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

Nichalp's move of Burma to Myanmar

See also Talk:Burma#Revert to status quo

On May 12, Nichalp launched a straw poll on the issue of whether the article Burma should be moved to Myanmar (despite the fact that numerous previous straw polls and discussions within the past year had shown the community to be evenly divided on the issue). At the conclusion of the straw poll, it was evident that opinion was still evenly divided. The numerical result of the poll was 16 opposed, 17 in favor. More importantly, both sides were still strongly entrenched in their positions and both sides presented numerous opinions and facts in support of their side and how it related to Wikipedia policies. No unbiased reading of the debate could interpret it as anything other than evenly divided. One week after opening the "straw poll", with neither side moving any closer to consensus, Nichalp unilaterally decided that one side's arguments were more "clear and logical" than the other. He then used his administrative power to move the article (which had been protected against moves) despite the fact that there was clearly no consensus to do so. I believe this is a clear abuse of administrative powers and the move should be reverted by another admin. I would do so myself, but I voted in the straw poll, and thus have a conflict of interest. Kaldari (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This move is long overdue and the original move to Burma had more anomalies than this bold and to be applauded move edit; lack of consensus should clearly mean the article stays at Myanmar and should never have been moved to Burma in the first place, a move which never had consensus either. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that Nichalp didn't just move the article, he invited the community to debate the issue and then ignored the debate to implement his own opinion. Such behavior is extremely insulting to the people who participated in that debate in good faith. Kaldari (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Kaldari you seem to contradict your own words. If people participated in the debate in good faith, then there would be a quite a few of them (over half of the people who have expressed opinion) that the name should be changed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

'Be aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy: A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority. If a large number of people support one option but some don't, this doesn't mean that that's the "outcome".'HalfShadow 17:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, there was no "outcome" of this debate other than the fact that the community is strongly and nearly equally divided on the issue. Thus, no action should have been taken. As this was already well known from previous debates and polls, I can't see this "straw poll" as anything other than a pretense. If Nichalp was going to move the article regardless of the debate, it was not acting in good faith to initiate and advertise the debate in the first place. Kaldari (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to your own post, one more person was for moving than against, which sort of defeats your own argument. HalfShadow 17:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, debating first sounds like good faith to me, and no more of an insult than to those in the original debate whose views were also not complied with (and I dont believe either move insulted anyone of us wikiepdian editors). Thanks, SqueakBox 17:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. Kaldari (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Kaldari, you assume that I used the straw poll to effect the page move. Unfortunately no. The straw poll was created to summarize the salient points of each editor for or against the name. I've said that in the poll itself. Please stop misinterpreting my poll. Rational points were given more merit than simple 'keep' statements. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess that makes my points irrational! You sound just like my beloved spouse, Nichalp. (Sadly, I lose all those arguments!). :-) --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 19:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that proper process was not followed in this case since there was no attempt made by Nichalp to negotiate or arrive at a consensus. He choose to stay out of the debate, even though his position is own well known when, as per Wikipedia:Consensus he should have participated in the debate and tried to negotiate or build a consensus. As a matter of practical fact, an alternative suggestion (separate Burma and Myanmar articles divided historically as in the case of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe) was receiving some attention and could have emerged as a consensus solution when Nichalp unilaterally renamed the page. I've seen some of User:Nichalp's work elsewhere, have no doubt that he has the best interests of wikipedia in mind and refuse to believe that he acted in bad faith, but do feel that this action should be reversed and taken to WP:RM where it properly belongs. In the final analysis, Wikipedia lives and thrives on our (the editors) faith that due process will be followed in giving weight to our opinions and edits and, while Wikipedia can live with the possibility of an imperfectly named article, it cannot live with a breakdown in that faith. Thanks! --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 17:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd echo the view expressed by RegentsPark. I returned to the page today after viewing it yesterday pre-move and was very surprised to see such a politically-charged change being made on such slender grounds, especially while compromises were still unexplored. Webmink (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this move appears to be skirting process, but I don't really see that there's anything to be done about it. The article is really in the right place now -- like it or not (and I think that the "government" in Myanmar/Burma has absolutely 0 legitimacy), the name of the nation is both de jure (the UN recognizes the name) and de facto (Google has more than twice as many hits for "Myanmar") what the government changed it to. We shouldn't undo an out-of-process move that will restore something that is less correct. It would be as wrong as moving Ho Chi Minh City to Saigon, even though there are doubtless many Vietnamese who resent calling it that.

I think Regents Park's suggestion to have two separate articles, one for pre-1962 "Burma" and one for post-1962 "Myanmar, formerly known as Burma" (since it was until 1989). - Revolving Bugbear 18:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That was the unexplored compromise to which I was referring, yes. Both pages should link to Names of Burma which documents the origin and nature of the dispute well. - Webmink (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I commend Nichalp for this exceptional admin action. It is high time that the powers that be of wikipedia did something about situations like this where two opposing factions have equal votes but only one faction's arguments are in tune with Wiki policies and guidelines and the other faction knows it. Arguably, it should be a no-brainer, but the other faction is able to filibuster forever claiming "there is no consensus". Yes, "there is no consensus" would apply if it was a simple vote. Thankfully, it isnt. And if you disregarded the ILIKEIT, IDONTLIKEIT and DONT_LEGITIMIZE_THE_JUNTA votes, not only was there a consensus, but an overwhelming consensus to move it. So overwhelming, a bot would have moved it. Seriously! Sarvagnya 18:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The sad thing, Sarvagnya, is that an interesting alternative proposal was emerging and it could have formed the basis for consensus. On the whole, the discussion was remarkably civil, as wikipedia discussions go, with almost no edit warring. It might feel good to be triumphant and have your views codified in wikipedia, but do remember that wikipedia is an organism, each editor is equally valuable, and riding roughshod over a group of committed editors without even a token attempt at dialogue is not the way to keep this organism healthy. Sometimes, the means are more important than the ends. Thanks for your comments though. They are very instructive. Regards. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 18:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There are absolutely no grounds for this action by User:Nichalp. He moved the article bypassing the thoroughly discussed move proposal we had back in October (which was even praised by User:Jimbo Wales for being so civil and constructive) and bypassing the closing admin User:Duja who closed it as consensus to move to Burma. I contacted Nichalp and expressed my disagreement with his unilateral action. He explained that he acted against the entire process because he was allowed to thanks to WP:IAR[1], and that there was a straw poll somewhere that was mentioned at WP:CBB which, according to Nichalp, would be a more relevant place for advertising the discussion than WP:RM. He also says that he analyzed consensus in order to justify his action. I am quite shocked not only by his action, but also by his apparent refusal to acknowledge such a blatant violation of the process. Nichalp effectively reverted the in-process action of admin Duja who moved the article to "Burma", basing his decision to move the article back to "Myanmar" on a consensus that not only does not exist, as would not be valid even if it existed somewhere, because most of the community was deliberately left outside the process. Controversial move proposals have to go through process in order to legitimize any results, and that is only through WP:RM and a proper section on the article's main talk page. Not through an obscure subpage, advertised on an obscure bulletin. And certainly, not for someone who is not neutral on the matter to suddenly call it quits and enforce a page move. I am disappointed with Nichalp and request feedback on his action. Húsönd 19:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

AND, should I also add that this article was move-protected? Húsönd 19:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The subpage you refer to isnt/wasnt as obscure as you claim it to be. I only recently entered the discussions about the article name and I had no difficulty whatsoever finding the subpage. It is advertised right at the top of the main talk page. Anybody with an opinion on the issue would come to the article's talk page and the talk page would lead them to the appropriate subpage. Sarvagnya 19:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

While I, who have been discussing this for ages, didn't know about it. Users don't have to be watchlisting every single subpage of that article. Move proposals happen on the main talk page. Unless you have something to hide. Húsönd 20:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is just further reason why many regular editors do not trust the "powers-that-be" here. Nichalp decided that what he (and those agreeing with him by a 17-16 margin) overrode the WP reliance on consensus. Amazingly bad admin action on a move-protected page. Classic misuse of admin tools. Bellwether ^B_C 20:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Husond's move back

I am not convinced that reverting Nichalp's move is wise. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just expressed my dismay on Husond's talkpage. Though I think Nichalp's action would have been better based on a fresh consensus-finding exercise, his analysis of the arguments was persuasive. That said, the discussion could have been signposted at WP:RM and Nichalp should have asked someone uninvolved to asses the result. Ideally, I would have thought a fresh discussion about the appropriate title for the article a sensible way to proceed. Given that Husond suggest Nichalp's action was a de facto wheel war, I am astounded that he has decided to reverse the move on a move protected page. I expect to see such behaviour from rather more hot-headed admins and seeing so rash an action in this case is, to say the least, unexpected. WjBscribe 00:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

With due respect, I think Nichalp's actions were unwarranted because he did not actively seek a consensus and moved a protected page. Nichalp should have reversed his move as soon as he found out that the page was move protected because that should be a no-no for any admin, but he did not. I think Husond has done the right thing. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 00:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Husond has reverted his move, acknowledging that his error, for which I am grateful. Now another admin, who was also involved in previous discussions about the page's name [2], MJCdetroit has moved the page. This is getting ridiculous. I am at a loss as to how to deal with the number of admins who feel there is an immediate need to move this move protected page. Block them/ ask ArbCom to desysop them? Both actions seem a little extreme but this situation is rather out of hand.... WjBscribe 01:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wheel war

I'd appreciate opinions so we can nip a situation in the bud before it gets worse. If you check the move logs (Burma, Myanmar) of the two pages, you'll see that Nichalp moved Burma to Myanmar after a discussion that could probably be seen as no consensus for a move, yet he instigated the discussion so was clearly involved. Husond later moved it back to Burma, yet after concern, he was honourable enough to move it back. MJCdetroit has decided to once again move it back to the Burma title. yet, he has also been involved in the talk page discussion, opposing the ealier move. Now, this wouldn't normally be too bad, but it's been move protected all along, so only admins can move the page - yet we've still had a move war over this, by people that are clearly involved. Any thoughts on how to solve this? Ryan Postlethwaite 02:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is a situation that shouldn't have happened in the first place, by not being started. Nichalp should have measured the consequences of his unilateral move. That's not what WP:IAR is for, I am quite disturbed that he found grounds on that particular policy to excuse his move. I think it's only natural that admins will come and revert him. He did something wrong, others will fix if he's not willing to. I think that the only solution is to call on Nichalp to reflect on his actions today. If he acknowledges that he was wrong, then everything's fine. It doesn't cost a cent to realize and fix our own mistakes on Wikipedia. But if he doesn't, well, I think the biggest concern is on him who could not ponder the consequences of reserving the right to determine consensus all by himself and going against process. Húsönd 02:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• With status quo being "Burma", the most recent move(s) back to that seem much more logical and supportable than Nichalp's. Bellwether ^B_C 02:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the first thing to do is to make things as they were before Nichalp moved the article. For three reasons. First, because almost everybody believes that there was no consensus. Second, because Nichalp did not seek a consensus or attempt a negotiation. And, third, because any admin action on a protected page should be immediately reverted if that admin has not first sought consensus on the Admin notice board. Then, we should do what Nichalp should have done in the first place. Try to figure out where people lie on the various alternative scenarios proposed (Burma, Myanmar, split Burma & Myanmar), see which editors are not totally fixed on either end of the continuum and work something out in this middle ground. Most of us, IMHO (and I could be naive), are willing to live with any title provided it is not thrust upon us - I certainly am. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 02:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I support Husönd's action, Nichalp not only misrepresented the view of the "pro-Burma" camp and did a unilateral move, he refused to engage in any serious discussion about it. There is a flaw in the system. If English Wikipedia have a procedure for removing admin status, I don't think this would have happened.--Amban (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, people keep saying that Nichalp did not try and seek a consensus for the move: what is this Talk:Burma/Myanmar#Straw poll if not an attempt to seek a consensus? Perhaps that discussion should have been better advertised and perhaps Nichalp should have asked someone else to close it but at least he was up until that point uninvolved in this dispute. Husond and MJCdetroit (the admins who have moved the page back to Burma) were both involved in past discussions and strongly advocated Burma as the correct title. They are not only moving a protected page without further consensus but doing so when they are involved in the dispute. I find their conduct far more problematic than Nichalp's. WjBscribe 02:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Nichalp tried to seek a consensus, failed to generate one, and then decided to move the page anyway. It's difficult not to consider him involved in the dispute because I don't find it plausible that a person without a strong personal preference would have closed the debate in this fashion. Overall I support the move back under the general principle that in the case of poor/disputed admin action it is best to work from the original status quo rather than allowing the party at fault to effectively have their way. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WJBscribe, I disagree with your view that the straw poll was an attempt to seek consensus. One cannot seek consensus by being uninvolved in the discussion. Building a consensus requires actively participating in the discussion, drawing out the different views, building bridges, and trying to work toward a solution. Starting a straw poll with the statement that the purpose is not to really do anything, disappearing for a while, returning and the unilaterally moving the page is not an attempt to seek consensus. I'm frankly surprised and disappointed that an admin and a bureaucrat would do such a thing and even more surprised and disappointed that other admins would not immediately revert that action. Frankly, I'm even more disappointed that Nichalp himself hasn't resolved the issue by returning the page to the Burma name. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 10:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have seen this kind of behavior before, and my conclusion is that admins wouldn't be so bold if they knew that their status were up for renewal every year, as is the case in other versions of Wikipedia. The relevant straw poll completely eluded me by the way, so I can't say this was very well advertised either. I have never seen this kind of behavior in other versions of Wikipedia and something is wrong in English Wikipedia, you'd better find a way to fix it. Asian-related pages have become soap boxes of different POVs to such an extent that it is pointless getting involved and sharing your knowledge and I have ceased to be involved in most of what is going on, because it is insane.--Amban (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is just not the comment I was expecting from you. You find our actions more problematic than Nichalp's?! How can fixing a blatant mistake, an abuse of the tools, complete trampling of process and consensus, be more problematic than a blatant mistake, an abuse of the admin tools, complete trampling of process and consensus? I am very, very disturbed by your opinion. In my view, mistakes exist only to be acknowledged and fixed. Húsönd 03:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Husond, I really think you need to take a step back. One of the things I have found most troubling is that you seem to be unable to look at this situation calmly - a sure sign you are too involved to be acting as an administrator here. I don't see the "blatant mistake" or "abuse of the tools" that you do, I'm sorry. Yes, I think Nichalp could have done a better job of advertising the discussion and that he wasn't the ideal closer of that discussion but I do not think his actions constitute an abuse of the tools. You seem unwilling to accept any view other than that Nichalp was totally wrong - I'm sorry but there are to my mind more shades of grey here. Yes, it could have been done better but I see no abuse so shocking that it needed to be reverted immediately by someone as involved as you are. If Nichalp's actions were so terrible, do you not think someone uninvolved would have undone them in the time between you posting about it to this board and deciding to undo them yourself? WjBscribe 03:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an unfortunate trap we fall into, believing that out-of-process actions are so serious that they require immediate fixing. Especially as it relates to actions requiring admin privileges, it's best to go ahead and take things slowly, even what's been done seems totally outrageous (obviously, I'm not talking about any thoroughly uncontroversial actions, such as reversing a move to "HEIMSTERN IS GAY!"). Fights between admins (between anyone, but especially admins) are seriously damaging to our community and we need to be willing to take things like this slowly and not let our shock and even anger take us to fights like this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted my move action per WP:UNINVOLVED, which leaves the page back to the move of Nichalp (Burma-->Myanmar) and back to the community to decide if that move has merit. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 03:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving forwards

OK, aside from recriminations about who was right or wrong to move the page when, there remains the question of what title this article should be at. I propose that we set aside a page for a request for comment on this issue alone. Flag it up as widely as possible so as to attract as many users as possible who have not been involved in these disputes before. The discussion can run for a couple of weeks and be closed by someone who will assess the consensus. That person (or persons if necessary) should be generally agreed to be neutral and people should willing to accept their determination. I propose something along the lines of:

Wikipedia:Request for Comment/Myanmar vs Burma

This approach was successful in resolving the naming dispute over the city of Danzig/Gdansk, see Talk:Gdansk/Vote. A debate can be had an reviewed by neutral editors who can then form a view as to which arguments are more persuasive. Thoughts? Is this a sensible way to proceed? It seems clear that the usually processes have failed to resolve this dispute, with various discussions coming to different conclusions. This really needs to be settled finally. WjBscribe 03:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the quite likely outcome of any discussion is an absence of settlement. So the real question is, do we enact an arbitrary settlement, or preserve the status quo (and which status quo?). The thing that makes Nichalp's action particularly troubling is that it smacks of an attempt to frame the debate around a new status quo, knowing well the fact that consensus for any change of the status quo is unlikely (as he was well aware, from the straw poll he has just conducted). Christopher Parham (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the status quo needs to be removed as a factor here for the very reason that we'd have difficulty deciding which status quo. My hope is that if we advertise this discussion as widely as possible and beg those who have never heard of this issue to read up on the arguments and come to an opinion, there will actually be a consensus one way or the other. I agree that the situation is problematic if neither there remains no consensus at the end of the new discussion. As a slightly flippant idea, if there is no agreement perhaps we should have the article at Burma for half of each year and at Myanmar for the other half... WjBscribe 04:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately removing the issue of the status quo from the discussion is next to impossible. At the very least, the page has to exist while the discussion you propose is taking place - at what title? The issue also faces the problem with any protection situation in that the side whose preferred version is hard-coded in place has little incentive to make a genuine resolution of the dispute. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"at what title?" -- Make it simple, like an international politician would do it: Move the article to "Country_at_22N_95E", and create four links to this article: Burma / Myanmar, Myanmar / Burma, Myanmar, and Burma. That still won't satisfy people because they will say the article name starts with C which is closer to B so Burma is obviously being favored. I think that the strong of heart could probably ignore that during the naming discussion. Loren.wilton (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What problem exists with Regent's idea of a Burma page for the preJunta nation, and a Myanmar for the PostJunta nation? Neutrally written articles about both will make the history and situations clear to all involved. Those who are (rightfully) morally opposed to the sadists ripping off the Burmese people will find even the driest writing of the events since the takeover makes clear what monsters be there. Such clarity will be available to all readers, who will then be free to form an opinion. It's an issue where it's very hard to form a pro-myanmar view, even while carefully following NPOV. Facts can speak for themselves. I support a split solution, and if this goes to such a RfC as mentioned above ,please copy and paste this there, or at least notify me abvout such a page, and I'll do it myself. ThuranX (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What really needs fixing

What is really at issue here is not the name of the article, it is the manner in which the article was moved. Thus, WJBScribe's proposal for an RFC on the name of the problem is addressing the wrong issue. It is useful to step back and take a look at the facts, the nature of wikipedia, and, this last bit is subjective, what appears to be transpiring here. The facts are straightforward. Before these events began to unfold, there was an existing consensus on the article and there was no significant edit warring. Then User:Nichalp, who has previously expressed his dissatisfaction [3] with the move from Myanmar to Burma, started a straw poll on the subpage of the talk page. He clearly indicated that the straw poll was not for decision making and did not advertise the poll on the main talk page (User:BaronGrackle did that later) or in other forums (though he did so on a community notice board after a suggestion was made). He did not participate in the discussion. He did not try to build a consensus. A vibrant and largely civil discussion was taking place and alternatives that could have formed the basis for an acceptable solution were emerging. It was at this point that he then moved the page (which was move protected with an edit summary explicitly requesting any move requests be taken to WP:RM). This is a clear out of process action and, intended or not, implicitly contains the bad faith assumption that the editors on the other side are unreasonable people and there is no point in talking to them.

If an ordinary editor (such as myself) had done a similar thing, a similar page would be full of admins demanding a block, reverting the move, and generally tossing around "off with his head" suggestions. That is not happening here apparently because a bureaucrat is involved. However, the fact that it is a bureaucrat that is implying bad faith (it hurts, trust me) and making an out of process move, it is the integrity of the process that is at question because, if the move is not reversed, it will appears that ordinary rules of behavior do not apply to bureaucrats. Am I to assume, for example, that it is a waste of time to argue an editing decision when a bureaucrat is involved? Since none of us have endless time, should we be constantly checking the position in the wikipedia hierarchy of each user we deal with when editing?

Wikipedia is one of the most creative undertakings for organizing human knowledge that I have seen but, any undertaking is only as good as its processes and, when the integrity of that process is open to question, it is best to quickly fix things. Ideally, User:Nichalp should himself make a good faith reversal of the move but that seems unlikely now and he seems to be on a wikibreak anyway. I understand that it is not easy to take on the political risk associated with examining and reverting an editing action made by a bureaucrat, but a debate and some action here is worth considering. It is my naive hope that an admin will treat this as important enough to move the article back.

I continue to believe that User:Nichalp has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and believes that the original move was wrong under WP:CSB. But, just as an elected official in a democratic country should not take the law in his or her own hands, a bureaucrat should resist the temptation to do so. Frankly, I can live reasonably happily with a page titled Myanmar. It is much harder though to live with the realization that rules and laws are not applied uniformly or that citizens are not treated with equally. The proper place to build consensus is on the talk page of the article, and Nichalp should have first attempted to do that.

Perhaps I am naive and Wikipedia is no different from, say, Encyclopedia Britannica where editorial decisions lie in the hands of a few editors. Perhaps I have just learned an important wikilesson on what really lies behind WP:NBD. I apologize for any unintentional harshness but I think it is usually better to, politely, say what you think. And, if you've read this boring piece to the end, thanks for the patience! --Regents Park (Chase my ducks) 13:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What the RfC does do is try to separate the issue of content from that of conduct, which you're addressing here. That is no bad thing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that. However, what I'm trying to say is that if conduct is not addressed first, then content cannot be meaningfully addressed because the process continues to be broken and a broken process cannot effectively address content. --Regents Park (Chase my ducks) 14:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I also believe that Nichalp has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, however, I am dismayed at his decision to act unilaterally and I believe it was a mistake on his part. Because some of the people who were supporting keeping the article at "Burma" were raising issues that had nothing to do with policy, I think Nichalp was able to convince himself that the entire pro-Burma camp was not worth taking seriously. The fact is, both sides have compelling policy-based arguments in their favor (and lots of arguments that have nothing to do with policy). The outside-of-policy pro-Burma arguments should have been challenged by Nichalp if he believed them to be irrational. Instead he simply used them to dismiss everyone on that side of the argument. That is not seeking consensus, that is acting like a dictator (benevolent or not). I believe that Nichalp's action should be reversed until the naming matter is better resolved. However, I would not support taking further action against Nichalp, as I believe he was not intending to create a problem, he was just acting naively. Kaldari (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I second RegentsPark's excellent analysis, that's precisely what I think. User:Christopher Parham also accurately synthesized the situation at User talk:WJBscribe [4] [5]. Nichalp has excused his action with his right to use WP:IAR and his right to determine consensus all by himself, and WJBscribe insists in dismissing the controversy by focusing on the reaction to Nichalp's move, not on that very move itself which after all caused all of this, thereby condoning it. WJBscribe insists that only an uninvolved admin should revert Nichalp. Almost everyone agrees that Nichalp's move was wrong and violated both process and consensus, but days are passing and no uninvolved admin seems to be willing to revert it. Treating this like a dead raccoon is obviously a good way to avoid a possible confrontation with a bureaucrat, but from so many hundreds of admins who vowed to respect and comply with community consensus, I was hoping to see at least one or two come forth and stand against a blatant violation of the very core of Wikipedia. Húsönd 17:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The meaning of consensus is debated in this case. 08:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile

Please move the page back to the previously held status quo (Burma) pending further dispute resolution. Administrators should feel free to revert other administrators who seek to be disruptive. There's nothing really more to say. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I supported "Burma" in the straw poll, but have only made two comments. Am I sufficiently uninvolved to move it back to Burma? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think so. But I don't think others would agree. Húsönd 21:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, I am tempted to undo the multiple moves made by User:MethMan47 to propagate this change across other Burma/Myanmar related pages; given the level of dispute over changing just the main article, it was unwise to take that change as a basis for making many other changes, all of which are going to be disputed for the same reason. [add.: that is now done] Christopher Parham (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Editors who feel this is a case of "two wrongs"

How many of us feel that, even though we agree with the outcome of the move to Myanmar, and even though we feel the October move was without consensus... the recent move was also done through questionable means? I'd support a revert; but I'd also like a similar process to be done, this time on a more well-advertised page and with a more disinterested editor closing it. How do the other Myanmar-namers feel? -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I recall one or two unsuccessful move proposals that were intended to move the article back to Myanmar following the October move. Húsönd 22:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you recall "one or two" because the first was squashed as a speedy close—it was proposed on the belief that the October move had been done without consensus; unfortunately, the Myanmar-namers went about the process the wrong way, and now many editors falsely perceive "Burma" as some sort of long-established status quo on Wikipedia. The second attempt you recall was allowed to exist because time had passed since October. The "Burma" majority (majority, not consensus) that had previously been galvanized by the atrocities against the monks had by this point completely vaporized. A moderator closed the poll at "no consensus" when Burma was ahead by one vote, after which it was revealed that one of the votes had been a typo meant for Myanmar; so there was an exact tie, with more votes trying to come in after the close.
I feel confident, however, that if a disinterested moderator were to look at any of these surveys, from October to today, he or she would find that while there are exceptions, the vast majority of Burma-namers voted explicitly for reasons that are contrary to Wikipedia policy. I feel he/she would reach conclusions similar to Nichalp's and be inclined to make a similar decision. However, since Nichalp was the one who made that decision, we have this new disagreement. That is why I'd support a similar process to be repeated; so this can actually be a consensus, instead of making it so that Burma-namers will repeat the same arguments Myanmar-namers have voiced since October. -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It was "squashed as a speedy close" just like any other move proposal that is created right after the closure of another proposal simply because one side is not satisfied. That side is welcome to request comment on the adequacy of the closer's decision, but not to attempt a counter-move proposal. That's just WP:POINT disruption. A period of at least one month, preferably two, is strongly recommended between move proposals. I totally support a new move proposal to verify the arguments from both sides, but it would have to be a proper move proposal. Not a subpage straw poll closed by the its proponent, who happens to be not that unbiased after all, and who will stick to WP:IAR in order to bypass consensus. Húsönd 23:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

{{fact}} This is the English Wikipedia. The correct policy is to use the English name. Neither the United States nor the United Kingdom use the name Myanmar. Myanmar is the phonetic spelling of the ethnic language name of the country, but we don't use ethnic language namings as names, otherwise Germany would be named Deutschland. That is all that matters, the stuff about the Junta is tangential to the issue, really. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, let's leave that for the talk page of the article. The subject here is not which name is right and which is wrong, but Nichalp's inappropriate move. Húsönd 23:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Response from Nichalp

First, sorry for the delay in replying. I had internet connectivity problems. I'm also sorry this had to spiral out of control.

