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

Edit-Warring/Repeatedly deleting text with deliberately misleading edit summaries

User User:TharkunColl repeatedly deleted text from the British Isles article, each time very loudly insisting that the text was not supported by the reference cited and that he was defending the truth in a rearguard action against POV pushers. The text was in fact verbatim supported in the references cited. User User:TharkunColl reverted two other editors who replaced the text, each time using CAPITAL LETTERS in the edit summary to state that the text was not supported by reference. The diffs are [1], [2], [3].
The accompanying talk page comments include [4], [5], where TharkunColl repeats the assertion that the deleted text was not in the reference. The page was then partially protected, resulting in the following comments [6], and [7], with User:TharkunColl accusing the original editor of lying, and the reverting editors of being POV, a politicised minority, etc. The deleted text, which can be very easily seen in the diffs from the article, appears in the reference given, i.e. the words "his imperial vision was simply propaganda and antiquarianism" appear in the article from the Canadian Journal of history at [[8] (look on page 2).
I pointed out on the talk page that the references did exist and that I believed the repeated deletions and misleading edit summaries qualified as vandalism. It has been pointed out that vandalism is generally considered to refer to more dramatic actions and that I should come to the general incidents board if I wanted to raise this issue. Once challenged with the detail from the reference, User:TharkunColl began defending his actions by claiming instead that he felt that the text he had deleted wasn't immediately relevant to the article and later by saying that he hadn't actually read the reference at all. I belive this is a post-hoc defense.
Given the LONG term issues around the British Isles article, I feel that such repeated deletion of supported text, such misleading edit summaries and the (incorrect) accusations of lying and POV are serious and that behaviour like this represents a major problem on a page with the problems of that one. Note, I don't have strong feelings about the content deleted. I think it probably belongs, but it hasn't been discussed and I don't believe it's the point. (I also feel - perhaps incorrectly - that two admins who frequent the page, John and Deacon of Pndapetzim, have strong views on the article content and perhaps ought to recuse themselves from any discussion on this incident.) Wotapalaver (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that part of my edit included rephrasing the bit that said that British trade in the North Atlantic dated to Saxon times. If that appears in the article then I certainly never saw it - and even if it does say it, it's demonstrably wrong. Incidentally, I have since added the whole quote, not just the half that was originally there. In any case, it is referring to the British Empire, not the British Isles. TharkunColl (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wasn't this matter brought up a couple of days ago on this or the other admin noticeboard? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes on this very one and it was decided it was a content dispute involving User:Bardcom with no admin action required. Merkin's mum 19:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The Wikistalking case, was moved back to Tharky's page (at Bardcom's choosing). But, so far that discussion hasn't continued there. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there any possible sanctions against those who repeatedly make malicious and/or frivolous complaints? TharkunColl (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a separate complaint that has nothing to do with the wikistalking incident. And yes, the wikistalking conversation has not continued on any Talk page that I am aware of. Interesting that Merkinsmum interprets the previous incident as "no admin action required".....is that an assumption.... ??? --Bardcom (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a fact that that is pretty much how the last thread here ended- it was to be continued on Thark's talk, i.e. not on the administrators noticeboard. As far as I know, everyone who commented in the previous thread you started the day before this one saw it as a content dispute, and some referred to the RfC about Bardcom Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bardcom (which, in my opinion, is pretty much a content dispute, but that's by the by.) Please reread my words above- I'm not assuming anything about this thread if people really consider it a separate matter, I was commenting on the previous thread, hence my use of the past tense. However- as it is so soon-about a day after the last thread, people might wonder if it is actually the same matter, as LessHeardvanU did above, and as I am yet to be convinced that it's not.:) Merkin's mum 10:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Merkin, there is no conspiracy theory. This is a separate thread, and a separate complain. I steered well clear of the British Isles Talk page when this row broke out. The last thread ended because the admins weren't going to actually do anything about Tharky's behaviour (which appears true - nothing has yet been done). The admins have blessed Tharky's behaviour as justified, because they have interpreted it as a content dispute. Same thing appears to be happening here, only more so, as you are now attempting to connect (while trying to make it appear that you are merely wondering) two separate issues into a single issue and then absolving Tharky's behaviour, again, under "Content Dispute".

Question Does Content Dispute grant editors a special license under which they can evade warnings (still nothing on Tharky's Talk page), blindly revert edits without justification (then or since) or discussion(my separate complaint), and continually remove references (this complaint, different editor, although similar themes (Tharky, British Isles))??? One of the hallmarks of good adminship is an even-handed approach, low tolerence of ad hominen attacks, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF at all times. Equally, when editors deliberately breach these fundamental policies, a warning must be issued pointing out the problems. After warnings come blocks, etc. This incident, and the one before involving my complaint, appears to teach editors how to edit war, how to breach policies on civility and assuming good faith, all without warnings or sanctions. Many editors will learn these lessons. --Bardcom (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Admins can use common sense when dealing with edit wars, block are a last resort. If it can be resolved without them it should. No editor of this article is deliberately trying to disrupt the article. --neonwhite user page talk 17:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Howabout we let Watapalaver continue his complaints againt Tharky. Let's not get his report & Bardcom's (archived) report interwined. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, aren't any edits related to "The Troubles" under Arbcom thingies? I'd urge all editors to step back and go through dispute resolution. Also, that huge chunk of text: tl;dr. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration - The Troubles - this absolutely is a "related article" and I'm suprised, and disappointed, to see admins brushing it off as a content dispute. It is a content dispute, but the editors involved clearly need stern advice about dispute resolution, and to be reminded of the sanctions available against any disruptive editor on those articles. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's stretching it to link "The Troubles" with this complaint. If I squint up my eyes and peer through my eyelashes with my hands over my eyes and my head moving back and forth really quickly ... then yes! I see the link! Otherwise no. --Bardcom (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Where have I said anything about a "conspiracy theory"? It just seems like the same subject matter. I do agree something perhaps should be done about it, but I don't know what except maybe a ban on these behaviors from one or either side. I'm not an expert but don't think that would be dealt with on AN/I, it's a matter for mediation (has there been one?) or if ArbCom want to spend the time on it, eventually ArbCom. But it would be depressing to see it come to that, IMHO. Merkin's mum 19:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the Troubles, nor with Bardcom's earlier complaint. It is also (again) highly misleading of TharkunColl to suggest that his deletion of the text was somehow because of subtleties about phrasing about trading in Saxon times. (it's all in the cited documents). This is about behaviour, not about content. This is about deleting supported text while simultaneously accusing the original inserting editor 18 months ago of putting in "lies", accusing the reverting editors of being POV, political, claiming to be "defending the truth", loudly claiming in all the edit summaries that the text was not supported by reference, WHILE IT WAS COMPLETELY SUPPORTED BY THE REFERENCED DOCUMENT. If it is legitimate to do what TharkunColl did then Wikipedia policies have a great big hole in them. Read the diffs and the referenced document, or just search for the key deleted words on google, that'll bring you right to the referenced document. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't shout. (joke).:) One part of this is a content dispute in so much as the part where people would have to read the sources to know who's right or wrong. Have you said to Thark that you object to his edit summaries, before you posted here? AN/I is sort of the last resort, first you're supposed to talk to the editor themselves. No, I see you personally haven't mentioned anything in the last fortnight, at least on Thark's talk page, before you informed him you'd made a thread on AN/I. Before that, around the 20th April, you wrote to his page a section with the title "erroneous" User talk:TharkunColl#Erroneous which probably wasn't the best start. You need to be systematic about following WP:DR- if you object to for instance an edit summary, leave a message for the editor concerned. New ones. If it was a fortnight ago you could try asking them again before taking it to AN/I. In the case of an edit summary, that does not involve the article itself but the editor, so could be on his rather than the article's talk page. I know you have discussed the content recently on the article's talk, I still suggest an editor's talk page as the next step if you feel you have an issue with a specific editor's behaviour (as opposed to content of edit) in future. Ask them for the change you wish to see. Just My Humble Opinion.:) Merkin's mum 02:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not a content dispute at all. The issue is edit warring while deleting text that is supported, all the time loudly claiming it's not supported by reference and claiming other editors are lying, pushing POV, etc. It's about deleting text while giving deliberately misleading edit summaries that totally misrepresent the reason for the edit, and then getting away with it. You might have a content dispute about whether or not the deleted text ought to be there or not, that´s entirely beside the point. The issue is edit warring with deliberately misleading edit summaries, claiming that the text was not supported by reference, when it clearly is. That's not a content dispute, it's a behaviour dispute. If - as it seems - admins allow worse behaviour on controversial articles then editors will quickly learn this, or have apparently already learned this. Since this isn't a content issue it doesn't seem that dispute resolution is actually appropriate. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why this is here. The edit summaries seem clearly explained to me (though i'm recommend avoiding the caps lock) they don't seem to be hiding an edit. Calling them 'deliberately misleading' is not assuming good faith. The behaviour of User:Wotapalaver and User:TharkunColl fails to impress in terms of civility and edit waring. The proper way to discuss sources is on the talk page not by reverting edits. --neonwhite user page talk 17:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The edit summaries are clear. They say that the text deleted was not supported by the reference. The edit summaries actually said that several times. It's just that it's blatantly not true.

The complaint isn't about content, and good faith is hard to assume when an editor repeatedly deletes text saying that it's not supported by reference, accuses the reverting editors (I was not one, so I was not involved in the edit war) of POV, political editing, etc., when the text the editor deleted is verbatim from a highly reputable reference. So, 100% clear and 100% untrue edit summaries. They're not hiding the edit, they're describing the edit in a way that is 100% untrue. Does that count as misleading? It would seem so. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether sources are adequate is a content dispute and nothing else. Assuming good faith is what you should be doing and what you are not doing. The edit summaries describe the edit perfectly and there is no misleading. I repeat that talk pages are for discussing these things. --neonwhite user page talk 23:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Neon, this isn't a case of discussion about "whether the source is adequate". The edit summaries said the text wasn't supported by the source and the accompanying talk page entries said it represented "lies" and "pushing a POV". The text was almost a verbatim copy of the source. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think the name used for Ireland, Northern Ireland, and the Brtish Isles has no connection with The Troubles? Are you honestly saying that it would not attract any troublesome edits from anyone with an interest in the troubles? Dan Beale-Cocks 15:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess it might. I don't know if it has. I don't have any reason to think that ongoing battles around the Troubles have got anything to do with this case. I only raise a specific incident of edit-warring and use of misleading edit summaries where an editor edit-warred, deleted supported text, and used deliberately misleading edit summaries to hide the facts of his (or her) edits. _{(and please note, I was NOT involved in the edit war. I also really doubt that my views on Northern Ireland will fit neatly or happily with any of the sides that seem to be established around WP. They'd probably all regard my views as blasphemy.)}. My experience so far on the specific page leads me to suspect that disregard of reference is rife, which I see as a problem. My only issue is truth and verifiability. In my view, this case is about edit-warring, using deliberately misleading and abusive edit summaries and talk page entries. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I replied to one of the 3 or more other threads started on this subject in various venues, to say that in most of these threads, most uninvolved people don't see Thark's edit summaries at misleading at all. If he thinks the source doesn't back up what is being said, that's his opinion in a content dispute. And edit warring is what a lot of other people have been doing over these articles, to the extent that there's already an RfC about User:Bardcom. Merkin's mum 19:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a reference that states that the RfC refers to edit warring or retract your statement. --Bardcom (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce)Merkin, Neon, as I said already, this isn't about content and it has no relationship with Bardcom or his issues in any other forums. Let's review some facts.

• TharkunColl repeatedly deleted the words 'Current scholarly opinion is generally that "his imperial vision was simply propaganda and antiquarianism"' from the article.
• TharkunColl's edit summaries said things like "PLEASE READ THE SOURCES, THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THE PREVIOUS TEXT"
• The source says "Most writers accept that Dee created the phrase "British Empire," but otherwise argue that his imperial vision was simply propaganda and antiquarianism,...".
• TharkunColl accused the original and the reverting editors of lying, pushing a POV, etc.
• TharkunColl later claimed (although I'm not sure I believe it) that he had not actually read the reference at all.

So, how can the edit summaries possibly be seen as not misleading? TharkunColl didn't say the text was unsupported or delete it just once, he said it was unsupported and deleted it three times in quick succession and matched this with clear (and incorrect) accusations on the talk page. This isn't a content dispute. This is a case of pure edit-warring, use of misleading edit summaries, and similar misleading statements on the talk page. Also, please remember, I'm only reporting the incident, I wasn't involved in the edit war. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No admins as far as I can tell feel this is a matter for administrator action. ? Am I right admins, could this be marked as resolved? If you look at TharkunColls most recent edit summaries, they have been very explanatory and could not be construed as you claimed. So maybe he has changed in response to your quibbles. Maybe he just missed the one line you mention in the source (please WP:AGF- or maybe in context he feels the rest of the source says the opposite. Most uninvolved people as I understand it see this as a matter for Arbcom or RfC if they see it as anything other than an edit war/content dispute. An admin, User:John, on your own talk page, says your own behaviour about this issue and towards TharkunColl is questionable too, and you yourself may risk a block eventually over this- User talk:Wotapalaver#WP:CIVIL and User talk:Wotapalaver#vandalism. There is already an RfC about Bardcom, and I see you are editing articles about the British Isles, Special:Contributions/Wotapalaver which is exactly the same subject matter as that warred over by Bardcom. These issues, the rightness or wrongness of the conduct of the people involved, will be hopefully resolved by that RfC.Merkin's mum 15:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The RfC you continue to refer to has long fizzled out, and I would have prefered if some admins had commented. What's more, contrary to the opinion epoused, it found nothing wrong with my edits and my behaviour. The original editors that brought the RfC have since stated that they now believe I was acting in good faith, and that there was no systematic removal of the term from wikipedia. Your user page states "This User believes that posting on WP:AN/I makes you stupid.", and " also read WP:ANI a lot because I have to join in lol :)". I think that says a lot about the value of your contributions to date. --Bardcom (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Merkinsum, TharkunColl's edit summaries in other places may not have been deliberately misleading. I can't comment. In this case they were. As for AGF, TharkunColl's own statement is that he didn't read the reference before he started edit-warring, repeatedly deleting the text with edit summaries claiming that the text was not supported by the reference and accusing other editors of lying. That means his edit summaries were deliberately misleading or that he's lying about not having read the source. Either way, AGF is difficult. As for John's view of my behaviour, I've been consistently perfectly plain. I regarded what TharkunColl did as sneaky vandalism, as per the wikipedia definition of such, and I said so. John disagrees and feels that use of the word vandalism constitutes incivility per se. I disagree. Either way, I wasn't involved in the edit war. IIRC neither was Bardcom so he's not relevant. As for other things, I only go by what verifiable sources say. I regard what's been going on around the British Isles page as bizarre in the extreme and various admins tolerance of demonstrably anti-verifiable edits as highly regrettable. Your description of my complaints about such edit-warring as a "quibble" is a perfect illustration of this. If my complaint about what happened is a quibble and not a complaint worthy of action, can I assume that the administrator's noticeboard accepts that it is OK to edit-war by repeatedly deleting supported text, to use deliberately misleading edit summaries while doing so, and to incorrectly accuse other editors of lying about sources? Yes or no? Wotapalaver (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

And where are the admins when a straight question is asked? Wotapalaver (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Harrassment by User:John celona

John celona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone help me deal with this: [9], [10], [11], [12]. JkP and I are very different editors. And I'm not trying to censor anything, nor am I committing any vandalism. David in DC (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of sockpuppetry should be taken seriously. I have given this editor 24 hours to file a request, absent which I reserve the right to block for harassment. --Rodhullandemu 23:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Further to Rodhullandemu, I note that you and John celona were involved in discussion over this matter several months ago, and if Rod had not intervened I was considering issuing a warning of harassment regarding those claims. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OTOH, if you think that this renewed aggravation is worthy of a block right now, I wouldn't be critical. --Rodhullandemu 23:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your suggestion of either filing a SSP or dropping the matter is the most appropriate in this instance. Further similar accusations without merit might be a blockable offense, now that there is a warning in place. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had some concerns about John for a few days now, especially after looking over this which is most probably him by his style. We need to have a look through his contributions and make sure there isn't a serious pattern of harassment and canvassing. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that link is painful. In the case in point, we are talking about the early 1970s, when rock stars screwing 14-year olds while maybe wasn't the norm, certainly didn't attract accusations of pedophilia as it would now. It's all very easy to apply morality retrospectively, isn't it? </irony> The problem here is that these people want to rewrite history in their own terms, and that should be resisted at all costs. --Rodhullandemu 23:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have had a look at the contrib and block history of this editor... not great reading. Perhaps a more general community discussion of the benefits of allowing this editor to continue is required? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course the only reason you are "looking into" a year plus old blog post by a third party is because you were "canvassed" by David in DC/Jpk212 [talk:Ryan Postlethwaite&diff=prev&oldid=210733294] who have continually harassed and stalked me for months and REPEATEDLY made false and disproven claims of sockpuppuetry against me, even though the alleged sockpuppets have never posted on the same page as me. I think this [talk:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow&diff=prev&oldid=211209927] quote by a neutral observer regarding the harassment these user/s begins to describe their actions-":::: This behavior coming from David and Jkp212 is reprehensible. Those 2 have been harassing John since he first dared disagree with them. They have been trying to get John blocked for months now. I for one find their behavior to be as appalling as Johns attitude toward Yarrow. I think that this matter needs to resolved in arbitration." : Albion moonlight (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Albion moonlight (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)" If one looks at the edit pages of these allegedly seperate users they repeatedly post on the same pages in support of the same positions, often with very similar language. Where one goes in a dispute, another is sure to follow-hundreds of times over. John celona (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that in this case the disruption and harrassment is a 3 way street. The only reason I am defending John is because he has been being harassed by so many for so long. I deplore his politics and his attitude toward Peter Yarrow but I defend his right to speak his mind in a discussion space. I do not think that Peter Yarrow is a sex offender of any sort but I do know that he was convicted of a sexual offense and that He was granted clemency by President Carter. I still back Johns right to speak his mind about this in a discussion space. : Albion moonlight (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, get it right -- NO ONE has questioned any editor's right to speak their mind. It is Celona's harassment, and near delusional edits that have caused disruption here. There is no reason to defend that, and it is NOT harassment to demand for it to stop. --Jkp212 (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Come off of it man the diffs are there to prove that both you and David have been harassing John from the onset of his refusal to respect an Rfc that you 2 found to be a consensus. John did not take part in that original Rfc . Your and Davids subsequent fight with John has continued on to other articles. I am not saying that John is in the right but I am saying that all 3 of you are guilty of making wikipedia a battlefield. The arbitration committee will read all of the diffs in the order that they took place and realize that what I am saying is factual. All John needs to do now is wait until he is blocked indefinitely and appeal that block to arb com. I hope to hell this happens soon so you and David will be told in no uncertain terms that your behavior is unacceptable. I do not care about John. I care about wikipedia and the rare opportunity it attempts to afford people from all walks of life regardless of their political beliefs. You and David need to own up to your own bad behavior instead of denying it. Albion moonlight (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you say something is true does not make it true. Show EVIDENCE or your accusations are tantamount to your own harassment. By the way, if you "don't believe that Yarrow is a sex offender of any sort" as you say above, then why don't you share that opinion in the discussions... It is ok to share your opinion , rather than repeatedly saying "i don't care... but be nice.." --Jkp212 (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would characterise John Celona's edits as spiteful, ans this is something we certainly don't need on WP:BLP articles. He is taking a very absolutist stance in cases where a more nuanced approach is clearly appropriate. Some kind of restriction is clearly not far away unless he moderates his behaviour very considerably. Guy (Help!) 07:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As to sock puppetry, I think a look at this exchange might suggest to an objective reader that we are not the same editor. Period. [13]David in DC (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's another [14]. David in DC (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have had multiple false sockpuppet claims filed against me by Jpk212/David in DC on alleged sockpuppets which never posted on a single page I have. These 2 user accounts have filed literally hundreds of posts on the same pages, invariably on the same side of any dispute. All I am asking for is an IP check of these accounts posts. The IP check will have its own impartial tale to tell. John celona (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What Celona is referring to is that another user, and several admins, have suspected him of being a sock of ratishka: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:John_celona&diff=195596873&oldid=135135655 -- while the evidence was compelling, the checkuser was unable to prove it conclusively because the IP had timed out...--Jkp212 (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"evidence was compelling'. LOL. That Rastishka did not post on a single page I have posted on. some sockpuppet! someday someone is going to take the time to review all your edits (like the false Toronto Star quote you manufactured) from day one and see exactly what you have been up to. John celona (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

For more on my answer to JC's false allegation of my making false sockpuppet allegations, please see this diff: [15]. David in DC (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Even in this discussion above Celona is breaking the rules on personal attacks. He says "like the false Toronto Star quote you manufactured" -- he has no right or evidence with which to make such a statement. He is an attack machine. If you look at his edits, over 90% of them are personal attacks on others. --Jkp212 (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The above post is false. It is itself a "personal attack". As regards the Toronto Star newspaper,[talk:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow/Mention of the conviction&diff=prev&oldid=210032529] you made it up. The "direct quote" is a direct fabrication. A hoax and a fraud on the Wikipedia community The judge said no such thing; Yarrow's far left, corrupt political hack lawyer said it-not the judge. You know it. I know it. I INVITE- I BEG an editor in the Toronto area to go to a library, look up the article on microfilm, and post a copy of that article online-then permanently ban Jpk212 for not only falsely posting a quote to buttress his views, but his continued intansigence in maintaining his boldfaced lie. John celona (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I said that the judge agreed with the defense, and yes, that is what the defense argued, and it is a direct quote from the Toronto Star article. I did not "make it up", and you should stop with the personal attacks. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You falsely wrote that "the judge agreed with the defense that the girl in question was a groupie, "whom he defined as young women and girls who deliberately provoke sexual relationships with music stars." [talk:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow/Mention of the conviction&diff=prev&oldid=210032529]. The judge did NOT say the child Yarrow molested was a "groupie" Yarrow's corrupt lawyer said it. The judge did NOT agree with the lawyer-he sent Yarrow to prison over the lawyer's objection. The reliable sources clearly state that the little girl "resisted his advances". [[16]] [Peter.html] Not exactly the behavior of a groupie but of a frightened child molested by a rich and powerfull creep. John celona (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That reminds me, John; what happened to your allegation of sockpuppetry against these two editors? Are we to now take it that it's withdrawn and you are apologising to them? The ball was very firmly in your court, and as far as I can see, you've dropped it. Hmmmm? --Rodhullandemu 19:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for assistance on this [talk:Rodhullandemu&diff=prev&oldid=211643537] on your talk page. I await your response. Certainly you have reviewed the 2 accounts and found the hundreds upon hundreds of similar edits virtually all expressing the exact same view that well-sourced criminal convictions should be censored or minimized? I don't think an IP checkuser is unreasonable. It has been used against me by these 2 users on alleged puppets who never even posted on a single page I have! Here is the result of that allegation-[celona&diff=prev&oldid=196192829] I am sure you will now pursue those who filed and egged on that false claim against me. Right????? John celona (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggested that you file a sockpuppet resport, not a checkuser, which is less likely to be accepted. WP:SSP should not be a minefield for an experienced editor such as yourself. --Rodhullandemu 19:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You greatly overestimate my knowledge of Wikipedia minutiae. I have never filed an ANI, checkuser, SSP or anything else. I believe you have me confused with Jpk212/David in DC who have filed personal attack after personal attack against me, always in tandem and always using similar language and tactics. Since you are someone who [noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=211552042] thinks "Allegations of sockpuppetry should be taken seriously", now that you are aware that this/these user/users have been involved in proven fale sockpuppet accusations against me [celona&diff=prev&oldid=196192829] (where the alleged puppet and I never even posted on the same page!) we can safely assume you will now act "to block for harassment." since your actions on this ANI have been in a spirit of impartiality. Right????? John celona (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Take look at that same page, from one year ago, where an editor asked Celona to stop making personal attacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:John_celona&diff=196192829&oldid=132031064 -- looks like 1 year later, numerous editors are still telling Celona exactly the same thing. Someone needs to stop Celona and these personal attacks. --Jkp212 (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to forget, but we started here: "Can someone help me deal with this: [17], [18], [19], [20]. JkP and I are very different editors. And I'm not trying to censor anything, nor am I committing any vandalism. David in DC (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)"

Nothing above really solves that. Indeed the accusations seem to continue and expand. One improvement, I guess, is that they now seem limited, mostly, to this page.

