those who complain here are tag teaming, edit warring, … socks, … have things in common but "not me", … should be "kept from editing". (Note: I'm no sock, and have no prior interaction with you nor with the editors who've brought your behavior to the attention of the community): It isn't a coincidence that the same group of people who complain against me have a long record of tag teaming, edit warring, POV pushing, having discussions skewed by their members using socks, etc. That isn't building an encyclopedia, and the single common denominator there is not me. The problem existed before I was here, and would exist after I go. Until Jehochman, Moreschi, Folantin, Akhilleus, Antandrus, Bishonen, etc, and all of their supporters are kept from editing Wikipedia, there will always be these major disruptions by them. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:18 am, Today (UTC−7)

non-WP:CIVIL:

• ill-considered accusations of impropriety (proof of your 3 assertions is where?): Ncmvocalist is clearly forum shopping and operating inappropriately. He made multiple disruptive comments on the page as in violation of WP:TALK. … an abuse of an administrator of an ArbCom related board. Ottava Rima (talk) 10:30 am, Today (UTC−7)
• lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information (nowhere does WP:NPA require diffs): Furthermore, I don't comment on people's intelligence, but it is nice of you to accuse me of doing so without proofs and in direct violation of WP:NPA. The standard is really, really clear and you are violating it. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:57 am, Today (UTC−7)
• ill-considered accusations of impropriety ("Do you intend to destroy Wiki?". Plus where is the proof you demand of others of a record of meat puppetry?): You have tagged teamed at the Persian Empire page, and involved yourself in discussions with the same group of people ranging on many different topics, including Ludovico Ariosto. The range and constant backing up of the same people is in direct violation of our standards. This has been pointed out to you by multiple people for quite a while now. Do you intend to destroy Wiki? Who knows, but you do have a proven record of meat puppetry. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:29 am, Today (UTC−7)
• lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information (this is not proof of meatpuppetry): It isn't coincidence that you never disagree with Folantin, Dbachmann, Moreschi, etc, but you have appeared with them at dozens of pages all in areas you were never involved in previously and chiming in support of them. That is clearly not accepted by our policies. And yes, three Arbs publicly stated there was a concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:01 pm, Today (UTC−7)

both (A&C):

• (As) Assume lessened future credibility & (Ci) ill-considered accusations of impropriety: The blocking policy makes it clear that involved admins are not justified. By making such a claim as you do above, you do not benefit to Moreschi, but you undermine your future credibility in responses. Ottava Rima (talk) 6:29 pm, 1 November 2009, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC−7)

• Support either. The disruption is seriously hurting collaboration. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either. Ottava's communications with me were uncivil, and s/he failed to assume good faith. Ottava's edits on an article that I was working on were arrogant, verging on bullying. Over the past three years on Wikipedia, I have found that editors who are certain that they are right, in the face of counterarguments from multiple editors, are the most difficult editors, and unfortunately, Ottava felt certain s/he was right. I hope this discussion will help Ottava to work harder to collaborate with, rather than push around, editors who are working in good faith to improve articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

We've only worked on 12 articles together, and checking from the history, there was no communication. Can you be more specific? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it here, where it was pointed out that Ssliver was applying original research and was refusing to have it removed or have a link that actually connects the two together. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion can be found here, with claims like "I disagree, and I don't think you know what WP:OR is about." when I have a strong record of spotting original research and plagiarism. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support either. Ottava continues to act in an uncivil and tendentious manner, fails to assume good faith, and wiki-lawyers over the enforcement of basic Wikipedia standards. The account has been blocked repeatedly for such causes, and has occasionally been unblocked with promises to reform. This editor needs to comply with community standards or find another project. Since other means have not convinced him, that leaves blocks or topic bans as the only available remedies.   Will Beback  talk  21:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either Support the first, not the second Malleus and Lara, above, both point out that encouraging admins to block Ottava is problematic because admins misuse or abuse blocking power. But that's less of a problem than Ottava continuing to burden so many people with his repeated bad behavior. In this case, a little encouragement or authority to block is helpful because it's more likely to make a block stick. I'd rather not see admins topic ban him, because I think there's more potential for admin abuse there and blocks of increasing severity should be able to fix the problem one way or the other. Disclosure: I had one run-in with Ottava (that I can remember, anyway) here. [92] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've changed to "Support either" because while it's not the best option, it's acceptable to me and I don't want to stand in the way of a consensus on this. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either. I note people pointing out Ottava's positive contributions, but that doesn't excuse his behaviour. An effective Wikipedian has to be both a good contributor and a team player - not one or the other. The current pattern of behaviour is wasting everyone's time, unnecessarily raising tensions and is generally disruptive. Ottava needs to change his direction but I see no evidence that he's willing even to acknowledge that there's a problem with him rather than everyone else (this is a case in point). -- ChrisO (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either. They will probably do little good, but they can do little harm. In my view, OR has a tendency towards both belligerence and grandstanding. Sometimes he is right about the point in hand; sometimes he is wrong. It doesn't matter: whatever the circumstances, such posturing is good neither for him nor for the encyclopedia. I support any measure that has half a chance of encouraging him to take a few deep breaths and perhaps walk away from the keyboard when he starts to get worked up. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either. Just because he is a good content contributor does not mean that he can act the way that he has been. He does have a good side at times, and I do respect him as a content contributor, but his uncivil comments cannot be excused. That's akin to simply getting a slap on the wrist for multiple instances of unsportsmanlike conduct while being the best player in the sport... there needs to be repercussions for his actions, whether positive or negative. Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 23:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose But consideration should be given to the need for blocking the drama mongers and trolls promoting and continuing this disruption. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either, as it is about time to put an end to this endless and pointless disruption by a single user. As it has been said before, good editing does not excuse bad behavior. And we could also do without CoM's usual shtick of railing against those who try to propose or enforce sanctions at AN/I, but that is another can of worms that will hopefully be dealt with down the road. Tarc (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either; prefer the first as it seems simpler. --John (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either - preference to the first one though. The sooner that Ottava's immunity to sanctions is bought to an end, the better. Jeni ^(talk) 00:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support either - first looks simpler. A good balance between reigning in the incivility, avoiding the need for long tedious process in doing so, and allowing him to continue to edit productively. This appears to be in place already, and questions of legitimacy from the sanction target or others should not require us to establish consensus anew. Additionally, it would be helpful to make clear as an implementation note, as with most Arbcom general sanctions, that prior consensus is not required for an admin to block under the sanction, and any proposed early unblock should require a consensus to do so, not a single admin's decision to undo the sanction enforcement. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Applying normal civility Guidelines

I cannot help but notice that the majority of the oppose votes (Currently 5 our of 5) mainly focus on the matter that we should enforce normal civility guidelines, rather then creating a new set of them specifically for one user. From my perspective none of the opposes currently argues that no action should be taken - but rather that a community sanction is not the right way to go. If i am correctly interpreting this, what would the "Normal" sanction be? And should the "Normal" civility guidelines be utilized instead of new ones? This to prevent a fragmented discussion where one group focuses on the nature of a community sanction, while the other group seems to focus solemnly on this specific case. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sure there are only two reasons why OR isn't blocked for a long time yet: (1) Most admins are afraid of this bully. (2) Almost all admins who have met OR have been declared a mortal enemy by him because that's his usual modus operandi. Therefore our best admins, who are not afraid of him, feel they are involved.

