Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Grundle2600 and the Diane Francis article.

I'm quite a bit concerned here, when i noticed Grundle2600's comment[1] on my talk-page. Earlier this week i reverted this[2], which was introduced by Grundle here[3]. Now normally i'd consider this a regular revert of a synthesis on a BLP article. But, it seems that Grundle's synthesis has spawned off this[4][5][6][7] - and that he is rather proud of it [8](see edit-comment).

Considering that these kind of edits have been the basis for many of Grundle's problems here on Wikipedia, i believe that this is an issue to be handled here. If this is nothing to worry about, then i am sorry to have brought it here, and the issue can be closed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want us to do. If it is true that she made these remarks, and has two children, then we actually did our job right by reporting that. That pundits and drama-mongers are using it elsewhere to promote their own agendas is out of our control. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

My problem is not that she has 2 children - but that we as Wikipedia have implied something about her integrity - and that this synthesis (2 children + support of China's one child policy) has now become news. This is exactly what we must avoid on BLP articles. And it seems to me that Grundle knew exactly what he was doing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen: Millions of people turn to wikipedia every day for information. On websites, blogs, and message boards all over the internet, people are referring to the Diane Francis wikipedia article's claim that she has two children. The fact that you removed such information in this edit is something which should be of concern to anyone who favor wikipedia's policy of openness. It is very common for wikipedia biographies to cite the children of the article's subject. Please stop trying to remove this relevant, well sourced information from this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is very common that we mention how many children that a person has. It is not however wikipedia's job to connect that to a person's view. That is a synthesis, and it is a very serious breach (imho) of our BLP policy. That this has now become news, makes the breach of BLP even more serious. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Regardless of its previous form, it's apparently now being used as self-promotion and bragging rights [9], etc etc... see edit summaries also. If they want to brag about not understanding our BLP policy they can do it elsewhere. Biographical info on persons is secondary and 100% superfluous, technically, as the focus of the article is why they happen to be a notable person. Trying to attach a dubious claim to such harmless secondary info is just cruel and not in the spirit of BLP. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Ok, let's look at it that way. Unsourced controversial information about living persons should of course be removed ASAP. Is it "controversial" that she has 2 children, or is that point not in debate? Perhaps putting this fact in the lead as opposed to right after the current incident would alleviate your concerns? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, this doesn't really belong here, as it's not really a matter requiring admin action. I think maybe this whole thread should be pasted over to WP:BLPN. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that an editor by synthesis has done real world harm to a living person. And that that editor has a rather long history of doing exactly the same (synth of this kind, not real world harm (i hope)). This is rather more than the simply BLP violation i reverted imho. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• That was my concern - BLP's basic philosophy is: Do no harm. And this has caused real world harm. And Grundle is proud about it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Per the edit summary claim of "famous on the internet!", I suppose that's a relative term. It's not that it's about having 2 kids, it's that the kids were used as golden idols for a wider bit of writing. After thinking of it further, I failed to even realized why on earth there's a claim of notability attached to one blog post. We've cracked down really hard on where possible recent events and the time scope of WP:NOTNEWS and the whole notability is not temporary, etc etc. Just because this is "harmless" compared to Tiger Woods and the like doesn't mean it can just slide through. Good BLP patrolling. Fair notice on pointless edit warring and a re-read of WP:BLP all around. etc ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a fact that the subject wrote that she favors global adoption of a one child policy. And it is also a fact that the subject has two children. I added both of those facts, with sources, to the article. I did not do anything wrong. On the contrary, I provided true, sourced information to the readers of wikipedia. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen: please explain how I have caused "real world harm." Who did I harm? What harm did I cause to them? Grundle2600 (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You apparently "created" those news-stories, with your synthesis, which now will haunt that person. At least that is what i surmise from both the dates of the newsblurbs and your edit-comments. Whether it is true or not is secondary. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It has a lot to do with the fact that this one matter isn't exactly encyclopedic vs claims on notability of the other. It's an op-ed comment that's been turned to holding the kids hostage as a talking point. Direct quotations are needed about relation with her two children, otherwise the two are indeed a WP:SYNTH matter of tying two separately-mentioned topics together to push a POV perspective. No one said you'd done anything wrong, we're just trying to fill you in on the finer points of Wikipedia articles on living persons WP:BLP. You've had offers of advice on your talk page, so I'd suggesting talking this out over there. This isn't particularly an admin issue unless anything pointless disruptive continues. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at Grundle's history and why he is currently indef topic banned on US politics[10]. A lot of that is because of such synthesis, so by now he really should know why such shouldn't be added. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, we had to deal with this same issue in Obama-related articles as well. Grundle apparently lives to find contradiction in the words and deeds of politicians, doing the same "Source A says John Doe did B", "Source B says John Doe did !B" shtick and gluing them together to paint a picture of hypocrisy. Tarc (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still looking for the part where admin intervention is required. I renew my call to close up and move over to WP:BLPN. Grundle does not appear to be violating his topic ban in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A user is indef'ed from one topic area for a certain type of tendentious editing behavior, and appears to be repeating same in another topic area? I'd say that warrants at least a discussion here. Tarc (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Tarc is referring to my indefinite topic ban on U.S. politics and U.S. politicians. None of the people who favored my topic ban had the decency to answer these 7 questions that I asked about my topic ban. Tarc claimed that my questions had already been answered. But when I asked him to quote the answers, he refused to do so, because such answers never existed. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The dreaded "7 questions" again? Yes, let's all review the WP:AN thread to see how well that went for you the last time. Tarc (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The people who favored my topic ban were afraid to answer my 7 questions about why I was being banned. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Your questions are goalpost-shifting designed to distract from the issue at hand (your behavior). No one's biting at the hook. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The information that I added to the article came from the subject herself. It was the subject's own opinion column on her support of a one child policy, and the subject's own personal blog about her two children, that I used to source the information. The subject herself chose to put all of that information on the internet for people to read. How did I "harm" the subject, by citing information that she herself put up on the internet for people to read? Grundle2600 (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You didn't, just let this die. Arkon (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I am curious to hear Kim D. Petersen's explanation of how I caused "harm" to the subject. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

<-Content dispute. Should be resolved. Arkon (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's-Call-It-A-Night Proposal?

The continued (continuous?) editing of the article despite it presently being in ANI isn't terribly well taken, especially since nothing seems to be changing. Smelling and hoping to avoid any coming temporary blocks, I generally propose the following 100% voluntary actions:

• Any of the following terms may be extended by any uninvolved administrator at any time so long as a message is sent to both directly involved parties.
• Length: 1 week to 1 month. Everyone should be bored enough to not go back to it.
• A revert to before the edit war and manually replace unrelated content removed in the process,
• Voluntary avoidance of the article by all article editors of this evening and participants in this ANI, except in matter of BLP libelous content or legal threats.
• Grundle2600 voluntarily avoid talk pages of any persons here or involved in editing that article unless directly related to libelous or legal threats in this article.
• Grundle2600 voluntarily avoid articles recently contributed to by Kim D. Petersen except in matter of BLP libelous content or legal threats.
• An uninvolved party may evaluate possible violations of 3RR on either side and report if considered appropriate.

Objections? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Added

• Issues regarding changed to the article can be discussed at the Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard during this week, though civility should be strictly enforced.
• Kim D. Petersen voluntarily agrees to avoid this article for the same week as a sign of good faith.
• Any violations should be considered as evidence of continued disruption and may be weighted heavily in any further Admin/ANI interventions or any other dispute resolution.
• Future participation of User Grundle2600 in any BLP discussion are open to posting by any editor of this diff which first proposed this, as a reminder of weight on the situation and possible administrator consideration. This should be heavily enforced, for at least the full length of this agreement.

I object. I added well sourced info to the article, which is what wikipedia editors are supposed to do. I should not be punished, because I did nothing wrong. How can people say that I caused "harm" to the subject, when it was the subject herself who first put the information on the internet, because the subject wanted people to read it? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There's unanimous consensus (that I've seen) on the BLP concerns raised. Wikipedia's BLP policy is basically a 100% enforcement once reported and evoked. ...I'll add a few things on the list to balance it off. Ok, done. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

[EC] You really need to add something about Grundle2600 using sources appropriate to BLPs. He's not new here; he should know better than to use junk like prisonplanet.com for anything in a BLP. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Considered and added more above. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, content dispute only. Is it really surprising that reporters use wikipedia as a source of information? Is it a bad thing that an editor includes factual (and indisputed as far as I can see) information to an article. Nope and Nope. Resolve this, it's silly. Arkon (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This is meant to resolve, by getting everyone to move on with things for the night and taking it to BLP/N if nothing else can be agreed to. Everything else is just general civility. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

When resolving a non-issue, there is no need for a bullet point list of made up remedies. We already have nice little policies for such things, 3RR, Civility, BLP. If/when these policies are broken, feel free to propose something or another. At this point, it's just pointless rulering (if that's not a word, it totally should be!) Arkon (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - you don't think that there is a problem with Grundles combination of this biography and this article (synthesis) into this[11], stating by implication, that Francis is a hypocrite. Which was then taken up in the news, here, here here and here which basically all are harmful to the persons reputation, by restating Grundle's synthesis that she must be a hypocrite. In effect Grundle created the news/information combination - not the other way around, and that is a non-issue? Especially when Grundle is already sanctioned for creating exactly such synthesis' other places? Ok. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute. Arkon (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow ?! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Since this wasn't getting anywhere, I figured this might actually get people's attention. It's put in bullets for clarity and to split up text. Just trying to be precisely. ... Look. It's an attempt to drop this issue on the spot, move it to the correct forum, and try to avoid any blocks that just further waste everyone's time. This is also one more desperate attempt at AGF on assumption blocks might be highly reasonable if any violations of specific civility mentions are broken. Sorry to spam up the discussion, then. Whatever. GO TO BLP/N ON THE CONTENT, but the civility issues still have to stopped. This started as "mostly" a content dispute but ... forget it. No wonder blocks are so common. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well - i will abide by all bullet-points, i just think they are about 180° off course about what the issue was. But oh well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit war over content

I urge the administrators look more closely at the conduct of both sides this edit war. There appear to be several editors on both sides of a content dispute.

The issues, as I see them, are

1. Is it permissible for the article to mention that the subject has two children, a fact that is stated on the subject's own web site?
2. Is it permissible for the article to describe editorials that accuse the subject of hypocrisy in advocating a one-child limit, since the subject herself has two children?
3. Is there justification here for departing from Wikipedia's normal policy of including relevant content supported by reliable sources?

According to one of the reverted edits (I have not looked at the sources), the subject had her children before 1981. If this is the case, that puts any alleged hypocrisy in perspective, since the subject's one-child advocacy apparently began about 28 years after she had her own children in a very different environment. Presenting all the facts, rather than suppressing them, appears to be the best solution, as it usually is.

William M. Connolley reverted 4 edits by Grundle2600 with the edit comment "rv: you can't use prisonplanet in a BLP". However, the revert also deleted statements cited to the National Review and the American Spectator. This appears to be a legitimate public controversy, and I don't see why Wikipedia's coverage of it should be censored.

PhGustaf reverted an edit that added the words "despite the fact she has two children", immediately after the statement about the subject's one-child advocacy, as vandalism.[12] The Magnificent Clean-keeper reverted a similar edit with the comment "vandalism of some apparent sock".[13] Participating in a content dispute is not vandalism, and sock puppetry should not be assumed absent some evidence. There were also some statements in the course of editing that were clear violations of WP:NPOV. However, the proper solution is to edit them to neutrality, not suppress the facts.

Please take a look at the situation and intervene to restore compliance with Wikipedia's behavioral and content policies and guidelines. Thank you.—Finell 00:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. In my opinion, the principal BLP issue was resolved when Grundle moved Francis' (cited) family size to the lede and left her (cited) policy statement in a line by itself. Such issues as whether the policy statement passes WP:WEIGHT and whether editorial comments are notable could, I think, be worked out on the talk page.

I did flag two especially egregious drive-by comments as vandalism; this was an overreaction, and I apologize. PhGustaf (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What was so "egregious" about simply stating the fact that the subject had 2 children? What about the accusation of socking?—Finell 06:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm. You're right. One was a simple statement, and didn't deserve "egregious". The other was pretty bad.[14]. Ironically, I did not revert the "egregious" one I was thinking of[15] because I felt I had done enough reverting already. I've apologized for my quick finger already. PhGustaf (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My comments were not directed at you alone. William M. Connolley reverted an edit that added 3 sources on the basis that 1 of them was not reliable. The Magnificent Clean-keeper reverted an edit that added content as "vandalism" and accused the editor of socking. I'm all for being vigilant about BLPs, but calling a content dispute "vandalism" and accusing an editor who agrees with the "other" side a sock (apparently without any independent basis) is improper. We cheapen our policies and damage our credibility by throwing words like vandalism and sock around indiscriminately.—Finell 21:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Indef-blocked

I've indef-blocked Grundle for his behaviour here, highlighted by this edit summary. It appears that Grundle, who certainly knows better, attempted to use Wikipedia to encourage negative public commentary on the fact that a BLP subject has two adult children. It is an attempt to manipulate public opinion via Wikipedia, on a sensitive subject, via a clear WP:SYNTH violation (claiming that a 2009 call for a global one-child policy has anything to do with personal decisions to have children 30-odd years previously). I believe this behaviour constitutes an egregious violation of WP:BLP; of WP:SYNTH; and is part of a long-term pattern of disruptive editing.

Although I've indef-blocked here due to Grundle's long-term behaviour pattern as well as the egregiousness of this incident, I'm open to other length blocks, or to an immediate overturn without consultation if another admin thinks I'm way off base. My view is that if BLP is to mean anything, then an editor of this experience and with this history, should be blocked if not indefinitely then for a substantial period. Rd232 ^talk 17:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• I concur in the block in that Grundle has shown a long-term pattern of behavior that is disruptive and because he has yet again brought up the "questions" that he agreed to not bring up as a condition to his prior unblock. MBisanz ^talk 18:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit highlighted by Rd232 is from December 11. The underlying content issue of whether and how to note that a commentator calling for a one child policy has two children appears to have been resolved with a reasonable compromise. There is no ongoing problem. So this is an atrociously disruptive block by an admin with a history of disruptive behavior on one side of political subjects. I think Grundle needs to do a better job of staying on the straight and narrow, but his impressive content contributions stand in stark contrast to the trolls harassers and baiters who haunt his talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like a block over PoV. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The block looks reasonable. This is an editor with a history of tendentious editing with respect to political figures, and who is already under a ban on U.S. politics and politicians. Apparently, he has chosen to move that tendentious editing north to Canada. It is also worth noting that his insistence on yet again bringing up his 'seven questions' here is a violation of his extant topic ban. This editor does not, at this time, seem prepared to let go and move on. While an indefinite block may or may not be necessary, a minimum of a few weeks away might do him some good. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue was resolved. It was a content dispute. Drudging up old issues and dragging people who we don't agree with to ANI is insidious and it's one of the most disruptive and bullying tactics employed on Wikipedia. There was no consensus to block. The clear consensus was that the issue was resolved. This is an outrageous block, and it shouldn't be gone along with because people have disagreed with the targeted editor in the past. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I post this diff of my comment to Grundle which explains slightly more my reasoning, and also the synth edit in question. I've also noted it in the BLP log [16] though that's no obstacle to amending or removing the block if there is agreement for that. Rd232 ^talk 20:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The only person who keeps bringing up his 'seven questions' (in violation of his topic ban) is Grundle himself. Perhaps if he weren't so keen to refight old battles and dredge up old fights, then we wouldn't be discussing his block now. Further, your ongoing personal attacks and inflammatory remarks directed at other editors in this discussion are almost certainly not helping to get your point across. I've said my bit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So the user is blocked indefinitely for the same thing he was blocked for back in November. Am I allowed to put the {{indefblock}} template on his userpage, or will I simply be reverted by William S. Saturn and be accused of "defacement" by Grundle? It would seem Saturn is accusing the blocking sysop on Grundle's talkpage of blocking Grundle over personal bias. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle has an unblock request pending, so I think the template would be precipitate. Let's hand on for a day or two and see whether a compromise of some sort can be worked out. (On Grundle's page, not here.) PhGustaf (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just removed the indef-block template for the above reason, but don't mean to edit war over it. Let's wait until this is all done before blanking the user page, okay? - Wikidemon (talk) 07:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This use just refuses to get it; the reason why he was indef'ed from political articles is for posting and re-posting the same stupid shit, over and over for months and months on end. And it always boils down to the same things; synthesizing several sources in order to create a particular point of view where none exists, or finding sources to show that it does exist but those sources are not within spitting distance of being reliably sourced. Grundle cannot behave in political articles, thus earning a topic ban. Now the same behavior extends to other areas of the project...where else is there to go but an indef? ChildofMidnight is here to, once again, fan the flames of faux outrage as well, which will not help matters any. Tarc (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce block length

I disagree that there is nowhere else "to go but an indef": Grundle2600 has never been blocked for longer than 48 hours [17]. Additionally, indefinite blocks are categorically problematic: they encourage evasion by eliminating the prospect of a more severe sanction ever being imposed. In consideration of this user's light block history, there's every reason to believe that a longer, but time-limited, block might be effective. Therefore, I suggest reducing Grundle2600's block to one month. Andrea105 (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC) This post was made by a banned user. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I support the indef block, but am somewhat open to the possibility of some other outcome. While the block log does not look that bad, this is an editor who has been sanctioned by ArbCom, topic banned twice by the community, and indef blocked once before (which was then lifted pending a promise to improve apparently). This most recent incident is, in my view, quite egregious (a synth violation on a BLP, what one can only term a "gotcha edit" about someone Grundle apparently wanted to make look bad), and unfortunately it's part of a longstanding pattern (on political articles from which he was eventually banned, Grundle regularly edited in such a SYNTH fashion where one statement made by someone was put in contrast to some action (often misconstrued) as if to say, "look at the hypocrisy"—efforts to explain the problem with that to Grundle led to a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT replies from Grundle).

The only way any sort of change in the indef should even be considered would be for Grundle to acknowledge the problems with his behavior. I'm not talking about a forced apology (that kind of stuff is pointless), I'm talking about an acknowledgment/understanding that the kind of editing evinced at Diane Francis is not okay and absolutely cannot happen again. Even then I'm not sure that it's not more trouble than it's worth to let Grundle come back to editing. Too many people have tried to help this editor stay within community norms to little or no avail. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a reduction in length upon submission of a genuine mea culpa. Arguments such as whether it is "worth it" to keep an editor around are problematic, as it's really not too much trouble to indef should he reoffend. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

General thoughts on bans and indef-blocks: While I'm not well-read on this specific case, my general thoughts are that bans and their associated indef-blocks should be reconsidered periodically, upon petition of the banned person, a promise to obey the rules of the wiki, and either an off-wiki demonstration that something changed or some type of short-leash parole for a few months along with a mentor if necessary on-wiki before they are allowed to edit without restrictions. In some cases, such as harassment of a given individual, or COI or POV-editing, long-term restrictions lasting more than a year before review may be needed. In cases where the editor has a habit of editing while drunk or some other episodic disruptions but is otherwise contributing well, other tools may be required. In cases where the person has a previous history of socking, even an old one, they may need a checkuser to be on standby until all editing restrictions are lifted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason to expect Grundle2600 to behave any differently if he is unblocked than he has behaved all along. My sense is that we should take 1/100th of the effort spent in trying to coax something valuable and encyclopedic from him, invest it more wisely, and move on. MastCell ^Talk 05:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The logic behind the proposal up above is totally flawed. Rules have no teeth if they are not enforced. Saying that indefinitely blocking someone who has repeatedly been problematic is useless because there are no "more severe sanctions" is backwards, and insinuates that blocks are punitive, not preventative. If we operate under that logic we may as well stop blocking everyone and let Wikipedia become a massive spamhaus and attack site. As blocks are preventative, not punitive, editors who have repeatedly shown to break the same rules over and over and over again, ignoring editing sanctions, etc. should be blocked to prevent them from repeating the violations again. Promising to follow policy and adhering to editing restrictions eliminates the need to prevent someone from violating. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you were talking about the main proposal to reduce the block on Grundle2600 or if you were talking about my general comment that blocks should be reviewed. There are several good ways to give an editor a second chance. The canonical one is to have him propose substantial improvements to articles or new articles on his user talk page then have an established editor who will take responsibility for the edit review it, and if appropriate, make the edit, repeating until there is a good comfort level that this isn't a snow job or an unstable personality on one of his good days. If the editor is unblocked, he can be kept on a short leash, topic-banned, banned from interacting with certain other editors, forced into involuntary mentorship, or under other editing restrictions long enough to make sure this wasn't a snow job, an unstable personality having a good day, or an editor who occasionally edits while intoxicated. In general, once an editor has been editing responsibly and frequently for over a year there is little use in keeping additional restrictions, unless there is the editing equivalent of an alcoholic, where the restriction is in place for the editor's own good to protect him from himself and the project from collateral damage. See Template:Second chance. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. Grundle has demonstrated no capacity for change. Crafty (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment While Grundle's actions have indeed been problematic, and I support the imposition of a block, I don't think he has used his last chance. Keep the block in place and let him compose an appeal to Arbcom. If they decide to reduce his block, then keep him around on a short leash. The primary thing I've been trying to get across to Grundle is that we need to see a change in attitude and behaviour from him. If he's capable of making that change, then by all means let him edit. If not, then reimpose the indef. Either way, I think the best course of action right now is for him to take the appeal to Arbcom. Decline the unblock, and go from there. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • ArbCom is a last resort - the community would be expected to attempt to come to a consensus first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. Indefinite does not mean permanent, so if he chills out a bit in a couple months, let him come back and request an unblock. Frequently, all that is needed is some time for everyone involved to cool out a bit. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I had to warn Grundle a few days ago for BLP violations on Tiger Woods and the article's talk page. Enigma^msg 19:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block. --John (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The truth will not set you free on Wikipedia

Let's be absolutely 100% clear. Grundle is being blocked indefinitely for noting in the Diane Francis article that "although she has two children, she favors having every country in the world adopting China's one child policy in order to protect the environment."

That's it. That's the edit he made. A true statement, and the only issue was whether it was sourced properly or synthesized. It's since been modified and there was no outstanding issue when he was blocked indefinitely days later. But apparently it's okay to indefinitely block those whose perspectives and editing interests we disagree with, and don't anyone dare point out that this is being pushed by some of the most pernicious and persistent POV pushers on Wikipedia. Drag anyone who doesn't share our viewpoints to ANI repeatedly, label them as disruptive, dredge up abstract accusations about their "history", and hound them off the site.

The complete and utter bullshit arguments that this is over concern about sourcing and BLP is completely disproven by the consistent attacks on article subjects that aren't popular or PC by the very same editors calling for this indefinite block on Grundle. These individuals hold our Neutral Point of View policy in contempt, and use this website for propaganda purposes. The Francis article is a perfect example. It's full of fluff sourced to her own biography and her own writings. But heaven forbid Grundle makes an imperfectly sourced edit noting a discrepancy between her her policy statements and personal choices (something that's been reported widely on if not in the mainstream media).

Grundle must be banned forever by the very Tarcs, William Connolleys, Bigtimepeaces, rd232s and Magnicifcentcleankeepers who have abused this site to push their personal perspectives and to relentlessly go after those with whom they disagree. I've been subject to their harassment and biased enforcement and so have others.

These same admins stand as witness to clear Arbcom violations and say nothing. Yet when it's those they agree with they have no hesitation in assuming bad faith making accusations and going after them with full force and fury. Make no mistake, Grundle is not a perfect editor, but this disgusting hypocrisy and censorship is outrageous. The entire Francis article is full of nonsense and the bits added by Grundle are probably the most notable and well sourced, even if those parts too had problems. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your treatise is based on a convenient fallacy. "Grundle is being blocked indefinitely for noting in the Diane Francis article that "although she has two children, she favors having every country in the world adopting China's one child policy in order to protect the environment." Nope. Tan | 39 19:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is ironic, given CoM's section heading! Ravensfire (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be convenient for C of M to list out in full (I assume the above list is not complete) each and every editor guilty of one or more of the following Wikicrimes described above: "pernicious and persistent POV"; "hound[ing]...off the site"; offering "complete and utter bullshit arguments"; "consistent attacks on article subjects that aren't popular or PC"; "hold[ing] our Neutral Point of View policy in contempt"; "abus[ing] this site"; "push[ing] their personal perspectives and to relentlessly go after those with whom they disagree"; "harassment"; "biased enforcement"; "assuming bad faith"; "making accusations and going after them with full force and fury"; "disgusting hypocrisy"; and "[outrageous] censorship". Once there is a full list of all the editors guilty of these dastardly deeds I think it makes sense to proceed to a community discussion about banning the lot of us. Of course there's no need to provide even so much as one diff making the case for such serious accusations, rather we should just take ChildofMidnight's word for it.

Sorry for the snark, it's just that the endless fantasyland accusations from C of M get rather tiresome after the umpteenth time, even if no one pays them any attention. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate CoM providing diffs to prove his assertion "These same admins stand as witness to clear Arbcom violations and say nothing.". If CoM has proof of this, then this needs to be conveyed to ArbCom. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Further, perhaps CoM would like to create a user subpage with the diffs I refer to, and the list of editors referred to by Bigtimepeace. This could be used as an evidence page for the ArbCom case which I'm sure CoM is considering filing in the near future. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you suppose Arbcom will do about it? All anyone has to do is to set up an "alternate account" (as admin socks are referred to euphemistically) and try adding notable criticism and balance to controversial articles. We are a community and we have to hold ourselves to high standards. Harassment, hounding, and the abuse of admin privledges to advance personal and political biases is totally unacceptable.

Grundle is an excellent editor who has added lots of great articles and content. Occasionally he takes liberties that aren't entirely helpful and these issues can be resolved amicably. If it weren't for the aggressive and abusive tactics employed by many misguided individuals here who use an ends justifies the means approach to advancing their personal preferences and opinions on others there wouldn't be a problem. It's time to stop the censorship and to uphold our core principles and values that notable perspectives should be included appropriately. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard for incidents that require administrative action. What action are you looking for an uninvolved admin to take, and upon what evidence would you suggest they base such an action? If you cannot provide specifics on both fronts then I suggest this entire thread should be closed. No admin seems inclined to lift the indef block of Grundle, and it's probably for C of M's own good for this to come to a close lest he head off into Plaxico B. territory. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We all know by now that these claims made by ChildofMidnight are spurious and disruptive. Usually they are the sort of drive-bys as above, but the last time CoM was up for discussion here, he started a section about me titled "Tarc's relentless antagonism and trolling", which was so thoroughly debunked and discredited that someone apparently deleted the entire sub-thread before archiving, as I cannot see it in archive583, the only place I can find a trace of it is in my last comment there. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"A true statement, and the only issue was whether it was sourced properly or synthesized." I think that neatly sums up CoM's complete misreading of the situation and of basic policy. Rd232 ^talk 19:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There's now yet another unblock request on his talk. Enigma^msg 22:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment CoM, these kind of comments don't help when you've been the subject of several AN/I threads lately. I appreciate your defense of those who are otherwise undefended, but there's a line to be drawn. Perhaps if you focussed on defending those who have been wrongly accused, and stepped back from the personal accusations, the threads in question would cease. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

CoM and Grundle are having an at-length soapboxing session discussion on Grundle's talk page about how unfair and biased Wikipedia admins and BLP patrollers are. Fine by me, but what's the resolution here? Is anyone willing to unblock Grundle? His userpage was tagged with the indef template by Hypicrite and quickly reverted by Wikidemon. I've re-added it since no admins seem willing to unblock and three requests have been declined. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that tag should be added until this thread is closed or archived. Rd232 ^talk 10:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: FWIW, I've further clarified my view of the incident on Grundle's talk page here. Rd232 ^talk 10:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Time to Protect His Talkpage?

Grundle continues making his odd and non-neutral edit suggestions on his talkpage [18]. Given that unblocking seems unlikely, is it not time to revoke his talkpage access? Crafty (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No. I see nothing abusive. If it bugs you, unwatch it and pretend it doesn't exist.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Aww Walt, passive-aggressive is not a good colour on you. ;) It doesn't bug me, I just thought I'd ask. Crafty (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to unblock

Grundle suggested on his talk page that he would like to be unblocked to edit science and pop culture articles. I am proposing here that he be unblocked with the following sanctions:

1. Grundle is to refrain from posting his list of seven questions or referring to them anywhere on Wikipedia.
2. He is topic banned from editing or participating in discussion of any political or politically controversial article. This includes articles directly about politics, but also includes politically controversial topics, like climate change.
3. Grundle agrees to disengage from and avoid those he has had disputes with, especially political disputes.
4. Any posting of his seven questions or referring to them, or breaking of his topic ban, or deliberate engagement with those he has had dispues with will result in his indefinite block being immediately reinstated for a period of no less than 4 months.

Yea? Nay? What say you? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with #3, as it sounds like the "user X shall not interact with user Y" type of restriction that ArbCom loves to hand down. This sort of wiki-restraining order is just ridiculous, as it adds another layer of red tape and hoops to jump though; can one comment on an article that the other has edited, participate in the same XfDs, post in the same AN or AN/I thread, etc... If a user cannot behave themselves while editing alongside someone else, then enforce the policies we have already on civility, personal attacks, and so on. Don't make a meta-level of extra rules. As for the rest, I dunno, do you think this would really work? As Jayron32 put it in the last unblock decline, "I'm not sure how you could turn an article about an animal or science or pop culture into a political battleground, but I am sure you will try hard to do so." Tarc (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That may be, but reblocks, should they be needed, are cheap. (Drama-inducing, but cheap. Can we tack a clause to the end that says "...and in the case of a reblock, the community agrees not to get all riled-up about it"? (Yeah, yeah, I know. If you're throwing stones, please aim at my head--I could use a few hours' nap.))GJC 14:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This edit[19] to Tiger Woods may be notable. Any restriction should include anything vaguely construable as a BLP. The problem is, I think, that Grundle wants to be an investigative reporter rather than an editor, and as long as his motivation for posting is based on "Ah hah!" he's going to get into trouble. PhGustaf (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have the same feeling, and almost suggested as much on his talk page. I'm sure there's a place for what he wants to do, maybe a blog or a "news" site that accepts submissions from non-staff. Wikipedia isn't the place for journalism, because this isn't a journal. What I thought was telling was how he seemed excited that someone else picked up on his synthesis and reported it on a site other than Wikipedia. A Wikipedia editor who both understood and wanted to follow BLP rules should have been horrified by that result, the last thing we want is for Wikipedia to be the source of information damaging to living persons. -- Atama頭 18:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Umpteenth edit war in Gibraltar

Hi, I'm sorry to raise a new issue on Gibraltar-related articles, but this time it's seems the most weird situation I've lived in this wikipedia.

