Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

ChildofMidnight on Barney Frank BLP

Parties agree to move on. Wizardman takes User:ChildofMidnight's matter to the Obama ArbCom case and suggests a RfC for the Barney Frank article.--Caspian blue 23:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Initial ANI post with timeline of edits on article ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) has shown a disruptive, tenditious POV pattern on Barney Frank article. Frank heads the US Senate Finance Committee and is very prominent in mainstream media. He is also one of the most visible LGBT politicians, possibly in the world. He is also a continual source of derision from right-leaning commentators and our article is regularly vandalized. ChildofMidnight has made a few constructive edits but has been edit-warring to remove positive content overviewing Frank's career from the lede while inserting badly or unsourced negative-ish content. For instance we have that he's a defender of civil rights but ChildofMidnight insists we need to wedge in gay rights as well. The lede is rather short and the only other civil rights anyone wants to mention is also from ChildofMidnight as they want to insert marijuana reform, which does not seem to be a prominent issue. They may be doing other good work but I think their contributions to the Frank article have been a net loss and major time-and-energy-suck for the community. Timeline of ChildofMidnight's edits over the past 2.5 weeks on the Barney Frank article. 17 March Here they remove a positive, sourced and attributed statement and replace it with a "criticized by conservatives" one that is sourced to an editorial and a second source which doesn't support the statement at all. I reverted edits pointing out the sourcing problems. They repeated the edit almost exactly (slightly different placing in lede) with the same bad sources. These are again removed with explanation why the positive content is valid and the negative content is poorly sourced. They insert "Frank supports gay rights and medical marijuana." Even though a statement regarding Frank's civil rights support is already there and little evidence supports adding medical marijuana to the lede, both are covered in the article. It's removed with explanation. 18 March They remove the positive (attributed and sourced) quotes again stating "per NPOV. We can have balance. but not just one side". I reverted and encouraged them to find reliable sources for any criticism. They then simply move the lede content overviewing the subject's career to the "Early life" section which is illogical at best. I reverted stating rv, please stop edit warring over this. Per wp:lede and WP:Notability we should spell out why this person is notable; no one is stopping you from adding notable criticism if it is sourced well 19 March User is asked directly on thier talpage why removing sourced content. They again delete from lede stating - "does not belong in the lead unless balanced". Reverted with explanation - wp:NPOV does not state we have to tack on negative content to BLP ledes if there is positive content. 20 March Repeats removal and reintroduced badly sourced negative content; it's reverted (again with explantion) and note concerning the sourcing problems. Again moves the content (overviewing subjects career) to "Early life" section with edit summary "reorganize". This was reverted and they move it again. It's reverted along with clean-up of poor sourcing regarding Frank and the Fanny/Freddie regulating content which seem to be pointing that Frank should be held responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and by extension, the financial ecomonic slowdowns. 21 March Removes sourced content written by the BLP as not reliable and POV; although one source is the subject's own website and the other http://www.house.gov. Deletes sourced and NPOV content unfavorable to Republicans citing "reliable sources needed". Inserts "Frank opposed increased oversight and reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while in the minority." and "Frank is an advocate for gay right and legalized marijuana." prominently into lede. Reverted with explanation "the press release here is actually reliable as people are considered experts about themselves". 24 March again deletes positive and sourced content from lede with edit summary "Put in body (as I did in the past) or leave out." Inserts somewhat negative and vague "His role on the Senate banking committee and overseeing the financial sector and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has been scrutinized." It too was reverted. 25 March Removes the same (sourced) content with edit summary - "not discussed in article so doesn't belong in lead. the Fannie Mae subject matter is discussed extensively and should be noted along with gay rights advocacy." This is untrue. Franks civil rights work is discussed in the article and the Fanny/Freddie material doesn't suggest a big Frank controversy or that the current info about him being in charge of the Senate Finance committee needs to be expanded on in this way. Reverted with explanation "a "defender of civil rights issues" of which LGBT issues are a part; Fannie/Freddie bits are a current event that Frank is being blamed for by some" Reverts it again stating "irrelevancy" and advocating for Fanny/Freddie content to be added to lede. Reverted as "notable biographical description". 27 March Nicholas.tan now enters the picture and reverts after siding with ChildofMidnight in the thread on ChildofMidnight's talkpage.[1] Nicholas.tan edit summary is "WIKIPUFF" which per wp:Wikipuff is innacurate as ... the sourced content is true. I revert with "sourced and speaks to this career politicians notability" explanation. ChildofMidnight reverts falsely claiming "not appropriate for lead. not discussed in article". Nicholas.tan reverts more sourced positive ifo from the lede again citing "puff". They are both reverted with explanation. ChildofMidnight again deletes the same content stating - "against policy. this is promotional POV. totally inappropriate for introduction". (article fully protected) After talkpage consensus, content is restored.[2] ChildofMidnight edit wars against several editors here and here and here where he also reinserts "Frank is an advocate for gay rights and the legalization of medical marijuana". It's reverted with explanation these other issues are not considered mjor issues for lede (beyond what we have). So naturally they revert again, which was reverted. They then added "and conservative critics note that he contributed to the housing crisis by opposing Bush administration proposals to increase oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." to the lede with no sources, and against the talkpage consensus that this was appropriate. It's reverted so they again revert and stopped after it was again removed, likely because of a 3rr warning on their talkpage. They were subsequently warned about personal attacks on three talkpages. They then started a rather pointy "Notable content replaced with cheerleading" talkthread with the intro - Some of Wikipedia's most notorious POV pushers have been removing Frank's most notable work. It has been refactored after several requests. They also brought the excitement to My talkpage accusing me of deleting "notable and well sourced content" and insinuating my homophobia, which is pretty far-fetched even with a quick glance at any of my work here. Based on this I wonder if the article could use a break from this help? They may have issues on other articles but my interaction has been limited, as far as I know, to the Frank one. Would a pageban make sense? -- Banjeboi 01:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Personally, I would endorse a topic ban for ChildofMidnight on any article to do with politics. He created his account on election day in 2008 and then began a systematic campaign to attack anything vaguely liberal, particularly President Obama and anything associated with him or his administration. Frankly, it is astounding that he has managed to avoid bans and blocks all this time. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC) The trouble has at times extended to Israel/Palestine articles as well. I have been reluctant to broach the subject here because this has been going on so persistently for so long, but there is a large swath of incivility, accusations, edit wars, administrative notices, and protected pages. BTW, has anybody notified the editor yet? No doubt they will arrive and promptly accuse me, ScJessey, Benjiboi, and others of bad faith, POV pushing, and all the usual. Those accusations have been a big part of the overall problem. Wikidemon (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Other editors I'm moving this header here because we really do need to separate the original issue from the ensuing mud slinging - Wikidemon (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC) If it is usual for you to be accused of bad faith editing and POV pushing, then perhaps it is you and not the "accusation" that is the problem. Rklawton (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC) That's a pretty shocking comment from an administrator - all the more so because you just said it on this noticeboard. On what basis do you justify this off-the-cuff comment? Have you studied Wikidemon's edit history and found it to be problematic, or are you just making an unwarranted assumption? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC) As a clue to the uninitiated, the accounts responsible for the majority of such complaints are now indefinitely blocked and/or banned from Wikipedia, in large part for being sockpuppets of the same editor. No, I am one of the harder working non-administrative article patrollers, as well as a frequent commentator on meta and process issues, not to mention a longstanding, very productive article editor. Wikidemon (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Wikidemon is rehashing an old issue where I responded to a third opinion request and found Wikidemon blocing compromise over a well sourced content addition for months. He refused mediation (the only editor to do so as I recall). He's a very problematic editor whose edit history shows he only works on political articles and only makes political edits. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Utter nonsense. The price of editing here should not be responding to month after month of fabricated nonsense accusations from this editor, so I won't. My editing is simply not the issue here. ChildofMidnight was a terribly disruptive presence at the BLP to which COM is referring, Rashid Khalidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). COM repeatedly made overt accusations of bad faith there too, and by revert warring BLP-violations into the article again and again while alternately ignoring the talk page discussions or hurling insults in them, helped get that article edit protected three times, the most recent one indefinitely. COM also helped get Barack Obama protected during the most recent flare-up, and has lately been coaching and inciting other disruptive users, edit warring in talk pages, on and on. It's quite extensive. I would not have chosen this occasion to finally deal with the editor but now that the subject has come up, we need to put an end to it sooner or later. Wikidemon (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC) This is a continuation of the personal attacks and harassment against me. I've tried to be as patient as possible and I welcome anyone who wants to weigh in on the actual content that is at the core of this dispute and have suggested an RfC as a way to get more involvement. The content has already been discussed in some detail on the article talk page, and numerous editors have stated the obvious. I know this noticeboard doesn't deal with content disputes, but let's be very clear about the content in dispute and the nature of my "tendentious" editing. I've tried to add: A statement that Barney Frank is an advocate for gay rights to the last paragraph of the introduction. This is, of course, very well sourced and covered substantially in the article. It's unclear what the objection to this NPOV statement is, and I find it disturbing and possibly homophobic. A statement that Frank is an advocate for medical marijuana. Also discussed at length in the article with ample sourcing. Something about his role as the leading Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee (in the minority and now in the majority) and his role and positions overseeing the banking sector. (I'm refactoring to add this point. I forgot it initially) They've been adding to the introduction: The opinion of Bill Clinton's speechwriter saying how wonderful Frank is. This obviously doesn't belong on the lead and has been noted repeatedly by various editors in discussion on the talk page. If it is included it should be balanced with other notable opinions of Frank's work. And of course this trivial opinion isn't discussed anywhere else in the article. A New York Times quote taken out of context saying Frank is a bipartisan bridge builder (seriously!) doesn't belong in the introduction and is misleading. I've provided reliable sources that contradict this statement on the talk page. It's not discussed anywhere else in the article. I'm happy to compromise and have made that clear all along. I've tried to use the talk page, but discussion gets hijacked with soapboxing and personal attacks from Wikidemon and Scjessey (whose been warned repeatedly by various editors and administrators). The opinions of good faith editors are disregarded and the pattern of reversions against consensus and guidelines and without explanation continues. I know ANI doesn't deal with content disputes, but that's what this is about. Even the thread title seems inappropriate. Where are the supposed BLP violations? These are some of the same editors who have been attacking anyone who makes suggestions on the Obama article talk page. Their editing is very limited to certain politicized articles. I welcome any and all help and suggestions for how to proceed to achieve an NPOV article that is consistent with guidelines. I am happy to compromise and happy to consider any and all suggestions. I don't hold grudges and if Wikidemon and Scjessey can cease their personal attacks, soap boxing, and other inappropriate actions I will certainly do my best to work with them. I'm not big on ANI reports and diff digging, but their inappropriate actions are there for all to see. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC) If he is, as you say, the most prominent LGBT politician in the world would it not make sense to include his efforts on behalf of gay rights? Is it just CoM on the one side and everyone else on another, or would mediation or an RfC perhaps make headway on this situation? Unless there is a history of formal dispute resolution or user conduct issues with CoM that haven't been outlined, it seems like some intermediary step might be useful. Also, sidenote, the Senate has a banking committee and Frank is in the House on the financial services committee. Pedantic, of course, but I just can't help myself! Avruch T 02:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC) CoM's reasoning above sounds, well, reasonable to me. Rklawton (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC) As usual, CoM has completely misrepresented the details here. The introduction of the article already notes Barney Frank's work with civil rights (which encompass gay rights, of course), and the introduction already notes Frank "has become one of the most prominent openly gay politicians in the United States." CoM inserted an additional line about gay rights in order to act a substitute for the far more expansive line about Frank's civil rights activity. Upon reversion, he promptly accused editors of being homophobic - a disgusting tactic. I said at the time that I didn't think anyone would fall for this ploy, but it appears as if that may not be the case. Please review his activities carefully and do not take any comments he makes at face value. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC) This is not the first article where I've had to re-add gay and gender related content after it was repeatedly removed. I'm not sure what motivates the removal of this content against guidelines. Anotehr editor made a wikialert report on Scjessey's recent over-the-top personal attack against me and he or she has been warned numerous times about their personal attacks and other inappropriate behavior. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC) In addition to Scjessey's edit war warning to ChildofMidnight, I also warned ChildofMidnight about edit warring not knowing he'd already been warned by Scjessey since ChildofMidnight immediately removed the first warning from his talk page. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 02:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Franks career is quite extensive and a well written article may do more than it currently states - in the lede, that is - but no, it is indeed CoM's POV being injected here against concensus. Their edit-warring has been extremely antagonistic and now they claim censorship and persecution which is rubbish. No one counters that well sourced criticism can't be in the lede. It simply needs to be reliably-sourced and demonstratable that it's notable. Injecting vague and disparaging statements badly sourced or tied to opinion peices is against policy. Yet they tried it many times. No one disputes medical marijuana is an issue - among hundreds - that Frank has worked on but it is being used in a disingenuous way that is not supportable that this is a major issue to Frank. In a prior discussion we decided to weight the policy issues of Frank by the volume of content. None of them are featured in the lede. This has been pointed out to CoM many times yet they choose to edit-war again and again. So the two items stated above they wish to add ... are already covered in the lede under the quote regarding Frank being a leader on civil rights. It would be silly for us to spell out a laundry list and no one has done a good overview of his career to see what issues are most important to him. He's been a politician for decades so this is not surprising - it's a lot of work. The two items CoM is again railing against were agreed by concensus to re-add after CoM's ongoing edit-warring. The New York Times is generally considered reliable on these things. I've listed fuller quotes in part to build consensus in the talkthread so others are welcome to look if our collective sourcing of these quotes is indeed accurate to the sources and presented NPOV; despite CoM's claims they aren't. And CoM's compromise tactic's? I think again deletes positive and sourced content from lede with edit summary "Put in body (as I did in the past) or leave out." and the concept that we can't say positive things unless we also say negative ones. I missed the section in BLP where mudslinging a BLP should balance out their accomplishments. -- Banjeboi 02:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC) You know, the content here is not the point nor is the dispute significant content-wise. Who cares whether the Barney Frank article mentions his civil rights position in general or detailed terms in the lead, or whether his anti-regulation record is in the lead or just the body? Reasonable editors can work together on over time on this without revert warring calling each other names. The problem is yet another article fully protected due to edit warring (I'll have to look around to see which), and bald accusations by COM across multiple articles and talk pages that others are problem editors, acting in bad faith, homophobic, trolls, POV warriors, and who knows what else? It's gotten so so bad I don't really bother reading what particular insult COM is making at the moment. Wikidemon (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Process suggestion Can we simply stop answering or responding to COM's mud-slinging at other editors? Every time COM's behavior has been questioned the editor makes up a lot of stuff and accuses everyone in sight of all kinds of nonsense, and it devolves into a horrible mess. I suggest we thread COM's complaints into a special place, and keep the focus on COM. If we need an RfC to do that, fine, but it would be a lot simpler if some admins can simply make the effort to look at COM's behavior over time and decide whether a block, topic ban, or no-nonsense editing oversight would best deal with this. Wikidemon (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC) This is another attempt to hijack the discussion. Wikidemon recently made another report against me (I think it was recently archived) and he was advised that treating editors with respect is important. I would like to return to good faith editing which is what I enjoy rather than these endless dramas. But I do feel it's important that this type of inappropriate behavior stop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC) I agree with Wikidemon here. Once given a 3rr warning COM switched tactics to, IMHO, talkpage baiting and claiming censorship while accusing teh rest of us as homophobes. -- Banjeboi 02:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC) comment : the content issues are not the point, as a variety of editors were not having a problem discussing and reaching consensus, except when ChildOfMidnight was being unCivil, edit-warring, and not waiting for consensus when multiple editors had already politely informed him of those particular places where they felt his bold work was not representative of a neutral construction. The behavior is the point; as far as the content, we were a diverse group of editors with different political, sexual, and economic POV but we were working along rather well until COM was disruptive, which then opened the door to some poor imitative monkey-see monkey-do attempts by other authors to slip a little bit of non-neutral and non-consensus material into the recipe while it was skewed so severely by ChildOfMidnight's actions. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 02:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC) I think any editor reading the lead's second paragraph will have a hard time siding against CoM. That 2nd paragraph is the worst bit of rubbish I've read in a long time. I doubt even Franks would write that sort of crap about himself. We're not here to write glowing articles about politicians. There is ZERO content about Franks being a bridge builder in the article - and yet there it is in the lead like he's some kind of bi-partisan saint - just as CoM indicated above. Rklawton (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC) (ec - responding to Teledildonix314) Agreed, so let's not worry so much about the content details. The point is simply that COM has systematically, across many politics-related articles, edit warred against consensus to force a highly partisan conservative POV, sometimes alongside other editors but much of the time as an army of one. The status quo consensus he fights is not obviously wrong and any arguments pro or con are simply content questions. By the same token, the objections to COM's edits were principled, and in many cases spurred by good faith concerns about BLP, POV, WEIGHT, RS, COATRACK, etc. Whether those concerns were ultimately correct or not is also besides the point because we are supposed to operate on consensus, not confrontation. Wikidemon (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC) And the line about Franks supporting civil rights is supported by a source which ONLY mentions gay rights. Content is the issue because CoM is correct in his assertions and his approach, and the editors opposing him are being quite unreasonable as evidenced by the content. Rklawton (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC) I can see reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of this specific content issue. If you feel the article needs improvement, why not go there to participate in a consensus discussion? Article talk pages are not the place to accuse other editors of things like homophobia and bad faith, and AN/I is not the place to decide what an article should say. It will help keep both venues on track if you keep that separation in mind. Wikidemon (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC) I second that: please join the article talkpage, your improvements are welcome, we were working by consensus, we will certainly continue to do so. We are here at ANI about the disruptive behavior of COM, not about the content which deserves to be discussed at the article talkpage. And if you look at the talkpages of the people COM edit-warred against, you'll find weeks of unCivil confrontational POV with strangely yo-yo-ing tactics, mostly in a badgering pattern. Think for a second, if you will, at the absurdity that COM repeatedly insisted there must be a homophobic agenda at work when COM didn't get their way; does anybody think the eight or ten editors doing most of the work on that page were "homophobic"? Hello, i'm amazed there wasn't an explosion of Flames much sooner, usually in real life we don't find that many happy gay editors holding back their retorts with such patience and civility for so many weeks. "Homophobic"? I almost fell off my dildonix. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 03:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC) No one is opposed to civil discussion but that has been completely absent from CoM. The methodoly has been edit-warring reverts, and now, accusations galore. And Rklawton, there is content about Frank working with Republicans and building bridges. We don't bludeon anyone with it but neither are we at even a GA article, it's been a slow vandalistic process to improve the article. And that civil rights quote? It's verbatim, - Frank has since proved to be one of the brightest and most energetic defenders of civil rights issues. If the source had stated something else we likely would have worked with it but there it is, civil rights. -- Banjeboi 03:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC) See: Barney Frank#Intro Paragraph for what happens on the article talk page. A small pack of editors who work almost exclusively on partisan content engage in personal attacks and soap boxing, thereby hijacking a reasonable discussion of content. You'll see also that the discussion was archived. Wikidemon likes to archive and/ or remove discussion he doesn't like or disagrees with. I think a topic ban from partisan editing would be a good outcome given his behavior. Even in this discussion we see Wikidemon engaging in refactoring and thread titling to obfuscate and prevent a reasonable discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Actually you have that exactly backwards as you were injecting the partisan content, engaging in personal attacks and soap boxing, thereby hijacking an article. And I archived that discussion as you have been injecting your comments in the middle of previous conversations. This is about your behaviour on that article, and when you didn't get your way with consensus against you, your behaviour towards other editors. -- Banjeboi 03:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC) As a favorite target of COM and presumably one of the "small pack of editors" he's decided to antagonize I'm not even going to respond to the heaping on of pointless untruths. This would be at least the 50th time that COM has made up something out of thin air to say I did, and I'm not going to waste my time anymore or let COM change the subject with each one.Wikidemon (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC) How is providing a link to a discussion hijacked by personal attacks and soapboxing an example of a "pointless untruth"? All you have to do is quick the link and you can see who launches the personal attacks and who hijacks the discussion. Same old story. You've shown the same behavior here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC) No, I was referring to your previous comment which is, like the one immediately above, both pointless and false. It would be very nice if you could confine yourself to the truth and not make stuff up. Not being the subject of this incident, I'm not going to bother defending myself for the 50th odd time against nonsense you care to throw my way.Wikidemon (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC) I have fully protected the page for one week and encourage the involved editors to work it out on the talk page. LadyofShalott Weave 04:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC) That's all very good and everything, but it does nothing about the disgraceful behavior of ChildofMidnight documented above. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Diffs please. Here's one of Scjessey's talk page comments [5]. Speaks for itself. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you for linking to it. It saves me having to repeat it here. I stand by the comment. At least I didn't accuse you of being a homophobic POV warrior. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC) The comment by Scjessey to which ChildofMidnight objects is correct in substance if not tone and placement. ChildofMidnight had launched a campaign of harassment against other editors, and out of nowhere came up with a nonsequitur, ad hominem falsehood about what was supposedly going on in an Arbcom case. He was grandstanding about that, egging on a newbie editor who had made a bad edit, and then lashed out at other editors. All on the Obama talk page, which COM knows to be on probation. That's before COM began to actually edit war on that page, reverting at least three other editors to try to delete a long string of comments from the talk page. Here are the diffs from that revert war, which has already been discussed here at AN/I. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. I have no opinion on socking, but the manipulative gaming, fabrications, and toxic attitude are a playbook out of last year's now-blocked sockpuppet accounts. The number of diffs it would take to account for COM's bad behavior would fill an entire Arbcom case. The case, if it is ever presented, would be pretty staggering. I'm hoping we can dispense with this more simply. The editor should have been blocked or banned for any of these incidents - edit warring on the Obama talk page alone could have used administrative intervention. It is very sad, and a complete waste of our time, goodwill, and hard work on the project that we have to deal with this awful vituperative nonsense. I really hope an admin can see fit to deal with this. Dozens, probably hundreds of editor hours now, have now gone down the hole for this one editor's needless trouble. Wikidemon (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC) LadyofShalott, I appreciate the full protect, this is the second time in a month the article has needed this and only because of CoM. The rest of the editors have been able to work fine with each other - even when we disagree - and have kept pace with CoM's reverting and POV action. CoM has proven themselves unwilling or unable, despite their claims, of even working towards collaborative editing. When they didn't get their way it jumped into a new gear of accusing others of the same behaviours they have employed. Wikidemon's take on this seems most accurate and based on my limited but unfortunate interactions with CoM - an experienced editor with 16,000+ edits on 5,000+ pages - they seem to be gaming to play us for fools here. Looking through CoM's previous visits to Admin pages shows a very experienced editor so this is smelling more like a sock than I had first thought. I haven't a clue who but experienced ANI editors might be able to sniff them out. I suggest looking into the Barack Obama-related articles although there may be smarter ways of sussing it out. -- Banjeboi 13:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Proposal to topic ban ChildofMidnight From their very first edit to their many drive-by comments on admin boards this is a very experienced editor. Whatever their intent, I have little doubt they will find other ways to contribute to Wikipedia and hope those contributions will be collegial and collaborative. Despite red herrings and CENSEI's entanglements it seems apparent that ChildofMidnight is more interested in engaging other editors than in improving the Barney Frank article. Every opportunity to explain policies on reliable sourcing, due weight on BLPs and neutral POV on content has been met with silence and quick reverts from this user until a fullpage protect resulted in a consensus also against their edits. They continued to edit-war despite the concensus and page-protect until served with a 3RR warning. At that point they proceeded to personally attack other editors and post a contentious pointy thread to the article talkpage with more personal attacks and red herrings. When confronted on this ANI board we've had a parade of red herrings including the CENSEI drama and an almost mythical misrepresentation of events by ChildofMidnight as the victim of censorship which is in complete opposition to the diffs and edit summaries laid out above. That one editor can disrupt a single article in less than three weeks leads me to believe they have also participated in dramatic activities on other political articles as suggested by other editors here. The case here, however concerns mainly the Barney Frank article. It is absurd to pretend the editors on the Frank article are in any way trying to surpress any information, in fact, great effort has been taken to present all uncomfomfortable content in a RS and NPOV manner. No credible evidence suggests otherwise. I have little doubt that ChildofMidnight has caused problems on other articles but the evidence here doesn't support a community ban, IMHO, as of yet. Socking concerns are also alarming but also need their own evidence. For now I think a topic ban from Barney Frank, and articles/content regarding Frank be enacted. A sourcing ban - if we have such a thing - prohibiting the use of opinion peices may also make sense. Any thoughts? -- Banjeboi 22:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC) I would endorse a topic ban, but extended to cover articles related to Barack Obama (broadly construed). At the very least, ChildofMidnight should come under close scrutiny in the Obama-related ArbCom case. Running around calling everyone homophobic should've landed him a block. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Personally I'm unfamiliar with their contributions to Barack Obama, do we have a record of their efforts there? -- Banjeboi 09:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC) I don't think that CoM deserves a topic ban. I can understand and sympathize with his outburst if he has had to deal with the same sort of stonewalling and bad faith I've had to deal with. Soxwon (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC) A topic ban may be in order for all politics-related topics. The problem is the editor has somehow managed to avoid being blocked, and hardly even warned by anyone in a capacity to back up those warnings. If not a ban, is any admin willing to step up to the plate to block COM next time they begin lobbing accusations against other editors, or edit warring articles to the point of blocking? And if we're instead going to send the signal that behavior and policy procedures mean nothing what are we responsible editors supposed to do? Edit war and flame in kind? Ignore it and let important articles degrade? Wikidemon (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC) It was ChildofMidnight who took us to task for defending the Obama article against the WorldNewsDaily siege 30 days ago. [13] That did not leave a positive impression of that user's credibility. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC) More importantly, not finding his/her satisfaction at AN/I COM began edit warring the Obama article page eight hours after starting that thread and was the editor most directly responsible for getting it edit protected.[14] I've seen COM's edit wars result in five or six edit protects, and I'm vaguely aware of a number of other instances. All done with impunity. More than impunity, really, a sense of entitlement. Wikidemon (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC) I wasn't that aware of his work in the Obama article, largely b/c we had Freeps and the like. However, in the Barney Frank article, I have met with a lot of assumptions of bad faith and stonewalling in any attempts to change it. I can understand frustration boiling over in that article. As for Obama, I'm wondering if perhaps the editors in question are blowing his roles out of proportion due to the frustration and annoyance caused by the Freep incident? I remember being accused of being a Freep and/or being an extreme POV pusher for suggesting anything contradictory to what Tarc and the like proposed. While I do not blame them (extraordinary circumstances) I do wonder if the harsh editing environment might have led all to edit in ways they are not accustomed to and if this ill will has carried over. Just a thought. Soxwon (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Actually you have been met with the same standard for content regarding BLPs. In response you, despite all the previous dialog on the exact same issue, presented opion editorials to introduce negative content to replace the positive content. Stunning. No one is opposed to improving the article with sourced content and that article is a hit list of against Frank already. The only thing we don't talk about is his speech impediment and being obese, I have little doubt as to those being injected as well. It's already been suggested. This is a BLP and these standards apply to all BLPs. The same standard is applied to all editors as well. -- Banjeboi 01:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC) NO NO NO, from the first I said to remove the cheerleading. Soxwon (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC) And then presented opinion pieces supporting negative content as the way to go. Neither is supported by policy or consensus. This thread, by the way, is regarding conduct, not content. -- Banjeboi 03:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC) No, those were arguments against inclusion and not seriously meant for inclusion, as for the subject with the assumptions of bad faith and other comments I have received in the past 24 hours, I can understand his reaction of an outburst. Soxwon (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC) CoM's tenditiousness, edit-warring and bad-faith accusations against other editors was not an outburst. It has been an ongoing campaign to remove content they think casts the subject of the article positively and replace it with coatrack-ish POV content - marijuana reform, gay rights, controversies, etc. You seem to be doing the same now filling the talkpage with arguments and, IMHO, disingenuous suggestions which parrallel the same problems CoM had. We don't want opinion peices and mud-slinging on BLPs. "Controversies" need to be well-sourced, presented neutrally and with due weight. -- Banjeboi 10:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose Despite my far-left credentials and disdain for CoM's political beliefs, I tentatively agree with him on the Barney Frank article that the quotes in the lead are cheerleading, unnecessary, unduly opinionated, and possibly misleading. I think people can fairly disagree as to whether Frank is really a "bridge" between right and left. I disagree with CoM that the propaganda about Frank's influence Fannie/Freddie needs to be emphasized in the lead. His bad-faith, civility problems, and edit-warring are only marginally greater than the average Wikipedian. There has been a refusal to compromise and present a neutral lead from both sides here. II | (t - c) 18:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Are you saying it is okay for someone to edit war an article to the point of edit protection so long as you agree with their content position? I hear you but disagree on the civility - COM overtly accused a number of editors of bad faith in so many words, and then started accusing them of homophobia. Wikidemon (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Exactly, CoM is an experienced editor with plenty to say on admin boards, they know better than to editor war and disrupt, make bad-faith accusations and misrepresent their actions when called to task. That they completely fail to acknowledge thrie behaviours as disruptive and tenditious and continue to disparage other editors and mythologize their actions also fortells of even more problems to come. -- Banjeboi 01:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC) The lead on Barney Frank may need to re-worked, but CoM's behavior, and advocacy, on both it and about Barack Obama is not good. --David Shankbone Oppose For reassons stated. Soxwon (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose as premature and unfair given that there is no block history or authoritative administrative warning that this behavior could lead to a ban. But can we please do something about this editor? It's gone from merely annoying to intolerable. Disrupting Obama articles on probation, filing false administrative claims, making stuff up to harass people with with. How long do we have to suffer this? I'll file an RfC if I have to, but if a topic ban is too drastic for now it would be a lot simpler if someone can just watch over COM and step in next time he/she crosses the line.Wikidemon (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose topic ban WQA or DR are better first stops; this really didn't need to wind up here. Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose, take it to DR - while initially strongly supportive to the issues with CoM's obvious POV, the sentiments expressed in this thread by Benjiboi/Wikidemon/Scijessey have become increasingly shrill and demanding and, frankly, indicate quite clearly a much more two-sided POV struggle to me than is being advertised. Two-sided disputes require even-handed intervention, such as you would have found in the dispute resolution process, had you gone there first instead of hopping on AN/I and begging, pleading, and shouting for an admin sympathetic to your POV to simply summarily declare your ideological opponent to be the loser. That's not how we work here. Bullzeye contribs 19:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Do you have basis for making that accusation, or are you assuming that because there is a dispute there must be two sides and both sides must be POV? Opposing disruption does not make one POV, nor does asking the body of administrators for help make one "shrill" I happen to share the concern that a topic ban is premature, and on some of these issues I agree with COM's content position. But we have to do something in the meanwhile short of giving COM a free ticket to continue the trouble. Dispute resolution is for content issues and this is not a content issue. The problem is battlefield behavior, incivility, and edit warring that happens to have a consistent POV. Edit warring articles on probation, and directly and repeatedly accusing editors of bad faith, is not something you can resolve as a content dispute. We're supposed to resolve whether I'm a bad faith editor who is "one of the worst", a liability to the project, and whatever other insults we constantly get? Or that Allstarecho is a homophobe? Administrators have the tools to stop disruption; dispute resolution forums do not. That's the very reason we have article probation in the case of Obama articles, and AN/I in the case of flare-ups that should be addressed sooner than later. I'll add that while COM seems to have a special disdain for me personally, and more recently a few other editors, allowing him/her to make it personal in that way just plays into it. COM has probably insulted, offended, and gotten into edit wars with a dozen editors in the last week.Wikidemon (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Comment I guess I must apologize for not writing up a better report, or something. ChildofMidnight turned the Barney Frank article into a battleground and still claims to have no idea why the edit-warring, personal attacks and using op-ed peices as sources for negative content in the lede of a BLP is problematic. Sadly I see this revisionist take on events as part of the problem, ergo they have the last, and seemingly reasonable, word. My note here is a bit of an "I told you so" post as having spent an unfortunate amount of time looking through thier edits on admin boards and elsewhere I am convinced they are simply playing us for fools with red herrings and other diversionary tactics so no real consensus ensues. Sadly, it would be better if I were wrong on this and they turned around to treating articles and editors, the entire project that is, with respect. Unfortunately my time spent on this report looks to be wasted for now but at least will serve as a more accurate picture of their disruptive editing. Hopefully this will balance out the disingenous bewilderment ChildofMidnight presents as to why they are repeatedly reverted and called to task for problematic content and behaviours. That myself and other editor's motives and actions were questioned, and mischaracterized is unsurprising but that this turns out to simply be the latest round of problems on political events articles foretells this will hardly be the last problem. That they potentially do good work elsewhere seems promising but likely they need to be restricted off areas where they are causing disruption. My, somewhat limited, experience is that this level of disruption combined with such pronounced denial and unaccountability is a recipe for future problems. I don't watch ANI per se so feel free to ping me next time CoM is called to task and I can offer whatever insights might shed light. p.s. Also I have just little more than the sniff test here but isn't a user name of Soxwon (socks won) and their appearance here and a near seemless hand-off at the Barney Frank article all just a bit ... dodgy? -- Banjeboi 13:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I agree. [This] (not the location: on SA's user page) seems hard to explain other than with trolling or roleplaying. --Hans Adler I'm sorry if my comments were misconstrued. SA is a friend and I was just joking around with him. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC) (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC) The same can be said of this bizarre contribution [15], quite out of the blue, after the brief unblock of Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He had never before that interacted with this user. He just seems disruptive, with more than a small hint of exhibitionism. As Hans says, he is dissimulating and, so it seems, seeking out danger spots on WP in the public gaze. Mathsci (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC) I have edited with Alastair before. I have also noted his good work in resolving third opinion disputes. I was trying to be collegial in welcoming him back and noting his good works. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, for heaven's sake, ban him! Do we have to go through an RfA? We already had one painful with, this would be even worse. I resent that accusation thank you very much. I'm not aware of where CoM is from, but my name references the Red Sox winning the world series, and I'm from Virginia. I've nothing to hide nor am I anybody's sockpuppet. Soxwon (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Well, based on your assurance you are not a sockpuppet, I apologize and thank you for setting the record. Hopefully your working in concert with them on both the Frank and the Obama articles will evolve into strictly constructive and policy-compliant content and behaviours. -- Banjeboi 22:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC) If no ban, then what? If we're not going fashion an administrative remedy based on this report it would be useful to know what the next step is. Anyone want to propose where to go from here? Wikidemon (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Do nothing? Behavioral RfC? Warn ChildofMidnight? Warn other editors? Editor probation for ChildofMidnight? Other? As it seems admins either don't notice that an actual request to deal with CoM's behavior has been made, or are just ignoring it, I think the next step would be WP:RFC. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 03:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC) If there's issues on anything Obama-related (which seems so) just put it in the arbitration evidence if that hasn't already been done, and that will be dealt with if needed. As for Barney Frank, an RfC may be the best option. Wizardman 22:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC) POV I'm not sure why I keep getting accused of POV editing. If someone wants to explain how it's unreasonable to suggest noting Barney Frank is a prominent advocate for gay rights in his article's introduction, or that he's the leading Democrat on the Financial Services committee, or that Obama is a Democrat (which, if you can believe it, keeps getting removed from the Political positions of Barack Obama article) I'm all ears (and eyes too). And as far as the controversies and criticisms, yes I think that notable ones belong in the encyclopedia with appropriate weight and according to guidelines. Hasn't that been our policy all along? But this stuff isn't even controversial. Does anyone approaching these articles fairly really think that Obama's political party affiliation shouldn't be included in an article about his political positions? I feel like I'm dealing with craziness, and I know if I dare call the actions of Wikidemon et al. for what they are I'm going to get in trouble. But seriously, this is what it's come to??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC) "If someone wants to explain how it's unreasonable to suggest noting <insert any descriptor that, when shortened and not explained in full, lengthy detail, can be interpreted in many controversial ways, here> in his article's introduction..." I'm not going to explain it to you, because I think you already know the answer. Would it jog your memory if you thought back to this discussion, where you fought to keep similar descriptions (even though you agreed they were accurate) out of the article lead? Wasn't it you that said, Let's include the characterization along with others that are notable in appropriate context and with appropriate explanation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Just an observation. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC) These relate to content disputes. You know why - repeated explanations on talk pages have not stopped your from ignoring consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC) The talk pages show that consensus isn't against these reasonable edits, how could it be? You can't even argue the content issue here because your position is so obviously preposterous. The comments here and on the talk pages clearly show that you and Wikidemon are being unreasonable and behaving inappropriately. By all means lets do RfCs, as I've offered repeatedly, if that's really necessary. But this pattern of obstruction has been the case again and again and includes refactoring, soap boxing and personal attacks. So the real question is how to deal with you and Wikidemon when you refuse to act appropriately? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I wouldn't know, personally, because I have not acted inappropriately. I agree with you half the time on the content. But the fact that I agree or not, or that you have a POV, is not the issue here. People can have POVs. It's the resulting article that should not. You could mend a lot fences by cutting out the constant accusations of bad faith, edit warring, and declarations of consensus that don't jibe with other editors. An RfC may be a last resort but it would be a lot of time and drama, and we still need to stop the edit warring and all this other stuff while the RfC is in process... plus an administrator to interpret and enforce the results. But if things can be calm for 30 days why not make that permanant? And if the outcome is simply going to be that an administrator says "no more", why do we need an RfC to establish that? It would be vastly simpler if everyone can simply agree to follow the letter and spirit of our various policies, and in the case of the Obama articles, especially so given article probation and the circumstances that make it necessary. Wikidemon (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC) If you check his edit history, you'll find that Wikidemon has been active in a long string of attempts to ban editors (such as this one). In fact, the cases are remarkably consistent. They involve disputes like (as ChildofMidnight points out here), whether certain facts should be in an article because Wikidemon feels discussing facts conflicts with his idea of what NPOV is. Not only does Wikidemon aggressively push his version of npov (even to the point of removing factual content). He even removes dissenting opinions from view on article talk pages and, as I said, he's got a long history of removing editors (through banning attempts such as this one). Before anyone pursues action regarding this, people really need to examine Wikidemon's edit history pretty closely.-32.166.117.139 (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC) (ec)I must agree with a lot of what User:32.166.117.139 has just asserted, after looking at Wikidemon's history. Wikidemon has attempted to ban editors. (He has not succeeded often enough.) He is remarkably consistent. Wikidemon aggressively pushes for his version of NPOV (which, by the way, is everyone's version, by its very nature). More people should aggressively push for NPOV. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Wikidemon's version of NPOV involves the persistent, deliberate removal of factual content, the removal from view of dissenting opinions regarding the article's content in the talk page, and an ongoing campaign to ban editors whose views are counter to his own. If this is what NPOV means to you, then we have widely divergent ideas regarding NPOV.-166.197.92.181 (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC) The above (the IP editor) is almost certainly a block-evading IP sock that has been trolling Illegal immigration to the United States long term. We might have to start doing checkusers soon. For now please ignore.Wikidemon (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Generally speaking, unless the topic refers to an IP address specifically, I consider all IP edits to be suspect. HalfShadow 03:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Considering that the overwhelming majority of sock puppets are -named- accounts, I feel the same way about named account.-32.166.47.15 (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC) (OD)For both (and any future) IP editors, if you have a problem with an editor, don't waste our time here. Open a thread elsewhere on the page and bring the correct DIFFs to back up your accusations. You're not winning anyone over with drive-by allegations. Dayewalker (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 3 IP editors, two of which have almost identical IPs, suddenly decide to make their first ever Wikipedia posts here? Methinks roolz be brokd! -- Scjessey (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC) RfA? Is this - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ChildofMidnight - serious? Things are taking a curious turn here. Wikidemon (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, this should be fun. Bring it on! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Hey, we all need some Schadenfreude now and again. PhGustaf (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC) This discussion indicates that it is indeed a serious nomination. I'm at a loss to see why he specifically picked this time and nominator, though. Chamal talk 09:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC) As much as I despise the mindless bleating of AGF that goes on around here, we probably should. I think the simplest explanation for the timing is that COM simply doesn't get why people are concerned about his/her editing patterns and is disregarding them--as any of us would do if we were convinced of our rightness. //roux   09:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC) It's all an accident - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 09:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I just saw that, and your response. Two things: Please, please back off from COM. It can only end badly. That sort of canvassing, especially the meatpuppet comment, is deeply concerning. //roux   09:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I've got already about half a dozen reasons to list in opposing CoM. The list keeps getting longer. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Assuming he will see this new sub-thread, I hope he will go on and accept his "nomination" so it can be transcluded and the voting can begin. Or go on and withdraw the "nomination" before it gets ugly. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 09:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC) He's already been commenting on his page about the "jokers", i.e. those who would vote against this joke of a nomination. My guess is that come morning he'll see which way the wind is blowing, and if he has a lick o' sense, he'll abort the mission. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I see a poor dead equine and people hitting it. Hint. //roux   09:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC) You're just being a neigh-sayer. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Bugs, this might me a good time to rein in your wit for a while. As Bali suggests below, it's probably best to let the matter pass pleasantly, like a good bowel movement, whilst even a whit of wit might make it pass like a kidney stone. PhGustaf (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC) The whole RFA thing is just pointy/a joke. If it does go live, i suggest those who would oppose this candidate would simply type "oppose - not good admin material" and move on. If you don't handle it that way, you'll be feeding the three-ring circus this fellow is currently assembling. Like a lot of POV pushers, he enjoyes feeling "marginalized" and a "pariah," convinces him he's fighting the good fight. Why waste any of our time feeding his ego?Bali ultimate (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Hi. Sorry, I wasn't aware of this discussion until just now. I had approached an editor about a possible nom. I was curious what he would say. I know there was a big brouhaha about his consistent opposes at RfAs. As far as the timing, I had not really planned on going ahead immediately, truth be told, and it certainly seemed unlikely that he would say yes. I would like to respond to some of the comments here. This discussion is a classic example of trolling. It has absolutely nothing to do with article content. It's a series of snide comments bantering back and forth and it fosters a hostile atmosphere. I am not upset by any of the comments, and some parts are amusing, but there is no question that it is inappropriate and inconsistent with the purpose of this board. Let's be clear, it has also involved some inappropriate canvassing (I will let PhGustaf explain) and personal attacks that if they were going on in reverse would most certainly result in my being blocked. And before anyone rehashes the jokes I posted on an editor friend's page and misrepresents them as being serious, if you care to look through the history, you'll see that we have had a collegial banter back and forth for a long time. If attempting to make someone laugh is a crime I am certainly guilty. I do think Wikipedia should be fun. I also think the snide comments and attacks carried out by the self-righteous editors above put Wikipedia in a very negative light. The civility policies and guidelines are all about treating other editors with respect. So if it's a friend and you want to make a joke that's fine, but to come here and make jokes about banning people and attempting to bait and provoke editors is inappropriate and shows poor judgement. I'm not perfect, and I'm not a saint, but I edit in good faith and I try to treat my fellow editors with respect even when I disagree with them. Sometimes my sense of humor is misunderstood and conveyed poorly in text, and for that I apologize. But I will not apologize for being willing to sometimes take unpopular stands where clear violations of our policies are hurting the encyclopedia and our community. Wikidemon's divisive and disruptive behavior is totally unacceptable. His willingness to behave like an animal in a pack and to muscle other editors with whom he disagree is shameful. I may in fact be banned some day, but I will never attempt to coordinate attacks and to carry out obstructions in such a disgraceful way. If he chooses to turn a new page and to edit in a way that abides by our guidelines and treats other editors appropriately I will be happy to let bygones be bygones at any time. We all make mistakes and I hope he will stop to correct his. I don't hold grudges and I believe people can change. I don't spend a lot of time here, so I may not have time to respond to any comments that follow this one. I hope everyone has a great weekend. Thank you. That is all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC) What a noxious personal attack. You have not let bygones be bygones. The personal attacks have gone on, mostly in reverse. You have waged an ill-tempered campaign of harassment against me and a few other editors for months, ever since you joined the project, making up one bogus accusation after another. If your RfA is real it is a problem because the prospect of you having the power to actually block the people you have said you want to block in service of your conservative and sometime fringe agenda is spooky. The thought of you backing up with wheel wars and obstruction on this board the insults you regularly hurl at administrators when they handle disruptive editors you have been championing is also alarming. Sometimes it is hard to tell if you are sincere and simply have terrible judgment, or all this is some kind of a ploy. Whatever it is you need to stop. ANI is the most efficient place to address that but if necessary we can do it in Arbcom or via an RfC. Getting the Obama page edit protected, then edit warring its talk page, then getting Barney Frank edit protected, all the while accusing your fellow editors of homophobia and trolling, is not a good move. You have called me an animal, shameful, disgraceful, a harm to the encyclopedia, worthy of a topic ban. Under those circumstances I cannot reasonably deal with you as an editor, but neither can I allow you to mangle Wikipedia's most important articles and forums. Much of the rest of the community is fed up with you as well. I did not choose for you to have a vendetta against me, and I did not choose the timing of this report. But we are here now, and it is time to do something about it. Wikidemon (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC) As usual, I see you, ChildofMidnight, have resorted to your tried and true method of the "they are picking on me!" defense. You says above, I had approached an editor about a possible nom. I was curious what he would say. I know there was a big brouhaha about his consistent opposes at RfAs. As far as the timing, I had not really planned on going ahead immediately, truth be told, and it certainly seemed unlikely that he would say yes. If it seemed unlikely User:DougsTech would say yes to you asking him to nom you for RfA, why'd you even ask him to do it? I think it's because you're using him as a pawn in another one of your "bait & hook" games on Wikipedia. As I told you at User_talk:ScienceApologist#RfA?, it's hard to walk into doors when you ask others to hold them open for you. But after asking DougsTech to nom you, you then belittle his own RfA battles? Uhg. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 01:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Please don't drag in other editors who have nothing to do with this. If and when I decide to run for RfA you are certainly welcome to weigh in with your opinion. If there is no further request here, these abusive threads should be closed. This is a board to report incidents requiring Admin attention, not a playpen to launch malicious attacks. I'm sorry Wikidemon dragged you into his disruptive activities. Have a good weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC) You are not allowed to come here, post attacking diatribes, and then decide this thread is to be closed. Thanks. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 02:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC) If CoM has the time to reply at length here, then he certainly has time to accept the nomination, and I encourage him to do so rather than continue to try the community's patience. Grsz11 02:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC) He's unlikely to actually accept. He's already framing his exit strategy: [16] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your suggestion Grsz. Are you volunteering to be my scheduler? I wasn't aware that I was under any time constraints. Is that a policy? As to the abusive reports have been responded to repeatedly already with a clear indication that Wikidemon should cease disrupting, I once again suggest these numerous threads be closed. Further attempts at disruption and smearing are highly inappropriate, particularly on noticeboard. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC) It would certainly be awkward to be running for admin at the same time there's a still-open thread advocating a topic ban. That might cast some doubt on your fitness to be an admin. Of course, personally calling for it to be closed doesn't help your credibility either. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC) There's a good chance I would support per User:A_Nobody#Favorite_userpages and as I have found him open-minded in AfDs when he initially argued to delete, but the article was improved, and as such was willing to reconsider. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Canvassing? I have noticed that Scjessey has been posting links to CoM's RfA on talk pages of people who have had disputes with CoM with the subject line of "Joke?" This smacks of canvassing to me. Anyone else see it that way? LadyofShalott Weave 04:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I was asking people if it was a joke. I was unaware that the possibility had already been discussed because I didn't know about any of the threads discussing it. I found out when Allstarecho responded to my query. If it looks like I was singling out people who have disputes with CoM, that's because everyone I know on Wikipedia has had a dispute with CoM. Calling that canvassing is a mighty stretch. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I've become pretty well convinced that it is a joke. He asked for the nomination, he got it, but now he has to "think about it". Maybe he should just take a poll on his talk page, asking whether he should run or not? That might be a time-saver. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC) As the 3 edits appear to be so close together (14:50, 14:51 and 14:52) but none since 14:52 or after my reply to him (my reply was at 15:48), I think this isn't a case of canvassing. as it appears to me that he didn't know there was already several discussions taking place about the RfA. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 04:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Normally I'd love to call for canvassing on this one. However, given the length of time this RfA has been sitting without going active, and the amount of discussion going on at so many talk pages, it's kind of tough to call out any one editor this time. Probably better to AGF, at least until we see how the actual RfA goes. — Ched :  ?  07:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Having been inspired by the message of Easter, we are now waiting to see which event will occur first: The return of the Messiah, or a decision on this RfA. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Three messages does not canvassing make; even less so when the recipients are arguably the 3 editors on all of Wikipedia most likely to already be fully aprised of CoM's endeavors (see all the ongoing discussions involving them). Calling that canvassing is as silly as suggesting the good Lady is trying to chill any unfavorable examination of the afore mentioned RfA applicant, just because she made a few posts[17][18][19]. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC) <outdent>Clear canvassing. I noticed it also. I agree with Ched that it's probably worth letting it go, but let's make sure that we make clear that this type of conduct is wholly inappropriate and disruptive. I'm fine with warning being served with the understanding that this behaviour should be avoided in the future. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Funny CoM. If that is "clear canvassing", then what is this? Grsz11 18:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks for pointing out ChildofMidnight's own canvassing Grsz11. It's just more proof of the tendentious kind of editor he is.. and yet no admin has bothered to lift a finger in dealing with this whole thread and his blatantly obvious behavior. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 18:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Are you suggesting I am canvassing a user who can't vote in an RfA? That would seem to be a very poor strategy. I think you both know my comment was intended to be humorous (I don't see how anyone reading it in its entirety could conclude otherwise). I hope you're not trying to misrepresent it in order to continue a campaign of smears against me. Sometimes I try to joke and be funny with my fellow editors. My hope is to promote collegiality and comraderie and to make editing here as much fun as possible. Even in the case of a blocked user whose approach to editing I happen to disagree with, I wanted to drop by and say hi. I think it's important to be friendly and I'm proud that after an initial dispute with that editor we've become friends. For the record, I also mentioned my RfA in an apology on an article talk page where I had previously made comments that weren't appropriate. Even as I made my statement I wondered if I would be accused of canvassing (even though bringing an RfA to the attention of editors with whom I've had a disagreement would seem a very ineffective way to win votes). I concluded that I can't stop people from thinking ill of me if they so choose, but that I have to try to do my best in any case. I mentioned my RfA there because I wanted to be transparent and clear about how the matter came to my attention and didn't want anyone to feel that I was being devious. All of a person's actions are open to interpretation, but I don't think it's hard to see good faith in mine, and I would ask that this campaign of smears and half-truths against me be stopped. If I do something inappropriate, I'm sure you will bring it to the community's attention, but trying to suggest malicious intent in a frinedly note to a fellow editor seems awfully bad form. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC) You've gone and made my point for me. Scjessey commented to three individuals who were already well aware of the "RfA" as a joke. At your expense, yes, but a joke nonetheless. Grsz11 20:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC) (ec) Please don't try to muzzle editors from discussing things openly on their talk pages. (after e.c. - particularly for the nominee, trying to have a fair open nomination process while accusing commentators of bad faith, as in "campaign of smears and half-truths", is just wrong) The people who are dealing with this have suffered enough abuse as it is. There is some thought that ChildofMidnight's nomination for adminship is some kind of joke. We are already talking about that here. It is hard to think of taking that discussion to three editors' talk pages as being canvassing (canvassing to do what, exactly?). Two of the three editors were clearly aware of the issue already; the third is on this thread and would no doubt have learned soon if not yet aware. There is no "dispute" in the sense of two sides fighting, or two parties with different content positions. It is a community response to some problematic behavior by ChildofMidnight. For the community to respond the community must discuss. I am concerned with the ongoing attempt to portray as misbehavior the good faith concerns of editors who have interacted with the editor. Wikidemon (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Well, I don't think the issue is only responsible for ChildofMidnight give the ongoing ArbCom that includes you as a party and incivility issues and AfD disruptions, 3RR/edit warring by two of the three. See (Scjessey, and Wikidemon). --Caspian blue 20:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Not sure what you're getting at but my record is clean so please don't re-fling mud that's already been flung. I'm here frequently because I care about the project. Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I don't think so especially given the CENSEI fiasco and your controlling attitude on Obama subjects. I'm very bemused at the accusation of "re-fling mud that's already been flung". Who makes the initial issue getting muddy? "Everyone" here care the project as much as you do.--Caspian blue 21:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I can't parse what you're saying but you seem to have a beef with my editing. If you have something to add to the Obama article arbitration why not do so there? If you think I've acted improperly in some other regard, feel free to let me know on my talk page when you disagree or go through whatever channels. We're trying to deal with a specific problem here. Accusing the people dealing with the problem of unrelated things sidetracks the discussion and is not the most productive approach. Wikidemon (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC) How about your accusations? I don't like getting dragged into the boring U.S politic dramas occurring almost everyday that include you and S, CoM. I criticized CoM a couple of time, but well I find hard respectable things in your way of editing.--Caspian blue 21:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I note your displeasure. Let's stay on topic. Wikidemon (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Might I add the curiousity that is a sudden campaign of apologies "in the context of an RfA nom". CoM's willingness now to seek out editors he has had past interactions with ([20]), is curious. Grsz11 20:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, I was curious about that but WP:AGF is especially important when someone is being contrite. That's behavior we want to encourage, RfA or no RfA. I'm not concerned if COM is making up with 80% of the editors COM has offended, so long as COM does not continue to antagonize the others. Wikidemon (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Because you don't get the intention. I can see that he wants to be a friend to the people to whom he apologized for minor tiffs.--Caspian blue 20:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I didnt get an apology :( Grsz11 21:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC) The answer can be any of these assumption 1) he does not want you as his friend or 2) your turn does not come yet 3) he does not have anything to owe an apology to you. 4) you did wrong to him. But I have no doubt that "the two" would not ever get his apology.--Caspian blue 21:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Please stop the attacks. It's obvious you haven't come here to help resolve a situation, only to escalate. Perhaps your time would be better served elsewhere. Grsz11 21:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I did not attack you at all, but I wonder why you attack to me as such and do not abide AGF such as "sudden campaign of apologies". Show me your "good faith" jeez--Caspian blue 21:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Semi-protection I've decided to semi-protect this article for 2 weeks. If anyone feels that I'm out of line, please discuss it here and then change it. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Um, the article is fully protected and was done so on April 6. It appears all you did was add the PP template to the article. Did you mean to change the protection from full to semi? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 01:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC) It's still fully protected, as of 30 seconds ago. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Move to close I move that this be closed. Nothing looks like it's going to be resolved, and once again COM appears to have quite neatly sidestepped any sanctions being imposed. Nothing's going to change. Objections? //roux   15:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I haven't sidestepped anything. The impartial assessments of the issues and particulars of this series of reports have repeatedly indicated that I haven't acted inappropriately and that on the content dispute itself those accusing me make a weak case. The editors acting improperly are the ones repeatedly casting aspersions and filing repeated reports and adding new ANI threads to try and smear and intimidate me. This indicates a block or at least a stern warning of Wikidemon and maybe one or two other editors would be very appropriate. Editors should be strongly discouraged from abusing processes in this way for the very reason that it can give a misleading impression about who is at fault. I don't think I should be punished for the restraint I've shown in the face of these malicious and misguided attacks that are in violation of our guidelines and procedures and I don't appreciate am concerned that your statement is a misleading and inaccurate assessment of my having "sidestepped" anything. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Blocks and what grounds? This was opened as a legitimate concern. How many petty discussions here or 3rr have you opened? But nevertheless, I echo Roux that this can be closed and nothing has resulted. Grsz11 17:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Support close. This is the first notable encounter I've had with ChildofMidnight but I have little doubt based on their responses, denials and actions that they'll be back. Unfortunately the community either doesn't care or agree that they've had a disruptive presence and toxic effect at the Barney Frank article from which, a month on, we are still digging out. The Frank article will likely be fine but I do feel bad for the next articles that will get this "help". -- Banjeboi 17:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC) This obviously is not over for ChildofMidnight (see the above, lobbying for other editors to be blocked). We have to deal with this sooner or later. If we close it now there will be another notice board report when COM's behavior boils over, and another after that, only emboldened by getting away with it yet again. It would be far easier if an administrator could roll up their sleeves and do something. Failing that, closing this thread means an RfC is increasingly likely. That will be a lot of work in the short term. Wikidemon (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Redacted in favor of comment, below - Wikidemon (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC) The thread should've been wrapped up long ago. Wizardman wisely moves forward as enlisting CoM as an involved party to the ongoing Obama Arbcom case in which Wikidemon participate too. In response, CoM suggested Scjessey to be the party together, so please deal with whatever issue within the ArbCom. Thanks.--Caspian blue 21:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Agreed. The original poster, Benjiboi, agrees to the close if not the outcome. Per this comment by ArbCom member Wizardman[21] the Obama-related issues can be reached in the Arbcom case. The outcome there is uncertain but the ongoing discussion does not seem to be producing any new matters for administrator involvement than have already been proposed. Wikidemon (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