Ottava's two 1 week blocks in October were ended (very) prematurely. It appears that this was a mistake. Perhaps we can get a strong consensus here, instead of the restriction, for 1 week block that will not be followed by an unblock without a previous consensus here. Hans Adler 19:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No one is afraid of me. The reason why no one has blocked is because I don't give them an excuse. My comments are impeccable and I make sure not to have anything that could result in a block. This is why when the blocks do come they are reversed as completely inappropriate. It is harassment to keep this up. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid of you, every time I have attempted to enforce community standards towards you I have been attacked for it by you, sometimes for weeks afterwards. Your reaction to my attempts to enforce policy has made me consider leaving this place. Chillum 22:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"My comments are impeccable" -- oh, you mean the ones like "Are you done wasting our time?", "Do you even do anything around here worth while?", and "You have no legitimate argument and you pushed absurdities"? SarekOfVulcan

You think it is "Gang Harrasement?". You poor victim. You warn, threaten, and what state of mind are you even in? You lack the capacity to be an effective debater, and your inappropriate actions verify that. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Excirial, you clearly don't understand. OR wanted to know if they were done wasting his time, so he asked. How could you consider that incivil? OR wanted to know if they did anything worth while, so he asked. How could you consider that incivil? OR wanted to point out that the person obviously had no legitmate argument and pushed absurdies - perhaps they were unaware that they were wrong and absurd, and needed to be told, so he told them. That's obviously civil - especially compared to such tortures as "Next time you post on this subject of another editor's alleged drug use, you should be blocked for harassment and personal attacks." Hipocrite (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Accusing 9 editors of personal attacks, threating two with reports on ANI and ARBCOM, and accusing a load of editors of "Conspiracy" is what qualifies as bad faith in my opinion (Actually, those numbers are higher by now). I do not deny Ottava the right to ask anything, but i do deny the right to shout "Personal attack", "Warning" and "You will be reported" at every editor who seems to disagree. Would you honestly argue that 9 editors among who several admins don't know the rules, even though their comments overlap on a large section? Besides, "Wrong and absurd" are opinions. By now i actually share them, but from an entirely different perspective. Also, to get things straith, would you deem my above comment on gang harrasement to be uncivil? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

OR, may I remind you of this dialogue.

• You previously to Chillum: "You bully, threaten, and what state of mind are you even in? You lack the capacity to be an effective admin, and your inappropriate attacks verify that." [93]
• Me to you: "You bullied Chillum to answer a question which he made very clear wasn't going to answer. You threatened him with various things (don't remember the details, something like RfCs or ANI reports). I wonder in what state of mind you were when you did all that. It's a good thing you are not an admin, because you would lack capacity to be effective as one, and your inappropriate attacks verify that. // I know that you don't like being criticised and tend to accuse people of using personal attacks etc. To make absolutely sure I don't accidentally insult you I phrased everything in a way [94] that you just explained is OK. I hope you appreciate that."
• You to me: "Bullied to answer a question? How? Furthermore, he refused to answer and people claimed he was joking. If he refuses to admit it to being a joke, then he is aiding in disruption. Hans, your understanding of policy is completely flawed and your accusations have crossed the line."

You are either the most stupid bully I have ever met in my life, or you are roleplaying. I don't care which, but it must stop. Hans Adler 19:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for calling me either stupid or someone who is playing games. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. I can do this safely because, according to your strict reading of WP:NPA, it's not a personal attack since the evidence is on this page. Hans Adler 20:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The term "stupid" deals with myself, and not my actions. That is clearly a personal attack. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I said you are either stupid or roleplaying. Actually I think it's more likely that you are roleplaying. That's a claim about your personal behaviour, and the evidence is on this page. Hans Adler 20:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And "stupid" wasn't in isolation. Saying you are a "stupid bully" amounts to saying that you are a bully, and a bad one too. By allowing the possibility that you are roleplaying I intentionally left it open that your apparently obsessive behaviour is just behaviour, as opposed to a manifestation of a personal characteristic of yours. Hans Adler 20:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So, you are either stating I am dumb (personal attack) or I am purposefully disruptive (lack of good faith). Most people would be warned or blocked for such things. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not when saying this to a habitual bully of epic proportions such as you. Because then the admin would have to block you as well for symmetry's sake. Hans Adler 20:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What purpose do you think hyperbole serves? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If it was hyperbole I wouldn't bother. Hans Adler 21:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If that is true, why has no one else agreed that my "bullying" is of "epic proportions"? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning a lot of editors and threating with ANI and ARBCOM reports is in my eyes bullying, so yes i would say that it is, or rather i deem it, outside acceptable tolerance levels; Epic is just a buzzword trying to make things look astronomical. But seriously, do we really need to start a stupid "He did, She did" style of debate on this topic? The above section isn't exactly the most helpful to actually solving the problem. Rather it just makes it worse. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

How would stating that you want to have something go to ArbCom for oversite of an action be "bullying" if they did nothing wrong? Furthermore, seeing as how there has been constant forum threads opened on me by the same group of people after each one is closed definitely meets bullying per your standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, unless you support that claim with diffs i cannot really judge on that. I do not know who had negative interactions with you before this case started, thus i cannot say if this is would qualify as hounding or bullying. I am not saying i don't believe you outright, but i need to see the evidence myself before i can say if something is suspiciously close to "Bias".

My main issue with your behavior is the incredible ease with which you seem to accuse people of personal attacks. Ill take RxS as an example: [95] He stated he deemed it a ridiculous questions, and you accused him of being uncivil. Then you gave a warning for incivility followed by an ANI report threat. My question is, why so incredibly harsh? What would it cost to ask "And why is it a ridiculous question then?". Just that line would probably have turned the discussion an entirely different way. You are, in all due rights, incredibly direct in your wordings, with little nuances to take the, lets call it venom, out of them. What is the use of immediately calling the uncivil policy, followed by one liner about warnings and ANI reports? Why the heavy language and the one line threat with sanctions? The only thing that results from this is that people directly go onto defensive which will result in the current results. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll: Is Ottava's bullying of epic proportions?