Possibly you're not familiar with Gibraltar-related topics. So, I'll try to provide some information in order to make the issue understandable. The issue relates to the section Demographics of Gibraltar. When reviewing the whole article (there's an ongoing RfC) I found the following text:

“ By 1753 Genoese, Maltese, and Portuguese people formed the majority of this new population. Other groups include Minorcans (due to the links between both British possessions during the 18th century; immigration begun in that century and continued even after Minorca was returned to Spain in 1802 by the Treaty of Amiens) Sardinians, Sicilians and other Italians, French, Germans, and the British. ”

You'll possibly not see any surprising statement, but I did. Well, as I've been reading a number of books on Gibraltar, I've got very familiar with this topic. The first strange issue was the lack of mention to Jews in Gibraltar, as I knew they were one of the main "nations" in 18th century Gibraltar. The second was the lack of mention to the Spaniards, as they has been for the whole history of British Gibraltar more than the Portuguese. The third, and even weirder, was the mention to Maltese people. It's widely known that Malta become a British territory in 1802 so it was impossible such a massive presence.

Well, in this point I could have included a {{fact}} template. But it was not sensible, as I have the means to get the right information. I took one of my books (William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.) and looked for the information. It provided information about the 1753 census (I don't know which this specific date has been chosen) and got the following figures: British: 351; Genoese: 597; Jews: 575; Spaniards: 185; and Portuguese: 25; without further mentions to other nationalities. I was right (no Maltese, but Jews and Spaniards). So, I included the following text:

“ By 1753 Genoese, Jews, British, Spanish and Portuguese people formed the majority of this new population. ”

You've possibly noticed that the original text did have references. However, it referred to a one of the nationalities (the "Minorcans", from Minorca) and not to the whole sentence.

For me, it was simply a "routine" task (fixing an obvious mistake). To my surprise, Justin A Kuntz reverted my edition with a weird edition summary "happens to be sourced and correct, ask Imalabornoz who helped draft it on Demographics of Gibraltar". As I've shown, the paragraph was neither sourced nor correct (as I had verified data with a proper source; today I've double-checked it with other source and, as couldn't be otherwise, the same data is provided). So I reverted, explaining why ("your edition doesn't happen to have a source (Maltese stock in 1753? :-D). I have provided one (Jackson) and unless you provide a source on the 1753 census (I did) I needn't ask anyone"). Well, I thought it was solved, but unfortunately wasn't. New reversion by Justin, with a new and weird edition summary ("FFS will you stop edit warring over every fucking thing. IT IS SOURCED ON Demographics of Gibraltar"). Obvious to say that Demographics of Gibraltar does not talk about any census or similar information dated in 1753).

So, at the end, I wonder why this is happening. It's not a secret that Justin and me are "opponents" in a mediation process. However, I don't know where this stupid edit war comes from. I could guess that it's because I've introduced the banned word in Gibraltar-related articles ("Spanish"). It wouldn't be the first time. It took several days, and only because third-parties supported it in an ANI, to introduce Spanish guys in the section on notable people born in Gibraltar (you can see it here). On the other hand, the section I've removed has sources in the Minorcan stock (curiously that's the only "nationality" with an explanation), and I've done it since Minorcans are not mentioned in the 1753 census. The reason of that mention (and sourcing) can be seen in here (it took months to remove an story entirely invented by Justin on how perfidious Spaniards had expelled Minorcans upon the devolution of the island to Spain; I say it took months because the story begun here).

Well, possibly I'm a little bit paranoid, but I hate wasting my time with stupid things like this one. I'm not here to destroy other people's work for no apparent reason. I obviously challenge the current status of many Gibraltar-related articles (as I think they have an obvious anti-Spanish bias), but the issue I'm raising has nothing to do with any dispute, but with an obvious mistake that must be fixed. I wouldn't like to know that these incidents are part of a tactic to, as Gibnews openly suggest, get rid of Gibraltar-related articles. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well this goes back a long way, right to the very first time I interacted with Ecemaml.

As an example, I would bring to your attention my first interaction with Ecemaml [20]. I give a clear edit summary explaining the reason for my revert of his edit, does he take that comment in good faith? No he does not, he immediately reverts ignoring the comment see [21]. And again [22] and again [23]. Regarding his claim that there is no consensus in the talk page please see [24]. And if Ecemaml claims that I never pointed this out to him see [25]. Further Ecemaml is an admin on the Spanish wikipedia, he really should have known better than to edit war over a content dispute. After a long history of needling, admittedly by both sides, I thought this is stupid, why don't we just stop this draw a line under it and made that suggestion on his talk page. See [26].

Ecemaml sees all Gibraltar related articles as biased and since he started editing those articles, the tension and fractious nature of the edits has increased. What he forgets to mention is that I am in fact half-Spanish, hence the repeated accusations of an anti-Spanish bias are not only irritating but deeply hurtful. The story about Minorcans is invented, I worked with other editors to develop the article to its present form, I simply hadn't noticed that one article was missed.

To be honest I'm just tired of butting heads all the time, I kind of feel this is a tactic to chase editors from Gibraltar articles. Trouble is it seems to be working as two serial contributors to Gibraltar articles have already left. Justin talk 00:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ecemaml (talk · contribs) seems to be disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. He is treating wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and his continued postings here are unhelpful. He is an administrator on es.wikipedia.org, but his behaviour here seems to have become disruptive. It looks like his intention is to WP:BAIT User:Gibnews and User:Justin A Kuntz by constantly picking fights with them and bringing content disputes over niggling details to this noticeboard. Leaving aside the standard of his english, he seems to have started writing on this wikipedia simply to push a Spanish nationalist point of view on Gibraltar-related articles. If this continues, a topic ban on Gibraltar-related articles might be needed. (Why did he not use WP:AN3?) Mathsci (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mathsci. First of all, sorry for not having followed this discussion. Sometimes real life bursts into the wikipedia and a wikibreak is unavoidable. Family matters have kept me away and I must ask for your understanding. Just for the sake of understand your statement. Which is the point I was trying to prove. I've been said that many times and at the moment, nobody has been able to point out to such a point. In this specific issue, what is disruptive from my side? I understand that in articles with different point of views, conflictive editions are unavoidable. But, I can't understand (and I haven't understand yet) why perfectly sourced editions are removed leaving information factually wrong? The only reason to raise this issue here is because this edit war is absolutely stupid. Details are, as you appropriately point out "niggling". But the fact that my work is gratuitously removed is what brings this issue here. Come on, the information currently in the article is false. There were no Maltese guys in Gibraltar in 1753. This is not an edit war on divergent interpretations of a fact but a plain sabotage, not only against me but against the very Wikipedia principles. Again, please, which is the point I'm trying to prove. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC) PS: BTW, you're referring to "continued postings here". Considering that I was brought here when Justin provoked another edit war (when I tried to "make another point" including some notable Spaniards in the article of a town that was Spanish for several centuries), I can't see which continued posting you're referring to.

Agree --Gibnews (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mathsci, this is the second time I've read you pointing Ecemaml to WP:BATTLEGROUND policy recently. Well, I've read the aforementioned policy and it refers to certain attitude which I can't see Ecemaml indulging in. He hasn't broken 3RR lately nor has he restorted to personal attacks but rather. Finally, I don't know how exactly challenging unsourced statements could be deemed as disruptive behaviour. On the contrary, he has added referenced material instead. Don't be so fast in singling him out for his "nationalist point of view", nor in advocating for a topic ban, please. Thanks.--Cremallera (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Cremallera (talk · contribs) seems to have formed a tag-team with Ecenaml, with the same WP:BATTLEGROUND pattern of editing on Gibraltar-related articles. They no longer seem to have discussions in Spanish on their user talk pages. Mathsci (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What kind of argument is that?! Do you naturally suspect of people capable of speaking Spanish, or you've been taught to it? Have a nice day. --Cremallera (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Can this please stop being made into a race or national issue? All it does is put people off. Content disputethat consisted of two reverts? Hardly ANI level. Justi needs a trout that he doesn't have to hit the RV straight away, if things are wrong then consensus will form around that. Ecemaml needs to realise this isn't other wikipedias and he /does/ have to talk to people and can't just go off on his own when he knows it will be controversial. Lets stop making assumptions based on nationalities. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious, Narson? "he /does/ have to talk to people". You possibly know that Justin has a different way of interpretation of communication among wikipedists :-DDDDD --Ecemaml (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Very serious. Justin is not acting perfectly and appears to be rther cross, though I can understand this as he is involved inwhat has become a battleground, one of the reasons I left any active involvement in that article was because I could see where it was going. However, as imperfect as Justin's behaviour is, statements like Rv: your edition doesn't happen to have a source (Maltese stock in 1753? :-D). I have provided one (Jackson) and unless you provide a source on the 1753 census (I did) I needn't ask anyone stand out in the edit history of the article. You knew you were being controversial, you knew that primary sources will be controversial, you knew that there are many interpretations....yet you decided and declared that you had, in essence, a divine right to make that edit. You cannot use Justin's loss of temper as an excuse when you appear to be either deliberatly stoking that temper or, as I'd prefer to assume, blindly stamping around wthout understanding or caring how your actions can cause friction. When the points are raised on the article calmly and rationally, they can be followed and opinions given. As it is now, that talkpage is barely useful and I commend Imalbornoz, Justin and whoever else was involved for managing to get something resolved. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to raise a few diffs to ask an opinion, [27],[28],[29],[30],[31]. There does on the face of it appear to be a spot of co-ordination of activities among three editors on Gibraltar. I could provide more as it goes back a long way and it does regularly feel like I'm being tag teamed on Gibraltar with a good cop bad cop routine. Although I could just be getting paranoid. Justin talk 21:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering that we are using those quotations (that you tried to delete) in the RfC, which are the co-ordination? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So answer the question [while we have some tea]

Just answer this question. Why was the information supplied from the source on the 1753 census reverted. Do not say anything about Spanish editors, points of view or anything at all about the motives of the poster. The validity of the information is not affected by the motives of the poster. Just say why the information somehow doesn't belong in the article. If there is no reason not related to Justin's mistrust of the Spanish, then it should be put back in, and Justin told to stop this pattern of behaviour. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

His 'mistrust of the Spanish'? It is nice to see AGF is taking it in the ass so early in the Wikipedia Day. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The figures for the 1753 census are here. They are 597 Genoese, 575 Jews, 434 British, 185 Spanish, 25 Portuguese. So what is in the article is not quite correct. It probably is better not to use this particular date, which has no special significance. The book of Sir William Jackson is still in the references. However, the book of Edward G. Archer gives a far more detailed breakdown of the history of the settlers in Gibraltar, post 1704, which is correctly summarised in Demographics of Gibraltar. Choosing the 1753 census was arbitrary, since there were many other censuses (eg 1721). All that is needed is a brief list of settlers. I have no idea why this content dispute has been brought here, when the sources are easy enough to check. Statements about the 1753 census are somewhat irrelevant when Archer's book contains full details on demography, which has evolved in the last three centuries. Mathsci (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any harm to use the census data if it doesn't overload the article, but I think the Spanish contributor has misread the sentence he objects to. The category 'Spanish' plainly should not be included, as the sentence is describing the incomers who arrived after 1704, not the Spanish part of the population. I think however that the article should mention the comparatively large number of Sephardic Jews who inhabited the area during the 1700s. No mention at all is made of them, even though they outnumbered the Brits during the 1700s, and vastly (factor of 10) outnumbered the Portuguese. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads, I don't think your line of argument is particularly helpful. In articles about places with a long history, there is normally a section on demography. It has to give a brief account of the various waves of immigrants. (Marseille is a more significant example.) For Gibraltar that includes of course various categories, including Spanish, Jews, Maltese, British, Genoese, etc. These are all discussed in detail in Demographics of Gibraltar and the book I cited. I don't understand your remarks about the Spanish, who were expelled but gradually returned in small numbers. This is clearly recorded in the sources, which you should probably read yourself (if only to learn how to spell Gibraltar). The edits you're trying to defend connected with the 1753 census are a red herring. The census and this date have no particular significance in the history of Gibraltar or its demography. The book of Edward Archer contains all the necessary data that needs to be summarised, possibly in a historical way, (In Marseille, rough dates are given for the waves of immigrants, such as Italians and Armenians.) Of course the Jewish population from Morocco should be mentioned: prior to to the British occupation in 1704 they would have been burnt in Gibraltar. Mathsci (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, some of what you wrote might not have been particularly helpful either, but lets try to keep going shall we. The Spanish editor misread the sentence By 1753 Genoese, Maltese, and Portuguese people formed the majority of this new population by not noticing the word new. Hence he was trying to demonstrate that Gibraltar (did I make a typo - really I try to avoid being rude about spelling errors myself. I just don't think it's helpful) had a Spanish population, when no-one was denying this, he just thought they were. This is where all this POV pushing (which is happening) gets one - everyone mistrusts everyone else's motives. I find it odd that the sentence I have quoted mentions the Portuguese but not the Jews - according to the census data there were about 10 times as many Jews as Portuguese in the area at the time, but it is only one sentence, and the Jewish community in Gibraltar has it's own article. I wasn't making any other point. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You might not have much experience with writing articles on Mediterranean towns with a long history, even tiny ones like Gibraltar. It is WP:UNDUE to mention a specific census. What is required, and is not quite in the article at the moment, is a concise summary of what for example can be found in the book of Edward Archer. There are sections on all groups of immigrants in that book over the last 3 centuries. Your own statements about statistics are irrelevant because they are one snapshot and are your personal interpretation from a primary source. The Archer book devotes many pages to the Jewish presence (I gave a summary above). You are making inferences based on one census from a primary source: that is not how wikipedia is edited as I'm sure you're aware. A good source exists, a short and accurate summary should be made and that is about it: the task is to locate reliable sources and to transfer an abridged version of their content to wikipedia. Like Marseille, which I edit, it is a Mediterranean town with a long history and a strategic location. I would expect the articles to be written in a not dissimilar way, even if Marseille is several orders of magnitude larger than Gibraltar. Mathsci (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, Elen, thank you for taking the time in discussing this. I'd just point out some issues. I agree with the statement on the triviality of mentioning a specific census. There are plenty of information available for giving a comprehensive summary of the evolution of the population in Gibraltar for three centuries. That's what the article should include. I agree with it. On the other hand, and answering to Elen, I did noticed the word "new". The issue is that this Spanish population was "new", not the previous. Finally, Mathsci, agreeing on the necessity of having a good section on demographics, the issue remains: considering that your statements on the way to describe Gibraltar demographics are right, why should the article say that in the 1753 census there were Maltese population in Gibraltar? I remember to you that it was the issue I'm raising. The motivation of Justin to simply revert something that he simply does not about is beyond my understanding, but you've claimed that I wanted to make a point. So, in the end, fixing a mistake is making a point, and reverting it to a factually wrong version is OK. I don't understand it. Really. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Narson. I don't think Justin has made any secret of the fact that he believes the Spanishes a couple of Spanish editors are POV pushing on Gibralter articles because of the political situation on the ground. Sometimes he's right, sometimes I think that the information belongs even if it is being put in by a potential POV pusher.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see User:Elen of the Roads is back with the presumption of bad faith that anything I do is based on racial motives. As it happens on the Demographics article, I worked with a Spanish editor to improve a poorly referenced piece of work. At the time we updated the main Gibraltar article but I guess it became confused with the combination of two sources poorly referenced. Funnily enough the same Spanish editor has made another suggestion to revise the current section getting rid of the dates. Bizarrely given my mistrust of anything Spanish I agreed straight away it was the way to go. Now I have previously dealt with your bad faith presumption, given my racial origins its a bizarre accusation that I'm biased against myself. Justin talk 20:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound as if you were biased against the entire Spanish nation, just a couple of Spanish editors that you do consistently say are POV pushing (which I think they sometimes are - I'm by no means supporting them all the time). I will strike/refactor my comments, as clearly they can be misunderstood in a way which is not my intention.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that this has been resolved amicably by Justin, User:Imalbornoz and others on Talk:Gibraltar. Just a glance at Demographics of Gibraltar, the Archer source and what was in the current article on Gibraltar showed that something was not quite right. I think also the sourcing and content of the not unrelated article History of the Maltese in Gibraltar could be improved at the same time. Mathsci (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. Factually wrong information remains in the article. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC) PS: it doesn't explain why reversion is used as edit tool, something that Justin hasn't explained yet.

Your own behaviour still seems problematic and arbitrary. You continue to dispute niggling points by cherry-picking from sources. It's better to take a good secondary source and systematically summarise what's in it. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mathsci, I've asked you some questions above and you are now answering. Furthermore, you keep on with gratuitous statements about myself that I'm beginning to find offensive. I'd like you to rectify them not because I'm offended (I'm not) but because they're not based in anything. I've got two strong handicaps in the English wikipedia. The first one is my obvious unability at using English. That's an obvious problem since I'm not able to express with the same accuracy my thoughts that with my mother tongue. The other is that I'm used to Spanish Wikipedia policies and tend to think that they're the same here. For instance, I naturally talked in Spanish with Spanish-speaking people until I was warned that that was strongly discorauged. Another policy that is totally different from here is that you're not allowed to make unsupported statements such as "Your own behaviour still seems problematic and arbitrary" unless proper and evident diffs are provided. The insistence in doing so is obviously asimilated to a personal attack and may lead to the block of the person making unsupported statements. As I've explained many times, my main concern here was a good faith edition that fixed obvious mistakes (stating that Maltese people was in the Rock in 1753 is as stupid as saying that there was a large population of Arabs in Marseille in the fifth century). Regardles of how bad the previous edition already was (you're right when you say that picking a specific census is pointless... mind that such a specific census was mentioned in such an edition) the fact was that it included factually wrong information. I used the first secondary source I had in order to fix it. From that point on, two unjustified reversions were performed. You've failed to explain why I'm being problematic and, especially, arbitrary. That's something that I'm waiting for. If you're not able to explain why, you'd better drop your gratuitous attacks.

You've also made other arguable statements about myself (such as trying to create a battleground... it would means a pattern of behaviour which requires to be true more than your lighthearted assessment, especially considering all my editions in this Wikipedia or the articles I've created) or directly false (such as me continiously coming here, when this the first time ever I've raided an issue here). Finally, you've also complained about my usage of this board instead of using the one on 3RR. The only reason to use it was that this was not the first edit war started by Justin in the last times (the first one was duly raised here by his mate Gibnews and I haven't seen any complain about it), so it was not an edit war but a pattern (if you want we can talk about the petty verbal abuse by Justin —you can simply read this ANI section—, the way in he forbids communication with him, small wikihounding, or how he sniffs my talk page for making spurious canvassing accusations). It's this pattern of behaviour what I'm trying to address.

Mathsci, I don't want to argue with you, but I'd ask you a balanced assessment and, especially, to drop your offensive statements, which I obviously don't share although I don't see bad faith in them, just a rushed analysis. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Since when was improving an article with inline citations and formating per MOS [32] wikihounding? And since when was asking someone politely to stay of my talk page, because they use it disruptively, verbally abusive? Or suggesting that people use the talk page to discuss article improvements, rather than userspace, because that leaves them open to accusations of canvassing or collusion? Are we to believe that only my behaviour is problematic? Interesting. Justin talk 16:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Now nationality isn't a factor here. It comes as a relief, to say the least, because I was growing increasingly uncomfortable to read the term "Spanish" repeatedly qualifying some editors/opinions (which usually happen to disagree with Justins'/Gibnews' point of view). As far as I remember, I've never described myself as a Spaniard. I do speak Spanish. I speak English as well, je parle Français aussi, e io capisco un po' di Italiano altrettanto (quantunque io non lo parlo). And yes, Justin, I know already that you are "half-Spanish". You say that all the time to avert accusations of bias but, as you might know "excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta". Gibnews and yourself are both British (and at least Gibnews is from Gibraltar). However, I've never pointed that out as relevant data concerning our debates, because I value your opinions, neither who you are, nor where you are from. I suggest you do the same, because proceeding otherwise smells like racism to me despite your alleged meta-ethnicity.

As for the reverts thing, whilst I've not participated in this discussion and I hold no opinion concerning the right approach to describing Gibraltar's demography, that certainly wasn't the way to go. Moreover when taking into account precedents like this one. Ecemaml's editions were referenced correctly, and a discussion in the talk page was in order. --Cremallera (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Right I see, so is dragging up something from the past that was already resolved helpful in moving forward? See [33]. Something already explained at length. As regards my mother, no I usually bring it up in response to accusations of racism, usually of an anti-Spanish bias. The issue of race has only ever been raised to try and discredit the viewpoints of anyone that disagrees with certain editors, its not helpful and is designed to portray anyone disagreeing as unreasonable. Its offensive and I'm tired of it. If you don't want it raised, I suggest you have a word with the people who raise it as a red herring. I would also suggest you refrain from the bad faith attempt to spin it as an issue I raise, when you know that I don't.

Further, did you feel changing the date of WW2 was a helpful edit, or edit warring to keep the change? Diffs [34],[35]. If you were to perhaps equally condemn that sort of disruption, then to be blunt about it, you'd have more credibility. Just to make the point also, that if there was less of a confrontational attitude and turning everything into a battle, use of the talk page then people might not be so hot on the revert button. Just a thought. Justin talk 00:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I am not stalking neither Ecemaml nor yourself. So, I'm unaware of most of your editions here. However, in defense of my credibility I'll point out that I've addressed him whenever I've felt his comments inappropriate, in concordance with your remarks (!) or even looking forward to your participation in the debate. As for Ecemaml's alleged vandalism concerning WW2 dates, he explained his edition to you in the talk page, and you've read it already as shown by your response which ends stating "Purely for information, my main area of interest is the Falklands and the Falklands War, funnily enough I can manage to work together quite nicely with the Argentine editors there". That was rich. Are you half-Argentinian as well? Whatever. Finally, attribute me "bad faith", lack of credibility, a confrontational attitude and the like, I'm getting used to it. But please stop addressing *any* editor by his putative nationality. Thanks. --Cremallera (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Alleged vandalism, no. Changing the date of the start of WW2 was vandalism and the explanation was lacking in credibility or reason. I see the point about not raising the red herring of nationality has clearly gone straight over your head as you've done it again. I don't address people by their nationality, nor do I seek confrontation. I may respond inappropriately sometimes when wound up. Again if you don't want nationality raised, then suggest it isn't raised so often as a red herring. :"Are you half-Argentinian as well?", the word is Argentine, no. Somewhat ironic to raise it in such a confrontational manner given your subsequent comment. Don't you think?Justin talk 20:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer concerning the word 'Argentine'. You'll excuse me. I am not really that used to labelling contrary opinions by the alleged nationality of their holders, their assumed bad faith, credibility or 'vandalism' records yet. It is quite naïve to expect me raising the 'red herring of nationality' without extensive evidence available, for you to just dismiss the whole issue by stating "I don't address people by their nationality, nor do I seek confrontation". Both Gibnews and yourself have repeatedly... 'described' the opposing editors. Their 'inferred' nationality, inter alia. Please, refrain from now on. It may be amusing the first time, but it is a bit racist thenceforth. --Cremallera (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Newsflash, I'm not biting. Justin talk 16:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"Changing the date of the start of WW2 was vandalism". Yes, that would have been vandalism... if true. However, I never changed the date of the start of the WW2 as you know and as I explained to you (you keep insisting on that in spite of knowing it's false and in spite of having received a duly explanation). For the sake of clarity and for avoiding your usual personal attacks, I'll explain it again (only for you not go on lying). I thought (and think) that 1940 is a better date for "the periodification of the history of Gibraltar" than 1939, as 1940 was the date of the evacuation of Gibraltarians, creation of the Force H, suspension of the City Council and mass-scale fortification of the town... I won't explain it again, although I know that you'll go on lying by saying something as stupid as that "I changed the date of the start of the WW2".

On the other hand, as you hasn't been able to explain yet why factually wrong information must remain in the article (besides your usual small talk, you've failed to explain why you use reversion as edit tool), I'll restore the sourced information that I introduced, along with the reference provided by Mathsci (and removing Spaniards and Portuguese, since its mention seems to be "problematic"). Of course that the section needs to be improved. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out the information in that section starts in 1939 and it is specifically titled WW2, the date you changed was the date of the start of WW2. I don't find your explanation in any way convincing, particularly as you edit warred to keep it and since you only provided this explanation later it has all the hallmarks of something you came up with it after the event; you didn't mention it at the time.

Equally I've restored the sourced information for the ethnic groups you simply excised from the article, which you could have done. Often successive edits separate sourced information from their cites but as was pointed out to you, you could simply have referred to the Demographics of Gibraltar article and fixed it. You chose instead to cut out swathes of text, that removed useful information from the article. You were of course referred to that article, why you chose to ignore that suggestion to instead start an AN/I thread is a mystery to me. As is claiming to improve articles by removing information rather than correcting the source. That would probably explain the comments here, which acknowledge the POV nature of a number of your edits, not to mention your combative and confrontational style. Anyway this is wasting my time, so this will be my last comment. Justin talk 23:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Justin, please don't call Ecemaml's good faith edits vandalism. He had a reason for the edit, and while you may have disagreed, and he may have even been wrong, but it's a far cry from intentionally trying to make the article worse, which is the only definition of vandalism we use on Wikipedia. Calling someone in a content dispute a vandal because you think they made an error can be very offensive. I know, and you know that I know that you have a very valid difference of opinion with Ecemaml on the article, and that you get frustrated at times (as does he) but you do yourself no favors by making false accusations. -- Atama頭 20:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You know I respect your opinion but come on, changing the date of the start of WW2 is vandalism, pure and simple. I don't find the posthumous justification convincing in the slightest. WP:DUCK springs to mind. This wasn't a content dispute, I can't see how changing the start date of the conflict to an utterly arbitrary figure can in any way, shape or form to be a constructive edit. We'd have ban hammered an IP editor making the same change. Justin talk 21:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What part of "he didn't change the start date of WWII" are you not getting here?Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Which part of the diffs showing that he did aren't you getting here? [36],[37]. Anyway I'm gone, this is getting ridiculous. Justin talk 21:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That paragraph isn't saying that WWII started on that year. The paragraph is saying that Gibraltar residents were evacuated during WWII. They weren't evacuated until 1940, so technically Ecemaml was correct in the change. Not to mention, you reverted a fact tag and a typo fix when you reverted Ecemaml. If I were to assume bad faith in you, as you are with Ecemaml, I would call you a vandal for intentionally reinserting a misspelling in the article. That's certainly closer to vandalism than what Ecemaml did. -- Atama頭 23:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

AGF does not require suspension of disbelief. Missing a spelling mistake and a fact tag doesn't insert misleading information into an article. That paragraph sets the scene for Gibraltar in WW2 and changing the date, changes the start of the war. The two are not comparable and if you feel that what he did was constructive, then I have to say that I strongly disagree. You have your opinion, I have mine and it seems on this they won't be reconciled. Justin talk 16:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinions are opinions, true. But you are falsely stating that Ecemaml had declared that World War II began in 1940. He didn't. Just as he didn't vandalize the article. Your dogged insistence on fals accusations regarding editors you are in an ongoing content dispute with are troubling. You are correct that AGF does not require suspension of disbelief, and honestly my assumption of good faith on your part is becoming strained. I'm not going to "agree to disagree" on an issue like this, because you're bordering on personal attacks against Ecemaml with this campaign of yours and that's intolerable. I'll compromise on one thing; if you want to believe in your own mind that Ecemaml is a vandal, go ahead, nobody is trying to be the thought police here. But if you continue to assert that in writing, it's going to make things difficult for you eventually. -- Atama頭 18:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Request review of my actions on Kent Hovind

Kent Hovind's copyrighted doctoral thesis, which he and his alma mater have steadfastly refused to release to anyone's view for many years, has recently appeared on Wikileaks, complete with the information that Hovind, along with his alma mater, Patriot Bible University, has consistently refused to allow his dissertation to be offered for public reprint or scholarly inquiry. and that at the time of appearance on wikileaks: At that time was classified, confidential, censored or otherwise withheld from the public.. Well intentioned editors have been readding the link to this ever since, and been reverted by multiple editors. I protected the article in order to stop the near continuous violation of copyright, and then found I'd protected The Wrong Version^(tm). I followed WP:IAR and removed the offending link, and now place myself here for review and commentary. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A good call that is appropriate per WP:LINKVIO. NW (Talk) 02:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call as anon editors seem to be unaware of WP:ELNEVER --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was my rationale as well, but as I'd protected then edited I felt it best to put it here for review by others. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Per discussion, my thoughts were that dissertations were always public. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just realized we're talking about different articles. The same discussion is being held at Patriot Bible University. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

On both Talk:Kent Hovind and Talk:Patriot Bible University, both the policies above have been linked and on the second page at least it has been explained that the content is copyrighted, copyright usually being held by the university. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I've now repeated the action with Patriot Bible University, where a similar situation has been occuring. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Good call.   Will Beback  talk  05:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify KC, you haven't protected the article, but merely removed the link, correct? There was no edit warring occurring at PBU, merely the inclusion of that link. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• To state that it's been leaked needs a reliable independent source that says it is Hovind's and not a joe-job; to link to the thesis requires a copy that is provably not hosted in violation of copyright per WP:C. Those promoting the link have done neither so far, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

So strictly speaking, can one not say that it has been leaked on wikileaks, and then reference wikileaks to support that claim? Throwaway85 (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - WP:ELNEVER says never - and with no exceptions. So no - you can't use that wikilinks page as a reference. I suppose you could reference wikileaks in general though. SteveBaker (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, as Guy has pointed out, there is no way to determine whether the document on Wikilinks is the actual document. One might be able to add a footnote stating that a document alleged to be Hovind's doctoral thesis has been posted there -- but just how important is the content of Hovind's work? I'd be more inclined, as a disinterested observer, to accept a mention of the document at Wikilinks if the article had some indication of the subject of his doctoral thesis. For all I know, Hovind wrote about how baseball is mentioned in the Bible. (It's true, didn't you know? In the very first verse of Genesis, in fact -- "In the big inning".) -- llywrch (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Support blocking Llywrch for that awful, awful pun. The subject of his dissertation is why Creationists are right and scientists are a bunch of big doodoo heads (I hyperbolize--barely). It's pretty central to his public persona, and stands as a fairly damning critique, on its own, of both his Doctorate and the institution that granted it. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I"m going to have to agree with Throwaway on that, Llywrch. Of course, I also plan to repeat the pun, first chance I get. The subject of the dissertation on WL is History of Evolution. Cliffsnotes version: Satan made it up before the fall to confuse humans, and has been pushing it ever since. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 09:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Support pun block, but only so there will be more time spent with wonderful new arrival. (Congratulations.) P.S. This in no way means I'm not going to drag someone to Arbcom ... after I see if I've successfully rigged the election. lol Meanwhile, happy holidays. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So does that mean we can't use this in any way? Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(Ignores calls for pun-itive measures.) Okay, I spent a few hours yesterday following links discussing this alleged doctoral thesis of "Dr" Hovind, & the problem seems to boil down to this: is this matter worth arguing over BLP concerns? On one hand, there is no definitive proof that this essay is the one Hovind submitted to this diploma mill, although there are persuasive third-party assertions that it is. On the other, being identified as the author of this document is negative information, which is the doctoral thesis equivalent of the Z-movie Manos, the Hands of Fate without the MST3K commentary: it makes the person a laughingstock. I think it would be proper to link to a site (like this one, which is already cited in the article) that provides a summary of the alleged essay by someone who is a reliable source, but to repeat the point of my post above, until someone adds a summary of Hovind's thesis to Kent Hovind, I don't see a reason for the link to Wikileaks in the article. And as for linking it to the Patriot Bible University article, that's a clear case of undue emphasis: of course diploma mills are going to accept questionable material -- that's why they are called "diploma mills". -- llywrch (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As a comment, if it is a forgery, then copyright concerns cannot apply, so if Hovind has asserted that it is a forgery, there can be no copyright problem with linking to it. If any independent discussions of its contents make it into reliable sources that might be acceptable content for the article. However, such a source would have to be more than just a blog. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Bogus PA warning from User:MBK004

After a user reverted one of my changes, hereby adding a misinformation, I wrote this on his user page:

Please stop destroying Wikipedia. If you don't have a clue about a topic, let others write the articles. (Are your really sure nothing else I did was in any way objectionable?)