1. Next, there is a mention of the fact that I have abused the admin tools to move a protected page. Let me clarify that when I moved the page, there was NO alert that the page was protected. So, I moved the page without the knowledge that it was protected. This should end the debate to speculation.
2. About not listing it in WP:RM: This is what it says on RM: In some situations, the value of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus. There is no obligation to list such move requests here; discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry. This page may be seen as a place to advertise move debates that would benefit from wider community input, or for users to request assistance from administrators in moving pages. -- As per this statement on the RM page, please do show me where I have contravened such a policy.
3. As I have listed out my reasoning for the move.
4. What is under debate is the methodologies I used to determine consensus, and the way we need to proceed forward to resolve such issues.
5. Since this has spiralled to such an ugly issue, I think that the best way forward is to revert the my move (done already) and start the debate afresh and have a set deadline. I have no issues with starting afresh provided that:
6. The closing admin arbitrates on fact, logic and wikipedia policies, and not just numbers and emotion.
7. As involved party in this dispute, I recuse myself from suggesting any further. However I do wish that my comments are mulled over.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 08:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Your move hasn't been reverted, which I think is likely to cast a pall over any attempt to move forward. I would suggest that you revert it yourself pending the further discussion. Christopher Parham (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I've been seeing the article on Burma since morning. check log The log shows that it has been moved from Myanmar to Burma. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's currently at Myanmar; the most recent log entry is here. The Myanmar log only shows half the story, the other half is in the Burma log. (Move logs entries stay with the title, not the page being moved.) Christopher Parham (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For some strange reason I am seeing the article as Burma all day. (the first line reads "Burma, officially the Union of Myanmar". So, if the way forward it to revert my move, please go ahead and do so and set up some mechanism to decide on one name. Just a heads up, I will be out of town from the tomorrow (23rd to the 4th) so no access to the internet, and will be shortly logging off the wikipedia for the night. I hope something concrete can take place. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Solutions?

Instead of the bickering about the move change that is past I propose we move forward in the following manner to resolve the issue:

1. Set up an uninvolved three-member committee (a single person would be accused of bias) experienced in closing contentious debates.
2. Open up the debate. Set a finite date for closure. (1 month is suggested above)
3. List it on WP:CBB, and WP:RM, and the talk page of Burma/Myanmar. (satisfies the criteria for all)
4. The outcome of the debate would be to determine which of the two names gets the article title, rather than a consensus to determine an appropriate page move. Else the outcome cannot be said to be neutral as consensus to move a page is more difficult to achieve given the current status quo climate.
5. For the outcome to be neutral, the committee decides on the fact, logic and adherence to wikipedia policies and conventions, not numbers and emotions. They have to file a report at the end of the month and allow 2-3 days feedback from the community before closing it.
6. From what I have seen, two wikipedia policies are up for debate (common name vs naming conventions)

Do let me know if this is favourable to all sides? =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

At the very least the poll ought to have been on the talk page of the article not on some other page, It is a long standing custom that changes to the page are discussed on the articles talk page not on some other page.

It is also customary that if a move is made with WP:RM that a move back must be made with a WP:RM request. Therefore I am going to move the page back and if you wish to move it again then please put in a WP:RM request. As WP:RM says "If there is a clear consensus after [5 days], the request will be closed and acted upon. If not, the administrator may choose to re-list the request to allow time for consensus to develop, or close it as "no consensus"."

If you wish to change the WP:NC before putting the page up for a move, then go ahead and have a debate on that page first. But until such time as there is another WP:RM request and there is a consensus to move the page the page should remain at Burma. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is the name of the article. For a RM, a clear consensus to move the page needs to be present. So, to establish consensus for a page move, the side advocating it would be at a clear disadvantage. This so much so because filibusters from the keep side of either name will always prevent the name from being changed. I'm ok with article anyname so as long the end result is not decided as per the RM procedures as that would give a distinct advantage to one side. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that if consensus either way is impossible to reach - which it may be, if compromise is not feasible and community opinion is evenly divided - an alternative process is needed to determine the best solution, though I don't know at this time what the best process would be. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(Response to Nichalp's proposed solution) I think that the article talk page is still the best place to seek a consensus. But, it needs to be moved back to Burma first (preferably by Nichalp so that there is appropriate closure). --Regents Park (Chase my ducks) 14:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Problem with any "Solution"

Nichalp, the problem is that you made the move and NOW you want to have a neutral third party, and go through the correct process. AFTER you already made your move! What a joke! Now Husond is obviously over reacted and I think being almost uncivil in his attacks against you, but at the core he is right. After you make the move you want to do the right thing, but why not before? Revert your move and then enact your "solution" Beam 17:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I was very concerned when I read the words "almost uncivil" as I could not think of what could possibly be interpreted as almost uncivil in my replies (not attacks) to Nichalp. But then I checked the page history and discovered that this unsigned comment was made by User:Beamathan, whom I blocked a few days ago for unrepentant, continued incivility. I can clearly see the purpose of your words, but I don't think it will be met. WP:CIVIL is a policy that I strictly observe since the day I joined Wikipedia. I would be interested to learn which words of mine you found "almost" uncivil. Húsönd 16:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean for it to be unsigned. I had signed it first, than I had to change the heading to have three = instead of two. Well you talk about his respect going down, and insinuate that he being a "beurocrat" affected his actions. The whole tone, especially what you call stressing the importance of words, when others call it yelling. It's not technically uncivil. Although I'm sure if I made those comments I'd be banned for several years, and perhaps beaten with a stick. Beam 17:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

? Húsönd 18:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm seeing the article at Burma/Myanmar log log =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Should have read this first. Apologies. Nichalp, the article is still at Myanmar. I'm not sure what the log is showing (perhaps the redirect page, no that doesn't make sense) but, I think, everyone is waiting for you. --Regents Park (Chase my ducks) 14:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin required to move the article back to Burma

For some reason, Nichalp is seeing a version that has the article back in Burma and therefore cannot personally move the page back. It his request that some other admin (I would do it but the page is protected) go ahead and do the move as a proxy for him. His request is here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs)

I commend Nichalp on his wise decision, which is set to quench this controversy. Since any administrator could attend to his request, and since the article is still at "Myanmar" as of this moment, would anyone oppose if I move it back? Or would I still be considered biased? (obviously I would prefer if someone else could do it) Húsönd 17:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you can do it. Technical reasons are the only thing preventing Nichalp from doing it, so it would be as if he had done it. --Regents Park (Chase my ducks) 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp does not get to decide alone that the article should be moved back. Sounds like a recipe for further wheel warring to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you seemed like a staunch supporter of his unilateral action, you even gave him a barnstar. So you're not being consistent as first you applauded him deciding alone, and now you say he doesn't get to decide for everyone else. Well, you may have noticed that he's not deciding alone this time, it is clear above that there's consensus that he shouldn't have done what he did, and that the previous title should be restored. I see no recipe for further wheel warring, just a recipe for a bit of biased outrage, apparently. Húsönd 17:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Squeak, it got changed. Also, please knock it off with the automated "thanks," it is disingenuous to thank a person if you don't really mean it. It is also very irritating. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, as someone who is obsessed with child predators and who thinks Wikipedia is his own personal battleground to fight teh evilz kiddie fiddlers, you ought to be aware that Amnesty International has documented proof that the Military Junta has been caught taking Burmese girls as young as 7 and selling them to Thai child prostitution rings. Do you really want to condone that Squeaky? --Dragon695 (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695, that was not only most inappropriate for here, as it was also very uncivil. Please refrain from this kind of comments by observing WP:CIVIL and allowing others to express their points of view, no matter how ludicrous you may find them. Húsönd 18:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I oppose any further movement until the original move back in October is reviewed by uninvolved admins. That whole episode is the catalyst for months of arguments that led to the current powderkeg. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

To each its own. This move to "Myanmar", clearly wrong, needs to be undone. Prior move to "Burma", within process, we can discuss somewhere else. Mixing the two as a last resort to prevent the article from going back to "Burma" is an implausible approach. Húsönd 17:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly, and I think you know that. It is clear from months of discussion that any future attempts will result in "no consensus", as that October discussion should have been. No change would happen in any no consensus closure, so the "status quo" is obviously critical to where the article is named for the long term. I think it is disingenuous to play the policy card for a move to "Burma" today that results in your preferred article name. The tactics used by the pro-Burma camp since October smack of gaming the system. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, months of discussion will probably still result in no consensus. But, an inadequate closure of a move proposal (as you think last October's was) is much easier to discuss and overturn if other users, especially admins, consider that it was in fact inadequate. Unless that happens, you have just a personal view of that move closure as bad admin performance. And that has no effective grounds for changing anything. But, it's perfectly legitimate to activate mechanisms to verify your claim. Húsönd 18:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

So now we have yet another move, by yet another involved administrator.[6] Wonderful. Why can't anybody show some restraint and common sense over this? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It is now at the originally protected version. It is not uncommon for edits to protected pages to be reverted back to the initially protected version, which is basically what happened here (the protection notice is not very prominent, so its not too unusual for admins to make these mistakes). Doing so upholds the integrity of page protection as applying to all users, including admins. As is normal with page protection it is probably best to leave it in the protected form until the dispute is resolved or progress is otherwise made. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Move reversion legitimate, requested by many users including the admin who performed the now reverted move. What involvement are you complaining about? Or, where's the lack of common sense? This action is long overdue. Húsönd 18:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Husond (t · c · b · p · d · m · r) was roundly criticized for moving Myanmar→Burma after Nicalp's move, as he was "involved", so he (rightly) moved it back. Then MJCdetroit (t · c · b · p · d · m · r) had a go, but was also criticized for the same thing, so he also moved it back. Why is (involved) Philip Baird Shearer (t · c · b · p · d · m · r) above the rest of you? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly we were not "roundly" criticized, I think we received more support than criticism. Still, User:Philip Baird Shearer has nothing to be pointed at because Nichalp himself has requested to be reverted. Simple. Húsönd 19:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks from User:Haiduc

• Makes vandalism accusation after unreliable sources (personal websites, US News and World Report to verify a scholarly claim about Shakespeare) removed: [7]

• Is warned by another editor: [8]

• Persists in calling edits vandalism, also calls them ignorance, persists in referring to me with male pronouns, in spite of the fact that he has been told I am female (why I don't know):[9] -PetraSchelm (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Haiduc does not characterize your editing as vandalism in the third diff. In fact, he says that I "may well be right" that your changes do not constitute vandalism. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

His edit is titled "vandals" (and is grossly incivil on two other counts...) You "may well be right" isn't exactly an admission that he is in error/has violated the NPA policy..-PetraSchelm (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• He's also up to five reverts on Historical pederastic couples now...-PetraSchelm (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  Five consecutive reverts. WP:3RR: "Consecutive reverts by the same user with no intervening edits by another user will be counted as one revert." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • He's still edit warring (6 consecutive reverts)--that's why I added it here since there's no 3RR report to make. Undoing all of another's edits and calling them vandalism, and then adding additional insults at an article he thinks he WP:OWNS. -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Good morning. Petra, your persistent removal of material after you have been warned that it is based on the work of bona fide scholars, especially in the absence of reasoned discussion, borders on sabotage. If it is no longer viewed as vandalism by strict Wikipedia rules, then I apologize - I have been here a long time and have not kept up with all the changes in Wikipedia culture. Please do not misinterpret this statement as approval of your behavior. I am sure you recall that the last time you attacked an article on which we were both working you ended up being blocked for a week. Let's hope that this will not happen again. On the other hand, I do have to say that this time your comments have been more moderate than the last time, and you seem to be doing more research before coming to conclusions. I would like to think that you will eventually become a serious and productive editor here. In order for that to happen you will need to do even more research, and you will need to be a bit more respectful of other editors' work and responses. Haiduc (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You are well aware that calling another editor's edits "vandalism" is completely unacceptable. You need to stop doing several things, immediately 1) WP:OWNING a collection of articles 2) attempting to enforce the "ownership" by personally atacking editors with the audacity to challenge your "ownership" by criticicizing bad sourcing, such as personal websites and tabloid journalism used to verify scholarly claims, etc. There's a lot of OR and speculation in the articles, as well as NPOV problems. ( If I were you, I would also stop referring to me as "he," as I interpret this as misogynist.) All of the articles you think you own are going to be throroughly reviewed by me, and I have sought outside input from several Wikiprojects and noticeboards as well, and will continue to do so. If you persist in ownership behavior and personal attacks while these reviews are happening, expect to find yourself here every single time. You were blocked for a week for a "nasty personal attack," don't let it happen again. -PetraSchelm (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Link to discussion about dubious claims and dubious sources which Haiduc has shifted from calling "vandalism" to calling "sabotage": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Historical_pederastic_couples#Shakespeare -PetraSchelm (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And Haiduc has an unfortunate history of making ad hom attacks in lieu of arguments when reliability of sources are questioned on "his" articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pederasty#The_.22Encyclopedia_of_Homosexuality.22:_reliable_source.3F.3F -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • All these allegations are nothing more than your personal opinion on the matter. Enhance your calm, please, you are starting to sound hysterical. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Just a note to indicate that I am aware of the above remarks. I decline to comment further. I will make an exception in the case of the gender issue. Petra, as you are probably aware, Wikipedia aliases are intrinsically ungendered, no conclusions can be drawn from them. While you are welcome to be whatever you are, I based my opinion about your probable gender on the pugnacious tone of your dialogue and your interest in articles dealing with male homosexuality. Such qualities do not a feminine countenance evoke, at least not in my mind. At any rate, I did not mean to give offense so please forgive me if my words rubbed you the wrong way. Haiduc (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
        • • I have an interest in articles relating to child abuse, specifically, making them more neutral against a particular lobby. You have already been told repeatedly that I am female. I could easily prove it any number of ways, by showing up at the meetup June 1 etc, but why should I have to, or anyone have to--I tell you what my gender is, and you don't call me anything else, period. Your reasoning for why I am not female is extremely sexist and offensive. It's also totally bizarre--I have yet to see anyone else on Wikipedia tell women they could not possibly be women, etc. It's definitely a hostile environment for women in some ways, but you are an extreme case.-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
            • In Petra's defense, the name "Petra" is a common female name in Slavic cultures. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
              • In my "defense"? You're missing the part where he was explicity and repeatedly told I was female, but decided I was a liar because in his opinion, I am not "feminine," which is repulsive, disgusting, and misogynist (and gender-based harassment). -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Seems to me like Haiduc is both trying to out the identity of another editor, namely petra, which is not acceptable, and also trying to use personal attacks to get this way in a content dispute. Haiduc has been with us quite long enough to know what vandalism is,a nd i assume his use of this word is to provoke. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • You're still missing the point, Squeak. Imagine if I decided the opposite: Haiduc pointed out that he was male, and should be referred to with male pronouns, but I told him "I am not persuaded you are male," and continually referred to him as "she," because in my opinion he was unmasculine/effeminate. Wikipedia is freaking retarded on the issue of sexism sometimes.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • Point taken, this user clearly needs watching. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
                      • Are you publicly admitting to stalking, Squeak? I'd love to assume good faith but given your past behavior...--Dragon695 (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • The issue is respect. Refusing to accept an editor's statement of their gender and instead referring to them by the opposite pronoun may seem like a small detail but it's not. It's an expression of contentiousness and disrespect, and as such is uncivil and disruptive. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
                      • No, it is not just about respect--it would be one thing if he accidentally referred me to me as male, etc.--what he did is intentionally and repeatedly insisted that I was a liar, because in his opinion, I was "unfeminine"--this is ugly sexism. And note again the reverse example--if I said to any male editor, I refuse to beleve that you are male, becuase in my opinion you are effeminate and unmasculine, therefore I will refer to you only as "she," I have no doubt that this would quickly be interpreted as deliberate harassment. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
                        • Sorry, I missed this part of what Haiduc wrote above at 00:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC): "I based my opinion about your probable gender on the pugnacious tone of your dialogue and your interest in articles dealing with male homosexuality. Such qualities do not a feminine countenance evoke". Having re-read the thread, I see your point and concur with your concern. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Haiduc has continued in his ownership behavior and incivilty during this thread--he deleted a cited sentence inserted by User:Phdarts with the edit summary "remove nonsense":http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pederasty&diff=214158358&oldid=214158251. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If he continues perhaps a user Rfc would be in order. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In the "Encyclopedia of Homosexuality": reliable source discussion as noted above, Haiduc accuses another editor in a similar way, where he wrote phrases including: " please do not come here on a pedophile witchhunt" ... "imposing your opinion of a work" ... "Do not make it seem as if we are to operate as virtual idiots, as citation-gathering machines." ... " it is not ignorance of the topic that you bring to the table, but your antagonism to pederasty," - those phrases are not written about PetraSchelm, so they have nothing to do with her contributions, but they do show a pattern of discussion that is antagonistic rather than collaborative. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

While it is regrettableregretable, it is no worse than the usual tone used by User:Filll and User:ScienceApologist. I would also recommend taking the first bit as sound advice, we do not need anti-PPA tendentious editors any more than we need pro-PPA tendentious editors. We certainly don't need moar crusaders, either. Not accusing anyone in particular, but there has been an appaling lack of good faith shown by both sides. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, regardless of what the nuts at wikisposure think or try to stir up. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? What does this have to do with the fact that Haiduc and Haiduc alone is calling other peoples' edits vandalism, engaging in gender-based harassment, and article ownership? It might also help to clue you in that Haiduc doesn't edit any "PPA" articles, doesn't consider himself a "PPA," and takes offense at the idea. You're short on clues. And "hysterical." :-) -PetraSchelm (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you take it this far, and would never hand yourself in for equally disreputable behaviour...? J*Lambton ^T/_C 10:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else get the feeling that this clique discussion is most probably ideologically biased? J*Lambton ^T/_C 22:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I envy you all for having the leisure to engage in this kind of chit-chat. As I just told Squeak, let's concentrate on our work here, and not on each other. Regards to all, please do not forget to smile. Haiduc (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Squeak gave you a clear warning, and you should heed it, or there will be a user conduct RfC. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet, canvassing and COI

reposted from archive to bottom of page because still unresolved: Pigman☿ 04:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

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.[10][11]

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[12] 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.[13][14]

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 [15] 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 [16] 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 [17]

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 [18]. 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 [19]], 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)

* Addendum: Nearly all the above mentioned sock puppets were almost exclusively editing Rosencomet/Star Festival articles, voting in those articles' AFD's, etc. -- Mattisse (Talk) 16:26, 16 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)

It's no joke. Copyright vests to the authors of the email, which was sent privately to private individuals. The author of the email has noted above that he has not given permission for its reproduction. The fact that another individual violated the copyright and sent the email w/o permission to several mailing lists does not mean that the email can now be freely reproduced w/o permission from its author. I thought Wikipedia admins were much more savvy about copyright than to violate and then joke about it like this. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Since some opinions have been expressed, I might as well say I also consider it a blockable offence as well. I have to say even I am surprised at the specificity of Rosencomet's letter above concerning actions to be taken. I suspected as much but didn't have that info when I brought it here. I also see that Rosencomet's real world identity has (mostly) been redacted above. Since this info was already explicitly established as part of a public Arbcom case and is extremely pertinent to COI issues, I didn't see it as an issue of "outing" but perhaps my judgment is flawed in this case. In any event, I don't think I can block Rosencomet due to my lengthy and extensive interactions with him. If there is a general consensus for blocking him, someone else will have to push the button. Cheers, Pigman☿ 23:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

After viewing the input of editors so far, I feel that enough have expressed their opinions that what I did was a violation of the policies against canvassing. I must apologize for having done so. I can only say that I did not read it that way, and was unaware of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying case (though I've got to say that comparing that case to what I did is like comparing a war to an argument). I truly meant to encourage friends of mine that had expressed an interest in my stories about my work in Wikipedia (of which I am proud, despite my stumblings) to get involved and help improve and support articles about people and subjects important to the communities we share. I see that the way I went about it, and particularly my specific mention of articles nominated for deletion that I hoped would be kept (even though I specifically told the folks I contacted to review them and vote according to their own judgement), evidently crossed the line. Both articles have been deleted; ironically, Nicki Scully probably would have survived if not for my blundering.

I am contacting each person I sent my e-mail to and asking them to ignore it, telling them that what I did turned out to be a violation of Wikipedia policy, and that there is a case against me for having sent it out. I accept that I owe the Wikipedia community an apology, and offer one sincerely. I can only say that I felt that an undue number of articles I had created, mostly NOT related to my personal activities, were being tagged and/or nominated for deletion on notability issues, including several I thought were extremely notable, and I thought this was once again a campaign by an editor with a history of conflict with me to attack articles not because they were actually non-notable, but because I had written them. In the past, I have tried to ask arbitrators for help in such cases, and either gotten no response or, in some cases, been told that my editing was acceptable, but the editor(s) in question simply ignored the arbitrators. When I tried to get help from other editors, I was accused of canvassing. For the sake of fairness to the subjects of the articles, I had hoped that more eyes on the issue would be a help, and I have always wanted more involvement in Wikipedia by people from the communities these subjects are important to, so I thought sending out this e-mail was a good thing all around. However, I accept that my actions were improper, and I can only apologize, retract my e-mail from those I sent it to, and promise never to do it again.

Over the past many months, I have written many articles about individuals who are unrelated to the events I work on. I have created little or no new links to the ACE or Starwood pages, and no external links, though I have vigorously discussed the merits of deletions of existing mentions and wiki links on several talk pages and deletion nomination pages. In a very few cases, like Firesign Theatre, I followed up such a talk-page discussion with a revert of a deletion, but not more than one revert. An examination of my work since the arbitration last year will show that aside from talk pages and deletion pages, the vast majority of my work has been to either add to and improve articles (especially ones tagged or nominated) or to write new ones unconnected with my personal work. I can supply records of this if asked (and given time).

I can only hope that I will be allowed to continue to edit here. I truly believe I have been an asset to Wikipedia in the fields of my interests, and occasionally elsewhere. I have spent hundreds of hours just adding to bibliographies and discographies, finding citations and references, expanding and wikifying text, turning in-text notes and links into proper references, and other just plain work. I have never visited the articles of those I've had conflicts with and tagged them or treated them the way I saw myself treated; and I realize that articles don't belong to anyone, but I'm just saying that when I have had a problem it has been reactive, not proactive. I am not here to cause trouble or vandalize or disrupt, just to write and improve articles. With very few exceptions, I think my editing has improved a great deal over the last year. I sincerely hope I can continue to contribute, and I will seek to get a better understanding of Wikipedia policies. I hope I can get the help I need to operate appropriately and find the resources I need when an honest disagreement exists about good-faith edits, and I will refrain from ever violating canvassing policies either on or off Wikipedia. -- Rosencomet (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Recommended actions

By my reckoning, no one has defended User:Rosencomet's actions, four editors have clearly recommended a block, one editor has less clearly stated what Rosencomet did was "a textbook example of canvassing" without specifics of action and one edtitor's opinion seems unclear on actions to take. While Rosencomet's apology above is a consideration, I also note that here, Davidkevin says that Rosencomet's letter was posted to 4 Yahoo groups. This genie doesn't go back in the bottle that easily. This is not an isolated event and his actions over the past two years have generated a number of RfCs, mediations and an Arbcom case. My recommendation is a minimum three month block and if I had my druthers it would be for much longer or permanent. -- Pigman☿ 18:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you link to the arbcom case? -- Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. The evidence page is here. The main page is here. I'll save you the trouble of going through this rather lengthy and convoluted case and say the proposed remedy in relation to Rosencomet was the following: "Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages." -- Pigman☿ 18:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, it's probably worth mentioning that I was the one who brought the case to Arbcom in the first place although you can see that many other people participated. Please also make a note of the Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati to be clear who was defending Rosencomet's actions in this case. -- Pigman☿ 18:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I only sent the e-mail to a few friends. Only a half dozen received it, and none have expressed an intention of becoming editors. Unfortunately, one of my friends didn't understand that it was not meant for the general public, and HE forwarded it to the yahoo groups without my consent (and he has apologized), where Davidkevin read it. I have sent an e-mail to the people I originally contacted saying that my e-mail had violated wikipedia canvassing policies, and that I had apologized on wikipedia, and urging them to ignore the first e-mail. -- Rosencomet (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment having no one to advocate for me, I would repectfully point out that this case involves this e-mail and it's violation of wiki canvassing policies; at least, that's the only current evidence being considered. It has nothing to do with an Arbcom on activities that took place in 2006 during the first 4 months of my editing which doesn't mention canvassing once. Also, I had no knowledge of Ekajati's sockpuppets, nor were they the only editors in support of my position in the Arbcom or the two mediations that preceded it. Within days of my first edit, I found myself to be in the middle of a war between two people using an army of sockpuppets: Ekajati and Mattisse (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse. I didn't even know what the word meant. If you read the decisions, you'll see that it also said:

"Rosencomet was initially unaware of important Wikipedia policies and guidelines like reliable sources, verifiability, autobiography is discouraged, notability, and others.[20] He has made good faith attempts to understand policy [21] [22] and particpated in a MEDCAB mediation over the issue of links. His editing has improved significantly and his range of editing has broadened.

Passed 4 to 0, 16:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)"

Pigman's right about one thing; it was a convoluted case decided at the end of March 2007 that covered activities starting from August 2006, and I don't think it can or should be re-tried via a snapshot now. I don't think this decision should be about everything I have ever done or been accused of doing since becoming an editor, or whether Ekajati or Mattisse had more sock-puppets, nor should that Arbcom be selectively re-hashed by the one who brought it as part of this case.

I made a serious error in sending this e-mail out. There is no question of that. But unless some objective analysis of my editing since then is conducted, I don't think the Arbcom should be mixed in here. -- Rosencomet (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Your editing has always been borderline tendentious and tending to promote your own interests, so that at least has not changed. -- Guy (Help!) 21:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I mediated (for a while) the case that wound up at the ArbCom case.

I think a block would be, at this point, needlessly punitive. Pigman is right -- the genie doesn't go back in the bottle. Blocking Rosencomet, for any length of time, is not going to undo the damage, both realized and potential, in this incident. But it's also not going to teach Rosencomet anything that he isn't already being told by a flood of editors -- myself included -- in varying degrees of detail and empathy. And since the incident in question is one that is off-wiki in nature, a block inherently cannot be seen as preventative.

An indefblock, as suggested by Pigman above, I think is grossly inappropriate, since Rosencomet does seem to actually want to do better. Does he fall (far) short of the mark at least some of the time? Obviously, as this incident evidences, yes. But his apparent desire to be a positive Wikipedian, no matter how misplaced his efforts, makes an indefblock inappropriate.

That renders any block levied at this point in the process, after the incident is by and large over, purely punitive. And I would like to remind all involved here that we don't do that here and we shouldn't do that here.

Here are my suggested constructive solutions which would both be in keeping with policy and would help Rosencomet grow as an editor:

1. topic ban, either for a defined length of time or until marked improvement is evidenced.
2. mandatory mentorship, either for a defined length of time or until marked improvement is evidenced.