"X-Y" relations stubs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most people don't care, do they? Perhaps your sample is disorted by the fact that almost everyone who does care just leaves. Hilary T (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Similar behavior

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This might be part of the problem. People like you think "In general we should do this", and they vote that way, without actually responding to the specific objections that have been raised. Hilary T (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Sorry WilyD, I don't have to take the high road, because Wikipedia's interests are not my priority any more. I know what they want will result in a broken encylopedia but I really don't care. Initially I started creating these articles because I saw you complaining ablout being flooded and I thought it was a good way to give him an incentive to slow down. However I didn't realize how much it hurts when people who don't even read your arguments, like BlueRavenSquadron, get your contributions deleted with that kind of thinking. BlueRavenSquadron is obviously about 10 years old so I hold Wikipedia responsible for this. Now I'm thinking "what will give Wikipedia an incentive not to allow this kind of thing?" and I'm thinking a vivid imagination combined with that nice "cite book" template someone taught me. Hilary T (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends on what you want, of course. If you want to get banned, sink to their level and beyond. If you want to create a bunch of useful, encyclopaedic articles and have them kept around, let them expose themselves. 10:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What I want is to feel better about my relationship with Wikipedia. Getting banned is somewhat irrevelant to a strategy of creating fake articles, they would obviously all need different logins and IP's. Hilary T (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I can speak to that. I write for the readership, and that I'm working in their interests, and some other accounts are working against their interests, I can't find solace in. I have to content myself with working for the readership, and benefitting it. If that's not enough, there may not be enough. WilyD 14:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure out the proportion of good Wikipedians, who follow the deletion policy, google for sources and try to improve articles, compared to the ones who lie to get articles deleted like Biruiturol, the one's who are driven by hatred and vote without having the decency to read what anyone else has said like BlueRavenSquadron, the ones using AFD as a instrument of punishment like The Hand That Feeds You, etc etc. I thought you were in a minority of one, frankly, but there do seem to be some other decent people here too and so it's possible this project has a viable future. On this basis, if I don't get banned I might not start my campaign of fake article writing. Hilary T (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not we have these articles will not break Wikipedia. What will hurt Wikipedia a little is concentration upon issues of what should be separate articles instead of writing content. Those who think these articles important should try to write some more good ones one at a time. BTW, my idea of a combination article is : "foreign relations of Nepal with countries in the Americas;", with a paragraph for each, until someone writes more. DGG (talk) 07:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

DGG it's broken right now, try to pay attention to what I say. Hilary T (talk) 07:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have another question: why did you delete Greece-Nepal relations, instead of merging it according to your own policies? To punish me for creating it, no? Hilary T (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greece-Nepal relations, you would need to ask User:Juliancolton. And you can keep on playing the victim here if you want but the truth is, people have made suggestions as to how to proceed and you've instead reverted to the same arguments, which aren't in the majority. Does everyone who supports you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazil–Vietnam relations now punishing someone else? I would guess that Julian, upon review of the discussion, did not think that you and User:User:WilyD had the arguments that indicated consensus the best, but you can ask him. Now, if you would like, there is Wikipedia:Deletion review if you think the decision was improper or I would be willing to move a copy into your userspace until a suitable version is completed. There are options available and they don't include insult other users who have a different view than yourself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What arguments have I reverted to? Hilary T (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And I think I'd better repeat this question: why did you delete Greece-Nepal relations, instead of merging it according to your own policies? Hilary T (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT comes to mind. And User:Juliancolton deleted the article so, as stated above, ask him. We didn't make that decision. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If you deleted it instead of merging it because I created it to make a point (the point at the time being that WilyD was already overwhelmed with deletion nominations), I interpret that as punishing me and I have no need to "play" the victim, I am one. Hilary T (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds rather backwards to me. It's hard to claim to be a victim when you intentionally set out to be disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you are right. I deserved my punishment. So sorry. Hilary T (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

---

BlueRaven is still doing it, and I've decided it willl be too stressful to have any interaction with him, so I'm going to go with Plan B. Sorry Wily etc. Hilary T (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Resolved

 – Already posted at WP:AN

Wknight94 and Beechmont (New Rochelle) area article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links to the previous discussions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You should take your complaint to the user who caused the problem. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Okay, this is just silly. We don't take tools like Twinkle or Huggle down just because people abuse them. Similar case. Don't take away the tool from everyone just because one person has mishandled it. That is illogical. Killiondude (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Rockiesfan19 and misuse of Twinkle

Resolved

 – contributions blocked indef per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cutlerowns19. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Rockiesfan19 (talk · contribs) registered on April 3, but did not edit until April 7th. His first edit was to install Twinkle and he apparently activated Friendly using the preferences. His first edits are "okay" tagging articles, though usually with stuff that doesn't need tagging (like tagging a stub with expand - well duh). However, today he used Twinkle for the first time. He reverted an edit on one article that doesn't look like vandalism to me, then proceeded to nominate the on-going AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Buffyverse objects for MfD[24]. I reverted the nom and tagged the MfD as being disruptive, but this seems like a pretty clear misuse of Twinkle. He also then used it to report a new user to AIV for non-vandalism.[25] On my talk page, he says "he's new to twinkle" but considered his first edit was adding it,[26] I smell something off here. In either case, his Twinkle access be removed until he learns what he's doing? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After the notes above, Rockiesfan19 also attempted to file an SPI on User:NuclearWarfare[27][28] and User:Mikey50[29] and is continuing to make false/incorrect AIV reports. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