After this, User:MBK004 twinkled me an "only warning" about PAs. I can't ask him about it on his user page, as it is locked. (Will someone please notify him?)

My question is: Is this warning justified? --91.55.204.136 (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin's opinion: the implicit accusation of malice (one doesn't ask someone to "stop destroying Wikipedia" unless they are destroying it) was garnished with a put-down as clueless — deprecating both motives and capacity, a two-fer. Way to punch anyone's buttons. So, yeah, 91.55; how would you feel if that had been said to you? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(I did put a note on User talk:MBK004, as you requested.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

But looking into the background, 91.55 has some basis to be miffed too: a legitimate edit to My Life Without Me got repeatedly reverted as "vandalism". That could account for some flaring temper, too. I've reinstated and vouched for it, in edit summary and with a note to the reverting editor. Hope that helps. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning was OK, but a level 4i-only warning? I've seen worse attacks before... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This editor has been engaged in some IP-hopping edit warfare in the Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag and doesn't appear to be be a genuinely new editor based on their posts, so a high-level warning seems appropriate to me. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. Didn't see that... WP:FROG err... WP:DUCK Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"IP-hopping edit warfare"? My ISP changes my IP from time to time, why is this relevant?

You implication is that participation in an unrelated edit warfare is reason for sterner measures than usually called for?

I've never claimed that I was a new editor. --91.55.204.136 (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify this: After an edit war on an unrelated article, the user I allegedly attacked was following me around to My Life Without Me. There is no indication that his involvement in My Life Without Me is anything but WP:WIKIHOUNDING. So I think my choice of words is appropriate. This PA warning is only reasonable if you pick some details from the context and ignore others. --91.55.204.136 (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And I gather that there was some display problem (in your browser) from the formatting on Varyag? This is not a WP:ANI topic, it's techie, but just as background to your edits...? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, discussions on AN:I do have a tendancy to wildy spread over all kind of topics; I don't want to compound that. Let's just say that the changes on the carrier's pages do not change content and are thus not as significant as the one on My Life Without Me.

This should be about the bogus PA warning however. --91.55.204.136 (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Two articles have been semi-protected because 91.55.211.58 (talk · contribs) / 91.55.204.136 (talk · contribs) has been removing hidden lines. The 3RR rule would have been broken on Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag and CVN-79 if they had not been semi-protected. His remarks to other users seem to have been uncivil and factually incorrect. He played the same game on My Life Without Me, until Sizzle Flambé proxy-edited for him without adding sources to the article (an edit summary is insufficient). I don't think Sizzle Flambé is particularly helping here: he does not seem to have looked carefully at the edit histories of the two IPs and on the last article appears to be enabling the disruptive IP hopping. Mathsci (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You are again picking details from the context. Please stop doing this, it does not help to explain whether or not the PA warning is justified. Only an unobstructed view on the context can do that. (I would also recommend to follow WP:AGF, but I get the impression that you're past that.)

User:Sizzle Flambé: You should be ashamed! You should have known that disabling recalcitrant users is always more important than fixing Wikipedia's content. I hope you learned your lesson! --91.55.204.136 (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgot one: 3RR was broken - but not by me. Do you propose any sanctions against User:BilCat? --91.55.204.136 (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If you show us diffs and a warning that has been issued and that it is a current problem that needs to be stopped and yes, we would. Toddst1 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Now, let's play a game: When User:MBK004 blocked the page, which version do you think was The Right One? You have one attempt.

Correct! So of course there is no ongoing problem that needs to be stopped. (Of course there is also no warning by the blocking editor, except the one I got.) --91.55.204.136 (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Studies have shown that the wrong version is always protected ;) Rather than edit war in the articles and abuse other editors then complain here when you're warned for this, please discuss your views on the articles' talk pages. As you're not a new editor, you should know better. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi, my edit summary noted that the official Sony website (which was already linked in the article) supported the plot description. However, just for you, I have added a second link to the same website, as an explicit <ref> for that paragraph (previously not reffed). Making a legitimate edit (which is all this IP user was trying to do) isn't disruption or vandalism. As for "disruptive IP hopping", are ISPs' dynamic IP assignments now to be blamed on their users? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As usual in cases of admin abuses, the actual matter got out of sight. So again: Is this kind of warning justified? (If you want to respond, please do not blank out part of the context.) --91.55.204.136 (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we mark it all down to misunderstandings, note that tempers got heated, but try to cool them off and go on from there? That seems like the resolution with the best and fastest chance of happy outcomes for everyone. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

All a ton of brinkmanship. "Destroying Wikipedia"? Um, a tad much. The later sections including the somewhat disparaging edit summaries from BilCat, including saying "I don't trust vandals" after harmless messages left suggesting a discussions merge. WP:VANDALISM is kind of picky about definition and evoking it is a serious matter. The warnings against personal attacks given from that seem 100% justified given a total ignoring what vandalism means-- actually, those messages were polite in that they suggested just walking away for awhile. Then to here. As to "who started it", IP user technically did but not automatically in bad faith, if not questionable. BitCat dragged on the matter with free-floating use of "vandal", to which any experienced editor would take offense to after feeling they acted in good faith. In hindsight, just a rewording of a few edit summaries could probably have prevented this. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: Case of a mutual open apology on "destroying" vs vandal; WQA vs ANI closing the matter? This is well within the range of inability to blame either party and since both parties know the bigger picture sanctions would seem kind of silly. 'Tis my suggestion, since no other resolutions proposed. At least one uninvolved agreement needed, please. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There may be a glimmer of hope; will it spread? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a bit of missunderstanding, the term vandal/vandalism is often used on Wikipedia and can seem a bit harsh to new editors. My first impression is a bit of storm in a teacup, the IP didnt explain the edit (no edit summary) and carried on adding it while others (it was first reverted by another editor before BilCat) assumed (due to lack of explanation) that it was some form of vandalism. I suggest we just leave it behind and all get on with improving the encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Read again: I used the word "destroying" as a synonym for vandalism after he wikihounded me to another article. He called my change there vandalism (and reverted me) without knowing anything about the matter. Turns out that my change was justified. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever, what about User:MBK004's actions? Regarding the whole context, is this warning justified? --91.55.230.143 (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone involved came on too strong: "vandalism", "stupidity", "destroying", and "final warning". Now the question is, can everyone involved lower their hackles and make peace? Or are we stuck at hostilities? 91.55, having taken the lead to bring this up, can you take the lead to calm it down? As you did with Guerillero? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

OK didnt want to prolong this but had that point not been addressed by User:Sizzle Flambés first comment above. A 91.55 IP changed My Life Without Me without any explanation, it was Twinkle reverted as vandalism by user User:Guerillero, the 91.55 reverted with the comment Reverted 1 edit by Guerillero identified as stupidity to last revision by me. (If you don't know the movie, why don't you just keep quiet? User BilCat reverted the apparant vandalism again with apparent vandalism, and uncivil comments) which was again reverted by a 91.55 IP without explanation but then left a message on BilCats talk page Please stop destroying Wikipedia. If you don't have a clue about a topic, let others write the articles. (Are your really sure nothing else I did was in any way objectionable?). BilCat removed the comment from his talk page without comment and MBK004 was probably watching BilCat's talk page (assumption) issued the personal attack warning on the 91.55 talk page. All looks reasonable to me an editor makes an unexplained change to an article and then attacks both reverters an admin sees the comments and issues a warning. User Guerillero and BilCat acted against unexplained edits which provoked comment from the IP which was dealt with by a warning from an Admin. All we need is to move on and the IP should use edit summaries in the future. MilborneOne (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries are recommended but not required. Labelling 91.55's edit to My Life Without Me as "vandalism" was hasty and mistaken; his edit was not "blatantly wrong", in fact it was not wrong at all, let alone obscene or otherwise vandalistic. Things went downhill from that precise point, and got worse with each repetition of the "vandalism" charge. Now, are we done re-hashing this, and can we get back to the "peace" concept? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but I could not accept the point that 91.55s edit was not blatantly wrong and the two reverters were in the wrong. At the time of the reversion it was seen as an IP making an unexplained change which is why two editors reverted the addition as vandalism a fairly common practice with any unexplained edit. After being reverted the IP still did not comment either in the edit summary or on the talk page but attacked both reverters. It was only when Sizzle became involved that the edit was deemed to be factual at no time had the IP explained the change. As for peace fine just accept what was done and move on. MilborneOne (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverting an unexplained change as vandalism shouldn't be a fairly common practice. If it is, the people doing the reverting need to reread WP:VAND and WP:AGF. The IPs response was rude, yes, but I think the edit summary says pretty clearly that they believed their edit to be correct and that the reverter must not know what he's doing if he's reverting the edit as vandalism. --Onorem♠Dil 13:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite odd that you expected my to assume good faith, but aren't willing to extend the same to me! Per WP:DUCK, it looked like vandalism to me. Now I know I was incorrect, but at the time it appeared to be antoher part of unexplained edits by the same IP. Note that in my second revert I did say "apparent vandalism", expressing some doubt. As this IP is not a newbie, he should know to be using clrear edit summaries in his first edits, and to be civil in all of them. (Summaries are not required, but it is good sense; civility is, and that edit summary was not in any way.) I stand by my edits, reverts, and comments. While I made an error in judgment, I did nothing wrong here. And I have 3 and a half years of edits to show that I generally try to do the right thing on WP, as I've not chosen to hide behind an anoymous IP. My record speaks for itself. - BilCat (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither edit summaries or editing as a registered user are required by Wikipedia. Seems to me Error in judgement implies something wrong. Nothing huge, nothing requiring drama, but a oops, messed up would be nice. Characterizing an anonymous editor as "hiding" isn't cool. Gerardw (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"While I made an error in judgment, I did nothing wrong here."

I don't think there is anything to add to this. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, what about User:MBK004's actions? Is the warning reasonable, especially considering that neither the editors starting the personal attacks nor the one violating 3RR got more than a pat on the back? --91.55.230.143 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe the IP user is acting in good faith. Per the IP's comments here, and the baiting in teh post before this one, I am withdrawing from all discussions in which this user is involved, per WP:DNFT. Admins may contact me privately if they desire to pursue this further. Thanks, especially to Jimbo. - BilCat (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right, if an IPs is impertinent enough to call an established and respected editor's lie, he's a troll. Figures. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The three IPs, including noew 91.55.230.143 (talk · contribs), should be blocked for disruption in their short communal period of editing wikipedia. See this example of forum shopping.[38] This is unacceptable behaviour. This user is wikihounding User:BilCat and has contributed nothing to the encyclopedia. Two pages are semiprotected due to their actions. Mathsci (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(It still gets better.) This entry here is about the bogus PA warning from User:MBK004. Look above to see me again and again trying people to focus on that.

Your link points to my Wikiquette Alert about BilCat's incivility. There is no room there to talk about a possible admin abuse.

Your problem is exactly what, that I use proper forums to address issues? --91.55.230.143 (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The IPs are obviously not here to improve the encyclopedia but to cause disruption. Here is one of a series of personal attacks. [39] Their three editing histories speak for themselves. However, given their knowledge of WP:ANI and WP:WQA, they do seem to display prior knowledge of wikipedia. Possibly they might be a logged off registered user. Mathsci (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, this would be an example of calling a spade a spade. --91.55.230.143 (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you not in fact call User:BilCat a "liar"? Mathsci (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did, after he lied.

Please let's continue this on my talk page (if at all). --91.55.230.143 (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that is a personal attack. Do you have a registered account? Mathsci (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please let's continue this on my talk page (if at all). --91.55.230.143 (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, what about User:MBK004's actions? Is the warning reasonable, especially considering that neither the editors starting the personal attacks nor the one violating 3RR got more than a pat on the back? --91.55.230.143 (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the warning was reasonable. Doesn't matter who started anything, each editor is responsible for their own actions. Gerardw (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A warning was reasonable; but jumping all the way to "final warning" (on the first warning)? That's the question 91.55 has been asking. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see the argument that the final warning was premature but it seems like hair splitting to me. What is the implication of the question? That 91.55 should be allowed 2 more personal attack before being blocked? Gerardw (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We do have levels of warning, e.g. uw-npa1 / npa2 / npa3, for a reason. This was uw-npa4im, skipping three levels of warning. No such warning was given to those who made the false accusation of "vandalism", or to the user who followed 91.55 around to revert all his changes (which is after all what 91.55 was objecting to with his "destroying" comment). That does seem rather uneven. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 15:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to continue beating a dead horse. Mathsci (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So, to sum up the dispute resolution process from the pov of the offender:

• Break some policy (NPA and AGF seem to be the most popular).
• Watch that you are reported somwhere in WP:Dispute resolution.
• Ignore it.
• Watch other editors attack the reporter.
• Keep quiet.
• Watch other editors rush to protect dead horses.
• Carry on.

In conclusion, I think a lot of editors are putting to much effort into protecting what they perceive as their own, using what seems to be selective reading among other things. I'd recommend perusing Cognitive dissonance, but the nature of this very cognitive dissonance makes it difficult to accept this as good advice.

The attempts to moderate are very much appreciated. Carry on! --91.55.208.131 (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone ought to write Wikipedia:How to destroy Wikipedia, beginning with the fact that the only sure-fire way to do it is with a large axe & access to the server room. Accusing anyone of doing this in any other way (e.g. vandalism, POV-pushing, personal attacks) is an overstatement & one should avoid saying it. -- llywrch (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume that with a large axe, you would have access to the server room. -- Atama頭 21:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Only if reception couldn't remember what the number was for 911. -- llywrch (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you've met some of my co-workers.GJC 14:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Range blocking for Rcool35 2

Hello, sorry for making a second thread about this subject but my previous thread did not get a response for my latest rangeblocking proposal. I'm just wondering if the IP ranges can be blocked since these are the IP's that he mainly uses.

• 76.193.170.00/76.193.255.255
• 76.197.170.00/76.197.255.255
• 99.140.180.00/99.140.230.255
• 99.147.180.00/99.147.230.255

I have constantly reverting his vandalism edits for a long, long time and it has not worked at the least bit. He keeps vandalising the pages even though after literaly a thousand reverts he would of given up by now. Protection does not work as he will literaly wait out protection, even if it is for 6 months or a year, the only type that'll work is infinite protection but that'll take certain cercimstances to get. I have tried talking to him but this guy is just so ignorant and pardon my language but stupid. Sure I can revert every one of his edits but I do not want to do this forever, I'm at the end of my ropes here. Taylor Karras (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize, but I'll restate my objections to a rangeblock of that magnitude: That's simply way too many IPs. Perhaps a C/U would like to investigate and see if AT&T uses dynamic IPs in Rcool's area. Vandalism of this type is usually a violation of TOS, and they might have better luck stopping it than us, particularly if we mentioned that the alternative would be to rangeblock the entire block of IPs. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this has a chance at working. Since a rangeblock is proven to be unviable, your solution might work. Now all I need to do is figure out what C/U means and if this is actually going to happen or not? Taylor Karras (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A c/u is a checkuser. They are editors with a special bit that allows them to look up personal details of editors. They are usually the people who deal with sockpuppets. If there are any checkusers seeing this, a response on the feasibility of my suggestion would be appreciated. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... I don't think a checkuser can be done on him. First of all, the Dynamic IP's that AT&T issues and that Rcool35 uses expires within one day, so he'll be using like 365,000 IP's yearly and that'd be impossible to block, secondly Rcool35 has not had made a sockpuppet since Roccompaq01, a sockpuppet of his, was blocked so I don't think that a checkuser can do any good. But if we can figure out a way to call AT&T and inform them that a user has been violating the TOS by vandalizing wikipedia. That'd be great. Taylor Karras (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure that'll do the trick. That's sarcasm, by the way. Seriously, though, does that ever actually work? HalfShadow 04:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, but it was worth a shot. He himself has proven to be an unbannable user in his own right in the fact that we cannot find a way to uphold the block that he was originally given, every method has been exhausted and yet he manages to outpace us all. Weird. Taylor Karras (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As much as I like dynamic IPs from a personal liberty POV, they really are bothersome in cases like this. He hasn't "managed" to do anything, he simply figured out /relese & /renew. Can we ban MAC addresses? Input from someone more knowledgeable in the Ways of the Wiki than myself would be appreciated here. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

MAC addresses work at the physical and data-link layers, they are not present at the network and transport layers, so no, MAC addresses can't be banned. Or more accurately, IP and TCP packets (which is how almost all of us communicate with en:wiki servers) do not have a field for MAC address, so there is no way for the server to differentiate based on it, and I'm not aware of any HTTP header field for MAC address either. However, the ISP would see the MAC address - but it's not all that difficult to change MAC addresses in software either. The ISP would have to care enough to match their log entries with ours and warn/disconnect the actual account holder. Franamax (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Now the only problem is how are we going to contact the ISP? Taylor Karras (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

So are we going to do this or what? I don't want this to be like the others where no action is taken. Taylor Karras (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't get your hopes up, Taylor. History has shown that we will allow 99% noise and disruption on the off chance there is that 1% good edit that might squeak through. JBsupreme (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's needlessly cynical. The proposal is not to block a few IPs to get rid of an editor, the proposal is to block a few hundred thousand. The collateral damage is simply too great, as big a pain in the ass as the editor in question is. As to your question, Taylor, that would really only have a chance if one of WP's employees contacted AT&T. Even if a 'crat did it, ISPs tend to ignore "volunteers". We might have a shot if our lawyer pursued it, but I highly doubt MG would get involved, even for the most egregious vandals. The only way I could see that happening is if the editor in question was continuosly posting libellious information that could open Wikipedia to legal liability. [[Throwaway85 (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Prods and removal of content from Christian film related articles by User:SuaveArt

I'm worried that User:SuaveArt is placing prod tags on Christian film related articles and removing content from them just to cause a distruption or because he is biased against such articles. He cut about half the content out of Courageous (film) and put a prod tag on it even though it was kept at AfD less than a month ago, and he has added the prod tag back after I removed it. He also placed a prod tag on Facing the Giants, even though it clearly passed notability guidelines (and was a former Good Article), and he's now cut a lot of the content out of it. He has also removed almost all the content from Alex Kendrick, Stephen Kendrick, Tracy Goode, Sherwood Pictures, and I think a few other articles and placed prod tags on them. Its possible he is really acting in good faith to try to fix what he sees as problems, but removing all the content from articles and then proposing them for deletion seems inappropriate, especially since several of the articles clearly aren't eligible for prod. Calathan (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

1. The entire 'Courageous' article was one long promo before I edited it filled with encyclopedia trivia and Facebook and Twitter links. The AFD for the article also only had 4 users involved in it (all of whom are active editors of the article). You need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy.

2. All of the other articles you just mentioned (related to Sherwood films) have little or no assertion of notability whatsoever (except for Fireproof, which grossed well, and Facing the Giants, which I removed the PROD tag for after doing some research). The rest of the articles mentioned were entirely promotional and full of trivia, which is not what Wikipedia is for. You should try getting a Myspace or taking these to a Wikia site for Sherwood films.--SuaveArt (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles that have been taking to AfD are not eligible for prod. Please actually read the prod rules. Also, I removed the prod tag from Facing the Giants, not you. Also, when you say I "should try getting a Myspace", keep in mind that I'm not an editor of these articles (other than to remove the two prod tags), am not Christian, and am not interested in Christian films. It just looked to me that you were editing in an inappropriate way. Calathan (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I was saying that if you want to advertise these films and include paragraph-long lists of trivia, you should find a site like Myspace to do that. I stand corrected on the PROD for Facing the Giants, however that AFD did only have 4 users comment on it. Everything I removed from those articles did not belong there in the first place, because it was either unsourced or just completely promotional. --SuaveArt (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Calathan. This is clearly disruptive (not necessarily bad-faith though), and shouldn't have been handled this way. I almost reverted all the changes, but didn't want to edit war. All of the articles are clearly notable (with the exception of one or two of the actors, which I created a while ago). The articles should be restored and improved case-by-case (just have a look at all the sources available on Google News about it). Trivia should be merged into the article when sourced, or deleted otherwise. You don't just delete all the good content and PROD'd. I contest all of them. Next time, discuss first. American Eagle (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine but if the sources are all over the news, then you could have easily added them yourself when you created the articles.--SuaveArt (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm highly confused by this. You removed a sourced assertion of bestselling author status (with an edit summary that said, "rvmed promotional spam with no assertion of relevence") and then PRODded the article because "No assertion of notability outside of Fireproof (film), which has an article"? On the face of it, this does seem disruptive. If you were uncertain of the source (which seems fine to me) you might have verified it elsewhere. One of the top hits at google news archives verifies best-selling author status at The New York Times, and best-selling author status is a strong assertion of notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

What on earth could have seemed like "promotional spam" in Stephen Kendrick? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the former contents on Alex Kendrick and Stephen Kendrick and am challenging their PRODs. While both of these articles could do with improvement, stripping them of sourced content does not seem constructive, particularly in the case of Stephen Kendrick, where as an outsider I see nothing that could be construed as promotional in the text. With Alex Kendrick particularly, I hope on reflection you can see that removing sourced assertions of notability from an article and then PRODding it because it does not assert notability may not seem like good faith, even if you meant well. Much of Tracy Goode was unsourced, and I'm unsure about WP:BIO myself, but, of course, regular editors to that article should feel free to contest the PROD if they disagree and to add any sourced content that seems appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's one thing to remove unsourced or poorly sourced content from a biographic article. It's an entirely a different thing to indiscriminately remove all sourced content, reducing the biography to a one-sentence stub, and then WP:PROD it for deletion. The later is simply being disruptive. I've restored some of the sourced content to Tracy Goode and Erin Bethea and remove the prod tag from Tracy Goode as his filmography shows that he could pass WP:ENTERTAINER. —Farix (t | c) 14:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I considered the sources removed unreliable and irrelevant to an encyclopedic article. Like you said yourself, if there are mainstream sources for Kendrick's best seller status, then you could have easily added them yourself. Since your only source for his best seller status was "Christianpost", I considered this unworthy of inclusion unless you were able to provide mainstream sources such as the NYT to back it up. The reason I considered most of these articles "promotional" is because there was little notability for any of those persons out side of "Fireproof" (which mentioned them in its own article), and the articles contained unnecessary trivia and promotional links such as Twitter and Myspace.--SuaveArt (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

But you didn't just remove Twitter and MySpace, you removed the company's logo and URL from it's infobox, categories, etc. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, The Christian Post looks like a reliable source to me. Before summarily removing content sourced to it, you might find it worthwhile to check and see if others agree with you that it's "unreliable and irrelevant", perhaps at a venue like WP:RSN. Even if it is not, though, removing a claim to best-selling author status sourced to it and then PRODding the article because it does not assert notability seems like a questionable action. That particular article did assert notability prior to your removal of the content. If you think these articles are promotional, there's nothing at all wrong with trying to address that (and I'm still not sure about Tracy Goode, as I don't know that his roles are "significant", but I'm not familiar at all with his films). But you want to be careful to avoid even unintentional disruption. Our goal here is to build the encyclopedia collaboratively, and there are venues to get additional opinions if you think that contributors to certain articles may not be unbiased in their construction. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTE and WP:BIO are not limited to "mainstream sources". For one, there is no way to judge that a source is "mainstream" and people will disagree on what makes something "mainstream", for example Fox News. WP:NOTE and WP:BIO, and by extension WP:V, require are reliable sources. Removing reliable sources from an article is disruptive in most cases. The exceptions are usually related to relevancy to the articles subject or duplication. But the edit summaries you gave for why you removed reliable sources from the article ("spam", "self-promotional") are not acceptable reasons. You also removed links to the subjects' websites, and in a couple of cases removed the entire infobox and or flimography. The logical reason one can presume why you did this is to make it easier to delete the article or your simply engaged in a vandalism campaign. —Farix (t | c) 18:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• • SuarveArt, please realise that there is general disapproval of your actions. All I've seen is self-justification rather than any acknowledgement that your edits were disruptive. Please don't repeat such article gutting and inappropriate use of prods. You seem to be pursuing an agenda, which is not a welcome thing to do on Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 23:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have to pile on here, I have trouble continuing to assume good faith with SuaveArt's edits. Removing sources then proposing an article for deletion because of lack of sources, and targeting particular kinds of articles with this behavior, seems like a person disrupting with an agenda. -- Atama頭 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

More piling on. I am, for some odd reason, suspicious when any editor removes more than half of an article and then putting it on XfD. I would suggest that "recent history" showing such activity be usable as a basis for discussion in XfD as a rule. Collect (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyright/personality right problems at User:Kils#Students

Unresolved

 – Serious issue of userpage content and/or deletion of images from Wikipedia needs to be addressed. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Another possible problem related to User:Kils. It seems highly unlikely that this editor owns the copyright and has the permission for the pictures found at User:Kils#Students. Highly unlikely as the pictures are of a very low resolution, and given that they look like they were taken from a facebook, the kind most universities allow instructors to access. Pantherskin (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The best thing to do in this situation is ask if Kils has permission to post these images, I'm sure she does, just being "students" Secret ^account 14:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I recommend nominating the images for deletion as they are unencyclopedic. We have no need for low quality images of non-notable people. I think a user can post some images of themselves to create a profile and improve collaboration, but creating a gallery of one's students is a step too far. We're not a hosting provider. Jehochman ^Talk 15:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Most images are 25 years old. They all have own Corporations in Dubai Monaco Caribbean. Most pay no taxes and have a different passport and look totally different today. All are extremely successful, some are dead. For the low resolution images all gave me the copyright. It is no fun anymore to work for Wikipedia with such users like cert. Now they are even destroying my user page. I have Webpages elsewhere, I dont need space on W. Uwe Kils 15:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't have space on Wikipedia, your user page isn't to be used as personal webspace in that way. Plus we have no evidence you have the copyright for these, and they serve no encyclopaedic purpose. Canterbury Tail talk 15:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd been wondering about the images for quite some time. Fair Use is a bit different on userspace, but no proof of copyright is still no proof of copyright. Saying they're from a webpage of some sort actually lends to a violation. ... and... *scratches head*, do see WP:OWN and WP:UP explaining why no one has carte blanche of web hosting here. CanterburyTrail is spot-on in the last comment, as well. For be in an encyclopedia, content needs to be encyclopedic and verified by third party sources. I believe the Uwe Kils article was significantly reduced since most all the resourced offered eventually lead back to the same educational facility. Having no tax, or being a company, etc etc., none of that matters... it's part of what we've been trying to explain during this all. I'm not sure how many more times we can link the same things. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Use a social networking site for the sorts of things a lot of your user pages have. ::As a whole, this entire matter is ironic since this started with legal threats some 2 weeks ago now. Whatever the Foundation did that you felt wronged you, we're here to help. There's tons of information around and chances are someone might have advice, and if we draw a total blank you can be pointed to the right place. The Foundation is organized such that there's always a continuation of communication available, assuming conversation remains civil. If there's one lesson learned from all this, hopefully it's that Wikipedia is a community. Sometimes you might love it or hate it, be all are treated equally best we can, with the guidelines and policies of the encyclopedia applicable to all. 00:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Putting on {{unresolved}} before this drops to archive in a few hours, since this does need a solution. Gut instinct is that the user's userpage is beyond our scope of them, and I question the presence of so many images. Wikipedia shouldn't be a yearbook, work diary, or collection of personal photos, and that seems to be enforced swiftly in most cases. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Tagged the images as lacking source information. Cirt (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

...Thanks. I'd been pondering that for quite some time, but since the issue as a whole has been of community concern and deep discussion I didn't want to jump the gun on something that large. Honestly, it kind of would have felt like "the easy way out" for the end resolution of something intently debated as a whole. I'll say I completely endorse this since at least one other human being independently came up with the same reasoning and it's proper action with what in image sourcing I know of. That should fix it on its own. Should. ... ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Block review requested.

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

---

Resolved

 – Oh look over there! It's a rainbow-coloured pony!

I have blocked Dekkappai‎ (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for posting these remarks [40] [41]. I saw the comment "you people are not just bigots, you are dishonest bigots. For the harm you are doing to this project, I hope you rot in Hell" and warned him, and then when it was repeated I blocked him. It seemed like a no brainer.

However, I've got some stick about it because apparently I'd !voted in the afd, and thus (I suppose) could be one of the hell-bound people he was talking about. Since I don't want to go to hell, I admit with hindsight, I may have had a conflict of interest here. So, can some people who are not kindling for hell please review my block and consider whether it requires lifiting, extending or otherwise.

Yours from purgatory, --Scott Mac (Doc) 15:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem with the block. The whole "OMG you posted something in the same forum you are an involved admin" is BS. Tan | 39 15:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you describing my objection, or is this merely a strawman? -- Hoary (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeap, I'm describing your objection. Tan | 39 15:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Good block. I'll unblock him and reblock him myself if it makes you feel better. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Good block. Our volunteers don't deserve to be treated as such over a content dispute. Such comments damage neutrality by driving off people with contrary points of view. Our policy is clear on this matter. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact it was a CfD (and one concerning pornography). Do I underestimate the delicacy of the sensibilities of those who choose to participate in CfDs? -- Hoary (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It was me that wielded the stick.

It's a CfD for Krampussakes. Not quite all's fair in XfDs, but many things happen. People get annoyed. They say things they shouldn't. You then tell them not to. They often say the same things again. You do not then block them for 48 hours, at least unless you've given them a pretty clear warning that (in this case) telling people they're bigots is a blockable offense. And you make doubly sure about this kind of stuff if you think you could be perceived as being in an editorial argument with the editor.