• Closing this discussion. I don't see anything coming out if this than some epic drama. As mentioned before numerous times, WP:RFC/U is just down the hall. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Incivility in this discussion

Is accusing someone of a "proven record of meatpuppetry" without providing diffs in an appeal for a civility restriction blockable under the current editing restriction, or just really really... um, unwise? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it falls under irony (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There was an Rfar which Akhilleus was aware of and participated in about his and their meatpuppetry. The result was 3/3 and closed because there was not enough arbitrators around to respond. It was closed without prejudice. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Diff of Akhilleus's participation in the Rfar verifying that he has seen the evidence against him. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In what universe does "seen the evidence" = "proven meatpuppetry"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would they have to be the same? I could say in what universe does "in what universe" = "without providing diffs". Taking two different statements from two different sentences and complaining they do not equate is like complaining about 2 not equaling three. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The appropriate diffs of my "participation in the Rfar" are probably [96] and [97]. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I assumed you would prefer the -last- entry by you on that Rfar so people can see all of your statements in order to ensure that I was not "hiding" your comments there. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have explained myself more, then. I thought the Rfar was absurd, you presented nothing coming even close to evidence, and my comments there only show that I think your accusations are total nonsense. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your contempt of my posts, and just about all of my posts, is well-known. That does not mean that you haven't been shown to have a long history of interacting with the same users, in varied topics, and never do anything but agree with them and side with them in debate. Why do you think such a thing is appropriate on Wikipedia or how it helps in the spirit of collaboration in which you have an "us vs them" mentality? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have trouble seeing your last post as anything but ironic self-commentary--especially the part where you say "Why do you think such a thing is appropriate on Wikipedia or how it helps in the spirit of collaboration in which you have an "us vs them" mentality?" --Akhilleus (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please provide evidence where I have joined with one or more users on multiple pages backing up their statements and never disagreeing with them, while also making talk page statements about them and other such things. All of the people I have majorly collaborated with have been individuals which I have had disagreements with on many issues. As such, there cannot be claims that I have meat puppeted for anyone. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sound and fury, signifying nothing. Either take it to Arbitration, or shut up. There is far too much discussion of Ottava here that never gets anything accomplished. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

I am astounded by the archiving (now reverted) of this thread. A community sanction is in place, and the community needs to decide if it stands. An important discussion about admin ability to enforce Wiki policy needs to be held. Is this the usual admin-brush-it-under-the-rug and push it over to RFC or ArbCom, where nothing is solved? Keep it open: deal with it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, I archived the thread, because I believe that it (like others before) is not going to help resolve the issue, and an RFC, where the evidence can be better collated and presented, would be a better venue. I still believe that, but realize that I am in a minority (of one ? ), and won't re-archive. Hopefully, my original action won't be a yet another distraction from the central debate. Abecedare (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; my concern is that a sanction is in place, and kicking this over to RFC or ArbCom won't resolve the status of that sanction. We need time for admins to weigh in. It's a personal pet peeve of mine because I once was involved in an ArbCom, after I announced I would be busy for two hours, and then involved parties archived the thread and kicked it up to Arb in my absence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been pointed out that a community sanction is not in place via the standards for making a community sanction. The above was Ncmvocalist trying to start a new community sanction to replace the one that was clearly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. It's in place. Just because you "pointed it out" doesn't make it invalid. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[98] "could we have some discussion of whether the person logging the restriction here could be the person (hopefully an 'uninvolved' admin) that both assesses consensus at the community discussion, closes that discussion, and records the restriction at a user subpage (if needed) and on the user's talk page? This seems to be how things are done at the moment" Carcharoth (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2008. That makes it clear that it is invalid because of 1. not an impartial admin, 2. never was closed, and 3. lacked consensus. Furthermore: "The list is a convenient index; nothing more. Any editor in good standing can fix what is written here if it is not correct." Jehochman Talk 00:30, 17 August 2008 Ottava Rima (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Another good one: "As suggested above, Wikipedia:Editing restrictions is nought but a convenient index. When the thread surrounding the ban proposal is closed, meaning that no further comments may be made and hence the consensus at that instant is what is to go into effect, the sanction is considered to be in effect. Anthøny 01:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC) " Ottava Rima (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, i deem the previous discussion largely invalid because it was open only 6 hours - which is incredibly short seeing the magnitude of the discussion. Similarly this provided issues with geographic locations among users as i, for one, was not capable of being online at that time simply due to my timezone. Yet currently we have a 10-6 consensus to actually impose the sanction. Similarly 5 of the oppose votes are made because this should be dealt with trough the regular civility guidelines, rather then trough separate measures. Only 1 oppose vote is currently stating that this should be closed as "a disproportionate response" which essentially means no measures taken. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so it seems best to keep this open for another 12 hours or so or until discussion has died down, and then either implement the restriction or discuss an immediate block, as appropriate. Hans Adler 20:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that meat puppetry and revenge posts are not acceptable in a community discussion, and that this thread has already been closed as inappropriate continuation of previous matters that the community as deemed to be closed? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant, as the discussion is now open, and this is an appropriate location for discussion of a community sanction. Continuing accusations of "meatpuppetry" and "revenge posts" may get you blocked, even without taking the community sanction into account.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant? Officially, you have entered into harassment, since this has been the same group of people trying the same stuff that has constantly been shot down as inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, wouldn't it be best to get this entire thing done for without having the risk it just acts like a phoenix and resurrects again? We had multiple discussions being closed and yet they opened up again and again - i doubt that would demonstrate the community deemed it closed. Also, please get it out of your head that everyone is just here to take "Revenge" on you. For one i opened one of the threads and as far as i could trace back the only "Interaction" we has is that we both voted "Oppose" on some proposal without further discussion. I cannot speak for every editor but i highly doubt that the only thought for the majority editing here is vengeance. I

So i say please. Can we handle this thing like a sour apple that has to be eaten entirely to prevent it from sparking another apple tree with more sour apples? If we let this entire thing run its course and finalize it properly this time it can be archived and we can be done with it. Otherwise we will just end with a lot of friction that kept this issue going for three days now. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Excirial, your statements are inappropriate. "everyone is just here to take "Revenge" on you." - I never said that, you did. I have pointed out people who have attempted to have me banned since March 2008, and they constantly attack me on their talk pages, follow me to other pages, and the rest. To say that they have not done it would be inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for that Ottava, i should have made more clear that this was a personal perception. What i meant to indicate was that you should be aware that not everyone here is someone you dealt with before. In this thread you raised the issue of other editors biases towards you several times, which i translated as them being biased to you because of previous interaction (EG: Negative bias against you, so out to take "Revenge". I have never said that this did not occur. The message i tried to relay was that i don't think every editor is just here to bully you away. For one, that is at least not my intention here. Again, my apologies for this misconception caused by my wording. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec re to Excirial) For gosh sakes, the thread has been open for less than three hours, which doesn't give most admins a chance to weigh in. Anyone who thinks three hours is too long to decide if a sanction stands might benefit from a walk on the beach. Must we always close discussions prematurely and shuffle them off to another page, or can the admin community be relied on to make decisions? Must everything be kicked over to a busy ArbCom or useless RFC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, just as a question, was this above reply incorrectly indented or attributed? You seem to state that i think that the thread has been open to long without a discussion, yet your reply seems to go along the same lines as i was reasoning. What i stated was that the previous discussion in which the sanction was invoked was closed after 6 hours which means that the chance for people to actually reply was very slim, thus not indicating any real consensus.