I suggest specifically that these two be simultaneous.

I, of course, welcome comments on this proposal. -- Revolving Bugbear 21:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I need to make it clear (and I apologize for not having made it clear already) that I am only a member of two of the four YahooGroups to which the letter was posted, and that in the two in which I saw the letter it was in fact Oberon Zell-Ravenheart who re-posted it, not Rosencomet himself. It very well may be as Rosencomet says, that it was Oberon's idea to do the reposting, not Rosencomet's -- I've known Oberon personally for 36 years and he is both a man of immense good will and also occasionally a man of impulse. I have no doubt that he thought he was doing a good turn.

Even if it was originally addressed to specific individuals and not intended for group publication, however, the letter as it is written, seen out of the context of being part of a chain of correspondence, still thoroughly appears to be an attempt to "ballot-stuff" in an edit dispute, and inappropriate by the rules under which we all are supposed to work as Wiki-editors.

Having occasionally corresponded with him, and seen some of his interactions with other editors, I don't think Rosencomet had evil intent. It appears to have been a "doofus" kind of action, something of which I don't doubt we all have been guilty at one time or another in one context or another -- Goddess knows I certainly have, both here in Wikipedia and in plenty of other places, too.

I agree that banning is merely punative and only grossly instructive at best. I think, with no intention of being patronizing, that mentorship is a much better solution for Rosencomet -- if I had had such, perhaps I wouldn't have made as many mistakes as I did when I first took up here.

I don't think a topicblock is appropriate as there are subjects about which he is knowledgable, where he can greatly improve articles. Under active mentorship social errors such as this current situation can be avoided, and we all win.

I wish him nothing but well. -- Davidkevin (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to dropping to topic ban suggestion if there is agreement that Rosencomet can trim the things that have been getting him in trouble. My suggestion for a topic ban was more out of caution than anything else -- there are some people whose patience is running extremely thin, and it would be disastrous for a boneheaded but well-intentioned move to wrench an otherwise positive mentorship. But like I said, if it's not necessary, that is of course fine. - Revolving Bugbear 23:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(Response to Revolving Bugbear's 21:32, 16 May 2008 post above which I took far too long to write.)

With all due respect, Revolving Bugbear, I think you are wrong. Yes, a punitive block/action is never appropriate. We do not block punitively; blocks are only to protect the project, not to punish. However. I know I also weigh the editor's history (if any and if I can) leading up to any incident. This is not Rosencomet's first incident of canvassing (see [23] from Dec. 2007). I also have concrete evidence that he sent a different email to 30 recipients (in Dec 2007, IIRC), again canvassing off-wiki for support. I can quote from that email if requested to do so but my source has requested confidentiality.

Over the many months of my interactions with Rosencomet, I have consistently provided him with polite help, links to appropriate policies and guidelines, explained situations when he was unclear about WP process or protocols, etc. I briefly explained how to provide a statement in the request for arbitration, an arbitration case I myself brought against his actions, particularly reminding him to keep it under 500 words because I was aware of his tendency to write at length. While certainly not a mentor to him, I've done my best to educate and tutor him in the mysterious ways of Wikipedia during our exchanges. While Rosencomet and I have often been in conflict and at odds over these months, I've always hoped he would eventually shed his ownership issues with articles and develop an understanding of WP:V and WP:RS as well as other policies.

Instead he has developed an ability to wikilawyer: to disregard policy, to ignore or creatively "reinterpret" well-established WP guidelines to serve his goals, to claim community consensus is actually a cabal organized against his work here. To put it plainly: He doesn't play well with others. That is not a blockable offense. But serial violation of the same policy, particularly when blocked for it the first time, is. Pigman☿ 00:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Pigman, you were not a mentor to him. That's what he needs -- focused, exclusive, intense guidance. With all due respect to you, and without calling your actions into question at all, you can't really expect to be instructive to someone when you are in conflict with them. Rosencomet has expressed to me that he feels that "no one is in his corner". That may be a situation of his own making, but he realizes that he needs to change the way he does things in order to be accepted and productive. That can be shown to him, but not, to take your example, by a party to an ArbCom case essentially filed against him.

What are you trying to accomplish pushing for this block? Whether or not you think he's any good at it, he clearly shows a desire to improve and to understand, so this is definitely not an indefblockable offense. So what, exactly, will this block accomplish? There is no instructive or corrective merit to a block here. What good will it do, other than to satisfy a few users who are irritated? - Revolving Bugbear 12:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I take your point. At best, I've just been courteous and occasionally helpful to Rosencomet; this is not, in any imaginable way, equal to mentorship. I can, however, take issue with "he clearly shows a desire to improve and to understand." (my emphasis) I'd say he expresses a desire to improve right here, right now, on ANI, faced with a block. Is this a failure of WP:AGF on my part? Perhaps, but as I said above, I also look at his history and explanations in relation to the canvassing. He was brought up once here at ANI for doing it on-wiki. If that was the extent, I'd be more lenient. We now have two separate instances of canvassing off-wiki that we know of. Above in this thread, he tries to wikilawyer and split hairs about whether he was really canvassing. While the CAMERA incident isn't close in scale to his known canvassing violations, it is related.

As Guy mentioned above, Rosencomet has also been a tendentious editor during his 20+ months on WP. I believe this is related to the tactics he then uses (canvassing, for example.) I agree an indef block is extreme and not appropriate. My suggestion was three months because I see such canvassing as quite antithetical to consensus on WP. His record of policy violations on WP, which includes letting others use his account, has been remarkably consequence-free for him. When caught on one thing, he stops that thing but, lo and behold, he's caught on a different violation a few months later. This is my point: He games the system by playing at being the ignorant victim. What editor of 20 months and fairly extensive WP experience doesn't know such canvassing is a policy violation? After being warned once before, four months earlier? Pigman☿ 19:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction In December Rosencomet was warned three times about canvassing, and referred to the relevant policies: [24] [25] [26]. He then says "I have looked over the material about canvassing. ... I do not see this as canvassing, and I certainly don't see it as a "blockable offence".[27] Then once again he was reminded that he's been warned, and given the policy: "Wikipedia:CANVASS#Responding_to_disruptive_canvassing. The relevant section is this: 'Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary.'"[28] - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment These are all about the same incident. You are making it look like this is a record of three incidents of canvassing, which is not the truth. Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree with Pigman when he says that he has been civil and polite to me. On the contrary, I have felt that he has treated me as if he were a parole agent, constantly watching, watchlisting, and commenting on my every edit. He, Kathryn and Mattisse have gone on two sprees of tagging and deletion nominations in the last few months on articles I've written, once tagging about 35 in the space of a few days. I have NOT engaged in revert wars or contentious editing; in fact, I have reserved myself to the talk pages and deletion nomination pages, and asked for help from arbitrators. Over the past six months I have written almost entirely articles that are NOT related to Starwood or ACE, but because they are mostly associated with Pagan and Magical people and subjects, Pigman has treated my editing as if they WERE Starwood related. I have not inserted new Starwood mentions into articles, and in most cases I haven't even argued, as mentions from before the Arbcom have been stripped from article after article, even though they were IMO appropriate in several cases. I either discussed it on talk pages or provided citations to support their inclusion; and if they were still reverted, I did NOT reinsert them. It seems to me that my editing has approached the norm in wikipedia, except for the constant pressure Pigman, Mattisse and Kathryn insist on exerting.

My editing HAS changed drastically, but these three not only refuse to see any of it, including the dozens of new non-Starwood related articles, but they are trying here to re-try me for activities that have already been settled in the Arbcom that ended in March of 2007. This is like double jepardy; except they are selecting particular one-sided pieces of that case without anything from the other side, and acting like I'm editing the same as I did back then, with no defense for me. And they are ignoring the fact that the results of that Arbcom were that my behavior was at least partly due to the fact that I was plunged into a contentious battle between two multiple sockpuppeteers starting when I had only been editing for a few days, that my editing had improved since then, and that I was free to keep editing as long as I don't do it aggressively; which I have not. My only real conflicts have been with these three editors since then; they refuse to let me be, refuse to recognize any improvement, refuse to stop trying the same Arbcom that they were dissatisfied with the results of, and they are hooking a lot of you in by presenting just parts of their side of that Aerbcom. I would ask you; if it is so clear cut, then why was the decision what it was? Please ask the arbitrators who voted 4 to 0 if this rehashing of that case is fair or balanced.

He and Kathryn have consistently claimed that I should not be allowed to edit any article by a Llewellyn author or anyone ACE's bookstore has ever had a book for sale by, even though an arbitrator, Fred bauder, has explicitly said that this is not true and that I am free to edit any article, even those of associates, as long as the edits themseves are responsible and not original research.

I am placing in Revolving Bugbear's hands an assessment of the editing I have done since the Arbcom. I've given him a sample of every article I've written alphabetically from "A" to "J" (the first ten letters). It includes 37 articles, 4 that have been deleted, 3 within the last couple of weeks. I will supply a similar assessment of ALL my edits if need be. You will see that all the new articles since March 29, 2007 are not Starwood or ACE related, and that I have not inserted any new mentions of the same into any old or new articles in the list, or revert-warred on any of them. You will find vigorous dialogs on talk pages and deletion nomination pages, but that's any editor's right.

I am asking for time to present you all with a better picture of my editing since the Arbcom, to show you that I have improved and want to improve, and that I have at times been provoked into reacting against uncivil behavior done with a polite note and a smile. I mainly want to show you that this should not be a case of evaluating everything I have done since I began editing, but I should be judged as someone who has tried hard to change and has done a lot in that area (don't take my word for it, let me document it for you). But I blundered badly about this canvassing thing; I realize that and I truly apologize, and vow not to repeat it. And I certainly need mentoring in how to react when I perceive myself to be treated unfairly without violating policy. I feel like for the past six months I've been harassed, and I am only told what I should not do or should not have done about it, but never what I CAN or SHOULD do about it. Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Support block

I have experience of trying to work with Rosencomet. He may mean well, but in practice he wears out any and all opponents by attrition. He wore me out. As long and as copiously as he has edited here, he still seems unaware of, and uninterested in, the practice and culture of the place; the meatpuppet e-mail posted above is a good example of his methods, but far from the only one. I read with interest his post above, which sounds rather like this is the first time anybody's ever tried to explain basic policy to him: I hope I can get the help I need to operate appropriately and find the resources I need when an honest disagreement exists about good-faith edits. This elicits benevolent assumptions of good faith from many who have posted above. However, my experience of his editing techniques is not "an honest disagreement about good-faith edits," I wish it were. Instead it resembles that of Pigman: I've done my best to educate and tutor him in the mysterious ways of Wikipedia during our exchanges... Instead he has developed an ability to wikilawyer: to disregard policy, to ignore or creatively "reinterpret" well-established WP guidelines to serve his goals, to claim community consensus is actually a cabal organized against his work here.

I support Pigman's proposal for blocking Rosencomet for at least three months. Revolving Bugbear asks what good a block will do. At a minimum, it will free up the time and energies of good editors, which Rosencomet uses up. These people could and should be writing articles, rather than struggling to contain his tendentious editing. (Please read Pigman's post immediately above carefully.) -- Bishonen | talk 22:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC).

If you feel that saying he "expresses" a desire to improve is more appropriate, I will concede that point. However, the distress he has expressed to me seems rather genuine, and I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on that. Maybe he's struggling with some of the policies, maybe he really never got around to reading most of them (you'd be surprised), or maybe he really does think he can weasel his way around them...in any case, I think a focused effort to make him aware and respectful of these things will show improvement. I could be wrong, but I think it's worth a shot. -- Revolving Bugbear 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I support a block as well--and to my mind, the only course here is indef. In light of the fact that a) he previously was blocked for sharing an account and b) he's been warned before for canvassing, I'm of the mind that it's time to close the door. -- Blueboy96 22:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

--Support Block: Short list of Wikipedia attempts to educate Rosencoment--

Conflicts arose around the large number of articles associated with Rosencoment's Starwood Festival and his apparent control of other Wikipedia articles listed on the Starwood Festival and related pages. At one point, there were over 145 links from Wikipedia articles going to Starwood Festival commerical links selling CDs, tickets etc. Rosencoment and those later found to be socks repeatedly replaced these commercial links when they were removed. There were also other problems such as WP:COI. Regarding attempts to reach an understanding with Rosencoment over policies and guidelines in editing on Wikipedia, please read a sample of energy of editors that has gone into such attempts:

• Starwood Festival Talk Page [29]
• Starwood Mediation 1 [30]
• Starwood Mediation 2 [31]
• Starwood arbitration (December 2006) request[32], Evidence [33], Workshop[34],Proposed decitions[35]

It was during the Arbitration that it was revealed that major supporters of Rosencomet at that time were Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati

If you want to see the scope of the number of articles that Rosencoment and supporting socks were WP:OWN at that time, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse where many (but not all) of the articles covered by Starwood Festival are listed. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It was also revealed in the same Arbcom that the problem began when Mattisse, using a host of sockpuppets herselfCategory:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse, tagged almost every article I had written in my first few days of editing with requests for citations. I did not know at the time that links to the Starwood website to support what I had written were not acceptable, and I was being told by Ekajati and Co that they were correct and that Mattisse was the problem. It was easy to believe, especially when it turned out she had written additional dummy articles and attributed them to me on various editor's talk pages! Some still exist today. I didn't even know what a sockpuppet was when this was happening; I thought these were all different editors, and that there was nothing clear at all about what I should or shouldn't be doing, since all these people who had been there before me disagreed with each other about what was a good or acceptable edit, source or citation. And whenever there was a RfC or a nomination for deletion, there was vote-stacking going on from both sides that I had no clue of; it turned out that Mattisse often voted on BOTH sides of the same issue? (I'll be happy to dig up some examples if you like.)

Please don't allow Mattisse to make this case about a re-vote on the Arbcom that involved activities nearly two years old now, especially by only introducing the parts she likes. Either read through the entire two mediations and the Arbcom, or ask the arbitrators to comment on this; ask THEM if there wasn't plenty of blame to go around for that fiasco. And allow me to document how different my editing has been since then, despite the fact that Pigman, Kathryn and Mattisse, refuse to see it. And let me demonstrate that I not only want to improve, but that I have been working on it. That's all I ask. -- Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support block. Mattisse's links are quite illuminating, and I well recall my interactions with this editor.... The purpose of the encyclopedia and that of Rosencomet are at odds with each other; Rosencomet views the project as a means to publicise his endeavours without regard to WP standards of impartiality or conflict of interest. -- LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support indef-block. Rosencomet's actions, and the diffs provided by other editors, speak for themselves. I have also attempted to educate Rosencomet about policy, repeatedly, for almost two years now. I believe he simply does not care about the Wikipedia community, nor the quality of content on Wikipedia, and is only here to promote his own interests. His canvasssing e-mail of December offered suggestions to 30 people of how to game the system and subvert consensus. He was warned three times by two admins, briefly blocked for it by another admin, and now has done it again. What I have seen is that, when caught, he often expresses remorse and promises to change; then when people have moved on to other things and he feels he's not being watched, he returns to violating WP:COI, WP:RS and WP:V and lashing out at those who remind him of WP core policies. I do not believe he will change; I do not believe he wants to change. -- Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Both Pigman and Kathryn have alluded to a December e-mail that only they know of from a source they refuse to disclose. I really don't think that's fair, and I think I should be allowed to face my accusers. This sounds like something that may have been trumped up by someone who doesn't like me, perhaps even among the folks I work with. One or two of them have issues with me, and one of them is in complete control of our yahoo groups and outgoing mail; and my only email address is associated with a website he can alter as he wishes. I ask you to discount any discussion of some e-mail they refuse to produce or source, and which may even (through no action of theirs) be bogus. And in point of fact, though I have in my geek-like way bent many an ear about what I've been doing on wikipedia and how much I'd like some help with it, I know of none who has shown an interest in giving up any of their time to work with me. They just don't see what I find so interesting about it, or why I'm willing to take the stress and keep at it. -- Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support indef-block. The assumption of good faith gradually dwindles over time if the editor concerned keeps up the same behavior. It had seemed to me that he was mellowing out in January, 2008 around the time of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenbaum (2nd nomination), but evidently this did not continue. We have to assume that people *know* when they are using Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion of their business enterprises. Nobody should be surprised when such a thing is pointed out. -- EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me demonstrate to you that I have not been using wikipedia promotionally. Let me show you all the articles I've written since the Arbcom that have no relation to Starwood or ACE, and the dozens of deletions by Pigman, Kathryn and Mattisse of such mentions dating from before the Arbcom closed that I have simply stood and watched, or only commented on from talk pages. Instead of simply accepting their claim that I'm as bad as ever, let me document the truth. -- Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As this all seems to have appeared here quite quickly, let me add my belated opinion. Going strictly on what I see above and with no previous experience, I would be against an indef block, neutral on a reasonably short defined-length block, and for mentoring. While there are some indications that Rosencomet may well be gaming the system, there are also some indications that maybe he really didn't think he was breaking the rules in this canvassing. I believe it is possible to read the policy in such a way that it implies that canvassing is only bad if it occurs on-wiki. I'm not saying that is the intent; clearly it is not; but nonetheless I think it could be read that way. Since I have no previous experience with this editor and not seen claims that he is directly responsible for any horrible offenses, I'm in favor of giving him at least one more chance. (It is not clear to me the mentioned socking is directly his fault; it appears to me to be overly-enthusiastic supporters of his. I may be wrong in that, but so it seems to me at the moment.)

I also want to point out that the letter actually asked people to become worthwhile contributing editors to Wikipedia, and then additionally asked them to stuff some votes. The second part is bad. I don't believe the first part is, and in fact I consider it positive. If the people became editors and failed to vote, they would have been respectable editors and not meat puppets. If they voted as asked, but before voting examined the case and decided they believed they should vote in favor, then I question whether the vote would have been in bad faith, and hence whether they truely would have been a meat puppet. Indeed, they might have decided to vote against, despite having been asked to vote the other way. So even though the request was wrong, in the end it may have been a net positive gain to Wikipedia in the form of a few valuable new editors. -- Loren.wilton (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet's multiple requests to "document the truth."

"And let me demonstrate...let me document the truth." -- Rosencomet, nobody is stopping you from presenting any evidence you think will support the case you want to make. You want to say something, say it already...but if I may make a friendly suggestion, be as brief as you can. Your tendency to over-write works against you. It's not fair, but it's a fact, so get whatever else you need to say posted in as concise a manner as you're able so that it can be considered and final consensus reached. -- Davidkevin (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if mentioning this will be helpful or not. Rosencomet has recently (21 May 2008) done an analysis of many of his article edits on his talk page here. Although lengthy, I think it is illuminating. I particularly encourage checking the edit histories of the articles against his descriptions as well. Pigman☿ 05:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about anybody else, but I've looked over the list and spot checked the histories and it appears to be accurate. You, Pigman, appear to be attempting to re-try this user for pre-arbitration activity. Could you please document recent (say since the beginning of May) contentious editing??? Specifically, can you show a single edit since the beginning of May in which a Starwood link is added? 70.243.80.195 (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point of this incident report, which is focused on allegations of canvassing. It is not helpful for anon. IP's to comment on Rosencomet's case. If you want to help him, register an account and become an active part of the community. Viriditas (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Summation 2.0

Current opinions are: 9 in favour of some form of block, most seem to favour an indef block. 2 opinions in favour of no block with Rosencomet entering mandatory mentoring. Is this an accurate representation of the opinions? -- Pigman☿ 04:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain if you're including me in that vote or not, but if you're not, I am Against Block, Against TopicBlock, and For Mandatory Mentorship. As the person who first reported this current incident, I never meant that he would or should be blocked or banned -- in fact, I warned him that this might happen and was trying to get him to pull back before it did, never intending for this to snowball the way it has. (Perhaps I was naive.)

I think a block will only increase the feelings of persecution Rosencomet already exhibits. That solves nothing and helps nobody.

Regardless of that, if consensus is for a block, at least make it temporary, with the mentorship attached to it upon his return. Very few actions are unforgivable, and this isn't one of those; very few habits are unchangable, and this isn't one of them. Err on the side of mercy, please. -- Davidkevin (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I forgot to list User:SheffieldSteel's comment calling Rosencomet's actions "...a textbook example of canvassing." While that isn't explicitly a call for a block, I'd say it falls closer to the "block" end of the spectrum than the "no block" end. -- Pigman☿ 05:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC) I've struck through this comment. I specifically said he didn't voice an opinion on blocking but adding my interpretation was uncalled for. His words speak for themselves. I apologize. Pigman☿ 17:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I object to putting words into SheffieldSteel's mouth, as it were. If he/she has a vote, let her/him express it rather than anyone make an assumption. -- Davidkevin (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Davidkevin -- I myself agree that it was "a textbook example of canvassing", and I am obviously against the block. Intuiting votes from people who haven't expressed them is not a good idea. - Revolving Bugbear 12:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this phase II of votes for banning? -- Badger Drink (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

* Beaver Drink, if you have a point, please make it. I wrote above that I support Pigman's proposal for "at least a three-month block." That was because it felt strange to explicitly support indefinite blocking when Pigman, who opened the thread, called it too strong a remedy. But I've changed my mind: I, too, support an indefinite block. I don't believe Rosencomet wants to change, either. I believe he's gaming our good faith. -- Bishonen | talk 08:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC).

• Has Bishzilla hacked your account again? My point is that this whole thread seems to be dominated by one editor and his dogged pursuit of a certain accomplishment - in this case, getting Rosen banned. It reminds me of the Gordon Watts days of old. I'm not informed enough to make a "vote", but this leaves a slightly odd taste in my mouth. Maybe Pigman should take a break and let other editors catch up on this. --Badger Drink (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• [Proudly.] Bishzilla admin,[36] wienie 'shonen not admin. Little beaver have point in referring to Zilla? [/me direct educational puff of atomic deathray at little badger. User burst obediently into flames. ] bishzilla _ROARR!! 11:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC).

Pigman, you are coming off as rather aggressive in this matter. I think it would be good of you to take a step back from leading the charge. This thread does not need to be pushed along by the person who initiated it -- whatever your intentions (and I am willing to extend you a thousand times good faith on this), it gives a very inappropriate appearance. - Revolving Bugbear 12:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not trying to rush a decision or stifle discussion. If I seem aggressive, my sincere apologies. I did not think summarizing opinions was a call to end discussion or take action, only a helpful recap of discussion to this point. And, yes, I was including Davidkevin in my summary. I did neglect to note that Davidkevin and Revolving Bugbear both seem to be against a topic ban as well as being for mentoring. Now I'll take Revolving Bugbear's sensible suggestion and step back from this discussion. Pigman☿ 17:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not against a topic ban -- I think it may be an alternative to a block, but am not committed to the idea. - Revolving Bugbear 17:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that anyone particularly wants to hear my non-admin opinion on this, but here goes anyway. With Rosencomet's tenure on Wikipedia, many editors would have had time to gain admin or even bureaucrat status, yet this one still doesn't seem to understand that canvassing is bad. My good faith interpretation, after reading the discussion above, is that educating this editor as to how Wikipedia works is taking too long, since it is apparently necessary to run through every rule in the book, explicitly telling them "do not do this", and even then the lesson does not always sink in the first time. Stating my bad faith interpretation at this point would be doubly redundant, since you can guess what it is, and since I believe that the good faith disruption by this editor is causing more trouble than their contributions are worth. Whether that justifies a ban or a block is for the admins to decide. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet denies knowing that this is against policy- obviously anyone with common sense might think it is, plus Rosencomet has been here years so can't claim to be ignorant of policy, and has been advised about canvassing before. This is WP:MEAT and he will have heard of meatpuppetry before. I would suggest at least a ban on editing articles about which he has a WP:COI, we will then see if Rosencomet has it in him to be a keen editor on other articles. Or maybe then Rosencomet will suddenly be less interested in wikipedia. Sticky Parkin 01:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Support immediate ban on editing all articles where Rosencomet has a COI in addition to mandatory mentorship. If the mentor feels Rosencomet should edit talk pages per WP:SCOIC, then this should be allowed but watched carefully. And, if after three months, Rosencomet has shown a significant improvement in his editing and understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then he should be allowed to appeal the ban in order to edit articles based on the "non-controversial edits" clause in WP:COI, but only after an editor review subject to discussion by the community. But, if Rosencomet engages in any bad behavior outside of his mentorship, then an indefinite block should be on the table. If Rosencomet cannot agree to these simple, fair, and equitable terms, then I support a three month block. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I think that either a ban or a block is necessary, to prevent further disruption, and it doesn't matter if the user is acting in good faith or not. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Complete lack of evidence

I've reviewed all the recent posts under this thread by Pigman, and I find absolutely no documentation of recent "aggressive editing" by Rosencomet. I find a lot of vague references to activity dating from 2007, but that is almost six months ago. Where is a list of diffs showing "aggressive editing" since, say, the beginning of May? Precisely how many "aggressive edits" have been made recently? We simply don't know, b/c Pigman hasn't provided any documentation.