That, incidentally, explains why I'm not unblocking him. I think he deserves to be unblocked, but as he and I have very recently been chatting amicably about, inter alia, the awfulness of Spielberg, if I unblock him it might well look as if the reason is that he's a mate of mine. -- Hoary (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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

• Why did you block him? The user has been with the project since 2006, has made many productive contributions, and has never been blocked before. If they got bent out of shape about something, you should have shown a little sympathy and tried to understand why they were upset. It seems like you blocked him for mouthing off to you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)He was not mouthing off to Scott, he was mouthing off to everyone who disagreed with him by calling them bigots and hoping they rot in hell. I don't consider an admin involved because someone made an insult at a group of people that happened to include him. True, the user has been here for 3 years, they can be here another 3 years after the block expires if they want. Being here a long time does not allow personal attacks. While ideally someone not involved in the debate should have made the call, uninvolved admins have confirmed the merit of the block. Personal attacks do not need warning when they are particularly egregious and the user is already aware of the policy. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the block, but I think it would have been better to leave his !vote and simply excise the personal attack part of it, in terms of the CfD reverts. Gigs (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• • A user who has been here since 2006 has even less excuse. This is not therapy. If he's upset he needs to go and do something else for 48 hours anyway. I had no idea what his "productive contributions" were or were not, never having encountered him before. I see now he's written a FA, but sorry, I don't see how "productive contributions" excuse that. If you can't work on wikipedia without cursing people, and calling fellow collaborators "bigots", then don't work on wikipedia.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • You should have figured out those circumstances and weighed them before blocking. Do you magically think they're going to stop cursing when they come back from your cool-down block? Jehochman ^Talk 15:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Hochman, if he's been around for three years with no block, seems reasonable to think that a few hours away will make him think about his actions and prevent recurrence. You may disagree, but calling it "magical" is not helping this discussion, IMO. Its needlessly dismissive of an alternate point of view. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Thank you for pointing that out. People have been awfully dismissive of my point of view. They've been layering on personal attacks against me. This whole dialog is so despicable and mean, it takes great effort to avoid getting sucked in. Jehochman ^Talk 16:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

From WP:NPA: "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians". People have proposed that established/vested/excellent/long term contributors be treated differently in regards to personal attacks a few times and the community has rejected the idea roundly each time. The community does not want such a double standard and we should not be considering one. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Which specific editor was targeted by the purported personal attack? To be a personal attack, the remark has to be personal. Jehochman ^Talk 15:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that the sort of logic you will use in arbcom? He was clearly referring to those who were disagreeing with him by calling them bigots. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, when you call more than one person a bigot and hope that they rot in hell, the attack ceases to be personal and becomes impersonal. Tan | 39 15:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Without looking at anything else, 48h on first block is normally pretty excessive. I would've blocked for only 24 (or at most 31), and if 24 makes more sense, it has elapsed. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 15:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse block, which should have been longer or indefinite (i.e., lasting up until a credible promise not to do it again). Personal attacks and incivility such as this is not to be tolerated under any circumstance whatsoever. A block by an admin who contributed to the same discussion is not objectionable, because disagreement in an AfD does not constitute a conflict per WP:UNINVOLVED. I am very disappointed to see Jehochman, an ArbCom candidate, defending this sort of disruption here and assuming bad faith on the part of the blocking admin.  Sandstein  15:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Sandstein, your one-man crusade to attack anyone who has any tolerance at all for what you consider incivility is getting old. Jehochman is not ABFing, he's asking questions and making distinctions. Suggest you AGF a little yourowndarnself. Your escalation and change of focus is not helping resolve the question of this block. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• (EC x 2) A proper block, but 48 hours is excessive for a user w/ a clean block record. Suggest reducing it to time served, and leave it at that. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• While probably not something I myself would have blocked for, not a block I would dispute, either. Absolutely no objection on the grounds of "involved", that doesn't apply and even if it did this is not an "edit warring" block for which blocking might conceivably give the blocking admin a vested interest in blocking the editor in question. Endorse block, but suggest shortening length as excessive for first offense+ sh. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Good block. That type of comment is just way over the line of what's acceptable around here. We're supposed to be a volunteer-driven project working for the good of humanity. Going around calling other editors (whether as individuals, or in small groups at a discussion) 'bigots' just isn't acceptable. If an experienced editor is making those sorts of remarks, a block – or some other sort of break – is probably necessary. Sometimes experienced editors get burnt out, and if they can't bring themselves to step away from the keyboard and get a cup of tea, perhaps we need to do it for them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking into account his clean block log, and the helpful feedback from here, I have reduced the block to 24 hours. Indeed, I will be happy to unblock before that, given the slightest sign of contrition.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Next time I'd recommend taking the user aside and say something like this, "You seem to be getting overheated. While this may not be your intention, your excessively strident remarks may put off other users. Could you please refactor. I'm happy to listen to your concerns and help you get them addressed, but first you need to stop cussing." If you're one of the people who's actions have been upsetting the user, you'll need to go find an uninvolved party to deliver this little lecture; otherwise it won't work. Our goal is to avoid blocking users when there are other means of solving a problem. Blocks are to be used as a last resort. Jehochman ^Talk 15:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. That type of hand-holding wiki-philosophy is exactly what has exacerbated drama and encouraged people to push the envelope. It is better to say a firm "no" to certain behaviours. People who don't realise that things like that are unacceptable really, in the last instance, don't belong here. The type of social-work response you suggest is utterly counter-productive. Sometimes order, and a better working environment for all, are best maintained by putting electric fences around certain obvious "no, no"s. --Scott Mac (Doc) 16:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Will look forward to you blocking admins who engage in personal attacks in future. DuncanHill (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If an admin makes a comment as inappropriate as the one this user did then please do. Consensus is that the prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. I agree with Scott, our first priority is to make a safe environment for our volunteers and tolerating personal attacks drives off good editors who don't like be called bigots or told to rot in hell. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoping people will rot in an imaginary place? 24hrs seems about right for a block. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The block is reasonable. The objections to it are not. Friday (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, although I might have made a shorter block. I had a lovely attack this morning from an 'astrologer' on an article talk page, " I here by send out my prayer that such people including Dougweller personally be slaughter by God between now and Feb 2. ". Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Whatever the merits of the block, I do feel that deleting a keep !vote when you have !voted delete is out of order. DuncanHill (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps the block could have been shorter or have been preceded by a more overt warning, but such incivility should not be condoned. It is unfortunate to see it coming from a valuable long-time contributor like Dekkappai, without whom Wikipedia would not have such articles as Horse and Woman and Dog. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I don't care much about the petulant attack. But that many see his "contributions" as "valuable" is the disturbing bit.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought Office Lady Rope Slave was particularly valuable. But it's hard to choose when there's so much outstanding content to pick from.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, I don't know this user, and so I wasn't going to say anything in this conversation--but it really grinds my gears when I see editors snarking on other peoples' contributions and implying that they're "unimportant" or "trivial". I'm sure if I were to go hunting through the history of your articles, I could probably find something to laugh at too--and what makes it worse, the editor isn't currently able to defend himself. For god's sake, this is NOT--no matter how much it currently resembles one--a junior-high playground. Please stop with the "in-crowd"-style taunting--it's unbecoming of adults.GJC 22:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone else suggested something similar on my talk page about "kicking someone when they are down" and I agreed. I offered to remove my remarks if Bali ultimate were willing to have theirs removed also. Apparently they are not, so there's little point in removing mine. That said, no one has ever mistaken me for one of the "in-crowd" here. I do not find articles about movies depicting rape and forced bestiality to be something to laugh at. I should have made may point without the sarcasm. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else (and if you think i'm part of an "in-crowd" you haven't been paying attention). I wasn't taunting, or laughing. I was pointing out what i see is a real problem -- a user who spends all his time, it appears, creating articles on obscure, non-notable, japanese fetish porn (much of it seemingly violent) with the salacious dvd covers to boot for the delectation of the "child in africa." Have a look for yourself. It isn't "encyclopedic content." That someone who churns out all that crap is seen is a "valued contributor" is a real problem. No laughing matter, at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse block I'm not one to block for civility but pleeze how can anyone seriously object to someone who invites their fellow editors to rot in hell being blocked_ Despite being an almost lone voice in opposition I look forward to the theatre of Jehochman taking this to arbitration but honestly, its impossible to fault the logic of the block. Experienced editors have even less excuse then noobs for this kind of behaviour. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)Endorse block per Gigs, Penwhale, Sandstein, Dougweller, Goodday, Friday, and Spartaz. I think it's humorous that Jehochman (on his talk page) suggested blocking me, while he think a block should not have been imposed here. While blocks are to be used as a last resort, it appears that Jehochman does not appreciate the true nuances of sanctions. Scott was correct in taking this line of action here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback folks, I've taken consensus to be that the block was good - although perhaps a little long for a first time. I've thus shortened it, and don't see any serious complaints with the shorter block. Your discussion has been helpful, but I'd seriously suggest we don't as much as we can here, and that someone now archives this.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I've unarchived this for now - although I agree with you, the possibility that some users will claim that users from a particular timezone could not participate are a problem. Leaving it open for a few more hours would probably make it more solid. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask the question though: does leaving it open longer simply give more drama than it needs? We had a situation, dealt with, discussed and adjusted ... further discussion is almost WP:STICKish, isn't it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

My personal view is somewhat similar to yours...but we have to acknowledge (as a form of "fairness", even if it is merely procedural) that there may be objections within the next # of hours (maybe 10?), for reasons which we obviously cannot predict otherwise our rationales may very well have been different. Moreover, if there are developments that lead either Scott or someone else to unblock earlier, then it would probably need to be noted here anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This is disproportionate to the treatment we gave so many repeat offenders. A single outbreak in my opinion, only justifies a warning. If people feel that need to make a statement that will be seem more unmistakable than that, even 24 hours is excessive ; I would have said 30 minutes would have made the same statement. I think there's overinvolvement here about it, and I am about to reduce it to approximate time served. I think Scott was absolutely wrong to do the block himself in the first place,since he was having an ongoing dispute with the editor. I'm glad he at lest brought his here, but i had I seen this early I would have unblocked immediately on the basis of his being an involved admin. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No not do that. There is a consensus here and you'd be moving against it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect DGG, does that not make it more of a cool-down block, or even a punative block, rather than true preventative? I'm just sayin' ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that consensus seems to favour 24 or 31 hr block, and Jauerback volunteered to make the involvement issue moot, there isn't a real principle to unblock on - anything that could reasonably be construed as a cool-down block cause just as many (if not more) headaches. That said, I would support an unblock if the user is ready to cooperate...DGG, can you persuade him on or off-wiki to address the primary concern? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"Involved" is a stretch, regardless it has seen plenty of review by less involved folks. Please notice the user's utter lack of remorse on his talk page. The user returned the attack after it was removed, and now "stands by it". The preventative nature of this block is evident. The block has already been reduced per consensus here and to reduce it further to time served would be a unilateral action against consensus, please don't do that. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If Scott objects, I'm not going to do it. This would be my first fight over something like this here and it isnt intrinsically worth it. I almost never do blocks, except in connection with vandalism I encounter, and I rarely engage in such discussions here either--because i dislike the hypocritical way they are applied, and I cannot possibly try personally to try to induce change in every possible think I thing wrong about Wikipedia. (I do not mean I think them typically too long--I think they're equally likely to be too long or too short, and the question to consider is the editor's pattern.) As I see it, there is not all that much difference between a cool down block and a short block meant to prevent further harm: the editor cooling down is what prevents the further harm. The practical difference is that a very short block does not work to cool down adequately--if this is the key purpose, it does take something like at 24 hours. If the purpose is to prevent harm, by persuading the person that we take it seriously, a very short block can make the point--it's essentially a step 5 warning. If we find we need longer times to make an impression, then the length must increase; if we find the person intends to continue to do harm, then it should increase very rapidly.

As for involvement, I think it essentially to avoid anything that might be interpreted as such. An angry comment is just an angry comment, and once being punished for it, people do tend to get angry about the punishment and so things escalate. If someone said something like D. did immediately following my comment at a discussion, I would probably ignore it entirely; I advise Scott do so similarly. If it were so serious as to warrant action, or the person intended to continue the harm, someone else would do it. I can see regarding the reinsertion as an intention to continue, and had I seen it , I would have left a very strong informal warning that I would block at the next repeat of it. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring one editor attacking other editors is a bad idea. These other editors do not deserve to be attacked, and ignoring such attacks is a disservice to those who wish to engage in civil debate. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

DGG, I think you've raised some very valid points that are worthy of further discussion - the trouble is convincing either you or others (or even myself) to do so, be it on blocking policy talk page, or whichever venue we should be discussing them to clarify the issues and reduce the likelihood of them arising in the future, if at all, like they may have here. But if you're ready to give more discussion a shot (which would be widely appreciated), then please don't hesitate to make a comment to that effect. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• 'Endorse block. Let's see. Editor posts to a talk page of a closed afd comparing delete voters to book burners [42]

McDonald removes edit, suggests editor take it up at DRV. Blocked editor responds with an edit summary of "kiss my ass" and adds "It should do many filthy, narrow-minded little hearts good to know that censorship at Wikipedia is getting to be so much easier." [43] . He then moves on to a related cfd where he argues that You people are not just bigots, you are dishonest bigots. Rot in Hell. This charming comment being removed once [44] he sees fit to restore it [45]. He is blocked for 48 hours. His block is then reduced to 24 hours with a promise that it will be lifted if he accepts the comments were out of bounds. He responds, in part, I don't consider blocking for a harmless salutation like "I hope you rot in Hell" to be acceptable either... In as much as wikipedia has civility blocks, why do you think this was controversial dgg?Bali ultimate (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I just want to speak up to support two notions mentioned above: 1) I think its inappropriate for an admin to block someone involved in an AfD or CfD that they have voted in, re a comment directed (in part) at them. That should be a bright line standard that admins comply with -- no matter how appropriate the block might otherwise be. Really, that just requires a modest amount of self-restraint. 2) I strongly second Duncan Hill's comment above. The lack of consistency in treatment that I've seen this past month is more than a little disturbing.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This block once again demonstrates the corruption of the word civility on Wikipedia. The lack of courtesy to good faith contributors is disgusting, and it's carried out by the same cast of absuve characters again and again. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm..rather than removing the posts wholesale (and inflaming the situation of an upset editor), I think just removing expletives from the original posts by Dekkapai would have been a better (and more calming) action, rather than escalating it. Once the exchange had started (and given that Scott had voted the opposite way in the debate and holds a very strong view about BLPs and had engaged in a mini-edit war with postings, then another admin should have definitely been the one doing the blocking. Anyway, this kind of admin action of inflaming rather than calming the situation is all too commonplace. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Yzak Jule repeat personal attacks on homepage

I appreciate this is incredibly petty, but....a number of anon and account users have been attacking Tryptofish to the extent that his userpage has been semi-protected for several weeks. This follows extremely acrimonious arguments at Talk:Crucifixion and Talk:Crucifixion in art. At some point in that melee, someone made a truly out of order statement that included Tryptofish, Aspies and people with mental health disorders, and someone else put up a banner advising against that comment.

Yzak Jule, who had been blocked for his comments in the dispute, copied the banner and posted it on his user page. He then piped the Asperger's link to point to Tryptofish instead [46]. I took this down as a personal attack. Later, he replaced it with [47] which pipes "someone" to Tryptofish and is, in my opinion, still a personal attack, so I took it down again. Today, he has put it back up again [48]. Is the consensus that it is a personal attack, and if so, could something be done about it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to thank Elen for starting this thread, and I appreciate the concern on my behalf. I think it is worth providing additional information about this user's recent activities. Yzak Jule was recently blocked, and has resumed editing after the block only over the last two days. It is illuminating to observe how he has been focusing his edits in this short time.(1) He has gone to User talk:TJRC, an experienced and valued user who has recently become unhappy about editing, and expressed pleasure at the user's unhappiness [49]. (2) He has made transparent attempts to get back at the administrator who blocked him [50], [51]. (3) He has frivolously placed a 3RR template on Elen's talkpage for edits that were simply reverting vandalism by an IP [52]. (4) He has repeatedly blanked legitimate comments I have made at Talk:Crucifixion in art [53], and then frivolously placed a template about creating attack pages on my talk [54]. (5) And he has configured his user page [55] to be a parody of mine (for example: this user opposes the Society for Neuroscience Wikipedia Initiative, etc.). One might hope that an editor coming back after a block would attempt to contribute to content improvement, but this has manifestly not been the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Note, I've edited Tryptofish's comment to number his arguments for ease of response. (1)My comment that his and your actions in the Crucifixion argument has provoked similar feelings on the other side was an attempt to give you two some perspective so a consensus on the issue could finally be found. (2)As noted below, his actions in the two arguments were similar, and I felt it might be noteworthy that it seems to be a pattern on tedder's part and not an isolated incident. Cool Civil/AGF violation, by the way. (3)The IP was removing the material you added that a significant number of editors on the talk page have voiced as a poor source. Elen's actions were edit warring. (4)Per my arguments below, your comments were incivil. (5)Although I did first notice the Initiative on your user page, my concern is that it violates WP:COI and WP:Canvassing. There'd be no point in parodying your handful of userboxes, it's not constructive to the construction of an encyclopedia at all, just like this argument.Yzak Jule (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To admins: for each of those responses, please look at them alongside the actual diffs. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To admins: This is the third time Tryptofish and co. have brought this petty argument to ANI without ever attempting to discuss it via user talk pages (and ignoring any of my own attempts to do so), and I'd like to get back to working on the encyclopedia and quit wasting your time with this. Yzak Jule (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not start this report, Elen did. There is a difference between trying to discuss on talk pages, and what this user continues to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yzak has a habit of considering anything to be a personal attack, removing comments from talk pages as well as their own userpage. Here are some examples: [56], [57], [58], [59], as well as aggressively going after anyone who has slighted themselves (including myself and Tryptofish, likely Elen too).tedder (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Those first three clearly violate WP:AGF and WP:Civil, specifically sections 1C, 1D, and 2A. The last one you're correct in that I shouldn't have reverted it, although I feel Tryptofish is using Elen as a meat puppet for reverts in the Crucifixion in art edit war precisely to be able to make such arguments. I don't understand what you mean by "going after" you, since all I did was note that your behaviour in the edit war I'm involved in at Crucifixion was similar to the behaviour the above ANI thread is looking into. As for Tryptofish, he has clear issues with the WP:Own policy, in my opinion, and I'm still involved in trying to reach consensus on the page both of us are involved in, so it's unsuprising we're in the same places.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that Yzak has again restored the link to Tryptofish's page. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Because I don't see anything in WP:NPA it's violating and no one here sees fit to discuss that, instead unilaterally making decisions without consensus. However, in the spirit of cooperation I've removed it for now.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think one can determine from the user's replies here the likelihood that the user will or will not improve his editing behavior in the future as a result of this report. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to improve my editing if someone would like to tell me what it is I'm doing wrong. The level of condescension in your comments as well as those of most others involved in this edit war (with the exceptions of Elen and Gary) is staggering and extremely unhelpful, and is why this is a continuing issue.Yzak Jule (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

After this AN/I thread started, I note that Yzak Jule has made what appear to be a large number of in-policy vandalism reverts. Given his stated desire to improve his editing behavior, as well as his stated lack of understanding of why the complaints were started, perhaps a better alternative to a block would be some sort of mentorship? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"SA"

Note something non-Yzak related(?) is happening with those crucifixion pages from an off-wiki website- I don't know what, I've just seen it mentioned as "SA". tedder (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Off the cuff, I'd guess Something Awful. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what SA is. Just before Thanksgiving, they started a section called something about how Wikipedia is falling apart (within a section called "general bullshit") showing a screenshot of what was then at Crucifixion, and egging one another to meatpuppet here, amid a lot of hate-speech about persons with Asperger's syndrome. It has been morphing into egging people to come here and harass me and other editors who disagree with them. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Diffs about SA: [60] and [61]. Not pretty. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, you seem to think this is some official "section" of SA. It is a forum post. Nothing more. And yes, they don't like the article. I've contributed to that thread, shared my feelings, and acted on some things they've said. --Golbez (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I understand that it's a forum. But that's really beside the point. The issue is what Elen, Tedder, and I have raised above. I already pointed out the SA thing in an earlier AN/I section, now archived, and it simply is what it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Their points are valid; their methods, less so. --Golbez (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. If you think it's worth defending, that's your right. But that isn't the issue before AN/I, in any case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• One point to Sarek for figuring that out. I was thinking it was Christian-based, so that didn't even cross my mind. TLDR: [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]. Obviously it's a big meme involving Tryptofish and Anime, especially this Anime/Crucifixion article. What should be done about it? I'm involved, otherwise I'd probably block Yzak for disruption. tedder (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Much as I said above to Golbez, I think the SA thing just is what it is, and Wikipedia can't regulate what happens at other websites. The solution to meatpuppetry is to give meat-comments less weight. The user issue above is a separate issue, one that is not resolving itself (just got a whole lot more incivility at my talk), and I hope that is where uninvolved administrators are looking, not this side-issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please explain, exactly, how offering an olive branch, per the civility policy, is incivility.Yzak Jule (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't an olive branch. [80], [81] --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, see also: 4chan. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Show over?

Yzak Jule has taken down the offending notice and done some productive editing. He's asked what he was doing wrong, and I've suggested on his talkpage that he needs to drop the stick. Suggest we can now consider this closed.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said yesterday, I am satisfied that there is no need for a block at this time, while I also think that, based on what Yzak Jule said himself, some sort of mentoring may be more useful. If the drama stops, the AN/I matters can, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight ANI ban

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

Resolved

 – This discussion needs to be closed. There is no consensus for a sanction; quite the opposite. Further comments are an unnecessary diversion of resources from the project. If follow up is needed, multiple users have suggested WP:RFC. Jehochman ^Talk 21:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

User:ChildofMidnight (CoM) from WP:ANI, and possibly other WP:DR fora, for a period of 3 months, on threads where his name has not been mentioned by someone else. This excludes starting threads on issues that concern him, and excludes any existing threads he is already participating in at the time the ban is agreed (if it is agreed).

Reason: CoM consistently inserts himself into matters which don't concern him - with highly inconsistent results. Occasionally it is helpful, more often it is not. This behaviour was discussed recently at ANI, with a block of CoM under discussion; the conclusion was that an RFC would be preferable - but Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight remains a redlink. In lieu of an RFC, a temporary measure is a drama-reducing topic ban of the kind proposed.

Disclosure: The proximate motivation for this proposal is CoM's posts to a thread above, including this one [82], discussing an indefinite block I made of user:Grundle2600. This is merely the latest example of the way in which CoM's frequent interjections are based on a misreading of the relevant issues, with accusations of bad faith never far away. (I'm sure they will follow here, but I note that the terms of the proposal specifically permit further involvement in that discussion.) PS If it is felt that this ban is not appropriate at this time, could someone, please, take responsibility for starting an WP:RFC/U, which seems clearly needed. Rd232 ^talk 19:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Without comment as to the present case, I wrote an essay on this a while back (ironic that it was coincident with Child of Midnight's writing of the article-space equivalent), see Wikipedia:Don't be a rubbernecker. –xeno^talk 19:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support not so much as a way to reduce drama here (that seems a lost cause) but as a way to encourage someone who can be a useful contributor of content to spend more of his time doing that and wasting less of it here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Rd232's analysis seems accurate. Mathsci (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose I hereby sign my name as placeholder for a profound defense of User:ChildofMidnight (if it is desired by CoM). ANI is currently an imperfect rhetorical space, with oft-occurring breaches of all kinds of propriety. From the fragments I have witnessed, CoM, on balance, can be counted on to inject, yes, "balancing" counter-force to certain situations which are not flowing fairly for whatever reason. This is no assertion of perfection — and I understand that CoM has been sanctioned by Arbcom itself (perhaps more than once). ... And, no I have not "weighed it all." ... But the glimpses I have seen of CoM on the rhetorical field (which, no, should not be a battleground, but we know quite well, sometimes are) ... makes be smile and even tear up from the beautiful power of ... integrity. (Placeholder registered.:-) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Reluctant support per the Grundle2600 diff above. While CoM brings a valuable perspective to AN/I, too often it's couched in inaccuracies like 'Let's be absolutely 100% clear. Grundle is being blocked indefinitely for noting in the Diane Francis article that "although she has two children, she favors having every country in the world adopting China's one child policy in order to protect the environment."' in the diff above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose on general principle. I think there's a danger that proposals like this can be posted and passed due to irritation of the moment as opposed to being calmly thought out.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support its a good idea but it might not work. Im willing to support to some degree however.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 20:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose if interposing oneself in matters which don't directly concern oneself is grounds for a page-ban, then this page would be utterly useless. It exists precisely to get feedback from the uninvolved. The proposal could just as helpfully be made about half the admin regulars here. DuncanHill (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose As someone who usually disagrees with CoM on just about everything, I still find it abhorant to ban someone merely for being annoying or unhelpful. The idea that he "inserts himself into matters that do not concern him" is basically bullshit. EVERYTHING on this board consists of inserting oneself in matters that do not concern oneself. I am doing it right now by commenting here, you are all doing it. ANI is a public discussion forum, and all editors are free to give their opinions. That CoM does not often hold opinions that many other people agree with is a dangerous reason to ban him. Yeah, he's usually not in the majority, and his comments aren't usually helpful in establishing a consensus, but seriously, do we all want to decend into groupthink by demanding that only people who agree with us most of the time are allowed to comment. Seriously think what you are doing here. CoM is not disruptive, his comments can easily be ignored or discounted if you don't like them. Absolutely not. We don't ban people because they say lots of things we don't like. --Jayron32 20:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Absofuckinglutely not. This would be a very dangerous precedent to set. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think using 'oppose' will sufice. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support in lieu of an indefinite site ban. Crafty (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: You what now? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm saying that since a community ban of CoM from Wikipedia is not on offer, this proposal will have to do. Crafty (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: Don't have much involvement with him, but it's a massive overkill to ban him from this page when the whole point of this page is, as others says, to get feedback from others. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• PerfuckingMalleus. I would be willing to agree to a complete CoM ban before I agreed to this extraordinarily dangerous precedent. Tan | 39 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

  Hear hear! and Amen! Proofreader77 (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose ChildofMidnight is a reasonable guy, he doesn't need to be subjected to some big community roast via a ban. Can't we just ask him to avoid drama on ANI and other pages? I agree that more harm than good has come out of some of his opinions, but to subject him to a big, hostile community sanction is just bullying. ALI ^{nom nom} 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose . A wide variety of opinion is preferable, CoM is not overly disruptive here in my opinion, in fact he is sometimes imo, a voice of reason. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Consistent failure to add anything of value to discussions is a good grounds for being uninvited from such discussions. Friday (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. We cannot bind the hand of any editor who wishes to speak his/her opinion, even when that opinion is unpopular to others. There is no precident to do this. If COM is in violation of a particular policy, then by all means take appropriate measures, but to ban an editor from a page that is, by its very nature, going to have heated debates is absurd.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jojhutton. Evil saltine (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose pending an RfC. This may be necessary, but it's a severe remedy and shouldn't be taken lightly.   Will Beback  talk  20:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• AbsoStrongOpposeOlutely per Malleus Fatuorum. This would generally be a bad precedent. Discussion-page bans should be used only in rare cases, not counting times when they are part of a broader ban. Cases I can think of are intentional disruption/bad faith edits; chronic, ongoing inability to conduct onesself civilly despite good intentions; or the disruption is so profound as to prevent orderly operation. In any case, there should be no ban unless there is good reason to believe the behavior will continue if unchecked. In 99⁴⁴/100% of the cases, we can either live with it or encourage him to get a mentor to help him think about his edits before saving the page. I recommend "live with it" plus gentle reminders for 90% of editors who are mildly or moderately disruptive but are editing in good faith. Save mandatory mentorship for those whose edits are causing significant interference with the discussions, and save more severe restrictions for those who are acting in bad faith or whose conduct is, simply put, too disruptive to tolerate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Jayron and Malleus together put it well. Minority opinion must not be a blockable "offense". LadyofShalott 20:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. This matter should be dealt with through an RfC first, the arbitration committee second, but not here. JBsupreme (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Extremely strong oppose Although I may not always agree with what CoM says, I feel that this would be setting a very unwelcome precedent - as per Jayron, Malleus and JBsupreme -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Setting horrendous precedents should not be done lightly. Ever. Collect (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Per Davidwr's standards above, CoM has persistently assumed bad faith of other editors (particularly, but not exclusively, members of the admin corps), chronic incivility, and an ongoing tendency to inflame rather than to contribute usefully to discussions on this board. Re to Tan - this action would be far from setting a precedent. In the Everyking 3 arbitration, an administrator was banned from commenting on AN and its subpages for 12 months (save for discussions which directly touched on him or his actions) for a pattern of unproductive and incivil sniping. That was back in 2006; there have been several cases since where editors have been banned from process pages and encouraged to do productive article work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It was ArbCom action, not a community ANI poll. There is a difference. Tan | 39 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support, as it's a slightly shorter version of the same topic ban I proposed in November. [83] I got flamed for that proposal, but it's well past the time that some sort of action was taken, and these types of topic bans are not unprecedented. For those who were around here two years ago, User:Gp75motorsports and User:Blow of Light were restricted to article space, (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive353#Request input on topic ban and the following few sections) and they were not the first people to have such a limitation applied to them. (I don't remember names, and don't feel like looking, but someone else's memory may be jogged.) CoM doesn't contribute anything useful to project space, but he is a very good contributor in article space. Horologium (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Compromize proposal: Appoint a mentor. On matters that don't directly involve ChildofMidnight, he can only comment on issues raised here after asking the mentor for approval. He has to briefly state what argument he wants to make. If that is seen to be a valid contribution, he'll be allowed to participate in the discussion. If CoM violates such an agreement (e.g. by trolling instead of sticking to the propsed arguments he wanted to make), then he'lll be banned form participating in AN/I discussions. Count Iblis (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Just look at the section below for all the high quality discourse we would be missing out on. Protonk (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• There is rather a lot of disruption here caused by this user. I think we could get the page length down considerably. Not sure if a ban is justified, but CoM is really trying to convince me with that drama mongering nonsense below this thread. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Compromise proposal - keep kicking COM until he's provoked him into doing something blockable. Oh, hang on, I see that's already been adopted. DuncanHill (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Pile on Oppose Sure, let's take away the first forum a user has for WP:DR. I see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight is still red...why? Sure, CoM rarely if ever swims with the flow but clearly he's made more than one user step back and look at the situation; the ones who don't like that, well, that's on them. Grsz¹¹ 21:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Every time I see a post signed by ChildofMidnight in ANI, I know that I'm go to see a post that is trying to raise drama (the section below is a nice example). ANI is not for raising drama and it's not for complicating simple matters. P.D.: sorry, I edit-conflicted with the close without noticing it. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• It should be noted that I do not approve of anyone blaming me for the disruption caused by RD232's initiating a thread to try and have me banned from ANI after I disagreed with his indefinite block of a good faith contributor. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone does. For the record, Jayron's remark "We don't ban people because they say lots of things we don't like." is of course correct; thanks to Horologium for pointing out the prior precedents for the proposed temporary ban. But OK, not at this time. Perhaps you'd like to take some reflection time, CoM, and tread a little more carefully in future. Rd232 ^talk 00:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Why, why, why has no one made an RFC yet? This is like, the twentieth time it's been suggested. It seems to me that people are convinced they don't want one and just want a sanction approved here at ANI. Clearly this isn't happening. I fully agree that CoM's behaviour is disruptive, but as I'm not personally involved, I can't make an RFC. Those involved need to bother taking the initiative, or nothing's going to happen. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  Probably because of the "An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user" aspect of user RfCs. When a user's behavior is so disgustingly atrocious that they include and defend the inclusion of Nazi imagery on their user talk page to describe other editors, there is little hope of ever making a dent in such a person to the point where they become self-aware of their problematic behavior. ChildofMidnight has built a barricade for himself where he is absolutely convinced that he is right and each and every singe person who expresses an opinion otherwise, from ArbCom to admins to users, is engaging in a grand conspiracy to censor him. How does one deal with that? Tarc (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell it leaves one option. To bring the matter before the WikiSupremes. Crafty (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  Which is why we probably need an RFC, since they generally don't hear cases without one of those first. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to ban any editor who attempts to censor Wikipedia discussions and content by aggressively pursuing those with differing opinions

let this drop. Please
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – This is not going to help anything, especially not you CoM. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 21:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. These behaviors violate the spirit of our civility policy and are clear violations of our core Neutral Point of View policy. We can't allow individuals to abusively attack and censor those they disagree with in order to push their personal opinions and perspectives. This kind of intimidation, harassment, misuse of admin tools, and other bullying is unacceptable. Those who engage in this sort of disruption as a means of censorship should be blocked indefinitely until they show respect and toleration for other individuals, including those with whom they disagree. Support Bullying and intimidation are never acceptable and should not be condoned by this community. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC) So... you're in favor of your own right to make noise, no matter how nonsensical it is? Why not do this on your own website? Friday (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC) To "make noise, no matter how nonsensical"? I don't think calling for our neutral point of view and civility policies to be upheld without bias is nonsensical. I think putting a stop to bullying and intimidation is critical to developing a healthy community that can build an accurate and well balanced encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC) PLEASE- No- Don't dig yourself deeper into this. ALI nom nom 20:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Textbook violation of WP:POINT. We should add it to that page. Tan | 39 20:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC) In your opinion, which guideline or policy he wanted to WP:POINT at? --91.55.208.131 (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Your anonymous trolling aside, that guideline does not require a specific target; the target is Wikipedia itself. Tan | 39 20:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Your pseudonymous trolling aside, I don't read that in WP:POINT. --91.55.208.131 (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Comment Surely this isn't the right forum for this particular discussion? This would be a community decision, not an admins' decision - and so it would appear to have no place on ANI. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC) (ec) I'm darn close to suggesting we auto-block anyone who uses "censor" or "censorship" as part of a complaint. They're ignorant of the meaning of the word, and its simply abused here to mean "I want to be able to completely run my mouth about whatever, all over the site" or "I didn't get my POV in an article!". You're not being censored. Start a damn blog and bitch up a storm, heck, link to it on your user page. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I don't think we should punish those who point out instances of improper censorship, bullying and intimidation. That seems like an Orwellian approach worthy of Fahrenheit 451 that would be more in line with the authoritarian book burning and denunciations as employed by fascists. That doesn't seem to be a good model for building an unbiased encyclopedia. A more appropriate response would be to ask for specific examples and to give them careful consideration. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Please look up censorship. Wikipedia, and its editors and admins, cannot, by definition, censor you. You may start a blog and say whatever you want. Link to it from your user page. Go forth and be verbose! But its not censorship if we don't want to host it or deal with it. If there is "bullying", I direct you to dispute resolution. We are not here to listen to someone kvetch, bitch and complain nonstop. Really. Pick your battles, get your terminology straight, and use the correct venue. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A few words on minority opinions