A question for folks with more tenure around here than me, then. Is that about the best I can hope for?

One solution proposed above came from Albion Moonlight: "All John needs to do now is wait until he is blocked indefinitely and appeal that block to arb com. I hope to hell this happens soon so you and David will be told in no uncertain terms that your behavior is unacceptable." That seems a bizarre way to proceed.

I wouldn't really mind if another part of AM's proposed solution were applied right now: "The arbitration committee will read all of the diffs in the order that they took place and realize that what I am saying is factual."

Would someone care to subject my edits to the level of scrutiny AM suggests right now, without JC needing to be blocked and without him having to appeal to the arbitration committee? Such scrutiny, in my view, will establish for sure that I am not anyone's sockpuppet, nor any account's puppet-master, the original unfounded harrassment accusations I came here to notify admins about.

This particular incident report was not about whether Edward Bennett Williams was a hack (he wasn't) or whether JkP invented an article in the 1970 Toronto Star out of the whole cloth (I'd bet against it). It was about JC leveling a grave accusation (in the world of WP, anyway) against me, one I deny and resent. David in DC (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is about more than this 1 ridiculous accusation that Celona has made. It is about his unrelenting pattern of attacks, despite more than a year's worth of warnings, and he should be indef blocked for it. I agree with the question posed above, that "perhaps a more general community discussion of the benefits of allowing this editor to continue is required? " --Jkp212 (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to be Clintonian about it, but it depends on what the definition of "this" is. By "this", I mean the four accusations of sock puppetry JC littered the project with a few days ago. While there's enough fodder above for almost any right-thinking editor to file other reports or requests, here and elsewhere (hereinafter "that" or "those"), they are not "this" incident report. I'm looking for a resolution to "this" incident report. I'm looking for a determination that I'm not a puppet or a puppetmaster, and that JC is violating the rules by saying that I am.

If "that" RfC is filed or "those" complaints about the rest of his behavior are lodged, I hope they will be addressed, too. But, respectfully, JkP, I disagree with you about what "this" is about. David in DC (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit of a latecomer to the party, having been out of town until this morning, but I thought I should chime in since I've been active at Peter Yarrow along with Jkp, David, and John. First of all, based on my experience I think it's extremely unlikely that Jkp and David are sockpuppets. I don't have time to dig up diffs at the moment, but for now suffice it to say that my impression has been very much of two different editors; this "duck" makes a distinct mooing sound. Second, I think John seriously needs to learn to moderate his language if he's going to stick around here. I also think that he needs to make it easier for people to assume that he's acting in good faith. That said, he's so far been quite willing to engage in our dispute resolute resolution channels, and he seems to be doing so in good faith. I also think that Jkp in particular has been a little bit overeager to get celona banned as an easy solution to their content disputes. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this but chose not to respond until now. I endorse Sarcasticidealist's view of the situation. I think it is extremely unlikely that David and Jkp are sockpuppets; some of their views coincide, but not all, and their styles are different. John, Jkp, and David have been disputing contents in a variety of articles, and the nature of the debate sometimes leaves something to be desired on all accounts. Aleta ^Sing 19:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, let us step up and ask the mediator to intervene without the threat of sanction when John goes over the top with his language or style. We can do this along with the mediator but we should also ask John and David to cool it with trying to get John sanctioned, at least until the mediation process is over. Can we agree on this ?? : Please ?? : Albion moonlight (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the dispute resolution process should resume. You will note I have NEVER filed an ANI on ANYBODY, including jpk212/David in DC. Contrast that with the systematic persecution which he/they have engaged with towards me. John celona (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

After all that discussion, and the good faith shown the above user by the other editors above, he once more makes the accusation of us being a sock: "he/they have engaged" ... I give up. --Jkp212 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

John, I highly suggest that you immediately either file a suspected sock-puppetry case or cease allegations of sock-puppetry. My own patience is getting frayed, and I think I've been one of the editors more sympathetic to you through this dispute. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to file the report. I am not able to figure out how to do it. All I want is IP checks of the posts made by the 2 accounts. If none of them match-so be it. I think you will agree that there is a long, long, long, long list of pages where the 2 accounts have become involved in disputes with other users; invariably these 2 accounts have espoused identical or nearly so positions. When I was falsely accused of sockpuppetry bt them my response was "run an IP check immediately I will be cleared". I was cleared. You will note that has not been the response from David in DC/Jpk212. You will note I have tried to reach out and work towards definining an evenhanded approach to these issues [[21]]. You will also note the lack of response. John celona (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

At this moment, JC is policing every edit I've made in the past few days. Please see his list of contributions. I won't revert. But this has gotta stop.David in DC (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make further edits to the category while it is in dispute resolution. Hopefully this can be compromised. You just can't impose your unilateral definition when the matter is in dispute resolution! I think an end to edits while the dispute resolution is pending is proper. I have an open compromise offer on your talk page. Let's have a ceasfire PLEASE. John celona (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on my talk page[22].David in DC (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits proposed unblocking

Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is an editor who has proved to be quite a challenge for our project. He demonstrated, time and again, in certain circumstances he has behavioural issues which are incompatible with civil editing, yet at the same time he is a useful and prolific content provider in a niche area. Vk is currently indefinitely blocked for using sock puppet accounts in a manner that violate policy. Giano (talk · contribs), who will be familiar to most of you, has long suggested that Vk be permitted to edit in the subject area where he excels (sports, particularly boxing), while restricted in a way to stop him getting into situations where his behavioural issues come to the fore (The Troubles and Baronets). In this way, the reasoning goes, we get value out of Vk but with none of the problems.

There has been some discussion at ANI over this suggestion in the last few weeks, some editors have supported it on principle but expressed reservations based on the exact conditions the unblocking would involve. Others have indicated that they oppose at this time, because the issue that precipitated the current block has not been adequately addressed. Others, still, believe Vk has had more than his fair share of last chances and he should remain blocked for the foreseeable future. The discussion raged, VK was boldly unblocked, without any conditions being formalized and then promptly reblocked again. At that point I proposed that the best way to settle this was to establish a formal set of conditions that many believed would keep Vk out of trouble, while maximizing his good contributions. That done, I believe the community opinion on this proposal can now be sought in an informed manner. At this juncture, I intend to present the two other options expressed also, and I hope that together we can come to some sort of consensus on how to settle this.

The most popular options are as follows:

1. That Vintagekits be unblocked presently under the tight conditions described at: User:Giano/Terms for VK's return. The restrictions are idiosyncratic, tailored by those familiar with Vk's history. The philosophy is one of management: rather than banish Vk (and thus also lose his good contributions) if we can manage his participation then everyone can gain. This requires complete co-operation from Vk, which he has indicated he will give, and it is hoped that it might provide a new way of dealing with a certain type of problem editor. It should also be noted that this really will be the very last chance for Vk, a violation of these conditions will result in a permanent ban, to which Vk has acceded.
2. That Vintagekits be unblocked after three months of observing his current block in a sock-free manner. At that time he be unblocked and be allowed to edit fully and normally, with the exception of a project wide topic ban on The Troubles [clarification: this includes Baronets] (as per option #1), which will remain in place for one year. The reasoning behind this delayed unblocking is that Vk has not adequately addressed the reason for his current block, sock puppetry. Since he was blocked, Vk has continually created a number of sock puppets, mainly to edit boxing articles (though it should be noted that, almost exclusively, these socks created good content). It has been proposed that Vk should remain blocked until he can demonstrate that his sock-puppeting days are behind him.
3. The final option is that Vk remain blocked, ostensibly because the community has tired of giving him additional chances.

I ask that anyone with an opinion on this please express a preference below. I appreciate editors may have additional ideas, which are welcome, but it would make everything a lot easier if editors could express an preference for those proposed above. It would also be extremely helpful if editors could restrict themselves to a preference plus any comment, query or justification. Meta-discussion, or the tit-for-tat sniping that tends to accompanying this subject is most unwelcome, please keep it focused. I realize ANI is not the optimal place for this, but wish to get maximum participation, rather than the usual suspects that populate these discussions. After a day or so It may be reasonable to move this to a sub-page.

Finally, if this is the first you have heard of Vintagekits and would like to learn more before commenting, I would like to provide more comprehensive links, but it is difficult to know where to start, so:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles details the background.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Vintagekits,
• User talk:Giano/Terms for VK's return and
• User talk:Vintagekits#Is VK to return? detail the discussion over the last few weeks.
• Here is the checkuser report that led to the current block

Over to the community... Rockpocket 05:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm well familiar with the Vk case and the proposals. I'm also the checkuser who finally caught him socking which led to his last indef block. I'd certainly support Option 1 as it stands - Alison ^❤ 05:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Having clashed with VK (briefly) in the past, I think despite him being a pain to deal with at times, he obviously has the potential to make a positive contribution to wikipedia, I worry a little that he would be tempted to use a sockpuppet to get around these restrictions, however if he remains blocked from editing, he is still capable of making a sockpuppet, so nothing is to be lost by allowing him to edit. Better the devil you know.

One other minor detail, according to the terms he is not allowed to use offensive language, which I don't consider to be productive, use of offensive language that is not directed towards another user in an insulting manner is harmless. I for one use the word "fucking" and the phrase "What the fuck?" on talk pages and edit summaries, they are merely descriptive terms and should be allowed. This is not a 11yr old kid we are talking about, show a little trust and wikipedia is likely to be rewarded with the return of a decent editor. Option One Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we all know when bad language is used as an attack, and when used as a general harmless adjective. However, he is instructed not to use bad language, and for three months he would be very wise to avoid it in any context. Then the problem won't occur. Giano (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'd now support option 1 due to the good work that has gone into this and my confidence that this time the community has in place restrictions and safeguards that will ensure proper compliance. I do see the strength in option 2 also, as it seems unfair in a way that Vk has not really "served his time" demonstrated that the behavior for which he was blocked is no longer a concern. Either one would be fine. --John (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not an admin, but from what I've seen of the VK discussion, I would support option 1. Further, (probably because I have not had to deal with him) I would be willing to remove the "absolutely last chance" crieterion. I'm certainly not going to insist on that point, but I throw it out inasmuch as VK obviously has the will and ability to create socks to continue editing; I'd rather see him editing under a known username.

It would be really nice if the software could do article or category blocks per user, which would probably solve the major problem here neatly. I've seen that mentioned before, but don't know if any effort has ever been made to see if it would be feasible. I would urge (completely unrelated to the VK discussion) that some people open a bug to request the necessary tools for admins. Loren.wilton (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Without giving too much away there appears to be a way to, uh, find and nullify Vk's ability to use socks henceforth. Rockpocket 06:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an information note only:John refers above to Option 2 being in some way tied to a feeling that Vk has not yet "served his time". As one of the principal supporters of this option throughout the past week or so, I can say that there was nothing in my mind about punishment or about time served in itself. The only concern was that Vk has not yet proven that the sole reason for the current block (the creation of abusive sock puppets) is not still a concern. ៛ Bielle (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Breaking wikibreak to oppose, how many times must we go through the block-unblock cycles with obviously disruptive users? His block log shows edit warring, serious personal attacks, harassment, and socking in a pattern of disruptive behavior going back to Jan '07. It appears from the 9 August 2007 unblock that an agreement of this nature was made before and was (inevitably) violated. I honestly don't understand these perpetual proposals to unblan rightly banned users. One unban I could see, two, yeah, but these thirds/fourths/etc are really taking AGF way too far. I think it's fair to stop assuming when a year and four months of blocks every month or every other month show otherwise. Terms #6 and #9 are just laughable, we're getting him to agree to what we already expect from users who manage to not get blocked every 40 days or so? Our rules are applicable from the day you start editing, you don't get to break them an infinite number of times before you decide to start playing along. naerii - talk 08:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Can someone please undelete the history of User talk:Vintagekits anyway, it was deleted in April as the talk page of a banned user and obviously no one ever got around to undeleting it. naerii - talk 08:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Graham87 08:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Option 2. Would not support the "very last chance" criterion removal, as suggested, and would have liked to have seen some genuine regret from Vk. Also would have liked to have seen the restraint on editing Baronetcy articles extended to one year expressed in option 2 (although personally would have preferred indefinite topic bans on the Troubles and Baronetcy areas). -Bill Reid | Talk 08:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, Option 2's definition of "The Troubles" would also include Baronets (I have also now clarified that in the proposal). The hope is that Vk would appreciate a self enforced indefinite avoidance of those topics would be best for him after the year expires. I think the idea was to find the right combination of carrots and sticks to cajole Vk into better managing his own contributions in time. No idea if this is the right combination, though. Rockpocket 08:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Option 1. Hopefully Vk will grasp the opportunity, as this really is a last chance saloon. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think this initiative is a credit to the community, and yeah - wholeheartedly support option 1 - Privatemusings (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• I very much support option 1. He has expressed a strong wish to edit responsibly, and has firmly declared his intention to renounce his old ways. This seems the perfect opportunity to give him the chance to prove himself and benefit the project. I know his work well, and for the most part it is of a high factual standard, reffed and excellent. He is more than aware of the penalty of breaking these conditions, that he wishes still to edit under these conditions in itself shows great commitment, no small amount of humility and contriteness. Therefore prolonging his block would I think be punitive and serve no useful purpose. Option 1 can only benefit the project whatever the outcome. Giano (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1. With the Olympics, and the high visibility of that it gives to boxing, there will be a need for the production of good quality articles by someone knowledgeable - and VK has the qualifications. It will also likely provide VK with a definite reason to keep away from issues that have lead to their removal from the encyclopedia - while not condoning the socking, it is obvious that the person has a desire to contribute usefully. If we allow VK to operate within those confines then I suggest an all round benefit to the community, the encyclopedia and to VK. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support option 2. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Option 1 for the reasons cited by LessHeard vanU . Sarah777 (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Option 1 BigDunc^Talk 11:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 Give VK this last chance under these conditions for the benefit of both VK and wikipedia as said by Gaino and LessHeard vanU. Oh and thanks to those who worked on these terms. Davewild (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1, especially per LessHeard, and since I got called an enabler of Irish POV-pushers last time, I'll point out this time that I started the first SSP case on VK, quite a while back. Black Kite 11:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• support option 1 per User:privatemusings Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Much better addressed as an RfC. We're going to start allowing 'notices' to come down to 'options?' I take option #4, where this is built into a concise RfC, as ANI is about an incident - meaning singular. Collective action and consensus should take place elsewhere. ANI is not for summary judgment. the_undertow ^talk 12:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, I agree. However, there have been extensive discussions here and elsewhere on this subject, and there will continue to be incidents unless we can find a solution that (amost) everyone can agree had community support. This is part of the wider discussion process. Its unconventional, I know, and it may be taking liberties with the purpose of these pages to generate wider interest. But I hope you can appreciate that a successful end would justify the means. Rockpocket 20:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• support option 1 per comments elsewhere. Thanks, SqueakBox 12:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• support not voting on rigidly defined options and instead exploring the options through community discussion as per the_undertow. Viridae^Talk 12:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There has already been very extensive discussion of the options. See Vk's talk apge, plus Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Vintagekits and User talk:Giano/Terms for VK's return. I think that after all this discussion, it's now time to see if there is consensus for a decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• support option 1.5, which doesn't exist, but is a compromise between options 1 and 2 (I'll explain below). Despite great reservations about Vintagekits's ability to sustain good conduct, I believe that it is very important for the community to try a conditional unblock, because whatever the outcome it will lay to rest a matter which for nearly a year has polarised a chunk of the community into large camps of defenders and critics. Vintagekits himself, as well as both many of his strongest supporters and his strongest opponents have all agreed that these conditions are his last chance; if Vk makes this work, we can all celebrate the rehabilitation of a prolific contributor, and if he screw it up then there can be no argument that he was not given another chance. Either way, the issue is settled, and whatever anyone thinks of Vk, the community needs to move on from this standoff.
  However, because of the recent and prolific sockpuppetry I share the concern about an immediate unblock. Given all the good faith on all sides, the three months proposed in option 2 is far too long to wait, because the consensus and good faith generated in recent discussions could evaporate, and that would damage the community. So my ideal option would be an "option 1.5": the conditional unblock is agreed now, but delayed for one or two weeks, just to stress the principle that block-evasion sockpuppetry should not be rewarded with an unblock. If there is no consensus for that option, I much prefer option 1 to option 2. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support option 1 and, if this does get a consensus as the way to deal with this sort of situation, I'd support making it a general protocol for banned users who want to return to work non-disruptively in one specific area (Taxwoman being the most obvious example). — iridescent 14:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Reading over the multiple threads over the past few days, and I believe that option 1 is the most reasonable. Hopefully within that frame Vk can be re-admitted into the community whilst his contributions that are apparently good can continue. Rudget (Help?) 14:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support option 1 but only as the very very last chance--Cailil ^talk 15:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 --Domer48 (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Option 1.5 per BrownHairedGirl sounds like a sensible compromise, it also means there is some deal of gap between the unblock decision and VK being 'released into the wild'. Gives things a chance to settle down. Narson (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• The Undertow's comments notwithstanding (we have no Community Sanction Noticeboard to discuss this on any more) I think there are enough people discussing this that it will be clear that the outcome is not just a thing put in place by one or two rouge admins, but really IS the will of the community. Several ArbCom members are participating constructively in the discussion in the role of editors/admins just like the rest of us, so if this were a matter that should have been remanded to ArbCom they would have said so, I am sure.
  • That said, I support Option 1. It's well thought out and has made allowances for a lot of contingencies and gives VK one final last chance. No one can be unclear that if he blows this, that is it.
  • I see BHG's point about driving the point home that he's not off the hook.. and if the community decides they like 1.5, I'd be OK with it as well, and you can (if you are counting noses) count me as supporting that too. But I'm not AS keen on it because blocks are preventative not punitive and leaving the block on to make the point does seem a bit punitive to me.
  • If the community decides on option 2, I'd reluctantly support it as well, but it is far from my preferred outcome (maybe count half a nose?? :) )
  • Option 3 I oppose strongly, because I'm a big softie who believes in second chances, with verification, so do not count me there :). I am hopeful VK gets it and will reform. I am sure VK knows that Alison is not the only CU that will be checking him periodically, I myself just ran a check recently to establish a baseline. "Trust but Verify" and all that. whew! Even by my standards that was long winded. But FT hasn't spoken yet, so I'm sure it won't be the VERY longest one (grin, run, hide). ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• question Giano's suggestions for option 1 say:- "He may edit only sporting articles and their associated talk pages"- I assume this means he can -if he were to want to- edit any topic except the Troubles or baronets and so on. For instance, VK could chip in on the Tony Robbins article with me if he wanted? Merkin's mum 16:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply' I don't know how you reach that interpretation! What's unclear about "only sporting articles and their associated talk pages"? Tony Robbins does not appear to be a sporting article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support option 1. While in principle, VK should acknowledge that his abuse of sockpuppetry was wrong, we're already preventing him from socking again in Option 1 (rule 9) and I'm not sure what a further block without sockpuppetry would achieve beyond preventing the Olympic pages VK will likely edit peacefully anyway. I have a couple of points to raise:
  • My understanding is that "the Troubles" here does include articles related to the Falklands and Gibraltar, and other British sovereignty disputes - this is implied by "Irish/British geo-political dispute" in the footnote, but I just want to double-check that this is right.
  • Would there be a page where any infraction could be reported, or would it be here? I hope it doesn't happen, but just in case. Pfainuk talk 17:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Any breach of the rules should be reported here, because VK's next block will block will be permanent and very serious, so it is imperative that the blocking admin fully understands what he is doing before the block is imposed. Giano (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly endorse Giano's point. We are remarkably close to a consensus on a previously divisive issue, and a block outside consensus could reopen the whole can of worms; in fact it's such an important point that I would suggest adding it as bolded notice at the conditions displayed on Vk's user page so that any admin considering a block is aware of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned that on the proposal page as something I thought was important. We need to mention it in the final draft of the proposal. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I was perhaps negligent not add that to the conditions. If there is a consensus to unblock, we should probably do just that. Rockpocket 21:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Oi! No sackcloth! Your redraft was reviewed by lots of people, and none of the rest of us spotted that issue then, so if there was a failure it was a collective failure :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support option 1. I haven't reviewed the case carefully, but if Vk is agreeing to follow the rules and accepts the consequences if he fails to follow the rules, I see no benefit in keeping him blocked any longer. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Addendum re the point raised by Merkinsmum; if option 1 is preferred I should also support VK editing at the invitation of another responsible editor (who will also ensure that VK complies with the terms of the parole) any article not related to The Troubles (as broadly defined above) while the other editor is online - and that the invitation (and limitations) is registered at whatever venue is proposed for the regulation of any parole. Any invitation may be challenged and a consensus then required to allow VK to participate in that article. I see this as another method by which VK can be permitted to slowly rejoin the community by editing usefully in areas where there is less likelihood of conflict. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea, but impossible to enforce. The conditions outlined will be a good indication of VK's commitment for three months. Giano (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why, if he's going to be unblocked, he needs to be blocked from any areas other than the problematic areas? If I've missed something, someone feel free to msg me about it. Merkin's mum 19:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean as a whole, not with LessH's caveats, even. Why are we objecting to this editor's being on other subject areas, if he hasn't been a problem there? Unless part of these terms is punitive rather than preventative? I mean, people seem to value his contribs on sport articles, but there's no reason why when he felt like it, his contribs might not be helpful in other areas too, even with a small edit to an article's grammar etc he could be a valuable contributor to many articles if he felt like editing them- we all can, if we're not really thick or a vandal:) Maybe I'm just going by my own editing urges, if I was limited to one area it would hamper what little I can do for the project. On anything except the Troubles, baronets or related articles there's no reason why he wouldn't be harmless, is there?Merkin's mum 21:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Vk has expressed numerous times that he only wishes to edit sports pages (and perhaps railways). By starting off with tight restrictions and incrementally relinquishing the enforcement over time, hopefully to be replaced with Vk's self-discipline in avoiding those situations anyway, we hope to help Vk avoid problems. Its not that it will not work, but simply the there was no real desire from Vk to work outside the sports area. In a few months he may wish to expand his horizons, and in a few months he would be free to do so. Rockpocket 21:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, per Rockpocket. To help VK re-establish within the community he needs to be closely monitored - which is best done by agreeing beforehand where he will be editing (rather than reviewing his contrib history to see where he has been). It also gives those persons who have clashed with VK in the past an indication where he might be expected to be editing, and thus diminish the chances of accidental collisions (and allows little excuse if somebody is out to cause trouble by running into VK - although of course this is extemely unlikely...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Aaah ok I understand :) option 1.5 then- I still think like Brownie that he shouldn't be rewarded/should be shown socking to avoid a block is not really ok. Merkin's mum 22:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support option 1, with the understanding that Vk won't create more sock-puppets. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Refer to ArbCom or, in the alternative, Option 2.