While we're on the subject, Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars ([30], [31], [32]), and, unless it's vandalism, don't ever revert edits to another user's page ([33]) HalfShadow 01:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Being assumptive of good faith perhaps? Looking at this user's edits with semi-automated tools, he doesn't know what he's doing but may think he does. Whether he's intentionally trolling or genuinely trying to figure things out here and contribute positively becomes less and less clear with each poorly-considered edit he makes. I agree with the above suggestion of blanking his monobook and protecting it temporarily; I don't know why he thought he should re-add it after being specifically told to remove it. But this should be viewed as a definite last chance; Wikipedia is not a game. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, assuming good faith, I'm thinking they were mistakes from not knowing how to use the tool properly or trying to experiment. I also agree to removing his access to these tools until he learns how things work here. There's nothing serious enough here to justify a block IMO. However, Rockiesfan19 should understand that he has acknowledged he is familiar with Wikipedia (which means he will no more be treated like a complete newbie), so if this kind of behaviour continues it's likely to get him in trouble. Chamal ^talk 02:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And... blocked. Though just 24h. And to be honest, it looks like he started to go nuts immediately before. He's claiming innocence, but I agree with the block considering the excuse. Next time should be indef for sure. And, as much as it pains me to admit it, I wonder if there's a connection here to contributions. Someone may wish to open a new SPI for that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

He's claiming someone else got on his computer and made the malicious edits. How's the "good faith" meter reading at this point? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Mine is going down like I've got a fuel tank with a big hole in it :( I now get the impression that he got the idea from my comment earlier to say that he was familiar with Wikipedia before he joined. Well, he'll get one more chance and if he keeps going like this again, indef it should be. Not sure about the sockpuppet thing though, is there enough evidence to go into this? Chamal ^talk 09:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to persuade him to get adopted when he returns (if he's not a sock, that is). Chamal ^talk 09:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you've managed to panic him, and he's trying everything he can think of to keep from getting banned. --Carnildo (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You think so? But his contributions show that his editing hasn't changed much even after the post here and he admitted that he knows what he's doing. He's not exactly trying to stay low or anything. Chamal ^talk 09:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know as we should be calling for a ban quite yet. I suspect that what we're dealing with is simply an over-eager editor who wants to be part of the community. Boldness to be sure, and I dare say that the desire to RfA is just a tad premature, but I'm willing to extend the last shred of AGF. Perhaps with a little mentorship and tutelage there may be a wikipedian within this user. Perhaps when the block expires we'll see an attempt to tone it down a bit. I noticed that the user was very touchy about the "getting sent to his room" comment - perhaps it struck a nerve a little too close to home - so for that I'll apologize. I would strongly suggest the editor start reading up on the core policies and guidelines before continuing to edit however. Let it be known that he/she is on a very short leash for a while, and let's see where it goes when the block expires. A note to Rockiesfan19, just because something "caught your eye", doesn't mean it's a good idea to pick it up. Slow down, fix some typos and spelling errors in articles, and don't push the "bold" and "IAR" items until you understand the when and why to do it. — Ched :  ?  11:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ched; what we're seeing could easily just be an eager editor who, despite his/her insistence, does not have an appreciation of Wikipedia's core policies. A full ban is premature, but a ban from using automated editing tools for a time might be appropriate. Compulsory mentorship might also be a good idea, though it might seem kind of a shitty hand to be dealt for a relatively new editor. I'm still concerned about the possibility of a connection to contributions, considering the accusation made at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HalfShadow. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious, come on. Brand new goodfaith users don't file badfaith SPI cases against random users. I'd be willing to bet it's a Cutlerowns19 sock. //roux   14:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable conclusion. Offhand I'd say the previous username is a reference to Jay Cutler (a Denver Bronco until last week) and that the other one represents a feigned interest in the local baseball team (rather than football as before), and furthermore Susan I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if checkuser places all four of them in central Colorado. — CharlotteWebb 15:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Susan? Well, it ain't easy being a boy named Sue... //roux   15:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, hell- so much for what was left of my good faith. Look at Rockiesfan's account creation time compared to Rwiki's block time. Someone want to request the checkuser, or would a WP:DUCK block be appropriate as per the previous case? It also might be worth pointing the user to WP:SO if he/she genuinely wishes to contribute here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cutlerowns19 filed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikistalking and harassment by User:Jack Merridew

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

• Notice the "jeers": [34]
• At the top you see that he inaccurately assumes I was talking about him and he also edits my post: [35]
• Think of all the other supporters who do not see fit to mention me specifically: [36]
• Mischaracterization of my merges, which the closer ultimately agreed with: [37]

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

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

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

• I work to rescue articles on the 3rd through 5th of March (see [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]) and he shows up on the 5th with copy and paste WP:ITSCRUFT comments (see [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]). Someone who makes those kind of "arguments" has the audacity to criticize my participation in AfDs (see below)?! Similarly, please note the edit history of this AfD, i.e. who came to the discussion first and second.

For background, Pixelface and I were among the few editors convinced by White Cat’s evidence that Merridew was indeed a sock and had to contend with the usual hyperbole about us assuming bad faith until it was confirmed and Merridew was blocked as a sock of Davenbelle who had several socks with which he used to harass various inclusionist editors FOR YEARS. And now, after arbcom unblocked him under strong conditions that he not antagonize anyone or cause any disruption of any kind, he is making a joke out of his being a sock account: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], etc. The "lulz" is also consistent with the attack site Encyclopedia Dramatica. Given that he was blocked for long term use of socks as harassment, it is hardly "funny" about his being a sock and given what’s on ED about various editors, why use that site’s catchphrases? Would you think it would be a big slap in the face and insult if say I did the same thing? There is also this pointed use of the rescue template: [53]. I am increasingly seeing it as a bad idea having allowed him back as he has numerous instances of pointed or bad taste edits with limited good edits to boot, whether it's the above or other instances where he referred to me by my old username mockingly. Casliber has recently reverted an edit Merridew made to my talk page and then told him to leave me alone: [54], but… I comment in one AFD on one day and argue to delete and notice the post immediately after mine... [55]. That AfD is not an April Fools prank for one thing... Now see this. If you check, his so called apology is [56], i.e. a post by Pixelface.

This has been going on for quite sometime. Even a few months back, I and another user have cautioned him for making unproductive comments as seen at User_talk:Jack_Merridew/Archive_3#Less_than_civility. Instead of responding to this good faith feedback from myself and User:Randomran in a civil manner, he instead has an edit summary in this edit that links to an account other than to my or Randomran’s accounts, which is deliberately antagonistic. You would think someone coming off an indefinite block would not say or do anything overly hostile. Neither Randomran nor I linked to any of his previous accounts or said anything else to be sarcastic to him. Moreover, he seems to be making Encyclopedia Dramatica allusions in various posts as well (see [57], for example) as well as other odd or unconstructive/non-serious posts as seen with such edits as this. I am therefore concerned that he is 1) needlessly escalating tensions; and 2) uninterested in good faith cautions (after all, Randomran is pretty neutral in all of this and as seen above, Casliber is even his arbcom agreed mentor even if one thinks I am not). The bottom line is that many are all trying really hard to come to a compromise concerning WP:FICTION and anyone mocking editors and dismissing even those who reached out to him (for better or worse, I even said I supported him being mentored when he requested being unblocked back in December…) is remarkably discouraging if not detrimental to the attempt to compromise. Please notice item 5 at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Indefinite block lifted with editing restrictions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you really this dense? I'm mean really, they're April Fools jokes. Good God. Go cry me a river. He was joking by being self-deprecating on day where you're supposed to act as such. Another reason why we're not on good terms: you can't differentiate between trivial and non-trivial slights to you to save your life and making comments like these only reinforces the notion that you're either incredibly biased or have no sense of humor whatsoever. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If we're on bad terms it because you continue to unjustifiably treat me incivilly and hypocritically. Usually I support candidates, but when I do oppose, notice I don’t comment to Sephiroth’s supports, but he comments to my opposes in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Seraphim_Whipp, Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Anonymous Dissident (moved to talk page), Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 2 (I deliberately avoid challenging his support, but he challenges my challenges to others’ supports in which they mentioned me directly or my oppose directly), Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/S@bre (again moved to talk page), etc. It’s just curious that someone I consciously try to avoid going after in RfAs wants to accuse me of badgering by making it a point to comment to or about me in these discussions. It’s apparently only okay to bully those of a different viewpoint if those of his viewpoint are the ones doing it. And now here, I guarantee if I made a joke about sockpuppets people would indeed cry foul, whereas it is apparently okay if someone else does so. I don't know what more to say to you if you cannot see a problem in it not being funny for someone to make sockpuppet jokes when they were previously banned for using sockpuppets to harass another editor. That's not about having a sense of humor, it's about some stuff just not being funny. If you think someone who used sockpuppets to harass someone making a joke of it is funny, then I really don't know what more to say. And for the record, I have a sense a humor... Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

...it just boggles the mind that you don't get it. They're jokes on April Fools Day. Why on earth is this suddenly slanderous towards you of all people? Why the hell do you care? This is so ridiculously trivial. Also, how the hell is my RfA !votes suddenly relevant to the discussion? Another problem that you have: you bring in entirely irrelevant material on the person you're addressing rather than addressing the actual point itself. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

There's more on all this at;

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

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

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

G'day, Jack Merridew 11:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)made a slight redaction here Jack Merridew 07:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Sweet dreams!

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

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

• I've seen no one state that they believe your off-wiki harassment assertion; a statement of belief of veracity by someone would serve you well here. I see the vanishing and return and admonishments to not refer to your quite contentious past as disingenuous at best.
• I don't know most of those sock accounts (exception being Everyme); they're certainly not me, if anyone is wondering.
• You frequently refer to my AfD comments as 'dishonest' — which is a personal attack.
• nb: I just reformatted some of your links as they were not line-wrapping well.

Jack Merridew 06:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that I've seen the evidence of ongoing harassment off-wiki. I think baiting someone in these circumstances is despicable. I've said elsewhere that if some of A nobody's comments are misguided, one can say so without descending to that. And, indeed, most people opposing him do so much more fairly. The deliberate use of a former name is, in my eyes, confirmation of continuing bad faith and the intent to persist in it. DGG (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, your post is the first such confirmation that I've seen, and I'll accept it; I don't need details. I will refrain from refering to his prior username as much as is possible. He doesn't get a pass on concern about his past editing, though. FWIW, I'll assert that I'm not in anyway involved with him in an off-wiki sense; I've likely not been within 10.000km of him since I first encountered him on-wiki. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Way WP:TLDR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very interesting that you have brought this edit of mine up again. That edit was presented as evidence in E&C 2. You called me a religious fanatic, which I most certainly am not. It seems to me that your reaction to me is due to a perception of irreverence on my part; you really, really, don't like my sense of humour, for example. Jack Merridew 06:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Mutual topicban proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am open to SB Johnny working as some sort of mediator here; please note that Cas has a {{busy}} tag displayed at the moment; I've not heard from him re this, and am obviously all for working with him, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

I don't think this appropriate; it isn't dispute resolution, it's fatigue. This is the sort of thing A Nobody and Pixelface have been seeking; to gag a critic and the removal of me from AfDs on less than stellar articles. I've commented on a fairly small number of AfDs in the last some months and have only ever started about 4. I comment on their actions because I believe their actions need commenting on and I'm far from the only editor with critical opinions of them. I've suggested a RFC/U re A Nobody several times, as have others; indeed it was being spoken of in Sept/Oct as a requirement for his return from faux-vanished status, but it was not followed up on. I have not started this myself because he has said several times that he would 'ignore' and/or 'not respect' an RFC/U started by myself or any of his opponents (sorry, no diffs handy, but it's out there; mebbe he'll clarify). His attitude re an RFC/U is itself of concern and while I could initiate this step in DR regardless of his stated stance, it would be best if someone else took the lead. See WP:DR; I'm going to review it, again. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It is apparent that he is unwilling to leave me alone per his ArbCom appointed mentor's advice. That someone would not be willing to leave someone alone when told by an admin to do so and when strongly requested on AN/I to do so demonstrates an unhealthy and inapproriate fixation. There is no reason why under such circumstances anyone would not be able to comply. It is clear that if he comments any further to or about me anywhere beyond this AN/I thread that it will indeed be ongoing harassment. I have tried being nice to him, I have tried avoiding him, he has been told by an admin to leave me alone. Rather than trying to build articles, he is devoting his efforts to hounding myself and Pixelface as the new White Cats in his sights. I am stating this outright and essentially reiterating Casliber's instructions, it is unacceptable for this editor to follow me around any further. There is absolutely no legitimate reason on a site with 2 million articles why he would have a need to cross paths with me. I have even avoided participating further in the WP:FICT discussions because I do not want to be harangued by this editor any further. Anything he does beyond this thread will be clear retaliation and clear refusal to leave an editor alone after being instructed by an admin/mentor to do just that. The only appropriate/acceptable solution is total and complete avoidance. There is no real valid reason why anyone could not agree to that unless if his intentions are indeed to maliciously go after someone and given this editor's history of harassment, I absolutely hope that community would not tolerate such a thing. I plan to go on break for a while to finish my dissertation, but please, please admins do not allow someone who has been restricted due to long-term harassment to be able to find new editors to pick on. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Every edit is sacred,
Every edit is great.
If an edit is wasted,
A Nobody gets quite irate.

Heaps of mere assertion here. To cast this as 'harassment' is a (fairly) transparent attempt to change the subject. You don't like my criticism of you and so seek to gag me rather than acknowledge it. See your editor review — many comments, in greater detail and harsher terms than mine, concerning you, your arguing to 'save' the indefensible, the bad faith at RfAs of anyone who would ever delete anything or support anyone who would delete anything (sure a few exception, like hoaxes). You seem to think that Every Edit Is Sacred when, in fact, there are thousands of articles about that by any reasonable criteria should be deleted. Your whole focus here is to confound the process of deletion; that's WP:DISRUPTive. Jack Merridew 08:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this comment of yours in response to my supporting Kevin's now-closed RfA, where you asked if I knew he was opposed to my unban; I'll answer here: yes, I recall that and gave the very same diff here where I stated that I supported wo/grudge. You contrasted this with your tentative support of my unban (note you were after an AfD ban there, too).

There is a reason I supported Kevin and am critical of you; he is here to do right and you are here with a battleground approach, heaps of bad faith, a clear intent to disrupt deletions, and to thwart anyone becoming an admin who does not meet your ridiculous standards. Jack Merridew 09:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

RE:

"I can agree to the above" A Nobody

"I am open to SB Johnny working as some sort of mediator here" Jack Merridew

Does this mean the two parties can agree to Roux's remedy? Since ignoring this is not an option, the only other option I see is a RfC against A Nobody or a report to arbitration enforcement for Jack.