And if there was an arbitration case with a clearly defined warning against "aggressive editing", why is this issue being brought up here? Why isn't the alleged "aggressive editing" being documented for the arbitrators to review? It seems that the correct venue and process would be to go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Clarifications and other requests to clarify whether Rosencomet's recent editing behaviour crosses the boundary set by the arbitrators, and/or to go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement to request enforcement of the prior decision, wouldn't it? 70.243.80.195 (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You're giving us a red herring. This incident report is concerned with canvassing and COI. Please address those two issues. Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Point taken on canvassing. COI was dealt with in arbitration and was not considered to be as serious as Pigman makes out to be. Rosencomet was simply cautioned not to edit aggressively. Speaking of red herrings, if the issue is canvassing, then most of Pigman's posts about past behaviour, etc. are also red herrings. Since blocking is not punitive, and Rosencomet seems simply to have misunderstood, why not simply ask if he will refrain from canvassing in the future? Since that is really the only current issue here? 70.243.80.195 (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the arbcom "caution". My understanding is that Rosencomet has been asked several times not to canvass, and the block hinges on this fact, as he continues to do it. Are you implying he has not been warned about canvassing in the past? Kathryn NicDhàna has provided diffs above showing at least three prior warnings. Viriditas (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, here is the only decision in the case. With respect to canvassing, I think it is being blown out of proportion due to a third-party forwarding the email to the several lists. A lot of requests for help are made by admins and others through back-channel emails. If he emailed a half-dozen or less people who did not respond, then no disruption was caused by him. All the disruption was from people who received the forwarded email on several mailing list, which cannot be laid at Rosencomet's feet. I don't see why anything more than a "do you understand now and will you refrain" should be required. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the links Kathryn provided to "warnings" are misleading. It was one warning and then the following discussion with respect to a single incident of on-wiki canvassing. WP:CANVASS does say "Wikipedians" which should be changed. Whether Rosencomet is "wikilawyering" or had a misuderstanding is certainly an arguable issue, but I see that no one has bothered to clarify the policy page itself.... 70.243.80.195 (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Fred Bauder clarified the Arbcom decision here, saying to Rosencomet, "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." 70.243.80.195 (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It's a bit disingenuous to delete the evidence of Rosencomet's canvassing from this discussion and continue to comment about it, so I've provided a link to the evidence in the page history here. There is a big difference between requesting help and telling people how to vote and this type of canvassing and vote stacking has not stopped after Rosencomet was given at least three previous warnings. Like I said above, I support a temporary ban on Rosencomet's editing to articles where he has a COI (subject to review after three months of good editing) and mandatory mentorship. Do you think it too much to ask that Rosencomet actually work on Wikipedia articles unrelated to him or his organization for three months? People with a COI shouldn't even be editing these articles in the first place. As the arbcom warning suggests, when problems arise Rosencomet should confine himself to the talk page and refrain from editing articles where he may have a COI; And, we have a problem. Blaming others for this problem isn't helping your case. The best thing Rosencomet can do right now is put a wikibreak template on his user page and voluntarily leave the project for at least a month. The more you keep talking about this, the worse it's going to get. Viriditas (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no conflict involving the editing of articles has arisen. The conflict only involved AfDs. So why should canvassing involving AfDs affect the ability to edit articles which has been repeatedly affirmed as appropriate as long as that editing itself is not aggressive and relies on reliable sources? Has any evidence been presented of recent aggressive editing or addition of unsourced material? And the copyvio should be referred to the oversight committee, not linked to.... You are aiding and abetting a copyright violation which should never have been acceptable. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

While e-mail is technically copyright-protected, the claim of copyright violation in this case is a red herring. Copyright law is about protecting the commercial interests of authors, it's not about trying to hide information. Ordinary e-mail has no commercial value, nor is ordinary e-mail a "secret". Thus it can be cited freely, as long as attribution is provided and the work is not claimed to be someone else's. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case, add me to the list of people who support a three-month block. I've had enough of this. Viriditas (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing is against the rules, and if the editor in question has continued to canvas despite repeated warnings against it, then some kind of sanction would seem to be in order. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not saying he shouldn't be blocked. I'm saying it should be referred to the arbitration committee rather than a gangrape by admins some of whom are violating the user's copyright, privacy, and intensionally misrepresenting the facts. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, your argument about copyright violation is bogus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. There has to be commercial value to collect damages, but an author still has complete control over the republication of their work, regardless of its value. I'll take it to the copyright page where perhaps there will be less ignorance of copyright law. 70.243.80.195 (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. An ordinary e-mail's contents are fair game as long as they are properly cited. And the vital part of the author's identity was hidden, so his privacy was protected, which is possibly more than he deserves. Canvassing is against the rules. Hiding behind a bogus copyright claim, in order to hide the evidence of rule violations, is a good candidate for Joke of the Day. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(un-dent) Thanks for reverting Please strike out this astonishing statement of bad faith, but even when worded politely your comments are serving only to obfuscate the issues. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User:70.243.80.195 is a User:Ekajati sockpuppet

Checkuser has determined that 70.243.80.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Ekajati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Pigman☿ 17:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The IP in question now has a 6-month block. The "copyright" discussion could probably be struck as irrelevant, if that's appropriate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The banned User:Ekajati had awarded User:Rosencomet a couple of barnstars for projects they worked on together [37] which could account for the IP address being so defensive or protective of Rosencoment's interests. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally reluctant to strike it because I think, despite the source, the argument isn't entirely specious. I think the argument is very weak though, particularly since the original email was apparently sent to a handful of people, hardly a private communication. I do think it muddies the waters a bit. Pigman☿ 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Is Rosencomet three times faster than a regular user? Jtrainor (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite: how "fast" is the average user? Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a joke only a Gundam fan would get. Look up Char Aznable. =p Jtrainor (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User unleashes sporadic personal attacks

Once an active user, Langloisrg (talk · contribs), after getting tired of editing wikipedia in Sept. 2007 stopped editing and in Feb. 2008 said that was my fault. It was really shocking to me and I asked explanations because I had no issues with him. In Apr. 2008, his first vandalism occurred, very personally directed. I did no actions here back then. Yesterday, another bunch of attacks came: first a personal attack (what a work!), and then reverting some edits made by me: [38], [39], and then attempting a dubious AfD of a page recently created by me.

Now after this latest bunch of events, I feel really disturbed. I don't want to see such things happen on wiki. My request is to block the user indefinitely, as it appears is not going to continue with constructive work.

Thanks, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've issued a warning for the personal attack. This editor seemed to be constructive in the past, so perhaps we should see if the warning works. Kevin (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to state that the reason I got tired of editing was because every time I created an article the feargod deleted or reverted it with extremely rude comments.. I admit that some of the articles needed work and that the format may not have been correct but rather than explain to me what was wrong and how to do it correctly he would simply blast me with rude comments and treat me like I was an idiot. Also he frequently made POV comments whenever I would add info regarding a military op or Iraq related article. It became very obvious that this user wa anti US, anti Iraq War and anti military. Personnel I think that someone needs to give him or her some lessons in tact. Don't take my word for it go back and review some of the comments that the fear god has left on edits and you'll see what I mean.--Langloisrg (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

your baseless accusations cannot justify your lunatic vandalistic behaviour. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Your personal attack above is also unjustified. Kevin (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course YOUR going to say there baseless there about YOU, I would expect no less from someone who obviously has their own agenda about what Iraq war related information should be on wikipedia. If anyone puts something in an iraq related article that doesn't portray the US as a bunch of warhungry criminals you jump in and delete it as POV.--Langloisrg (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Langloisrg -- if you feel TheFEARgod has behaved inappropriately, the thing to do is file a report on this noticeboard or seek arbitration or otherwise follow the WP:Dispute resolution process. However, the personal attacks (such as adding "asshole" all over TheFEARgod's user page) are not acceptable no matter what. In fact, they would not even be acceptable as retaliation for a direct personal attack -- if, hypothetically, TheFEARgod were to respond by calling you an asshole on your user page, he could be blocked for that.

If you want to seek resolution over the perceived injustices you allege, please follow the directions at WP:Dispute resolution. However, if you continue the personal attacks you will be blocked without further notice.

I will repeat this message on your user talk page. Thanks, and have a nice day. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether you block me is irrelivent, all I have to do is create another USERNAME. Besides it has become apparent to me that the majority of the editors with high participation rates only want to create drama and bicker and banter about what is or isn't MOS or some other wikirule. Rather than be an online compendium of human knowledge has turned out to be nothing more than a good guy club full or clicks and anyone new who hasn't been editing for year and knows all the rules is written off as a vandal. By the way the first time I even heard of this page was when the link was left on my talk page. Thats part of the problem, wikipedia has become such a sea of pages and articles and forums with subpages branching out like spiderwebs its nearly impossible for a new user to get any resolution on a problem. As far as the activity on the feargods page it was easy to fix and I felt a great deal of stress relief so I will be good on the vandalism for quite sometime.--Langloisrg (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a recommendation TFG if you are a little nicer in your edit summaries and the comments you leave you might not have this happen as often. I don't think you mean too ut sometimes your comments are quite rude and/or insulting. Not trying to preach just something that I too had noticed. I just stopped editing those articles and didn't turn to this violence.--Kumioko (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I hear that again and again, now I want to see evidences--TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

btw you too had a 3-month delayed accusation, if I am right.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

PCPP (talk · contribs)

Since January, this user has continuously blanked the article Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong about a notable organization that has survived AfD [40] and redirected the article to Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China in order to minimalize articles concerning the persecution of the Falun Gong. The user consistently makes pro-China edits and engages in edit-wars. I'm including the diffs below to how many times he has redirected this specific article after AfD despite warnings to stop: [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]

Again, this behavior has been going on for 5 months now with no end in sight. --Ave Caesar (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

By his editing patterns and comment on his user page, I highly suspect that Ave Caesar is the same as Nonexistant User Strothra, and Veritas, who is know under different aliases and has previously blanked the userpage of Bobby Fletcher[49], and later MFDing it for linking to his personal blog critical of Falun Gong[50].

My problem is that this article was created by Fnhddzs, a single purpose account, and later HappyInGeneral, another SPA and admitted Falun Gong practitioners previously involved in an arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong, to make a WP:POINT and a WP:WALL, who previously created several other such articles deleted by admins ie Clearwisdom and Yale Falun Gong club. I do have problems with this article on its notability, and has presented my views on the talk page of the respective article (Talk:Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong) on why it fails WP:ORG (eg only 25700 results from the Google test, and little mainstream news coverage), and hasn't been edited for months since the AFD. He also has a history of WP:CANVASSing, his friends has swamped my AFD with attacks on my intents instead of addressing my points, and currently has canvassed the FLG SPAs to this page. [51], [52], [53].

The nominator seems to have problem distinguishing between content disputes and clear vandalism, and has previously nominated me on ANI, which was later rejected by an admin for being a content dispute [54]. I do have problems with the content pro-FLG SPAs add to FLG articles, and as per the Falun Gong articles being placed under WP:Article probation and must confirm to WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. I have expressed my problems with certain content and phrases failing to adhere to the guildlines on the talk pages, [55], [56], however, Ave Caesar, his previous identities, and the FLG SPAs, keeps reverting my edits and call it vandalism.--PCPP (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather than just criticize the person who opened this complaint, it would be more helpful if PCPP could explain why he thinks there is consensus for his redirecting of Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong, something that he did eight times. If the article survived AfD, it would be normal to leave it alone. (There is no evidence that I can see on the article's Talk page of a consensus for redirecting). Your actions appear to be subverting the result of the AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Comment: AFAICT, there are two fundamental issues here. As part of their propaganda battle, Falun Gong practitioners have set up newspapers, TV stations, and other front organisations such as COIPFG and World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (WOIPFG). The root cause, in my view, is the existence of a Falun Gong cabal which is seeking to use Wikipedia to further counter-attack and obtain a "right of reply" against the propaganda onslaught of Chinese Communist Party (CCP), quite often ignoring or severely bending wiki policies and guidelines, most obviously WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP, and occasionally also WP:RS and WP:A. The majority of these users are not interested in editing any other articles on wikipedia, because that does not further their cause. Some pro-FG editors engage in edit wars when sourced material which does not find favour with them is inserted - the Falun Gong foot-soldiers do come in and out, consistently using the undo button, reminding all that any good work not meeting their own criteria are easily rejected and reverted; I have found and corrected numerous inaccurate attributions and what I suspect to be deliberate misquotes in this family of articles. I have noticed that the environment is pretty hostile: no sane editor hangs around the Falun Gong related articles for long - perhaps that's already an indictment of my own sanity ;-) - so the family of articles by definition attracts cranks or ardent supporters or opponents, consequently creating a vicious circle of a very polarised article prone to edit warring.

The second issue is PCPP's own editing style and apparent inability to adhere to acceptable editing etiquette.In general terms, whilst I would only agree with perhaps 20% of his edits (both in terms of content and number of edits), I also find the remaining 80% (and edit warring with FG editors) rather counter-productive if not disruptive - but I would remind you that it takes two to tango. I suspect his faulty approach may be fuelled by [his] indignance (shared by myself) that FG propagandists be allowed to create their own sanitised walled garden of articles through which they can launch their attacks on their sworn enemy, the CCP. Using WP as a platform, they reply to all the criticisms against them citing their own sources such as The Epoch Times, Clearwisdom, the "Falun Dafa Information Centre", WOPIFG and CIPFG.

I also do not agree with the AfD decision, which I feel was not decided on the merits of the subject in question, but was heavily influenced by the strong FG presence as well as by the actions of PCPP, which appeared to have turned a number of other editors against him. However, I would agree that his editing behaviour warrants taming. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Comment: There may be some value to what confucius is saying, but it's mostly irrelevant to this case, and should be dealt with separately. It confuses the issue to bring up perceived problems in other editors. On the whole, attacking people's motivations is also not a valuable approach. The target here should not be the perceived ideological alignment, but the specific problematic edits, use of sources, and what have you.

A major problem with PCPP's style of editing is that he only does it once in a while. He will come along and do a whole bunch of reverts on articles. I'd say it's more like 90% useless or downright disruptive, 10% useful, or 'okay'. Usually I just revert him. I used to ask for comment on the talk page or ask him to stop doing it, but since whenever there is a backlash he disappears for months at a time, I started just riding it out. Now it's come to a head again, and while this discussion is going on he has gone again and done the same thing, [57], [58], [59], (a favourite), etc.. Usually the changes are vast, and he never seeks to discuss them. Because of this I stopped bothering to discuss either and just hit the undo button. I think this is also wrong, and now I will initiate a discussion on each of those pages as a gesture of cooperation. I also actually recognise the need not to simply revert when there are some legitimate changes among a whole bunch of simple deletions of sourced paragraphs he doesn't like. That is also something I once attempted to build a bridge over--that is, to pick through the changes and put in the good ones and leave out the bad ones. But after a while I got tired and felt like I should not have to deal with that, that he goes away after being reverted a few times, that he never discusses edits anyway, and that it's just easier to simply revert. This is lazy and not in the right spirit of civic cooperation, so I will also try to do better here.

I don't know what citing SPA here is supposed to do. I only edit Falun Gong pages because that's my priority and I only have a certain amount of time I can commit to wikipedia. I'm interested in other things. When these pages are done I'll pursue my other interests. What's the point of these recriminations? No one is here saying PCPP's a communist agent. We should be looking at the edits themselves here, not bandying around these blunt stereotypes and personal attacks. PCPP needs to change his style of editing and start making a meaningful contribution to these pages.--Asdfg12345 05:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: I noticed I had already left such a note on several pages and it had gone unanswered, so I must not have done as bad as I originally thought. I had been threatening an RfC on his behaviour for a while but never got around to it. I hope something will be resolved here.--Asdfg12345 05:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My problem is with your systematic reverts of all of my additions just because you don't like one or two of them. Considering that you never gained consensus to add materials that are of questionable POV [60][61] I find it hypocritical for you and your buddies to jump on me and go on a reverting spree, while turning a blind eye to Dilip rajeev's much more destructive edits, and when in fact the terms of the article probation specifically prohibits you and other SPAs from making systematic reverts. I indeed have tried to discuss changes and sections which I feel are biased [62],[63], but your typical response is that they are sourced and thus should remain, when in fact the article probation stated that such additions need substantial response before being added. Most of the changes are really ridiculous, such as weasel word eg persecution vs crackdown, Chinese government vs Chinese Communist Party, reports vs allegations, etc. Sorry, but considering that my motivations were attacked in the AFD by FLG SPAs, and that the content disputes were called vandalism, I have every right to question your motives.--PCPP (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The 'issue' from a Wikipedia point of view I guess it's rather simple. What is destructive editing and who is doing that. Are we able and if not why are we not able to edit and construct the article in a civilized manner. Personally I would very much like if more of you could keep an eye on the articles and make sure that the conduct is OK, sources are proper that there is no OR, etc (basic Wikipedia policies). Normally I understand that is a lot to ask, but consider that there is a genocide going on, and one of the stages of the genocide is exactly misinformation. (I know that Ohconfucius will jump because I'm using the word genocide but please take a look at the definition of the word. I believe I'm using it correctly). --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Various blocks

PCPP (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 48 hours by Blnguyen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) has also been blocked for 48 hours by yours truly. Block reviews and thoughts on further application of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong are welcome. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Comment: Contrary to what Asdfg said above, I believe that my comments which seek to put PCPP's disruptive behaviour into context are not at all misplaced. Indeed, FG editors often seek to [over]load an article with blinding quantities of "context" bashing the Chinese authorities and the Chinese Communist Party, claiming that the FG issue cannot be understood without it.

As the comments of HappyInGeneral clearly show, FG editors frequently use very emotive language to justify what they seek to control the content of the main articles they like to edit - they argue that they have been slandered by the CCP, and we ought to give them a right of reply; they imply or argue that we need to draw to the world's attention the 'widespread persecution', because they have been silenced in China.

Here is a very good example of a cabal at work: no sooner than Asdfg being blocked, HappyInGeneral stepped into the breach - this is by no means an isolated occurrence. The result is that, with the transient behaviour of 'normal' WP editors with respect to FG articles, FG practitioners/lobbyists/editors have a de facto veto over any changes in an article they disapprove of, by being able to claim "Consensus" for or against any given change. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Then again, do you see my action as being against wikipedia policies? I'm open to discuss, still reverting the persecution page to something that is not even called persecution ... without discussion, how fair is that? Remember the article was renamed according to the wikipedia policy on disputed titles. On the other hand, somehow you find it OK to have it reverted without any discussion to the way PCPP likes it. This is why I asked administrators who are potentially neutral to this article to step in, and make sure that wikipedia policies are respected and that a civilized editorial environment is kept. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Andreasegde

This user seems to hold personal grudges. He began attacking me early this month.[64] Told to calm down but continued, calling me a vandal for apparently believing McCartney is dead.[65]

I was new to such a long article and misguided by the size tag seen while editing. He and another user corrected me about this two months back. But now Andre is trying to claim the article as seen in the above diffs. He just abuses though I make lots of useful edits. He later called me very clever, by seeming to be a concerned editor, and does not reply to accusations (not replying in any way at all) but continues to slowly destroy what a lot of people have worked on. It's a clever strategy, albeit very destructive. It's a new form of vandal.[66] I was on vacation when all this happened. User:Betty kerner said that I should be reported here but there are no signs of me trying to damage the article. I was just unaware on how to edit it.

This is not only on the Talk but on Paul McCartney too. This was where I expanded a sec using its main article. It was perfectly neutral writing with proper sources[67] But he summarised the sec by an edit summary that I expand on Paul is dead, so I am a vandal.[68] He's also attacked on my talk as I don't expect a reply from a vandal (who is registered, and gives himself so many awards).[69] He then tried to provoke another user by calling me a self-elected vandal, who likes awards, albeit given to himself. What a high-fallutin' dipstick.[70] (About awards, I have actually received all four and can show the diffs; the badges and ribbons are self-awards.) I am now just too intimidated to contact Andreasegde by sending him warning templates. Ultra! 15:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Andreasegde (talk · contribs) is a long time contributor to various subjects relating to The Beatles, including the four principle members, their manager, some of the earlier members, and other individuals associated with the band ( see this count. He has amassed over 3,000 edits to Paul McCartney alone) some of which he has got through GA - and truthfully it was largely his efforts in both supplying references and text and cajoling other editors to contribute - who has an intolerant attitude toward "poor" edits. Frankly, if you happen to believe that Macca is dead it was extremely unwise to attempt to insert it into the article, since it is extremely unlikely that the standard of source would be sufficient to satisfy Andreasedge (or indeed any hamster who could read). This editor does not profess to WP:OWN any Beatle related article, but poorly or non sourced content is often swiftly reverted and the contributors held in poor regard - it is unfortunate, but true, that Andreasegde has not the best bedside manner in such discussions. However, Andreasegde is a good contributor. I trust his judgement.

nb. I have let him know of this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The user is a vandal (but only against Paul McCartney). Look at the history pages.--andreasegde (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

His judgment in editing may be fine, but leaving comments such as " You know where Mummy's apron strings are when you want to complain, do you not? But you know how to be merciless when editing. Who took the ball away when you were young?" on another editor's talk page, regardless of any provocation, is conduct to warrant a block to prevent more of the same. LHVU, any better ideas how to deal with this? He was prev. blocked 24hrs for this sort of thing in April. 20:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

May I add, I too made some edits to Paul McCartney and got a nasty note from User:Andreasegde. See [71] for details. He acted like a bully on issues of content, whether he was right or wrong. And he was not always right. I don't think that User:Ultraviolet scissor flame actually believes Paul McCartney is dead, and attacks on his/her and my character are not helpful in building consensus and making articles better. maxsch (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

By way of rejoinder, I, myself, User:Diligent Terrier/Florentino floro and Maxschmelling, has a pending debate with maxsch, since almost daily, all my edits are are edited or reverted by this user. But my own human nature and patience compelled me to observe Wiki rules, and I never attacked, but just ignored this user, by correcting the bad or wrong edits, if any, and asking opinions from other editors. User:Andreasegde had and has great contributions to Wikipedia, and I myself is dwarfed by Andreas' tireless efforts here. --Florentino floro (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What Maxsch points out is clearly uncivil, breach of WP:AGF and biting newcomers on the article. I guess this is his way of making 3000 edits to McCartney. Ultra! 14:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[out] I think it is fair to say that without Andreasegde's tireless efforts, a whole host of Beatles-related articles would be paltry shadows of what they are or would simply not exist. That's not ownership - he is generous and welcoming to people new to articles that he works on, if they are constructive and not damaging to the hard work that many people have put in. He has worked long and hard with a group of editors to develop balanced, interesting, comprehensive, well-referenced pieces not only about the four principals, but also about many related people and subjects, making the Beatles portfolio of articles quite thorough and impressive. Along the way there have been countless vandals and tendentious editors who have sometimes made it impossible to continue editing there - I have personally experienced some of this. Yet Andreasegde has always called them out and come back to put more work in, to preserve the integrity of the articles. He does it with his own brand of humor and expression which some may not immediately grasp, but in my experience it is indeed done with humor and while I might agree that occasionally he could be more diplomatic - can we not say that about most of us? - my observation is that he's usually spot on in identifying problematic edits and editors whose contributions harm the project, and has been a force for collaboration and cooperation among editors who work to improve it. I haven't looked into the specific circumstances that led to this AN/I comment yet, but, like Less, I trust Andreasegde's judgment and suggest some lightening up here. Tvoz/talk 00:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Nail/head/hit --Crestville (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who asked Andreasegde to calm down, after he posted this call to WP:ABF [72] (in Andreasegde's favour, he has not followed through on this threat). He does appear to be a good editor, but he doesnt seem to understand the difference between vandalism and a content dispute, or want to follow any dispute resolution process [73], seems to think that the Beatles project owns the McCartney page [74], and continues to write abusive - not humourous - comments [75][76][77][78] and edit summaries [79]. He must realise that this is not helpful?

To justify his behaviour, he mentions some history to this dispute: apparently User:Vera, Chuck & Dave left the Beatles project because of Ultra's "vandalism". I looked into this a bit, the final straw seems to be this: [80], (Vera's last McCartney edit) and I can't see the vandalism being reverted there at all - it's just a content dispute.

Ultra, for his part, has been uncommunicative throughout (going back to the dispute with Vera). He claims above to have been on holiday, but kept editing for a day after I asked him to try to defuse this situation by explaining his edits [81]. If he'd just discuss his changes on Talk:Paul McCartney, this wouldn't have gone so far. I left the dispute alone after my first couple of comments in the hope that, since McCartney is peripheral to Ultra's interests, the editors would spend some time apart anyway.

To sum up: a content dispute has become drama because two otherwise-productive editors won't talk about the article instead of about each other. I don't think blocks are warranted, yet, but a WP:TROUT might be in order. Bazzargh (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I suppose I'm allowed to throw my hat in the ring, so I will.

• User Ultra! has changed his name from Vikrant Phadkay to Paaerduag to Ultraviolet scissor flame, and has been blocked twice as a vandal for being a page blanker. See the Paul McCartney talk page for more. The evidence seems to suggest that this user has multiple accounts.
• Ultraviolet scissor flame (same user) cut the McCartney article down when it had been laid out to concentrate on various aspects of McCartney's life. Not once did he leave a note on the talk page detailing what or why he had done something. That is not working collectively, it is downright rude and arrogant.
• He put a photo of a McCartney impersonator in the "Business" section, and when I deleted it, he reverted it. This is a new kind of positive vandalism, IMO. (User Tvoz later reverted this, thankfully.)
• He moved whole sections to Paul McCartney (solo) but left it in a mess, with repeated sentences (a cut and paste job) did not put one category on it, and didn't even bother to put The Beatles' template on the talk page. A lot that is now on the solo page is still on the main McCartney page. This act was sloppy and reckless.
• He stated that the McCartney article was too long, but put a lot more into the "Paul is Dead" section. This led me to think that this user was up to no good.
• The user only works on McCartney's article and no other Beatle-related articles, which makes me think he is singling McCartney out for special attention.
• When asked for clarification, the user left no reply on any page, (not even his own).
• The user claimed to be on holiday, but an editor above saw that was untrue. This should be taken into account.
• A recent edit shows this: ref name="MPL"/> it reunited McCartney with George Martin, who both produced the song and arranged the orchestral break. before their second 1973 album [82] shows that the editor does not know the first thing about editing, or did it deliberately.

It is true that I have worked a lot on Beatles' articles, and I consider myself to be friendly and helpful. I have been blocked once in the past for complaining that an editor was a sock puppet, and was not in the least interested (in his own words, no less) in taking the Brian Epstein article to GA, but actively tried to confuse the issue. I have been here long enough to know when someone is not doing their best, and when that person starts to alter a page with no thought for the reactions of others, then my hackles will be raised.

By starting this discussion, Ultraviolet scissor flame has taken the lead, and of course it seems to be on myself to disprove the hinted allegation that I am a wife-beater. :)) I will let my work here speak for itself, but I can say that Ultraviolet scissor flame also has allegations to answer. If the user would stop messing about with McCartney's page as if it were a sandpit, then I would have absolutely no problem with that.