This is a difficult one. The best starting point is probably the conclusion of 'the Troubles' ArbCom case at the end of October last year; a line had been drawn in the sand, and the opposing parties were warned to keep away from each other. The indefinite block in place on Vintagekits was withdrawn, with Penwhale (the ArbCom clerk) posting on Vintagekits' Talk page "Due to the decisions, you are now no longer community banned. Make this chance count". Fred Bauder chipped in with: "Without getting into specific disputes. it was intended that Vintagekits be on probation. If he doesn't turn himself around, he's out of here". Since then, there have been 3 limited blocks and one indefinite block.

However, the most worrying aspect is the off-Wiki harassment of Rockpocket. Part of the ArbCom provisions had been a civility parole, which Rockpocket insisted on upholding and earned Vintagekits' annoyance as a result. There then appears to have been an off-Wiki campaign of anonymous harassment of Rockpocket, which Vintagekits denied being a part of on his Talk page (since oversighted), but stated on Wikipedia Review that he would 'abuse' Rockpocket 'all day long' [23].

The proximate cause of the last indefinite block, however, was the use of sock-puppets to cast multiple votes (in favour of Giano) in last year's ArbCom elections.

Since receiving his 16 ^th. block [24] on February 20 ^th., (which was the third 'indefinite' one) Vintagekits has simply created sock-puppets to continue his editing, so far with 16 confirmed [25] and 3 suspected [26]; the first, Stick Negative (talk · contribs · logs), appearing two days after the 'indefinite block' was imposed. The 'indefinite blocking', then, has simply been ignored. Reverting to type, one of these socks has resorted to cheap abuse [27].

At the moment, therefore, we have a situation of simply gaming the system; the indefinite block has been ignored; despite being imposed it seems to be considered too difficult to enforce. What is being offered by Option 1 is, therefore, simply a 'get out of jail free' card. Nor is Option 2 particularly desirable; since the ArbCom made its judgment, a combination of vociferous special pleading on Vintagekits' behalf and lack of support on behalf of the Admins charged with enforcing the ArbCom judgment has resulted in Vintagekits' User page being restored (despite a lack of consensus) [28], [29], and now the proposal to allow him to return to editing.

The root cause of the problem here is a lack of support from ArbCom for the Admins who are tasked with enforcing its judgments. There are issues here around how to rehabilitate a disruptive editor; but they are issues best resolved by those who issued their judgment and then ignored its implementation; or, in other words, those who allowed the present situation to develop in the first place. --Major Bonkers (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I must confess; I too have been wondering why Arbcom isn't enforcing its ruling. I'll leave that to the Administrators, to figure out. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Bonkers, there is no 'get out of jail free' card. The conditions set would be better described as a release on licence, with exceptionally strict parole conditions and a guaranteed throw-away-the-key if conditions are breached. Even if you are right about what led us to this point, we are where are, which is not necessarily where anyone would like to be, but we can't start from somewhere else. I am disappointed that you haven't seen the merits in the widespread agreement, even amongst VK's most vocal supporters, that this really should be his last chance. Rather than continuing to argue about who was right in the past, isn't it much better to seize this opportunity for a lasting solution to this long-running dispute? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that you are right to a certain extent BHG; whilst the post should be made by someone, the tone is negative and hostile. It's a possibility that Gold heart or some other aggrieved inadequate might be behind the harassment. Will refactor and post further on your Talk page. --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Option 1, only because you can't realistically stop him from creating socks. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, the checkusers have have already indicated that they are now pretty confident about their ability find and block his socks. I think that Vk is well aware of this, and I think that's one of the reasons why he wants to be reinstated, because his sockpuppetry no longer works. However, it also means that he knows that a reblock is likely to be effective, so he has a very strong incentive to clean up his act and make this chance work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1, --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1 (and echoing a few comments appreciating the work that has gone into this) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1. Everyking (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1 - univolved --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Option 1 - uninvolved too. Though I would urge that the terms are strictly adhered too. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet another suggestion

I'm not an admin, but as someone who has had run-ins with this user in the past, complained about his activities, and been complained about in return, I make the following suggestion:

It has been said that Vintagekits has created a large number of useful articles, however he has demonstrably missbehaved in relation to articles about Ireland. If the ban is removed, how about making it on the basis that he continues to create and maintain those articles but desists from contentious Irish articles for say six months to SHOW he is rehabilitated.

--Gibnews (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• If I understand you correctly, that is what "Option 1" is all about - he may only edit selected articles within his sporting field of interest for three months, after which he can edit anywhere expcept pages associated with the Irish troubles etc for a further year. Giano (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think there's been enough time for people to weigh in and it seems clear the consensus is for option 1. If you'd like me to do the unblocking I can, or someone else can take care of it. - Taxman ^Talk 01:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am happy for Taxman to take care of this. I would request that something is added in the "unblock summary" which refers to the editing conditions, so that any Admin considering a future block can refer to them, and be quite sure that a future block is meets that criteria, and thus avoids any controversy. Hopefully, though, this unblock will be the last entry on VK's block log. Giano (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, it's done. I didn't link to this discussion, though it would have gone to archive anyway and not been that helpful soon. If this can be linked from the conditions or wherever that would work. - Taxman ^Talk 12:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Once it is archived, I will ensure everything is linked so anyone will be able to find their way to the required pages. Thanks, Taxman, for closing this for us. Rockpocket 18:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Improper page moves of Gibraltar events

Number 57 has unilaterally decided to rename Gibraltar events Gibraltarian despite having been requested by three Gibraltar editors not to do so on his user page, because that is not the correct name.

• Chris.B 17:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Gibnews 15:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Gibmetal7716:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Plus was asked to look at this renaming:

john 05:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The name of the event is on:

• Poster visible on Gibraltarian sovereignty referendum, 2002
• Official notice
• Government Traffic Notice

I consider he is misusing his position as an administrator. As there was already article with the wrong name, only an admin could have deleted it to be able to move the article. Efforts to discuss this only result in being told the editor is 'an English teacher'. [30]

He willing not look at references or the opinion of others, so a complaint is appropriate. I have delayed in the hope of progress but none. If another process is more appropriate, please advise. --Gibnews (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll just repeat what I wrote in Gibnews' talk page (not sure why he didn't understand as I explained it three times). I didn't use any administrator processes to move the page - as can be seen in the diff, I moved it over a redirect (which obviously wouldn't exist if I'd deleted it). Plus I only did this for consistency's sake after Gibnews' WP:RM on several articles (e.g. Talk:Gibraltarian constitutional referendum, 2006#Name Change request) had failed (as a result of which he appears to have resorted to forum shopping). пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how that was done, and there was NO reason to do rename any of those pages because they were correct before. The other part of my complaint is that you refuse to listen to anyone OR look at the references and instead impose a missleading description of an important event. --Gibnews (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) I used the move tab at the top of the page; (2) I believe there was a reason because in my eyes it was incorrect before; (3) I have looked at your references, and I've provided my own ones that refute them.

Anyway, this is a content dispute, not an incident requiring administrator action, so I suggest you stop clogging up the incidents board with this. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to see how you can legitimately refute the Government of Gibraltar which called the event with a reference in a user contributed online dictionary. What concerns me is nobody seems bothered, apart from the few Gibraltarians here. surely someone else is reading this and can see why its objectionable Its an abuse of power. --Gibnews (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

How exactly is it an "abuse of power" when I haven't used any admin powers? пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I still fail to see how you renamed the article without being able to delete the redirect without being an admin. Anyway as nobody seems to care about what you do, there does not seem to be be much point continuing this complaint here. However It appears to me that those who rely simply on the weight of authority to prove any assertion, without searching out the arguments to support it, act absurdly. --Gibnews (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal force

I've just re-blocked User:David Tombe. Antelan has expressed concern that I might want someone else to make the block (see [this diff). Can someone please take a look at this, and either endorse or revert the block? See User talk:David Tombe and Talk:Centrifugal force for previous discussion. I'd really appreciate some help on this. -- The Anome (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am familiar with the proceedings on Centrifugal force and I thoroughly endorse this block. Antelan^talk 15:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring to reinsert unsourced and disputed content? The block looks justified to me, though I agree with Antelan that as you are involved in reverting this editor it would be preferable to have another admin look it over instead of intervening yourself. For the record, I'm happy to look at these sorts of situations, as are many other admins. That said, I don't see this block as particularly problematic, and I'd endorse it after the fact with a suggestion to involve outside eyes in the future. MastCell ^Talk 15:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There was also an ANI thread last week. Endorse block, and suggest that when it expires, it should be a last chance. As to whether Anome should have made the block: mu. I suppose now that it's been brought up, it might be less distracting to involve someone else next time, but I'm not concerned in this case. Anome seems to have gone out of his way to help this editor, but it isn't taking. --barneca (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been keeping track of this situation also, and minimizing my reverts to a few cases where I thought there was a clear policy violation that User:David Tombe had already been warned about. Thus I may serve to some degree as the impartial editor that some of the above folks would like, and I endorse this block. This is a difficult situation, because Mr. Tombe backs off when administrators put a foot down hard, but he does not ever seem to get up his goal of inserting his version of the truth (which is not even a notable fringe view as far as I am aware) into centrifugal force and related articles. I am glad to see The Anome keeping a continuous eye on this situation; I think it would be a waste of time to bring in a new admin who was unfamiliar with the situation every time further action was required. -- SCZenz (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reset the block to 48 hours from now, as the user is using an IP to evade the block and continue his disruptive edits to the article's talk page. IMHO, this is getting close to the last straw. Quoting myself from the talk page of the article:

If block evasion continues, I recommend quickly escalating the length of the block to indefinite. As I judge consensus both here on this page, and on the recent WP:ANI threads (other one is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive410#User:David Tombe_and User:FyzixFighter), David Tombe has just about exhausted the patience of the community. So, if disruption continues after the block expires, I recommend the same thing: an indef block. This is a collaborative environment, and one disruptive editor can ruin the experience for many others. I've had enough. Anome, SCZenz, (among others) I know you've been trying to work with him, and if you really think you can bring David Tombe into the collaborative editing community, I'll back off on this, but otherwise, this needs to be his last chance. --barneca (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

So, is this too far too fast? Or have I read consensus on this user correctly? --barneca (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you've read it correctly. Going back over the archives, there have been many, many attempts by many independent editors to try to resolve this dispute, with no apparent progress. I can't see any prospect for further progress on this. -- The Anome (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have never been under the impression that I was likely to bring him into the editing community. My goal, rather, has been to be appropriately firm with him so that ordinary editing could be restored. At this point, being "appropriately firm" means exactly what you describe. He seems to see those who disagree with him on the article content, and those who try to explain Wikipedia policy to him, as dual conspiracies that he should fight by any means necessary; the community need not, and should not, put up with this forever. -- SCZenz (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

David continues to disrupt Talk:Centrifugal force, editing via a dynamic IP. (I have semi-protected the article itself, but am loath to semi-protect the talk page, since that would completely lock out IP's and non-autoconfirmed editors from the article. Right now, people are just reverting his block-evading posts to the talk page.) I've warned him several times, I don't see the behavior changing. Another editor has clarified/warned him on his talk page that this could result in him being "banned". I concur. If he posts to the talk page while blocked once more, starting..... now, I am going to reblock David indefinitely. I consider this a "ban", not in the community-discussion-with-voting-that-goes-on-for-days kind of ban, but a "no admin is willing to overturn" kind of ban. --barneca (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: There is also some trolling on that page by IPs in another range (in VA, USA), in general using more impolite language than David Tombe's. David has explicitly denied having anything to do with that,[31] so be careful to check the source before blocking him based on anon contributions. --PeR (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Question: do you believe him? I think I might, actually, even though it makes decision-making harder. But you folks have dealt with him weeks longer than I have. I've already been successfully trolled too often this week, I don't want someone to trick me into a block. But, to be clear, all but the two most recent IP edits do, indeed seem to be him. --barneca (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think David is telling the truth. The alternative would be very advanced trolling using a proxy in a different country. But as an unrelated matter: The 71.x.x.x IP's that are appearing on centrifugal force and related pages are obviously operated by a deliberate troll. If an admin would take the time to block and revert on sight, that'd be appreciated. --PeR (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User:I Write Stuff disruption

Apparently as revenge for presenting evidence of sockpuppetry in an Arbcom case, he is wandering out Wikipedia creating nonsense pages claiming that I am a sockpuppet of one of the accused socks (see recent contribs here). I request that an admin cleanup this mess and give him a stern talking-to. - Merzbow (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I ask for a check based on sound evidence only. Merzbow edits from the same geographic location as the suspected sockpuppet. They further have the same linguistic characteristics. They have also never edited in the same time period as the other user, even though they are suppose to only be 20 miles apart. I do not see the harm in letting a neutral 3rd party finish their check, if in fact Merzbow is so sure it will be negative, no harm in confirming he is not a sockpuppet. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs for review? If not, I'm inclined to agree that your behavior borders on harassment. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Those diffs would be already provided at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Merzbow, where expected, right? — the Sidhekin (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Merzbow and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Merzbow, related to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop#Proposals_by_User:I_Write_Stuff and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_I_Write_Stuff. I request a halt to the forum-shopping. - Merzbow (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Except that your requests are quite patently nonsense, as the single piece of "evidence" is a post made by G33 using the SGR sock after the case started, containing obviously copy-pasted bits from my contribution history. Creating an RFCU and a SSP in addition to identical ArbCom evidence and Workshop additions is an obvious attempt at disruption. - Merzbow (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Its convenient that you state it is his sock, you, being someone in closer proximity to the socks IP, also found all the evidence. You live in the region, you obviously know how Giovanni33 writes, since you are the only one to present evidence, which you then fed to other users on their talk page to pursue. You have the same access to the same ISP's and wireless networks, except it would be easier, geographically, for you to get to them then Giovanni33, by distance. Finally, you have never posted at the same time as the sockpuppet in question, which if it requires you to travel, or to switch to a wireless network, would make complete sense. Again, if the evidence is not suspect, a neutral 3rd party admin will state it so, without you making an uproar and complaining. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware, requests for CU (and presumably the SSP) related to an ArbCom case must be made at that case. You seem to be desperately and disruptively forum-shopping. - Merzbow (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The complaint by Merzbow is a double-standard because actually IWS is doing nothing different than what Merzbow is doing. The methods used for the evidence are virtually identical (no comment on the actual merits or quality of the evidence, though). So, if it's good enough for him to dish this out towards others, he should be able to take it in return. What was that phrase about the kitchen and it being hot? Also, it look bad that Merzbow feel IWS investigations are such a threat that he needs to be stopped, when all he is doing is pursing a line of investigation that may uncover some important connections that could turn the tables on Merzbow's arbitration case against me. If one is interested in uncovering the truth, there is nothing to fear.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This crap by I Write Stuff is an obvious violation-- it's disruptive vandalism. Giovanni, save it for the arbcom case. I'm sure everyone around here is quite tired of reading your long winded polemics that contain little actual content and skirt the edges of WP:CIVIL. The fact that you are resorting to such tactics in an effort to undermine the arbcom case against you elsewhere instead of doing much of note in the case itself is telling. Jtrainor (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• The accusations from I Write Stuff (talk · contribs) are ironic given that he is a sock puppet of the serial puppeteer SevenOfDiamonds/NuclearUmpf/Zer0faults. Cheers, Cross on through (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have read the accusation before, it is because I use "Times1" and "Times2" for reference names. I already explained to Merzbow the folly, in that the reference name is not Times1, Wikipedia adds the increment to the end of a reference name when generating links on the page, it is how it differentiates between the multiple users when a ref name is applied. Amazing how everyone who opposes Merzbow is a sockpuppet. And next time you post from the UK, you may as well just use your IP. --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merzbow and Supergreenred are  Unrelated. However,  Confirmed that I Write Stuff is N4GMiraflores (talk · contribs) and  Possible that he is also ElevenOfHearts (talk · contribs) and TenOfSpades (talk · contribs). Thatcher 10:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Question. Why is it when you did the check before against this account and others, you point out the fact that they are from a close geographical area to each other, but not now? In fact, you point out geographical facts about users who are not even part of the user check request when you carried them out before against these accounts. Isn't it true that Merzbow and this account are from the same area? And about about the ISP information? Have they shared the same ISP before?Giovanni33 (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

They are in the same geographic area but there is an additional technical aspect that makes it less likely, in my opinion. Thatcher 04:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for confirming. Perhaps we can move on to editing instead of accusations. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sadly too stale for action, but if this user is a WP:SPA with no role on Wikipedia other than to disrupt articles on American politics and terrorism, then he would be covered by the proposals currently being fleshed out under the Giovanni33 arbitration. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have written more articles on Wikipedia then you, 26 or so to date. To insist I am here to do nothing but "disrupt" is clearly a foolish assumption. You have been here a significant period of time, yet I rarely see you actually writing articles. This most valuable editors are those who actually edit, instead of complain and insult on talk pages, as if they have nothing better to do. Instead of leveling accusations against me, perhaps you can go write something. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Me and several other editors familiar with SevenOfDiamonds/NuclearUmph/ZeroFaults are quite convinced IWS is in fact a resurrection. We were going to do nothing because he apparently had ceased being disruptive, but this has changed. A more detailed SSP report will very likely be forthcoming, once the G33 case settles down. I will say no more on the issue until then. - Merzbow (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we both use its incorrectly! I would think after being shown how wrong you have been regarding reference names that you would have apologized for your foolish allegations. However I would not be surprised if Giovanni33 receives a block, you next attempt to label all New Yorkers into a single category as sockpuppets of someone else. I however await any accusations, I am sure they will be filled with the humor of mass typos. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This [32] appears to state that IWS=7OD. But its by an anon William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Confirmed that's him. Thatcher 18:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and blocked IWS as a checkuser-confirmed sock of a banned user. MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you. It's a shame, because he can write articles. But he also can't avoid falling into the same patterns of disruption that got him into trouble before. I and a couple other people (including an admin) talked privately a while back and were OK with letting him be if he did avoid the disruptive activities. But as we've seen, it wasn't in the stars. - Merzbow (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP violations