I don't think either nuclear option will solve the problem as quickly and effectively as the voluntary sanctions suggested here. Ikip (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have missed this comment of mine; what you quote above is simply a willingness to talk with Johnny about this. I support the idea of an RFC/U re A Nobody. Almost 1:00am here, so G'night, all. Jack Merridew 16:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you support a RfC, do you support a Request for arbitration enforcement in turn? Guaranteed, arbitration enforcement will be much more punitive and swift than a RfC, because their is already a massive presumption of guilt in the arbitration, whereas you are starting from scratch in a RfC. Ikip (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Mutual topicban proposal community !vote

• Support Mutual topicban I see Roux's remedy as a carrot and stick. Since all parties don't agree to the carrot, the next step is that, we, the Wikipedia community will bring out the stick, we will all !vote on Roux's remedy, and all parties will be forced to follow Roux's remedy. Ikip (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• Apathetic about the first three, but oppose #4 - too many If A Then Bs to keep track of. Would it mean that if an article goes up for AfD, JM can prevent AN from ARS-tagging it simply by commenting in the AfD discussion? Can AN prevent JM from commenting in AfD by ARS tagging? I don't think their personal animosity should be grounds to avoid them working in the same sandbox. 1-3, at least, more emphatically relate to them engaging each other directly. --EEMIV (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support the first three (with a particular note that A-N's charming way of referring to some editors or a particular editor or the like should be included in this), oppose the fourth as leading to an obvious race condition. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree but first mover advantage might be more what you mean, particularly as the "article rescue" template is typically used in response to an AFD nomination rather than to prevent one. Then there are the psychological aspects: I believe a deletionist can anticipate which articles his nemesis would be interested in rescuing more effectively than an inclusionist can anticipate which articles his nemesis would interested in deleting. — CharlotteWebb 17:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd be more inclined to accept that if there weren't empirical evidence to suggest that A-N tags far more articles for rescue (and rather less discriminately) than JM takes to AfD (24 to zero over the month, assuming that all of A-N's helpful (added) summaries are rescue tags, and ignoring non-AfD deletes like prods). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• 'Support the first three,, not the 4th--I do not like it for the same reason as given above. I however note A.n.'s willingness to accept it as a sign of good faith. there's a more radical solution, discussed further down, but it does not presently look as if it will pass. DGG (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Second Choice suport for the first 3. 4 sounds good in theory but could easily be gamed.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support #2 and #3 only, for reasons I have explained above. — CharlotteWebb 17:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Grudgingly support the first three, and I agree w/ Chris's comment. I would much prefer that JM just agree to this rather than have us impose it against his will. Protonk (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support 2 and 3 only - preferably a as a voluntary agreement between the two pablo_hablo. 17:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll agree. I say so only because of the explicitly short leash that JM is on. I still prefer an actual remedy (i.e. blocking him for being disruptive) to using the threat of an indef block to bring him to agreement on the mutual avoiadance issue. Protonk (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, please; I replied about that below. I really don't see that as in any way disruptive. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive169#Right to vanish and not vanished
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive482#User:Renamed user 19

Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, on 24 March 2009, his arbcom appointed mentor told him “Please leave you know who alone, and leave off allusions to you know what. WP is a big place.” This edit coincided with this removal of text from my talk page and it is well understood that Casliber refers to me as JM’s subsequent reply acknowledged. Since then he has accused me as being part of a tag team, made it a point to in the only two RfAs he commented in since April 4th was on the 11th be a comment to me and in the only RfA he commented in on the 6th was yet again a comment about me. The last two RfAs he comments in and the only two for the past 8 or so days are in ones after me and about me. In addition to those two RfAs, I commented in I think every other one that is ongoing and I absolutely did not focus on any one user in all seven or eight of these RfAs. So, if he is instructed to not risk escalate things with a specific editor (me) and yet his sole RfA participation is to take an accusatory approach against me, he is blatantly ignoring his arbcom appointed mentor and as such disrupting the project by escalating tensions with someone he was instructed to avoid. It is not as if others (you, Reyk, Sephiroth, etc. could not adequately handle challenging my oppose in Foxy Roxy’s RfA, which I did indeed strike) or for others to critique my oppose in your RfA. Now, what about stuff unrelated to me… Revert warring ([58], [59], [60], [61], and [62], for which he was warned, but notice the times continued doing (April Fool’s or not, you would think once someone warns you, stopping might be a good idea). Then there’s mis/mocking use of the rescue template here, i.e. prods something and slaps on a rescue template before an AfD is even underway? Is that some kind of provocation the Article Rescue Squadron or to any editor in particular? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll withhold judgment on the April Fool's stuff. I disagree with 90% of the crap pulled on April Fool's Day, and it's a day that I will take off if I ever have an admin bit. Casliber's role is specifically to mentor Jack in regards to White Cat, so I don't see violating his injunction as automatically disruptive (if Casliber blocked for disobeying, and people upheld it, I wouldn't kick up a fuss, though). That leaves [63], which is clearly an intentional misuse of a template with the intent of causing trouble. I registered a comment above, so I will repeat it there.—Kww(talk) 02:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

← Way too-long. I've just made a first pass through this thread and would like to comment on this edit; I had proded that page after commenting to Cas and A Nobody about it. Rather than post to A Nobody's talk page about it (I believe the original thread was gone at that time), I tagged it, figuring he and any others would then notice it. I noticed after the fact that the rescue template was AfD-specific and generated a redlink; I also saw that it got the page onto the ARS list, and so I left it, figuring they would see it. Frankly, this was a good faith thing to do; I could have quietly proded it and it might have gone gently into that good night. As things went, it was de-proded and then redirected by others. And we now have an article on the real Oakdale, Texas. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC) nb: I did give prod reason; non-notable Jack Merridew 14:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that your indef-block as the sock of a banned user was lifted only after very careful deliberations, and accompanied by very strict behavorial criteria. It is my thought that with the Sword of Damocles hanging over one's head, any editor would pay special heed to such caveats... and so tred very carefully in all dealings with any other editor. Keeping your distance from WC was definitely one of concern to ArbCom, but so was the admonishment to avoid disruption or even the perception of disruption. But if caveat #5 has been broken.... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there was considerable discussion prior to my unban; much of it I was party to and, I'm sure, more that I was not. I am quite mindful of every step I take. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I advise readers of this thread to go over the original post and observe how little of the "evidence" actually relates to the purported stalking and harassment, and how flimsy it is, and how much of it is just complaining about stuff that has nothing to do with Jack's dealings with A Nobody. I mean, what do the "lulz" have to do with A Nobody? It looks to me that A Nobody feels that, if he throws enough mud, some of it might stick. Reyk _YO! 12:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll say, but better said by someone else. Terima kasih.

The “for great justice and epic lulz″ bit on my userpage was about Grawp, whom I reverted mercilessly; note the edit summary. That was the day 4chan was on the mainpage and that very minute I was blocked for that edit; I was unblocked the same minute, too, with the summary shit my bad, and and apology a moment later on my talk page. A Nobody also gave a diff to the subsequent note I put in the corner of my userpage; note that my user page is in Category:Rogue sockpuppets. Ya, I make light of things on my user page; I see nothing wrong, or disruptive, about this — and it certainly has nothing to do with A Nobody other than that he doesn't like it. FWIW, his being offended comes months after this stuff went up, so I'm inclined to view him as mud-seeking.

G'day, mate! Jack Merridew 12:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

nb: if one visits the Encyclopædia Dramatica site and searches for my user name, one will find a lovely piece of malicious slander from those assholes (or is that an uncivil personal attack?); please note that I'm not one of them. G'day, Jack Merridew 12:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC) (who's not really from Oz, as Pixelface has asserted)

I agree that A Nobody's strategy of complaint is flawed to the point that I generally consider it disruptive. If you wade through the discussion between us above, you can see that. That's why I asked for one solid diff showing behaviour that could genuinely be described as disruptive. I asked for one, he still gave me ten, but, of those ten, I agreed with him on this one, which I see as an intentional misuse of a template with the intent of causing trouble. Since that is the one piece of rock in the sandstorm, I encourage people to examine it and determine whether it is sufficient to trigger a reban under point 5. If it is, go ahead. If it isn't, drop the discussion, because it was the only potentially actionable accusation in the pile.—Kww(talk) 12:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Oakdale thing began with my noticing that the page then at Oakdale, Texas (now moved and redirected, but see the old page at Oakdale, Texas (Wishbone TV series)) was about a fictional town and that there was, in fact, a real one that we were not covering; I told Cas and A Nobody referring to "The problem with TV cruft". The problem, as I see it, is fictional shite getting into an encyclopædia at the expense of coverage of the real world. I have long seen this as a problem; long before A Nobody, or Pixelface registered — indeed before most users who are around today — I made this move with my original User:Davenbelle account. Today, Rakata is an article about the real island/volcano in Indonesia; it is a part of Krakatoa. However, back in the day, more than 4 years ago, it was an article about a race in Star Wars; Lucas et al hijacked the name for commercial purposes. Anyway, I moved it to a qualified name and started an article about the Real McCoy. The moved article was eventually merged and redirected into a list (and then into another list; have fun digging up the details). This is progress. There is a ton more of this sort of problem to sort and the pop-culture fans are exacerbating it and seeking to thwart many efforts at improving this project.

So, no, I don't believe the fictional Oakdale needed rescuing, but I acknowledge that others might and they had their shot at saving it; see the original source it sported; hardly what I'd call reliable. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

nb: See here there are still inbound links to Rakata that are about Star Wars; the problem with TV cruft is that much of it just snots up the project; this is a problem. Jack Merridew 13:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: I advise readers of this thread to go over the original post and observe how little of the "evidence" actually relates to the purported stalking and harassment, and how flimsy it is, and how much of it is just complaining about stuff that has nothing to do with Jack's dealings with A Nobody.

Obviously there is some contention here, and down playing its signifigance is not going to solve the problem. Michael is asking here: Should Jack be blocked? This is an issue which can be brought up on his arbitrtation enforcement page, not here. But I believe a better route for all parites involved is the voluntary sanctions that both Jack and A Nobody agreed to above. Can we all agree on this at least? Ikip (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is that his arbcom appointed mentor Casliber already told him to leave me alone. It is clear that he has disregarded that warning to the point that he actively wants to continue to target me, which is inexcusable on a site with two million articles. There is absolutely no excuse for anyone to have to deal with anyone else and it is ridiculous for anyone to become the self-appointed policeman of anyone else. So the only thing further I have to say before I go on break to finish my dissertation is that I agree to Roux's suggstions above as well as my addition, i.e. JM and I totally and completely avoid each other. That is the only acceptable resolution here. He has already been told by an admin to leave me alone. Continuing to harass me beyond this discussion will be frowned upon by any neutral editor and hopefully whether it be Casliber or someone else neutral and objective, they will take action accordingly. I will neither say anything about JM any further and nor will I reply to him. If he can't do the same on a site with not just two million articles, but probably at least thousands of non-article pages (projects, policy discussions, etc.), then that is just downright baffling and absurd. I hope that no on else has to contend with this level of fixation and bullying. It is not right for anyone to continue to pursue someone else after being both instructed by an admin not do so and sternly told by the editor being pursued not to do so, especially given his past. And regardless of whatever some personally think of me, allowing someone to continue to hound another editor after an admin warning not to do so sets an extremely dangerous precedent. We are here to build a paperless encyclopedia, not perpetuate disputes. I do not want any further conflict with this editor; I want him to leave me alone. I am going to leave him alone. Thus, it falls on him if he wants to needlessly antagonize me further and violate an administrator's warning in the process. Thank you DGG, Michael, Ikip et al for being fair and reasonable in this discussion and Protonk and Kww for at least keeping an open-mind. With that good-bye for an indertiminate amount of time. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

@A Nobody; more mischaracterisation. Jack Merridew 17:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

@Ikip; I outdented as you're replying to Reyk's post. You are hardly a neural party here. I did not agree to roux's proposal, as I said above. G'night, Jack Merridew 17:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

To Jack: The trouble is that you have probably exhausted reserves of good faith that might cause us to believe that you 'rescue' edit was innocuous. I would suggest that you tread very lightly around the whole deletion issue, given the explicit admonitions laid out in the unbanning. further, I would strongly suggest that you agree to and adhere to the spirit of Roux's compromise: stay the hell away from 'A Nobody'. Depending on how you look at it, I'm either a neutral party here or horribly biased, but I can say that the two of us don't have any unique dealings which might predispose me to be unfair to you. Whatever your opinion of 'A Nobody', I can assure you that you (specifically) attempting to "police" him will end poorly for you. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Jack has now placed an AfD vote on two separate articles which A Nobody had previously placed a rescue template. [64] then [65], and [66] then [67]. I see he's right when he said he had no intention of abiding by editing restrictions suggested here. Given the context and timing, he seems to be ignoring Kww's very sensible advice. I'm too involved with the parties to block, which at this point I would otherwise do. DGG (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did; and I didn't look at the edit histories of the pages, at least not at who placed whatever rescue templates; I worked on most of these 'Honorverse' pages more than a year ago and opined on every one of them currently listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Everyone please consider supporting the mutual topic ban proposal of Roux above. A nobody supported the mutual topic ban, but Jack refuses. The only other option is a arbitration enforcement. I believe (please correct me if I am wrong) that stalking and harrassment where one of the multiple complaints in the arbitration before too. I think at this point it is in Jack's best interest to support the #Mutual_topicban_proposal Ikip (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Community ban of Jack Merridew

His comments here show that he can't even see his behaviour as wrong. He was let back in, essentially, under the agreement that he not cause trouble again. He's causing trouble again.

Ergo, I suggest that we just cut the knot and get rid of him. Saves us all a lot of trouble and time months down the road if this picks up again. Jtrainor (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Nah — per WP:DEADHORSE. Jack Merridew 08:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• This thread is practically dead already. There's not a whole lot of traction to do anything about Jack, let alone a ban proposal. I don't see this as a productive avenue in any fashion whatsoever. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• At this point, I will not support a ban, because I don't like bans in general, and the content of the edits is relatively mild, but I do feel that Jack Merridew is toeing the line, and he shouldn't do so. Adding sarcastic {{rescue}} templates on articles he prod-ed and has no intention of rescuing is certainly bad practice, and possibly a WP:POINT infringement. (The rescue squadron try to identify articles worth saving, so don't begin clogging up their lists with articles you don't think belong there.) I strongly support the sentiment by Protonk above that he avoid commenting on A Nobody. Indeed, I would think it wisest for Jack Merridew to avoid commenting on anyone's conduct here. Jack Merridew was up until a few months ago banned for sockpuppetry, stalking and harassment and it took a lot of effort to reveal this misconduct, and for him now to run around commenting on the behavior of other users seems very, very, ironic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose- Being the target of a large but insubstantial flood of irrelevant diffs does not count as "causing trouble". Reyk _YO! 12:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think JM brings a lot to the table. Further I think the statements here are a bit overblown... JM needs to turn the other cheek more often but that's about it I think. ObDisclose: I supported his unban here after working with him on other wikis... he's a good contributor and has learned from his past. ++Lar: t/c 13:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support but willing to change to oppose if Mutual_topicban_proposal is put into effect, by either Jack supporting the proposal or the community forcing him to support it. The effective place to put any ban forward, only after the Mutual_topicban_proposal fails is at Arbitration enforcement, not here. Ikip (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support with respect to Lar It doesn't look like he'd learned from the past. With his prior offenses we have the right to expect a model citizen if he was let back in. That's not what I see.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support There is no other practical solution. It's not over the last two or three diffs but over continuing problems. if there was ever a measure that was preventative, it is this. The possibility of his learning to turn the other cheek, as Lar suggests, is now proven to be zero. Contra Reyk,This is not over the present issue, which I agree is not by itself banable, but the present issue added to all the prior ones. Contra Sephiroth, it is obviously not dead--I wish it were, but it's not. DGG (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I value Lar's opinion here (having waded though the verbiage). Collect (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose completely unnecessary and certainly not a one-sided issue. He is a good contributor, and not getting along with someone who obviously dislikes him as well is no reason to do a community ban, particularly with such overblown "evidence"-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Obviously opposed due to the double standard being applied. The mutual proposal will work with a couple of amendments. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• No, I'd rather we didn't. Protonk (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - rather obvious that Jack is headed back down the same old road. McJeff (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies: A statement of principle