I'm not going to comment on the appropriateness of a topic ban, I'm commenting on the opinions expressed in the discussion. For all means, oppose the proposal, but absolutely do not use "he has a minority opinion" as a reason. That's a stupid reason that has, with no exaggeration, allowed stalkers to keep harassing others before. No editor should have protection from our policies just because they're the Designated Dissenter; the problem is invariably not the opinion but the manner in which it's disseminated. If someone is being victimised on ANI simply because of their opinion, I will jump to their defence. But their opinions mean diddly squat to a defence against a ban or a block they're editing disruptively, and even act as an aggravating factor if they're abusing their protected status to be disruptive. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed. We also have no shortage of disruptive and tendentious editors who throw up the ink screen of "majoritarian persecution" whenever they are threatened with a block for their disruption. We have to guard against groupthink and against persecution of the minority because they are the minority, but willful (or inadvertent) confusion of disruption for discussion does more harm than good. Protonk (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It also being said that there should be broad discretion to speak one's mind, especially at an inherently contentious page like this, where, very often, people's ability to edit Wikipedia is at stake.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a fun fact about Speaker's Corner in London: there's no statutory basis for its famous status. You can, in theory, be arrested for disturbance of the peace. But people are tolerant there because of that reason: it's basic human decency to allow people to speak their mind there, and the enshrined reputation of the place gives it a de facto protection from disturbance of the peace and obscenity laws. This whole situation reminds me of homophobic political campaigns in America: the basic human decency and the defence of free speech is wilfully exploited to say that, using my analogy as an example, gay marriage will infringe on religious freedom (for example, the lovely old canard about churches being forced to marry gay couples) when it would do no such thing. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a time, not too long ago, when criticism of a certain (now ex-)admin and bot-operator would result in streams of abuse and threats against those bringing their concerns here. To my knowledge, only one admin has ever apologized for the way in which well-founded concerns were treated. There is a very great danger of such a situation repeating itself if we start silencing the currently unpopular. DuncanHill (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, another problem with the "cry-wolf" crowd. Admins aren't a hive mind. I have no idea who you are talking about and have even less of an idea why I should apologize for them. Protonk (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And another comment from the "call someone names often enough, then we can get him wound up and then block him" crowd. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Say whatever you like. I still have no idea who I should be apologizing for or why. Kinda ruins the fun of accusing me of covering up for them. Protonk (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I was making a general point about the dangers of silencing unpopular editors. I have no idea why you imagine the anecdote was directed at you personally, nor do I recall if you were one of the admins who spent so much time encouraging a (then) disruptive editor. He is now contributing positively, so I shall not be naming him. DuncanHill (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't imagine it. I mentioned it because you said "To my knowledge, only one admin has ever apologized for the way in which well-founded concerns were treated", which implied that more than one admin had cause to apologize. Its fine that you don't want to name names, but it pulls the wind out of your anecdote pretty handily. Protonk (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Absolutely. But we have a responsibility to keep trolls and malcontents from ruining the place. No technical limitation exists preventing CoM from bringing his opinion to any and all "admin related" dispute on these boards (or any other board, near as I can tell). What must be discussed is a social limitation. We can't have a reasonably discussion of that if it immediately escalates into "OMG Persecution" territory. We aren't interested in removing him from these boards because he has a heterodox/iconoclastic opinion. We are interested in doing so because he is disruptive, prone to escalation, and seemingly incapable (unwilling?) of restraint. Calm and patience are in short supply on AN/I. There is value in simply removing people from the equation who insist that every thing stinks. We did it with Kurt after a long and painful process and frankly there was more cause to allow him to continue to participate in RfA/AfD than there is in allowing CoM to complain at AN/I. Protonk (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Those were exactly the arguments used in the attempts to silence critics of the certain editor I mentioned. When you start silencing those you don't like, you will end up silencing genuine complints. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. That's a genuine problem with no easy solution. But we can't simply say "oh, we could silence some legitimate complaints, so lets never limit disruptions". CoM has a privilege to comment adversarially on issues at AN/I (or anywhere else at the wiki). We call it a privilege only because it is not literally a right, it is so close to our notion of participation in the community that it is in effect a right. We should vigorously defend that right/privilege when it is threatened. But we also have to establish some threshold beyond which that right (for simplicity's sake) is no longer being exercised but is instead being abused. What I (and Sceptre, to some extent) am saying is that we cloak disruption with this veneer or good faith participation wherever possible and it hurts us to do so. It hurts us because it truly debases discourse, because it gives people an incentive to avoid community discussions, because it turns discussion and compromise into an attempt to "poke the bear" (As you alluded above). Part of this is generated from furious hornet's nest stirring anytime a contentious decision is brought up here. Why do you think we talk about paralysis in community discussion? Why are we offloading more and more problematic issues to RFAR and AE? When does this stop? Protonk (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It stops when editors like you stop being offended by those who don't agree with you. Easy. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

For God's sake, Malleus. Either you're being thick or you're deliberately missing the point. We're okay with someone standing on Speaker's Corner and spewing anti-war rhetoric. We're not okay when they then go into a bar full of soldiers, pull the same trick, and then complain about how the big mean men with guns hit them. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really offended. But I'm glad you found an easy solution. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We topic banned Kurt from the Wikipedia space? That's news to me. I mean, he's had two successive arbcom runs... Sceptre ^(talk) 00:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think geek social fallacy #1 is highly relevant to this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the fallacy in the thinking in this particular subsection is that it's remotely of some practical possibility that disruptive users can be objectively distinguished from mere minority users. To extend the "bar full of soldiers" metaphor, the soldiers are only soldiers with guns because they hold the majority opinion. Anyone else automatically seems like a weaker unarmed pest. The dissenter is easily seen as a disruption despite how politely he presents his case. I don't have much experience with CoM, but I can be a rather unpopular fellow myself. The mental process of "Everyone is disagreeing with you, why are you not dropping this" is very prevalent, very dangerous, and probably very natural. I think it would be excessively optimistic to think we could write a "no taunting" policy that wouldn't be abused regularly. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:06, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm certainly not making the case that disruption can always and everywhere be objectively distinguished from disagreement. Such a distinction will be subjective, local and unique to the individual. What this little subsection is focused on is the prevalent and bothersome misapprehension that accusations of disruption are always pretexts for attempts to eliminate disagreement. Disruption exists. Disagreement exists. Often they co-exist in the same thread/same person. Where they do not co-exist, the solution is relatively easy: remove disruption, invite disagreement. Where the co-exist the solution becomes messy. Sometimes it is worth putting up with disruption in order to include disagreement. Sometimes it is not. Protonk (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Our hypothetical anti-war protester didn't walk into his local and see some people fresh off the plane from Afghanistan, he made a conscious decision to go into a bar which he knew had several regulars who served in the Army, and annoy them about killing for oil and religious reasons. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh but more often than not you can indeed tell, but only over time. Eventually their motives betray themselves. A sincere person with a minority opinion will act based those sincere beliefs, an intentionally disruptive user(a troll) will eventually betray their motives with choices inconsistent with their faux-sincere motives. That is why some trolls get to disrupt us for months(or years for some folk), so that doubt can be removed and so that patience can be exhausted. The only question that remains is if that point has been reached yet.

It is also true that in some cases you cannot ever tell the difference between a sincere believer and someone intentionally trying to be disruptive. In such a case the end result is the same, either the level of disruption is tolerable or it is not and motives cease to be relevant. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly one doubt. Another is whether you're competent to judge. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The community needs to set its own standards. I am not a judge. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. We're not the man in the corner of the pub seeing the soldiers beat down on the protester. We're more like the protester's old friend who we've known for several years. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hasnt this gone on long enough guys? Seriousy if nothing good will come out of this (which it wont) then why continue? CoM was saved this time (thankfully as I have realized that banning him from this page is a very bad idea) so theres nothing really left to argue about right? Cant we all just get along?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

My point is that with all lessons world history has supposedly taught us, it would be arrogant to think we can fairly "remove disruption" while still "inviting disagreement". This would especially be the case if the judges of "disruption vs. disagreement" were in the majority, as it seems they usually are. In fact, if you wanted to honestly mitigate such doubt, leave the decision up the the people on the "disrupter's" side of the argument. If they see a problem, there probably is a problem. Of course, there's the possibility of impropriety, since people holding the same opinion as the disruptor may want to back him up despite not agreeing with his methods; but then, the converse problem exists if the decision is left up to the majority: There's always the tendency towards slanting judgments in favor of one's side of the dispute. To make a determination that one can separate disruption from disagreement is to say you're so unique as to be different from everyone else who's been faced with a similar conflict of interest in history, and that you can be more trusted to make that call than they could. This is an arrogant supposition. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:57, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

But your missing my point. Since this is turning into a fight rather than a discussion. Why not end it before it turnes into another User:Coffee incident (see the WP:WQA archives for more)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a fight, just an interesting discussion that seems relevant... But I've been known to misinterpret such things in the past. Does anyone else feel like this is a fight? Equazcion ^(talk) 03:06, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fair point and well taken. But we don't move immediately from accepting that point to concluding that disruption can't be dealt with. Protonk (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I would, personally. Again people throughout history have struggled with these issues, and still haven't found a way that works. The US court system is basically one big approach to trying to get everything relevant heard while weeding out everything else, all while making sure the people choosing which-from-which don't have a conflict of interest. In other words, this very issue. We don't and can't (on principle) have a system anywhere near that magnitude, and theirs doesn't even always work. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:20, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I think I would require more convincing. The analogy to the US government (and governments in general) helps, but elides a crucial difference. Assuming you believe John Jocke, the legitimacy of those governments stems from the willingness of the people to consent to their existence. And that consent stems largely from a need to develop a framework in order to protect some rights which cannot be protected without central authority. Obviously, the generation of that central authority emperils other rights. Hence the balance created through the minimal state. Wikipedia is not a state and holds no authority derived from consent. Wikipedia is a community of people working to build an encyclopedia. Obviously it is also an experiment in governance (As all open projects are), but do not confuse this with the pressures and obligations of governments in general. Protonk (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of where their power derives from, the nature of the system itself is what I'm referring to. The comparison was to the court system itself, not what allows it to exist. Even if we were to assume hypothetically that a powerless community of equals got together and decided on that system, the point would still stand. Conflict of interest exists inherently and in our system can effectively be a factor, whereas in theirs there are at least checks and balances in place to mitigate it. If the point of this discussion is to say that we can form new rules to deal with disruption without having to worry about conflict of interest, my point is that it's been tried, and the volume of rules we'd need in order to come close would be impractical. We seem to do fairly well here, even with the existence of so-called "disruptors". They seem to create an unpleasentness at most, but I would contend that such things are necessary evils of any open and fair system. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:49, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Again, another fair point. but I'm not advocating a system of rules to classify every case. I'm acknowledging the intractability of that problem and stating obvious points: we have a threshold level of disruption on wikipedia, we have trouble distinguishing between disruption and disagreement (for reasons you mentioned and reasons I note here). I'm left to argue from those obvious points that we should be careful in determining that threshold, but that a common tactic among folks who have well exceeded the threshold is to "ink the waters" by conflating their disruption with some related (or in some cases unrelated) disagreement. On a related issue, my views are fleshed out here. Protonk (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what system you are advocating then, but maybe you're not advocating anything yet (though I haven't read those links yet). Granted there may be people who use those tactics, and I've come across them myself. If it isn't blatant enough for nearly everyone to agree that it is intentional disruption, my stance would be to simply ignore. Granted there are individuals who will take advantage of this gray area, but as you say, there are certain rights that democratic governments emperile while Wikipedia doesn't, and the right to be a crafty pain in the ass might be one of them. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:17, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Well, broadly I'm advocating that we suppress the knee-jerk reaction to treat calls to restrict discussion as attempts to eliminate disagreement. And as a matter of empirical concern, we have no shortage of editors who mask disruption under a cloak of differences in opinion. One solution which isn't "ignore" (though that is usually the first-best) is to send disagreements like that to RfAr--something of a sign that the problems exist and that the community has failed to resolve them. Very specifically, we have been down that road before with this particular editor. Protonk (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling them "attempts" might not be warranted, but to say there is a conflict of interest with a person on a side of the argument who would benefit from the proposed restriction is a valid concern, as is the restriction being called on someone who is generally unpopular. I suspect that the "attempt" wording is more a strawman characterization of the accusation than the actual word used in most instances, though it may be unintentionally so. What I would advocate is remaining fiercely, personally vigilant in not making any unilateral judgment calls that benefit you in the dispute, despite how objectively you feel you're acting (not talking about "you" personally, but everyone). Going back to my suggestion from earlier, if such restrictions need to be made, suggest that someone on the minority side make it. WP:JDI is also very relevant, and I think everyone should give it a careful read. Discussions don't need to be restricted if people don't feel the need to admonish a potential disruptor. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:41, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

We're probably going to have to leave it at that. We understand each other, but have a clear difference of opinion as to where the fundamentals of the discussion lead us. Protonk (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Do editors think it's appropriate to have a whole article on Larry Craig scandal while braying about how outrageous it is that an editor connected a commentator's statement that all countries should adopt China's one child policy with the fact they've had two children themselves (widely noted outside of the mainstream media)? Is it really critical that we note that: "At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. ... The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area. Craig then proceeded to swipe his left hand under the stall divider several times, with the palm of his hand facing upward"? Or is the BLP policy only for people we as a community respect?

Also, is it reasonable to remain quiet in the face of hypocrisy like Sceptre's lecturing us when he thinks that "so the conservatards won't get their knickers in a twist" [84] is an appropriate edit summary? I'd rather someone offer suggestions on proper behavior who actually knows how to behave appropriately.

When Grundle starts using nasty edit summaries like that I will support his being blocked indefinitely. And if I start adding inappropriate content to articles, please let me know. But I won't apologize for pushing our admins and editors to actually uphold neutral point of view and other core Wikipedia policies. And we should all be calling out the bullies and censors. The civility policy and our BLP policies don't exist to be twisted into cudgels used by POV pushers against anyone who doesn't happen to share their beliefs (this is true even if those beliefs happen to be popular). And those pushing for civility enforcements should start showing some common courtesy. It all starts with collegial mediation instead of the score settling and mob rule cabalism we've endured for too long. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I realize that you're just acting as an echo chamber for Grundle's point-making, but didn't you stop for a moment to think before mounting the soapbox? There's precisely zero correlation between a person who pleaded guilty in a court of law and a journalist who, um, wrote a controversial (to some) article? Drawing a comparison between that case and this is just about as awful as Grundle's original problems with synthesis in the Francis article. Neither of you possesses the slighting idea of what WP:NPOV is and how to apply it. Tarc (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. After all this is an encyclopedia we're building. So you support an entire article about any instance where a politician has pleaded guilty to a crime? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

See strawman argument. Wikipedia supports articles where the content is referenced to reliable sources, and which cover material which meets the baseline inclusion criteria. You are making connections where none exists, hoping to invent the appearance of some sort of hypocricy, where also none exists. Try something else, because this isn't working. --Jayron32 05:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Jayron, you're quite mistaken that I'm making any sort of strawman argument. There are lots of subjects that are referenced to reliable sources and that meet the inclusion criteria that are deemed unacceptable and that editors even get blocked over adding. Just ask Grundle. Whether you choose to recognize the absurd hypocrisies that exist here is irrelevant to me, I'm content just to have a content related discussion instead of engaging in all the disruption above that is entirely irrelevant to encyclopedia building. Ultimately Grundle is being blocked over content issues, that's the origin of this dispute, and that's where the focus should remain. From your statement I take it that you think an article on Craig's foot tapping conviction is appropriate? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I take no specific stand on any article except the locus of this dispute. Doing so is a redirection away from the issue in this discussion. If you wish to discuss another article, please do so at that article's talk page, and someone who is interested in that article will discuss the matter there. I only care about keeping the discussion from drifting all over the map, or to obfuscate the core issues regarding Grundle's behavior by bringing in unrelated issues, until we lose focus on what the discussion should be about. --Jayron32 06:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The locus of this dispute is over content. Grundle added the sentence you've noted elsewhere based on two reliable sources, but put the bits together in a way that was novel. It's also been noted in the National Review and the American Spectator, and he added those sources when challenged. When it was still objected to it was separated out in a compromise. But editors who disagree with Grundle's libertarian perspective and his article interests continued to go after him and he was blocked by RD232 well after the parties who participated in thread agreed it was resolved. I know many of our admins don't like to get their hands dirty actually investigating the substance of complaints, but that's the story. It seems a pretty thin problem to get all worked up over let alone to justify an indefinite block. Lots of editors make imperfect content additions. So clearly there's more to it. And I'm very interested in you and Tarc's opinion on other similar content of a salacious nature. So please don't try to obfuscate so you can weasel out of answering. Let's stay focused on content, BLP guidelines, and editing issues. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and I think we're on the verge of making some real progress. Do all crimes by politicians that are reliably sourced warrant stand-alone articles? What are the other determining factors? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested to see the above users' opinion on this terrible BLP issue I recently discovered. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a keep for me Will. I think it's definitely notable and worth including. Merging the substance of it would unduly weight other articles. I'd also like to see the article on the pretzel incident restored (I have it in my userspace...). I think it was a notable that remains relevant and interesting. But I know we can avoid trying to block each other at ANI even though we don't agree on everything that should or shouldn't be included. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It is probably best to wait to see what happens when CoM's ArbCom Obama-related editing restrictions cease to apply on December 21. Just for comparison the indefinite sanctions on User:Abd (which can be appealed) state: "Abd is prohibited from participating in discussion of any dispute in which he is not one of the originating parties, unless approved by his mentor(s). This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution. He would be allowed to vote or comment at polls." So editing restrictions on WP:ANI have been imposed before; but not by the community and never upon a devout bacon-evangelist. Mathsci (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we revisit Abd's sanction? What were the grounds for the restriction? When was it imposed? If he's been on the straight and narrow subsequently then it seems a good opportunity to reconsider whether the restrictions are needed going forward. We should always do our best to avoid punishing those who donate their time here in good faith. Working together collegially should always be the goal. Thanks for reminding me about when my restrictions will be lessened. They should have been reviewed long ago, (they're based mostly on a single trumped up edit warring allegation) but devoting the time to have the nonsense reviewed at Arbcom didn't seem worthwhile to me. Cheers. Make sure not to do any more envelope pushing as far as outting goes Mathsci. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

With contributions like this, CoM, ripe with misspellings and misreadings, are you surprised people see your contributions on WP:ANI as disruptive? They are not collegial, they are designed to WP:BAIT other editors and create drama. Nice try, though. Mathsci (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

PS Please refactor "Make sure not to do any more envelope pushing as far as outting goes Mathsci." You can leave the smilie. Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As you well know, Abd's case was mentioned to note that this sort of An/I banning has been done before, and is certainly an option on the table for you. Tarc (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• At the risk of tilting at windmills and going somewhat off topic I'll actually answer C of M's question, "Do all crimes by politicians that are reliably sourced warrant stand-alone articles? What are the other determining factors?" The answer to the first is, of course, no—when a city council member gets busted with pot and it's covered only in one local, small circulation newspaper we won't write an article on that. Larry Craig was a sitting U.S. Senator, the "scandal" was massively reported all over the place, and it directly led to the loss of his senate seat as he otherwise would have sought (and won) re-election. So the primary other determining factor here, and in most cases, was the fact that this was a highly notable incident. Additionally, there are concerns of undue weight (and BLP, the reality is 180 degrees from what C of M suggests) here as we could not allow the scandal to overwhelm the Larry Craig article, and as such a split off article discussed somewhat in the main article was a good solution per WP:SUMMARY (see also here, this, that, and the other thing—all full articles on sex scandals involving very prominent Democrats). I would also point C of M to the article Chappaquiddick incident about another (now deceased) sitting Senator and a scandal/crime involving him. Closer to our time, it would be appropriate in my view to create an article on the scandal/crime surrounding William J. Jefferson and that is being discussed on that article talk page apparently. Closer to the Larry Craig scandal in type (though I think no crime was involved), I think it's likely we would have an article on Bob Packwood's travails had Wikipedia been around in 1992 (it was a huge story at the time). All of this should rather go without saying, and of course the fact that Craig has an article on his scandal is not indicative of some kind of conspiracy among Wikipedians, nor is it evidence for C of M's ludicrous claim that "the BLP policy [is] only for people we as a community respect." If some sort of liberal cabal (or something, I have no idea what C of M has in mind) were running rampant surely the 3,000+ word article on the Chappaquiddick incident would not have been allowed to exist for three-plus years (in addition to the others cited above), nor would this have been allowed to stand for nearly 7 years now. Hopefully that puts a rest to ChildofMidnight's concerns. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Technicality?

I cannot comment on this particular discussion, but on the general topic of "banning" editors from ANI, I find that to be of some concern philosophically, especially as the top of the page says, "Any user of Wikipedia may post here." As I understand "any", that means "any, without exception." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

But the same applies to almost all spaces on wikipedia (with a few exceptions, such as archived pages, ArbCom PD pages, etc). Yet users are topic or page banned, sometimes conditionally, either by the community or ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Moreover that provision can be altered I would think. "Any user of Wikipedia may post here unless prohibited by the Community or the Arbitration Committee." Or words to that effect. Crafty (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A late comment on freedom of speech - in a free country, a minority voice should be able to walk into a bar full of soldiers and cry that dropping bombs on children is a bad thing, and the soldiers should respect that opinion and do the guy no harm. Soldiers are after all sworn to protect the constitution, which enshrines (among other things) freedom of speech. If the soldiers react violently then they are clearly in the wrong. The minority voice then should be able to complain that he got beaten up by the bad men with guns, and all right-thinking people should then leap to his defence and protection. Anything else is mob-rule. At the end of that road stand crematoriums. Let's learn from history. Wdford (talk) 08:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a free country, it's an encyclopedia-building project. Mob rule has essentially governed Wikipedia from the start. We're not going to send anyone to crematoriums. Let's avoid hyperbole.   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is a red-herring issue, as there is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia, or any other website for that matter. The capability of anyone to edit anything in wikipedia is not a "right" but a matter of policy. "The encyclopedia anyone can edit", is obviously not literally true. I'm just saying that I don't think any editor who's theoretically in good standing should be kept out of ANI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree, except that wikipolicy forms the "constitution" of the encyclopedia, and the constitution seemingly does allow all to participate. Like any constitution it does limit free speech, but only in clearly defined circumstances for the common good, and the legitimacy of restrictions are to be judged by an impartial judicial process (i.e. NOT by a mob.) The issue here thus should not be "is CoM breaking the rules by disagreeing with the mob", the issue should be "is CoM breaking the rules by materially disrupting the project?" We need however to be careful to ensure that "disagreeing with the mob" does not become synonymous with "disrupting the project". If only the mob has access to argue at ANI, then that conflation has already happened. Wdford (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: ANI is a long enough page as it is. If we want to have a philosophical/policy discussion on banning users from ANI etc under certain conditions, that's a discussion that should take place elsewhere. It is not a novel idea by any means, and has been implemented several times before, so there is no pressing reason to discuss the principle here. Rd232 ^talk 09:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

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

User:KillerChihuahua issuing block threats during a dispute she is invovled in

Resolved

 – Still resolved. Issues raised have been addressed.

A couple of days ago I was involved in a content dispute with User:KillerChihuahua at New England Institute for Religious Research during which she was siding with User:Cirt, which she is more than welcome to do. An even more recent dispute with User:Cirt, which is tangentially related to that dispute, brought me to post at the RS/N regarding the matter. The specific book review under dispute, which is sourced to the Midwest Book Review at Twisted Scriptures is, as far as I know and no one has stated otherwise, only available on Amazon.com. For those who know nothing about The Midwest Book Review it is not a print publication itself, but an organization that prints other publications (under different names) and also writes reviews directly for the web. Anyway, User:KillerChihuahua soon appeared at the RS/N, sharing Cirt's opinion, which of course is absolutely fine once again. However, in that forum, as well as in the previous one, she has been engaging with me in a very uncivil manner from the beginning. Usually I have thick skin and don't go running off to AN/I about such things, but KC is in admin and she is now edit warring with me and issuing me block warnings. He, and Cirt, claim that I am "spamming" ("tendentiously" according to KC) simply because I reviewed some Midwest Book Review attributed Amazon reviews and posted them to the discussion in a subsection -- something I believe is completely appropriate due to statements made by the editor in chief regarding these reviews and the fact that the initial review that brought me to the RS/N can only be found on Amazon. It is the hiding of these reviews that KC is edit warring over and issuing warnings to me about. I tried suggesting, prior to her second warning, that she ask an uninvolved admin to step in, but she shows no sign of doing this. I find it completely inappropriate for her to edit war and and issue these warnings when she is involved in this dispute directly. Rather than escalate it there or edit war myself into a block I'm coming here to ask for advice/help. I will note that I have tried very hard to remain civil with KC over the past couple of days, striking any comment she has remotely taken the wrong way for instance, but it seems like she's out to get me or something. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I"m female, and those are standard warning templates. I have not bothered to ask an uninvolved admin to step in yet, because I am hopeful you'll stop stalking Cirt and engaging edit wars and starting tendentious arguments. There is no guideline against issuing warnings; almost all warnings are from "involved" people because they see the undesirable behavior. As you've brought it here, though, I request an uninvolved admin keep an eye on PelleSmith, whose actions regarding Cirt, and now myself, are questionable at best. Please note, for example, that I am described as "siding with Cirt" not "Cirt and KC held the opposing view in a dispute with me" or a similar non-accusatory phrasing. I for one am tired of the near constant low-level insults and baiting from this editor. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The male/female thing is a dumb sloppiness on my part and I apologize for that wholeheartedly.PelleSmith (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Went through and fixed this.PelleSmith (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the content dispute, I don't see how posting warnings is a problem. If you don't think the warnings are applicable then you can ignore them. While admins should not use their tools in a dispute, there's no rule that I'm aware of preventing anyone from warning anyone else of potential policy violations. It's common for involved parties to remind each other of 3RR violations, for example.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Also without comment on the general issues of the dispute, imo it is totally ok that to warn other users that they are in danger of violating 3RR and any user can do it, and should actually, it is a good faith note . It is not related to KillersChihuahua Admin status. This seems like a content issue and dispute resolution WP:DR is your best location for action. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

How does the other party in an edit war get to issue 3RR warnings? This is not about 3RR but about her interpretation that I'm spamming the RS/N, and using that as a rationale to hide my comment.PelleSmith (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that anyone can issue warnings of incorrect behaviour, if the "other party" is behaving wrongly then they too will face the possibility of a block. Your comments did seem to be extensively veering away from the purpose of the page, and your complaint would be better dealt with on the article talk page in my opinion. Evidently dispute resolution has been suggested, that's the appropriate way forward, not SNI. . . dave souza, talk 23:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It was not a 3rr warning. It was a spam warning. If there is consensus that I'm spamming that page please tell me. I'll apologize at once, but I don't appreciate someone on the other side of the argument hiding my comments because she interprets them to be SPAM, and then warning me for engaging the RS/N inappropriately.PelleSmith (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Off2riorob, I have already suggested WP:DR to PelleSmith. He seems averse to the idea, I am sorry to say. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

KC can you please provide a diff of this. I'm have a hard time finding it. With the flurry of activity surrounding this in the last two days I don't trust my memory, in which I can't remember reading such a suggestion, so a diff would be appreciated. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at 3 or 4 articles so far, it appears PelleSmith (talk · contribs) is barking like a big dog. That needs to stop. Toddst1 (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Concur, and appreciate you stepping in. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? Can you please explain how I'm hounding anyone? Those pages are all related. The final one, which is at the heart of the RS/N dispute I arrived at first.PelleSmith (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(copied from Toddst1's talk page since I've been redirected here) -- Toddst1, may I ask you why you think I'm hounding him? Because I made one edit to one page that I noticed in his edit history? The other three on which we have engaged in the last few days are all related to each other and I got the first in a manner wholly unrelated to Cirt -- New England Institute of Religious Research. The other two pages are linked to that one ... or I should say the one directly Twisted Scriptures and the third Midwest Book Review linked to that page. He followed me to this third page and the the RS/N. Of course I think nothing of that since its all part of a related dispute stemming from the first page. But then again I'm no accusing him of stalking me either. Have you reviewed the entire situation carefully? I'm just wondering. I don't want to hound anyone, and this is all in my general area of interest to begin with. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It is, unfortunately, common practice on Wikipedia for edit warriors to issue warnings to the other side of the dispute. It's a piss poor approach to conflict resolution, and if you respond in kind a new round of accusations will start. A courteous note suggesting means of dispute resolution would be better practice, espcially from an admin. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed where I mentioned it above, CoM - I did suggest DR. PelleSmith was not interested. This was well before the warnings. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I might have missed it. I was commenting more generally on edit warriors issuing warnings to the other side of the dispute. I think it's an odious practice so I was disappointed to see it being condoned. I haven't had a chance to look into the underlying content in dispute in this case, it seems a bit droll, but I did notice that you accused another editor (who gives every appearance of acting in good faith and with some courtesy) of "stalking", "engaging (in) edit wars" and "starting tendentious arguments", in the same paragraph where you complain about being "tired of the near constant low-level insults and baiting from this editor." ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly I disagree, as well as with some of your comments in the "close" above, but not enough to fuss about it. Merely noting here for the record. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"I haven't had a chance to look into the underlying content in dispute in this case". In that case it was "uncollegial" and inappropriate for CoM to close this discussion and to write such an "odious" and clueless closing summary. Mathsci (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Other disputes with CoM or general questions regarding his editing of AN/I aside I actually agree with his general sentiment regarding the appropriateness of my original post. I think dispute resolution would have been a more appropriate venue for me. I posted here because I felt frustrated and baited at the RS/N, not to mention intimidated since an admin was issuing me warnings. Posting to AN/I was a rash decision on my part. Regarding the WP:HOUND accusation I've posted a detailed followup question to the uninvolved admin who warned me about hounding. See -- User_talk:Toddst1#Still_wondering_about_hounding. If you want to move this here please do so by all means. I'm happy to discuss this issue further.PelleSmith (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Serious concern

Resolved

 – /me resolves and archives thread early, leading to demands that thread be reopened immediately, edit warring over the resolved tag, (and more cries of "CENSORSHIP!") --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There have been no new threads on this noticeboard for 9 hours. This concerns me. Is everyone off doing something productive? Because if you are, this is a terrible development. Daniel (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

/me blocks Daniel for 2 minutes for trolling (and in order to stoke some Drama to keep Daniel happy). ;~)--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm ftw. :) Daniel (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

/me starts endless thread arguing about the validity of the block, the definition of troll, whether "troll" is a personal attack or not, and make sure I include ADMIN ABUSE and CENSORSHIP several times. There, that ought to cover it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is what happens when users accept the invitation to have cups of tea and cup cakes. It all ends in tears. Mathsci (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2009

Bah, just another blatant attempt to silence the "disruptive" minority. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:50, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Unarchived because... um... I#m an admin, I haven#t been very active recently, and I#m sure I will want to say something profound about this (or, indeed, any other) matter before Christmas. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This thread cannot be closed until someone mentions WP:DEADHORSE. Truly disruptive, I call for the heads of any admins who let this happen! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This thread made my morning, sitting here w/ my coffe, laughing my ass off. Merry Xmas y'all. Thanks. Ps, CLIMB DOWN FROM THE REICHSTAG!!!Heironymous Rowe (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of process. You cannot mention Reichstag climbing on Wikipedia without also mentioning Spiderman costumes. I call for immediate sanctions and a posting on several other pages, per WP:FORUMSHOP. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This thread is a copyvio of my IRC witticism. The nominator will be tarred and feathered for releasing zomg private logs. This decision has been made after a quick canvass and consensus of five 14 year old virgins on IRC and cannot be overruled.  Skomorokh  15:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyio? I will sue you in a court of law in Trenton, NJ! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"This decision has been made after a quick canvass and consensus of five 14 year old virgins on IRC and cannot be overruled." -- Great line, I LOL'd :) Equazcion ^(talk) 16:19, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Daniel, I'm sorry, but you have forgotten to notify yourself all named and anonymous editors of Wikipedia of this thread, as you are of course required to do. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone relax. Dramam levels at normal levels. Viridae^Talk 05:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Serious insults! This person does NOT stop insulting me and he does not stop smearing my name with false accusations!