Perhaps you were thrown of by the wording of the second part i wrote? That was a response to Ottava's line "When the thread surrounding the ban proposal is closed, meaning that no further comments may be made and hence the consensus at that instant is what is to go into effect, the sanction is considered to be in effect". I interpreted that line as a reason to close the current discussion as we already had a currently closed no consensus vote - to which my reaction was that we were currently busy establishing some form of concensus that would not be based upon a prematurely based thread, and therefor prevent the lack of user input or true consensus in the previous discussion. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Excirial, my apologies for the delay. Yes, I was caught in several edit conflicts and was working on a dinosaur laptop while I was getting the abominable Windows Vista replaced (success, yea!), and my threads were incorrectly indented. I believe you and I are agreeing, I was making a general comment and later added on my ec re, and I apologize for any misundertanding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is absolutely no reason to close this early. It's strange how most ANI threads involving Ottava are closed prematurely. Let's lay this suspicion to rest and let it run. If it gets too long it can always be moved to a sub-page. --Folantin (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It is suspicious how most ANI threads involving Ottava have posts from the same people such as Folantin. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, an ArbCom case would be good because it would slow down the mob attacks, would have a neutral committee analysing actual evidence instead of unsubstantiated claims of "incivility", and would be able to desysop the many admin above who have shown direct violations of our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: there's currently a useless RFC/U underway because no uninvolved editors can be bothered to come by and weigh in; if this is kicked over to there, the same people responding here will weigh in there, and it will just be a waste of time. Admins are supposed to know blocking/banning/etc. policy. This is an admin decision: make it here! I'm not an admin, so I don't have an opinion, other than asking that no one be banned from FAC or FAR unless by ArbCom. Ottava, if you think an ArbCom case can slow down mob attacks or is conducive to impartial input, you aren't paying attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, the restriction proposed is that they would instant block me for long term for anything they claim as "incivil" or the rest, even if its not as the last three blocks were shown. And ArbCom did redeem the Russavia guy who was being treated in the same way. I am confident in an equal decision, and the people involved will finally be stopped, which can only help the Wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The question here is whether there is consensus for a restriction, as currently lodged. That has to be solved, or that board becomes like CSN was. If the restrictions are upheld, then you can appeal to ArbCom. If there is no consensus here, then AN/I doesn't work, and we have admins screaming at other rather than deliberating over solutions. We'll see. I'd like to think the admin community can find it within themselves to deal with issues constructively. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you feel there is no solution, you have another option as per this. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I don't have or want that power; I do want this board to stop being so childish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well fine, you can pick a proxy if you want. :P But seriously, if you wanted me gone, I would go. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone mentioned a useless RFC/U because no uninvolved editor was willing to chime in. It might have been Sandy. I have never had a conflict with Ottava. I have never edited an article that Ottava has been involved in. I’m from a different world to Ottava. A small, insignificant, quiet part of Wikipedia, away from the GA’s, the FA’s, the cabals and, hopefully, most of the drama. I’m “uninvolved”.

As Caesar said to Anthony about Cassius, “He reads much; He is a great observer and he looks Quite through the deeds of men: he loves no plays, As thou dost, Antony; he hears no music; Seldom he smiles, and smiles in such a sort As if he mock'd himself and scorn'd his spirit”. So I read what goes on here and other places where the great and the good meet and ply their trade - daily. I observe many names – daily. Ottava is a regular here. Ottava IS the regular here. He possesses the forensic knowledge of policy as that of a barrister, the skillful conniving of a politician and the righteousness of a bishop. Why, he even has his own cult following! To many he is the BSD of Wikipedia – forget Jimbo. “Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world Like a Colossus, and we petty men Walk under his huge legs and peep about To find ourselves dishonourable graves.” Nothing will ever stop Ottava (short of a total ban). Only Ottava will know when the time to stop the vitriol, incivility, warring, baiting, bullying and insensitive attacks that everyone has commented on. Just remember though, Wikipedia is not a High Court, not a legislature and not a place of worship. It doesn’t need barristers, politicians or bishops. It does need lots of genuine people contributing as best they can, without the drama, and without fear of being driven away. So if all this drama concerns only those who thrive on drama let it continue unabated. If it affects the general wellbeing of editors at large you need to act, soon. Just a thought.... Leaky Caldron 22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My comment was about another, unrelated RFC/U that is getting no feedback. RFC/U doesn't work for the same reasons CSN didn't; the involved go there, the uninvolved don't, and there is little outside input, so we'll get more of the same. Might as well deal with it here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No consensus for sanctions at this time - more discussion needed

As a passing note, I would argue very strongly that there is no consensus for a sanction against Ottava - those in opposition to sanctions specifically oppose anything additional to the present civility guidelines, and sanctions are to be imposed based on a consensus of uninvolved editors (see WP:BAN - will check this is the right link), with many of those favouring a ban expressly indicating that they have had negative interactions with him. This clearly needs more discussion with those uninvolved in prior disputes with Ottava - and please spare me the cries of "he's interacted negatively with everyone", because that is patently not true. I do think Ottava needs independent advice about his manner and portrayal thereof, and would thus recommend we adjourn to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User - but there is no consensus satisfactory under policy to ban Ottava from anything at this time Fritzpoll (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. We keep moving from one forum to another. And what does WP:BAN have to do with this? We are talking about a restriction involving blocks. Hans Adler 20:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you keep moving from one forum to another is evidence of forum shopping harassment because you can't stand the community consensus. If an admin was doing their job, they would have warned and/or blocked every single person who has been in all of these discussions and continues to push for things that the community says no to. I am working on articles, who else here can say that they are? And if they are, why are they bothering this over what? Nothing. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

When I get the time I, too, work on articles. It takes a lot of time, especially when I am initially not a specialist, such as in the case of Apothecaries' system of weights or Pigeons in aerial photography. Not everybody who avoids FA stuff is afraid of articles, you know. Some merely want to avoid the negativity of the place. Hans Adler 20:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not spend all of your time working on editing articles? You seem to have a fascination with my edits. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not spend all of your time working on editing articles? You seem to have a fascination with attacking others. Hans Adler 21:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Check my contribs. I spend the majority of my time working on articles. I am working on 7 right now - plus a 9 part set at DYK and 2 pages at FAC. I don't attack others. I don't go out of my way to interact with people or deal with anything but myself. This all comes to me and is constant trying to disrupt and cause problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I forgot. It wasn't your fault that you asked Chillum the same question dozens of times over several hours. He forced you by not responding. He didn't give you a choice. Since you didn't get a chance to stop harassing him it's unfair that people take you to task for your actions. Because you are not responsible for your actions in that case. Chillum is. At least you are convincing yourself... Hans Adler 21:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Because we are talking about restrictions, the violation of which would lead to blocking. That is, in essence a series of restrictions imposed by the community that fall under BAN. Regardless of the kind of restriction, uninvolved editors are required for a consensus to implement. That was the main thrust of my argument Fritzpoll (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• As a truly outside opinion to this mess of a topic: Would all of you kindly shut the fuck up, please? HalfShadow 21:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• +1 Seriously. Protonk (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• +1 here too. I've tried weighing in my opinion on this a lot earlier in the piece, but this is just getting beyond ridiculous. SMC (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI is useless

Things move too quickly on this board. It is not conducive to a patient, thoughtful discussion. Unfortunately some WP:CSN haters decided to delete that board without providing a suitable replacement. I think we should reinstitute that page, and place an index of the ongoing discussions there on ANI and AN for all to see, to help increase participation. It is utterly hopeless to try to conduct a sensible discussion here in this forum. Jehochman ^Talk 21:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Or, maybe alternately, create Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Community sanctions instead. It does sound like a good idea to me, because I tend to think these sorts of discussions get the most attention, and that keeping them on this page distracts attention from the other matters. John Carter (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree in general - ANI generates more heat than light, and proper, specific processes could be instituted in another location to separate those involved in a dispute from those who are neutral commentators. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If ANI generates more heat than light, then some admins may need to grow up and learn to discuss reasonably. Isn't that why we choose them? Who decides community restrictions if not the community? Why doesn't someone go over to the 'crat board and ask one of them to close this in 12 hours and determine if there's consensus here? Isn't that what they do on RFAs? Or would that be too unsensible? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

In what way is Ottava Rima different than Jeff Merkey here?