User:David Shankbone has decided "out" real life people for contributing to Wikipedia Review; see his talk page and User talk:Jimbo Wales. No matter what the editor has done, Wikipedia is not the place for this, and WP:BLP applies. My first inclination was to delete/request oversight of the edits, and warn David, but given Mr Shankbone is quite popular due to his numerous image contributions, I thought I would bring it here rather than risk a wheel war (the last time I used admin tools with regards to an established contributor for obvious and knowingly violating established policies, it was undone and I didn't hear the end of it for weeks). Thoughts, please. Neıl ☎ 16:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• My thought is that Neil has a personal issue with me--he took it upon himself to go around to all articles where other users put my name in the image captions and removed them, why just me, I'm unsure--so if I get blocked then it should be by somebody other than Neil. He has a personal animus. If anyone wants my reasoning for stating that Paul Wehage is the fieryangel at the Wikipedia Review, let me know. But as Lawrence Cohen stated, our policies don't exist to protect editors of other websites. --David Shankbone 16:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • David, applying the image use policy does not amount to a personal issue - I simply noticed this while reading the last ANI thread about you. I should point out I haven't even considered blocking you - this is why I have brought it to ANI for discussion. Please do not deflect the issue with rubbish about some personal animus. I have none with you. I also note you have repeated your BLP violation. Neıl ☎ 16:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The last ANI thread was not about me, but about User:SqueakBox, and I had started it. He had taken a false COI argument that the fieryangel--my good friend Paulie--and applied it here. You have also misapplied it, by the way, but not with removing it from the image captions. When I saw that was happening, I raised the issue myself and nobody addressed it (I can hunt through the diffs - I raised it at the time Jus4helpin was putting names, not just mine, in captions. Regardless, you overapplied it. --David Shankbone 16:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If there are any other contributors who have their name in the article's image caption (whether put there by themselves or by someone else), feel free to let me know the name and I will work on removing those, too. It is quite hard to find them unless the name is known. Neıl ☎ 16:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Whether an editor has been here for five years or five minutes is irrelevant. If a user is using Wikipedia to further some sort of vendetta and are in danger of bringing the project into disrepute, all steps have to be taken to stop them doing so, whether they be Shankbone or Willy on Wheels. Suggest indefinite block as the post above shows the outing will not stop George The Dragon (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wrong. I outed the fieryangel of the Wikipedia Review, who has spread false information about me and reveled in the outing of User:Newyorkbrad. I also stated that User:Musikfabrik is Paul Wehage, something he stated himself and that was backed up by his friend Jean-Thierry Boisseau. I have violated no policies. --David Shankbone 16:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think an indefinite block is warranted or appropriate. An agreement to stop would suffice, providing David's various BLP violations - which he is continuing - are deleted or oversighted. I would like a neutral admin to step in here. Note the link David provides doesn't even back up his assertion - all it states is that a user holds the copyright to a piece of work on a person Wikipedia has an article on, nothing more.Neıl ☎ 16:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with Neil (with some surprise as I hardly ever do). There's no possible way David isn't in the wrong here. — iridescent 16:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I would like a neutral admin as well. Preferably a non-Wikipedia Review member. --David Shankbone 16:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I just wanted to ask why (possibly re-)revealing who Musikfabrick is/who fieryangel is is so important? What does it matter, really? Wouldn't just not doing it lead to less drama/in-fighting? I agree he may have done you some harm, but really, how does (re-)outing/revealing his identity him help the encyclopedia? And obviously an indefinite block is over-the-top. Mahalo, David. --Ali'i 16:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to stay out of this mess, if that make me neutral enough. And I've never contributed to WR, And I consider myself a friend and general supporter of David S. I agree that the talk pages text there does not prove the identity, especially since a/copyright was asserted for more than 1 article, but never proven, and b/J-T B says it was an account used by several people (in apparent ignorance of our prohibition against that). As for people at WR, I suggest the safest rule is that we should stay clear of any not explicitly admitted corresponding WP identities, and in fact it might even be well that the correspondence be explictly admitted here, not just in WR--do we want to accept their standards? David, please redact. I dont think this calls for oversight, but thats up to OTRS and the office if there's a complaint. I am undecided about the part of attributing real people to purely WR identities. DGG (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment-I do not see any BLP vios, David Shankbone did "out" (in the Wikipedian sense of the word) another editor. My main point is that the title of this section in innacurate--It's not a BLP vio, it's this Wikipedian idea of "outing" that is the problem. daveh4h 17:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I suppose if the question is one of importance then it's not "Important" - except that over on Jimbo's page you had yet another person, this time an IP editor spreading Wehage's FALSE BLP INFORMATION ABOUT DAVID SHANKBONE there. Not one person has removed that, not one person has asked for oversight. My reputation both on and off Wiki has been damaged by Wehage, and I encourage anyone who also feels the same, including Newyorkbrad, to contact me. I have his I.P. address. I have evidence. But I do note that both Lawrence and Neil left up the BLP violation about me, nobody has removed it, but yet I have violated no policy. I haven't outed anyone. I found out who someone was off-sight, and then found out they outed themselves here. So, I have violated no policy. Yet I have been one of the most constructive and productive contributors to this site, and few people seem concerned with my reputation - only those of offsite trolls. --David Shankbone 17:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Lest we forget, David Shankbone does not actually exist outside of your own imagination George The Dragon (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

...BLP doesn't apply to editors. Shankbone isn't your given name. I redacted the outing only, I don't know about anything else, because I saw a good contributor--you--doing something that could get him banned. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, David Shankbone is the subject of several mainstream media articles. You all need to start acting like it's a BLP, because that name is tied to me whether any of us like it or not. Just because "George the Dragon" hasn't done anything noteworthy doesn't mean other people here haven't. --David Shankbone 17:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other User:Something that we have applied BLP standards to? I think this would be a new thing... Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

We simply can't go allow slander and defamation of editors on this site. Many of us have editor names that, because our work here became noteworthy off-wiki, is tied to us. That makes it a stage name, a pen name, or whatever else you want to call it. It's beyond the realm of comprehension that some of us would not see that. And I'm not the only one - asked TonytheMarine, User:Durova, User:SlimVirgin, et al. --David Shankbone 17:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are you outing anyone, anyway? If said slander and defamation is occurring on wikipedia, we have ways to deal with that (and outing people is not part of it, last I checked). If it is occurring off-wiki, deal with it off-wiki. Outing someone here because of something they did elsewhere seems quite juvenile. --Kbdank71 17:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My reading of BLP is that it applies to all living people. So unless we have zombies on Wikipedia, I'd say that the general principle applies to editors. That said, it applies to WR editors, as well. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

David, please place here or send to me -any- comment on WR by thefieryangel where she agrees with the outing of NewYorkBrad. I doubt it. Anyway, she has never even had account on wikipedia so what she writes on another site, is her own affair, and if you are equating her with a Wikipedia editor you can't have got that correct, nor could you prove it as there is no evidence for it. She's said she's never had an account on wikipedia, and we have no reason to doubt that. If you've outed her (I've not looked at the edits concerned, but you've just admitted it) you are outing (and by doing so, sort of harrassing someone who is not even on this site so is entirely entitled to voice her opinions on another site- it's no business of this site to have on it identifying material about an unrelated person who happens to disagree with some things on this site but has a complete right to voice her opinions without attempted, and probably wrong anyway, outing from an editor here. Lawrence- TFA is not even an editor here, and yes, even for editors who are outed by others here, we remove identifying info.Merkin's mum 17:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"WR by thefieryangel where she agrees with the outing of NewYorkBrad. I doubt it. " Merkin - you appear entirely unfamiliar with the situation and the actors involved if you are writing that. Anyway, I think I have said enough...I will allow you all to discuss this. I'm on Wikibreak. Paul: Lulz! --David Shankbone 17:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

for t hat matter, false information posted here should in fact be removed--the rule against outing -- or untrue attempted outing --protects widely in both directions & applies to anything connected with an identity. David's right there. It applies to all. DGG (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone actually _read_ BLP? If it applies to editors _as editors_, we first ought to shut down WP:AIV, since those vandalism reports aren't backed by reliable secondary sources. This noticeboard would be second, then arbcom etc. --Random832 (contribs) 17:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, I think personally, it may be time to abandon anon and pseudonymous editing, as I've opined elsewhere, but the policy here is to allow it, and to enforce allowance. As long as that's policy, I'm behind it, regardless of personal opinion. Therefore, except under certain tightly controlled circumstances as outlined in the m:Privacy policy, and/or in matters related to articles, in accordance with WP:BLP policy, no one should be revealing private information about others against their wishes, whether true or false. No one. We cannot control what is done at non WMF sites but it's not something to be encouraged here. Period. I don't think it matters whether one is a WR participant or not. I don't know all the particulars here, but if people are outing the particulars of David's pseudonymous identity, that's wrong, the information should be deleted or oversighted and the people cautioned or sanctioned. But that goes both ways. If David is outing the particulars of other people's pseudonmymous identity, that is also not to be tolerated and should be dealt with the same way. Regardless of how much of a Meatball:VestedContributor David may or may not be. No free passes. ++Lar: t/c 17:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

David, will you redact the outings? If David will not, then can someone else? I had best not do it, as I have a personal animus against David, now. Apparently. I'm not sure how. Neıl ☎ 18:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify at least one bit of the sound-and-fury - there is no doubt at all that User:Musikfabrik is connected to Paul Wehage, as MF has admitted it themself, so that doesn't constitute "outing". — iridescent 18:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, but DS might provide what he thinks is proof that thefieryangel who posts on Wikipedia Review is the same person as this Paul W, but it will not be sufficient proof, as he is probably incorrect. As to indef blocking- no but the info should be removed as it may be wrong anyway, and Mark W is presumably a real person, that DS is accusing of something he might prove to his own satisfaction, but not beyond reasonable doubt. The info should be removed, and whatever sanction which usually applies to people attempting to 'out' others, applied; at least a warning and if he re-posts the info, the same as what usually happens to people who do that. With allowances made for him being a frequent contributor, perhaps. But given that, people might expect better than the sort of behaviour that usually would be from an IP or a new user. Merkin's mum 19:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It may well be true that there's a connection between User:Musikfabrik and Paul Wehage but I don't think you can reasonably conclude that there "is no doubt at all" about that purely on the basis of the account having claimed such a connection. (posted for and on behalf of Vladimir Putin) 87.254.71.190 (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as one of the major participants in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau, I'd be genuinely surprised if thefieryangel is Paul Wehage. Wehage was part of the Musikfabrik role account, yes, but there are several pieces of information that mitigate against him being the account on Wikipedia Review. Further, I will not disclose. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Based on all the above, is it fair to say the consensus is that David Shankbone needs to stop posting this sort of thing as it's inappropriate on Wikipedia? If it stops him doing it in future (one way or another), this thread has achieved its purpose. Neıl ☎ 21:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi- through my own info, I'm pretty sure TFA is female.:) Neil, has anyone warned DS on his talk page, I think this deserves at least a warning. Merkin's mum 22:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Moreschi. It's been a while since I read Wounded Vanity Review but I seriously doubt FA is Paul Wehage (or Jean-Thierry Boisseau). Possibly an androgynous role account - but let's not go there...--Folantin (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I provided evidence at the Wikipedia Review that Paul Wehage is "the fieryangel" over there and has been making defamatory statements about me, Erik Moeller, Wikipedia, Jim Wales, et al. I don't really care whether you all agree with this or not. I don't plan to be around here much anymore. The thread for the evidence is here. If anyone, like User:Merkinsmum, who has lambasted me and others on Wikipedia over at the Wikipedia Review as "Wikiwhistle" and supported the trolling of Paul Wehage/TheFiery Angel, questions why I would do this, they only need Google my name at the WR and read the things TheFieryAngel (and Merkinsmum/Wikiwhistle) wrote about me there. Enjoy the photos. --David Shankbone 14:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

New pieces of info have come together over the last few days: thefieryangel is not Paul Wehage nor JT Boisseau, though I'm 99 percent sure, now, as to who are the persons involved, and completely certain as to one.

Regardless, I would suggest that this petty tit-for-tat between Wikipedia people and Wikipedia Review people is not very productive. "You out us so we out you" is simply not coherent. The trolls all fall silent eventually...so ignore. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

DS- I will stand up for people if I think they're being wrongly accused of something, I'm just like that. Several people now have told you TFA is not this Paul bloke. And I'm entitled to my opinions. It doesn't stop me contributing to wikipedia productively and I have spoken out against any forms of outing repeatedly on WR, just as I am now. To be honest, I never expect to have to do so on Wikipedia. I half-hoped we were better than that. The Electronic Frontier Foundation campaigns to protect people's anonymity online and Mike Godwin previously worked for them. I think that contributors' rights to anonymity is part of wikipedia ideology (within reason, of course) and you do no one any good by linking contributors' accounts in this way- do you want everyone to be outed? You know nothing of my life circumstances, nor of TFA's, (who I don't know particularly well, I'm just speaking out because I think she and this Paul bloke are being picked on, and also we don't know that what is being said about her or Paul is even true.) there are reasons why I used another name on WR aside from why people usually do so. (Which aren't to do with WR or WP, but unrelated, real-world people.) Not that I will ever trust you with those reasons. Are you wanting to be the Mr.Brandt of Wikipedia? Merkin's mum 17:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess the ethos you need to consider, lover of Wikidrama (per your User box) is that when you live by the sword, you die by the sword. MM, you started threads ridiculing me on the WR--"Bloke's treating Wikipedia like a job!"--and ridiculing others on here, and you seriously expect some kind of courtesy extended to you? Where do you get off? And by the way, I have had it confirmed that Paul Wehage is TheFieryAngel, now from another source. I removed that source's identifying characteristics from their e-mail and forwarded it on to admins and the Foundation (ask Georgewilliamherbert, Slimvirgin, jpgordon, Jimbo, et al.) You have tied your self in with the wrong crowd, MM, and if being called the Daniel Brandt of Wikipedia is what you want to call me, then so be it. As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia sucks. Why does it suck? Because of people like you, Merkinsmum. Now, go on over to the WR and chortle some more at the expense of others who have given far more to this project than you have the ability to do. Hey! maybe you can take that comment and have a tea party with User:George_The_Dragon and whinge about how arrogant I am because I point out the obvious. I believe it's part of the wisdom of the crowd that mediocrity shall reign. Invite Paul Wehage (Somey knows he is TheFieryAngel - TFA has only used 3 IP addresses the entire time he's posted at the WR, right Somey? Right Somey?! Lulz!). Think about it Merkisnmum/Wikiwhistle: You are defending someone who has had expressly wanted to "tear this place apart." Oh, and Paulie/Jean-Thierry/Musik Fabrik: I'll be seeing you all, bay-bees! Shankbone's gone rouge... --David Shankbone 17:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not followed this thread, don't know what it's about, see that it's long enough that I'm not going to try to catch up at this stage, but another "Fuck off" edit summary just popped up on my watchlist. After the "Jesus fucking Christ" edit summary I saw last week, I'm beginning to wonder how much we expect editors here to put up with, and just what our civility standards are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly some strange double standards with regards to civility. Any amount of off-wiki abuse is supposed to be ignored, even when the culprit interacts with the victim on-wiki. It's very odd we sanction this Jekyll and Hyde behaviour. Nevertheless, if we want to keep Wikipedia "pure" and not engage in outing and such like here, there are plenty of off-wiki venues for those who want to pursue these fights, especially blogs. It takes about 5 minutes to set up one at Blogger [33] and you can write what you like there. I imagine you can even link to your blog from your user page (what was the WP:BADSITES ruling once again?). --Folantin (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not even heard of User:George the Dragon although I'm sure I would love to have tea with him as I like tea.:) I've not tied myself in with any crowd and will answer back on WR if I think people there are being particularly dodgy. I don't winge particularly about anything, I do have a sense of humour but don't think that's illegal or blockworthy, within reason.:) Since I value being on wiki I try not to be too evil about those here, this is something I'm trying to do more intensely as time goes on. But sometimes you have to let off steam, or have a laugh, or whatever, it's preferable to going on a rampage like some people do on wiki.:) As you can see by my userpage, contribs etc I do try to focus very seriously on civility. Merkin's mum 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This person has now taken it upon himself to edit my userpage [34] which I was unaware of and another user kindly reverted. He is clearly not going to stop and he has gone on wikibreak to seek to avoid any consequences of his actions. I will now apologise to him if I have upset him, but he should stop this picking on women. He knows nothing about my life and doesn't realise what he is doing. Meaning no undue disrespect to WR, a lot of people choose to use another name there, because of what are seen as risks from some contributors there. Merkin's mum 20:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Block?

Given David Shankbone's latest spree (all after "going on Wikibreak") such as:

• calling Merkinsmum a cunt
• "I'm through contributing here", more outing
• gloating at outing users, telling a user to fuck off and outing a user all in one diff
• as well as this and this
• And (admin-only) a deleted contribution with another outing,

I believe an indefinite block needs to be considered at this time before David does any more damage. However, if I do it myself, I will no doubt be accused of being involved, so would someone neutral do it, please? Neıl ☎ 09:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Indef? I'm going to go on record as being a softie and say that I don't think that's justified yet. But a week at least would seem sane (call it forcing the wikibreak, if you will). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as we don't call it a cool-down block, a week with a final warning would be agreeable. Neıl ☎ 09:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Teeheehee, calling anything a cool-down block is guaranteed to start moar drama (maybe that's why they ask about it at RfA?). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Just tell the guy to get a blog then he can post whatever abuse he likes about editors off-site - and they will still have to be polite to him here. This is the standard, hypocritical Wikipedia way of "civility". David's main mistake was choosing the wrong venue for his rants. He certainly has some justification for his behaviour (not that I condone it), far more than The Undertow, whose friends are currently trying to save him from any sanction for his incivility. --Folantin (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt bringing the_undertow into this will do any good. Please don't try and fan the flames further still. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Fanning the flames". How about assuming good faith about my motives? I merely noted the differing attitude of admins towards two cases of uncivil behaviour. --Folantin (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(Update: Oh, I see [35]. I wasn't even aware of that comment before I posted here. Makes an interesting comparison). --Folantin (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to read the whole thread above as it is upsetting to me (though I respect other's opinions.) Just to say that I didn't mind the swearing, it was the threats of further action towards me that particularly concerned me. Obviously I am not impartial :) but I think a short block would be in order, of a short duration bearing in mind DS's contributions here, but also bearing in mind that most people who threaten outing or other stuff aginst an editor are treated severely. It would depend on how he acts after the warning I think he's been given. Obviously, if he himself uses my real name off site, I would expect him to be treated as any other editor would if they did so- ColScott etc (who I personally disapprove of) and be given a longer block. But not indef at this point. I also still disagree that TFA has exactly advocated outing- she just said that she cannot fault Brandt if he does so, in the light of the BLP problems on wiki (not an opinion I share as I'm firmly against outing.) DS didn't do this after I made a thread about him, months ago- he has just done this now because I stood up for someone, and because he can. Merkin's mum 12:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Obviously, if he himself uses my real name off site, I would expect him to be treated as any other editor would if they did so- ColScott etc (who I personally disapprove of) and be given a longer block". Yep, off-site outing of Wikipedians is not on. Just to clarify, I was referring to fighting off-site abuse with off-site abuse. Obviously, if David leaves Wikipedia then nobody will have any control over him in these matters, so it's probably in everyone's interests to persuade him to stay. --Folantin (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Having briefly dipped in to look over the issue, contributions, and incivility of this individual, and having reverted trolling to a userpage on my watchlist, I would have to agree that a block is justified. WP:CIV specifically says a couple of things (emphasis mine):

1. "A pattern of gross incivility, however, is highly disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks."
2. "...one single act of incivility can also cross the line if bad enough; for instance, an egregious personal attack...or severe profanity directed against another contributor are all excessive enough that they may result in a block without any need to consider the pattern."

I think giving a 'pass' to someone based on their previous valuable contributions sets a precedence. Nobody should be above WP:CIV, and the policy says as much in the opening sentence. Coldmachine^Talk 13:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference Desk trolling from Tor

Resolved

 – Tor nodes blocked by East718.

The various Reference Desks have been overrun with nonsensical questions about Avril Lavigne since the weekend. It's been going on all day, but the latest regards her hat size -- 1 2 3. These last two edits came from Tor exit nodes. Can those be blocked? --LarryMac | Talk 20:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See also this edit. --LarryMac | Talk 20:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

He's threatened to continue with accounts - may want to get a CU on the case to find more tor nodes. --Random832 (contribs) 00:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible contribution from one of the sleepers. --LarryMac | Talk 13:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so this is marked resolved, so maybe nobody will even read this, although the greater issue of the threat of disruption/vandalism remains. There are already a few suspect edits (look at the section in my "See also" post above), but nothing blatant. I would like to know what, if anything to do at this point? Keep a list of the suspect edits, give the information to somebody else, post on another part of WP:AN? --LarryMac | Talk 13:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

CE Vandal

Resolved

 – east718 dinged him for 3RR. Not much else to add here

Okay, I posted this in the AIV page but they directed me elsewhere, so basically, I'll copy and paste what I had there onto here...