Resolved

 – Editor blocked. I will continue to watch the situation. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This person, in the name of Peter Lee has been calling me, now already for over 5 years, a vandal, a deceit and many other insults. Most of the time he does that in the edit summary. I have totally had it with him. He has been warned by admins so often, but so far no admin is actually taking further steps. How many more warnings does he need to get, before finally some admin will punish his constant incivility with a block??? By now he "knows" that he can get away with his constant insults and incivility, because he will only get warnings anyway...

The most recent insults can be found here:

On the talk page of GKIF

• reverting my good edits, which I thorougly explained in the Talk Page and was agreed by NeilN. In the summary he calls my edits "vandalism" and accuses me of starting another edit war
• Same thing. A unnecessary revert with insults like "vandalism and speculation"
• accusing me of starting an edit war, after I removed an external link that has no business in the article (link did not contain the information claimed in the article
• A revert by Peter Lee, calling it "crap done by Mario Roering", where it wasn't even my edit, but that of a person using the name TenChiJin
• Again saying in the summary "Undoing Mario Roering's vandalism", whereas it was a contrib of TenChiJin, not mine

On World Genseiryū Karatedō Federation

• Read the summary! Reverted my edits. He calls it vandalism, but what I did is I removed disputed, unreferenced information that is from the point of view of ONE person only
• undid the changes by TenChiJin, then claiming that it was me! I am NOT TenChiJin!
• undid my edits, where I removed unsourced, false accusations in the article. Peter reverted it and claims in the summary that it's ME who is making the false accusations and spreading slander. Humbug! It's obvious that it's HIM who is slandering people's names and putting false accusations in the article(s)

On the talk page of NeilN

• On NeilN's talk page he again accuses me of vandalism
• here he is not just insulting me, but also another Wikipedian, NeilN
• Again, accusing me of starting edit war, claiming I have more than 1 account on Wikipedia, claiming I am TenChiJin (another Wikipedian) and many other insults that would raise somebody's hair!!!

And so on, and so on... This list is just a part of all the insults and false accusations I had to take for the last 2-3 weeks but really, it is endless!!!!! Have a quick look in the summaries of his contributions!) There is NO end to it... Constantly insulting me and also other people, making false accusations and so on... UN-acceptable!!!

And I won't even go into his accusations of socket puppetry. After a strong final warning by NeilN, he did stop that...

I had to take his insults now for over FIVE YEARS. With his insults and (false) accusations, my name gets smeared over Wikipedia (and therefor over the entire internet!), which is absolutely unacceptable. Can somebody please do something more than just giving another (final) warning?!?!? Thank you! MarioR 13:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I see KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has left them a final warning of sorts. –xeno^talk 13:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Nods, and he hasn't edited since. I'm watching. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that that wasn't what Mario asked for, surely five years of this is a bit excessive and deserving of a bit more than a warning. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Also you're ignoring that I issued that warning before this thread on ANI, so I could hardly have known what he'd "ask for", and noting also that just because you ask doesn't mean I'm going to block without issuing a final warning. Otherwise I'd be really popular with the POV pushers, edit warriors and trolls, as a "block on demand" admin. No, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. I originally spotted the original post on Wikiquette alerts and at that point no warning was on Peter Lee's talk page, so I assumed you'd just done this now. My apologies. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No apology needed: I don't always notice the date/timestamp myself. But your implication that ANI is a short-order drive through for getting blocks is a bit more worrisome. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Was this ever brought to ANI, WQA, etc before today/yesterday? Tan | 39 14:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, user issued block in the past [85]. Gerardw (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

May I kindly point out that the block mentioned above by Gerardw was for edit warring, not for his incivility, insults and false accusations... MarioR 16:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement of blocking admin was "To clarify, your conduct in this matter has been quite unacceptable, both in your engagement in an edit war and the extreme incivility in your edit summaries." Gerardw (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. It was written in the text below the template. I missed that... MarioR 19:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Peter_Lee_and_Mario_Roering and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive579#World_Genseiry.C5.AB_Karate-d.C5.8D_Federation. Both editors are here to push viewpoints but Mario doesn't overtly cross the civility line and has made some contributions to other articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I have just notified Peter Lee of this discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The accusations put forward by myself, are in fact defense against those attacks put forward by Mario Roering himself. I will refrain from putting an extremely long list of violations here done by Mario Roering, as I see it deserving no purpose. The fact is, that Mario Roering has dedicated his hole life to lying, defamation, accusations, slander, copyright violation and smearing my name and that of the Genseiryū Karate-do International Federation, our president, Kunihiko Tosa, and more. He has dedicated a great number of pages on his own homepage to reach his goal, and he has and is using free webhosting such a guestbooks, YouTube and other video sites, he has and is using sockpuppetry (on sites different from Wikipedia, shown and proven by indisputable evidence) etc. etc. Mario Roering's intensions are not noble in any way whatsoever. His contributions here, aside from Genseiryu related articles, are of no concern. Mario Roering is trying to portray himself as an innocent person, who is attacked for no reason by myself. That is not true either. I will here, once again, request, that you all are not taken in by his candy talking, decitful behavour and the like. He is not a person to be trusted. This is indeed my honest opionion, and no insults were intendedn. But if Wikipedia admins/sysops cannot or will not see the situation and the violations in its proper context, people like Mario Roering will be able to continue his manipulation and exploitation of good people here. In fact, Wikipedia is the only website on the Internet still making it an issue, where endless discussions has to be made over and over again. In my view, there is nothing to discuss, as the true intentions of Mario Roering and his violations are clear, not only violation of guidelines/rules on Wikipedia, but violation of regular legislation and law such as the penal code etc. If Wikipedia would stop Mario Roering in this regard, being civil, show good faith and show that I am wrong about his attentions, by completely removing any and all contents on the Internet dedicated to defamation on my person, then perhaps we could get started on a friendly talks. Before that happens, I will take no part in direct talks with Mario Roering, as he has shown on any and all occasions for the past 5 years, that he is a man of lesser moral, lesser ethics and no remorse towards breaking the law, violate my copyright etc. I hope that this sets things into perspective, and shows the true nature of this dispute?? Peter Lee (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours, with advice to AGF, comment on content, not editor, accusations without difs are worse than useless, etc. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As a suggestion to all... and sorry if I soapbox here... the article itself is/was messy. Facts are important and we should get them right. But beyond that it is important to edi articles to be clear and informative to the reader. Too often I see parties fighting over a single issue to the point where an article sustains damage from careless rapid-fire changes. Although not the best copy editor in the world, in a few minutes I've managed to make an improvement,[86] with things like putting the punctuation before, not after, the footnote reference, making sure it is clear what pronouns ("this", "it") refer to, and using active verbs in a sentence actually rather than being indirect ("Bob flew to Moscow", not "Moscow is also the city where Bob flew"). If you find yourself getting frustrated with other editors, sometimes it's best to refocus your attention to simply improving the article in any way you can, instead of where the dispute is. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009#Results? –xeno^talk 14:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that results have been released yet. Just a lot of discussion on when they will be released and why there's a delay while votes are checked... ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

User:OutOfTimer and bad faith

While trying to improve the Little Big Adventure‎ article, we have been faced with multiple bad faith accusations of vandalism and even sockpuppetry from User:OutOfTimer after attempts to warn him] and discuss the issue on the talk page it continues and it's getting a little tedious, edit war issues aside. Rehevkor ✉ 16:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have protected this page for three days due to the edit warring. Rehevkor, it appears you are just as guilty of edit warring as the other editors - you cannot keep reverting simply because you disagree with the edits (or that there's "no consensus"). That said, the reversion due to "suspected sockpuppetry" was also out of line. Bottom line - everyone at this page needs to chill the hell out. Tan | 39 16:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I only reverted 3 times. You can see on the talk page I was trying to bring up discussion on the issue long before I did any reverting, which I only did when bad faith accusations came into the picture. Rehevkor ✉ 16:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you violated 3RR; I said you were edit warring. I agree that there are "bad faith accusations", but I think the larger issue is the ongoing edit war. It needs to stop - by all involved parties. Tan | 39 16:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Bringing the issue here was my way of washing my hands of the article, I will no longer have any involvement in it. Sorry to have been of any inconvenience. Rehevkor ✉ 16:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to worry about the well-being of this article as there are several editors that consider it a high priority. We will do everything we can to keep it in good shape. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 17:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry for engaging in an edit war that ultimately caused trouble for the Admins. Even though I regret it came down to this, I believe there was a serious reason for my actions. User:Eik Corell is well-known for blind content deletion in various parts of the encyclopedia, which is prominently reflected by his talk page. There are dozens of instances of users complaining about his behaviour. It also seems to me that content deletion is at the core of his "contribution." In addition, neither User:Eik Corell, nor User:Rehevkor have sufficient knowledge of the topic of the article in question. Furthermore, it was not myself that first accused the latter party of sock-puppetry, which in my opinion implies that there were well grounded reasons for such an accusation. However, I do realise that this accusation is most likely far-fetched and want to apologise for it. Last but not least, I want to assure everyone that my only concern is providing accurate and valuable information to the visitors of our encyclopedia and that I have acted in good faith. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 17:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be sensible to consider locking Little Big Adventure 2 as well. User:Eik Corell engaged in content deletion in that article, too. The only difference is that I was not as determined to stop him and he only bullied other editors. I have to admit that having this edit war in dispute resolution is a shame. There are very serious problems discussed here (legal threats, for example), whereas we have a problem with a user that deletes content from a game-related article. Just sad. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 17:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Eik's Talk page looks to me like only edit warriors keep complaining about his edits there. Have you discussed his edits on the article's Talk page and/or followed the procedures at WP:DR, or are you merely happy to keep edit warring to get your version of things into the article in question? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Admins watching this may wish to note that OutofTimer is making personal attacks against those he had this issue with at [87], along with some against myself. Similarly the editor who communicated with User:OBrasilo, is apparently helping this "friend" in the dispute above and also engaging in personal attacks (referring to myself, the Erik Corell mentioned here, and two others as "idiots").[88] Whether there was edit warring going on or not, it seems clear that there is more to the issue here and OutOfTimer seems to be far from acting in "good faith" as he claims, considering his remarks about said editor and others, and the calls for assistance passing between two of these involved parties. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have the right to talk whatever I want in my private conversations with other people. That should be none of your concern. I am a world-class expert on Little Big Adventure, therefore (1) assuming that I act in bad faith towards my favourite game is ridiculous and (2) I will not engage in a discussion with you until you prove to me that you completed this game at least once, which would make you a little more than a n00b in this field. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 22:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

1 - conversations on Wikipedia are not private, and no, you don't get to insult other editors on your talk page either (nor here in calling someone a n00b). 2 - thanks for proving the point of the complaints here, and go read WP:OWN. Declaring that no one can discuss an article unless they have played the game is not only a strong display of ownership, but also completely against Wikipedia's actual nature and guidelines. Thanks -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a lie. I did not insult you and only mentioned that you and I met before, which you are well aware of. I'm a man of highest intellectual capacity and do not use direct insults. When I first came here I had great hopes. However, you and your pals crashed them. I don't have the time and energy to be part of a community that does not respect my knowledge and skills. Depending on the field, they may be proven by rankings, certificates, dyplomas and so on and so forth. Here, however, I'm forced to defend myself against teenagers who have no idea what they're talking about. You'd be ridiculed in any serious community, because nowhere else are people with no expertise allowed to make any judgements. Maybe you have no expertise in anything and that's why you waste your life engaging in all this. Let me tell you a little story. Not so long ago I talked to two famous Supreme Commander players and commented on a Replay we watched. One of them asked me "What is your ranking?" and I answered "I'm World Top 1000." Then the other guy said "then shut the hell up, n00b, and be thankful that we give you the chance to listen to us and learn." So I did. When you decide you need somebody with actual knowledge to write articles in your encyclopedia, you know where to find me. I'll be glad to write something about FullMetal Alchemist, Little Big Adventure or anything else you fancy. For now, however, I'm tired of disrespect I get from people like you. Feel free to edit your Little Big Adventure article and have a good life. Oh yes, and don't foget to stay here forever because someone may decide to change it someday. I hope you'll still be around to defend your decisions against their incompetency. Otherwise you may end up just like me. Wikipedia, on the other hand, may end up in the hands of a huge corporation to be used as a marketing tool. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 22:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian: Declaring that no one can discuss an article unless they have played the game is not only a strong display of ownership, but also completely against Wikipedia's actual nature and guidelines. - Yeah, let people who have no idea what they're talking about discuss these issues. LOL OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 23:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, because telling people they are a "n00b" is not an insult, and your whole response here isn't? Perhaps you might try reviewing WP:CIVIL, which others have pointed you to several times already. It is a bit amusing to have a self-declared undergrad student claiming he is having to defend himself against "teenagers", when you appear to be the youngest person in the conversation (of those who have actually declared their general age). Your playing the game does not somehow make you an expert, it does not give you "authority" over the article nor the discussion, and it does not give you the right to speak to others in a false superior manner or declare them incompetent to work on the article. Go write a bunch of video game books, get published, speak at conventions, etc, then you may at least make the argument that you are a expert being ignored. Otherwise, you are no more an expert than any other video gamer, and on Wikipedia your "expertise" is irrelevant. Again, no, you do not have to play the game to be able to work on article about it or discuss any article, particular with regard to the seeming issue here of what is and is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have asked OutOfTimer repeatedly, in the nicest ways possible to: Share his specific complaints, remain civil, not call my edits "vandalism", read the policies I link to. Thus far, no dice on any of them. I deal with these types of accusations often because fans don't understand the policies I edit by -- WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:GAMEGUIDE, and WP:OR --, and that's why this keeps continuing - Vandal! Outsider! Meanypants! It doesn't what I tell them, it doesn't matter if I explain the policies and how they relate, they want their gamecruft and gameguide stuff - And I have no right to edit it because I haven't played the game. I have linked OutOfTimer to these policies several times, and I am frankly tired of this. I am however impressed how quickly he composed himself once this was taken to ANI. If only he could do that in his normal edits and discussions. Eik Corell (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

OutOfTimer, I will give you this advice, which I suggest you remember: this is an encyclopedia. To keep the site a functioning encyclopedia, we have policies. Read the policies listed above. Just because I'm the lord of all penguins doesn't mean I am the only one qualified to edit the penguin article. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 23:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

IMPORTANT MESSAGE: I promise not to engage in the disruptive behaviour that was kindly pointed out to me by several users both above and on my talk page. I neither have the time, nor do I have the will to continue this argument or any other future argument of this sort for that matter. I accept User:Collectonian's interpretation of recent events. I will not edit Little Big Adventure anymore (unless a minor correction is needed). I will also do my best to avoid any future confrontations with other users and minimise the risk of producing edits that may not be considered valuable by the community. I'd like to underline the fact that my intentions were always positive and I hope Wikipedia will survive the weight of all its policies. I will also stop posting my personal remarks on Wikipedia as they're either ignored or making others angry. I hope this concludes the discussion. I'm sorry for all the trouble that I might've caused. Thank you. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 23:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian, how nice of you to be so much against insults and inappropriate behavior, when I attmepted to civilly talk about you on your Talk page about Tokyo Mew Mew international adaptations, and you kept replying with excuses, and when you were finally left with no proper excuses to use, you simply deleted the conversation. You know, you won't solve disagreements by censorship. Also, you need to teach yourself a lesson as well - while expertise doesn't give you ultimate authority on an article, bringing one to FA status doesn't either, yet, you used that as reason, why you're more qualified to edit the Tokyo Mew Mew articles, than I am. Instead of elitistically marking any disagreements with how FA-status articles are written, as insults, and deleting them in an attempt to censor the talk pages, you should be able to discuss them.

And talk about bad faith, and assuming good faith - when I once made the article about plagiarism by Green Day, which was well-sourced, to several YouTube video's, and press pages, it got speedily deleted as a personal attack, even though it could have just been modified to be more formal, and less accusatory. Why didn't people assume good faith there? After all, my intention with the article wasn't to attack Green Day, but to point out, how a lot of their songs sound at least similar to other people's song, which in my humble opinion, is worth noting. I notice a lot, how the Italian Wikipedia has no problems mentioning that the song has plagiarism issues, or stuff like that, whereas Wikipedia avoids it even on the cases, where such was argued in court.
Also, I do apologize for my insults posted in my talk page, I shouldn't have done that. But fact still stands, that I currently have problems with you, Eik Corell, Rehevkor, SchmuckyTheCat, and Ned Scott.
To Lord of all penguins, yes, we have policies, but one would expect people to have some brains, and attempt to change policies, when needed, since the current policies are creating a lot of problems. Just look at the article on danah boyd where users keep saying the article can't use the lowercase spelling on her name (which, BTW, is the one preferred by her, AND her legal name at that), just because "reliable sources" don't use it. This "verifiability, not truth" approach won't help Wikipedia in the long run, since with such an approach, all Wikipedia will ever be, is a cherry-picked collection of knowledge, that was published by major press/TV/sites, mostly ones from the Anglosphere, and as such, only barely useful, and mostly only useful to the people from the Anglosphere.
Whenever I search Wikipedia on legal matters, I nearly universally only find US law stuff, which I couldn't care less, since I'm not in the US. When I search about TV stuff, I get US and UK (and Canada) stuff, but no other stuff, except if I specifically list the country's name in the search (the main articles don't even link to those per country articles, LOL). Maybe you people should realize, that the whole world can access, and does access, Wikipedia, and English is an international language, so the vast majority of the users of the English Wikipedia are from outside the Anglosphere. So making the English Wikipedia so Anglosphere-centric is, IMO, a bad idea.
And about Eik Corell, and Rehevkor - they need to explain to me, why can the article on the japanese Visual Novel games have detailed lists of all their versions, whereas the articles on Western games can't. And Collectonian should explain to me, why is an Non-English versions of The Simpsons article OK, but a Non-English adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew not. - OBrasilo (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:Wmcdan4479

Resolved

 – Indeffed by Tnxman Tan | 39 17:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wmcdan4479 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been removing cited material from Jane Krakowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and I have been reverting and warning. User's latest edit summary contains an explicit legal threat. – ukexpat (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's time for Wmcdan4479 to be shone the door. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Shown, and yes, at least for the moment. Already done. Marking resolved. Tan | 39 17:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Resolved. – ukexpat (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Federer–Hewitt rivalry

I started the AfD process for this article just now but found that it has already been deleted via AfD. It has been recreated today and should be removed in line with the previous AfD decision. Could an admin please take the appropriate action. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, comparing to the text of the original article, and the reasons for delete listed at the AFD, this new creation seems to address some of the problems related to notability, especially in the much expanded lead section, which was entirely missing from the first time around. It may be worth it to run another AFD because of the improvements since last time. --Jayron32 22:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If I saw this come up at CSD as Gwhatevernumberitis as a recreation, I would decline it. There is prose now and links that may indicate notability, and is sufficiently different to the previous version to need a seperate AfD. GedUK  10:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

User:JHunterJ violating WP policies.

User:JHunterJ is violating WP policies. There is a WP:RM Calbuco, Los Lagos -> Calbuco pending from 11 Dec. But he is moving anyway. There is Calbuco (disambiguation) where he deletes valid content. He deletes pages claiming the deletion falls under G6, but G6 says "Uncontroversial maintenance", the deletion is not uncontrovertial. He has been warned, his reply shows that he had no valid reason to delete content and also that he has no complete understanding of the policies he cites. This misunderstandings in his head are showing again in another reply by him. Such admin behavior drives away editors!!! Please can some admin review whether Calbuco Island was deleted and by whom? I think I created that page in the last 48h hours but can see no evidence. TrueColour (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Calbuco Island has never been an article on the English Wikipedia. You apparently did not create it; it has not been deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see nothing wrong here. You could try to work with him rather than taking an adversarial stance from the first contact you make on his talk page. This appears to be a content dispute between the two of you, and if you tried to work it out together, I don't think there's much to do here. You should also notify him of this discussion. --Jayron32 22:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Calbuco Island note. Still his other policy violations apply. After I warned him he went on to violate G6 etc. Are you here for proper process or are you just defending a fellow admin??? I notified him of the WP:ANI thread, took a little longer since I included some extra info. TrueColour (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick statement to confirm that I am aware of this AN/I. I am happy to see that the rest appears to be clear. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• It appears this was the first attempt at discussing this (let me know if I'm wrong). I wonder if this place would work better if MediaWiki was tweaked to disallow the phrase "warning", or in particular "formal warning", to appear on user talk pages. A conversation that begins with a "formal warning" is unlikely to evolve into a productive discussion without lots of wasted time, energy, and bad karma. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Now he also closed the WP:RM. What is this? The private WP of some admins? He was acting in violation so I had to warn him to stop this! The bad karma comes from admins like JHunterJ. Who violated the policies in the first place? Me or him? Who has no complete understanding of WP:MOSDAB and is making up own conditions for MOS:DABRL and even after being asked for clarification defending this own creations. This is not official WP policy: Red links are used on disambiguation pages when (a) the red link is also used in a Wikipedia article and (b) the red link entry on the disambiguation page includes a blue link to a Wikipedia article that discusses the ambiguous topic. This is private policy of him and maybe some other editors. TrueColour (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • TrueColour, your consistant refusal to assume good faith in other users is disheartening, and is likely to be a self-fulfilling delusion here as people begin to become stretched thin by your adversarial attitude. Others (and myself) have already told you that if you tried to work with, rather than against, JHunterJ, and took a tone of voice which was collegial and cooperative, you would get much farther in resolving this issue. From the first, you have basically set yourself up as an opponent rather than a collaborator, and such a stance makes it hard for any of us to help you. --Jayron32 23:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, this is nonsense. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calbuco_(disambiguation)&diff=331922488&oldid=331908855 - JHunterJ is just sticking to delete valid material. Only because he is an admin he cannot override rules and invent his own. TrueColour (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You do not appear to be hearing what Jayron32 is saying; why not discuss your concerns with JHunterJ in a manner which indicates you are willing to work toward an agreed solution? Coming here and complaining that JHJ is abusing his admin bit when it appears that this is simply a content dispute with someone with a great deal of experience of editing Wikipedia is not going to get any traction. You can choose to either attempt the collaborative editing model that forms the core of Wikipedia editing, or you can simply assume that as Jayron32 and I are also both admins we are simply ganging up on you... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem not to care about his editing. That he is "Experienced" - what is the value? He makes up his own rules. Do you call "Collaborative editing" when he makes up his own rules out of his mind and enforces them? Is it collaborative if he deletes valid references from a dab page? Is it collaborative to move a page while there is a WP:RM pending? This behavior is very bad. And yours too. It seems here are a lot of people that have the same attitude as him. You are making Wikipedia bad looking if admins do what they want even if it is against policies and against the very core of WP: create a good encyclopedia. TrueColour (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No one has displayed any "attitude" here. You came here seeking a solution to your problem. We have given you a solution. Here's how to fix your problem, in three easy steps:

1. Understand that JHunterJ is not an enemy or opponent
2. Start a civil discussion with him about the issue
3. Work with him towards building a consensus solution

Your approach to this point has consisted of: 1) see something I don't agree with 2) demand that the person doing it gets punished. That approach is unlikely to yield positive results for you. Why not at least try the plan we have laid out for you? --Jayron32 15:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• JHunterJ deleting several blue links. And the reference to the 2nd Calbuco Department! TrueColour (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  And restored the new blue links from your 3RR violation nearly an hour before you complained about the deletion here. [89] -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

TrueColor blocked for 31 hours pursuant to JHunterJ's WP:ANEW report -- and yes, I did read through this first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination)

Resolved

 – After reviewing the messages left, they appear to rest squarely on the "friendly notice" side of the WP:CANVASS scale –xeno^talk 22:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

.

I believe that User:Ikip has violated the canvassing rules by notifying every one of the users who !voted here about this re-nomination AFD. As all of the comments on the first AFD (held over a year and a half ago) were speedy keep, it could grossly affect the outcome of the AFD and this is not very neutral. Much time has moved on, and attitudes have changed, but it looks like this user notified the old !voters because the discussion was not initially going "his way". WossOccurring (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears per WP:AGF that he is merely doing the courteous thing. I would advise also notifying all the editors who commented in the other two discussions and everyone who ever edited the article as well. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

He has notified over 20 "regurlar editors", who would all presumably vote keep (otherwise they wouldn't be regular editors), some of whom he appears to be familiar with. This is ridiculously excessive. Note that User:A Nobody voted speedy keep in the AFD too. WossOccurring (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A much bigger concern is why an article for which two discussions that closed as clear "keeps" is being renominated on factually inaccurate bases? The claim that it is not covered in multiple reliable sources is untrue per such New York Times articles as "New Hot Properties: YouTube Celebrities", for example? Unquestionably the phenemonen of YouTube celebrities has been covered in reliable sources. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Diversion tactics won't wash. Please leave AFD-related discussions to the relevant AFD page. This discussion is about canvassing. I'd appreciate it if someone else, preferably an uninvolved admin, now had their say. WossOccurring (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A Nobody, this is irrelevant. Ikip (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

When you bring something to ANI, the discussion can take on all sorts of direction, especially if we see a more troubling issue than what was alleged in the first place. In this instance, it seems someone did the right thing by giving those familiar with the article and therefore those with a good likelihood of knowing what kinds of sources exist a heads up on a discussion for which their contributions and insights could prove particularly valuable. I even recall the deletion guidelines saying something about it being good etiquette to notify article contributors. Ergo, Ikip did nothing wrong, which leaves us with why something backed by mainstream sources is dismissed as if it does not have such sources? I see you are a new user who registered earlier this month (Welcome to Wikipedia!) and simply encourage you to please note WP:BEFORE, i.e. it is crucial to do a thorough source search before a nomination, because having done one reveals what I and User:Mandsford point out in the discussion. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A nobody, that all maybe true, but we are talking about notifying other editors here. Ikip (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Rules:

Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking: "Posting a friendly notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances on a case-by-case basis."

Rules:

Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking: "Posting a friendly notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances on a case-by-case basis."

Discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing#Addition_to_votestacking

Another editor is welcome to notify the editors in the other 2 AfDs.

WossOccurring, I wish you would have discussed this first with me before bringing it here. Unfortunately your tone and the words you are choosing "nightmare", "ridiculously excessive" shows that a civil discussion about rules is probably not possible.Ikip (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding notifying significant editors. User:Erwin85Bot does exactly this, contacting editors with 5 or more significant edits, which is within policy. I specifically mention this bot on the AFD page.

Rule:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people: Notifying WikiProjects that support the page "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." Ikip (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Man_In_Black#Ikip_warned. Protonk (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

One of Protonk's more recent personal attacks: "This has trended into the absurd. It literally transcends mockery."[90]

My two personal favorite section from this arbcom Protonk:

"On April 26, (admin) blocked Ikip for canvassing...(admin) should not have blocked Ikip..."

"(admin) desysopped (admin)’s administrator privileges are revoked."