Belligerent and "my way or the highway" attitude. Constant allegations of victimization backed up with no evidence. Just sayin' 64.139.4.129 (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Basing myself on your contribution history i would assume that you are a registered user editing under an IP address. If so please log in and sign your comment. If you wish to accuse someone of something please do so in person and don't accuse without the ability to be tracked back trough normal means. My apologies if i am mistaking a pure IP user here with a registered editor though. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You would be incorrect, but that's ok. I watched the Merkey wars unfold and was a key player in them. I see very clear analogues in OR's behavior and I just wanted to point that out. In my experience, people who fit this profile rarely change their approach to other people. Take my views for what you will. 64.139.4.129 (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your views have the value of the views of any other admitted sockpuppet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question on its merits, please search for "Ottava Rima" on this page. Durova³⁵⁵ 22:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Start an RfC, or get off the pot

Aside from the creation of yet another round of epic lulz, this "discussion" is going nowhere. Frankly I was torn between just closing it or posting a comment.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Ottava Rima remains a redlink while there are apparently so many people willing to bitch about him ad infinitum. WTF is the issue? If you all have so many things you want him to change about his behavior, why not just open a doggone RfC and let him know? Are you scared of him or something? You needn't be.

Ottava either (a) doesn't understand why people get so frustrated with him, or (b) he's a very creative and skillful troll. Whether you believe (a) or (b), it's obvious that this discusion ain't gonna get where you want it to. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I posted this to offer him a non RfC venue. Now, if anyone wants to start an RfC, I will personally wave any "requirements" for the RfC. You can start one on me and say anything - I won't hold lack of evidence, trying to resolve matters, etc, against anyone. If people I've never seen before want to start one, feel free. I abide by the community decisions, and the last time Moreschi and Bishonen pushed for my indef I said my goodbyes and was quite ready to accept it. I am here mostly to work on the encyclopedia and many people feel the need to take away from my time and attack me. Either let me work, or get rid of me. I don't like being Sisyphus. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be sufficient. My only concern about an RfC would be that folks would spend the majority of time lawyering over "certifying that the dispute exists" and garbage like that. Let's expose the criticism to the light of day in a venue that is less mad-cap than AN/I. Protonk (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have stated that I wave any such "certifying". I hope that would be sufficient. However, my opinion holds little water. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I know. That comment obviates what would have been my only concern. I think an RfC would be good, and definitely more fair to you than being dragged back to the stocks every month or so. Protonk (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Since Geogre was desysopped, I've been dragged to a noticeboard or been blocked approximately once ever 3 days. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Or another possibility might be that nobody believes an RfC is going to have any effect in changing/moderating Ottava's behaviour. Has he even acknowledged the validity of the criticism? If so I must have missed it... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am a loyal dog. When Jimbo approached me and others about problems of some people at Wikiversity that I considered friends, I accepted the project bans that was put forth. When Cary Bass ever has a concern about me, I listen. When Arbitrators make declarations to me, I abide by them. Raul, YellowMonkey, and SandyGeorgia are three people that I listen to and would defend over myself. If any one of the above asked me to stop, to leave, or to never bother with this place again, I would. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This discussion is so complex I'm not sure where to put it. Ottava is constantly asking for diffs to his incivility, well, here is one. I wrote this at Talk:Linguistics. Ottava responded with this insult not just to me, but to the university where I received my doctorate. My comment was backed up with this, this, this, and this from other professional linguists. Even after being insulted by Ottava, my own response remained civil. After all the linguists supported my position, Ottava then responded again with this further remarkable insult to the collective professional linguistic opinion, claiming to have more educational expertise in the field than anyone else speaking (several of whom are professors of Linguistics at major US universities) (here he admits that his expertise is not really linguistics, but philology). And even with that, the linguists' responses to Ottava's insults remained civil and respectable. Despite the linguists' continued civility, Ottava continued to hurl insults here and here at our credentials and academic integrity. This discussion at Talk:Linguistics continued on, but the actual linguists in the discussion began ignoring Ottava and he continued throwing insults despite the linguists' continuing civility as here and here. Towards the end of Ottava's contribution, s/he became less insulting, but there was a stretch cited above where his/her behavior was insulting and definitely uncivil. (Taivo (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Why waste time on RFC/U? If Ottava makes trouble, he's simply upset about something. You could then simply offer him some cake and forget about it. Count Iblis (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what your university is, but I apologize if you believed I was mocking your university. I was merely pointing out the standard background on Derrida and his critique of Saussure as being standard discussion within graduate linguistics. I apologize again as I am sure you went to a decent school. It was quite over the top of me to phrase it in that way. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ottava, I have stayed away from this one because no good can come of it. I suggest you do the same and be quiet. Only a fool broadcasts that he takes illicit drugs on the internet, there is no need for you to belabour that point. As a result of his edit Chillum has dug his Wikipedia grave, and probably, ultimately, his own real grave, so there is no need for you to try and bury him in it. That edit will be used against him every time he makes a controversial decision - as a respected Admin, he is finished. There's no need for you to say anything - Hush up and let nature and Wikipedia run its natural course - and as for you Chillum - do try to edit like a responsible adult - or go. I shall not be commenting further on Chillum or Ottava's conduct, both are self evident. The sooner this matter is dropped by all the better - it will solve itself. Giano (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think anything I have done one Wikipedia is not "responsible" or "adult" you are welcome to draw attention to those edits. If your only basis for that comment is that I do drugs, well then I am not going to put much stock in it. Chillum 23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Giano is of a different generation than I, but anyone who posts "I am under the influence of acid" has to be joking. Someone attempting to write under the influence of LSD would be lucky to write a coherent statement longer than a few dozen words, let alone remember to click "Save page" at the end. That is what makes me shake my head over this entire drug-related thread: it was a joke. Get over it. After all of this dramaz, I'd be surprised if anyone jokes about personal drug abuse on Wikipedia again. -- llywrch (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I really fail to see why editors like yourself are blind to the facts as admitted by Chillum. What Chillum actually said was "This editor is on acid. Please take any strangeness in stride."[99] Chillum himself had admitted that this was not a joke, so why do you insist that it was? Just to make another excuse for the appalling behaviour of Beeblebrox? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It's great you mention this here, Taivo. This was one of the incidents that first brought me on the line of thought that he may be an impostor who uses his bullying to hide obvious gaps in his knowledge and scare away experts. Unfortunately it would be very painful for me to check his featured article work because his topics are so far removed from my main interests. Hans Adler 23:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the vast majority of his work here is in literary criticism and not linguistics, I am not able to comment on his Wikipedia contributions--only on the single interaction at Talk:Linguistics where he was dismissive of the linguistics professors and linguistics doctoral candidates who regularly contribute there. (Taivo (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