I apologize in advance for closing this discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The situation with the failed RFA of Neurolysis had several bad aspects, but I would like to highlight one that has come up before and which I think we should prevent from coming up again by a clear statement. Apologies, if they are supposed to ameliorate a situation or mitigate guilt, must go to the aggrieved individual(s). Hypothetical #1: If I steal John's car, and I apologize to the policeman who arrests me for stealing it, the arrest will take place anyway. John is still out a car, a theft has still occurred. If I sleep with Mark's wife and then apologize to Mark's her friend, Alice, Mark will still be outraged. Additionally, apologies should come upon discovery of the injury, not discovery of the consequences for the injury. This is, of course, why we dislike politicians who accept bribes, write legislation making bribery illegal, accept more bribes, and then, when caught, burst into tears before television cameras. They repent when caught. We don't believe their apologies, because we see them not only as not signs of contrition, but as signs of further criminality -- as mechanisms for continued operation of personal graft. Hypothetical #2: If I insult the boss with my co-workers around the water cooler, and they laugh, I feel like a big man. One of them tells me it's wrong to do that. Next lunch, I come up with an even funnier, nastier insult. Again, big laughs and frowns. Finally, the boss comes in and wants to fire me, and I go into a long apology. He fires me anyway, most likely. The point I am making is that we should establish these as general principles. I am not saying that apologies can't be offered in general or to other people, etc. Of course they can. However, if anyone wishes for an apology to be part of mediating an offense, it needs to be before the consequence and to the aggrieved party. If it's only one of those, it's natural to expect the wounded party to still be sore about it. If it's neither of them, then it's natural for the wounded party to be in full outrage, whether the person should express it or not. Can I get an amen? Footnote for the suspicious: (I'm not imputing malice, by the way. Neurolysis "apologized" to Ryan Postlewhite for something he said on the Observer blog, but no one else heard of the apology, that I'm aware of, and so he said he'd apologized, past tense, and Giano said, "What apology?" The point is that we need to make it clear that even saying, "I apologized" needs to be understood before we start wheeling that out in explanations of actions.) (I.e. Those agreeing with the above indicate by signing below) Geogre (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Option #2 Let's not extend the drama Support - //roux   16:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Support - Geogre, make this an essay. I will support and reference it in my future admin actions where appropriate, but this is too soon and the wrong venue to make it a point of division between the sysop (and wider) community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Support. Let's abide by the KISS principle. Agreed, this could sort out a lot of unblock requests and I don't mean any offense to Geogre, but this is probably going to start some nasty wikilawyering. —Admiral Norton (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Oppose. If you're going to solicit support for a proposal, you need to state clearly and unambiguously what you are proposing. I can't support because I only have a general idea what I would be supporting. Looie496 (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Comment. I have strong opinions on the apology issue, but second the advice above that you take this to an essay page in your userspace where it can be discussed in greater detail. Cla68 (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Comment Maybe develop this as an essay in your userspace. Can't see what admin action is needed here though.--John (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Comments I think the moral of the the story is that if you believe you should apologise for something you've done, you should do it to the face of the person you've wronged. Whether that be in private or public depends on what you're apologising for. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC) biut if the appology is so private that the person being appologised to, has no idea the appoloogy has taken place, what the fuck use is that? Giano (talk) Ryan, I'm not talking about Neurolysis. I'm not talking about Giano. I'm talking about Kelly saying she "had apologized," about Tony Sidaway saying he "had apologized," about David Gerard saying he "had apologized," and each time to someone other than the person who had been offended. I'm talking about people using "I apologized" as a "Get Out of Jail Free Card or the legendary "Free Pass." I'm saying that we, as a community of administrators, need to set out a clear set of expectations about what apologies are and when they should be employed rhetorically to have weight. If we're going to keep seeing them as counters in these "dramas," as yet another person quoting drag queen slang says, then let's at least set forth some rationality for them. Myself, I don't think apologies have any weight in these matters, but everyone else disagrees, so, since they do, let's have a minimal standard for reasonable definition. Geogre (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Don't mean to be rude, but... What incident here requires immediate attention? Protonk (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Perhaps the posting of the "Resolved" template? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC) The ability to spell "Apologised" seems the only likely one. Americans eh? :) Seriously - Archive. Pedro :  Chat  21:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Or, if you're a droogie, it's appy polly loggies. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Bloody Brits and their peculiar spellings... ;) —Travistalk 22:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Ahem, if only it were that simple. – ukexpat (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Aha! A, HAH! Or, as that same droogie would say: [68] 09:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC) On On Apology First, this would be better off at the Village Pump. Second, I'm pretty sure that we have an encyclopaedia somewhere around here. Since this is hardly the first time in human history that the subject of the sincerity, timing, and other characteristics of an apology has come up, I wouldn't be surprised if we couldn't document the subject of apology from sources, and then refer to it. We could start with On Apology (ISBN 9780195189117) by Aaron Lazare, which has two entire chapters — chapter 8, "The timing of apologies", and chapter 9, "Delayed apologies" — on this specific aspect alone. Then there's Graham G. Dodds (2003). "Political Apologies and Public Discourse". In Judith Rodin and Stephen P. Steinberg (ed.). Public Discourse in America: Conversation and Community in the Twenty-first Century. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0812237412. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isnb13= ignored (help), which discusses the timing of apologies (which can apparently be both too soon as well as too late) and the relationship of timing to effectiveness on pages 156–157. There are several other good sources, too. Some of them (such as the quite appropriately named Keith Michael Hearit (2005). Crisis management by apology. Routledge. p. 33. ISBN 0805837884. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)) cite Nicholas Tavuchis (1993). Mea Culpa: A Sociology of Apology and Reconciliation. Stanford University Press. ISBN 0804722234. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help), whose discussion of the timing of apologies is to be found on pages 87 et seq.. Time is better spent writing encyclopaedia articles than project-space essays that will likely duplicate them, poorly. I offer no apology for suggesting that we write the encyclopaedia as a reference work that we can even use ourselves. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC) It may be more productive to focus on forgiveness (the outcome) than on apology (the process). On Forgiveness: How Can We Forgive the Unforgivable? by Richard Holloway (ISBN 184195358X) is a fascinating read. I recommend it to anybody. --John (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive IP on Talk:2009 Pittsburgh police shootings

Resolved

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

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

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

A few highlights of the individual, the individual will refer to other editors as "gringo" [69] and has done this on other articles in the past [70]. The individual keeps ranting about crazy conspiracy theories and wants to turn the talk page into a blog about Zionist conspiracies and the legitimacy of the neo-nazi site Stormfront see [71] and [72]. The individual doesn't respond to the reasoned arguments provided by me [73] where I explain that we are not calling Richard Poplawski a racist or a skinhead or a neo-nazi, we are pointing out that he visited websites, such as Stormfront, that are considered such. The individual responds by saying "Are you americans stupid on purpose, or is it genetic?"[74]

The individual has posted a rant that ends with "You, Anglos and JEWS of the USA, YOU created him and the millions to come. What goes around comes around...!" [75]. This sort of hateful rhetoric with no connection to the incident does not belong on talk pages. The individual also keeps trying to bring up Hardy Lloyd [76] whose website can be seen here [77]. The individual also keeps mentioning that he is not from America, yet his IP address traces to Pittsburgh, PA. I am positive that the individual has engaged in this same behavior in the past, but I am unable to trace their full history as the IP address keeps jumping around. Also note that he has introduced Hardy Llloyd into other articles [78], and that Hardy Llloyd is based out of Pittsburgh, and on his blog he keeps using the term "gringos" like the individual does.

The individual been blocked multiple times before, stating "Also, OR WHAT? I've been banned 20 times!! LOL" [79].

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

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

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

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

The articles they are recently active on, are:

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

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

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

User is back

I think the user is back. Please see the recent work of 216.183.185.100 (talk · contribs). I would be hesitant to file a request for page protection, as there are many helpful IP's who are popping in every so often to improve the article. What else can be done? Could some administrators keep a keen eye on the article, and also take a look at the user mentioned, 216.183.185.100 ? Thanks. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 17:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks, since there was a week long sanction from early March also for block evasion. Perhaps this should be noted in any ongoing SPI report? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban: Neutralhomer

Resolved

 – Neutralhomer has apologized and agreed to abide by the restriction. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Done Theresa Knott | token threats 08:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Administrative eyes requested: Eye.earth (talk · contribs)

I'd like to ask an outside admin to review the behavior of Eye.earth (talk · contribs). I see this account as a long-term, low-level case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, though I'm currently losing patience and, perhaps, perspective. Most of his contrib history consists of promoting AIDS denialism, often by inserting its claims into various biographies:

• Paul Gann: cites an AIDS-denialist tract to contradict the New York Times ([80]). Endless edit-warring against several other editors to reinsert it, as well as this charming discussion.
• Greg Louganis: More hijacking a biography to soapbox about AIDS denialism.

Most of his effort seems to be devoted to rewriting our article on zidovudine to reflect an AIDS-denialist perspective (e.g. [81]). Recently this has taken the form of lengthy edit-warring against several editors, keeping below 3RR and trying to force in an edit which everyone else agrees is redundant or misleading ([82]). Straw that broke the camel's back is that I solicited outside feedback - at his request - and it universally agreed that his edit was redundant and/or misleading. Yet he continues to insert it.

He has edited other articles besides HIV/AIDS ones, but apparently has the same behavioral issues (see User Talk:Eye.earth). He was on WP:AN/I recently for the same kind of abusive editing at List of centenarians - see prior AN/I thread. I'm reasonably tired of dealing with him, but it's possible I've lost perspective. I would propose that he's reached the threshold for administrative action for continuous edit-warring against consensus, abuse of Wikipedia to advocate for a fringe agenda at the expense of core policy, and uncollaborative editing. I'd propose a temporary topic ban from HIV/AIDS topics, but it looks like his editing elsewhere is no more policy-compliant. I'd like to get some feedback. MastCell ^Talk 04:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This user was previously(link to diff where Gwen links to thread(which is now archived, and I will not try to find it)) the subject of another ANI thread, with roughly the subject matter: Disruptive editing. Please just block this user and be done with it, they've made it blantantly clear they don't plan to follow our rules here. WP:RBI.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours for persistent edit warring against consensus. Their last revert was to reintroduce unsourced material (including a fact tag) against the opinion of every other editor involved in the discussion. They'd been warned before, and this problem doesn't seem to be confined to one page. Hopefully this short block will deter them from continually disrupting articles. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Aaaand... right on schedule, cue the socks. MastCell ^Talk 20:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I've reset the block on User:Eye.earth per WP:EVADE and blocked that IP for 3 hours. The way I see it, they're welcome to discuss the matter on Talk pages, but not to make any further changes to the article text against consensus. I'm minded to apply further sanctions as necessary, towards that goal. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Tila Tequila

Resolved

 – While not your typical celebrity death rumor, a hoax all the same. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Before I head out, can other people watch Tila Tequila and keep out the random rumors that she's dead until a reliable source is availalbe? User:Rzrscm seems to think her Twitter account and then celebslap are enough for some pretty vile details. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition of a clear BLP violation. No sign of this from any reliable news source.—Kww(talk) 11:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The user that introduced that story has hit the 3-revert limit in an hour. One more and he's done for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this thread as it's on this page while I'm interested in another thread. Anyway, I looked at this and note this edit where Rzrscm re-wrote Ricky81682's post on the talk page. That alone, is worth a serious talking to. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC) which I now see Ricky has done. Jack Merridew 11:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Took a screenshot of her Twitter page since its private, she's not dead. Looks like her house got broken into though. link. I think calling someone "Hitler" warrants a block though, considering his behaviour and after a level 4 warning. diff Matty (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, the user's page User:Rzrscm is a refreshingly honest self-assessment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hoax per This. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC) And this. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As disturbing as this all is, I can't help but find it amusing that we're using a blog to refute claims made on Twitter. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Stevvvv4444

After having been warned for a final time about categorising people by ethnicity contrary to WP:OC#CATGRS, User:Stevvvv4444 has continued to do so using the IP address User:94.3.151.121. They have confirmed that these are their edits on their talk page. Can something be done to stop this behaviour from happening again? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've given a final warning. I'll assume good faith that they just forgot to log on. Even so, the behavior is troubling. I'll give a 24 hour block if it happens again.--John (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Franklin Rosemont

Can someone verify if Franklin Rosemont has died? -- A little-used IP address reported death date as today. A quick Google search didn't turn up any articles. I'm not in Chicago, so no access to local news/reports. Richard Myers (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Without sources, I'd think it would be a good candidate for reversion (bio of living people and all). I wouldn't do it as a vandalism revert though, just a run of the mill 'can we get a source for that?'. Syrthiss (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing on CNN, BBC, Reuters, Chicago Sun-Times, AP, Chicago Tribune. Tonywalton ^Talk 16:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing on Google news as of now. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably the same intruder that got Tila Tequila. Maybe they were even sleeping together, both of them being exhausted from a tough day signing autographs for people who had never heard of them before. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 13

Resolved

 – Reverted vandalism on one of the transcluded pages. Duck blocked. –xeno (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with viewing this page. Bearian (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. –xeno (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't this like just happen the other day? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Very similar indeed. The breakage the other day looked like this and today's looked like this. Socks, anyone? Tonywalton ^Talk 19:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I forgot to mention above, but I've already blocked. –xeno (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/144 (private filter, AF editors only) should now be set up to log and eventually prevent this sort of vandalism. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I just tried editing the log. It looks like my add to the log and the last ten or so are not "taking."Bali ultimate (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this edit deleted the terminating tag for the HTML comment above it, thus preventing subsequent afd3s from substing. It's since been fixed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the blocked user has definitely confessed to being a sock puppet of Richard M. Nixon. See [83] ;) MuZemike 00:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Smiley face murders - Legal threat/outing/COI/switching IP

Not resolved, more is needed unfortunately.