P.S. User maxsch had a bee in his bonnet about one sentence mentioning football in the McCartney article, so his opinion is biased here. For all his complaints, McCartney's page now has a whole section with 10 references about football. I wish you all the best. --andreasegde (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect to those editors concerned who know I mean them no offence, I find this debate somewhat tiresome as Ultra is a sock-puppeteer (such wonderful jargon) in connection with Paderugg ([83]). His nomination of such a fine and respected user is purely an attempt to disturb and annoy us and should be disregarded. He has clearly disrupted (at best) the McCartney page and my own previous dealings with this user have shown him to be disruptive, awkward, argumentative, and - even with good faith assumed - prone to vandalism. Consequently I feel this "incident" should be utterly disregarded and any further such reports not entertained. While Andreasegde may not have the greatest "bedside manner", many of the slights on his character here appear to be born solely out of sour grapes. He consistently and conscientiously does the right thing and this, not bullying, nit picking, or domineering, are the cause of his massive, pulsating edit count for the McCartney article, and the reason the Beatles wikiproject remains in such joyfully rude health. This is, to my eyes, an open and shut case. I love you, let's be friends. --Crestville (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Contested protection

In the aftermath of the incident discussed just above, with one overeager editor blocked for 96h for 10RR (yes... 10RR), we are now in disagreement over whether this article should be protected or not. User:Gamaliel, also involved in the discussion and editing, has just protected it. I believe that the protection is unnecessary, now that the user who was revert warring has been blocked, particularly as to my knowledge not a single revert war was carried out which did not concern reverts by or reverting of the user who is now blocked. I think we should now let the interested editors edit the article - I do not think there is any likelihood of a new edit war, the remaining editors seem to be willing to discuss the issue at talk and not to overstep WP:BRD too much. Alas, User:Gamaliel has overturned my unprotection and criticized me for it (even through he himself is also involved in editing of the article). Thus I'd like to ask for a review of the situation: with the reverting user blocked, I see no need for protection (protection is necessary when many users revert without breaking 3RR thus destabilizing the article; here we have a simple case of 10RR violator who was primarily responsible for the destabilization).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I visited this article after a post on the BLP noticeboard. What I found was a group of editors whose nationalist fervor appeared to override their judgment. Both sides were uncivil and combative, and I've been making attempts to get everyone to use the talk page and discuss the issues involved. Other new editors have arrived from the BLP noticeboard as well as the RfC I encouraged one editor to open. However, the edit war is still flaring, as witnessed by multiple blocks for 3RR violations. After two editors were so blocked today, I decided to lock the article and encourage the parties to discuss their differences. It was immediately unlocked by Piotrus. This action was only the latest improper action he has taken in regards to this article. He has taken clear sides in the editing dispute, which is fine if he is not acting in an administrative capacity,. but he is trying to wear both hats. He has been repeatedly uncivil to an opposing editor, and while that editor is far from innocent and blameless, my attempts to get Piotrus and other editors to be civil to him (and vice versa) were met with accusations by him that I was "endors[ing] a combination of censorship and personal attacks". Prior to my involvement, Piotrus threatened this editor with a block for removing a blatant BLP violation in the form of an appalling attack on a living individual on the talk page. Piotrus' response to this is only that the editor he threatened is a mean instigator of trouble. After I locked the article today, he immediately unlocked it, an improper action given his deep involvement in the article and his animosity towards the other editor who was blocked today. (My involvement in the article editing has been limited to tinkering with the refs and adding a small quailifier ("he claims") to a appallingly POV sentence.) Overall, Piotrus has been an obstacle to restoring civil collaborative editing on this article and has repeatedly used his administrative position inappropriately. Gamaliel (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Translations:

1) "multiple blocks for 3RR violations": Translation: "two blocks". Well, "three", including the same user (Boodlesthecat) twice.

2) [Piotus] "has taken clear sides in the editing dispute". Translation: [Piotrus] has criticized an editor (Boodlesthecat) who was revert warring and highly incivil (ex. accusing them of "Jew bashing trolling") that if he does not stop violating our policies (WP:3RR, WP:NPA, etc.). That editor was defended by Gamaliel.

3) [Piotrus] "has been repeatedly uncivil to an opposing editor" (no diffs provided, presumably Boodlesthecat?). Translation: [Piotrus]] has repeatedly told the editor who was edit warring and harassing those who disagree with him he will be blocked if he continues his behavior (and lo, he was. Twice. Not by Piotrus...).

Overall, I find Gamaliel activity not the best example of admin's behavior: incivil, revert warring editors should be warned, not appeased and encouraged, whether one agrees with their POV or not. And protecting the article after the principal revert warring editor was blocked, in his version, and wheel warring over it, is hardly showing a proper admin judgment, either.

PS. In any case, I don't want want this to turn to discussing of Gamaliel's actions (everyone can make mistakes and I have not heard anything bad about his judgment before), but the article should be unprotected so that we can benefit from the recent influx of BLP/RfC editors who may want to edit mainspace, particularly as there is no indication any edit warring will resume (at least, not for the next 3 days, until the user blocked for edit warring block expires).

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Encouraging all parties to be civil to one another is not encouraging or appeasing anything, and Boodles' wrongs don't give you license to threaten him, restore BLP violations, or generally act as you have.

As you should know, a page should be protected regardless of whether or not the "right" version is the one protected, barring blatant violations of core policies like BLP of course. See "The Wrong Version". Gamaliel (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The page should not be however protected by an admin who was involved with editing it. It looks pretty bad when you protect the version of the blocked editor whom you refused to moderate, whom you defended in discussion and whose POV you appeared to support with your talk comments and edits.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't refuse to moderate anyone. Please show where I refused to do so. I have been counseling him to act differently, to file an RfC (which he listened to) and to stop edit warring (which he did not listen to). I have advising you to act differently as well, advise you have totally ignored. Asking editors to be civil to him is not defending him personally or taking his side, it is following policy. Asking editors to explain their reverts of his edits when they don't use an edit summary is not defending him personally or taking his side, it is an attempt to encourage collaborative editing. Your stubborn insistence to see every step I take as a defense of Boodsy is one of the things that is preventing you and your supporters from becoming more civil and working with other editors on this matter. And you know full well my editing was limited to tinkering with refs, which hardly disqualifies me from acting in an administrative capacity, and hardly excuses your repeated violations of administrative policy and propriety. Gamaliel (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My followers? I see where it is going and I am disappointed with your attitude. In any case, I have said all I wanted to say with regards to this article and your judgment (if you had tried to moderate Boodsy, good but I told you you should have been more stern - his 10RR is proof that he took your light moderation as encouragement as I predicted he would). Assuming the article is unprotected, I expect the interested editors involved in it will be able peacefully and produce a good version soon - assuming that no more edit warring occurs. I also hope there will be little need for my further input (as without Boodsy there is hardly anybody left to moderate). If however the article is left under protection, BLP/RfC people lose interest and Boodsy returns in a week resuming where he left off, we will be back to square one and see 3RR and ANI soon again.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I support the lock, which should have been done earlier. Also, I've made a suggestion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Edit_restrictions_following_edit_war_suggested to put at least three of the involved editors on the edit restriction list at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. "Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator.". While Boodlesthecat is a newcomer (to me) who overdid it by far, both Poeticbent and Piotrus are very experienced editors and no strangers to controversial Eastern European matters. They should have known better, and should join the two dozen editors already under edit restriction. Also, Piotrus mentions WP:CABAL once again, knowing very well about the concerns in this regard. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gamaliel and Matthead. The editing environment for the article is very over heated, and the article needs to remain locked. Aside from the editors who were blocked, there are still editors involved with the article who have a very strong POV about the book, and they are exactly the ones most anxious to have the article unlocked. Unlocking the article now would only result in further harm to the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried on this one too. I support Gamaliel's approach. I would support restricting several editors from various position from continuing on it or closely related topics dealing with antisemitism in Poland generally. I consider Piotrus one of the very fairest-minded editors on Eastern European topics, and I suggest he would best protect his excellent reputation by staying away from this particular controversy. DGG (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC).

I think Matthead has it right here. That talkpage is a disgrace. Relata refero (disp.) 21:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about me - the editors with strong feelings, because I have supported ublocking the protection to this article, I must disappoint you. I NEVER TOOK SIDES while editing mainspace or talk page in this article. I only introduced two references from educational websites, the only ones I could find, one from Wellesley, the other from Princeton. One was negative, the other positive. They were both removed by warring editors. And what we got now? Twenty two references from commercial websites, mostly newspapers - a pissing contest, that's how I see it, including statements by political activists involved directly in this Polish-Jewish match like Thane Rosenbaum (besides, I introduced Mr Rosenbaum into this article but not as a hero, but as a Los Angeles Times editor representing media policy and nothing else). My Princeton package also covered four newspapers - all positive reviews and to the point. You have once written on that talk page- keep it short and to the point. My edit was just like that. And now on the top of this mess the page has been blocked, but from who? Even User Boodlesthecat, who called me anti-semitic at least ten times before, once saw the light and asked me: "Why are you so adamant to keep that (positive) link?". Now I tell you why, because I'm neither pro-Jewish nor pro anybody, I'm pro Wikipedia standards and I want to see this miserable excuse for an article unblock so someone may fix it. greg park avenue (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Mrshaba

I do not appreciate being wikistalked by this SPA User:Mrshaba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) who only edits one article, Solar energy. See [84]. Now that the article has been unprotected they refuse to participate and have spent their time stalking me instead. I do not appreciate it. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to make reference to one or more diffs to support your objection? Looking at that list of contribs turns up a lot of edits, but none specifically are to your talk page or to pages that are manifestly related to you. Maybe I'm not looking at the right pages. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just spent 10 minutes looking, and found one case where he edited just after the IP did on an article, and he left what appears to be a perfectly civil and useful statement on a checkpoint on the capacity of a station in a given year. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

So I guess you didn't notice the 5RR in 24 hrs after he asked that Solar energy be semi-protected so that he could edit it but I couldn't? 199.125.109.134 (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

5RR. Well, that's interesting. Let's look at this. You ate a big hunk of the Solar Energy page with a summary of 'moving to subpage'. ClueBot reverted you for vandalism. You deleted again. Mrshaba reverted you with a summary of "a move this big needs to be discussed on the talk page". You deleted again. Mrshaba set up a section on the talk page to discuss the move. In some order you deleted again, and left the highly useful discussion of "no discussion necessary, just do it". That is exceptionally thick of you. If he is reverting your BOLD move, then it means that you DO NOT have consensus on the move. The thing to do is discuss this. He even said the thing to do was discuss it. You didn't discuss it, you said "I'm just gonna do it", with absolutely no reason WHY you were gonna do it. Guess what, you got reverted again, several more times. I suggest you read WP:BRD. You got the Bold part right. And you got Reverted. You completely failed on the Discuss part. So he went 5RR trying to keep you from whacking out a big hunk of the page for no described reason. But you seem to have gone at least 6RR doing it, counting the ClueBot revert at the start. Loren.wilton (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was the one who was asking him to discuss it, he was the one who refused. He only added the section on the talk page after he noted that the page was going to be unprotected, at 15:41, 21 May 2008. There have been no deletions since. But there certainly could be in the future, they certainly are needed. And yes I was going to go to 100 RRs if he didn't discuss it but just reverted. But reverting a Bot surely doesn't count. And you can't count the first edit either. So that's 4 by me, 5 by him. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The page was unprotected at 18:42, 21 May 2008. Since then they made 14 edits, only three of which were not related to stalking me, or perhaps who he thought might be me. I am sure that I am not the only editor using this group of IP addresses.[85] He even has a whole section entitled "General Distractions".[86][87] [88] He oddly thinks that I'm a problem,[89] although I have long warned him about the dangers of being an SPA. He then goes back to adding more to his "General Distractions" section.[90][91] More questions about how to deal with me.[92] Finally at 03:38, 22 May 2008 he moved on to working on an article, by commenting on the talk page and contacting a frequent editor of that article. I've left enough warnings on his talk page that he certainly isn't going to leave any on mine.[93] 199.125.109.134 (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Mrshaba's edits date back to 2006 and he has a clear block log seemingly with no major problems. Apparently edits mainly the article on Solar energy but that in and of itself is not a problem. We talk about SPAs in a negative context when they are created by users solely to advanced a point of view, this does not seem to be one of those situations and hence portraying this user here on AN/I as an "SPA" is wrong.--Jersey Devil (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

SPAs can also be problematical in more ways than POV. Try editing an article that someone is guarding as "their article". It's no fun. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am also around on the solar energy article and don't see the purpose of this complaint. There is absolutely no call for edit warring. Nothing really at issue, just that this anon has some complaint against Mrshaba that I don't understand. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's simple. If they are in a huff about having to let someone else edit their article they should not be spending their time stalking me instead of editing. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Would someone mind asking Mrshaba to just chill out? I would like to get back to editing and do not appreciate being stalked. 199.125.109.41 (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have some diffs showing Mrshaba following you to other articles to maliciously revert your edits, I suggest you drop the "stalking" accusations. An edit war on a single article is hardly stalking. So far, all I'm seeing is a content dispute; Mrshaba hasn't done anything incivil. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's like if I wanted a user page I would create one. I just don't appreciate someone digging up old edits and creating a page to archive them on. They clearly serve no good purpose. If they want to analyze my edits on a local file on their own computer they are welcome to. Just don't use Wikipedia servers for that. If they want to file a complaint they are welcome to do so, but creating a "user profile" and labeling it "General Distractions" is beyond bizarre. There are no "general distractions" in that section. There is only an attempt to profile one person. Me. That's not general distractions. That's harassment. However, as indicated below, we do have a ceasefire on the edit-war front. 199.125.109.41 (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully we now have a ceasefire on the edit-war front. However, the underlying content dispute still needs to be handled by someone more familiar with the subject matter. Owen× ☎ 01:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Dynamization

Hi would somebody please take note of User:Dynamization. He is under the impression I am a beginner or vandal or something. He has also reverted kind and innocent messages I have tried to leave on a colleagues talk page. I also tried to leave him a note and explain it was an innocent procedure but he even reverted my message too. Could somebody intervene and kindly explain to him I am an established editor with good intentions. Thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• This appears to be abuse of Huggle by Dynamization. EJF (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmm he reverted three of my constructive edits in quick succession. He seems to be mixing the vandalism up with the good stuff. He seems to have good intentions in regards to article protection which is always a great thing but perhaps someone could speak to him, Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Huggle must be removed immediately. Look at the contribs, disable huggle on User:Dynamization/huggle.css then protect. Cenarium (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• We had a discussion about this, WP:AN#Huggle. Huggle, like any automatic tool, may be removed if the user uses it badly. In this case, the user has only made 15 edits before using Huggle. The user is not skilled enough to use the tool properly, and says that he "is crazy about it". Several users have already complained. A warning would be useless I think. Cenarium (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Just take him off of Huggle, for the love of god. NATO.Caliber (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, he stopped editing, so I'm going to wait on removing huggle... but if he resumes huggling without discussing the matter or - at the very least - acknowledging the concerns of myself and others, yes it needs to be removed. As noted, I've warned the user. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

He's using Huggle right now and has not responded. Cenarium (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

At least three established editors have requested that he respond, but he has failed to do so and is still continuing to revert without an explanation as to his earlier edits. I'm not certain why somebody with 25 edits was given this tool. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Users give Huggle to themselves, there's no confirmation process. J Milburn (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've suggested over at Huggle that Huggle refuse to run for someone without X edits, where X is some reasonable value. Perhaps that will be done. However, I third the remarks above about removing Huggle for this user until they wise up. Loren.wilton (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Taken away. I know him IRL, which is why I'm in the history of his config page as enabling it. Guys, this is so simple in my mind. Please do not be afraid of taking away huggle from anyone - it's a privilege, not a right, just like editing Wikipedia is. Huggle was abused, it's gone for 6 weeks. I'm a little saddened that it ended up like this, but hey... Alex Muller 06:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Persistent Misuse of the talk page and other yuckies

User 4d-don [talk:4d-don] on Sahaj Marg page

Personal attacks, extreme lack of AGF, posting of shabby sourced newspaper articles on the talk page, blogging (i.e. discussinng on and on about the topic as opposed to the article), 90% of the posts making accustions about other users, multiple warnings by admin [talk:4d-don#Soapboxing], [talk:4d-don#Again Soapboxing], 4 warnings from me to stop soapboxing, myself and an admin [talk:4d-don#Mediation] offering dispute resolution links , yet he doesn't take action there and and continues his outbursts on the talk page, claiming consensus based on the opinions of blocked users, claiming concensus on the basis of users who have "not arrived yet" and counting sockpuppets of the same user as multiple users. .

This user is a prominent blogger on this New Religious Movement, and cannot or will not make the transition from blog to wikipedia. Sethie (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User:4d-don is a single-purpose account (see contribs) with a strong COI. Here he lists his anti-Sahaj Marg blog (at the end) and he frequently cross-posts things on his blog to the Wiki Sahaj Marg talk page. There are many odd ranting posts that detract from building the article, for example, this, this, this, and this. He accuses those with different POVs as being "members" or in collusion when this is not true (see this).

I'm somewhat perplexed by Don's behaviors because early on one could work with him and he represented an opposing viewpoint which was nice to have, but increasingly the posts have become more erratic and "threatening," e.g., here he's going to "confer with the team" (presumably his fellow bloggers?) because everyone else on Wiki is so biased...; or here where he says in all caps that he'll "take it to a higher court" and accuses people of "hiding the truth" (see edit summary) and so forth. There seems to be an inability to "hear" what other editors say, even for fairly innocuous things. For example, here he says User:Cult free world and "talk-to-me" are different people when he must know full well they are the same (this clearly shows they're one person; CFW just changed his signature page). Or, here he erases part of a post I did long ago(likely an accident) but then somehow links it to a conspiracy to hide the truth here (scroll to end). These latter posts are really no big deal, they just show 4d-don's inability to discuss even small issues without making everything a big, bold conspiracy to hide the truth.

If he has complaints, fine, he should seek dispute resolution, but the long non-content posts, soap-boxing, and the use of Wikipedia as a blog are disruptive and do not contribute to article-building..Renee (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad someone finally filed a complaint on this user. The soapboxing and grandstanding are old, old, old, as are the personal attacks. Just a few hours ago 4d-don called Sethie a "donkey" here. Please, please help us out. Embhee (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - What's with this guy? He's outa control. Every yes/no question results in a rambling 5000-word conspiracy theory full of raving and ranting on how everyone's out to get him. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have observed and interacted with 4d-don since Sept 2007. I have not found his behavior always disruptive and contentious having seen his reasonable as well as unreasonable & extreme POVed side. One thing is very clear to me though, he has an agenda on SRCM and Sahaj Marg topics (which he perceives as the Truth) which he wants to spread using Wikipedia as a platform, as he is doing with many blog sites. Most of his efforts on Wikipedia has been in that direction, even though it has met with Deletion several times, after a long process of discussions and reviews. He sometimes goes to extreme extent to get his way and if met with non-consensus, his behavior does become objectionable. Here are some of those instances particularly I have observed: 1) Soapboxing (literally copying/pasting from blog sites): this has happened in Sept 2007 as well as more recently, as mentioned here [94], 2) Attempting to add deleted content multiple times: can not show the actual diff as the content is deleted, but this diff shows: [95], 3) Supported blocked users [96]: he has always worked with User: Shashwat & Rushmi (proven socks), CultFreeWorld (suspected sock of previous two [97]), all of those had a similar agenda and they got blocked because of numerous violations and persistent objectionable behavior, 4) Objectionable response when met with non-consensus: Others have given examples above. Duty2love (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User:ChrisP2K5 and possible 3rr...

Not sure if it falls under 3rr(times are close), but continued reverts of The Challengers, with speculation information that isn't encyclopedic. Also has very high incivil edit summaries. This guy needs blocked from all game show related pages. [98] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.201.142.207 (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I forgot this link also.[99]. Telling people to go to hell falls under incivility, don't you agree? 99.201.142.207 (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the edit summary was uncivil, but it's not so severe it would typically be actionable. However, the content that he keeps trying to add is original resource, is unsourced, and is not particular encyclopedic, so I don't think it belongs in the article. I have issued a 3RR warning to his Talk page, and this could warrant a report to WP:ANI/3RR if the behavior continues. I left the 3RR warning because I still question whether this sentence belongs in the article, but given the issues with the IP sock I am not comfortable pursuing action against ChrisP2K5 over the reversions

On a side note, please refrain from labeling as vandalism edits that have any chance of being in good faith. While I think Chrisp2k5's addition does not belong in the article, he appears to be adding it in good faith, so it is not vandalism. Calling people vandals unnecessarily can also be considered a violation of WP:CIVIL, as well as WP:AGF. It's not a big deal, but please don't do that, as it just tends to stoke the fires and make people even more pissed off than they already are. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but not less than two weeks ago, he was doing this same deal on another page with other users. My post is about the pattern he has OVERALL, and the possible connection he has with this site. I think he has family working for WikiMedia, out of all the trouble he has caused, he has never been banned. Most people would have been kicked to the curb by now. Check out his history, and you'll see he had a good pissing contest over a page awhile back. If I find it, I'll add it here for you. Thanks. 18:27, 22 May 2008 99.201.142.207 (talk)(UTC)

Would you like to explain this personal attack your posted to your talk page? Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have had a pissing contest recently. So what? That had something to do with a legitimate fact not being included in an article. This is over your apparent bug up your butt over me. YOU ARE STALKING ME, SIR. You've been doing this for the last two weeks, and I'm tired of it. Why don't you mention the abuse reports filed against you? Why don't you mention the countless IPs of yours that have been blocked recently? Why don't you mention the harassment of other users that you're guilty of perpetrating? Admins, I move that this matter be closed and the IP in question banned, just like all the others. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Many people are sick of him on here, per this diff [100]. Harboring trolls doesn't look good on your company, even though you are a not for profit agency. It's no wonder that this site is a banned source for many college students. I give up. 99.201.142.207 (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, that and this incident have nothing to do with each other. YOU ARE STALKING ME, sir, just like you have in the past. AGAIN, I move this matter closed and the IP banned. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And just for the record, the admins have dealt with this banned user and his stalking recently. Check incident 23 on this board. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder who this sock could be? Interesting that it popped up in the last 5 minutes.[101]. Looks pretty obvious it's Mr. Palmer. 99.201.142.207 (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't just pop up in the last five minutes, actually. You're the one who attacked me a while back on my user page, and again today. This is obvious trolling by a sock user who, as can be found on this board, is really causing problems for everybody he crosses. Dayewalker (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A request for a checkuser would prove that Dayewalker is indeed ChrisP2K5. It's obvious, but go through the formalities per your policy. 99.201.142.207 (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a full understanding of all these wikipedia policies, but I seriously doubt that IP addresses of blocked users who make edits as above and leave edit summaries like "go f yourself" can make requests like that. Dayewalker (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't have much faith in the intelligence of the mods, do you Harvey? --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Who is Harvey? And why you are you using real names on here? Not smart, are ya Palmer? Anyhow, your Perry Mason moment was removed, but you do act like a lawyer. You give them a bad name without a doubt. 99.201.142.207 (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok both of you stop with the name-calling and personal attacks back and forth. I'm not an admin, but enough view this board and action WILL be taken if this keeps up. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I echo Wildthing's advice that "both of you stop". When I initially read this report, I thought it was a simple case of two editors acting in good faith and getting in a revert war. I now believe both editors are acting out of mutual loathing and that this is yet another manifestation of a long-running feud by users who know each other very well. Both editors need to calm down immediately.

As far as the allegations that the 99.* IP is a sock, please take it to WP:SSP. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I took the "Dayewalker/ChrisP2K5" case to the SSP page,only for "Dayewalker" to revert it. Don't you guys have safeguards in place on these administrative pages? 99.201.142.207 (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I took it over there, because it's obvious that Dayewalker is an Hdayejr sock. Did you people forget that this man threatened legal action against the Wiki? --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Chris, I'm not a sock. Your talk page is protected so I can't leave you a message to discuss this, so please stop attacking me on mine. I'm not a sock of either one of these two editors, and I'd like for someone to show me a single edit where I did anything other than oppose the rampant sock parade that is Hdayejr. Take a look at my edits please, and show me where I've been unconstructive in any way, or reverted to an edit by the banned user.

I'm trying to help here, and my edit history will show that. Dayewalker (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Note: Based on checkuser findings, ChrisP2K5 is not a sockpuppet or puppetmaster of anyone. Dayewalker is not a sockpuppet of Hdayejr but is probably a sockpuppet of someone else, this requires more study. The 99 editor appears to be using Spring PCS wireless that does not allow geolocation, but he quacks just 71.72.172.177 and others who are consistent with Hdayejr. Thatcher 20:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that for a second. There is only one Wiki user that's been stalking me, and that's Hdayejr. Furthermore, it's not unlike him to make himself look like he's someone else, as anyone who's dealt with him can attest to. I'm sorry, but I cannot accept those results because they appear to me to be false. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Two different IPs located in different US states 1000 miles apart. Thatcher 21:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense, Thatcher, but did you check it with one IP, or all of the IPs that exibited behavior not unlike Hdayejr's?— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 21:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And furthermore, Thatcher, Hdayejr's web-posting history has seen him obtain different IP addresses from other areas of the country that are not from his (he's from Ohio, originally). Just because the IPs are from different parts of the country doesn't mean anything. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so what country would I have to move to to prove I'm not Hdayejr? He's attacked me on my page, I've reverted his edits, and a Checkuser showed I'm 1000 miles away. What more would you ask for? I can't comment on your page, ChrisP2K5, so I've sent you an email. Dayewalker (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Read, responded, accusations retracted. Think I might get your drift now. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll never convince Chris of anything, he is always right, every anonymous ip is Hdayejr, blah blah blah. I happen to be an off duty police detective, and Hdayejr might have a case of internet stalking against you. You best hope that we don't get all the information we need because you might need a lawyer and soon. 70.9.59.46 (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: I just warned the IP for making legal threats. Also, this is pretty clearly a sock of Hdayejr (WP:DUCK) so a short block would not be at all inappropriate (if any admins are still reading this debacle, ha ha ha) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, he's definitely up to his old tricks. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(OD-edit conflict)As an update, User:70.9.59.46 is active right now, and appears to be attacking my page in the name of Hdayejr. He also posted this above message, which would seem to indicate he's Hdayejr again. Can somebody do something, please? Dayewalker (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this specific thread can be marked "Resolved", as it is clear that the revert war in question is over, the IP in question has been identified as a sock, and Dayewalker has been cleared for now. As to what do about persistent sock vandal/stalker/legal-threatener Hdayejr.... Well, that's another story. :/ --Jaysweet (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Another threat that we probably need to err on the side of caution of

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Officials notified, Tiptoety ^talk 21:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Resolved

Shane+Cass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sorry, to bring this here, but per discussion with another admin (and the good consience of my wife) it's better addressed. As will be seen from the above links I blocked this user indef. for creation of this page (admin only now) which contains a specific threat. The other deleted contribution from this account provides reference to names and physical location. On balance Keeper and I have agreed that a checkuser may need to be done to establish if the IP behind the account is related to a school in or around Honey Brook, Pennsylvania. I was hoping to keep this of ANI but I can't determine a CU who is online to approach privately, and would welcome (limited) debate as to wether we need to do this at all, and is so to possibly contact a school if the account does resolve to one (this is guess work on it being a school account). Again, appologies. I would have liked this sewn up quietly, but I am likely to be online very sporadically tonight and so have felt forced to bring it here. Pedro :  Chat  18:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is worth reporting, but quietly per WP:RBI. Let me try and track down a CU. Tiptoety ^talk 18:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what Pedro and I were trying to do. Track it down quietly sans ANI, but he was unable to find a CU online. Feel free to post to his or my talkpages if/when you find anything. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's why we have IRC. This doesn't look like a serious threat, though - a lot of nonsense pages like that mention names, and it's not particularly malicious either. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Tiptoety is on IRC right now. I agree the threat is rather blase, and likely completely frivolous. As a former public education teacher though, I can assure you that, although mild, because of its specificity (a threat against a specific person, naming first and last name), it is always better to take it seriously and not have to deal with a lifetime of hindsight. I understand fully we have no explicit responsibility to do anything here. But it's still the right thing to at least make an attempt at notification. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I will also add, saying "I'm going to kill <first name, last name>" is rather malicious, wouldn't you agree? It's not like the quote said "I'm gonna punch him after school.". Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Alas RBI was my intention but I was unsure of net access tonight - as for IRC - no thanks. Can't stay on longer than 30 seconds before it boots me out... ! Pedro :  Chat  20:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are able to resolve this quickly and get the CU worked out. If for some reason you or the CU don't think you want to report it, have the CU email me the info and I will make a phone call to the local authority. Toddst1 (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ideal Toddst1 - I'm likely to be offline soon, so should there be a necesity to make a call I have every faith in leaving it with Toddst1 to wrap this up. I'm glad this has been as minimal in drama as it should be - thank you all. Pedro :  Chat  20:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As much as I covet my own privacy, I would also make a phone call if email was insufficient. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. Toddst1 (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:TOV and Jimbo both suggest reporting specific threats here and I commend Pedro for doing so. Can there be any confirmation that this threat has been reported to the appropriate authorities or the victim informed? Bstone (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

WV State Police have been informed. Toddst1 (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Quick opinion requested

Can I have a quick opinion on the recent actions of BackStagePass (talk · contribs)? The user is repeatedly removing "replaceable fair use" speedy deletion tags from Image:Quantel hq.jpg, Image:DFS3000.jpg, and Image:Quantel Paintbox2.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 19:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't answer your question, but I note that none of those images has a fair use rationale. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You are entirely in the right, and the user is not following process. I have warned him or her on the user's talk page. If this continues, a block may eventually follow. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The user was making some reasonable attempts. Our image policies and procedures aren't intuitive; I had some trouble hunting down the proper template myself. I've fixed two of the images; the third doesn't explicitly fall under Quantel's permissions statement. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock notice: 86.29.0.0/16 (Tesco UK)

Over the last two days, I've noticed the same vandal posting giant HTML tables that render Goatse into widely used templates

• Special:Contributions/86.29.129.68
• Special:Contributions/86.29.142.126

and I wouldn't be surprised if there's more IPs out there I haven't seen him on yet. So I've range-blocked the entire 86.29.0.0/16 (NTL/Tesco UK) block for 1 week.