• Panel_2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I'm going to try to keep this short, but it's been going on for two months so there's much to tell. Summary - the Central Europe page has been experiencing edit warring for months. Panel_2008 insists on his POV (despite further discontent with the other authors, violations of Wikipedia policies - such as NPOV, violation of the 3RR rule, etc.) as having Romania being added to the "usually" category of the Central Europe Page. After weeks of edit warring, Proposal II was accepted, and consensus was reached. He refused to accept it, and continued to engage in edit wars to push his POV. This went to mediation after, seen here, where the mediator ruled in the favor of the majority (Panel 2008 really had no backing, brought no research, only POV, so the decision was all too easy - see for yourself), and warned Panel 2008 of his actions a number of times (Please read the whole mediation report), only to have that fail as well (please note that at the moment he is being subtle with his edits, trying to avoid any notice of the 3RR rule - if you look in the history page, you'll see how much edit warring he's been engaged in). If you also look at his talk page, he was warned there as well. Keep in mind that this is a slimmed down version of what's been happening, if you wish to see the whole story (the whole ~2 months of it), please read the discussion pages, view the history log, and somewhat familiarize yourself with the page content. This has gone on for too long - please act. It has even spread to other pages such as Eastern Europe and the Balkans where he continues to pursue his nationalistic POV-based goals. --Buffer v2 (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

He just violated the 3RR rule - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Europe&action=history .--Buffer v2 (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I just came across this; I was the mediator at MEDCAB, I wanted to stress that I didn't "rule" with anybody, as that's not what MEDCAB is about. Short version, I pointed out to Panel 2008 that a consensus had been reached following a previous dispute, which was solved by basically wording the article as "sources differ". I asked Panel 2008 to tell us, in terms of policy (e.g. problems with sources, NPOV) why he thought the consensus was invalid. Nothing ever got past "because it doesn't match my view"; I closed the MEDCAB after a couple of weeks as unable to resolve, and recommended an involved editor take it to WP:AN3, since one of them had already reported Panel 2008 there before I took the MEDCAB case. He's since been blocked by someone at AN3 BTW. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, "rule" may have been a poor choice of words - but you did agree that if Panel 2008 didn't stop the edit warring (whether or not we he went over the 3 edits per day), that he would be blocked because of his behavior. He didn't stop, and I doubt the 48 hour ban on the 3RR violation will do much, because he'll be back right after, ready to continue to pursue his nationalistic goals. --Buffer v2 (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct. To step out of my neutral role; an administrator would have probably blocked them on the spot, but I was hoping to reason with them and get them to understand consensus. It didn't happen. If the 3RR block doesn't chill them out, I suspect they'll wind up indef-blocked some day. I was hoping to avoid that, but it's out of anyone's control. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Edmundoe on Australian Broadcasting Corporation about soccer

User talk:Edmundoe is repeatedly adding non-RS material (his personal opinions) on the quality/absence of coverage of soccer on Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Seems to amount to vandalism or disruption. Has been warned and requested to discuss but continues. Presently active. SmithBlue (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, he wasn't by the time I got there but he had reverted to his version after receiving a final warning - so I issued a 31 hour block, suggesting that if they were able to edit without inputting personal opinion into article space they should use the unblock option and say so. Hopefully the chilling effect of a block will promote a perspective that a slew of friendly advice and a few warnings didn't. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Dr Spam (MD) and Talk:Super Smash Bros. Melee

It seems we get one of these each time a VG hits the Main Page. Appends a message to each of his five reverts, so I'm bringing it here instead of 3RR. Nifboy (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and in case the above is too cryptic, User:Dr Spam (MD) looks to be baiting people on the talk page by calling its writers shills for Nintendo. One reply later, the thread has been deleted five times by five people, and put back by the original user five times each with additional trolling. Nifboy (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a nice stern talking to.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Nifboy (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the user continued to troll, including this diff, which was quickly reverted as unhelpful trolling. As a result, given that the user had been warned to cease and desist, I have blocked the user for 31 hours. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there an added concern about this user and their username? Setting the "spam" part aside for the moment, the "Dr." and "(MD)" could indicate that the user is (or claims to be) a medical professional, which might be problematic if their edits move into those areas. Obviously, the edits would be problematic without the name, but I thought I'd throw the question out there. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the Dr/MD parts should be ignored. It doesn't matter if he is an MD or not, just what he does in an article (and talk pages, etc.). Aleta ^Sing 18:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that impersonating a doctor is not a concern of Wikipedia, just that we should look ONLY at the quality of what they write? I am not attacking you for thinking this, but I do want to clarify if that is what you are saying. (If this is, indeed, what your thinking is, I will re-evaluating my thinking of Wikipedia and might even change my username). Doctor Wikipedian (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Impersonating could be a problem, but not likely just from having it in a username. Asserting authority because of it in article editing would be a problem. Also, yes, we should really only look at the quality of what an editor writes, (quality meaning adding sourced facts, mostly). Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the name Dr.Spam a username violation? Not the Doctor part but the spam part. Also I have been under the impression we do not care if you are a doctor or just pretending as long as you edit properly and correctly it can slide. Rgoodermote  22:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No useful contributions?

I've come across Ericthebrainiac (talk · contribs · count) recently. His contributions to Wikipedia generally involve creating hoax articles about soap miniseries that he made up, adding TV schedules to articles, completely mixing fact and fiction, adding protection templates to articles at random, adding irrelevant replies at the reference desk, and posting confused nonsense talk messages to himself and other users. Wikipedia is not counselling; I am seriously considering blocking him indefinitely as cleaning up after him is taking a non-negligible amount of time. Opinions? Stifle (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That's gotta be a troll.-Wafulz (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Eric is a troll, I do think he is rather confused and has a powerful imagination. He can also be very sweet at times. DuncanHill (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Indef block, unless you are bored and want to babysit for free. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah what I think Stifle is saying is that the user isn't really a troll, but rather whatever he is doing is causing a lot of work for people to fix up. If he isn't responding to warnings or suggestions, then a block would be in order. I randomly clicked on 10 diffs of his, a few were talk page, a few were edits to articles, they were all confusing and not helpful. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

All this user has done is cause headaches and shit for people to have to cleanup. Constantly. He has little to no useful contributions, and my only reference came from the Reference Desk where he was involved in a discussion regarding Lexington, Kentucky -- my home base. Since his comment was rather... unhelpful, I checked up on his contributions and noted that he has virtually no edits worth saving. If you guys think that babysitting an editor and cleaning up every time he has an episode of diarrhea, then you guys can have at it.

In addition, I am not required to discuss the block here if I wasn't informed of the thread at ANI in the first place. Note that a notice was made after the block was issued, and I really don't check up on ANI/AN all that much (mostly because I am out of town at the moment). Good day, seicer | talk | contribs 14:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

He appears to have been indefinitely blocked by someone who has not taken part in this thread (which Eric was not informed about)., and having made no edits since Stifle raised concerns on his talk page this morning. DuncanHill (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I can't see much trolling. I did only pick twenty contributions at random, but I didn't see any that could be considered trolling. There are definitely sdome good faith edits there, and to block as a "trolling-only" account is not correct (I found good faith edits easily - [36], [37], [38]). Why was a shorter block not considered first? Why go straight from a warning to an indefinite block of a user that has been around since May 2007? This was not a good block by Seicer, who I note didn't even bother to participate in this conversation or warn Eric before blocking. Neıl ☎ 13:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Eric lodged an unblock request, which I have accepted, and unblocked the account. If he continues to cause a lot of work, perhaps a warning and then a short block (rather than an indefinite one out of the blue), in future. Neıl ☎ 13:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The unblock request says "I just write what is on my mind for the day, week or year. Plus, I do not 'abuse' editing privileges. When I see something that isn't right by my standards, I usually correct that article." And the statement that he's been on for a year begs the issue that he should know better. He's been talked to numerous times on his talk page. That wording on the unblock request has an ominous tone to it, suggesting more trouble (i.e. more work for the admins) is in store. Just another reason I wouldn't want to be an admin. :) I do think a short block would have been better than an indefinite block, when he's never been blocked previously. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Bugs. No indef block, but certainly a short block is already in order. That was barely a serious unblock request. I'll AGF, but next problem edit by this user and I would recommend a short block. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Having watched Eric's contributions for quite a while, I'll weigh in with the analysis I provided another user recently. Eric's contribs fall, broadly speaking, into three pools:

1. Useless but harmless edits, such as his user page, or inane Ref Desk questions about what his soap opera should be like
2. Useful edits, mostly in the realm of actual soap operas and telenovelas. As many relate to Spanish-language programming, I can't verify that they're good edits, but they appear to be so.
3. Mainspace edits about the soap opera he hopes to write some day.

Group 3 is what he was blocked for. While this was his first block (I think), it's far from the first time he's been advised/instructed/warned that the behavior is unacceptable, full-stop. There can be no valid claim from Eric that he doesn't understand the unsuitability unless he is incapable of such understanding. Whether that should constitute a block I leave for more experienced people, but it's clear that, should he continue editing, oversight from experienced users will be required indefinitely. — Lomn 14:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Lomn. Also, check his edits from his ip ranges dating back to 2005. That says to me that his behavior will likely continue. Sure he has some useful edits, but that does not excuse his bad-faith edits (and they are in bad faith). He also disrespects other people's user and talk pages (see [39], [40], [41]) --Ouzo (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Reading this guy's contributions makes my heard hurt ... apart from marking everything as minor and using */pagename/* edit summaries which I assume he picked up somewhere from editing a section, his practice of wikilinking every other word he writes gives me a headache. At one point, he was trying to adopt other users ... Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I see little here but bad faith stuff like adding protection templates to unprotected articles, wholly misleading/fake autogen-like/useless edit summaries, snarky talk page comments, what amount to personal messages which have nothing to do with an encyclopedia at all and sundry other meaningless and unhelpful edits, never mind marking all of them as minor. If this doesn't stop and stay stopped, I'd support an indef reblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The main reason I've held off on this is because his contribution history makes me think that he actually doesn't really understand what he's doing rather than is deliberately causing trouble. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That may be true, but it isn't very relevant. If having someone around damages the project more than it helps then we shouldn't have them around. There are people who act in good faith but simply don't play well with others. This may be an example. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, could be, but when taken altogether, I've never seen such overwhelmingly clean use of the browser tools, consistency in edit summaries, lack of typos and deliberate snarkiness from a clueless editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Block them for good faith disruption, per WP:AGF. It is never necessary that we attribute an editor's actions to bad faith, even if bad faith seems obvious, as all our countermeasures (i.e. reverting, blocking) can be performed on the basis of behavior rather than intent. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, blocking someone for bad faith is more than dodgy. Only edits (which is to say, behaviour) can be described and dealt with. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As a non-admin observer, I'd like to throw in my $.02 worth here. While trying my best to assumegood faith, what I see from the edits is someone who appears to be gaming the system in an effort to look like he "doesn't understand". Is it worth our time and effort to clean up the messes he makes in the idea that one day he'll just "get it"? Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the contrib history does hint at WP:GAME. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why he was unblocked- having this kind of editor around certainly does more harm than good. But, since he's unblocked.. I'd suggest keeping him on a short lease and reblocking indefinitely at the first sign of trouble. Honestly, I think we risk bringing the project into disrepute by tolerating such nonsense, but I suppose giving him one last chance doesn't particularly hurt anything. Friday (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I see gaming here... but even applying good faith and assuming any other number of scenarios a block is certainly in order to stop it. If their is consensus that the editor does not understand, apply a short block and see what happens when it is lifted. If everything continues as before, there should be no problem with an indef block. Personally, I have no problem with an indef block at this stage, esspecially in light of the IP history going back years. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My 2 bits: Haven't gone into it deeply, but I'm with Duncan Hill on this and noticed Ericthebrainiac seems to have asked for adoption early on his talk page and didn't receive it. He stays positive and his user page maybe shows some competency and involvement. Is there a tutorial for people who aren't getting it with the way to ask questions or is there a bias towards people who ask questions in a rhetorical, poetic way? There's more than ETB who have such quirks but have good faith as well. Maybe it's pointless to go down that track. I don't know what to make of it, unless as you say, it is gaming (I'm not hip to manuevers/ers). Julia Rossi (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be half-informed – had a closer read and found someone else cleaned up his user page and he kept leaving messages on people's user pages. Wiser now, Julia Rossi (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Rotary International again and again

This article has a long history of issues with User:PierreLarcin and its socks. You only need to look at Talk:Rotary International to understand the problem that goes back to more than 2 years ago! Attempts to discuss with that contributor always failed miserably, and he ended up doing an RfA against ennemies of the truth (all right wing activists and/or rotarians of course). The RfA was rejected for lack of previous discussion and PierreLarcin stopped editing under that name (maybe because a similar RfA he tried on WP:fr failed and he was indef blocked).

But he continued editing under IP's who are rather easy to spot because the texts of PL are so typical they cannot be confused with anything else. He was the subject of a recent thread here. Even if the answer of PL to calls for discussion were personal attacks, I was ready to discuss again with him.

Any interested person may have a look at the results in this section of the talk page of the article where I took the greatest precautions to not adress his personal attacks and sometimes really sick insults and to try to bring the discussion back to the article. But PL never adresses the arguments raised in the discussion. It is quite remarkable as a matter of fact. I have already been confronted to discussion where there was bad faith, illogical arguements, non sequitur and similar issues, but I had never met such a deliberate non-discussion with only permanent personal attacks.

Honestly, I had never come across somebody capable to:

• write this on my talk page: I will well oil you anus and stick a (wooden) log in it, you scum (free translation),
• comment as follows to a revert of one of my editions on an article he is not interested in: "This Bradipus m..f... pretends he wants to talk" (again free translation, enc... is litteraly a very popular word meaning sodomite),
• and at the same time accuse me of of insulting him O_o

Is that guy serious or what kind of issue does he have, I do not know, but it is quite clear he is not here to write an encyclopedia. Just read his recent sick insults and personal attacks if you have no time to read the whole history of the case, but I think something needs to be done that has some kind of long term effect. The problem is that when I come here, he ends up blocked for a couple of days, or the article is briefly semi-protected, then it starts again and I am back here. Any clever suggestion is welcome. LessHeard vanU asked, in the previous AN/I: "is there anything other than long term protection and whack a mole blocking that can be done?". I do not know what a mole blocking is, but is there any way to stop -or control- these disruptions in an effective way? Bradipus (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(cough) That would be "whack-a-mole blocking" (blocking disruptive ip's/editors as they appear), that it would. I apologise for losing track of that section, but I didn't want to start acting unilaterally so asked the community for some input - and it appears that there wasn't much response. Hopefully, this time there may be some more responses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh... is this still going on? Man, I was watching that two years ago, and it's been blatantly obvious right from the start that there's some kind of personal agenda in place with Pierre Larcin and various IPs that certainly seem to reflect his opinions rather closely. There seems to be an effort to make Rotary look like a hotbed of male dominance and dictators, basically to make the organization look bad - and it's been a two-year-plus battle with an attempted RFAr, a couple of RFCs, and plenty of accusations of "wiki fiddling," whatever that is. I'll watchlist the page and take a deeper look at it later, myself, but it would definitely benefit from other editors taking a deeper look too. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no other solution but blocking the range of IP he uses, which will prevent very few people from contributing apart from himself as it's only French IPs. --Bombastus (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What Bradipus forgets to mention, is that, in French, "a wooden log in your hole" is a slang expression who means something like "I will rectify the manipulation you began". He complains about insults, but if you look to the french conflicts he had with 6-7 wikipedia users in France, he insults very sophistically, in the edits comments, for example. As far as I may count on Google, he went to arbitrations 5 times, and always with same bias. In France Bradipus is a life-term administrator. 84.100.98.90 (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is getting pathetic. I do not want to argue with that guy here, this is no place to discuss, but for your information, he is totally making up this stuff about "a wooden log in your hole" being a slang expression in french. The translation I gave herabove is as close as possible to what he wrote on my talk page, and it is just as sick as it looks. Ask any french speaking person. By the way, he is still around on the article. Somebody? Bradipus (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching this senseless argument on the Rotary International page for a long time. It seems to defy reason. I don't think the statements are properly sourced and there seems to be no interest in cooperating to improve the article. I will not get involved as I am not an experienced editor -- but I feel a ban is needed. Ariconte (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article to try to stem the tide of sock/meat puppets continuing the edit war. I've also noted on the article talk page that I may have a short fuse about continued ad hominems. Articles are horrible places to fight out personal feuds from other sites. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me I'm seeing things....

Resolved

 – vandalism only account blocked... seven months later

Gwen Gale (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

and the 'cow rider' and 'smashing lessons' vandalism from this edit [42] hasn't been sitting in the Kevin Costner article since 4th October 2007!!!! Exxolon (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not seeing things. Someone had tried to remove vandalism manually and missed it. I guess this also hints at how much this article has been thoroughly read over the last seven months. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A tad late, I blocked the vandal indef. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I also reverted this WP:BLP violating edit - [43]. That's been there since April 23rd. Exxolon (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh ... my ... god... just saw this, and there are others. Says source: wikipedia. I had to calm down after laughing for a few minutes. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits by Ziggy Sawdust (talk · contribs) on Lutetium

Resolved

 – User making good edits. No problems at all.

This editor, who ordinarily seems to be a good faith contributor, has made a few edits to this article that have me puzzled. I can't tell for certain, since I know absolutely nothing about the subject, but edits like these ([44], [45]) and the corresponding edit summaries are making me wonder about their purpose. Second opinons?

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe start over on his talk page? Those two diffs don't look productive, but I dont think we are at incident level yet. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 20:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think this was at incident level yet either but I just wanted an opinion from someone who knows something about the subject as to whether those two diffs actually did have a productive meaning that was beyond my very limited comprehension of chemistry. Thanks. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Then you should ask over on that talk page. You should also let Ziggy know you started an AN/I on him, if you haven't yet. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 20:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Apologies, I haven't notified him. I will do that right now. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem? There's nothing wrong with those two edits. He's perfectly correct about the lattice structure and the natural isotopes being 175 and 176 (with RICs of 0.97 and 0.02, respectively). And beyond being used as a catalyst in hybridization and polymerization, it really doesn't have a lot of uses. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG! An editor who knows more about the subject than the sysop community...!" AGF until the references check out? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain. When I rewrite an article, there are (usually) two phases; gathering of information and organization. First, I get as many books and sources as I can on the subject, then put in the information from the books and citations. Then I add that information into the correct sections, but before I do that I have to clear out unsourced material, reorganize, format existing references, etc. My strategy with Lutetium was, since I'm going to be reorganizing all the sections anyway, I might as well just put all the new material in one place, because then when I place it in the second phase, I have somewhere to put it. My apologies if the article looks like junk while it's mid-revision, I'll try to fix it as soon as possible. Ziggy Sawdust 20:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing that was puzzling me the most is the section titled Nonsense, that's all. Thanks for explaining. Thanks everyone else for the input. Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wade Keller

Resolved

 – offending content removed and warnings left --Rodhullandemu 20:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I get some eyes to look at Wade Keller? I don't want to break WP:3RR but I think this unsourced addition goes against WP:BLP:

• (BLP breach removed)

--NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

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

---

Take it to the talk page. --Haemo (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is this awful attack site doing back on Wikipedia? Who did they threaten to get it back? 86.131.248.60 (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, it seems to have adequate references, a NPOV, and proper formatting. Instead of biasing yourself against people you don't like, try to consider the article objectively. Ziggy Sawdust 20:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This would be a better place to discuss this article. As it stands the new article is well sourced and from a NPOV, and also passed through deletion review. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The IP who made this suggestion appears to be making an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. There are lots of stupid stuff on the Internet and even stupider government leaders, but their articles are notable, NPOV, and well-sourced. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what kind of site it is. What matters is coverage in multiple independent sources, which it has. The knee-jerk "zOMFG NOT ED" reactionism seems to be starting to subside and we're approaching a more NPOV on the subject. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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

the undertow

Resolved

 – Further input should go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#The_undertow. No admin action required here.