ArbCom and WMF have my personal information and credentials. All of my personal identification information was outed back in last September. I also use my real email as my wiki email. I have never hid my identity and most people here know it. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My concerns aren't about your identity or degrees (which I don't know and shouldn't know) but about your knowledge and abilities. Your behaviour is not something that I have ever observed in a competent scholar. The confidence of a real expert usually makes them react coolly even to real attacks on their authority. They tend to like it when someone intelligently disagrees with them, because it gives them an opportunity test and, if necessary, correct their professional opinions. Hans Adler 00:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Then it may surprise you that most academics have had some of the worse fights and there is a tradition dating back hundreds of years. Everyone from John Hawkings to Ludwig Wittgenstein have been involved in petty fights over academia and opinion. Academia is primarily based on reputation, and reputation provokes the greatest emotional response possible. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Re concerns that an RFC would be useless as OR wouldn't listen: Then go straight to AC and convince them the case is already ready for arbitration. If you can't do that, then go ahead with the RFC. ANI's not going to solve anything: even if the above civility restriction were to pass, those restrictions are so vague and difficult to enforce that it wouldn't do much good. And it doesn't look like consensus is possible here, anyway. If there is to be sanctioning, it will have to come from a binding AC decision, so I suggest we cut directly to AC or RFC or, if unwilling to do that, drop the matter. There's nothing productive to do here, mark my words. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Heimstern Läufer, and leaning toward RFAR as the better venue for minimizing potential outing/reputational damage to one of the parties: relevant diffs or whatever could be sent to the Committee via email and clerks would be available to deal with inappropriate posts promptly. Would start RFAR procedurally for that reason, except that one other individual who recently involved himself in this believes I hold a personal grudge against him and accuses me of wikihounding. So it's best to defer actual action to other editors whose impartiality is unquestioned. Durova³⁵⁵ 00:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

My view

I already waived any requirement for an RfC, but not one has yet appeared. I've waived one for a long time, and also offered for people to take me to ArbCom. I also have a page connected to my talk page for complaints and yet no one bothers to post there. If people want me gone, then ban me. If people want me to stay, then let me edit like a normal person. For a very long time, I have not had the liberties as most people here. If I ever thought of making two reverts in a row, called someone "stupid", or anything like what has happened with many people above and in other posts, I would have been blocked. The standard for "incivility" has been incredibly low since Moreschi originally tried to ban me last year. This low standard means that most people above take advantage of it, threaten me, bully me, attack me in some of the nastiest ways without any thought or care about reprisal. I have been known as the Wiki Satan since August 2008.

Anyone paying attention would have seen that my name has been dragged into multiple noticeboards non-stop for quite a few months. The same group of people follow me to dozens of discussions and make it impossible to work. Yet I was still able to produce over 100 DYK, 8 FAs, and over 50 GAs. How? Who knows. It is impossible to work and concentrate with the constant attacks, criticism, following to pages, and just outright harassment. Any "restriction" is part of that whole battleground mentality of "ha, I beat you, and now I will let you know more that you are defeated". If you want to get rid of me, get rid of me. Don't put forth a systematic bias that is only permission to bully, belittle, and get in my way when trying to work. Most of the people wanting me to be restricted already said I provide nothing. If that is so, get rid of me. If not, stop. All the above does is constant draw things out and for what reason? To inflict pain? To be "better" than me? To "win"?

Is it really that important to "win"? And is winning this way even really winning? If you really think you are better than me, then please, constantly write articles, constantly work with people who disagree with you on pages, and put non stop works through DYK, GAN, and FAC. I only have 200 DYK, 50+ GA, and 10ish FAs. That isn't hard to beat. Anyone with a few months could easily pass that. You want to show you are smarter than me, put forth some great articles. You want to show that you contribute more to the encyclopedia? Start typing away. You want to prove that I am just an idiot? Out do me and show how great you are in comparison.

But if you want to just get rid of me, do it already. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to "win." I just want you to stop calling me a meatpuppet, accusing me of trying to destroy Wikipedia, and calling for my desysopping. That's a low bar to meet. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I want you to stop appearing along side of Folantin, Moreschi, Antandrus, and Dbachmann at various debates and issues echoing what they state and sometimes responding for them. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus, have we worked together? If we have, I certainly do not remember doing so. I'd love to, though, as you seem to be a fine editor. Ottava, stop lying. Really. You need to stop making shit up. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Antandrus, I have already pointed out various discussions in which you and Akhilleus were on the same side. Regardless, if I am lying then this is a simple request and will be processed quickly. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, I have read three threads now, all of which have said pretty much the same thing: you react disproportionately to any comment about you. Every response that I have read from you contains no statement where you say that you understand why so many separate users have made these statements...in fact you continue to have disproportionate reactions to everything that is said against you. As an un-involved editor I am shocked that you haven't already been banned, and can only assume that it is because you have made so many excellent contributions. I am still new here, but losing someone of your skill because you can't control your reactions would be an incredible loss, and I would hate to see that. So, as someone who is still learning the ropes here, and who needs people who can show how to write FAs, GAs, DYKs, and the like...Here is my request. Tone it down...take yourself off of "attack" mode and put yourself into "compromise" mode. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are attacking you personally. Listen to their points of disagreement and find some neutral compromise that is acceptable to both of you. WP is not about having an article be your way or not at all, and yet you seem to not only see that in yourself, but in everyone else. My experience has been that most editors are willing to compromise, if you can find a reasonable point of compromise (as well as meet the assorted policies), but no one will want to work with you, no matter how good you are if you keep attacking instead of compromising. Frmatt (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If that is true (that it is shocking that I have not been banned), as you say, then why is it that I have not been banned? It seems obvious with the amount of threads on me and the countless warnings and blocks that people are not afraid of bringing up the issue, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You missed his point entirely. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