It's a bit drastic, but the impression I get from this guy's unblock requests is that he wasn't planning to stop anytime soon. --  Netsnipe  ►  20:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Limiting_HTML_table_sizes. --  Netsnipe  ►  20:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Him or a wannabe. Thanks for the heads-up; I'm thankful I have a gaming mouse. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 03:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks, lack of Good Faith

User:GoatDoomOcculta recently made an edit to an article's talk page [102] in which he made a thinly veiled accusation towards me editing with a conflict of interest (accusing me of being Tim Buckley, the author of the website the article pertains to). Seeing he was a new editor, I responded to his points, as well as asking him politely to refrain from making WP:AGF personal attacks against me both on the article talk page [103] and on the user's personal talk page [104]. GoatDoomOcculta then responded by not only making a more blatant, direct and clearly intentional personal attack against me on his talk page [105] (which I was ready to simply ignore), but also copy/pasting that attack to the article's talk page [106]. These accusations are unfounded, and I don't appreciate his attempts to damage my credibility as an editor.

I am hoping that an administrator can step in and help guide me to a resolution to this problem.--Thrindel (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a violation of Wikipedia:OUTING to me. Notified him of this conversation but if he continues to make accusations, I have no problem with a short block for incivility. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I had looked at that policy but thought it didn't apply because he wasn't outing my personal information. I didn't catch the "regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct" portion.--Thrindel (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Still, I would appreciate it if the user would remove his attacks against me.--Thrindel (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Two points; 1) it does not have to be accurate to be an attempt at outing (which is why it is phrased as "attempt") as it it the intention that is considered, and 2) you are allowed to remove personal attacks yourself, as it is considered vandalism (and 3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism - the third of a poorly titled 2 point comment). LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Isis Gee article being distorted

A user whose account was only set up a few days ago and whose edits concentrate on the Isis Gee article and one of her entry in the Eurovision Song Contest (For Life (Isis Gee song)) is making rather disruptive edits to both articles. Please see both pages' histories and talk pages, as well as User talk:Eurovisionman for details. I would appreciate some admin assistance here. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

While there was some admin interest and a member of the Mediation Cabal has started a procedure on the article, I would like to note the user is still being disruptive. Additional admin assistance is still needed due to intensity of his actions. PrinceGloria (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I remove this section. A radio DJ suggests she was born a man? From a blog? Not in English? On a living person? So much wrong with that. The rest is just a content dispute and doesn't really belong here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried to find a way to get User:Eurovisionman to cooperate in an informal 3O style resolution, but he is bent on getting very questionable information into the article before a Eurovision competition this weekend (see comment his talk page). Much of the info is very questionable per BLP. After exhausting all other method, I've asked for a block after innumerable violations of 3RR. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

EDITOR FEUD

I don't know what the procedure is for this but there seems to be an editor feud going on between User talk:MKil and a banned user that goes by the name boxing wear. It seems that the latter account was banned from wikipedia but has continued to assert their claims as being right and that the other user MKIL is wrong. I recommend that someone talk to both of these users.--Kumioko (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Did we not have a LTA page about this guy someplace with suggestions on how to handle his attacks? He seems to be editing from a mix of Bahrain IPs and open proxies in this flurry... could probably use a checkuser on NewBlock (talk · contribs) to see if there's a sock drawer out there, too. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though this user has several drawers in several dressers in several rooms, etc. --Kumioko (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed several months back that someone had been deleting old LTA reports without checking with the original filers whether the problem had ended or not. I'm not sure how aggressive they were about doing this in other cases, but in the instance I was following up on that was very counterproductive. Fortunately I knew the case well enough to proceed anyway; the follow-up led to two significant arbitration decisions: a desysopping at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar and a desysopping plus siteban at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian. LTA exists to preserve our institutional memory; it's important to double check before removing old reports. Durova^Charge! 22:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm, good info but not sure if its in the right place. Maybe this should be a seperate issue? I see how it relates but its kindof a tangent.--Kumioko (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

They were deleted by Jimbo. The history of the case is here. Read it. Read it all. I'm leaving town in a couple minutes so can't follow up on this thread until I have internet access again. It's a banned user named "Boxingwear" or "The George Reeves Person" -- his previous identities are in the deleted history of that page, he's quite obsessed about not being referred to by his previous identities, which are of course entirely bloody obvious to anyone who looks at the edits, interests, and IPs. WARNING: This person will come after you in real life if you get involved in this. He's quite skilled at forging e-mail headers, and he sends copies of "death threats" that YOU allegedly sent to HIM, to YOUR ISP, so do NOT e-mail him from any service that includes your IP in the header. This person is quite insane, and probably the most hateful person with whom I have collided in my entire time on the project. He edits on ED as "Wikitruthguy". Antandrus (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I received an email about this for some reason...all I did was inform the user this pertained to about this topic. Anyways the contents are below. Email withdrawn

"I am trying to help somebody, if u go on mkil's talk page, he is putting name which is privacy violation, he has/had many problems in the past, can you block him, he had been doing this since forever, and has long term admin friends like antandrus, reply only to my email, will give u all evidence he needs, dont allow him to do, u posted something about conflict on his page, but cant u see he reverts names, nothing else, as administrator i am amazed u dont follow privacy policies!Reply asap cuz of him many innocent r blocked."

I corrected him about not being admin by the way. It went on for a good 3 or 4 emails. I thought I would let you guys know about this...as I am utterly confused as to what is going on (do not want to know). Rgoodermote  22:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Received a weird email, have no idea what it means something about antandrus reply:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/193.188.105.230 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatsupdoggy (talk • contribs) 00:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I also have recieved EMAIL's on this and I forgot to mention that this boxingwear user has sent me EMAIL's before. I usually just delete them they are so poorly written. I don't want to post it here but if you want me to I can or else I can put it in some other way. It sounds similar to the EMAIL that RGOODERMOTE got.--Kumioko (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I received some emails as well; Strange man but he was not hostile, he said he will buy me a drink when he visits NJ. This problem goes a long way and if you look under boxingwear's deleted talk page, grp approached boxingwear first, requesting help with some articles. It turned out both users edited from same IP range, probably CPL. He claims he is not wikitruthguy on ED, he claims he is in touch with the editor who contributes there and supports everything he writes. Antandrus' numerous provocations caused the creation of antandrus article, something antandrus can not stand.

I do not want to reveal my user name, I do not want to be connected in any way with these people or have my account suspended. I have been following arguments between mkil, antandrus and boxingwear, I believe the problem is provocation. If you check history of boxingwear, contributions there is no vandalism; the only problem is serious mkil arguments, all edits seem to be correct, good-will contributions as well. Those two users cause all the problems, I did not see problems with other users. Suspended user's problem seems to proper communication channel, he gets stressed when replying to things he may not be able to fix or revert himself and almost nobody wants to assist him (predetermination phobia complex). Here's his explanation to everything everybody said about him on wiki, to all sorts of wiki problems, it was reverted again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive416&diff=213082183&oldid=212819935

And, of course, the person who wrote the comments immediately above is none other than BoxingWear/Projects/Indywisdom/et al. As anyone who is familiar with him knows, he enjoys posing as multiple people to give the appearance of support for his positions. The writing style gives it away, though.

As far as their being a "feud" involving me, the only problems I have is when this banned edior repeatedly sends me threatening e-mails and reverts my attempts to remove commentary and poorly written insertions into articles. The person has been banned numerous times here. As anyone who has encountered him knows, he's a few cards short of a full deck.MKil (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)MKil

Agreed. He has been ranting about a name I supposedly posted above and threatening to get my next RfA to fail for a couple hours now. Who is it. I read some of the above but a brief summary of this would be nice. Rgoodermote  19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR by ... ummm ... me

Resolved

 – User was never in violation of 3RR. Reverts fall under anti-vandal. Thank you for being honest

After making the last revert, I realized I had hit 3RR - so I'm reporting myself here. This is partly to see if the community feels that my reverts fall within the vandalism exception, and partly to request others to review the edits. The reasons for the reverts has been to remove what I perceive as spam/advertising attempts within the article (listing of a specific company). Here are the dif links: [107], [108], and [109] (the last one being the most blatant example of spam/advertising to be reverted).

Obviously, as I'm reporting myself, I won't be making any further reverts to the article until/unless the community agrees that the reverts fell within the allowed exceptions of WP:3RR. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverted Spam additions. Within the anti-vandal spectrum. Off the hook. 3RR violations do not count for anti-vandal fighting as long as you make it clear that is why you are reverting. Rgoodermote  21:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know both here and on my talk page. After seeing the 3rr clarification on my talk page, I went ahead and did another revert, where the same company was re-added to the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandal IP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.242.32.200

It performs a fix on one of SqueakBox's pictures, and then vandalises mine. SqueakBox appears in a matter of seconds to "fix" the vandalism. Bear in mind that SqueakBox is the editor who attempts to caricature unbiased and friendly others as advocates of pedophilia (despite the fact that they denounce child abuse - I will provide diffs, if you like), and has strongly opposed my editing on some articles.

This looks odd, from SqueakBox's point of view. Is there any bot he could have used to do this so quickly? (If so, I thank him for this one time).

Anyway, regardless of this, the vandal should be banned, Sprint PCS (the same network that a similar vandal used) should also be banned. J*Lambton ^T/_C 22:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That was several days ago, and the IP has only made two edits, so there is nothing that can be done there.

As far as squeakbox catching and fixing the vandal edit, there are a number of ways that it could have happened. He could be running some tool like VandalFighter that monitors recent changes and seen the change. He could have seen the change to his picture and suspiciously looked at contributions from the user and seen the error on your page. Or maybe he has your talk page watchlisted for some reason. Loren.wilton (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Another school threat

Resolved

 – Authorities called

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

---

Deathboy52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made this threat a little while ago. The school in question seems to be Thomas Grover Middle School in Princeton Junction, New Jersey. It absolutely needs to be reported to the school and the local police, but I am unable to dial long distance, so I would appreciate it if someone else did the dirty work. The diff should probably be oversighted as well, after the relevant authorities have seen it. Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My phone is being used by my grandfather right now. But I got I think a phone number from their website it is

8550 609-716-5250 on top I will send out an email to everyone listed Rgoodermote  22:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh..I sent the email and it came back with an annoying. "Email error could not send." message. When he gets off I will make a call. Rgoodermote  22:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

taken care of. ThuranX (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And I was about to call too. So what is going to happen? Rgoodermote  22:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Not our problem. Let the professionals handle it. ThuranX (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC):::

What is "taken care of"? Should we get the IP? Paragon12321 (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to Email me the IP info, I'll make a second call, but let's get it done fast. I guess one ofthe IRC enabled editors will ahve to hunt down a CU for that. ThuranX (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, let's avoid blowing this into a bigger situation than it is. It's taken care of. Send me the IP, oversight, mark resolved, go edit. ThuranX (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am going to close this. If there is more go ahead and undo my edits. Rgoodermote  22:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Coz 11 and legal threats

User:Coz 11 has been blocked twice this month for violations of WP:3RR. Both times he was reported by me. As a result, in his latest unblock request he threatened to pursue harassment complaints against me. His wording is ambiguous, and he may have just meant that he plans to try to have me blocked from Wikipedia. But, if he meant that he plans to pursue legal action against me, then I think an administrator should block him. I shouldn't have my life sabotaged because one person is upset over how a Wikipedia article is being edited. If an administrator could get clarification from him on his intents and take appropriate action, I would appreciate it. I would ask him to clarify himself, but I don't want to be seen as antagonizing him while he is blocked. And, as ridiculous as this is, I don't want to be seen as harassing him. Chicken Wing (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. Harassment is a term commonly used on Wikipedia in our process so try to assume the best of him. If he does do something to make clear that it is legal then bring it back here. gren グレン 22:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. Chicken Wing (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

STBotI

I've blocked this bot because it was tagging images for deletion for not having fair-use rationales when in fact they did have rationales.

I brought this to the bot owner's attention and his response was to call me stupid [110]. Is it my imagination or are bot owners more surley than average ;) After finding some more examples [111], the general reply from the bot owner was that the rationales were not sufficient.

People may judge the value of a fair use rationale, bots may not. This bot simply missed the fair-use rationales and the bot owner refused to admit it, wandering off on a tangent and criticizing the quality of the rationales instead.

So we have two problems. 1) The bot is broken; it tags images for deletion for not having a rationale, when in fact they do have a rationale. 2) The bot owner is broken; when there is a problem with his bot he spits venom at the messenger instead of acknowledging the problem and fixing it.

Actually there is a third problem; another admin came by, unblocked the bot and demonstrated on my talk page that he didn't bother to read about and understand the problem [112]. This is wheel waring on his part, under the banner of ignorance.

People may find a fair-use rationale insufficient and tag an image for deletion, I have no problem with that, but a bot is not able to make this judgment. I will continue to block this bot whenever it misses fair use rationales. --Duk 23:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Putting on my one-member-of-the-BAG hat, and considering the errors raised and the nonresponsive attitude of ST47, I endorse this block. No comment on the unblock other than what's been said by Duk...in short, Hersfold, don't do that again please. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the "problematic taggings" you've identified, and the only one with a fair-use rationale that is even remotely close to adequate is [113]. If you want to block the bot for malfunctioning, make sure it's really malfunctioning first. --Carnildo (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I unblocked the bot because it is working just fine. If it isn't able to find what it recognizes as a rationale, it tags it. Bots aren't perfect - even the anti-vandalism bots get false positives occasionally. ClueBot adds a link to a page to report such mistakes in its edit summaries. Bottom line is, bots aren't, and for a very long time won't be, perfect, and will make mistakes regardless of how well they are written. For someone to demand "Revert the edit and fix your bot." and then proceed to block the bot when the operator explains there is nothing to fix is firstly, rude, and secondly an abuse of power. To continue to make a scene by accusing others of abuse and ignorance is making the situation worse. You are perfectly capable of clicking the edit button and expanding your rationale. If you really don't like the bot notices, we have {{bots}} and {{nobots}} for you to place on your talk page. I'm willing to concede the point that ST47's response may not have been the most diplomatic, but considering your initial "complaint" you have no room to talk. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It tagged an image I uploaded which I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with, too. Since this appears to be the level of debate of the creator with anyone raising any issues, I haven't even bothered complaining. — iridescent 00:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the only part of the fair-use criteria your rationale covered at the time of tagging was the name of the article. --Carnildo (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Invalid block images in question were not in compliance with our non-free policy β^{_{command 2}} 00:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh look; another member of the 'My bot works fine, you're just an idiot' party. HalfShadow 15:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Iridescent, at the time your image was tagged, your "rationale" simply explained why you thought it was under a CC license - it did not explain why WP could use it under fair use in the event it was copyrighted, which you weren't certain about. There was nothing meeting any of the non-free criteria. I notice also that Betacommand's bot marked it several months previously for the same reason. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And I've marked it again, as it still doesn't meet policy. The fact that users who don't even understand the policy are attempting to police those who do is quite horrifying. The fact is that the majority of the images duk mentioned in his block notice are in fact valid taggings, and his failure to understand my explanations and the policy and then his blocking of the bot in a case where he had a clear conflict of interest and where he wasn't even remotely correct about most of his facts is an indication of a blatant abuse of the tools. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it had the explanation that I believe but can't confirm that it's free use and hence wasn't moving it to Commons, and a fair use rationale, complete with the article in which it's used, in case it turned out not to be free use. (There is nothing in NFCC 10 to say that "images must include a link to the article".) I note that ST47 has now manually re-tagged it despite this. I am perfectly willing to concede that bots are sometimes wrong and hence don't shout and scream at the creators (you'll note, I hope, that when I removed the tag last time, even Betacommand - the scourge of unfree images - accepted it). — iridescent 00:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There's NO RATIONALE. Review WP:NFURG. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

NFURG is a guideline. It says at the top of the page that you should treat it with common sense, something that bots can't do. The main issue here is that in cases where there is a rationale, bots such as STBotI are not doing a good job of determining whether the rationale is sufficient. Instead, they are determining whether the rationale contains a link to the article, something which is of course helpful but isn't required by our EDP, and is clearly far from obvious to most Wikipedia users. If you equate "contains a link to the article" with "contains a sufficient rationale", then you can define all the bot's edits to be correct, but that equation doesn't make sense. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• The bot tagged my image yesterday Image:Guns of the Timberlands.jpg and for the life of me I couldn't see why, can anyone else? RMHED (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That tagging was completely incorrect and you were right to revert it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably the templated rationale you used. It's not easy to write a bot that understands templates. --Carnildo (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Blofeld's template is widely used, does that mean all those images are in danger of bot tagging? RMHED (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the bot. Back when I had ImageTaggingBot do lack-of-rationale tagging, the first time it encountered a templated rationale, it would mark the image as "no rationale", and I would have to add the template to the list of known templates. --Carnildo (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Unindent - regardless of whether the bot is working correctly or not, calling other editors "stupid" and "small minded fool" when they question your bot is unacceptable. If you can't respond civily to complaints about your bot ST47 then you shouldn't be running it. Exxolon (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Good block - the operator was in violation of the bot policy's requirement that operators respond to inquiries cordially. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Gee, it would be nice if the anti-fairuse crowd would stop moving the goalposts... Well, if they want an edit war on that policy, they only need to keep up the incivility. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really about "anti-fairuse" versus "pro-fairuse", and characterizing it like that won't resolve anything. There is so much more to fair use than criterion 10c, and there is so much more to 10c than the "link to the article" test.

There are NFCC criteria which everyone agrees can't be checked by bots. We could arrive at a much more civil situation if we considered 10c to be one of those. Does that mean we can't enforce 10c? Of course not. A bot could use the same rule that STBotI uses and BetacommandBot used to flag potentially problematic cases. Then a person, with common sense, can figure out if there's actually a problem. This doesn't even increase the amount of work greatly, as there's always supposed to be a common sense check before an admin deletes the image anyway (I fear this doesn't always happen, though). The only problem is the assumption that the image bots are always right when it's clearly not the case. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought: according to guideline, "Wikipedia's policies are more restrictive than United States fair use law, in terms of what is and is not allowed"; thus, an image may actually be fair use but still violate Wikipedia's fair use policy. The other thing is that Wikipedia policy is more cut-and-dry than the law, which involves a 4-part balancing test that admits of shades of grey. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked again

I've blocked this bot again. Its accuracy is horrible. It tagged the following images for deletion for not having a fair use rationale, when in fact they did have a rationale [114] [115] [116]. The final link could be tagged orphaned fair use however. --Duk

I would say the bot was correct on a technicality. The actual article the fair use is being claimed for is not mentioned anywhere in the description, though the description does state what song it is for, and the musician separately. Combined they make up the article title. I would say the bot did exactly what it was supposed to there, and tagged appropriately. Though one would hope that a deleting admin would read into it enough to adjust the summary rather than unilaterally deleting. Resolute 03:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with saying "a fair use rationale for the article about song X by Y" as opposed to Wikipedia's name used for technical and style reasons "X (Y song)". The purpose of these guidelines is to ensure proper fair use of non-free images — not to make contributors jump through an endless series of semantic and technical hurdles subject to being rewritten at any point. When the guidelines and policy say "should include the article name" and "the rationale should be written in plain English" a user can be forgiven for thinking that writing the article name in plain English is acceptable. --Haemo (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. That is why I said the bot was technically correct. A bot can only search the description for the article title. Unless it is matched precisely or very near, I doubt it will be capable discerning that the FUR is valid. This is not a fault in the bot writer, but a limitation in bots as a whole. This is, of course, why deleting admins should be checking images before deleting.

Perhaps we need to look at a way of flagging images that have been checked by a human/admin to be immune to future bot tagging, such that regular editors do not have to jump through these hoops if their FUR's don't have the precise article title? Resolute 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional note: when I first approached ST47 it became apparent that STBotI was looking for a particular template(Template:Non-free use rationale)[117] , and ST47 eventually muttered something about foundation level policy requires that the non-free state of images be 'machine-readable as justification for this. The initial image I complained about was in fact machine readable because of its copyright tag.

What ST47 refused to state clearly, because he knew that it was wrong but he wanted anyway, was for fair use images to use this particular template. As our conversation continued it became clear that this particular template is not a requirement for fair use, but that ST47 is just too lazy to fix his bot. So then he moved on to criticize everything else he could think of, except his own laziness. --Duk 03:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I still haven't figured out why it's absolutely necessary for bots to do the actual tagging. Couldn't someone just make a list of specific problems (i.e. a basic "missing a link to the article it is used in") like I had done here and then have the fairuse "crazies" go through (hell, use AWB or something else) but manually review it)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is what I would like to be the case. Manual review, assisted by a bot, is a sensible way to approach 10c. It's crazy to think that a bot can do it on its own without loads of false positives. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, incidentally, you (Duk) shouldn't be characterizing ST47 as "lazy". That kind of attack won't help this discussion proceed; it just invites equally nasty responses. And really, if you look at all he does with bots, you'll find it's far from true. The discussion should be about a flaw in ST47's bot, not a flaw in his character. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've written tools like this myself, from scratch. I know what it takes. --Duk 06:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional note 2: The bot Request for Approval specifies WP:NFCC#10c enforcement on new images. Besides the horrible accuracy, this bot appears to be going after images uploaded long ago [118]. Also, if this bot is tagging image pages just for 10c violations, then the edit summary should state that, not This image has no valid rationale, which is just causing confusion. --Duk 05:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/STBotI 3 appears to expand this bots tagging to non-new images. This retro-active rules enforcing coupled with misleading edit summaries and misleading notes on user pages is unacceptable. If an image page is merely lacking a link to the specific article which the specific rationale pertains to, then don't plaster edit summaries that state This image has no valid rationale, please. --Duk 06:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

For images that have a fair use rationale this bot should not:

1. mark for automatic deletion if the rationale varies from bot owners preferred format.
2. make the misleading edit summary This image has no valid rationale.
3. leave a misleading note on the uploader's page that states You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria.
4. have an owner who's first response to someone with a complaint is to call them 'stupid'[119].

There has to be a separate fair use rationale for every article that the image is used in. If the image is used in only one article, then stop tagging it for deletion when the rationale doesn't contain a link to the article, since it's self evident.

--Duk 07:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am getting tires of Duk's blatant abuse in these matters. Once again, all three of those images, [120], [121], and [122] have poor rationales which do not include a link. The rationale would be improved if a link was added, therefore the users should be asked to add a link. Note that the procedure for getting a bot changed is NOT making unilateral blocks against it, it is bringing a REAL problem to the attention of the operator. If you had done so prior to abusing your tools and acting like a fool, then you'd probably have found me more receptive to your concerns. At this point, I've grown tired of hearing from you. Lacking further comments from you that are completely wrong and necessitate correction, I won't be replying to you anymore. If you can reasonably explain your concerns to someone else, who can make a well-reasoned and non-abusive argument, then I'll consider making a modification to the bot. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

" The rationale would be improved if a link was added, therefore the users should be asked to add a link." I agree. So do most people, I imagine. Is it possible to have the bot tag differently in cases where there is the article title but no link? Or, better yet, just add it to a link and have humans (you can, I can, we all can!) go through the list and add links themselves? I imagine this would be all that's required in quite a few cases. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The tag is inappropriate for the situation. It is not appropriate to add this tag simply becuase you feel the rationale could be "improved." The bot, I think, should remain blocked until the problem is corrected. If you feel requests to fix the bot are abusive you are not required to address them, of course. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the bot looking for an actual Wikilink and rejecting use rationales that contain the exact text of the article title if they are not inside the double brackets? If so we've been through this before with Betacommand's bot. The issue was discussed at WP:NFCC and the link requirement was rejected. If that's what the bot is doing it is enforcing something that is not policy, and that was rejected as policy. Bots are supposed to enforce policy, not make it by fiat of the bot owner. It would also be easy to fix - just look anywhere on the image page for the text of the articles the image is linked to. In any event ST47's attitude is unacceptable, obviously. Wikidemo (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to note that blocking a bot you have concerns about is never abuse of one's tools. They should be blocked first and then discussed, if there is any reasonable reason to believe it is malfunctioning, because of the enormous harm they can do. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Anyone who gets upset over their bot being blocked at the first sign of trouble is not fit to run a bot. Friday (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect deletion tag

The tag used on these pages (e.g. here[123]) puts the article in a category for speedy deletion, even though in some cases it should not be speedy deleted at all acoording to the text of the tag. If a fair use image is used in different articles but the fair use rationale is only provided for some but not all of these, the image will ge tagged with this NFCC#10C tag. But such an image should never be speedy deleted, only removed from the pages where it is used without a fair use tag. Image without any fair use rationale may be speedy deleted, but when they have a fair use rationale for even one article it is used in, they may no longer be speedy deleted (at least not for this reason). Fram (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that the tag says "deleted or removed from some uses" (emphasis added) so it's technically correct. One hopes that people patrolling image speedies get the difference and have agreed to take on the particular task of removing images from articles with all appropriate notices and edit summaries (and more importantly, fixing the obvious cases). However, the tag is a little misleading and no doubt it bites, or at least confuses, the newbies. How hard can it be to program this one to leave a deletion tag where there is no match between rationales and articles, and a different tag where the problem is that not all image uses have rationales? Wikidemo (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm agreeing with you when I say that being "technically correct" isn't enough. Bots cannot risk biting newbies, nor do I much like the idea of giving mis-leading tags to images and risking operator error on the part of those patrolling image speedies. This needs to be fixed before the bot is unblocked. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Dejavu

• I hope ST47 realises his error when he passed off all objections at this bot's approval as me having something personal against beta, and speedy approved it as there being no issue with the bot. I didn't have an issue with beta in the case of NFCC tagging (although it was convenient for him and others to claim it so they could ignore my highlighting of all the issues re-occuring above). As I always stated, I have issues with the way this bot operates (i.e. coded - no coincidence this is the copy of betas code), and the way any NFCC bot operator incivilly treats people who encounter it due to its complex nature (you could swap beta's name for ST47 in all those diffs and you wouldn't notice any difference). Well here it is, a complete case of de ja vu for the community, just with ST47 not Beta. MickMacNee (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility issue

In their (obviously important) technical and policy-based discussions about the work of the bot and its relation to the NFCC, people seem to have overlooked the instance(s) of incivility that occurred here. I feel that bot-owners having issues pointed out with their bots should remain polite even if they consider the question beneath contempt; by definition, they are more familiar with their bots' operation(s) and thus may omit to provide satisfactory explanations for others. I suggest that ST47 is censured for his rudeness. —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censured. :-) But seriously, calling someone stupid is not a good sign. and neither is your sig... goodness, it's taking up about 5 lines of coding here. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Great pun - and my sig has been looked at by numerous admins and pronounced clean ;-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 14:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some protective shield that is inherited by anyone who takes on beta's code. Comments by ^demon et al certainly seem to support this. MickMacNee (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

hes not using my code. β^{_{command 2}} 15:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

How come? That was the situation as far as I knew it at the last BRFA. What changed? MickMacNee (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't "censure" anyone, of course. But if someone is to operate a bot, they must be expected to interact civilly with those with concerns about the bot; the incivility of the response adds weight to the argument for keeping the bot blocked for the time being. Imprecision in a bot of this sort leads to confrontation, and incivility makes such confrontation worse, so we need either more precision from the bot or more civility from the operator—or, ideally, both. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

how about civility from those who dont know policy and are incivil to the operator? β^{_{command 2}} 15:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• We need civility from everyone; incivility does not justify incivility in response. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• How about 'this isn't a play ground' and 'two wrongs don't make a right'? How about higher standards from those members of the communtiy that supposedly do know what they are talking about? How about you stop rolling out this excuse as, well, some kind of excuse? MickMacNee (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, even if one is the most correct person in the room, acting uncivil will blow any credibility one has. _{1 != 2} 15:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we've lost ST47 for a bit, and we shouldn't expect him to respond to this discussion. From User:ST47: "There are obviously quite a few problems with this project, first and foremost that people who are idiots can gain access to admin tools..." Not exactly the most classy exit. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Communication

Lack of communication makes things blow up sometimes. ST47 should not call people 'stupid' in his first breath, it doesn't help. Edit summaries should be accurate, they shouldn't say This image has no valid rationale when it's not the case. Someone with a bot that runs the breadth and width of the projects' images should be able to communicate effectively when there are problems.