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

• the undertow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I'd like opinions on what to do about the undertow. I find this completely unacceptable response to a good faith concern. This isn't the only thing today either - he's already taken it upon himself to unban Moulton, then delete his userpage when there was an active MfD on it. Thoughts would be appreciated, especially about the comment. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, a desysopping is clearly in order. Raul654 (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. We should not block admins unless we really want to, but in this case I think a couple of months senza admin tools would help. The undertow has been acting rather strangely as of late, and I do not think we need unstable admins. His most recent comments have been "you still suck" (to FM), and an invitation to us here to do our worst. If admins cannot display grace under pressure they should be demopped. Grace without pressure displays nothing: but if this is undertow's typical response when the going gets tough... Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well. --Kbdank71 20:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sucks, but I'm forced to agree. I'd love it if a "Dude, you need to chill, seriously" would work, as that was my first response... but a really bad unban and a bad deletion add up to teh problems. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The comments are clearly out of line, but the unblock does say "unblock to change duration" and he hasn't commented on what he intended the new duration to be yet, has he? I'm not sure that immediate desysopping is merited - honestly I wouldn't have brought this here so quickly, either, because clearly he is upset and an AN/I thread based primarily on his one comment is unlikely to contribute to resolving the issue. Whatever his recent erratic behavior, the_undertow has been a solid contributor and admin for quite some time and deserves some attempts to resolve this without desysopping him. Avruch ^T 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this seems far too early to be proposing a block or worst of all, something as harsh as a desysopping. This drama has only unfolded over the last 12(?) hours, tempers are high, he (and others...) will cool down in time, and we can take a look at everyone's role in this dispute. krimpet✽ 21:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow... that is completely unacceptable. I'm not sure I would support desysoping based upon this one incident, but if a pattern can be established (which it sounds like it can be) then I'd have no problem. I'd also have no problem with a STERN level 4 warning about civility. I mean would we ban/block a non-sysop for a single incident of such language?Balloonman (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There are users who are still here after dozens of such explosions, and there are admins who still have tools after similar blowups. ThuranX (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I'd need context... but, if it appears to be a pattern of shenanigans, then an edit like that would be enough for me to indefblock as a Vandalism-only account - sort of a tipping point edit, if you will. Undertow is a good editor and a good admin, but three bad decisions (albiet related) indicate problems that continued use of the tools can only make worse. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I really need to see more of a pattern, such as what pedro showed below, before supporting desysopping. Show me that this was in fact the tipping point, rather than an isolated/unusual occurence. I, like pedro, have never felt completely comfortable with the Undertow, but I do want to see more before I endorse a call for a desysop/block.Balloonman (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Such language is not befitting of an administrator (or any user in this community). I suggest that a block for Personal Attacks is in order immediately, following due procedures to remove the sysop from this user. The Administrators have been always considered to be held to a far higher standard than the contributors, but such behavior has no place for any user. I so fully endorse the comments of Raul & Ryan. Multiple edit conflicted :( Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I also find this block message to be unacceptable and the indef blocking of an IP totally wrong, account hacking or otherwise. I acknowledge my severe past issues with this editor, and assure the community I have no axe to grind, but enough is enough. He has, I'm sorry to say, become a liability and not an asset. Pedro :  Chat  21:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I find that new block to be the unacceptable part of that link, not his indef block, NOR his edit summary. ThuranX (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow... ok... that starts to change my stance... but I still want moreBalloonman (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

He definitely needs to take a breather. It's not healthy to take things so seriously. naerii - talk 21:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Folks - his comment wasn't directed at a specific person, he didn't name any particular user, and we don't ban cursing or block/desysop people for cursing. His comments were uncharitable, but I'm not sure how they can be described as a "personal attack" unless that applies to attacking editors/sysops as a class instead of individually. Can we back away from pile-on desysopping calls and at least consider this more carefully? Is there a danger to Wikipedia posed by this administrator that merits an emergency desysopping by ArbCom? Is he open to recall? Can he be reasoned with, asked to apologize, etc.? Desysopping is not the only option. Avruch ^T 21:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(ECx4, x2)Agreed. Frankly, this sort of mob mentality with pitchforks and torches every time a call is made which others disagree with is getting tiresome. Policy wonkery and bureaucracy for its' own sake are both ridiculous excuses for all the recent 'the admin's gone mad' stuff. ThuranX (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I certainly didn't bring this here for a desysopping, but there is some weight in the calls. That said, we should explore other options. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Avruch on this one. Let him explain his actions. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not sure about a formal desysopping, but having a steward remove the buttons just until we get a sense of what is hurting the guy (I don't know him or anything, but he sounds like he has a world of hurt happening) might a way to go. Playing about with policies and stuff is perhaps not the best way to approach this - Jimbo's mantra's about being loving in our actions may for once be appropriate here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Stewards do not typically desysop on an emergency basis unless there is clear evidence of account subversion, or imminent danger to the wiki, or if requested to do so by a current arbcom member who asserts they are speaking for the committee. ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This user is clearly a danger -- just today, he's taken two highly controversial admin actions (both of which were reverted - not without some disconfort about wheel warming), while bragging on WR about it, and then when asked about it by Jamesf, he made that reply which caused this thread. Clearly a good case for emergency desysoping. Raul654 (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • OK. Is that your personal opinion, or are you speaking officially on behalf of ArbCom? I suspect the former because I'm on IRC in the stewards channel and I see no such official request just yet, and if I understood the outcome of the last election you're no longer on ArbCom yourself, right? Not to put too fine a point on it but the emergency basis is a steward judgment call and I also see no stewards making such a judgment call as of yet. Situations can change of course, and I'll stay in channel should an ArbCom member turn up to make the request but there are plenty of other stewards to handle it too. Including several whose home wiki(s) do not include en:wp. (those are the best sort for doing things) ++Lar: t/c 21:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• I do hope this was just a "Chilean Cabernet" incident. Or maybe a "12-pack plus a bowl" incident. - Merzbow (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the_undertow, but I think he's becoming a little bit of a loose cannon. For his own sake, he should take a wikibreak because Wikipedia only exacerbates personal problems, not help them. If he is desysopped, it should be preventative and uncontroversial and he can request them back when he sees fit. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think maybe giving some cool off time for everyone before jumping at a desyssoping is the right thing to do. A lynch mob is not the way to do this. Give him, and us, some time to cool off and think about things. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 21:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Snowolf and Balloonman. Such behaviour is unacceptable, no matter who it comes from; however there's no need to act like a headless chicken and desysop immediately without discussing. If there is still no progress, or more of such incidents, then desysopping or a cool-down block may be the correct course of action. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 21:14, May 14, 2008 (UTC)
• I'd like to see User:LaraLove comment on this as I think she knows him rather well. She could give some useful feedback without disclosing anything too personal, perhaps broadly confirming that there are issues in his life that are causing him stress. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• I am not calling for a desysop at all. But I believe there are enough concerns about recent editing by the_undertow that action of some kind must be taken. Pedro :  Chat  21:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think perhaps the disapproval expressed in this thread might be enough. We should at least wait and see. naerii - talk 21:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Then again, after viewing the link I posted below, maybe not. naerii - talk 21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• (countless ec)Avruch, the administrators, however you put it, are the public face of the project. They can't behave this way. Full stop. No apology can excuse it. No point an emergency desysopping, but a block for NPA or CIV is in full order, pending the submission of an ARBCOM case, would the user not voluntary give up his sysop bit. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I see your point or agree. Administrators are the janitors of the project, not its public face. They clean up problems and protect the ability of others to edit free from excessive disruption. They don't have to be paragons of virtue, and in this case the_undertow was speaking with and to a group of experienced administrators and an arbitrator about something for which he obviously has strong feelings. Given that, I at least am willing to excuse the language - and if you remove the language, the comment is no more critical than what a number of others have said from time to time. Avruch ^T 21:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Key phrase: IF you remove the language.Balloonman (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Would recommend WP:TEA. Desysopping, blocking, etc. would only exacerbate things. Stifle (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, definitely, until we know more. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• The possibility the account was hacked should also be considered, I think. I'd like to see a CU speak to this. - Merzbow (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merzbow: I believe it has been looked into by a CU, who may choose to speak out on their own. Since no block was issued, I think you could take that as an indication it is unlikely the account was compromised that way. ++Lar: t/c 22:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• No, see this WR thread [46] (if you care enough). naerii - talk 21:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I did, and it certainly is in the realm of possibility he used the same password on both sites. - Merzbow (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe there was a discussion a few months ago (perhaps a year ago) that if you are an admin, you need to have a secure password. If your account gets hacked into, you get desysoped.Balloonman (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You're desysopped until you can verify you're in control of the account again, yes. naerii - talk 21:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think LaraLove would probably be aware if he got hacked, and she appeared on his talk page supporting him. I think it extremely unlikely that his account has been compromised. naerii - talk 21:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• My Explanation Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. the_undertow ^talk 21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Mhm so shall I be the first to point out that now you're just trolling? Time for you to take a break, I think, for your own good at least. naerii - talk 21:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Love is the law. Love under Will" - yes, indeed. I don't think de-sysopping is the answer here at all, but undertow - you do need to kinda chill a bit - Alison ^❤ 21:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Raul654 said it. If that's too much too soon, ok, but no way is a post like that one helpful, not ever and it mustn't happen again. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• What about an RfC? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This is already at ArbCom, for what it's worth. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There's an RfA at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#The_undertow. Corvus cornix_talk 22:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This edit worries me too, [47] (the deleted edit summary) where the edit summary says: (diff) 12:24, 4 May 2008 . . The undertow (Talk | contribs | block) (9 bytes) (fuck you for trying to hack my account. fuck you listers for complain about this summary. as long as i have tools here, i will use them.) I guess the part that worries me the most is as "long as i have tools here, i will use them." Tiptoety ^talk 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Marking as resolved per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#The_undertow. No value can be added to this thread. Pedro :  Chat  22:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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

User:WestAssyrian and his assyrian propaganda

Hi user User:WestAssyrian keeps removing terms syriacs and replace it with assyrians. He is running a assyrian propganda here in wikipedia and is adding Assyrians in every syriac-related article. He is also copying alot from article Aramean-Syriac people and adds it to article Assyrian people. he also made a threat to destroy the aramean-syriac people article [48]. also check his contribs [49] in all edits he is replacing syriacs with assyrians or removes term syriacs. he has caused much damage here in wikipedia. he is an assyrian fanatist and needs to get blocked. AramaeanSyriac (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

US House of Representatives IP editor

Resolved

 – The time to hesitate is through

Gwen Gale (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Resoved 143.231.249.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is an IP from the US House of Representatives who was blocked for the second time earlier today after serially vandalizing a congressperson's entry, a personal attack and others. Since blocking, this edit to the IP's own talk page is a declaration, perhaps less than constructive. I've updated Communications committee/Notifications. I didn't think it was necessary to protect the IP's talk page. Is there anything else we should do? Toddst1 (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, it's a quote from "Come on baby light my fire" by the Doors. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that case, there’s no time to wallow in the mire. Consider this resolved. Toddst1 (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism only account

XEveryTear4Ux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Non current. Final warning ignored. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV if the user continues. Nakon 22:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism only accounts are blocked - refer to admin guidelines. Why do you assume that someone will notice the vandalism whilst it is current, and hence meet the criteria for using the AIV reporting mechanism - this attitude provokes a sense of endless frustration in me because I do not have the time or inclination to watch articles for vandalism. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 12:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Death threat?

Resolved

 – Tiptoety ^talk 22:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this edit look like a death threat? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to me. Looks like a very unreasonable high school twerp cursing because he's been dissed, or dumped, or whatever they call it when someone doesn't do whatever the twerp says to do. In other words, he's a jerk but I don't think a serious threat. I could be very wrong, however. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(EC, Chihuahua beat me to it!) Looks more like someone ranting about someone/trolling. No specific names were mentioned [there are millions of people with that name], nor were any specific threats made. Doesn't seem serious enough to count as what we normally call a 'death threat'. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 22:37, May 14, 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone threw a bit of a tantrum there. WP:RBI would be the way to go here. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a very inflamed post and highly specific...highly specific trolling that is. It would be closer to a death threat if the vandal listed a specific motive, weapons, date, time, etc. I'm going to delete the edit from the article history.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

R Tabor is vandalising

R Tabor is vandalising on Suzanne Olsson and Jesus bloodline. Wfgh66 (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of you have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Nakon 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like the block of R.Tabor (talk · contribs) to be reviewed. I have pointed out to Nakon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that I believe that R. Tabor's edits were to remove poorly sourced highly controversial material from Suzanne Olsson and hence were not subject to the three revert rule and asked Nakon to review the block. See User_talk:Nakon#Block_of_User:R.Tabor. We have been unable to agree whether the block is correct and so I would like further opinions. CIreland (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the block. This user has repeatedly edit warred recently including blanking a page twice thrice and four times without much discussion except for this which is hardly friendly. Needs some time to cool down and review some policies for sure. Sasquatch t|c 00:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure cool down blocks are no-no's. Tiptoety ^talk 03:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he needs a gentle voice to help him understand, apparently he's rather upset by the apparent BLP violations and doesn't understand how things work here. (who does, really? can anyone say they know every policy, every idiom, every unwritten custom?) I would show this user mercy, and share information. I'd be in favour of lifting it, if someone were available to give some better guidance. I would not characterise his editing as "vandalizing" either. ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wfgh66 now seems to want people to think that he's been banned by Jimbo... --Onorem♠Dil 23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If he wants to blank his own talk page, for Christ's sake let him. He's already pissed off from previous events, just let him have the last word and get on with it. Ziggy Sawdust 23:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User:John Bot out of control

Evidence

I don't know how this bot is supposed to function, but I got this on my watchlist: mb 01:43 Talk:Religious discrimination against Neopagans (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}) mb 01:43 Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag {WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}) mb 01:36 Talk:Pagan Resurrection (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag {WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}}) mb 01:29 Talk:Nazi occultism (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag {WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}}) mb 01:25 Talk:Maria Orsitsch (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag {WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}}) mb 01:16 Talk:Irminenschaft (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag {WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}}) mb 00:55 Talk:Germanische Glaubens-Gemeinschaft (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag {WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}}) mb 00:55 Talk:Germanic Neopaganism (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag {WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}}) mb 00:50 Talk:Esoteric Nazism (diff; hist) . . (+77) . . John Bot (Talk | contribs) (Tagging for a wikiproject using tag {WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=}})

None of this articles has anything to do with Genetics. Some have to do something with racism, but that's different. Zara1709 (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

temporarily blocked. Will leave message on talk page to sort this out. Sasquatch t|c

Not 100% my fault. I was told can you get a bot to tag the talk pages of all the articles in Category:Genetics and all of its sub categories on Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Category:Genetics_tagging. Not trying to blame others, just saying that I seemed that all of the cats were reviewed before-hand. Sorry, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a risk. Although if the bot is stopped, we can unblock it now. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It is. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, you guys can argue about which category belongs in the tagging run and which one doesn't. Unblocking. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yea, I figured it was more to do with the criteria rather than the bot. I'll unblock now. Perhaps inform WikiProject Genetics that they need to review their cats? Sasquatch t|c 00:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to code something to clean this up. Stand by. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I found another one on Historiography and Nationalism. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the problem apparently has to do with subcategories, here are the categories of Historiography and Nationalism: Categories: Historiography | Nationalism | National mysticism | Historical revisionism (political) | Propaganda | Pseudoarchaeology | Pseudohistory. Perhaps this may help; at least it shows the extent of the problem.SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand is doing a mass revert on the bot. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/BetacommandBot Nice... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind sorry. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is why running processes on "all subcategories" without at least manual review of the total list of categories chosen is a BAD IDEA - betacommandbot itself has drawn criticism for the same exact thing in the past. --Random832 (contribs) 04:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

seconded. I will block any bot spamming talk templates based on category hierarchy on sight. This is a horrible idea if you know anything about the state of our categorization system. --dab (𒁳) 05:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agian, apologies for this. CWii 2_{(Talk|Contribs)} 12:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Post AfD weirdness

Resolved

 – Merge completed

Equazcion •✗/C • 02:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Mkay, I don't really get why this is a hassle, but, the Nudity and children article was AfD'd with the result beinga merge to Nudity. Now it seems no one actually wants to do the work of merging this, but they are happy to 1) object to a redirect 2) object to OR being deleted as a pre-merge trimming 3) object to the content being copied to the talkpage of the Nudity article where the editors there could participate in deciding what should be incorporated. All this seems like stonewalling the merge to me, so maybe more eyes would help sort out the merge? -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Create a section entitled "Children" in Nudity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and slap on {{inuse-section}}
2. Redirect Nudity and children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
3. Start merging a brief summary in, then discuss what more should be merged in.

Easy, really. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

To Petra: It also seems people are happy to blank the page and replace with a redirect without actually doing any merging. Don't redirect til the content is merged. If you don't want to merge the content, don't just do the redirect and complain that others aren't merging the content. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Number one, don't talk to me like that. Ever. (your edit summary was already worthy of a Wikiquette alert); 2) merge it yourself--my attempts to clean it up even partly in order to merge--by deleting OR--were met with immediate reversion 3) we're already discussing this on your talkpage, aren't we? 4) hopefully some admin will step in and merge/redirect it, since this is the weirdest AfD merge ever (and I'm certainly not touching it again.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore your "number one". Number two, I hesitate to bring this up as it's something of a bad-faith approach, but you're somewhat anti- this type of article, so this behavior really doesn't surprise me in the least. If this were any other kind of article I seriously doubt you'd be in such a rush to blank it. If you want to help the merge, then actually place content into the host article. Blanking or redirecting, or moving content to a talk page, is not the way to do this. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Whaaaat-ever. The only problem I had with that article was that it was a complete trainwreck of disorganized OR, which is why I nominated it for AfD, and what I stated in my nomination. Meanwhile it's been sitting there for quite a while, and no one has done anything to merge it. As I said, my attempt to clean it up by deleting uncited OR was met with immediate reversion. So if you don't want to merge it, an admin should do it for you. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with someone merging it -- that is to say, actually merging the content. As for the reverting, the only things I reverted were your blanking of the article. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Petra has begun her "merge" by deleting content from the article that she disagrees with. Corvus cornix_talk 01:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. Here's the edit: [50]--which deleted two things that had a fact tag since 2007, and the opinion of a web columnist I didn't think was notable/worthy of a merge into nudity. controversial! (Sorry, what part of any of that edit am I on the record "disagreeing with"?) Y'all crazy, and like I said, someone else can merge this (but it has to be merged. Doing nothing to merge it and objecting/nitpicking to any attempt to merge it is just stonewalling...)-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No one is stonewalling a merge. They're reverting what you consider the "first step" of such a merge. If you were actually merging content rather than blanking the page, no one would have a problem with it, I assure you. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Petra appears to be following consensus according to the AfD result: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nudity and children (2nd nomination). The article was sent to AfD because it fails WP:OR and WP:V. The AfD was a clear consensus that the article should not exist as a separate page. Whatever part of it is merged into Nudity must be verifiable; no original research should be moved into the other article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with that diff that Petra gave... that whole section should be deleted, regardless of the merge. She should not have moved the article to the talk page. Most of the article is in fact original research, whatever of it gets moved to Nudity will be small. Not sure about stonewalling, and Petra's requests might be better listened do if she worded herself better, but she has legit concerns here. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've merged the content. That's the end of that. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

This article should not be under full protection while an AFD nomination of it is in progress. This prevents people from improving the article to demonstrate why it should not be deleted. Exxolon (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits can always be proposed on the talk page with the {{editprotected}} template quite easily. It was originally protected because of edit warring according to the protection log.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit requested. As there is a half hour old requested edit there too I won't hold my breath though. Exxolon (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Having to use that template is slow, cumbersome and discriminatory against new/inexperienced/non-tech-savvy users. It's also open to abuse by partisan admins selectively denying/allowing edits to skew the article towards deletion or keeping as they see fit. Exxolon (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've declined the request for unprotection. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Leon harrison and 69.132.26.177

• 69.132.26.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Leon harrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These two users have been arguing back and forth, recently, tossing accusations and trading insults; the IP suggests the user is a sockpuppet of Hdayejr (talk · contribs) (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/User:Hdayejr). After looking into this a bit, the sockmaster has been active in recent days, Leon has several articles and positions in common with other accounts already blocked as socks, and Leon seems keenly familiar with Wikipedia. I've blocked Leon as a sockpuppet. Not sure what (if anything) should be done about the IP. Invite further eyes or opinions. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Leon was just shy of getting blocked for personal attacks when you blocked him; I certainly don't think he's anywhere near as innocent as he portrays. I'm not sure what to make of the IP. It sounds like there's a history between the two off-wiki, but that's not our problem. As I told the IP, if he's got an issue with the user's on-wiki conduct, report it to the appropriate venue; otherwise, leave it alone. I endorse the indef block to Leon and think no further action is currently needed with the IP. —C.Fred (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This was not entirely an off-wiki dispute. Repeatedly banned User:hdayejr has created probably hundreds of sockpuppets with which to vandalize Wikipedia and, in particular, to pursue a personal vendetta against another user (not myself - let's call him Steve). It started on several other Web sites, but has been raging here for months if not a couple of years at the very least. His protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the modus operandi is always identical: he hovers around The Price is Right (U.S. game show) or another page on which Steve actively participates. As soon as there's activity on that page, despite his claims to be a new Wikipedian, he finds his way to the AN/I board within minutes, where he reports perfectly legitimate edits as vandalism, and claims that anyone reverting his vandalism is engaging in harassment or stalking (even sometimes tagging the other person as one of his own sockpuppets). His writing style never changes; anyone who's ever read him more than once can see his work a mile away. Within a few minutes, he descends into personal abuse against the other users and the admins who (inevitably) take their side. His user name and/or IP get banned. He unplugs his Internet connection, plugs back in, gets a new IP, and returns to the site within minutes to days to resume his activity.

Who am I? I am a user who foolishly thought I could stop this. I've seen him do this on other sites (one of which currently has a restraining order against him in real life). I am (about to be "was") a constructive and prolific Wikipedia contributor of two years' standing under a registered username. I simply got tired of watching this happen and decided to do something about it. I chose to pursue this anonymously so as not to attract the vandal's attacks to my established Wikipresence. Within minutes of my first anonymous RV of his vandalism, my user page was vandalized. If you read the logs from last night's activity, my only contributions are: reverting one act of his vandalism on The Price is Right page; tagging him as a sock on his user page, and then reverting his repeated RVs of the tag; responding on his page to his personal attacks; responding to C.Fred's tagging of me as a sock; and trying to give C.Fred some details on the ongoing larger conflict. I really don't think any of this violated any Wikipedia policy, though I should probably have just held my temper.

My posting a bit of the Ohio criminal code on my user page has to do with the fact that the banned user recently created a sockpuppet using Steve's real full name. This is not only against Wikipedia policy, impersonating another actual person on the Internet is against the law. Ohio (where he lives) classifies it as a felony for persons in certain categories, which includes him. I was trying to warn him to stop by letting him know that I knew that. It didn't work.