if you see the above, it's time to move past AN/I. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've reopened the archive box, reverting Xavexgoem. There is a reason for this discussion. Let it run, please. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • What's the outcome of protracted discussions at AN/I? This will run, but it will not run its course. Not here. AN/I regulars know that. The best course of action for an admin on this thread is to close it. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "Support" in the "Original thread" subsection has what? about 30 participants, with more than 20 supporting the proposal. Seems like a consensus is forming. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh, I agree. But I don't think any admin is going to say "OK, I've made my decision"; I agree with Sandy that maybe a 'crat would be better, but I've not known crats to do that.
      • If you'd prefer, I could make a decision. Shall I? Xavexgoem (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, now I'm getting shy. I'm not a regular around here. I won't object if you do, but I don't want this to end as a "no consensus" if a little more time might get us to consensus. That's my only concern. Consensus and a "resolved" check should be noted at the top, IMHO. JohnWBarber (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
          • A little more time, and we have another cupla kilobytes to sort through (and we'll still need this discussion). If I act now, we'll get to see what happens when an admin (and a completely uninvolved one, at that) makes a decision. I don't predict it ending well, but I'm fine with being a sheep to that slaughter. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
            • I always thought that the person who put up the box was the one who indicated the resolution. I think we have a consensus and the resolution should come soon, and I'd rather not see the box without the resolution. But I've reverted once and won't again. I've gotta go now. JohnWBarber (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• JohnWBarber - when you determined consensus, which way did you place HalfShadow (21:18, 3 November 2009), Protonk (22:44, 3 November 2009), and SMC (01:17, 4 November 2009) as they have stated "Would all of you kindly shut the fuck up, please?", which suggests that the topic should be closed and ignores any desire to put forth anything? How did you also rate the other people that didn't "oppose" but made it clear that they disagree with this whole thing? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes Ottava, and "all of you" that that "shut the fuck up" was directed at included you too. Yet here you are arguing again, and I fail to see how the hell this is going to help you. This sort of pointless arguing by everyone is exactly the reason why we can never establish consensus for something like this, and you end up being dragged into ANI every two weeks or so. I agree with Xavexgoem that closing now would be the sensible thing to do. But we wikipedians don't do the sensible thing, and like to stand about talking bullcrap that has the remotest connection to the topic at hand. You can't develop consensus when we do that. From the way things are going now, I personally don't think that any decision made here would last for long and would probably be overturned just as soon as it's applied. So, we'll just have to let some more drama develop before closing this and someone will probably start over again in a few more days, until we get tired of it. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparent promotional editing/linking -- User:Tdl185

Resolved

Tdl185 has made more than 100 edits today, always to musician biographies, in each case adding a link to a minor artist-specific promotional page on the Sony Music UK website. This is, I think borderline spam at best, but it isn't clear vandalism and the username isn't overtly promotional. The editor has very few edits before today, most of which were similarly promotional. In every case I've checked, the article already includes a link to the artist's official site, while the newly linked pages consistently include prominent links to the artists' retail "stores" on Amazon and to the artist download-retail pages on iTunes. Does anybody disagree that these are inappropriately spammy links, failing WP:ELNO #5, and should be removed? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A retail page is not a WP:RS and fails WP:EL. Take'm away! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Already on it, before I saw this. 107 removed, a handful remain. We may want to assess those; they are used as references, but given the spammy way this was done other sources may be warranted. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• sonycmg.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.sonycmg.com

Blocked user, spam only account--Hu12 (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

legal threats via email

Just received this via my wikipedia email (I've added the wiki links) from Management Lifelike.

(redacted content of personal correspondence per WP:COPYVIO; context should be clear enough from editor's description)

Not sure what we do about legal threats received via email? I would presume other editors got the same. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've gotten lots like this; I just ignore them (and I certainly don't reply to them, giving them my email address). I don't think posting that email here was a great idea... Tan | 39 18:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

why? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You can respond if you want, or ignore it. Posting it here was neither a good nor bad idea IMO, doesn't really matter. Prodego ^talk 18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Feeding the trolls, undue attention, GFDL, etc... Tan | 39 18:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't he be blocked if not for legal threats, under the username policy?--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 18:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Tan | 39 19:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a good reason that article exists? No prose, no WP:N ... I've released a bunch of remixes too... that is, if you've ever heard me at karaoke! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The relevant notability guideline is WP:BAND. Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Redacted content of email posted above due to licensing issues; nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lifelike. Durova³⁵⁵ 20:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I also received a legal threat via email from the same user. In fact, the first was was addressed to "Cameron," and the second email had my actual username. Don't think this role account quite knows how to deal with people. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The article itself has been snowball deleted. Shall we mark this resolved? Durova³⁵⁵ 21:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. What about the suggestion of salting? Mjroots (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Resigned the bit at this project; all I do now is add spice. ;) Durova³⁵⁵ 22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Procedurally withdrawing the request to mark resolved; the original editor notified via Twinkle created a redirect, not the article. Learned about that after deletion and left a non-automated note at the creator's user talk. Durova³⁵⁵ 22:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat, and personal attack by an IP.

User:217.203.157.248 is threatening to sue Wikipedia and User:MS over a forum-ish talk page post that was reverted by MS. [100]. He has also personally attacked MS in the same edit... 217.203.157.248 has been notified of this thread. Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 19:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. If someone knows more about how dynamic that IP is, feel free to adjust the block length. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Amanita daucipes 18186.jpg

Resolved

 – Uploaded local copy and protected it. Abecedare (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There is currently an unprotected image on the English Wikipedia's Main Page (the DYK section). I couldn't believe it myself at first, but I tested it myself and I was able to overwrite a new version. Jolly Ω Janner 20:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The image is at commons, so an dmin there needs to protect it or someone needs to upload a local copy and protect it (I'd do that, but someone more familiar with the procedure may be able to do it faster). Abecedare (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I would've done it myself, but I need sysop status to upload it locally under the same file name for some stupid reason. Jolly Ω Janner 20:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You need a sysop bit to upload/edit the local copy because of the cascading protection applied to images/templates displayed at mainpage. Thanks for bringing this up at ANI! Abecedare (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't do before the image was put on the Main Page. Even though the image is not protected you cannot upload a file to English Wikipedia that has the same name as a file on Commons, unless you're sysop. I raised the issue at User talk:SoWhy#File:Fort Gwalior (en).jpg, where he checked it on his non-sysop account to confirm my theory. Jolly Ω Janner 21:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that! Abecedare (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

proposed topic ban for User:AurangzebMarwat

See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#proposed topic ban for User:AurangzebMarwat Thanks, tedder (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm, this is a circular link...it leads right back here...is it supposed to go somewhere else? Frmatt (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed - see WP:AN. (link hopefully corrected). Mjroots (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Arbcomknowswhothisis

Resolved

 – The user is blocked already. I presume he or she can appeal to arbcom. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Arbcomknowswhothisis looks like a single-purpose account intended for conducting either a breaching experiment or merely testing the boundaries of Wikipedia's tolerance. -- The Anome (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My guess is something related to Scientology. MuZemike 21:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what makes you think that? I don't see any edits related to that subject matter in the user's contribs. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The best thing would be to ask arbcom if the do, indeed, know who this is. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this user blockable under the username policy even if xe never edits anything other than their user page? The username is certainly intended to cause disruption... MirrorLockup (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeffed as a disruptive sock. I will bring it up to the appropriate folks on the oh so very slight chance that I got this one wrong.--Tznkai (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've confirmed with an Arbitrator that this block as appropriate.--Tznkai (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ed, Edd, n' Eddy's Big Picture Show

Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but I want another pair of eyes on it. User:Tdinoahfan completed the above article, after Ed, Edd, n Eddy's Big Picture Show was deleted following an AFD vote. Because he provided no sourcing, I tagged it for speedy as a possible hoax; he's reverted it, and continued to do so every time I retagged it. I've hit 3RR now, so I'll go no further. I left a note on his talk page, which has gone unanswered: is there anything further that needs to be done? I'm willing to stop speedying for good if this can be proven to exist.