Ikip (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hardly a personal attack and hardly germane to the issue at hand. Protonk (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I refactored that section, it is much more germane and clear now protonk. Editors have been banned for saying less. Protonk's correct, alleged personal attacks are not germane to this discussion. Ikip (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, strictly speaking Ikip is correct. Notifying all !voters of a previous discussion is accepted by WP:CANVASS and he notified everyone, even the nominator from last time[91]. Yes, all !votes the previous RFA were in favor of keeping but that's not ikip's fault, is it? The guideline does not say that notifying is not allowed in such cases. Regards SoWhy 22:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) Doesn't look like canvassing to me, whether it's "large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing" (as per the arbcom case quoted above) is another matter, one editor has interpreted it as canvassing, but I think he's wrong.   pablo_hablo. 22:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The plot thickens

(New sub-section to improve readability) Another user has now provided evidence that the user has been warned about canvassing before (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Man_In_Black#Ikip_warned). Please can another admin come and have their say? WossOccurring (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that by notifying everyone in the previous discussion, he notified at least the nominator who said to delete as well, which means that for all we know maybe everyone who said to keep won't even comment and the only notified person to show up will be who said to delete? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ikip's actions, while possibly looking like violating WP:CANVASS, were actually justified by the guideline that allows notification, provided that the notification is a.) neutral in tone and b.) not only sent to a specific subset of people from the previous discussion. If you want to request action to be taken against this editor, please provide reasoning based on the guideline in question as to why they have violated it. Regards SoWhy 22:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If everyone would feel more comfortable, I will gladly volunteer to notify all the participants of the first two discussions with a neutral message as well? After all, an admin had in the past once requested that I notify participants in the event of a renomination. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

WossOccurring, two things to point out in that arbcom:

First the admin was desopyed for blocking me

Second. The arbcom failed to find that I had canvassed: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Man_In_Black/Proposed_decision#Ikip_has_engaged_in_canvassing.

Also WossOccurring, you have not responded to the rules which I have posted.

Do you have any rules which support your position? If not this is probably a frivolous posting. Per the top of this page:

"Frivolous complaints and unsubstantiated requests for administrator intervention do not belong here. Please do not clutter this page with accusations..."

You also did not follow the statement at the top of this page:

"Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page."

Can someone close this please? Ikip (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No, just one thing to point out from that arbcom. "Ikip ... is warned to refrain from making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing ..."

The other results of the arbcom case are certainly not relevant here.   pablo_hablo. 23:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As I have already commented in the discussion, perhaps someone who has not and therefore is most unbiased, maybe Pablo X?, should therefore in the interest of total fairness and neutrality notify everyone who commented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (2nd nomination) as well with some kind of neutral: "Hello, you commented in a previous discussion concerning List of YouTube celebrities, which is being discussed again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination) and we just wanted to give you a courtesy heads up of the new discussion should you have anything to add to this new discussion. Thank you!" Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but I'm not going to do that. Perhaps WossOccurring should.   pablo_hablo. 23:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

User:DBaba

DBaba (talk · contribs) in this edit on the talk page of Cave of the Patriarchs massacre is accusing me of being rascist/nationalistic, running a cabal, harassing, and being POV. And all of that after I worked it all out with another editor there, due to both of us being civil and sticking to the rules of Wikipedia, as that same section testifies. DBaba seems to have a serious bias here, as well as a problem with neutrally assessing my person. I have informed him of this discussion here. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with these characterizations of what I've had to say. Debresser's activity continues to trouble me, and I find that this is just an alternative means of obstruction he has resorted to. DBaba (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your viscious and baseless attack compared to the discussion preceding it says it all. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem a seriously sticky attack. Is that all there is, or has he made other statements you find objectionable? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That is all, mam. Frankly, I find that more than enough. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

My previous post got removed somehow. It ran like this:

DBaba continues on Talk:Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre#Mediation calling people by unacceptable names. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is DBaba's post is full:

"Debresser, I find that your contributions are consistently as ethnonationalist as you seem to think you can get away with. It troubles me that you would attack Zero0000's contributions as POV, when you have racist revisionists working over the page to suggest the massacre was justified as a preemptive strike; that you have nothing to say about that, and only harass serious and neutral editors, and the comments accompanying your edits have frequently been blatantly wrong or incoherent, and that you've been blanking text as "not important" despite its being cited when it doesn't suit you personally, all of these elements lead me to ask you to please stop interfering. I requested comment to get away from this sort of ethnonationalist activism, not to invite more. DBaba (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)"

Hope this helps. DBaba, my experience is you're generally a pretty good guy, but there's a problem with calling other editors racist. Remember the fiasco on Nanking Massacre a while ago? I was just being stupid, but you and User:Flyingtiger were convinced I was a Japanese negationist. Try and assume good faith of Debresser. ALI ^{nom nom} 01:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

E.g. If I remove a sentence or paragraph, it is either unsourced, or irrelevant. And I am willing to defend any my decision to do so. If User:DBaba has any specific problems he could have raised them on the talk page, as another editor has done. In view of my edits, it seems unjust to assume I have a POV agenda. In fact, I have made edits and comments to this article and its talk page that are contrary to what I would have liked, based on the facts and a neutral way of representing them. Calling editing - "interfering", is plain ridiculous. Especially since I am not what you would call a "newbie" on Wikipedia, and have numerous edits to my name, including many on pages related to Judaism. In short, User:DBaba seems to have a bias here, both in regard with the article as with me personally, and he has a very unpleasant way of expressing it. I think a civility warning is the least he should receive. Debresser (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin help needed

at WP:AIV - there is an apparent open proxy attack (fresh open proxies ?) getting out there + new registered users too, all targeting same page Talk:Timur. Wise blocking needed. Materialscientist (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done I hope... MBisanz ^talk 23:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Likely User:Bravedog/User:Dalejenkins sock

• Bravedog (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dalejenkins (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• GaGaOohLaLa (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Windhover75 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

User:Windhover75 is a newly registered account acting in the same unconstructive manner as the accounts recently confirmed per checkuser and blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins/Archive, specifically the anti-Article Rescue Squadron commentary and use of WP:JNN style of non-arguments. The account's very first edit was to antagonize ARS member User:Dream Focus at ANI: [92] and all subsequent edits have been to AfDs. I therefore strong suspect that this account is evading a block. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI case reopened. NW (Talk) 23:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, upon further research, I strongly suspect it is someone else rather than Bravedog/Dalejenkins. Compare Windhover75's "whatever the ARS block vote thinks" with User:Verbal's "the ARS block vote". It is clearly the same person or is an impersonation. How do I open an SPI report on this user instead? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I see that a checkuser has confirmed my suspicions and that action has been taken. Therefore, this request can be marked as resolved. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, done at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Verbal. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Note - the below was in response to a prior version of the above comment, which the below editor reverted.[93]

Checkuser shows this is Dalejenkins, and not Verbal. Skinwalker (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Tombaker321 single purpose account at Polanski

User:Tombaker321 Is a single purpose account as regards Roman Polanski , his editing has been a constant disruption there as he has over a long period of time, continually tediously attempted to add his point of view, yesterday he made imo a poor edit to a section about Polanski's bail, this edit removed details and totally removed the fact that Polanski was in jail for 2 months, I reverted and he put it back and the beginnings of an edit war were there, I stood back and opened a section in the talk, there was no support for his rewrite at all, two editors supported my position so I replaced the original content this evening, user Tombaker321 has come back and ignored the fact that he has no support, he doesn't care about that, and he has simply again removed the content and replaced it with his content, he has been here long enough to realize that ignoring the opinion of other editors is disruptive this is a constant repeated situation with this single purpose account and it is tiresome and tedious for other editors at the article. After he made the edit today I left him a note reminding him that there was no support for his edit and to please revert but he refused, I think it is time to curtail the tedious disruption of this editor. Off2riorob (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

1. My edits are in good faith, my POV is singularly to have a well cited factual record reported, which I strive to make all of my edits conform to.

2. The edit being questioned, has the arrest date, and the date when he was released in bail. (it does not type out "2 months in jail" but the math is not hard) To what issue Off2riorb is contending is POV or disruptive is unknown.

3. Just 3 minutes after spending the time to update the entry, Off2riorob reverted my edits, saying "(Reverted 1 edit by Tombaker321; This edit adds nothing to the content. (TW))"

4. Without looking at the merits of the additions of facts (in what is a time, place, and situation section), Off2riorob sought out some form of "instant consensus" which he then determined and used to revert everything. Off2riorob's modus operandi is to claim authority and insist he can gavel discussions.

5. I did not remove content, I reworded and added content. I still do not know what is objectionable about the edit.

6. Off2riorob has continued his ad hominem attacks of me in multiple venues, and now this one.

7. Off2riorob writes in the TALK page days before "Tombaker, please stop posting your opinionated summary on this talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)"

• Off2riorob continues to confront,edit war, and disrupt editors, and I am just the latest target. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#Harrassment.2Fdisruption_from_User:Off2riorob

Extensions of good faith given to Off2riorob

1. 16 April 2009 - 72 hour block for disruption at WP:GA article was reduced to 48 hours, after Off2riorob agreed in the future to seek out dispute resolution instead of be disruptive [94].
2. 29 September 2009 - Sanctioned with parole of 1RR per page per day for 5 weeks, instead of being given a "lengthy block". [95]

Prior disruption and blocks

See prior ANI threads detailing disruption by Off2riorob and blocks:

• 14 March 2009 - blocked 24 hours for disruption of a WP:GA article.
• 16 April 2009 - blocked 72 hours for disruption at same WP:GA article - Off2riorob was then given a good faith reduction of that block to 48 hours, after Off2riorob agreed in the future to seek out dispute resolution instead of be disruptive [96].
• 25 April 2009 - Blocked 72 hours, for disruption at same WP:GA article.
• 29 April 2009 - Blocked one week, for disruption at same WP:GA article.
• 19 July 2009 - Blocked 2 weeks, disruption at Tony Blair.
• 21 August 2009 - Blocked 3 weeks, block log edit summary by admin Chillum: edit warring yet again
• 29 September 2009 - Off2riorob sanctioned to 1RR per page per day for 5 weeks.

Comments by admin Chillum

• 25 August 2009 - Entry in his block log by admin Chillum (talk · contribs): "User gave word not to edit war in the future, reducing block", which was citing this comment by Off2riorob: [97].

• 22 September 2009 - Comment by admin Chillum: I am considering you to be fully aware of our edit warring policy in the future Off2, and will not be considering warnings to be needed in the future. You gave me your word that you would not edit war as a condition of your last unblock, given that you have not kept this word I will not be extending that offer next time you are blocked.

• 29 September 2009 - When I brought Off2riorob's disruption to Chillum's attention, Chillum responded: It looks like edit warring to me. If I was not taking a break from my admin tools currently then I would likely hold Rio to his prior promise. . Perhaps another admin will feel the same way I do, but my buttons are currently not being used.

Comments by admin Moreschi

• 29 September 2009 - I think we have the choice between a lengthy block, an indefinite block, and a 1RR per page per day revert parole.

--Tombaker321 (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Note: [98] --JN466 04:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Disruptive WP:SPA on a contentious and sensitive WP:BLP should qualify for a topic ban. Whether that should extend to other warriors as well I could not say, it would need further investigation. My recommendation is a 30-day topic ban for Tombaker321 with a 1RR parole at expiry. We need this kind of fight like we need a hole in the head. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

* JzG, I am taken aback by your comment, and have to believe that you did not familiarize yourself with what has been raised here, certainly 30 days is a classic overkill action. Since we have never interacted, I am baffled by your assertion for the overkill 30 days. maybe you juxtaposed names?..the long chain of previous ANI is Off2riorob's not mine

* Perhaps to illustrate what was raised at me here and now, I need to put down the actual sentences at question.

Here was the previous version.

"In September 2009 Polanski was arrested by Swiss police because of his outstanding U.S. warrant when he entered the country to accept a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Zurich Film Festival.[1][2] His initial request for bail was refused noting the "high risk of flight" and his subsequent appeal was rejected by Switzerland's Federal Criminal Court.[3][4] On November 25, 2009 a Swiss court accepted Roman Polanski's plea to be freed on $US 4.5 M bail. The court said Polanski could stay at his chalet in the Swiss Alps and that he would be monitored by an electronic tag.[5] The Swiss authorities announced on December 4, 2009 that Polanski had been moved to his home in the resort of Gstaad and placed under house arrest .[6]

Here is the current version which I wrote.

"On September 26th 2009, Polanski was taken into custody at the Zurich airport by Swiss police at the request of U.S. authorities, for a 2005 international arrest warrant, as he traveled to accept a lifetime achievement award at the Zurich Film Festival.[69][70] After initially being jailed, on December 4th Polanski was granted house arrest at his Gstaad residence on $US 4.5 M bail, while awaiting decision of appeals fighting extradition. [71][72]"

The above is what is being contested by Off2riorob.

My edits were a valid and earnest rewrite, regardless of any assertions. The same information is conveyed, more information is added, and word count is halved. When I streamlined the text I did not think it would be controversial. I am at a complete loss to see how the rewrite and aggregating is so problematic. Off2riorob premise seems to be those with a viewpoint other than his own, are acting in bad faith. When I look at the two sentences above, I stand by my edits, they are written well. --Tombaker321 (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edit even after you have altered it, has still removed informative detail, the reader now is not given the information the Polanski is electronically tagged, you have removed for what reason I do not know, two perfectly good citations, you have removed detail that Polanski first made two attempts for bail that these were rejected and the reason that was given was that he was a risk of flight. These type of changes, where none were needed, is exactly the point, your continual content creep in a tedious and disruptive attempt to alter the expression of the text to your often declared point of view, I strongly support Guy's comments that a short term , 30 day topic ban or a similar 1RR parole would help, the editor seems not to care about whether there is any support for his position and simply makes the edit anyway, under this position there is simply no point in editors bothering to discuss the issues. Also although the editor removes them, there are a multitude of warning notes have been given. This users conduct has been the same since day one and I am certain that without some form of reprimand or control it will continue to disrupt in such a way. Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There are, at this point, three editors still working on Polanski, with two more semi-contributors. I am one of the latter. Most have conceded defeat because of the contentious atmosphere, and most of that has been generated by Tombaker321, who early in his editing career responded to a discussion he was having with Off2riorob on his own talk page that "I take it you support the rapist of a 13 year old? Why because you like his films?--Tombaker321 (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)." In my opinion, the editors on Polanski have shown a great deal of patience while dealing with content creep. We have endured, and I do mean endured, pages of Tombaker321's repetitive content in Talk, in which he advises us of what we are dealing with, because apparently although we have all been on the article longer than he has, we are clueless.

Nothing much is happening at the moment in the Polanski saga, it would be nice if the article were cleaned up a tad with citation checking and then left alone. This will not happen if Tombaker321 continues to edit. There is a companion article Polanski Sexual Abuse, which could use attention, and which was bifurcated in an attempt to create stability in the main article. No one is touching it.

None of the other editors have any desire to elevate Polanski above his crime; we see that the victim has moved on, that there are serious charges of jurisprudential malfeasance, and that much is left to be decided by the courts. Were an admin to decide to block Tombaker321 for a time, I am confident that the article would not suddenly become a victim-bashing, pro-Polanski spectacle. Another completely rational (and kind to us all) choice would be to lock the article entirely, and allow the participants to refocus attention elsewhere. I appreciate that Tombaker321 is completely outraged by the assault; however, the flavor and the neutrality of the article can be skewed by a few minor edits, and he has demonstrated that he is far from neutral; that fact is reflected in his behavior. Oberonfitch (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Lester Coleman

An IP hopping editor is causing disruption at Lester Coleman. Can range 213.229.87.x be blocked temporarily or the article semi-protected (whichever is more appropriate)? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done - short-term rangeblock on 213.229.87.0/26. Materialscientist (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

donate money

is there a way to turn off permanently these appeals to donate money i see every time i log in? for example just now i see a message with giant characters: It's really starting to get on my nerves.  Dr. Loosmark  01:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, its a gadget in your preferences. Surely you could have found it on your own, or used a more appropriate place to ask? Nathan ^T 01:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, as long as we are here: at the top of the page, click "my preferences", then Gadgets -> Browsing gadgets -> Suppress display of the fundraiser banner. Materialscientist (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Materialscientist!  Dr. Loosmark  02:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On this subject, we got mocked on Probably Bad News here. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We could always have a soundbite of Tom Cruise from Jerry Maguire - "Show me the money!!!!" Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Inner Mongolia People's Publishing House

I'm trying to create a redirect of Öbür mongγul-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a to Inner Mongolia People's Publishing House. But apparently it's on the blacklist --- any reason why? Thanks, cab (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, and I have confirmed it is indeed blacklisted. I suggest that might be a highly unlikely search term on the english wikipedia and likely to be deleted at RfD, but I can create it for you if you want. Viridae^Talk 05:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you go ahead and create it then? They're listed by the Mongolian name in a number of English-language bibliographies both on and off Wikipedia, so at least to me it looks like a fairly useful {{R from alternative language}}. Thanks, cab (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:12.239.22.131 a.k.a. User talk:75.141.100.115 (again)

Resolved

 – blocked 3 months. If this comes back, or shows up in other manifestations, keep us abreast--Jayron32 06:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:12.239.22.131 a.k.a. User talk:75.141.100.115 from the previous discussion (permalink) is at it again, and proudly keeps track of the trouble he's causing.... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Request interaction ban on Drolz09

Drolz09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

• User:Drolz09/Quotations
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive584#User:Drolz09
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drolz09
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive585#Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion.2FUser:Drolz09

I am continuing to have problems with User:Drolz09, and he does not seem to be able to leave me alone. I would like to request either a temporary or permanent (doesn't matter to me) ban on our interaction in either mainspace, user space, project space, or all of the above. I feel that Drolz is involving himself in discussions that have nothing to do with him in order to harass me, and I find his comments to be disruptive. I have no interest in being baited to sink down to this low level of behavior and I would like to remain focused on encyclopedic work. Therefore, I would ask that this ban be imposed to prevent any further problems. Basically, this means that we must ignore each other. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I was going to address this through RFC, but I guess this works.

It's pretty simple. Viriditas posted on User_talk:A_Quest_For_Knowledge, which I had on watch because I have posted there. I read his post and disagreed [99].

At this point, Viriditas decided it would be okay to move my post to another section [100] [101] [102].

I move it back and ask him to stop, and he begins an edit war, repeatedly moving my post to new sections [103] [104] [105] [106] each time adding new threats, like "wikihounding."

While doing this, he makes increasingly dismissive and threatening posts on my talkpage[107] [108] [109]

And finally he comes here to get my banned. Also note the hostile and pedantic tone of his original post on AQFT's page. Drolz⁰⁹ 06:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to contact two senior editors for advice, but couldn't get in touch with them [110] [111].

In my view, Viriditas needs to be admonished to treat new editors with more respect, and reminded that he does not have authority over what they post. Certainly not on another user's talk page. Drolz⁰⁹ 06:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it would be nice if the both of you just voluntarily agreed to avoid each other in all capacities. If one of you does do something outrageously out of policy, someone else will catch it, so there's no need to report each other. A nice, voluntary agreement to simply avoid each other would greatly reduce drama and prevent us from having a long tl;dr discussion where dozens of editors take up their pitchforks and torches and take sides in an otherwise pointless battle over who is more wrong. --Jayron32 07:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and that's all I've asked for from the very beginning. Drolz refuses to leave me alone (read the MfD) and he has recently been hounding me on talk pages that have nothing to do with him. I would therefore request that the community enforce an interaction ban between us if Drolz cannot agree to it. I feel like I'm being harassed and baited, and I want it to stop. I have zero interest in responding to anything Drolz says or does, as I am totally convinced he is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather, to tear it down. Nothing is going to change my view on this situation, so I'm asking for enforcement. Viriditas (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm hounding you on talk pages now? What other one? And as I've said, I have posted on AQFT's page before, and your comment was about a discussion which I have been a big part of. I am in no way wikihounding you. Drolz⁰⁹ 07:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My comment had nothing to do with you whatsoever, not even in its original context, and I feel you are incapable of honesty in any form, so there is no purpose in us having any interaction with each other. Please continue to edit Wikipedia, but stop interacting with me. It's very simple. Do you agree? Viriditas (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you avoid posting about things that I have an interest in, you won't see or hear from me. Secondly, your original post was highly related to discussion of the CRU incident, so it's untrue that it wasn't related to me. Drolz⁰⁹ 07:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that you are overwhelmingly in the wrong here--I am not going to apologize for posting or for objecting when you moved my post without my permission. Drolz⁰⁹ 07:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Voluntary ban

Let me be perfectly clear: I, Viriditas, agree to ignore Drolz09 on Wikipedia, and to avoid all interaction. Do you, Drolz09, agree to do the same? Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean, in consequence of your misbehavior and attempt to get me unjustly banned, do I renounce my right to post in certain areas of wikipedia? No, sorry. I think this ANI needs to go through and you need to be reprimanded. Drolz⁰⁹ 07:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think my proposal was clear enough and does not require any elucidation. Therefore, I ask the community to enforce a ban between us. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We're not gonna enforce an entirely absurd "ban" like this. You two could y'know try to act like grown-ups and resolve this between yourselves without the Grade-A "look-at-me" shitfit here on ANI. How's that for a novel suggestion? Crafty (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Totally inappropriate comment. This entire page, and others like it, are set up to give help and structure to editors who are trying to resolve differences in opinion. If you're not here to help, it would be better if you kept those sort of comments for your own personal Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary it's the enabling double-speak offered by well meaning types like yourself that's so often inappropriate. Crafty (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain what is "absurd" about wanting harassment to stop? There's enough evidence in the above linked MfD that shows Drolz refuses to leave me alone. I have no interest in interacting with the user and there is really nothing to resolve. I'm simply asking for the community to enforce a ban between the two of us, such that I will not respond to Drolz and he will not respond to me. That's it. As you can see from the above, I have already volunteered to do this, and Drolz has not. Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I can't because you refuse to have anything explained to you. You hear only what you want to hear. The same goes for him. The community can't make people behave in a mature, constructive way. That's down to you two. Crafty (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have been harassed by this user in both main and user space, and I have asked for the harassment to stop. You claim this is "absurd". How is this absurd? And the community most certainly can make people behave, and as part of this community, I am volunteering to ignore the user towards this end. All I am asking is that the user reciprocates in turn. How is my overture towards insuring the peace "absurd", and how could you possibly say this is "down to you two", when it is clear that we cannot get along? No offense, but I'm questioning your judgment here. There's already a history between us, and it needs to be resolved. Since Drolz isn't willing to accept my proposal, I'm asking the community to enforce it for the greater good. This is not "absurd" in any way. It is required. Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Viriditas has spoken: "It is required." Drolz⁰⁹ 08:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is as lame as a three-legged donkey. Just find something else to do. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• In the RfC on Viriditas that Drolz09 he has started here (yet to be certified), he writes [112] "Viritidas [sic] admonished to be less demeaning to new editors and respect their right to edit." Could Drolz09 (talk · contribs) explain in what sense he is a "new editor" in view of the fact that his first edit with this username was in February 2008? Mathsci (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My account was created a while ago but I only started seriously editing last week. I have probably ~15 edits before then, and no talk page discussion that I recall. A lot of Viriditas's dialogue to me centered around how I am a new editor and need to watch myself, do what I'm told, etc. He says something similar to AQFT in the OP here, and is constantly posting things like "this editor only registered two weeks ago" when people say things he apparently objects to. Drolz⁰⁹ 08:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm trying to avoid even thinking of Drolz09, but I would like to correct the erroneous claims made above. For the record, what Drolz09 is referring to is the use of the {{spa}} tag on Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, which has been overrun with SPA and sockpuppets, or as Drolz likes to refer to them, "new accounts". Drolz is one of several accounts which have not edited in a year or more, but suddenly showed up on the talk page in the last few weeks to edit on a daily basis. Several have been voting in a hotly contested requested move discussion, and while I'm not sure of the exact count at this time, many have been blocked. At one point, it got so bad that the talk page had to be SP, which as far as I understand it, is a very rare event. Viriditas (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked in on one of the discussions, where Viriditas states that he stopped being able to assume Drolz' good faith. I've respected Viriditas' editing in the past, but it looked a lot to me like a heated misunderstanding. Viriditas said that the article wasn't about Climategate; Drolz used this to say that, well then there should be a separate article on Climategate. This strikes me as a fairly routine disagreement. Drolz is a new editor, so it's easy to distrust; however, I'm not seeing the evidence that he's being unreasonable, or clear evidence that he's a sock (surely there will be socks and legitimately new accounts that show up when this kind of thing arises). Honestly it looks to me like two pretty articulate editors who didn't need to go down this road. Is there an option to dial it down? My recommendation to Drolz would definitely be, as someone who assumes his good faith: pursuing dispute resolution as a new user is probably just not a good idea, even if you have been treated unreasonably. You don't have to concede any point, but please do consider approaching this as if there are no other options besides editors on both sides working together. This is a good short cut, in my experience. Mackan79 (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a misunderstanding. The user has repeatedly made personal attacks on the CRU incident talk page, purposefully distorted my comments and took them out of their original context to use them as a proposal for his own ideas, dishonestly claiming that he agreed with "my proposal" - a proposal I never made, and the user continues to argue that basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not apply to articles. Then, there is the MfD linked above in the header, and if you still assume good faith after reading that tortured discussion, then I don't know what to say. I simply have no wish to interact with this user. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked through pretty carefully. My view is that he doesn't assume your good faith and that you don't assume his, and I think you're both mistaken. I could be wrong, of course. But even then I'm pretty sure editors here would need something more specific in order to impose a specific sanction. Mackan79 (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

How many diffs of personal attacks, wikihounding, deliberate distortions and false statements do you want? From what I can tell from his edit history, it was created as an attack account from the very beginning. Have you even looked at his contribs? Start at the beginning in December. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The evidence of wikihounding seems to be primarily him collecting some quotes of you talking down to him. I saw that when one editor looked at this, he accused Drolz' of personal attacks because he thought the statements were Drolz' own. It looks to me like you've been quite critical, and like I said, the major disagreement in which you lost faith strikes me as a routine disagreement where he was accusing you of inconsistency, not misrepresenting your comments. I understand being annoyed that he took your comment to support something you didn't support, but that's basic argumentation as it's often carried out. With all due respect, I don't believe for a second that he was acting in bad faith by saying you admitted there was no article on "Climategate." I do believe you saw his comments in that way. I could be missing other aspects as well, but seriously, I've looked, and it doesn't seem I'm the only one who is coming up short here. As to his early edits, I'm not sure what you mean. I saw him take issue with one editor for bolding their !vote, so if he's a returning user he's a pretty clever one. I think it's not quite what you see. Just one view. Mackan79 (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong on this, and I've collected the diffs. I'll post them below, but it will take me about an hour to format them. Here's a few to start with, all from one day of frantic editing:

• Deletion of talk page edits by Apis O-tang[113]
• Accuses editors of cabalism[114]
• Distorts argument made by ChrisO and accuses him of being a "pro-science Wikipedia editor-zealot" who "will stop at nothing to conceal".[115]
• Reveals a bit too much info about his real purpose on the CRU page, claiming that "climateaudit is routinely DDoSed".[116]
• Links ChrisO to "nuts on every side of every debate" and "eco-terrorist nuts on the other side", accusing him of trying to "make everyone skeptical of global warming guilty by association."[117]
• Accuses ChrisO of refusing"to fork the hack and controversy because you need to draw attention away from the latter"[118]
• Tony Sidaway politely warns Drolz to stop making "accusations of bad faith against other editors", but Drolz ignores him and continues to do it, distorting comments by Chris0 again, and accusing him of "openly admitted to believing that the "real story" is the hack." User then makes another attack, accusing all the active editors of being part of the cabal: "It is transparently obvious to everyone that the dominant wikipedia editors are essentially a public relations firm for organizations that are the mouth pieces of climate activists. There's no reason to pretend otherwise."[119]

There are so many of these attacks directed against myself and other editors that it will take time to compile them all. Mackan79, may I suggest that you have not properly reviewed the evidence? This sample represents less than 1% of the attacks and assumptions of bad faith made by Drolz09 against polite and civil editors working to improve Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to compile the diffs of every disagreeable action. In fact, that would be counterproductive. Pick a handful of the most egregious diffs and post them. (You should have done so in your original post.) As for requesting a mutual ban, simply enforce it on yourself. Stop talking to Drolz. If he approaches your talk page, remove any comments without commenting. If he follows you to some place else, ignore him five times, and if he refuses to take the clue, come back here, post the five diffs, and ask him to be blocked for wikihounding. Jehochman ^Talk 10:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Will do, but I invite anyone to review his contributions. They are chock full of attacks and deceitful distortions of comments made by other editors, and the attacks and assumptions of bad faith have not stopped. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm checking over the diffs you cited immediately above...They look interesting. Jehochman ^Talk 10:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's only the beginning. He went on like that for days on end, and the attacks and bad faith assumptions haven't stopped. What upset me the most was when he pulled quotes that I made from an entirely different discussion and pasted them together to form a proposal to fork the article, claiming that I had originally made the proposal. Since I had been on record opposing the fork for days on end, this was not only deceitful, but transparently intellectually dishonest. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• More diffs and previous complaint a week after the above. Only a small sample: User_talk:Drolz09#Recent_attacks_on_other_editors_at_Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

• Drolz09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think any wikihounding is of secondary importance, and that you've been excessively patient with this user, Viriditas. I see misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground,[120][121][122] assumptions of bad faith,[123][124] at least one personal attack,[125] and disruptive editing[126] by Drolz09. Those diffs also embody content policy violations, such as WP:NPOV and WP:FORK.[127] Drolz09 is a single purpose account that essentially started editing in volume a week ago. Tony Sideway and 2over0 both provided warnings,[128][129] but they seem to have had no effect whatsoever on Drolz09's behavior. Therefore, the result of this review is to indef block Drolz09 (talk · contribs). Do not unblock without a consensus to do so. Jehochman ^Talk 10:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call. When I review the comments at the beginning of this thread it seems to me that many commentators didn't look into this issue to deeply, and it isn't in the best interests of this project to quickly dismiss these types of claims. At least it's great to see that with a little persistence, somebody will put in the necessary legwork, reach the right conclusion, and take action. Nice one J! --HighKing (talk) 10:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm very surprised by this. Indef blocking a user who has been editing for a couple of months, for a very mild "battleground" attitude, without any request or consensus? Definitely not what I was expecting. Honestly this seems bizarre. Mackan79 (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your facts are mistaken. The editor registered first edited six months ago, but made only 11 edits prior to December 8. All editing since then has focused on a single, contentious topic, and has been entirely anti-collaborative. Their behavior has not been "very mild". Maybe you were looking at the contribution history of somebody else. The account received several warnings, including a block warning from admin User:2over0.[130]] Under these circumstances, when the account continues being used exclusively for disruption, they get indef blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 11:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the user registered at 12:52, 18 February 2008[131]. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that Drolz09 was the same user whom I'd recently warned approached about his repeated accusations of bad faith and conspiracy to subvert policy. In view of that, Drolz09's recent interactions look more problematic than I at first thought. While an indefinite block may seem rather extreme, Drolz09's pattern of abusive interactions with other editors has been well established. While the subject of global warming has been notorious for interpersonal squabbles, user conduct related to the article "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident" has been reasonable, with Drolz09 and one or two others being notable outliers. I support the indefinite block and, should he ever be unblocked in future, I propose that a topic ban on global warming, broadly construed, be considered as a substitute. --TS 11:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting review for indefinite block of Drolz09