I made some very clear and straight forward suggestions above - ST47 still hasn't replied to those suggestions. I'm waiting. --Duk 15:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There are several people who agree with you above, Duk, including me. If I may make a suggestion, it might diffuse the situation somewhat if you don't treat this like a personal campaign, and leave this issue alone for a bit. I will make it a personal campaign instead, at least in the sense that I have no intention of letting the bot's block be removed until there is consensus here that it isn't problematic. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. --Duk 15:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Reblock the bot

Per [124] - "My participation in this project is suspended for the time being..... If you require assistance with Wikipedia matters, I really don't give a damn, so don't contact me". If he's gone now, whether for a day or a month, clearly he needs to apply for an unblock if/when he returns. MickMacNee (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The bot had been reblocked prior to that message. --Onorem♠Dil 16:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The real problem - unclear error messages

A big problem with the fair-use image tagging 'bots has been poor error messages combined with threats of deletion and too-short deadlines. This induces user panic and anger. The error message should contain sufficient information to clearly explain to a user what's wrong and what they should do to fix the problem.

All these 'bots are looking for is merely a link back to the article that used the image. But the error message doesn't clearly say that. It says "Note that, per WP:NFCC#10c, each fair-use rationale must include a link to the specific article in which fair use of the image is claimed." Even the Internal Revenue Service has better error messages than that. Something like "You need to add a {{Non-free use rationale }} template to the image page, with the blanks filled in and a link back to the article using the image" would be a big help. This is what drives non-expert users nuts. A good rewrite of the error message text would probably bring the acrimony down to an acceptable level. --John Nagle (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a large part of why my bots use custom messages and templates: I looked at the standard messages, decided they were not fit for human consumption, and wrote my own. I'm surprised more bot operators haven't done this. --Carnildo (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked again

By User:MZMcBride. I for one endorse the unblock. If Duk has a problem with the bots operations, he needs to speak to the bots owner or take the issue up elsewhere. The bot wasn't 'malfunctioning', and this block was inappropriate. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Falsely identifying rationales as invalid is a specific and correctible malfuction. I don't much care if it is blocked or not, but if it continues to make the same errors it will need to be blocked again. I'm disappointed to see MZMcBride wheel warring on this issue, especially given that he apparently either didn't look deeply enough into this discussion to notice this thread, or decided that it wasnt worth commenting here. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a malfunction. If the images were properly tagged with rationales, as policy mandates, the bot wouldn't have tagged the image. Ultimately, the tagging isn't the issue. It would be up to an administrator to delete the image or not. And if the bot is inappropriately blocked again by Duk (or anybody), it will simply be unblocked again. "Wheel warring" is a two-way street buddy. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As discussed above, we are talking about images with rationales that did exactly what the policy mandates. The policy makes clear that links are recommended, not mandated. The tagging is an issue because the tag being added makes a false statement and ST47 knows it to be false, and this behavior needs to stop. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Troll

Resolved

Acct started today, edit summaries like "revert brain damaged bitch," "remove faggotry," "remove moar faggotry": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lulzmaster_of_Lulz -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The edits aren't done in bad faith, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the other contribs. This is absolutely a vandalism account, probably our friend Grawp again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I was reverting IP edits exactly like that yesterday. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Odd behavior by User:Endlessdan

Resolved

 – Working together to fix the image issues, I'd just as soon AGF and drop this. Kelly ^hi! 16:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Just as background, I'm in the process of moving images on en Wikipedia that are sourced to Flickr to Commons (verifying the license in the process) so that the images aren't lost in the (unfortunately all too common) event that the Flickr uploader changes the license to something that is non-Wikipedia-compatible. In the process, I've been running across images uploaded by this user, with Flickr sources given, that I can't find at Flickr. Plus there is some strange tag-removing behavior with weird edit summaries like this. Not sure how to handle this. The users' userpage says they've already been through (and graduated) a mentorship program by Hdt83 (talk · contribs). Kelly ^hi! 23:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Id offer to help with moving by using WP:MTC but BCBot is blocked. β^{_{command 2}} 00:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm less concerned with that than with the disruptive behavior by Endlessdan, considering he's already been blocked twice three times for disruptive behavior. Kelly ^hi! 00:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Odd edit summarys? Whose definition of odd? Those pics are from Flickr. I linked the album where the pics are located instead of the actual pics. They are legit, but it was a pain in the ass linking the photos to their direct source rather then a somewhat broad source. As far as the blocks, I hang my hat on those. Check my talk page archives. --Endless Dan 13:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

On review, I'm most concerned by the line at the top of ED's talk page: It'll be a cold day in Hell the day I'm taken out; Make no mistake for real, I wouldn't hesitate to kill. An announced intent to kill those who disagree with you, whether an attempt at cleverness or a joke notwithstanding, doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Opinions? --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a song lyric ([125]). Not particularly appropriate, though. Black Kite 13:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Well considering that according to this, it's lyrics to a song by Big Punisher, I wouldn't be too concerned. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

An announced intent to kill those who disagree with you C'mon, now! Where does it specifically say 'I'm going to kill you for disagreeing with me? LoL WP:AGF, pal! Also, if you check out my other subpages, I have different lyrics at the top of every page.--Endless Dan 14:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary for Endlessdan's last edit is completely unacceptable. I'm sure he's going to say something snarky like "Whose definition of unacceptable?", but semantic copouts aside, Endlessdan needs to shape up his edit summaries right quick. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere, there is an article being vandalized to high Heavens --Endless Dan 14:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, looked at this a bit, and have worked with E-Dan too. Keeping in mind that he's from Jersey (that's not an attack), and keeping in mind that he is music-obsessed (not an attack), and keeping in mind that he usually types lyrics as edit summaries (that's not an attack), and keeping in mind that he is working with Kelly rather civilly (actually, I'm not sure why she blanked his message to her on her talk, I read it rather complimentary), and keeping in mind that there really isn't an issue here, I'm thinking we're about to the point of "move along, better things to do, worse problems to fix". Any seconds? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I worked with Endlessdan near the end of January when he asked for help converting references in Eli Manning to the citeweb format. I found him to be very level-headed. I second. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonsensical edit summaries, failure to address the substance of the complaint when people have valid concerns, usage of the phrase "LOL AGF".. these are very bad signs. This certainly sounds to me like an editor who lacks the necessary maturity to work constructively here. These problems don't magically go away by themselves. Maybe it's not a big concern yet but we should at least have some people keeping their eyes on the situation. Friday (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Asking someone to assume good faith isn't a bad thing Friday. LOL means laugh out loud, which I interpret at face level that Endlessdan is taking this rather well and constructively. Saying, however, that this certainly sounds to me like an editor who lacks the necessary maturity to (be) here is rather harsh, and does the opposite of LOL AGF. It's more of an ABF, wouldn't you say? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

619 in Ireland

Can someone please remind User:Sarah777 that users cannot remove AFD tags? I think she has removed it 3 times in the last 24 hours and I don't want to be the only one putting it back. Mangostar (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, because that would breach 3RR and you'd get blocked. Don't make a virtue of necessity. Why did you delete 20 articles? Sarah777 (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added the header and left the user a note. Hopefully this will be enough to discourage any future disruption.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please apologise immediately for characterising my edits as disruption. Sarah777 (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Repeatedly removing AfD tags is very clearly disruption. I'm surprised that such an experienced contributor thinks it isn't. No-one is ever going to be blocked for replacing it. Black Kite 01:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you refer me to the Wiki-rule that says that? Haven't come across it. The tag was a "bad faith" tag by an editor who engaged in mass deletion of articles. I happened to be the author of these articles but am aware of WP:OWN so that isn't the basis of my objection. My objection is that this Mango chap seems to be a law unto himself and is now, apparently, supported by Admins in his vigilantism. Not good. Sarah777 (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly stated in the AFD tag itself - "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." And it's pointless anyway, because removing the tag doesn't prevent the actual deletion discussion from continuing. Black Kite 01:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And the actual procedure is here --Rodhullandemu 01:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

On the opther hand, He's getting lots more support for delete at the AfD now that there's a call for attention there. ThuranX (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And this AfD is where, exactly? Could the members of The Club share that with an interested party? So that I can more widely alert people to its existence. Sarah777 (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The outcome of any anti-irish AfD is a foregone conclusion, given that Anglo-American pov trumps the stated policy of WP:NPOV every time. My concern here is that this editor preempted due process which it appears is acceptable to the dominant British Nationalist Wiki-perspective when British pov is being imposed on Ireland-related articles. Sarah777 (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The AfD is linked from the AFD tag on the article (in other words, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/619_in_Ireland). Incidentally, your insistence on blaming everything you don't agree with on some evil Brit conspiracy doesn't do you any favours, you know. Black Kite 01:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

← Simply put, AfD tags are not to be removed until the AfD is closed. Even in cases of a bad-faith nomination (which this does not appear to be), there is no valid reason to remove the tag from the article until the AfD is closed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The statement widely alert people is a little concerning. I just want to preemptively remind you of WP:CANVASS. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Trust me here THTFY; there is absolutely no need to put things "simply" for me. I understand what is going on here rather better than most. IMHO. Andrew; that apology please. Then perhaps I might address your anxiety to keep this AfD decision within the Club. Sarah777 (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything Andrew needs to apologise for - he quite correctly called you on your disruptive editing. Exxolon (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not only is Sarah's removal of an AfD tag on multiple occasions disruptive, but comments like The outcome of any anti-irish AfD is a foregone conclusion, given that Anglo-American pov trumps the stated policy of WP:NPOV every time is completely beyond the pale, and should be repudiated. Corvus cornix_talk 02:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah - for a start off, the article was nominated for AfD not by Mangostar, but by User:Tim!. If you look at his contributions ([126]), he has also been adding a lot of events to "Year X in Ireland" articles. Secondly, he quite correctly informed you of the AfD ([127]). Thirdly, the AfD tag (which you kept removing) directs people to the AfD discussion, which will also be read by those who peruse WP:AFD. Fourthly, you're not going to get an apology out of Andrew because he was in the right. Black Kite 02:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No apology; no discussion. Mango deleted 20 articles - any of you chappies notice that? No? Why? Corvus; the truth cannot be eliminated by and Wiki-self-delusion or Wiki-political-correctness. My observations are manifestly correct. Sarah777 (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I need to say it again; the 619 in Ireland article was not nominated for deletion by Mangostar. Black Kite 02:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And Mango has not "deleted" anything. He has nominated the articles. The deletions would come following a consensus discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 02:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah is referring to a merger of some "Year X in Ireland" stubs into a "Century X in Ireland" article by Mangostar. Black Kite 02:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Which makes sense to me, but paranoia is an unhealthy condition. Corvus cornix_talk 02:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So is denial. Toddst1 (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh...no. He deleted them. It is somewhat worrying (though not surprising) that such a collection of esteemed editors can get such a simple thing wrong. Black Kite; pl don't feel you have to repeat what you've already said - no matter how often you repeat it my reaction to nonsense will be the same; the article was not nominated for deletion by Mangostar - yeah!! It was deleted by Mango!!! I gotta hand it to you guys ye've got an evil sense of humour! Sarah777 (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) He did not delete them. He merged them. (2) The article 619 in Ireland is not deleted, it is only nominated for deletion, and that nomination was not done by Mangostar. (3) When people are trying to help you understand things that you clearly don't understand, and you tell them they're talking "nonsense", I'd suggest your best plan would be to step away from the keyboard for a while. Black Kite 02:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You are starting to bore me (with all due respect). He deleted 20 articles in the series. You fuzzy rationalisations don't change that; you are talking nonsense. Sarah777 (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The article contents were NOT deleted. They were simply merged into one longer, more useful article. So nothing's been lost, it's merely the same information in a different format. Exxolon (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's that. Sarah, leave this alone now. The merges are something which is a content dispute and don't require any admin action - you can discuss that with Mango on the talkpages. Meanwhile, you are clearly in the wrong here, both with the disruptive removal of AfD tags and your comments above. I will have no problem at all with blocking you if you carry on, so please don't. I am marking this resolved. Black Kite 02:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[128] [129] [130] All a tad contradictory, and the info in the stub article was not transfered to another article with the redirect, so it was no merge, but in effect a delete. Sarah777 doesn't seem to be the hardest editor in the world to bait. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) No - two different things going on. The 619 in Ireland article was nominated because it was said that the sole event listed actually took place in 618. The merges performed by Mango are a separate issue. Black Kite 07:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sad to say, Sarah's behaviour has become highly tendentious and is getting out of control. This is probably the central issue here, and this is a shame as she can be an intelligent and fun editor. Appears these days though to be interested in nothing but having a fight. Her editorial choices are dominated by strong ideology and her talk page comments are characterised by confrontation, emotive divisive paranoia [131] [132] [133], and misrepresentation [134] [135] [136]. Tendentiously edit-wars and shops, while accusing other established users of edit-warring [137] and vandalism [138] [139] [140] (etc). This has been going on for a while, but after carrying her ideology over to the talk page of a Russian football club last week, I unskillfully and unsuccessfully attempted to get her to alter her behaviour without acting as an admin, but all I got for it in the end was aggression and membership of her Anglo-Cabal. Full of bad faith too. After once getting rid of a POV-fork, Sarah did this. Since I first noticed and involved myself, I've remained passive but I have noticed it continuing to get much worse. I'd urge a totally non-involved established and experienced user to try to get Sarah to behave in a reasonable manner. Preferably this user should come from the highlands of Papua New Guinea or the Amazon jungle or another national background that would make it hard to get membership of this club, as paranoia and mistrust are a very big issues with Sarah. But it's got to stop somehow before its influence on other wikipedians escalates the conflict and tension on the articles she edits. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Zzzzzzzzzz.......Sarah777 (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an amazing discussion about an editor who has been blocked 7 times including harassment and civility issues. Toddst1 (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee restriction

Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks. Those interested in possibly applying a sanction of any kind should consider the above. Daniel (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A decision which amounts to political censorship, nothing else. Originally decided because I made the (apparently) extraordinary claim that the British Empire was historically worse than Nazi Germany. So certain opinions expressed (note) only on the talkpage in response to attacks from other editors are now banned from Wiki? Is that it? (And btw Daniel - 6 out of those 7 blocks were by Adimins for what they reckoned was incivility towards themselves in consversations outside the mainspace area; one was for an accidental 3RR. Sarah777 (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm no apologist for the British Empire but they didn't start a six year war that cost 72 million lives and included the holocaust - it's unsurprising the claim is considered 'extraordinary'. Exxolon (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There has been great incivility displayed by Sarah777 above and elsewhere, such as at [141]. And the comments left at User talk:Alison#Moving_Article without agreement are not that encouraging, either. There is also edit warring over tags, and/or obvious anti-British bias, such as [142] "adding a photograph" [143] [144] [145] [146] [147]. There was also a lot of reverts and tedious editing at Great Britain and Ireland for a period in mid-May, and the same can be said for List of islands in the British Isles.

Quite frankly, I'd AfD most of the "XXX in Ireland" articles, such as 260 in Ireland and have it redirect to say... 3rd century in Ireland. There is no reason to have blank or nearly empty articles for decades that haven't been filled or completed in months, and it's content that can be applied elsewhere.

Adding in the above, to which there is no real action that can be taken, along with the ArbCom restrictions, I say that Sarah777 has a pretty tight leash. The lack of concern for the comments above ("Zzzzzzzz") and the general disregard for other editors and policies, leads me to believe that additional restrictions are required. seicer | talk | contribs 04:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with User:seicer. Suggest restriction on Ireland-related articles. Toddst1 (talk) 06:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the edits further and would find it perfectly acceptable to impose a 1RR restriction on articles regarding the XXX in Ireland articles. This is not an isolated incident, and the edit warring at other articles suggests that a revert restriction may be applicable elsewhere. While there have been no 3RR violations, such as at Great Britain and Ireland, the user has been pretty disruptive and has been essentially testing the waters, so to speak. Pretty irritating for other users who have to deal with this. seicer | talk | contribs 06:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also suggest something about WP:Civil. Snarkyness seems to be the default there. Toddst1 (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing things aren't looking good for Sarah, right now. Yikes. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Community ban?

Any reason we're still tolerating this? It sure looks like this disruptiveness is not new. Also, her conduct right here on the noticeboard is.. not constructive. Looks like more of the problem that's apparently been ongoing for some time. Community ban time? Friday (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Mark Hanau

So I closed a very contentous AfD yestarday. I thought it was close, but someone needed to make a decision and I closed it as a keep. I think I have explained my rational both on the AfD page and elsewhere. I am now getting complaints about conduct on the page. I'm already involved and not entirely enthusiastic about policing the page. Could someone else have a look at the content dispute and any personal attacks there? --Selket ^Talk 01:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As a formerly neutral party on this issue, I got involved and had previously blocked the author/subject of the article (known per this and this) for personal attacks and later sockpuppetry. It appears that I'm now a partisan, so I've stopped my administrative involvement. There is an open 3RR report related to this here. Toddst1 (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I typically see admins who are unsure of their own close open a DRV. You should get good responses there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is questioning the closure at this point. My question was answered directly.

However, there is plenty of behavior here that I do agree needs to be examined further, specifically, persistent personal attacks: 1, 2, 3 followed by inappropriate UW-4 warnings for vandalism 4, 5, ownership of the autobiography, sockpuppetry and at least one SPA editor not listed at the sockpuppet report:

• RetroS1mone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

It seems that this is a long-standing off-wiki dispute, somehow related to a dispute around AIDS denialism and some of it is discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Hanau. I hope this summary helps. Fresh eyes are definitely needed.

My opinion: There are two parties here with a long standing dispute:

• Keepcalmandcarryon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Aimulti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

but Aimulti is quite a bit clumsier in navigating wikipedia, apparently loses his temper from time-to-time, and desperately wants an article listing all his accomplishments (which are many, but apparently extremely poorly documented). Because of these, he repeatedly runs afoul of the rules. Several editors commented in the AFD that Aimulti probably shouldn't edit Mark Hanau further. At this point, I think a restriction should be put on him in that direction.

I don't know what is going on at AIDS denialism; I haven't cracked that open and hope not to. I hope this opinion helps. Toddst1 (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

For Aimulti's own sake, a restriction on Mark Hanau seems like a very good idea. He doesn't seem to understand the cultural norms of Wikipedia (for a lack of better words), and he's going to get himself in more and more trouble before he can learn them, assuming it's possible. -- Ned Scott 08:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all of you that you looked at this. The changes I made on Mark Hanau are for bad sourcing, I checked his other sources some of them do not verify either. But now I don't know is it bad for me to edit again or not. Your right there is a long standing dispute between Mark Hanau and AIDS activists, now he been saying he will change Wikipedias AIDS information. But that's totally seperate from the bad sources at the biography. RetroS1mone talk 11:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm worried. Aimulti apparently believes that I am a specific person he knows and has confronted in the past (as Toddst1 linked, off-wiki dispute). I am not that person; in fact, I don't even know who that person is. I have stated several times that I have never encountered Hanau before: I became involved because of the quite frankly shocking discussion at AIDS denialism and Mark's announcing of plans to "radically alter" Wikipedia. Aimulti's recent language ("what I am about to do," "before I go insane," etc.) intensifies my concern that the individual Aimulti identifies with me, someone who, as far as I know, is not involved in this dispute, could become involved in some way off-Wikipedia. Contrary to Aimulti's assertions, I supported his notability on picture discs and band management, and I withheld a Keep vote in the AFD only because of my involvement in the editing disputes. To help defuse the tension here, I propose the following: let Mark have his article and do with it as he wants; give him a concession and block me from editing his page. Would this be acceptable? Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the situation and I think your intentions are good, but that is not at all a good idea for wikipedia and am strongly opposed to him "doing with it what he wants." Toddst1 (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand, and I admit that my idea wasn't the best. Would there be any harm in blocking me (and other involved editors, temporarily or otherwise) from editing his biography, though, just to help calm things down? I find this whole situation increasingly worrisome. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You can just leave a polite note on his talk page to the effect that you will not be editing his biography, and effectively block yourself - just don't edit it. Self-restraint is often the best approach to these things as long as you're willing. I've been around the AIDS denialism article for a long time, and Aimulti is like many editors who passionately subscribe to the fringe viewpoint - he mostly vents about censorship, the evil AIDS establishment, idiosyncratic ideas about electron micrography and the non-existence of HIV, etc, but there are (for now) enough editors on the page that he's pretty harmless. Anyhow, avoidance is probably the way to go; no comment on the Mark Hanau article as I've not looked at it. MastCell ^Talk 18:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'll do. Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Unwarranted page moves

I recently created an article Cosmographia (overwriting what had been a redirect) and created a dab page Cosmographia (disambiguation) to deal with other works of that title that are mentioned in other articles but have no articles of their own. Matthead (talk · contribs) has moved the former to the title Cosmographia of Bernardus Silvestris and the latter to Cosmographia, with no discussion, in what appears to me to involve clear violations of WP:NAME (note, for example, that our article about the author is at Bernard Silvestris, not Bernardus Silvestris). Since he subequently edited each of the articles, I'm unable to revert them to their previous titles. Could I please get someone to do so? If Matthead thinks that the moves should be implemented, he should take the matter to WP:RM, I think. Deor (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition, Matthead has included, in his rewriting of the dab page (now at Cosmographia) links to the articles Leonardo da Vinci, Martin Behaim, Vincenzo Maria Coronelli, Petrus Apianus, and Gerhard Mercator, none of which include the term Cosmographia at all. Deor (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And, I'm sorry, but Matthead didn't actually move Cosmographia (disambiguation); he just moved Cosmographia and created a new page at that title. I guess what I'm asking for is a deletion of the article currently at Cosmographia, with a move of Cosmographia of Bernardus Silvestris back to that title. I apologize for my confusion, but currently we have two disambiguation pages, at Cosmographia and Cosmographia (disambiguation), and that's clearly unacceptable. Deor (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflicts) Many persons have published a Cosmographia [148] or similar titled works, or are called cosmographers, which Deor knows as he had also created Cosmographia (disambiguation) from scratch. Cosmographia used to redirect to Cosmographiae Introductio by Martin Waldseemüller, but when Deor overwrote it with the one by Silvestris rather than creating a new article from scratch, I moved it according to "The Cosmographia of Bernardus Silvestris, trans. Winthrop Wetherbee", to make sure to have a sourced name. A makeshift disamb was created also based on info in the De-Wiki article on Münster, I did not know about the one he had prepared elsewhere. I doubt very much that the one by Silvestris is undisputedly the Cosmographia. It's surprising that Deor claims Cosmographia solely for Silvestris' work when he knows that there are many other. -- Matthead  Discuß   02:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've merge-tagged both disambs, suggest that Deor moves his article on Silvestris' Cosmo to a name he sees fit (except Cosmographia), and that this here is speedy-closed. -- Matthead  Discuß   02:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as the English Wikipedia is concerned, there is no other article at the title Cosmographia. I still recommend that an admin move the article at Cosmographia of Bernardus Silvestris back to Cosmographia. Deor (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(my comment below comes first) You may be right that this is currently the only Cosmographia (the Universalis is listed as a map) but it won't always be. I say it's better to keep it as is for now since eventually the move will have to be made. In fact, maybe one of you can create the one for Sebastian Münster which seems to be linked to. As to my point below, it seems that Cosmography is a fine introduction to what I had envisioned for Cosmographia (although it should be expanded) and therefore the dab page should probably be at Cosmographia and not Cosmographia (disambiguation) gren グレン 09:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the fact that there are two dab pages shows that something got messed up somehow--but blame is not exactly important. Clearly, if there are notable cosmographia to put one at Cosmographia over another must warrant a defense of its overwhelming importance, which I don't see. Until then I actually recommend the title Cosmographia (Bernard Silvestris) (since Deor prefers Bernard to Bernardus) since his name is part of the disambiguation phrase and not the actual title. I also ultimately recommend that Cosmographia become a page about Cosmographia in general with reference to particular versions--until then it can be a dab page and Cosmographia (disambiguation) can direct to it. Deor, I don't know why you think it deserves the title without disambiguation when other articles will have to have a disambiguation phrase--you will need to justify this for anyone to support your naming. Matthead, you shouldn't generally use pictures in your disambiguation or link to the authors who have performed that type of work--only do that if they have articles for those works. I am going to redirect Cosmographia to Cosmographia (disambiguation) for now. I hope this helps. Maybe you two can collaborate on writing about Cosmographia in general? Deor, if you wish to press your point feel free to do so in some forum but let's avoid edit wars over this. And whichever of you doesn't get consensus on your side just stick to what the community agrees to. gren グレン 09:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think there's no problem with linking to the authors if the work is mentioned in the article. --Random832 (contribs) 14:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Kappa Sigma