What did I learn from this? I learned that it's impossible to prevent an obsessive-enough vandal from destroying Wikipedia if he wants to, and I'm tired of having my contributions trashed with no real recourse available to me except to keep re-reverting every time it happens. For that and other reasons which I won't go into here, I have decided to leave the community under both my anon name and my registered user name. I've already asked another admin to delete the history of my registered user page. I would ask that, following the resolution of this incident, the user page associated with this IP address be deleted as well. I will not return to Wikipedia. While this statement has no bearing on the resolution of the dispute, I wanted my side of the story to be heard. Thank you. 69.132.26.177 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism in Good Faith?

Resolved

Oldag07 (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)

User:Oldag07 recently blanked the Texas article here which I reverted here. The user has notified on my talk page that it was a mistake here. I can't decide weather his/her edit was in good faith as he/she blanked an article and I don't understand fully how you can make a mistake of balnking an article. Is this edit in good faith or vandalism? Comments? -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 02:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• A brief perusal of their edits seems to show they are contributing in a positive way, and in the absence of any warnings on their talk page for previous vandalism I'd be inclined to assume good faith and put it down to clumsy keyboard skills or something. Exxolon (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Ditto. It's odd, yeah, but absent continued problems, mistakes do happen. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Good faith all the way. They've made dozenshundreds of changes to the article. There's no way they'd want to blank it after that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• (ec)Without a deep look, it certainly is possible to blank a page by mistake. If there are no other concerning edits, and since he acknowledged the error, I wouldn't worry about it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like we're all in agreement, but I'll chime in with a "me too". - Philippe 02:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • • At first, I thought it was a good faith edit. I just wanted to make sure. Better safe than sorry. I will mark this as resolved and notify the user. Thank you. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 02:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• (ec) Could have meant to blank a section, could have hit the wrong key trying to cancel an edit. If it happens again, though, the excuses get harder to come by, but once is certainly possible. FWIW, we blocked a user the other day for deleting swear words from articles, then unblocked when it turned out to be filtering software on his computer gone awry, and he didn't realize the changes were happening. —C.Fred (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have personally accidentally blanked an entire article (IIRC) with a keystroke. --Haemo (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot war?

Resolved

What is this going on? One bot is reverting another bot. [51] Special:Contributions/BetacommandBot. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Check a few sections up. [52] Nakon 03:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Blimey, I did not notice. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User :C S removing template without authorization

I put a {{copyvio}} template on Schadenfreude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). When googling each line of the text, I found a number of sentences lifted from other sources. The most egregious was one from the New york Times. User :C S keeps removing template without authorization, has started an edit war, and one of us may be in violation of 3RR - I'm not sure how these would be counted. In any case, that users violation of policy is driving an edit war. I hope someone will please step in. Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I just removed it. You are edit warring, claiming that the article is a copyright violation, when a number of editors have looked at it and said that it is not a copyright violation. I have removed the template, and urge you to continue the discussion on the talk page. At most, you should have removed or rewritten the offending sentences, not blanked the whole article. --Haemo (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Haemo) I have to admit that if User:C S is in violation of policy, so am I, since I also removed this user's copyvio tag. There is no copyvio in this article, as has been noted by other users on the article's talk page. I've initiated a suspected sockpuppet thread about Sur de Filadelfia at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/South Philly (2nd)‎; so if I've violated any rules, you're welcome to block me. Deor (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No one is getting blocked for being bold. Maybe some socks; but that's all. --Haemo (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet, canvassing and COI

Rosencomet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has apparently once again solicited off-wiki for people "to open new Wikipedia editor accounts" to come support him and help protect "his" articles. See the "Attempted Vote-Stacking, Again" section here. This is not the first time he has broadly appealed for help off-wiki on a large scale. I have confidential but trusted info that he did this kind of canvassing with an email to 30 people in the Fall of 2007. He has been repeatedly warned about engaging in canvassing, by multiple admins.[53][54]

Despite consistent warnings from a wide variety of editors (dating from the very beginning of his time as a Wikipedia editor in August, 2006) about his conflict of interest in promoting the Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration (ACE), and people he hires for these events, he has continued to engage in this behaviour. These comments and warnings are so numerous, I'm just supplying a link to his archived talk page and letting the TOC there speak for itself rather than citing specific diffs.

User:Rosencomet has been reasonably found to be [*OUTING INFO REMOVED - NO OUTING PLEASE *] (see the Starwood Arbcom finding of fact.) [ * OUTING INFO REMOVED *] "...is the conceiver and a founder of ACE, the Chameleon Club, the Starwood Festival, and the WinterStar Symposium, and is both the primary event organizer and product manufacturer for ACE." (from the ACE website) He is also the executive director of ACE[55] and he handles public relations/communications aspects of the organization. (see paragraph #4 here and the ACE website link above in this paragraph.)

Please note also that [*OUTING INFO REMOVED *]/Rosencomet personally sells books/CDs/DVDs/items at the ACE website and store. If any doubt exists about his COI, see this book excerpt with Mr. Rosenbaum's photo and compare it to this ACE CyberCatalog page. Note the caption saying "When you phone A.C.E., ...you'll probably be talking to THIS MAN" (emphasis in original.) Interestingly, since I referenced this webpage in my COI Noticeboard posting in mid-Dec. 2007, Rosenbaum's picture is no longer featured on the current version page. I had to go to the Internet Wayback Machine for a cached version from July 2007. (Unfortunately the picture doesn't seem to be in the archive cache anymore although the element properties clearly show the link to www.rosencomet.com/catalog/images/biopix/jeff.jpg.) The picture was the same in all versions of this webpage available on the Wayback machine from Dec. 2003 through July 2007 and to 20 Dec 2007 when I last accessed it. In other words, the picture of Rosenbaum (which was on this web page for at least four years previously) was changed within the month after I made reference to it in my COI statement (which Rosencomet was aware of), a strangely coincidental occurrence.

As I indicated at the top, Rosencomet's level of ownership of articles he has started or contributed to is quite high and readily apparent. Changing or deleting info in his WP:OWNed articles usually calls forth aggressive challenges from him and sometimes wikilawyering. He continues to assert that his judgment is sound concerning inserting references to his organization and events into articles.[56][57]

AfDs for any articles in which he has a vested interest invariably results in new SPA accounts voicing opinions and the re-emergence of the Ekajati sockdrawer, resulting in a time drain on editors, admins and checkusers. Now he also admits that he is canvassing [58] to affect AfDs for articles he wants to save.

Despite being warned exhaustively by editors, admins and Arbcomm, and in defiance of COI admonitions by all of the above, he rarely ventures outside his walled-garden area of interest: promoting the careers of those who appear at the Starwood Festival, or whose books and tapes he sells on the rosencomet.com website. Over his time on WP, he has has proven to be a tendentious and disruptive editor.

I have ideas about actions I'd like the community to take but I'd prefer to hear feedback and suggestions from others before I voice them. Pigman☿ 04:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet says I misrepresented his letter asking people to become editors to vote with him. I reprinted the letter on his User Talk page in dispute of his claim of misrepresentation. He has deleted it. So, reluctantly, I reprint it here:

From: Jeff (SURNAME REDACTED) (mailto:REDACTED)

Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 2:43 PM

Subject: Wikipedia Cabal Alert

Dear Folks,

You are all people I have approached about helping me preserve the articles on Wikipedia related to individuals and subjects important to our community. If anyone receiving this has not logged in to Wikipedia as an editor, please do so. It's really easy, and you become one right away. But please, use a nickname rather than your own name, like almost everyone else does. Believe me, there are some people who take this stuff way to seriously, and will hassle you about your activities; plus, no one can challenge you on Point of View or Conflict of Interest issues if you remain anonymous.

If you have already become an editor, I urge you to edit...anything! Even correcting typos or grammar here and there will establish you as an editor; if you don't, when you vote on something they'll put a flag next to your name that says "this editor has provided few or no edits besides this issue", which is a way of saying that you're not really an editor, but probably just a sock-puppet (fake additional account) for some editor who wants to pad the votes. We are not doing that; you are real people, not dummy accounts.

There are two articles nominated for deletion that I'd appreciate help on. First, go to their articles, click on the words "this article's entry" in the box at the top explaining that it has been nominated for deletion. That will take you to the deletion nomination page for that article. Please register a vote to keep; to do that, you must hit "edit this page" at the top, then click your cursor right below the last person's entry and add Keep - This subject is notable enough. Keep should have three apostrophes before and after it. You can word the last part any way you want, or expand on it and say why you think so, although someone may argue with your reasoning if you do, and you may not want to keep checking back and responding. After your entry, remember to print four tildas like this (EXAMPLE REDACTED), which will add your Wiki name and entry date to the vote. If you have the time and interest, you can actually try to improve the article with new citations and data, but this stuff happens fast so first register your vote RIGHT AWAY.

The articles nominated for deletion are Dennis Chernin and Nicki Scully. Please feel free to read the articles as they presently exist first, and see if you agree that they are worthy of inclusion; I am not trying to twist your arms on any of this. I'm just trying to make sure our community has some folks looking out for our interests on Wikipedia and expressing their opinions. Also, there are a couple of editors who have a problem with articles either written by me or associated with Starwood, and others who have issues with Pagans, hippies, New Agers, or whatever they perceive these folks to be, and even three people working together is a lot on Wikipedia.

Other articles tagged as having questionable notability include Philip Carr-Gomm, Richard Kaczynski, Skip Ellison, Morwyn, Vivianne Crowley, and Chas S. Clifton. Most were tagged by the same person who nominated the other two. He also tagged Nevill Drury (if you can believe it), but retracted it for now. He succeeded in deleting the articles of Phil Farber (author of Futureritual), Pamela Ball (author of over fifteen books on New Age and magical subjects), and Halley DeVestern (who sang with Big Brother & the Holding Company the year they did Starwood). He and his little group successfully deleted the following as well: WinterStar Symposium, Jeff Rosenbaum, Victoria Ganger, and Taylor Ellwood, and tried unsuccessfully to delete Sally Morningstar and Matthew Abelson. They've also been deleting mentions of Starwood and WinterStar wherever they find them using one excuse or another.

Please feel free to contact me about any of this, either by phone: cell - (REDACTED), off - (REDACTED), or e-mail me either here or at (REDACTED).

Thanks for your interest. I will continue my efforts to keep articles about prominent members of our community present, up-to-date, and free of slander on Wikipedia, and monitor subjects like "witch" and "psychedelic experience" for misrepresentation. Thank you for any help you can give me.

Ad Astra, Jeff

This is a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger situation for me. I have nothing against him as a person, and I think he has done some good work here on Wikipedia, as well as for the Neo-Pagan community in general. I just wish he would listen more carefully to those who've tried to reason with him with regard to appropriate Wikipedia practices and manners. -- Davidkevin (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I’m afraid this will take a while to respond to, so I will ask you to bear with me. I am also not nearly as experienced and skilled as Pigman in diffs and retrieval of text, nor can I compete with his wikilawyering, but I will just have to say my piece and improve it later as I have time.

First, the e-mail that Davidkevin posted here was a PRIVATE one to friends that was not addressed to him, and I feel it is improper for him to print it ANYWHERE without my consent. Unfortunately, someone forwarded it to him and others without asking me (for which he has apologized). It cannot be judged out of the context of numerous conversations I have had with the people it was actually sent to. I think it is unfair to include it here, and wrong of him to have posted it at all, with full knowledge that I opposed his doing so.

Second, the above statement by Pigman contains several misrepresentations. I do NOT personally sell anything. To do so, I would have to profit in some way, which I do not. I sell nothing I own, and I’m not an employee of ACE, nor am I (or anyone else in ACE) paid for the work I do. We are all volunteers. Even if I took an order over the phone for a book, to say that disqualifies me from writing or editing an article by that author would be like saying a clerk who works at the desk of a Borders or Half-Priced Bookstore can’t edit an article about any author who’s book is sold there, or artist whose CD is sold there. Worse, in fact, since he IS paid. I get nothing from editing these articles. I also do not hire speakers or acts; ACE does, by general vote of its members, one vote each.

Third, I don’t see how my e-mail can be called canvassing according to the definitions on Wikipedia:canvassing. It says: “Canvassing is sending messages to multiple ‘’’Wikipedians’’’ with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.” It doesn’t even forbid canvassing; in fact, it has a section about how to do it if you DO canvass. The page discusses conversations with ‘’’Wikipedia editors’’’, not encouraging new people to become editors and get involved. Yes, I may have gone a bit far by giving specific examples of deletion nominations I disagreed with and thought my friends who I had prior conversations with would also be interested in. However, I specifically said “Please feel free to read the articles as they presently exist first, and see if you agree that they are worthy of inclusion; I am not trying to twist your arms on any of this. I'm just trying to make sure our community has some folks looking out for our interests on Wikipedia and expressing their opinions.” This was a private conversation with people I was encouraging to become involved in Wikipedia, with examples of why I thought they should, and was part of a larger discussion which should NEVER have been posted without my permission on Wikipedia. (This is the reason I resisted being outed as to my identity by Pigman and wished to remain anonymous; I’m sure anyone aware of Newyorkbrad’s recent problems would sympathize with that, and understand why I recommended any new editors use a nickname.)

My intent, which would be clearer had this e-mail not been posted out of the context of the larger conversation I was having with the individuals I sent it to, was not to vote-stack but to get more people in the communities I relate to (such as the Neo-Pagan, magical, multi-cultural and consciousness exploration communities) involved in Wikipedia. I think more people in all sorts of smaller-interest communities should do so: Native Americans, Santerians, Voudon, the polyamory community, those interested in entheogens, etc etc – communities where under-representation, misrepresentation and misinformation are a problem. I felt that in this case there was a small group calling all the shots, and more people with experience and knowledge in the fields would help matters. But I did NOT want them to simply support my votes or opinions, and I told them so emphatically when I first broached the subject with them; I trusted their judgment to edit responsibly.

Fourth, I disagree with Pigman’s opinion that I should not edit any article either of an individual that has appeared at an event I have worked on, or insert a mention of a Starwood appearance or connection where it is appropriate. The arbitration did not come to that conclusion, and when I specifically asked one of the arbitrators, Fred Bauder, to "state for the record that I am not violating the arbitration, and am not disallowed to edit articles by either speakers or entertainers simply because somewhere in their appearance history there was one or more appearance at the Starwood Festival or WinterStar Symposium, events run by an organization I am a volunteer with and neither receive payment from nor hire for. I also need a statement that there is no reason I can't edit an article about a Llewellyn author." His reply was "You are welcome to edit any article, including articles about associates, provided you cite reliable sources. It is best to not rely on personal knowledge."

Fifth, the history of my interaction with Pigman shows, IMO, that he has his own POV issues with Starwood, and that while he invokes the specter of the “Ekajati sockdrawer” (none of whose actions I am responsible for), he recently went on a tagging spree with help from Mattisse, who’s many sockpuppets [59] don’t seem to bother him in the least. Mattisse, if you recall, was a primary cause of my problems in the first place. Most of my links to the Starwood website were in response to her citation request tagging spree just days after I began editing on Wikipedia. She not only used sock-puppets to multiple-tag and vote-stack, she actually created fake articles and blamed them on me! (For instance, Anne Hill, Musart, and Children of Earthmaker) So Pigman called her out of retirement, so to speak, as it relates to my editing, and along with Kathryn they tagged, edited, and deletion-nominated dozens of articles I wrote in a few days. My reaction was NOT to engage in revert wars, but to ask three different arbitrators for help. (Here’s a link to the letter I sent Fred Bauder at that time. I also contacted Thatcher and Newyorkbrad)

As an example of Pigman’s POV issues concerning Starwood, he has made statements about Starwood concerning his opinions of its connection to drugs and sex (made under the guise of discussing whether mentioning youth programming was "promotional"), implying dangers to children, offering no factual material to back these slurs up. (Kathryn agreed with his statements, and she offered to pass on "info" about the same to an editor privately, away from the sight of Wikipedia editors observing the conflicts you two have had with me. In fact, she claimed to have "a bunch of info about this", which she characterized as "the unpublished reports of multiple friends and acquaintances over the years". She evidently doesn't mind going off-Wiki to promote her positions.) All this can be found on the Starwood Talk Page [60]

I realize I am far from a perfect editor, but I feel that I am being judged by someone who has set himself up as if he were my parole officer, watching me all the time, and creating a hostile environment in which I sometimes overreact and beg for help from wherever I can find it. Whether it’s an occult author that’s never been to Starwood or something as innocuous as Marvel Comics mutants or Turkish Taffy, I can expect an edit from Pigman or Kathryn immediately after mine. Pigman has actually set up a watchlist User:Pigman/Starwood-Rosencomet Watchlist on my editing! They still act like all I do is promote my events, when I have hardly written a new article about anyone who has been to Starwood in nearly a year. They set the bar so high, that they claim that since ACE got permission from Llewellyn Worldwide (the world’s biggest and oldest occult publisher) to reissue a few cassette tapes back in the eighties, I should not be allowed to edit any articles by ANY author who’s ever been published by Llewellyn. He deletes any mention of Starwood wherever he finds it as undue weight, even if the subject of the article posts his disagreement, as with Paul Krassner (who has been at 6 out of the last ten Starwoods, and written articles about his experiences there in The Nation Magazine, Ariana Hufington’s Blog, and High Times). Also, he treats guidelines as laws and disagreement as aggression, and ignores it when an arbitrator supports my side of a disagreement. On some complaints, Thatcher has told him more than once that what I edited was not a violation of any policy, and he has ignored it. He has even warned me against disagreements discussed on talk pages, when that’s exactly where the arbitration told me to have them.

In December I created an alphabetical sample of the kind of editing I have done since the arbitration[61]. I include it here to show that I have NOT been aggressively editing, revert-warring, or limiting my edits to Starwood-associated articles. I will provide an update soon, showing that aside from some disagreements on certain existing Starwood mentions (mostly resulting only in discussions on talk pages and deletion nomination pages), I have not been creating new articles linked to Starwood or inserting them into articles. I have mostly been creating new articles about occult authors who have NEVER been to Starwood (like Nicholas R. Mann, Al G. Manning, Vivianne Crowley, Ed Fitch, Prem Das, Laura Huxley, Sally Morningstar, Gabrielle Roth, Dorothy Morrison, Luisah Teish, Nevill Drury, Chas S. Clifton, Morwyn, etc), and adding material to beef up articles threatened by deletion. Pigman keeps characterizing me as a big problem, aggressively and contentiously editing and disrupting Wikipedia. I deny that; I have had few conflicts, almost all reactions to his (and Kathryn’s) behavior towards me, mostly kept on talk pages. I have also sought help from arbitrators whenever possible, and would very much welcome any further help to deal with conflicts when they arrive.Rosencomet (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break after really long posts

It is hard to make a single comment on all of this, but I did spend a good while reading this so I'll at least start out with something. If Rosencomet actually believes that that email is acceptable in regards to wikipedia policy, then that is problem #1. It effectively becomes a message to wikipedians because you are encouraging them to become editors, then telling them exactly how to vote in your favor. It is the ultimate bypassing of consensus. I see on the AfDs that meat puppets have arrived in response. Rosen may choose to continue doing this in the future, maybe more discreetly so we don't find out about it here... oh well. However, if you are actually defending such a thing, then this becomes a blockable offense. I will comment more later, this is just a start. I also encourage both Rosen and Pigman to condense further responses so people can actually read this. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing via private email communications is definitely sanctionable on-Wiki. See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to defend it. I simply ask where in the canvassing rules it mentions anything about conversations with people who are not editors when you talk to them? A technicality, perhaps, but when can you forbid conversations with non-wikipedians, or sanction for them? In any event, I will certainly be more careful in the future about anything that seems to push anyone, even a non-editor, to edit in favor of a particular position. However, in the context of the prior conversations I have had with the specific people this private e-mail went to, they would tell you that I made it clear that I wanted them to edit as they saw fit and vote their conscience, not follow my direction. And I hope you are never called to task for the content of your private mail.Rosencomet (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It is wikilawyering to suggest that by mailing people who are not then contributors to become editors and to vote or edit in a certain manner is not covered by WP:CANVAS. The intent is to vote stack or otherwise disrupt the usual WP processes, and might be considered more serious as you are seeking both accounts previously unknown to the community and also suggesting how they may appear to be more neutral in their contribution history - a clear attempt to promote an agenda over the process of consensus. My opinion is that you should be indefinitely blocked for these serious matters. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't sanction for talking. I can mail all my employees right now to say, "Hey check out this cool article on Wikipedia," or to discuss Wikipedia issues. But as soon as I send the email that says or implies "Also, check out this debate(s) to support me or our interests", I lose in epic fashion and should be banned. You did just that--in my opinion, this is a blockable offense. We have no way of knowing now how corrupted consensus and integrity of the articles may be now, but we do know that you have at least once done this. See again: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying. You did the same thing that CAMERA did, essentially. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

When Rosencomet says he has had few conflcts on Wikipedia, please see [62]], during which Rosencoment ongoing supporters User:Hanuman_Das, User:Ekajati, User:999 and subsequently others -- see: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati -- were found to be sock puppets. I realize that by bringing this up, Rosencoment will accuse me of sock puppeting because of a screwed up episode that lasted two months some two years ago involving some of my family, never repeated. I learned from this and paid the price, including over six months of daily harassment from Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati that continued even after the Starwood Arbitration. –Mattisse (Talk) 21:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Go here, click here, vote keep... lose in epic fashion, indeed. I'm tempted to make a joke about the email being a copyvio - it certainly is a textbook example of canvassing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Threat

Resolved

Requesting block and semiprotection.[63] Durova^Charge! 07:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please block, it's obviously an account created to harass an admin, see [64]. Also see the serious threath here --Enric Naval (talk) 08:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User blocked indefinately due to harassment of other users / abusive sockpuppet. Let me know if you still want your page protecting, but the abuser will not be able to create another account from the IP he was editing from. Lradrama 08:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Jazzmand's unblock requests