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd, n Eddy's Big Picture Show --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It exists...not sure how close it comes to WP:N, but it definitely exists...I'd suggest you do a quick Google Search next time before bringing it here. I got 71,000 google hits when I searched it. I won't speak to the AfD because I can't seem to find it. Frmatt (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would. In this case, precedent existed for a deletion, and it was recent (couple of days ago). I figured there was probably something else going on here that I didn't know about. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Now deleted. It was protected (inexplicably). Further attempts at restoration should go to deletion review. Protonk (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think User:Tdinoahfan's most recent edit illustrates that he isn't here to participate in collaborative editing. Soxwon (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It could illustrate many things. No harm, no foul. Protonk (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It was protected, and the speedy should have been declined, as the AFD for previous discussion was because it was deemed a hoax. It never went to full discussion etcetera, and now apparently exists (or at least someone went to great lengths to pretend it does, complete with youtube video links of it). I am asking Black Kite to undelete it long enough to determine if it truly exists (there appears to be YouTube of it, etcetera).. (oh, and addendum: FRICKIN EDIT CONFLICTS) SirFozzie (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me a few minutes on this, please? I have quite a strong suspicion this might well be a G5 as well as a G4. Also, I'm pretty sure that's not the only AfD there's ever been on that article - there's a lot of ways of punctuating it. Black Kite 22:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, there is no deadline, after all :). I was just looking at it from a procedural standpoint, that the AFD wasn't a valid speedy reason, and that the reason for the speedy last time does not appear to be true now. I have no opinion on the notability or appropriateness of an article on it. SirFozzie (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Found it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show. Now, as for the G5 aspect... Black Kite 22:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's 1st Movie! Black Kite 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) The last one really doesn't apply here again, it was deleted because of WP:CRYSTAL, which again, no longer applies (note that it said that it was fine to recreate after it was released), but this one [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show probably is a good deletion and it should go to DRV. (although I would support replacing the article with a redirect to the main Ed-article). Good work, BK :) SirFozzie (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One of the AfDs that Black Kite is referring to is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's 1st Movie. That was easily findable through the most recent AfD. While I've been assuming good faith with Tdinoahfan's creation of this article, the alleged EE&E movie has been the subject of repeated recreation. I agree with Protonk that, at this point, the correct venue for restoration is DRV. —C.Fred (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If the speedy had been declined, I'd be fine with it - as I say, I have no opinion one way or another. My reasons for bringing the whole thing to ANI in the first place have to do with the way in which the creator handled the article, reverting my changes and making no attempt to handle my concerns properly. Also, I would note that it seems to have been raised at DRV already, if I understand comments on the creator's talk page correctly. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been EC'd so many times now many of my original points are moot now but I've been involved with this article for some time and there is a huge history here of bad article writing regarding this specifically so whilst it does exist it doesn't mean it's notable and the most recent AfD shows that, the create-protect for most variants of the title is because the fans are a little overzealous. treelo _radda 22:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Note User:Tdinoahfan has been blocked for incivility and edit warring. Martin451 (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have indeffed the editor since they wouldn't stop edit warring on WP:DRV. I did try to explain the process to them. If they request unblock showing they can edit properly then fine, but they've already been blocked for disruption once, and their account's only 2 days old. And I'm pretty sure they're a recreation of a blocked user anyway. Creating an AfD with their 3rd edit? Um. Black Kite 22:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Tdinoahfan's specific style of grammar and spelling and speaking as if people hate the show seems familiar, xe is most likely a sock of someone but I'm unsure who, I'll dig around. treelo _radda 22:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I came up with nothing (though think it could be someone who was banned recently) but if anyone wants to tell me who created Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show most recently it might help me make a case. treelo _radda 23:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just a friendly reminder to admins. Don't ratchet up blocks due to post-block ranting (though it is hard to ratchet up 'indef') Protonk (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is fairly normal for the fans, you'd be best not letting them go this far with their arguing, you'll be there all week. treelo _radda 23:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Same guy as CNGLITCHINFO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thatcher 23:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone provide a link to the DRV? At the very least the deleted article titles should be redirected to the main article (Ed, Edd n Eddy?) and whatever cited content exists included there. The response to the articles repeated recreation looks reactionary and inappropriate to me. Why not try to solve the problem? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is easily solved. That's for the article to be written with sources showing notability, as opposed to re-creating the version that was deleted at AfD because it had neither. Black Kite 00:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Even easier would be to redirect it to the main article, perhaps with a small section all its own, indicating that it was selectively released but hasn't been widely covered as is noted in the consensus of this AfD discussion [101]. Redirects can be protected you know. That would solve the problem once and for all. (It turns out the section already existed. So all that's needed is a redirect. See below) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin assistance needed

Could an Admin please redirect Ed, Edd, n Eddy's Big Picture Show (which has been protected) to Ed, Edd n Eddy#Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show where this content is included. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Block review: university wants notified of vandalism, not blocked

The students at Lancaster University have been busy on Wikipedia. While some edits are without doubt constructive, others are far from it. Today's vandalism from 194.80.32.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) includes some really creative stuff. However the IP's talk page also has seven notations indicating that vandalism should be reported to the school rather than on the talk page, and that the university would prefer to deal with it, rather than have us block the IP.

This issue was brought to my attention when I processed a block request for the IP at WP:AIV. While I would normally be inclined to let the university administration deal with the issue, the 13 previous blocks combined with the steady and continuous stream of vandalism (which shows no end in sight) leads me to the conclusion that enough is enough. As such, I have applied a {{schoolblock}} with a one year duration.

Any admin who feels I have been too hasty should feel free to reduce or remove the block as they see fit. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Completely support this block. Tan | 39 01:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I saw where the one user claimed that this will block 20000 people. I don't see the problem with that. If they want to edit, they can register an account from elsewhere, and not be inconvenienced. While it is good that they are reacting to it, it does not change the fact that each of those 20000 could potentially make 4+ bad edits, and that quite a few seem to have taken that chance. Sodam Yat (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

←I have notified Steveb (talk · contribs) of this discussion after seeing that they have responded to most of the warnings on the IP's talk page in an official manner indicating that they are an official of the university. (Could this be a shared account? I say that because of the almost constant usage of we in their replies) -MBK₀₀₄ 01:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've allowed account creation. If a vandal registers, it'll be easier to narrow them down for the administration, I'm thinking. Also: they're students. May as well... Xavexgoem (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Makes it harder for us to track, plus they will still get autoblocked... Prodego ^talk 02:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's just IMO. <shrug> Xavexgoem (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

IP Ban?

This IP has been warned a few times before [[102]]. Now the editor from this IP has removed sourced information without any explanation [[103]]. Maybe some administrator may deem it fit to ban this IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.240.57 (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Another example of this editor removing sourced information without any explanation [[104]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.240.57 (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

77.109.205.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

 Not done Last edit was over 2 months ago. DMacks (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Either a troll or a sock of Dubbawubba

Based on these diffs ([105][106]), BuckyBKatt (talk · contribs) is either a sock of Dubbawubba (talk · contribs) (see the section above) or a troll. Looie496 (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)