Resolved

 – Semi-protected until May 27

There are new users who are posting links in the article regarding "secret information" about the fraternity. This has been going on all day. Apparently some ritual book was obtained and posted on the internet. I've seen past instances where websites have been shut down or various threads on messages boards have been shut down because of legal ramifications by the respective fraternity. Ritual books such as these are not meant to be in the public domain. I don't know what kind of actions, if any, Wikipedia wants to take, whether it's protecting the page, contacting the Kappa Sigma fraternity or nothing. I just wanted to make this incident known. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 03:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, their book of rituals was scanned and leaked to a bunch of services. I can assure you they know about the leak. Since it's all unverifiable, there shouldn't be an editorial issue here. --Haemo (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The scan has resulted in a serious influx of vandalism and edit-warring from new and unregistered users, so I've semi-protected the article for four days per a request on WP:RFPP. This should handle the edit-warring problem, but if it continues between autoconfirmed users, then I'll lock the page down completely. --jonny-mt 05:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That should resolve this situation for now--this will eventually become verifiable information for inclusion when it becomes part of verifiable sources. Also, Dysepsion, I wouldn't worry too much about legal ramifications. gren グレン 10:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

G.H.O.S.T

Resolved

 – speedied G3

Probably complete nonsense but notability asserted so I can't nominate for speedy deletion. Can someone familiar with USA military structure take a look and deal with appropiately? Exxolon (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, I don't see how notability's asserted. It's pretty much patent nonsense, and completely unsourced. My guess is it's someone's vanity page about his MMO shooter game clan or something. (One big giveaway: The Rangers are part of the US Army, not the US Marine Corps. There's no such thing as a "Marine Ranger.") Rdfox 76 (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Formed...under "directive order of bill by President G.W. Bush" is the notability assertion, if a rather unlikely one. Exxolon (talk) 03:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's... a very mangled bit of English that means absolutely nothing in the US military or government; bills are Congressional proposals, while the President can issue Executive Orders. The whole thing smacks of either an MMO clan vanity article or a blatant hoax. I PRODded it, so we'll see what happens there. Rdfox 76 (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

All the names raise BLP worries too. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Was thinking the same thing. Assuming these people exist, I wouldn't think that an espionage unit having their names published would be a good idea. That said, given we don't have a policy regarding biographies of imaginary people, might as well let the prod resolve itself. Or it can just be AfD so that a giant snowball can crush it sooner. Resolute 03:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've found this for "Ghost Unit", although I have no idea what this wiki actually is (one would have doubts that the real US Military's Special Operations Command would put up a wiki about itself), there's GhostRecon.net, appears to be for Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon game(s)... I'd say the article fails WP:V big time, and if it's really a black ops type unit, would be likely to remain so (even if true). But, that's a non-admin opinion. --umrguy42 03:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I nuked it, as vandalism (blatant hoaxes count as vandalism). "Government Hostile Operations Special Task"? I think not. --barneca (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Note, Umrguy, that the wiki has links to "OOC" and "IC" forums; that's roleplayer-speak for "Out Of Character" and "In Character". The Wiki's about some sort of RPG. And man, I was going through CSD looking for a category to nom it with, Barneca, and I completely missed G3... Rdfox 76 (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have nominated it under WP:IAR. There's a reason it's policy. --Carnildo (talk) 06:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Editor COYW and York University

This editor has been involved in a contretemps at Schulich School of Business which is spilling over to York U. My involvement has been admonishing User talk:Cyril2006 for misbehaviour, then cleaning up the university rankings section after the appearance of some other editors (one an SPA). After this, the SPA and an IP made some unsourced edits, and COYW responded in apparent point-y fashion. I've tried some talk page stuff, but COYW has responded somewhat combatively and now appears to have broken 3RR, now that I look again, 5RR or so.

Admin attention is requested. I may have technically also broken 3RR but I was counting, and I'm done for the night there anyway. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Point-y"-ness aside, you write about consensus, don't have it, but edit anyway. You write about having a "single" addition to the York page, from another page, but you do not explain how you arrived at the number or what addition is suitable. I am interested to know who chooses these "single" or "one or two" additions-- and why? If you want to add a single thing to the page, how about a link to all the info on the other pages-- which have branched out and are developing independently. They have branched out for a reason. (Yet another story, but I digress). Can you explain why I should believe you are above cherry-picking information for your redundant postings? There are just too many flaws in your logic. I'll have a beer with you, sure, but I won't say what you are doing is correct. Call that combative, too, if you wish. I will call your interest in the "global excellence" of the subject something that needs to be tempered (and admonished). Fair enough? COYW (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(restored header, indent above) Bringing the content argument here is not productive of admin time, I'm asking for attention to the behaviour issues to defuse this situation. Franamax (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Error at Afd

Resolved

Could someone look at today's AfDs and the section just under "Acroyoga". I think there was an error but, I can't work out the context to try and fix it. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. It was a transcluded AfD without a header. To fix in future, see which is the last correct entry in the AfD log (in this case, Acroyoga). Edit the page and find that entry. The entry underneath has the fault. Go to that entry's page. Correct the fault (in this case by subst'ing {{afd2}} into it - the missing step) and save. The log page will now be fixed, in theory. Other solutions are available, and don't forget that you're allowed to fuck up on any of these steps... just like I did :o) ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. I'm a bit hesitant at the moment as I been screwing up regularly lately. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My motto is "a day on Wikipedia without screwing up is a day wasted". And I live faithfully by that motto, believe me. We've no requirement for anybody here to be perfect, so don't hesitate to be bold or we'll never get anything done :o) ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at Ukrainians of Brazil

Resolved

 – Edit war appears to be over, users warned of 3RR. Tiptoety ^talk 16:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Editors Faustian (talk · contribs) and Opinoso (talk · contribs) have been engaged in a bitter edit war at the above mentioned article since May 21 over a dispute of nationality of some notable Brazilians (whether or not they're actually Ukrainian in orgin). Each editor has made at least 12 reverts on the article today and about 6 reverts yesterday and the day before. Faustian did contact me yesterday, before the issue got out of hand, about Opinoso's accusations of racism and vandalism during the early stages of the edit war. I responded by leaving this message on Opinoso's talk page warning him about making personal attacks and edit warring. Opinoso has, so far, been blocked twice for making personal attacks and twice for edit warring. I then also left this message for Faustian in which I commended him for discussing his changes on the article's talk page as well as asking for a 3rd opinion but also notifying him of the WP:3RR breach. Please note that most of the revert warring happened after those messages were left for those 2 editors. Just recently, Faustian left this message for me explaining the the two parties have resolved the issue but, looking at the recent edits on the article in question as well as the talk page, I'm not convinced that it really is resolved.

I didn't bring this to WP:AN3 because I wanted to give the 2 editors the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to explain their actions since Faustian, even though he clearly breached 3RR, seems to have acted in good faith by asking for a 3rd opinion and discussing his actions on the article talk page.

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and issued them a warning, any further disruption to the article or edit warring will result in a block, as like you said, they have clearly violated 3RR. Tiptoety ^talk 14:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Ncmvocalist removing parts of others' comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus

Resolved

Editor blocked for edit-warring. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Background On TheNautilus' RfA, Ncmvocalist posted a section saying that anything that had anything to do with content, e.g. POV-pushing, misuse of sources, and so on, could not be discussed. [149] (last edit before my comment)

I therefore put up a competing view, pointing out that WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V were core policies, and, while we need to be careful to assume good faith, consistent patterns might demonstrate problems that need dealt with, and that it was nonsense to claim that core policies could not be discussed in relation to users. [150]

Ncmvocalist removed it [151]

On Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/TheNautilus#Reply_to_Ncmvocalist, many people say that his interpretation is dogmatic and wrong. Ncmvocalist claims that Arbcom does not allow administrators to look at content in any way, and is fairly rude in the process: [152]

I shrug, and post a new view, giving more evidence, and showing specifically that arbcom has said that administrators can look into content. [153] (this diff is me fixing having put it in the wrong place). User:TimVickers [154] and User:Ronz [155] support it.

Ncmvocalist nonetheless removes the new one as well. [156]

I restore it, accidentally removing Ncmvocalist's last edit to his comment. [157]

And post a fairly polite message to his talk page asking him to stop. [158]

Harrassment begins Ncmvocalist repeatedly posts on my talk page, accusing me of misrepresentation of policy [159]

Threatens me with sanctions, because I undid his deletion of me once (accidentally removing some edits of his section in the process), and repeating the claim that I was misrepresenting policy.

“ Please refrain from deliberately misrepresenting administrator policy and do not change my view. Revert-warring is not endorsed as an editing technique. You will be subject to an AN/I discussion shortly. ”

(I restored his changes to his section when it was pointed out, by the way)[160]

And, basically, kept threatening me with sanctions, over and over, ignoring my comments on his talk page.

And, basically, continually misrepresents what I said.

Here threatens me again.

In v iolation of our harrassment policy, when I try to remove the discussion [161] he restores it [162] and adds in a statement that he's referring my conduct - which, remember, consists solely of stating my opinion on a request for comment - "direct to the [Arbitration] committee"

He then does this again removal restoration, with personal attack ("You seem to have a disregard for due procedure and norms." added.

This is WAY out of line, this is bullying, harassment, and I'll be blunt: I want him blocked for this. He is threatening to pull in the Arbitration committee in order to allow him to censor other users. That is not on. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No opinion (yet) on the larger situation, but can this problem be solved in the short term by you two ignoring each other? Don't post to each other's talk pages, and, if the other does, simply ignore it. Would this work? Friday (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd rate it as blockable conduct to remove the signature of an editor in good standing from an RFC.[163] Anyone ready to step in with the tools? Durova^Charge! 16:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

To friday: Ncmvocalist specifically said he was contacting the arbitration committee, because he disliked me saying my opinion on an RfC, and me getting upset when he tried to remove it. [164] He went for the "nuclear option" simply because I said we should enforce repeated and consistent violations WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. That has gone way beyond simply agreeing to ignore each other, because if he's going to leap from "I disagree with your view" to "I'm contacting arbcom because you dare to say your view", with added personal attacks, then there is no doubt in my mind that he'd do this again to others to censor views. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I see Orangemike beat me to it, but I would have gone for a longer block for conduct such as: [165] [166] [167] [168]

And for edit warring at User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday of all places. seicer | talk | contribs 16:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaving town for a few days; if you feel he needs a longer block, then go ahead. Right now he's shrieking that I don't know what I'm doing and he should be unblocked right away. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If I could remove any view that I disagreed with from this RfC, the page would be a great deal shorter! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm. I'd asked Ncmvocalist to stop, not realizing that this train had already sailed. I think he means well, but there's a mild clue deficiency here. It was a bit surreal to see him lecture Tim Vickers, me, and now Orangemike on what admins do and don't do with such absolute certainty. Regardless, he should clearly know better than to edit-war to restore comments to another user's talk page, and likewise with repeatedly removing another editor's view from an RfC. I don't oppose the block, though it's a bit unfortunate that it was phrased as a cooldown block. Given the propensity of this particular party to take a highly legalistic approach to everything, I'll expect an ArbCom hearing request in the next day or two asking that we all be desysopped. MastCell ^Talk 18:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. Anyway, the drama is over for now. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Zero content articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No administrator intervention needed. Nakon 16:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Should we start a new guideline that wikipedia articles not necessarily have texts. Wikipedia may contain pages with zero content. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/619 in Ireland. Why not we start building pages only with the title? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, not a list of topics. If there is not substantial information for a topic then we don't need an article. Also, this is not something that administrators would decide, so this is really not the place to propose such an idea. Content issues are decided by the community, try Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). _{1 != 2} 16:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

But people want this in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/619 in Ireland!!!!!!! Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

People want a lot of things. _{1 != 2} 16:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I want a death-ray unicorn. HalfShadow 16:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

$1,000,000 in small unmarked bills please. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is definitly not a topic for this board. There is no incident even brought up. Maybe an admin should mark this resolved. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I second Gwynand's suggestion, there is nothing for an admin to do here. I detect a note of sarcasm in Otolemur's suggestion. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Repeat personal attacks

• Cumulus Clouds‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Making some accusation that I am same user as others. I see he has filed a case, I have no problem with it. But he didn’t leave me alone, and wait for the case to resolve. Instead he followed all the edits of mine and other people he is accusing, and sabotaged them all. here here here

Xbox999 (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• The RFCU on this user came back as likely for a sockpuppet of User:Foxhunt99. There is now a pending sockpuppet case here. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Cumulus Clouds followed my editing in some articles, claim I was a sock puppet, however, in the case he opened, admin has proved I was unrelated to foxhunt99 or xbox999. His action is damaging and needs to be controlled. Even if xbox999 and foxhunt99 are the same, yet, it has nothing to do with what they are editing now, I don't see they are editing the same page, except the Tibet articles, which we all opposed your view. By posting xbox999 is sock puppet on other page, you are assuming it is truth without knowing for sure. It should be innocent until proven guilty. I hope an admin stop his harmful actions. Easymem (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• You are almost certainly a sockpuppet as well. Your perennial involvement in these discussions is evidence of far greater knowledge and participation in the events than that of an innocent bystander. That you arrived here less than 40 minutes after this comment was posted lends great evidence to the argument that you are all controlled by a single party. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Cumulus Clouds did it again here andhere

. How can he assume I am guilty before final decision is made about the case. Xbox999 (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Care to say why then that you defended a revert of an account that you are supposedly not a sock of? Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Xbox999, Guox0032 and Foxhunt99 are all one party. They all originate in and around Nashville, edit the same pages and use the same poor english. Easymem also matches the editing pattern, but his IP address came up as unrelated at RFCU. I'm guessing this is because that account was formed after the RFCU was opened, when Foxhunt99 first learned that such information could be used to detect sockpuppets. He is probably using TOR or some other proxy to hide his IP, but it is very clearly the same person. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• who are you talking about Wildthing61476, and which instance? There are too many people involved in this, you need to be more clear. Easymem (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• if those parties are guilty like what you say, it still makes no excuse for you to go rv their edits just so you can have your revenge on Tibet articles. You have absolutely no interest in those articles foxhunt99 and xbox999 and I are editing, you simply did it to defame us. Until you can further provide more evidence, I suggest you stop your vandalism. Plus you claim I found out this page too early, it is really easy to track your moves by looking at your history. Easymem (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• It is very unusual that a user with less than 2 days of experience on the encyclopedia would be able to so aptly navigate those channels to come here. You have obviously been here for much longer than you claim to and this is most likely because you are a sockpuppet of Foxhunt99.

• My intention is not to take revenge on anyone. I have seen the similarities between all four accounts in attempting to insert the same POV into a number of related articles about the status of Tibet. This means they are all probably sockpuppets controlled by one person. This has since been confirmed, to some extent, by checkuser. This means that there is evidence now of this user abusing the process and rules of this encyclopedia. Which means their edits, in general, cannot be trusted because they themselves cannot be trusted to represent themselves honestly in constructing articles. I have therefore reverted these edits as malacious, dishonest or counterproductive. Once you and your socks are blocked, I will go back through your edits and ensure those articles conform to NPOV. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• How about let admin decide if there is any sockpuppet, instead taking the law into your own hands?Easymem (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Believe me, they will. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Backstreet Boys edit war

Both Wikiscribe (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) and Pompertown (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) have been reverting each other however I've warned them with the 3RR template even though it's way over 3 reverts. Main reason I'm putting this here is incase the edit war starts again (I'm about to head off for some shut eye since it's 3am in the morning). Bidgee (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

i ceased the edit war after warning but pomperton has once again reverted the page [169]--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Genre = Pop vs. Teen pop? On the Backstreet Boys? WP:LAME anyone? — Edokter • Talk • 18:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

so since its just lame i guess it is okay for me to change it back and let the edit war continue because i just shown you i stoped afetr geting a warning but the other person continued--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, defenitely not. You both have already broken like 20RR? Don't make it worse. — Edokter • Talk • 19:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Beamathan

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

Dear community, I am here to ask for a review of a topic ban which was implemented within the rules laid about in the Macedonian (Balkan) Arbitration case on Beamathan (talk · contribs). I initially topic banned Beamathan from all Kosovo related articles (in particular, Talk:Kosovo) on May 5th, as part of a uninvolved administrator review which was a case brought to my attention, by Husond (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I lifted that formal sanction on May 10th and proposed for it to end on the 12th May, where I explained: the importance of being a member of the community and the functions and role which accompany that, the current situation on Balkan articles, and commented on the fact that there had been some evidence that Beamathan worked particularly well before, with both the assistance of two other editors (Dbachmann and BalkanFever) who both reassured me that Beamathan was working with the policies set and worked well within that frame. Husond respected my decision and commented that after a informal restriction I placed on Husond's talk page that all Beamathan contributions there were to be productive/civil, he would be okay with reporting any further incidents of name calling etc. I don't believe this particular restriction was ever violated, yet a 48-hour block was implemented in response to this. I feel this block was necessary, but the duration may have been slightly off-put. Husond and Beamathan have shared differing, and more often than not, opposite views of article inclusion etc. and this has led to increasingly strenuous relations between the two, perhaps a factor to consider in the culmination to recent edits. I do strongly believe that Husond should have discussed this matter with me, or at least asked here at ANI for another uninvolved administrator to evaluate the situation and produce and effective, or at least in part, solution. I do understand that Beamathan has now been placed on "a topic ban from all Kosovo-related articles for 15 days, and placed on indefinite civility supervision". And, although this sanction may be sufficient or justifiable enough, I believe strongly that this more recent implementation of a topic ban should have been initiated by another admin, possibly me, considering my experience in this particular situation. With both Beamathan askin for a review of his case, and Husond wanting honest feedback, I bring forward this thread as information in the hope of further progress in this particular case. Thank you. Rudget (Help?) 17:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin says it's ok to delete talk page comments

Resolved

 – No violation and certainly requires no administrator intervention. New account solely dedicated to this is a suspicious. seicer | talk | contribs 18:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=214396775&oldid=214392914

User:Modocc didn't like a talk page comment so deleted it. This is wrong. Discuss, not delete. An admin says it's ok to delete. The excuse is that the deleted comment didn't discuss article improvement (but the 2nd comment actually did and that was deleted, too).

This looks like an admin is taking sides in a content dispute and condoning vandalism. This is bad. Admin should be very upright and unbiased.

Again, if it is ok to delete comments on the excuse that it doesn't improve the article, let me know. Sceapo (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me be the first to ask, what does how Barack Obama holds his hand over his heart have ANYTHING to do with the article? This was just soapboxing and needed to be deleted. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." -- SCZenz (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And also: "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." -- SCZenz (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest an admin close this discussion as there is nothing here needing administrator intervention. As an aside, the reporting editor Sceapo (talk · contribs) created his/her account today, 7 minutes before making their very first edit which happened to be a report to WP:AIV asking for Modocc to be banned after which the issue was raised again on another editor's talk page here after which this report was filed. What I'm trying to say is that I tend to be suspicious of an account created an hour ago whose only contibutions to Wikipedia have been complaints about an editor and his legitimate removal of soapboxing. I suspect Sceapo could likely be a sockpuppet of someone who has had a disagreement with Modocc in the past. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Lugnuts and fake new message bars

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Okay. Thats enough here. Please take this policy discussion to the relevant page, WT:UP. Talking about this here isn't going to help anything really. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

---

I have removed some fake new message bars from user pages per WP:USER and Lugnuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to revert my changes against what the user page guidelines state. He is also assuming bad faith and reverting changes as vandalism. Nakon 18:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please God, don't let this happen again. -- Codeine (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly makes them against guidelines? They've been around forever and while I don't particularly like them I've never heard that users can't have them? gren グレン 18:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's in WP:USER under "simulated mediawiki interfaces" Nakon 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is more of a joke than the actual message in question. Nakon, please read Wikipedia:LAME#User_pages. Lugnuts (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)If anything, warn/block for false accusations of vandalism (call it WP:NPA/WP:TROLL/WP:AGF violation); I say also protect the page if s/he persists, those banners are irritating, disruptive and pointless, and it seems that the user in question is the same. Let them know in no uncertain terms that unless they are here to contribute positively to the encyclopedia then they oughtn't to be around. </rant> —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I view removing page content from a userpage, while vaguley citing some policy, as vandalism hence the reverts. Lugnuts (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

But it isn't vandalism, read WP:USER several times. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have, and I'll stick to my original conclusion. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Further to my comment, I've warned for personal attacks (false accusations of vandalism, "get a life", "stop being retarded") and suggest protection and/or blocking if persisted. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

zOMG Drahmaz! Seriously, it's a message bar. If the users want them there, keep them there. No need to edit war over it. The Wikipedia community generally frowns upon simulating the MediaWiki interface, and it should be avoided except when necessary for testing purposes. Should. Not must, or get blocked. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. I'm concerned about the personal attacks that sprung from it; clearly the bar is causing disruption and it's not that essential to developing an encyclopedia. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Is one message bar really going to make someone stop contributing to the encyclopedia? Seems like an unreasonable comment there. Rudget (Help?) 18:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not WP:POINT at all. That bar has been around for ages and most user pages are not overy constructive to writing an encyclopedia. They're jokes, quotes, pictures, interests, etc. We allow them because they are community building and a few pages to entertain editors who spend hours upon hours expanding Wikipedia is considered a good investment. I want you to show me exactly where on User Page it says they are not allowed and then justify how it's worth edit warring instead of just telling the user this. As of this second Lugnuts has exactly 45000 edits. I think we can cut him some slack if he wants to mess around on his user page. gren グレン 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's 61,785 edits, as that counter times out at 45k ;-) Lugnuts (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Absolutely. But not if he wants to insult other editors over it. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I did inform the user of the guidelines and then he went and reverted every one of the user pages I removed it from citing my edits as vandalism. Nakon 18:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is he didn't really disregard guidelines... he did something which you interpret as against them--not a clear cut case--and something that anyone who has been around for a long time knows has generally been accepted except for when it creates drama. If he attacked you that's a problem but all that will happen is we tell him not to. If you want to create a page about those message bars and their removal from Wikipedia, do, but I recommend you stop removing them from user pages. gren グレン 18:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:UP is a guideline, not a policy. It is not illegal to have the bar, but more generally frowned upon. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely removal isn't mandatory? Rudget (Help?) 18:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Once Lugnuts reverted, Nakon should have left a message regarding its perceived disruption on talk and went away. Edit warring over it makes little sense. Now that Lugnuts has gone and reverted the prior changes Nakon made to other user pages, calling them vandalism, a strong warning is in order. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It must be a slow newsday if this is the biggest issue we're facing at Wikipedia. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, Nakon is referring to his recent contributions in which he reverted near every edit by Nakon. Rudget (Help?) 18:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted them, as Nakon didn't give a reason to why he'd mass-deleted the text in the first place. Lugnuts (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

How about "removing per WP:USER" Nakon 18:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, missed that part. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it may not have been wise... but when a user goes on a crusade to remove generally accepted user page content then revert that is not completely out of order. Although, edit wars should be avoided. gren グレン 18:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I say the user should remove it, if it causes this much conflict there is no need for it on a userpage. Userpages are Wikipedia property and as such should not have anything on them that may bring the community into disagreement. Lets just remove it, and move on. Tiptoety ^talk 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It says on WP:USER "The Wikipedia community generally frowns upon". I'm not sure where you got "generally accepted" from. Nakon 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(←) Yes, WP:UP is a guideline, but it should still be adhered to within reason. People don't like the bar, it is semi-disruptive when people see it, and it certainly doesn't help improve the encyclopedia, so remove it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't feel it should be removed. It is just that some people might blow things out of proportions. I did add one to mine, as I had one a long time before. And I'd prefer anybody not to remove it.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's clearly a WP:POINT violation and I've removed it. Nakon 19:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a POINT violation. That's if you disrupt an article... it's not talking about adding something completely separate on your user page. You read policy far too broadly and legalistically--which it isn't. gren グレン 19:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh. The bar isn't disruptive, but if this is the succeeding action then it should be removed by the request of the user who's page is being edited. Rudget (Help?) 19:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It is disruptive, Rudget. Look what happens when people have them on their page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You may be right but the place to deal with that is not here. We should get this resolved and then we can have a discussion about that if people feel it's warranted. gren グレン 19:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(2xec to Rudg) You don't think the bar is disruptive, Rudget? It might not be against policy, but I don't see how it's not disruptive. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is. Just not to the point where it stops people contributing to the project. Rudget (Help?) 19:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec x half a dozen) Neither generally accepted nor generally frowns upon constitutes a solid enough grounds for strict enforcement. If the link provided in the bar does not lead to any external links that are malicious or unacceptable by some other WP standards, I don't see any reason to vehemently insist that it be removed. If one requests the bar to be removed and the request is denied by the user sporting the non-malicious bar, leave it be or take it up at policy level. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Why has my userpage been locked? Lugnuts (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 7)This is completely ridiculous . It is a userpage, and should not be causing this much disruption. If it is causing and issue than remove it. I have removed it and protected that page for a while, now lets move on to writing some articles. Tiptoety ^talk 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't disrupting anyone before this! I've had that on my page for months. You've cleary overstepped your authority. Lugnuts (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Can this be moved to a separate (sub)page? This may take a while. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it won't be taking a while. This needs to be discussed at WT:USERPAGE probably. -Rjd0060 (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm now laughing at Codeine's initial response at the top of this thread. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Call me Nostradamus, but I saw this coming. ;) -- Codeine (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Shapiros10 - request to unblock

User Shapiros10 was blocked for sockpuppetry:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive408#Shapiros10.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_sockpuppetry

He admitted his wrongdoing, apologized and tried to request unblocking on unblock-l. Though i have a reason to believe that he is sincere and that there's a good chance that his further contributions will be positive, the request was denied. Sarah suggested trying to bring it up here.

Blocking is supposed to protect, not punish. The trolling of Shapiros10 was obviously wrong, but i am sure that he learned his lesson and that an infinite block is too harsh of a punishment. If he gets back to troublemaking, he can be blocked for good and i shall stand corrected.

Please consider this with good faith. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

block this ip

You can block this ip address now, I'm turning myself in, I'm xgmx.--4.244.36.143 (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)