I am somewhat dumbfounded by the above block. From what I can see Jehochman shows some very mildly combative behavior from User:Drolz09 over a few days, facing at least the same from other editors, and what he describes as two warnings both from two days ago. Based on this, with no request to do so that I can see, with some disagreement and no support, Jehochman has indefinitely blocked this user. I don't think I've ever seen anything like this, so I'm not quite sure what to make of it. Mackan79 (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As of this moment, there appear to be three uninvolved users supporting the indefinite block, and only you opposing. Mild? [132] I don't think that word means what you think it means. Jehochman ^Talk 11:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In the last 20 minutes? You just indef blocked an editor for a week of editing, who had never previously been blocked, based on a couple of "warnings" from two days ago, and no indication of what problem had continued. In the comment you link it was ChrisO who brought up the murder analogy, and the response is absolutely "mild" for a block of any sort, let alone one that's indefinite! What on earth. Mackan79 (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Mackan, the account was used to attack multiple editors for eight days. How could this be described as "mildly combative"? I've actually never seen anything like it before. Eight days of straight attacks. Viriditas (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, you can't possibly support an indef block of this editor. Mackan79 (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I support it, but I can't justify it, so I've asked Jehochman to shorten it to a week. Viriditas (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I think it's still nuts, but I'll leave that to others for the evening.... Mackan79 (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

An indefinite block for someone who is a relatively new user, and who has no block history seems a disproportionate response. I have looked at some of his edits to article talk pages, and they seem reasonable comments to make. I think we have to accept that when people feel they are under attack, they tend to bite back. Biting back is against Wikipedia policy, yes he was warned about this, and should have been banned. I think a 1 to 6 month ban would have been more appropriate. Some of the other combatants would also have benefited from short bans.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

@Viridas - well, we haven't seen eight days of diffs posted here. It does look as though a block would be appropriate, judging by the diffs posted by Jehochman above, but for someone who has in effect only been editing a week, an indef seems rather harsh to me. It may be the user is incorrigible but the usual practice is to block a few times for a short period to give the user some chance at least to modify his behaviour. Certainly I think an indef only on the diffs presented by Jehochman above is excessive. Gatoclass (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am very curious to see the standard under which this editor of eight days should be blocked, and not the other participants in the discussion. If the linked edit here is offensive, how about the previous edit by ChrisO? There is nothing remotely more or less appropriate about one than the other (or for that matter remotely blockable about either). This editor needs some positive advice, for goodness sake, not to be blocked. Mackan79 (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

He's received quite a bit of positive advice, with no change in behavior. I even encouraged him to compose a version of the disputed article in his user space so that we could work on it. He refused to do so, claiming that we needed to iron out policy first. Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If ChrisO or any other editors has behaved badly, start a new section with diffs. I or somebody else can evalate the evidence and place any needed sanction. We should deal with this conflict thoroughly. Jehochman ^Talk 12:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

accounts used primarily for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning

— WP:BLOCK#Duration of blocks

I looked through the user's entire contribution history. There is no need to post every diff from that history here when you can just click the link above and peruse it youself. I've highlighted a selection of diffs presented by Viriditas. When an account has done nothing but act disruptively, it gets blocked indefinitely. Second chances are for editors who show signs of making useful contributions. Moreover, this account was registered 22 months ago, waited 16 months, then made just 11 edits over six months, and then jumped into a highly contentious article, making numerous personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith against other editors. I think it is a mistake to assume that this is a new user. Circumstances suggest about 50/50 chance of new user versus sock puppet, and I think I'm being generous in that assessment. Jehochman ^Talk 11:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, I think you're right, and I support your block. Unfortunately, the arguments made by Toddy1 and Gatoclass defend the status quo in regards to blocking, which is best to follow in case the user is truly willing to reform. In other words, Drolz09 should be given a chance, and that's his right. It might be best to shorten the block to let's say, a week. I would have responded earlier, but I've been getting nothing but edit conflicts. Viriditas (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Status quo allows indefinite blocking of disruption-only accounts. They are not treated the same way as productive contributors who make mistakes. Jehochman ^Talk 12:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but it could be argued that the user has made some constructive edits, therefore it is not a disruption-only account. I only say this because after reviewing the edit history, I can see that the user has made some some good contributions, but very few so far, considering his short length of time here. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Aye. I think I wrote the relevant bit of policy quite some time ago. The key phrase is "primarily used for disruption". To avoid gaming of the rules, a relatively small amount of productive (typically WikiGnome) type edits may be discounted. This user's edits appear to be 95% battle, and 5% productive. I think on balance they qualify as a disruption-only account. Jehochman ^Talk 12:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a reasonable interpretation, and I support it. But, given that the user is so new, the percentages are skewed against them. When I first started editing here, I made a series of good edits, and some very bad ones. I would not want to be judged on my first month here, even though 95% of them were good. In fact, I was accused of being a vandal when I first started, not because my edits were poor - they were actually very good and are still in the articles today, years later. No, it was because I was editing through an anonymous proxy, and that IP was simultaneously being used by a real vandal, without my knowledge. Luckily, someone believed me (User:Pir I think it was) and I registered an account. Viriditas (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to give them a second chance. I too started out on the wrong foot at Wikipedia. However, they need to show by words, and then by actions, that they are amenable to feedback. Let's not let them off the hook too quickly. I promise to unblock them well within the one week you suggest if they take the necessary steps. Jehochman ^Talk 12:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, that doesn't make any sense. Do you really not see how a new editor could get pulled into a dispute? To say he waited 16 months begs the question of whether this is a returning account; it's hardly evidence. How can you know after 8 days and no real attempt at discussion that someone is beyond all reason? I'll say one thing: I could hardly think of a better way to create highly motivated enemies of the project. Mackan79 (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Should this editor be unblocked, I hope that the unblocking admin will consider a topic ban. An editor interested in good faith participation would find plenty of opportunity to contribute on one of the many subjects in which he does not have a record of abusive interaction. --TS 11:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a topic ban would certainly be needed, given the abusive conduct in this instance. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the block. Droltz09 did not work toward concensus on the talk page, and approached the article in a combative manner with a clear POV. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Did not work toward consensus... in eight days of editing and without ever having been blocked. You have to be kidding. I doubt I have time, but if there is any serious sanction left on an 8 day user who has engaged in absolutely no gross disruption -- or anything close to it -- the case should be taken to ArbCom on their behalf. No reasonable person would waste their own time. Mackan79 (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think an indefinite block is merited. A short block is enough, and follow-up if necessary. I myself created my own account a couple of years ago, and never really edited much until a few months ago, so the whole "He is a sock" argument (just because he has an account he never used much until now) is a bit ridiculous. Many people who initially register but never use their accounts much may wind up feeling passionate about a subject and start to actively edit because a topic piques their interest. As newer editors, they tend to get involved in edit wars, incivility, etc. because they don't understand the rules of Wikipedia yet. That doesn't mean that the account was created only for disruption. I would support a shortening of the ban. Moogwrench (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the indef block is way out of line. There is a learning curve on Wikipedia. People start out editing what interests them offwiki, which generally means something that they have opinions about. It takes time to learn how to do it properly. Suggest reducing to 24 hours from initial block. Article talk page warnings are well and good, but it sometimes takes a small lesson to head off bigger problems. Indef block and throw away the key is becoming the rule around here, and it is very unfortunate.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The block is per established policy. Who's throwing away the key? I've even suggested unblock conditions. If the editor is serious about wanting to collaborate, they will accept them, or make a counter offer. Jehochman ^Talk 13:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, per established policy, if you grant your conclusion that Drolz is a single purpose account, which I don't see the evidence of. Editing what you are interested in, when you start, does not equal single purpose attac. If he is not a SPA, it is not per established policy. If you want a counteroffer, or an acceptance, again I suggest unblocking with him only being allowed to edit here outside his userspace.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If Drolz is not a single purpose account, he should be happy to edit some articles outside global warming, where everybody agrees his editing has been problematic. How about an unblock on condition that he avoid GW articles for one month, and also avoid conflict with Viriditas. Drolz09 is also on notice about WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE; further violations of those policies may result in blocking without additional warnings. Jehochman ^Talk 14:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt says that he can't see any evidence that Drolz09 is an SPA. How does he interpret the 191 edits to the talk page of the CRU article which represent the bulk of his contributions to wikipedia (apart from the MfD page, his talk page and here)? [133] Mathsci (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of possible unblocking conditions

If Drolz09 agrees to change their style, they might be unblocked. Up to now, I have seen no indication whatsoever of any willingness to change, but there is still hope. If they post a proper unblock request, their block might be lifted or shortened. Things I'd look favorably on: (1) agreement not to pester Viriditas further; (2) agreement to follow all relevant policies, including WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:BATTLE; (3) agreement to leave the global warming dispute venue, at least temporarily, until they gain experience as an editor. Somebody intending to be a productive contributor would agree to these things. Somebody who's here to battle about a single issue will not agree. Jehochman ^Talk 12:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to state for the record, and with all due respect, that I consider this block to have been completely out of process, baseless, and frankly an abuse of the tools. The editor had never been blocked, was not given any chance to respond, and was blocked indefinitely on the thought that he may be a sockpuppet. There was no effort to seek consensus, despite the fact that Crafty and I had questioned the report (though I think it was filed in good faith). This editor should not have been blocked at all here. I hope at the least that you'll show more care in the future. Mackan79 (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The potential of socking was noticed, but was not the reason for the block. The user did have a chance to respond; he did so several times on this thread, and the poor quality of those responses influenced my decision. They continue to have a chance to respond on their talk page and anything they say can be quoted or linked here. I've already cited WP:BLOCK#Duration of blocks which specifically authorizes indef blocks for accounts used primarily for disruption (as this one was). Jehochman ^Talk 12:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified Drolz09 of your unblock proposal. His response is not very encouraging. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The editor had a full chance to reply at the beginning of this thread, and continued a combative stance against an editor with whom he had a disagreement. Really, having that attitude and arguement in front of dozens of admins was just shooting themself in the foot - and not in a Plaxico way either. Even when the other editor extended an olive branch (I'll AGF), the response was effectively "no, screw you". Well, that shows a lack of desire to resolve the situation. As such, action needed to be taken. Personally, I might have made it 3 days or so for someone with such a light history (agreeably most of it being combative). Maybe they need a mentor, although something tells me they'd refuse. Keep a close eye on their return (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

He responded to Viriditas' request that they not address each other; there was no proposal to block, let alone ban, for him to respond to. It will be astonishing to me if a user who is put in this situation retains any respect for the project (and I say that as someone who does respect the project), but that is rather our doing at this point much more than theirs. Mackan79 (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Do you call this a valid, noncombative response to the request:

“ Let me be perfectly clear: I, Viriditas, agree to ignore Drolz09 on Wikipedia, and to avoid all interaction. Do you, Drolz09, agree to do the same? Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean, in consequence of your misbehavior and attempt to get me unjustly banned, do I renounce my right to post in certain areas of wikipedia? No, sorry. I think this ANI needs to go through and you need to be reprimanded. Drolz09 07:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

”

I AGF that Viriditas was willing to go through with this, and hours of drama - and a block - would have been saved. Where are we now? Was it worth it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Indenting is getting strange here, but yes that's one reason I suggested that he not try to pursue dispute resolution as a new user. He and Viriditas have been accusing each other of bad faith for several days. Viriditas is a long term editor, very competent, with a good deal of legitimate support around here. Could this editor stand to learn a little? I should hope, but I'm certainly not going to judge someone who has been around for such a short time. Frankly that he hasn't said something to thoroughly justify a ban at this point is probably the strongest evidence that he isn't actually a new user... but then that's kind of like saying if she sinks she's innocent, isn't it? Mackan79 (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The combination of elements is a bit odd. A sleeper account activated about 20 months ago, suddenly becomes active on a Global Warming article with a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. With hardly any editing experience, the account starts collecting a laundry list on his user page, then, when an MfD is started, moves it to a subpage User:Drolz09/Quotations and then, without help, starts an RfC. It's very hard to believe these are the actions of a newbie editor. Mathsci (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. That's why I maintain that I support the indef but can't justify it. Viriditas (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, we do have a lot of pages that teach a new editor about Wikipedia concepts, and certainly new editors look at what is going on around them and try to adopt what other editors do. You say sleeper account like the guy purposely started the account 2 years ago so he could be disruptive on this particular article. Many people who initially register but never use their accounts much may wind up feeling passionate about a subject and start to actively edit because a topic piques their interest. I really don't see how you can automatically assume that he is anything other than what he says, a newer editor who made some mistakes, and whose punishment is a tad excessive for one so new. Moogwrench (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking from my own experience. Many editors don't even know about WP:ANI when they first start here, let alone all the jargon of wikipedia. GW unfortunately does attract a lot of sockpuppets, although obviously that needn't be the case here. Sleeper accounts are often set up by puppetmasters, but again that needn't be the case here. Mathsci (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, can you say that your comments here and here, immediately before the one that Jehochman links, do not reflect exactly the WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE approaches that you are putting on this editor? Mackan79 (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we avoid tangents? If you'd like to discuss ChrisO, please start a new thread. Jehochman ^Talk 14:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Drolz09

copied by TS

1. All of the diffs which were relied on to establish my pattern of behavior were from 12/8.

2. The two warnings I received were on 12/14.

3. There is no evidence that I continued any questionable behavior after that date.

4. This ANI started with Viriditas moving my talkpage posts without my permission. Prior to this point I had not engaged in any uncivil behavior with him probably since around 12/8, and as you can see from the diffs I provided, I was civil even when he was moving my posts.

5. Some of the evidence against me is way out of context

• The Apis deletion was an accident when I didn't understand edit conflicts
• The ChrisO diff about what the article was about was a direct quote of ChrisO, not taken at all out of context
• The battleground behavior is something I was never admonished for and I was really just mirroring the behavior of other editors in a highly contentious article

6. The reason I have so few "productive" edits is because I was told (By viritidas) not to edit without consensus. Consensus never came, which is why all my posts were talkpage, for the most part.

7. ChrisO and TS are involved parties and not neutral witnesses, if this wasn't clear.Drolz⁰⁹ 12:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

More diffs in response to the above

• 22:23, 16 December 2009 - Attacks ChrisO again: "The one who is engaging in "pure unsourced speculation" here is you, ChrisO." Note this is quite different than Chris' statement, which specifically addressed Drolz's "opinion" as unsourced speculation, not his person.[134]
• 02:42, 15 December 2009 - Attacks Viriditas: "You are absolutely immune to reason." This was after being warned about personal attacks earlier in the thread.[135]
• 02:34, 15 December 2009 - ChrisO asks Drolz, "So what would you add and what sources would you use?" Drolz responds "I am not going to go looking for sources until we establish some reasonable bright line rules about what can be allowed in." He has been repeatedly informed about the policy and guidelines for sourcing for a week, but refuses to abide by them.[136]
• 05:15, 14 December 2009 - "The overriding problem here is that the "cabal" editors refuse to admit bias. I freely admit that I am an AGW skeptic, and acknowledge that I have a POV. You guys refuse to admit that you have a POV, and because of this you see whatever you believe as being NPOV. I know that the balance in this article does not lie with what I personally believe to be the case. Things would run a lot more smoothly if people would just admit to being people and not data recorders or something."[137]
• 00:54, 14 December 2009: "Why is this happening?" It is happening because a group of four or five editors has taken possession of this article and relentlessly driven it towards a very specific bias. This group of editors has used every trick and tool at their disposal (including full protection) to mau-mau an article that ought to be about a controversy into a press release on why that controversy actually isn't one. And at the same time, these editors play the consummate victim, always the one on the wrong end of some awful POV pusher. What could you possibly expect but for the people you have gone to such lengths to exclude and vilify to escalate their own rhetoric in response?"[138]
• 23:53, 13 December 2009 - "This is exactly the problem with cabalist activity. You are all pushing the same spurious arguments, but you use your numbers to make it look like there are a lot of reasonable arguments, and 'consensus' against other editors who are trying to bring balance to this article. There is no way that a reasonable outside observer would not determine that there is POV collusion between TS, Guerttarda, Viriditas, etc...What's worse, is that you have arranged for an article about a developing story to be locked, which is facially absurd, and certainly not a means of improving The Project."[139]
• 05:04, 10 December 2009 - Attacks Guettarda: "Once again you reveal a complete failure to understand this article. This is not an article on whether AGW is real (and even in that case, skepticism does not rise to wikipedia's definition of a fringe or pseudoscience). This is an article describing a public debate, which has been aggressively edited to erase one side of that debate, while giving extreme weight to ancillary issues (the hack, death threats) that serve only to draw attention away from the fact that there is any debate at all. The notion that you are protected by WP:AGF is outrageous.[140]
• 04:24, 10 December 2009 - Attacks Guettarda after she politely and gently explained how to read the policy : "I read the whole article and as I said, nothing in it recommends against the inclusion of this piece. I think it's about time that instead of just spamming the talk page with WP:BLP WP:NPOV etc., you and your friends start explaining what part of these policies are actually violated by the quotes et al. you don't want included in this article."[141]
• 02:14, 10 December 2009 - "As it stands now, about five extremely committed people have complete control over the article, and aren't afraid to threaten anyone who disagrees with blocking." This statement was made right after User:Gigs politely asked Drolz: "Please try to assume good faith. While I agree with your sentiment, these sorts of accusations aren't helping build any real consensus". Note the fallback on ABF right after the request.[142]
• 00:04, 9 December - "Wikipedia editors: immune to context."[143]

---

Viriditas, come on! You're just making him look prescient for the comments he put in his user space, all made by you about him. Or how about ChrisO's comments that I linked just above, and he hasn't addressed? This is a travesty, moving closer to ArbCom by the second. Mackan79 (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, almost none of these diffs are about me, and they directly contradict his claims. Please read closer. In his unblock request summarized above, Drolz claims that 1) All of the diffs which were relied on to establish his pattern of behavior were from 12/8. and 2) There is no evidence that he continued any questionable behavior after that date. I have clearly demonstrated that this is false, and if it weren't for the last edit conflict, there would be twice as many diffs above. I'm in the process of adding them now. Viriditas (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Almost none, Viriditas? He says you are part of a conspiracy to POV that article. Therefore, every diff in which he complains about a conspiracy or cabal refers to you. As for ChrisO, I find the diffs comparing the circumstances of the hacking to reaction to the murder of the abortion performer shocking, if not entirely surprising, given the fact we're talking ChrisO here. I think the question really becomes, did Drolz have a reasonable basis to conclude that a small group of editors were controlling the POV of the article. Doesn't have to be true, just has to be he had a reasonable basis. If so, he had a perfect right to continue to seek redress here at AN/I, even in the face of the er, "olive branch".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose WP:CIV and WP:NPA are no longer relevant then. Are you honestly going to tell me that attacking editors and assuming bad faith is acceptable? What reasonable basis did Drolz have to make any of his attacks? There is none. Viriditas (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I really hesitate to call "You are absolutely immune to reason" a personal attack. Sounds like being flogged with a wet strip of toilet paper. As for your final question, why don't we unblock Drolz (with a prohibition against editing any page except this outside his userspace) and let him say.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? Telling someone they are immune to reason is not a personal attack? That's an interesting take on what is a clearly defined personal attack. And for the record, many of the diffs do not refer to me or any discussions that I was involved in with Drolz. He may have dragged my name into it, but that doesn't mean I was involved. You seem to be openly defending incivility and personal attacks, the two things that prevent this site from actually functioning. Why? Viriditas (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not in the least. I am calling for fairness for a new user per WP:BITE. And really, the only difference between his comment about you and yours about mine are that he didn't know that if you throw the word "seem" into the comment, you can say virtually anything. Presumably this will serve to educate him. I could say with equal validity that you seem to be engaged in conduct designed to discourage new users at a time when our editor count is falling (if you believe the WSJ). Why?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is the user refusing the unblock conditions? Why did the user refuse to heed warnings on his own talk page, and why did he reject peace overtures from Viriditas at the top of this thread? Jehochman ^Talk 14:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I would characterize Viriditas's comments as a "peace overture". It's kind of a backhanded admission, even though Viriditas maintains that he's not an opponent of Drolz, that there was an adversarial relationship there. Let's see how he reacts to my proposal, which in a couple of ways is tougher than yours, Jehochman.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is absurd

This is yet another example of bait and block: goad an inexperienced editor (usually, one with an opposing POV) into making newbie mistakes, then mischaracterize their actions on AN/I and get an admin to block based on reputation alone. It should be overturned immediately. ATren (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can reasonably claim that Drolz09 was goaded or baited into his repeated accusations of conspiracy to subvert the neutral point of view policy. As well as my request and 2/0's warning, he must also have read repeated calls by me on the article talk page asking users with conduct complaints to follow the dispute resolution policy, and reminders that doing so is not optional. --TS 12:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The attack on his User page was silliness, and unbecoming of a long term editor like Viriditas. The quotes being collected were unattributed, they could have been about anyone, and there was no commentary, yet Viriditas made a huge deal out of it, escalating the conflict even more.

I'd also like to add that Viriditas recently tried to bait another skeptic-leaning global warming editor on his talk: "You are dishonest, and prone to making false statements. Your stated purpose here is not to improve articles, but to engage in battles with your opponents. You are, by your own admission, a SPA designed solely to push a single, fringe POV, which goes against the NPOV policy and shows that you have no understanding of it. ". This diatribe was completely unprovoked and is an indication that Viriditas may not be able to deal properly with editors that have opposing viewpoints on the issue of GW. ATren (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are three diffs that directly and conclusively contradict ATren's claim about me: [144] [145][146] Those three links compliment and invite Cla68 to contribute and to participate, and encourage him to do so at his greatest capacity. I even recommended him as a mentor. For the record, Cla68's viewpoint is completely at odds with my own, but he understands NPOV. It would be nice if ATren would stop making stuff up. I not only encourage editors with different viewpoints to work with me, I enjoy it. Viriditas (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, ATren, stop making stuff... er, um, I mean, providing embarrassing diffs! Does "he understands NPOV" mean that he has been cowed into not responding when he is reverted? Moogwrench (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We're discussing Drolz09's block at this point. Viriditas has not been blocked, and a good proportion of Drolz09's conduct problems are unrelated to Viriditas. So I don't think we can consider VIriditas' conduct in mitigation of the block on Drol09. --TS 13:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes we can. A newbie is far more likely to be played by those who have their own POV and are letting it show. Provocation is not a full excuse but we are entitled to consider it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a reasonable angle to pursue, and I encourage you to do so. You will find no evidence for it, however. Viriditas (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Block too harsh

I disagree with almost everything Drolz09 says, and I find this editor's approach to interaction to be inappropriate and tiresome; however, I do not believe an indefinite block is justifiable. This should have been handled with the usual 24-hr block, with escalating block lengths in the event of continued disruption. WP:RFC/U is another venue where Drolz09's behavior could've been discussed first. I recommend that the block be reduced to time served, and I remind admins that blocks are not supposed to be a tool of punishment. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It is wrong to ask volunteers to spend many hours of their time dealing with disruptive, single-purpose accounts of short tenure. This particular account may very well be a sock puppet of a previously sanctioned user. This particular account has done nothing except make disruptive edits. They do not deserve to consume so much volunteer resources. Jehochman ^Talk 14:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, disruptive editors of long standing (see the abortion murder comments mentioned above, which have nothing to do with improving the project) are vested, and nothing is done to them. You shall have one rule, for the stranger and for the native of the land.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - While I agree that the editor has been disruptive, there is no proof of sock puppetry. A right-out-of-the-gate indefinite block is usually reserved for blatant vandals, people who make death threats or proven socks. This editor has strong views (which I do not agree with), but that is not unusual on Wikipedia. A 24-hour block, while frustrating for the recipient, gives them enough time to reflect and perhaps learn from their mistakes. An indef block is guaranteed to enrage the recipient to such a point that they are not able to calm down and defend themselves appropriately. If an "opponent" of Drolz09 (such as myself) can bring himself to this editor's defense, surely it is worth reconsidering the block length? -- Scjessey (talk)

I agree with that as well. To say that Drolz may be a sockpupput is to attempt to influence feelings about him without bothering about little things like evidence. Jehochman, if you don't have enough to hand to a checkuser, please leave the suggestion out. It kinda suggests that you're thinking what you have is not sufficient, and so you need to be suggestive that there's more there. It violates the spirit, and possibly the letter of WP:AGF.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, reasonable people can wonder, as myself, Jehochman, Mathsci and others have questioned, whether Drolz09 resembles a "sleeper account" and if the user is only a newbie who is here to help build articles, or a SPA intent on causing problems. Where's the learning curve? He came here with a vision and a purpose. Viriditas (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the sock insinuations need to be dropped, unless anyone wants to open an SPI. However, I agree that a block was likely needed here, but disagree with the length. There are a number of long term editors opposed to this, and perhaps we can convince them to mentor him. If problems persist, we can always indef block later. AniMate 14:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The editor's behavior is pure battle and personal attacks. They can be unblocked as soon as they agree to stop the objectionable behavior. I do not want to have a revolving door situation where we are back at this board, or another, as soon as the editor is unblocked. Why haven't they accepted the simple unblock conditions I proposed? Jehochman ^Talk 14:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Because your indef block made them angry. It is hard to be apologetic and reasonable when you get slapped with such a strong punishment. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

They'd be equally angry with 24 hours, and then they'd just sit it out, and come back to get 48 hours, and so on. It is better to draw a line in the early, and turn the editor away from disruption. When the editor agrees to suitable unblock conditions, they will be unblocked. It would be helpful if you could convince them to negotiate conditions. I am not interested in any sort of apologies. They just need to agree on terms. Jehochman ^Talk 14:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable approach. The door is left open, all he has to do is agree to be reasonable. --TS

It seems like a case of "shoot first, and then offer to extract the projectile if they agree to play nice" to me. Indef blocks do not make people feel like negotiating. It's like giving the whole class an "F" and then telling them if they work hard enough, some of them might be able to achieve an "A" by the end of the semester. I always start my college students with an "A". -- Scjessey (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that indefinite block is just indetirminate length block, not a permanent ban. If someone's behaviour is such as we would not want it repeated and it is the only behaviour they have shown, I see no reason we shouldn't put a block of indeterminate length on them until they accept, overtly, to operate within accepted rules. Considering how often we all bitch about persistant disruptive accounts only getting short blocks and not getting indeffed, we should maybe stop leaping down the admin's throats everytime one of them has the guts to put on the flak jacket and wade into the shitstorm that follows. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC) (ECx2)

When a new user(or a user who is unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works) is disruptive, an indefinite block is sometimes a tool that will work. If a user is banned for a certain amount of time then they will just wait until that time is through and go back to editing in the same manner that they received the block in the first place. But if a user is forced to look at the reasons for the block and produce a good reason to be unblocked, they will learn more about the project and (hopefully) become a contributing editor. Being blocked indefinitely does not mean you are permanently banned. DD2K (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There are deeper issues which it would be impolitic to explore deeply at this point and in this location, but I'll outline them. There is a quite prominent whispering campaign among some editors who, on talk pages and user talk pages, allege conspiracy to subvert the neutral point of view ("cabal"). The correct response to this is to direct people who believe they have legitimate conduct complaints to follow the dispute resolution policy, which is what I and some others have done. One can say that perhaps this relatively inexperienced editor has been misled by our relative lenience towards these whisperers and their long-running personal attacks. But what can one do but continue to encourage these people to gather evidence and present their complaints in an appropriate forum.

The result of this issue is not just felt by one editor who is currently blocked, but by several editors who, over quite a long period, have endured personal attacks and the souring of talk page discussions. For those people, tomorrow will be yet another day in which editing on an important topic is complicated by persistent attacks and slurs on their good faith. --TS 15:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is over-reaction against a new editor. Essentially, I agree with Scjessey--this sets an example of what might look like experienced editors imposing harsher than usual penalties on a newcomer The over-reaction is not primarily Viriditas's fault, who came here asking for much milder and perfectly appropriate sanction--an interaction ban. the new editor either out of intransigence or inexperience refused this. The appropriate course was probably to get consensus fro such a ban and issue a short block if it was actually ignored. that would be enough to show that what he was doing was unacceptable. If it continued afterwards, then that's the time to step up, in the usual way. I cannot support an indefinite block in this case. A block no admin is willing to remove is a ban, but I am willing to remove this one. As I understand it, I have the right to do so, and consensus here would be needed to restore it. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering the user appears to believe he should have never been blocked, you would at this point be vindicating that view point, that his behaviour had been appropriate and that Jechohman should be de-sysopped and he is owed some apology. However, you have the tools and the community's trust, on your head be it (Essentially, unblock based on events, not on a principle). As a note, a ban may require consensus, but this was a block. If no admin is willing to remove a block, then it remains a block. A person avoiding a block with a constructive account is usually allowed to go on their merry way, ban evasion is not. Also, if no admin is willing to unblock someone, then one would assume the person is probably better off blocked. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock for socks of Orijentolog

I've never done one of these. We have a number of IP addresses following the pattern of edits described at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orijentolog/Archive. The latest is 93.142.175.163 (talk · contribs) and two others can be found here. Also 93.142.147.100 (talk · contribs) Most of the edits are particularly unpleasant personal attacks or comments about Jews. Is there anything practical we can do without a lot of collateral damage? Or an easy way to keep track of them other than watching the pages they edit? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ask a checkuser or CU clerk to get a rangeblock. Somebody with CU should look at the possible collateral damage before action is taken because your range in question seems to be large. Jehochman ^Talk 16:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

An admin tried out a rangeblock for Orijentolog in September but, as Thatcher observed, "There are a number of editors on that range, it's also not effective at blocking user:Orijentolog as more than half of his contribs come from a different (non-contiguous) range." It would be a public service if you could tag all Orijentolog's IPs that you know about so they show up in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Orijentolog. (You could do this by adding {{ipsock|Orijentolog}} on their user pages). Then a new filing could be made at SPI, with a request for checkuser attention. Admin Toddst1 worked on this case before. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see this before I asked about a rangeblock. So I'll probably be told no. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A small concern

Resolved

 – A malformed external link, that, even if it was correctly formed, is permitted (almost encouraged) by Wikipedia:SIG#External links. –xeno^talk 14:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at User:Heterodyne's user page. Although he didn't link it correctly, a bit of self advertising, me thinks. I won't touch it, but an admin might want to deal with it. Who knows?--Jojhutton (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(1) Have you notified the user of this discussion here as instructed at the top of this page? (the answer is no). (2) Have you perhaps asked the user if he would consider removing it? (the answer is also a redlinked User talk:Heterodyne). IMO, its well within the bounds of acceptable userpage content especially since it isn't an active link and isn't "HI PLEASE VISIT MY FABULOUS SITE". Cheers. Syrthiss (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Syrthiss. We're open minded here. If he had said "I work for [IBM.comm]. Buy our fabulous computers." I don't think anyone would have given it a second thought.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Um... What exactly is the problem with identifying as Canadian? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being Canadian ... it's the Torontonian part that's offensive ;-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Man's entitled to exhibit his shortcomings.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Crikey, I hope you're not recommending full-frontal nudity! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I was referring to his nationality, wasn't that clear? (belated cred to David Niven, btw).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

External link review

Can a couple other people take a look at the contribs for Jdicker (talk · contribs · logs)? I'm waffling on whether or not these interviews are appropriate or not, and it's compounded by the fact that the editor is probably the interviewer. Does this fall under WP:ELNO? Am I being obtuse here? Tan | 39 16:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

New Block

This user has vandalized the pages of Nerd(disambiguation) and barbie (Disambiguation). Gunner768 deserves to have a temporary ban, and possibly any IP address that he uses. Please Consider this request. Captain Cookie —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainCookie (talk • contribs) 17:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Please take vandalism reports to WP:AIV. Thanks! Tan | 39 17:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)