Resolved

 – blocked for 48 hours, rather than indefinitely. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, can I get a bit more scope on this. This guy thinks he is right (which he could well be) but seemingly ignored my request for him to discuss his edits. Thanks in advance. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I have to say I may well not have blocked here -- and I certainly would not have blocked indefinitely. This user's edits really aren't vandalism, even though they are edit-warring and even if they are plainly wrong. Edit warring and POV-pushing are not vandalism. I would reduce this block probably to 48 hours, a week at the absolute outside. An indefinite block is unnecessary and not particularly helpful. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

All right, sounds reasonable. I will definitely be checking up on him, and if he doesn't discuss his edits before making them, I'll indef. Thanks, Sam. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Cannot create a subpage in my userspace

Resolved

Hi. I cannot create subpages in my userspace User:Петър Петров/Anything. I believe it has something to do with recent MediaWiki:Titleblacklist edits. Please take care, thanks. --Петър Петров (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Done Woody (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Now please fix the blacklist regexp so I can create any subpage I want. --Петър Петров (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Cyrillic and Greek mixed script titles have been disallowed. I'm checking over at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist as to why this is. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

But there are no greek letters in the matching title, only [A-Za-zА-Яа-я:/. ] and all these should work together. --Петър Петров (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking into this... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wild guess would be a Grawp (talk · contribs) thing - Grawp trying different combinations of letter types for his stupid move vandalism. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I'd added an overzealous regexp that matched some mixed-script titles, unfortunately including any userpage containing the Cyrillic letters М, Н, З or Я. :-( I made a quick fix that seems to have solved this particular case, and will run further tests on the regexps in question. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My problem is solved. Please delete the page User:Петър Петров/Anything and consider this issue complete. Thanks. --Петър Петров (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. CIreland (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonstop vandalism by Anoshirawan

Anoshirawan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked seven (7) times, the last time for a month with a final warning from administrator Number 57 "Note that this will be your last timed block. The next one will be indefinite.", which was removed by Anoshirawan as soon as his month block expired. [65] This user is engaged in obvious vandalism. [66], [67], [68], [69], and his talk page is full of warnings to stop bad activities. The account is used only for edit-wars and vandalism as I don't see any good contributions.--119.30.78.184 (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The following at Ahmad Shah Durrani are a little suspicious:

• 67.70.118.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) [70]
• 69.156.95.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) [71]
• 64.228.195.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) [72] which is the same type of edits as Anoshirawan @ Kabul University. At any rate, the edits all reek of edit warring that has been continuing for months. seicer | talk | contribs 12:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The above IPs are in Canada, used by Anoshirawan's friend (banned editor User:Beh-nam). According to administrator Thatcher, Anoshirawan is residing in USA. [73] I believe Anoshirawan is this person, editor of this anti-Afghanistan blog and is trying to turn all Afghan related Wikipedia articles into his own personal anti-Afghanistan blog pages. Both Anoshirawan and Beh-nam are pro-Iranian Shiite Tajiks, who are determined to vandalise Afghanistan related articles because Afghanistan is overwelmingly a Sunni state, with majority Pashtun population. These 2 Tajiks are doing all they can to make Pashtuns look bad on Wikipedia. Anoshirawan should be indef blocked because he will never stop his vandalism to pages.--119.30.78.184 (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Poke

It's slipping further and further up the board so it may be getting overlooked, but I would appreciate an uninvolved admin deciding, fairly quickly, whether or not action regarding this is appropriate. My recommendation (revised from my initial one of an indef block) is a week block and a final warning, but I have been alleged to have a personal "animus" with David Shankbone, so would prefer someone else to decide whether or not take action over his latest tirades and turning Wikipedia into his personal battleground. Thanks. Neıl ☎ 12:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

David can be very outspoken. However, anyone with "Merkin" in his username is inviting the name he was called. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Her", not "his" - using the epithet "cunt" towards a female user is particularly unsavoury. Neıl ☎ 15:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am extremely annoyed with David Shankbone's antics right now, but I don't think an indefinite block is appropriate at this point. A week sounds appropriately, but obviously I'm not the one to make it either. --B (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have issued a week long block for the use of that epithet. I am uninterested as regards history or whatever between Merkinsmum and DS, but only in upholding a standard of interaction on Wikipedia. I am also aware that as a regular reader and sometime contributor to Wikipedia Review that my actions may be considered as not being without a conflict of interest - but I believe that would reflect more upon those commenting. I have, however, no objection to either the block being reviewed and overturned/reduced upon considered discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Cabal of one?

Resolved

 – indef block

I hope I'm not rocking the boat here, but does anyone know who this user is? They just went through and closed a number of open MEDCAB cases and closed them without any explanation. There's no user or talk page for the user, so I'm wondering if maybe it's an admin or something that did that. If it's just someone vandalizing or some such, should I (or someone else) go through and fix all of their closures? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a disruptive SPA and a likely sock of someone. I've blocked it indef. See if someone gets caught in the autoblock. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

New Wikipedia logo

Please see Wikipedia:VPR#Wikipedia logo improvement for a discussion regarding improvement of the Wikipedia logo. I've uploaded a new version of the logo, and since this would be a major change, I'm guessing it would need wide consensus, so I'm posting a notices around. Please direct any comments to the Village pump discussion. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests for page protection.

There is a little backlog at RFPP/unprotection, including multiple requests for the same article. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Range Block

I've come across a range of IPs with anti-Palestinian vandalism. IP 75.168.2xxxx seems to pop on Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine as fast as I can put down a block. I have blocked for 24 hrs as each IP came up, and have semi-protected the page; but I don't have other articles that could become targets watchlisted. Is a range block called for? If so, it is beyond me, and leave it to you all who are more adept vandal-whackers. Pastordavid (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this is the same person that was vandalizing marriage and same-sex marriage earlier today. IPs from that same range 75.168.2..... kept at it until those two pages were protected. He must have then moved on to other pages that offend his sensibilities. Perhaps a short (although kind of broad) range block would be in order. Deli nk (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right. I noticed in the contributions of the first one I blocked an addition to Talk:Marriage that I just disregarded. I just don't know what he/she has moved on to now. I agree on the range block - but I just don't know much about implementing one, and don't wat to mis-step. Pastordavid (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

user:RIHANNA RELOADED a possible sock of user:Brexx

Brexx is a well known banned user who has been evading his ban by creating many, many block evading puppets as can be evidenced by Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Brexx and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Girl Get it and who is not shy to admit to his sockpuppetry as evidenced here. According to all the evidence that's been provided in the above mentioned SSP and RFCU cases, I believe that it's obvious that RIHANNA RELOADED is another sockpuppet of the banned editor. Obvious, disruptive sock puppet, which I believe to be the case here, is listed as an unacceptable Chechuser request so I wanted to get an opinion on whether or not this seems as obvious to others as it does to me or if the community believes that RFCU is, in fact, an appropriate venue.

Thank you! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Special:Contributions/Brexx, it appears that Brexx's main problem was adding copyright violations to articles. RIHANNA RELOADED (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been editing a lot of Mariah Carey articles, but the contributions are now referenced. On the surface, they don't look like copyright violations. I don't think RIHANNA RELOADED is a problem just yet, and if it's truly Brexx again, he/she appears to have learned the lesson about copyrights. Of course, if the problematic behavior returns, then it might be time to have Rihanna unloaded. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The last 2 known sockpuppets of Brexx were Girl Get it (talk · contribs) and Agent999 (talk · contribs), the latter one blocked by Yamla (talk · contribs), an administrator familiar with this case. Those 2 socks' areas of interest are the same as RIHANNA RELOADED and, also, Mariah Carey has been the focal point for all the accounts created so far. A peek at their talk respective pages will reveal that Brexx still has not learned his lesson about copyright violation nor BLP violations. In either case, even if RIHANNA RELOADED does not break any more rules, I believe, if it truly is Brexx, that he/she is in blatant violation of Wikipedia policy for circumventing their block by the way of sockpuppetry. Several administrators were involved in a discussion with Brexx oh his talk page in April where they offered him a second chance but he was shown to have absolutely no understanding of policy at that time. I don't believe that RIHANNA RELOADED should be allowed to continue editing if he/she breaks no more rules due to the ongoing blatant policy violations. That is, if it truly is Brexx, which is what I wanted an opinion on in the first place.

By the way, I did notify Yamla about this as well a few days ago but he/she seems to have been absent from Wikipedia since May 12. Just wanted to let everyone know that so I don't look as though I'm canvassing.

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Outing of RL details

The new anon 76.117.160.36 (talk · contribs) has apparently done substantial Internet research on me (I use my real last name as my username), and presented about 10 details that s/he had found online, in this edit. I don't believe s/he knew that this is not permitted at WP. I have made a comment to this effect, but could an an admin kindly reiterate this policy for him/her? Many thanks, Badagnani (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The anon has just done so a second time, in this edit. I kindly request attention to this, as I strongly wish to prevent the anon doing this a third time, as per our policies. Thank you, Badagnani (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User:JPG-GR

JPG-GR (talk · contribs) again tries to "decide" the request to move an article back to its old title by "closing" the discussion and removing the "move"-template from the article's talk in an administrative style by edit-war. The same kind of behaviour of this user has happened before and had been issued before here, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive414#User:JPG-GR. I ask an administrator to either decide this move request and help to move the article back to its correct title, or to stop JPG-GR from the disturbing and tiresome actions. Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, as I'm the one who made the request this time (in an attempt to both assist you and create a centralized area of discussion that could be easily followed), I have every right to close the request. Secondly, as this is I believe the third time that this request has been filed it it quite clear by now there is no consensus for the move, so by default there is no more. Thirdly, as I have now told you I believe three times - move requests do not stay open until your side wins. When there is clearly no consensus and the allotted time has passed (which it has each time now), the request can safely be closed. Please use your energy to help improve the encyclopedia rather than to continue hounding me for doing routine WP:RM-related cleanup. JPG-GR (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not "your" request. It is a request of mine, which you had re-opened after it had been proven to you explicitly that it is not your, but an administrators' task to decide and close any request to move. You can read this in the IncidentArchive414 which I've linked above.

I had issued this request one time, then someone else had changed my message on WP:RM into a request in the opposite direction, but with my signature. So I had to change my request back to the first version. Then you tried to remove it from the backlog of WP:RM. Only after my protest here at ANI, you had re-opened the request again.

Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not twist my actions to suit your view of the situation. I opened a new request as your previous request had not been filed properly at WP:RM and had broken down into a chaotic discussion (which wasn't your fault, but that of a recently blocked editor). I issued this new request in an attempt to garner additional viewpoints and discussion, and the results were the same as each previous request - no consensus.

Please do not view any of this as an attack on you or your belief as to where this article should be located. There is clearly no consensus as to whether the article should be located at one place or the other - this is shown by each previous proposed move discussion. I am sorry that you appear unable to see that. JPG-GR (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Why then did you open a "new" (as you try to put it) request to move an article to another title, if you don't make the impression to have, or even know good reasons for such a move, and did not participate actively in the discussion on the article's talk-page?

Garnering new viewpoints is a good idea, and I believe that in this case, enough compelling evidence has been garnered to move the article to the other title. But you don't seem able, or interested to read and understand the discussion.

That is why the rules say that an administrator should read through the discussion, and then decide who to proceed further if there are still different opinions. As far as I see, an administrators' help would be needed anyway in order to clear the old title in the database before the article can be moved there.

Greeting, --Schwalker (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

To quote myself, just above - "I opened a new request as your previous request had not been filed properly at WP:RM and had broken down into a chaotic discussion (which wasn't your fault, but that of a recently blocked editor)." I did not participate in the discussion as I had no opinion on the move. I read through the opinions on both sides (as I did before, despite the chaotic nature), and both sides presented reasonable arguments. Hence, no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk page spamming

Please check recent contribs of Magicbullet5 (talk · contribs). Kelly ^hi! 17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I left them a note asking them to stop and it seems to have worked. Hut 8.5 17:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

S/He's being chatty again and asking for personal information (year of birth). I've reverted the personal questions.-Wafulz (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism, impersonation

See AgnosticPreachersSon (talk · contribs). Kelly ^hi! 18:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I sent a request to WP:UAA regarding the username. This looks like your standard trolling account. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've given the user an "only warning". ... discospinster _talk 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Aleta's done one better here blocking the account for impersonation. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

More from the Avril troll

As indicated in this section above, there was a threat of further trolling/vandalism/disruption from sleeper accounts. Perhaps the "resolved" tag on that section means it's not getting any attention, so I guess I'll start a new section. There have been more Avril questions, and our friend seems to be obsessed also with Summer Glau. Since individual accounts are being used, some editors believe that each questions should be treated in isolation. I myself have to think that if it walks like a duck . . . . Here are the contribs from Emac1, Pikecatcher, Lop Lop 7, Seven seven and eleven, Jellojolts, and table top dancer. There is also another Tor exit node being used. --LarryMac | Talk 20:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I recommend blocking [quack, quack], esp. the Tor node, based on the history of such things these accounts obviously are not here to build an encyclopedia. As an aside, what the hell started all this Avril Lavigne tomfoolery in the first place? Anyone want to enlighten me [if it's in the ANI archives, just tell me and I'll go search]. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:12, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

Whoopee! They've moved on to the Entertainment ref desk and started asking questions about Shakira? 80.222.66.180 looks like another duck. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:37, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see what all the fuss is about. If (he? she? it? they?) is going to be a nuisance, just use common sense on the Reference Desk when answering questions. A lot more energy is expended trying to track them down and ban them than is expended just ignoring their imbecilery. Ziggy Sawdust 20:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My declaration that I would remove all of the trolling on sight got met with some rather harsh disagreement: [74]. Corvus cornix_talk 20:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement from an enabler is not something I'd worry about. And Ziggy, if you could magically make everybody ignore trolls, I'd give you a million dollars (or the currency of your choice). But people don't ignore trolls, they feed them. I'm giving up, nobody seems to really care all that much. --LarryMac | Talk 21:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed ban of User:Kmweber

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

Kmweber (talk · contribs)

I'd like to ask the community for thoughts on the above editor. Kurt has been a member of Wikipedia since 2005, and has made a lot of valued contributions, particularly to road related articles. However, since around June last year, I do believe he has slowly become a real problem. He is one of those editors that aren't quite an obvious troll, but the vast majority of his edits to the project space are incredibly pointy, disruptive and damaging in the long run. For example, there are his infamous oppose votes on RfAs. Originally, he opposed every self-nom RfA, claiming the user is power hungry. Not only is this a borderline personal attack, it's also not true. Wishing to assist with Wikipedia further is does not mean you're power hungry - it means you're helpful. Obviously, because of these opposes, discussion occurred and it was decided Kurt is entitled to his opinion. However, he has recently begun to oppose people who have been through admin coaching. He also has attacked an editor calling them a vandal. I haven't looked that far back in his contributions, but from my own experience of him, I can't imagine it was the only instance.

Additionally, he is known for his "keep" XfD votes. Basically, if it exists, it gets a keep. This is blatantly ignoring basic Wikipedia policies/guidelines for some sort of... how can I put it... point? I don't know what he's trying to prove. I have this feeling if I created an article on my cat, he'd vote to keep it. It is bordering on ridiculous, and needs to stop.

He has also started to refuse to listen to Arbcom, claiming they are illegitimate, and he calls them "the arbitrary committee". This is an attack on the people who work hard on the committee, and this kind of behaviour shouldn't be put up with.

In all, while I think Kurt's work in the main namespace is good, I believe he lacks the necessary communication skills to productively edit in the project space. He has also been banned from most Wikimedia IRC channels for disruptive behaviour, similar to above (attacking other users, absurd comments, ops have no legimate power etc etc). While I wouldn't want to ban him from the whole site, something seriously needs doing about his disruptive editing. No more "he's allowed his opinion" - when an opinion is basically an attack on the editor every time it is expressed, it should no longer be tolerated. I've personally had enough of his disruption, and I'd like something to be done about it. Al Tally (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents: we're all allowed our opinion on things, but when the manner in which we express those opinions becomes substantially disruptive to the project, we lose the right to use Wikipedia as a forum to express them. Kurt is disruptive, no bones about it. The question is whether you feel it's a tolerable level of disruption. I personally think there is no good reason to put with this user's behavior anymore. It's just counterproductive to building the encyclopedia. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 21:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with everything writted by Majorly above. Kurt isn't damaging in any way. If there are people, including a former arbitrator, who aren't able to take it without getting upset, it's their problem. It seems that the biggest problem are his copy-paste opposes, yet nobody complained when mailer diablo or myself copy-pasted supports. It's the opposite side of Walton's initial stance. He basically supported everybody (dunno if he still does), Kurt instead opposes those who self-nominate. Far less pointy. XfD? Isn't he allowed to proposes his own criteria for inclusion? Is now inclusionism a bannable offense? He's not trying to prove anything Majorly. He is expressing his opinion, and for god's sake it's his right to do so. Nothing is wrong in Kurt's behavior, other than he tends to piss off people who doesn't seems able to read comments without looking in it an attack against them. Kurt hasn't attacked anybody. Now come on, find some serious drama to work on. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Kurt has been notified of this thread. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, as an editor that has been severely hurt by something Kmweber typed, enough to get me to violate every civility rule out there and end up with an ANI post with my own name in the header, resorting myself to calling him names and cursing his very existence, I find him ultimately rather harmless. I would explicitly not endorse a ban, be it a topic ban, mainspace ban, or Wikipedia:ban. I understand your frustratiion completely Majorly, and I've been equally, if not more, frustrated by Kurt. But I don't see anything in his contribs that constitute anything beyond an "ignore Kurt". Which is a shame, because he is a recognized and valuable content editor. He, without knowing it necessarily, has completely nullified any of his wiki/meta/talk posts though as "kooky", because of his extremely "out there" stances on things. All that to say, I would not support a ban, or even a block for that matter. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Snowolf: Kurt is not allowed to go round upsetting multiple editors. When you/Mailer diablo copy-pasted opposes, you didn't do it in a disrputive manner with an insulting edit summary. Additionally, Mailer didn't oppose everyone for not having 1FA, he sometimes went neutral.

He shouldn't be proposing his own criteria on the XfD page. He should do that on the relevant policy talk page. Wikipedia is not intended for everything that ever existed.

He frequently attacks other editors. "Deletionist vandal", "power hungry", "power trip" are just some minor things. I'm not working on drama. I'm trying to do something about a disruptive editor. Al Tally (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Who is attacking whom? I am not seeing any substantiation given for alleged attacks or behavior counter to policy. The single diff link given goes to an opinion about a candidates behavior. Jeepday (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(multiple ecs) Setting aside the question of Kurt's behavior for a moment, AN/I is not at all a place to conduct an RfC on a user. AN/I is for emergencies, essentially, situations requiring immediate administrative attention. It would be extraordinary to "ban" a user who hasn't even been blocked. And blocks and bans are *never* intended to be punitive, they are protective, and normal procedure if the legitimate behavior of a user is disruptive, aside from emergencies, is to address the situation cooperatively. If Kmweber is doing something wrong, ask him to stop. If that doesn't work, ask some user, preferably one who trusts him, to ask him to stop. If that isn't enough, start an RfC. If that does not work, there is Mediation and Arbitration. I highly doubt that ArbComm, based on what I've seen, would consider that Kmweber is blockable, much less ban-worthy, based on what generally accused of. Usually, "disruption" takes more than one person, if the one person's behavior is within behavioral guidelines. There is no guideline that says that you can't decide to vote Oppose in an RfA simply on the basis of self-nomination. It's actually a reasonable position with a lot of history behind it (in Islamic thought, for example, someone who sought to be a judge was considered ipso facto disqualified). I disagree with Kurt on this, because I think there are enough exceptions that it should not be so blatantly automatic, but disruptive, it is not. The only disruption comes from comments to AN/I like this. If I were truly exercised, I'd warn the initiator of this thread for disrupting AN/I, which should be used for emergencies. And there is utterly no emergency here. --Abd (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Perhaps try a user conduct RFC? A topic ban is one possible outcome of rfc. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Al tally edit warring on ANI

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

See above thread and the history of this page. User:Al tally has been edit warring to remove a thread he started. This is inappropriate and needs to stop (ironic, really, given that he said that about Kurt). I'll provide diffs in a minute, but this is not the first time that Al tally has engaged in behaviour like this in recent weeks. Is there some obscure WP:POINT being made here? Carcharoth (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This does not need to be a thread. I strongly recommend closing it. Archive it. (But don't delete it:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He was removing the thread he started - I don't personally see anything wrong with that. Sceptre was hardly an angel in all this either. I've closed the discussion so that should be the end of it. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The only thing "wrong" with that is that other editors had contributed already. Archive it. Resolve it. fine. But deleting it is unnecessary and unproductive. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd surely like to know what other "behaviour" I've been engaging in. Apparently it's now a crime to propose a troll be banned. Al Tally (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Al_tally (contemporary thread)

Al tally (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is insistent on removing a section from this page where users other than him have commented. Now, to me this is clear cut vandalism per VANDAL - "Discussion page vandalism", but seeing as Al tally is an admin and I've come under fire for reporting to AIV, I'm bringing it here. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This does not need to be a thread. I strongly recommend closing it. Archive it. (But don't delete it:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He said he will stop. No 3RR vios, although close between Majorly and Sceptre. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism? Are you joking Sceptre? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Clear as crystal: "Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism." Exactly what he was doing, and being an admin on three projects, he should know better. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Guys, everyone got overheated here a moment. Here, look, an encyclopedia to edit...