The Smiley face murders article has been plagued lately with an anon account trying to use the page to advance theories of someone called Mike Flaherty, with links to his blog, adding section to promote his theory (which has no mainstream coverage, just his blog), and even removing any mention that the majority view of the FBI/police/profilers is that there were no murders in the first place. This anon was finally blocked, but now a new anon IP account has started up the same thing, and the very first edit contains a legal threat and an attempt to out another user. DreamGuy (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

New problem, an IP is outing another editor on the talk page here that I suspect should be oversighted and the IP dealt with. I'm not sure how this is handled so I brought it here for others more knowledgable in what the proper procedure is in this kind of matter. I didn't remove the resolved template because not sure if that would be a proper thing to do either. I hope I have this in the correct location, if not please feel free to move or correct. Thank you for your attentions/help, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You would have been correct to remove the "Resolved" banner. There are two people trying desperately to get banned on the Smiley face murders talk page. I've left a warning but I'm a nobody so it might be more appropriate if an admin stepped in. They may very well have violated WP:OUTING already. Both have called the other by very specific names. (Whether they are correct or not I don't know). Padillah (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried to find and isolate the Outings but they are litterealy strewn throughout the edit history of the talk page. Padillah (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The anon has now expressed feelings of immunity due to his "endless IPs". Padillah (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have responded. I see Padillah has tried to help with this situation and I am in the same boat, unable to stop or remove the outing and poor behavior going on. The IP has already changed IP number so if someone who can would clean out the sock drawer that would be appreciated. Along with the outing, poor behavior we also have legal threats going on. I've never done a checkuser, oversight or any other request about problems I have seen. I always request politely the help of administrator to take the appropriate actions. At this point I believe indefinite blocks are in order for all involved. This can be seen at the talk page and apparently the article history though I think the article has been oversighted and I don't think that the problems have reocurred but I haven't checked again recently. Some of the problems are [84] [85] which is when I saw the problems esculating. Thanks for listening and taking time to tend to this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I would consider blocking a range of ips and notifying the isp to be justifiable in this case. Do we know they are from the same isp? --neon white talk 14:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The ones I've seen all whois to the same ISP in middle America. Keep in mind, all the dynamic IPs in the world won't get one by semi-protection. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If they are all from the same isp a range block would likely be effective, not sure about reports to the isp as i am unfamiliar with US law and the responsibilities of isps. --neon white talk 16:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

More threats now, just FYI. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

SP'd my talk. Looks like he's persistent though. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by User:Theaveng

User:Theaveng is making personal attacks against me on Talk:DTV transition in the United States, as well as in his comments while editing on the main article. Please ban him. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Classic wikiquette alert material. I don't think a ban is likely; a polite discussion is probably going to produce the most productive outcome. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I see nothing in Theavegn's recent contributions that constitutes a blatant breach of WP:NPA, while you have been less than civil yourself on that talk page. He shouldn't revive old heated exchanges however, but that's no basis for a block. Equendil Talk 19:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

He's being way more uncivil than me. How about a topic ban at least? TomCat4680 (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I just apologized to User:Vchimpanzee on his talk page. So water under the bridge. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a start. I don't think there is anything we need to do here. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Not even a harassment warning? or a temporary block? or a topic ban? I think he deserves some kind of punishment, he's taking it too far. Vchimpazee even said so on my talk page. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You need to know that a "block" is meant to be preventative, and not punishment, so don't ask for one. If you haven't taken the time to discuss your issues with the user directly, then in WQA, then there's nothing to prevent. We don't do topic bans for incivility either, and begging for action to be taken when you haven't even done the bare minimum attempt at resolution is ... well ... disruptive. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Let some more water pass, I'll talk to User:Theaveng. Please remember yourself not to be rude to other editors in the future, antagonism only breeds antagonism. Equendil Talk 19:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, but it wasn't my intent, like I said on Vchimpazee's page. I'll try to be more civil in the future. Case closed.TomCat4680 (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We've resolved this, and I've decided to let it go. The earlier comments bothered me, but I decided to ignore it. The exchange has resulted in settling the matter and all is well.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

need 1 page move over redirect

Please move Talk:Tanolies today back into User talk:Khalidpervezshaheen. It was accidentally moved to mainspace while moving his userpage, and now I can't put back. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Trolling at Phaistos Disc

"grapheus" is a well-known usenet troll who made an appearance at Phaistos Disc in 2006 and ended up permabanned over trying to cause real-life difficulties for another editor. This chap can be extremely tenacious, and is known to have pressed legal charges against other usenet users over flamewars. He is now back with a vengeance and appears to have picked me as his new arch-nemesis.[86] He is using Luxembourg IPs, and the only way to keep him under the lid is issuing short rangeblocks to his provider. I would be obliged if some admins could keep an eye on Phaistos Disc for the next couple of days and slap the IPs with blocks as they come in. Thanks, --dab (𒁳) 21:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Also making attacks off-Wiki, which is no surprise. [87] and [88]. Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Huntdowntheconpiracists blocked

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

I've blocked this account as a sock of User:DawnisuponUS a.k.a. User:Tachyonbursts on the basis of a strong quacking sensation, caused by their aggressive pro-conspiracy-theory rhetoric at Talk:September 11 attacks, accusing other editors of using "tactica" [89] [90], and so on. A checkuser should be able to confirm this identity, as well as potentially flush out any new socks. Posting here for review, trout, etc. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Redandgraychips (talk · contribs) (one contrib) also possibly involved. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• I%27vecommittedathoughtcrime (talk · contribs) seems obvious to me [91]. I would appreciate another admin making the decision to block though. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked thoughtcrime. I recommend a SPI + CU to identify and block the IP address or range behind this. In the interim, I semiprotected the 9/11 talk page for 48 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

user:Huntdowntheconpiracists is obviously a sockpuppet, but the writing style seems totally different from Dawn. I wasn't originally familiar with user:LoveLight, but having taken a look at their writing style, I see the similarities between that account and user:Quantumentanglement, User:Tachyonbursts, and User:DawnisuponUS. Aside from the use of "Tactica", the writing style of user:Huntdowntheconpiracists seems completely different. Just my 2 cents... // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 00:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Clint Catalyst, Jessicka, and COI-implicated editors who refuse to abide by WP:RS and WP:BLP

Over the last few days, I've been removing flagrantly inappropriate material from a small, interwoven set of articles about very minor-league "celebrities" involved in the LA club scene, mostly associated with buzznet.com. The response has been reflexive edit-warring to restore the previous text by a user or users with no interest in complying with our BLP or reliable source policies. Much of the material I've attempted to remove (and I'm not the first editor to try) is highly promotional, and either unsourced or sourced directly to the article subjects or their business associates. For example, the citation-required tags I added to unsourced claims of the article subject's supposed educational achievements were reverted away. With the explanation "People can contact the colleges to verify. No way to cite this." [92] An essentially unsourced set of award claims was restored with the edit summary "awards are legit. Reguardless of source. You can verify with the institutions." [93] There are also quite a few "references" where the source doesn't match the cited text, apparently inserted as promotional spam for businesses involved. The editor involved, who uses the name Tallulah13, but also apparently often edits this and related articles as an anonymous IP, has been called out by other editors for ignoring Wikipedia sourcing policies, but has done nothing to change her bahavior. (Given that Tallulah13 claims to have photographed Catalyst and Jessica together in Germany recently [94], although all are based in LA, it seems fair to me to suspect they are associated.) Today, the same sort of reverting began on the Jessicka article, accompanied by the addition of obviously unacceptable fair use images as illustrations and uncivil invective on my talk page from Xtian1313, who claims to be Jessicka's husband. Can we get some intervention here before this nonsense gets completely out of hand? A Wikipedia article is supposed to be encyclopedic, not an ungodly welding together of a Twitter archive, a set of press clubs, and a shrine to a minor-league celebrity built by his or her friends. The two principal articles involved are Clint Catalyst, where at least two-thirds of the "references" are to sources controlled by the subject or promoting businesses owned by his friends, and Jessicka. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I do NOT live in L.A. - so there goes that theory. And while I did not create the Clint Catalyst article from the ground up, I have taken pride in helping to maintain it. I believe that it serves as a valuable source of information. I never make edits for promotional reasons.

Honestly, I do not have time or energy for this edit-war nonsense anymore. Who knew wikipedia could be full of so much drama. I will continue to make edits as I see fit and you can continue to do whatever it is that you do... Though I am sure there are much more constructive things you could be doing with your time.

Regards - Tallulah13 (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't care if you live in LA, don't live in LA, care about the person, hate the person, whatever, the article in its current state is a mess of non-reliable sources and an unsourced mess. We have a very strict policy about the biographies of living people which requires reliable sources for everything. I will begin the process of cleaning it out and Tallulah if you continue to play ownership on it, you will find yourself blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That was beyond excessive and totally inappropriate on my part. Tallulah, if you are still reading this, there are general editing standards we follow for things like the nature of sources (WP:RS), and specifically for biographies of living people (WP:BLP). While it seems forceful to push this down on people, those have come about through years of discussion. Others are working on getting those articles more in line with general policy here. People should be more civil and willing to discuss things with you however. NeutralHomer is willing to if you (understandably) aren't interested in some of us. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Separate point: could an OTRS user verify the license for File:Secret-zine.jpg? It is cited pretty bizarrely in the article and even if it's a copyright violation, it really isn't needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done....we have pushed another editor out over people who take the rules a little too seriously. How about next time you actually chat with the person, how even adopt them (the user was looking for an adopter) so you might teach them the rules you want them to follow instead of taking them to ANI off the bat. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 14, 2009 @ 00:05

Related: #Jessicka edits x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Good riddance to bad rubbish if they have left. This isn't a playground for those craving unearned attention. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not bad rubbish & I am most certainly not craving unearned attention{?}, for myself or anyone else. I am done with discussing this issue, but I thought your comment to be out of line and just wanted to let you know. To everyone else, thank you.Tallulah13 (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"I've been removing flagrantly inappropriate material from a small, interwoven set of articles about very minor-league "celebrities" involved in the LA club scene, mostly associated with buzznet.com."

My wife isn't an internet celebrity - she's a musician and artist. She has no association with buzznet.com.

"Given that Tallulah13 claims to have photographed Catalyst and Jessica together in Germany recently [110], although all are based in LA, it seems fair to me to suspect they are associated.)"

The episode was filmed in LA not Germany. You know what people say about assuming!

"A Wikipedia article is supposed to be encyclopedic, not an ungodly welding together of a Twitter archive, a set of press clubs, and a shrine to a minor-league celebrity built by his or her friends. The two principal articles involved are Clint Catalyst, where at least two-thirds of the "references" are to sources controlled by the subject or promoting businesses owned by his friends, and Jessicka."

I have no idea what promoting business User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is talking about. The end of their ridiculous rant is utter nonsense. I don't appreciate what this user is alluding to- it's simply not true. I won't burden you with the back and forth here. I'll take this issue to User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page. Xtian1313 (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle again

Okay, with the !voting at 26 keep vs 5 delete, and the last 11 all keeps (mostly in tones of incredulity that it is up for deletion), I am shortly going to do a non-admin snow close unless somebody either objects here or beats me to it. Looie496 (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Done as proposed (now at 31-to-5, by the way). Since this is the first time I have closed an AfD, it wouldn't do any harm if somebody would verify that I've dotted all the i's properly. Looie496 (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Its usually best to note you did a non-admin close in the closing statement, and that you closed as keep per WP:SNOW rather than just keep. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added that info.Looie496 (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't close an AfD discussion in which you have commented, particularly 'snow keep'! Leave it someone uninvolved. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

All right, I won't do such a thing again. I did at least state quite clearly here that I was going to do it unless anybody objected, and nobody did. Looie496 (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Especially when the majority of the early keep votes were based upon YouTube pageviews, which aren't in line with policy. AFD isn't a vote so 31-5 is meaningless and an inappropriate metric, especially for a snow discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Though I agree that it would have been better if someone uninvolved had closed it, it looked decidedly like a ski resort. Whether it's a merge if necessary (IMO it isn't) or just a straight redirect, the one outcome that wasn't going to happen was deletion. Someoneanother 00:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD reopened per discussion at the Village pump and the Help desk. D.M.N. (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Per village pump and help desk? Oh brother. There's a certain irony to complaining that a non-admin close is out of process, then re-opening based on a few comments in those two forums. Closures should not be reverted lightly. That becomes a process problem as well. Wikidemon (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it's open yet again. Time well-spent. --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I re-opened it because of the recent change to extend all AfDs to 7 days, and only close sooner for WP:Speedy keep and WP:CSD scenarios. If we don't insist on it now, it'll never get done properly. (Note that I did !vote to keep, I'm not trying to get the result to change.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

...and User:PeterSymonds ignored my reopen reason and closed it again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That article will be deleted or merged within six weeks so I wouldn't worry. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it/hope not. :-) In any case, PeterSymonds agreed to let me re-open. Bouncy, bouncy, bouncy... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a silly and wholly inappropriate action to reopen that AfD, has common sense been excluded from Wikipedia these days? Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Not at all. There's a valid question as to whether BLP1E applies or not. The only way to determine the answer is to let it run the full length so that people can weigh in. I don't think it does, but I'm not going to assume that my opinion is the correct one. See the discussions about the Snowball clause during the recent AfD change discussions for why I'm doing this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oi, I'm getting dizzy here. Who's going to stop this crazy wheel. But all in all, what is the harm in letting the discussion run the full 7 days, especially since there are editors disputing the early close after less then 48 hours? --Farix (Talk) 17:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Especially since the most recent response was a 1E-based strong delete.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Jessicka edits

RE: Clint Catalyst, Jessicka, and COI-implicated editors who refuse to abide by WP:RS and WP:BLP I have stated several times that Jessicka is my wife - examples here:[95] here:[96] & here: [97]

Understand, I am not being uncivil. I am not debating whether promotional material should be on anybody's wikipedia page. Removing links wasn't even User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit. See here:[98] I am fine with the edits made by User:Piano non troppo, as it is a page about a person and there's no need to link her bands.

I was alerted to a problem, so I am being bold and taking action.

My suggestions to User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - I am asking that they try to be a constructive editor rather than a destructive one. I am asking that they try to consider that the appropriate etiquette here would not be to remove the un-cited material, but to A.) find a citation yourself for uncited information, or B.) placing a cite tag on that particular sentence or section. Then perhaps somebody with time may find the sorce.

If you they interested enough in an article to edit it, and have the time to enter the edit page and make the edit, it seems as though you would have the time to Google search . If they are just there to remove material then it is obvious that you have some sort of COI with these articles.

As far as User:Tallulah13's talk page goes please reread what I wrote. [99] and I quote, "If you ever need a third party opinion ( for articles I don't have a COI with) please feel free to hit me up."

I do not know User:Tallulah13. I was being nice. Is being nice to somebody against wikipedia policy? I have not made edits on either Jessicka or Clint's pages. As far as I know User:Tallulah13 has not made edits on Jessicka's page.

In closing, I'm not spamming. I am not making edits on pages I have a COI with.

I am asking User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz nicely to please follow wikipedia policy. I am still familiarizing myself with wikipedia but I can tell when somebody has a clear COI when editing certain articles. I look forward to resolving this matter quickly, Xtian1313 (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked at Talk:Jessicka, but I couldn't find the section where you and the other users are discussing your desired edits. Is it archived somewhere I don't see? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Related: #Clint Catalyst, Jessicka, and COI-implicated editors who refuse to abide by WP:RS and WP:BLP x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, Xtian, for the removal of uncited material, we have a very strict policy on biographies of living people which suggest removal immediately not a cite tag. There's a huge history of why that's done. While the material in question here wasn't necessarily negative, I hope you can imagine a situation where something unsourced and somewhat negative was kept there and people were warring to keep it there with fact tags, which is why policy goes somewhat extreme. Removing images that go against our non-free image policy also isn't necessarily out of the ordinary. I think Hullaballoo could do better to explain things that's a concern, but it doesn't seem like anyone is following that. If you want, we can continue this on the article talk page or even at your user page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Taking it to my user page. :) Xtian1313 (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Off-Site harrassement by User:Norse Am Legend

This editor posted a personal attack at Talk:Dragon Ball attacking myself and other editors.[100] I removed and warned. His response was that it wasn't a personal attack[101] but another editor also agreed it was and reiterated the warning.[102] Norse is now proceeding to harrass me off-wiki, leaving a comment on my YouTube profile of "Obnoxious cow." and leaving a long, ranty comment on my anime/manga review blog (and he makes no effort to hide it is him). I can provide the copies of emails to an admin offsite if desired. The comment on my blog includes his email address and IP address for confirmation, if needed. This is not his first time being incivil, though as far as I know it is his first time taking it off wiki. Administrative advice and action would be much appreciated. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you email links and email copies to me via my user email link? I'll investigate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sent. Thanks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Received and reviewed. Not the worst off wiki harrassment I have seen but not great behavior. Warning left on Norse Am Legend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) talk page. Hopefully this is the last we have to do about it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, he still thinks he is justified because "she's worse then I am."[103] --Farix (Talk) 03:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't twist and simplify my words. She's not "worse than I am", we're very different people with incomparable "issues". - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I realize this diff has already been posted, but I feel the need to note a few particular sentences: Hell, maybe she's just secretly the most devoted and effective Internet troll ever not to mention: She deserved all two words of that amazing insult on her character I made. Someone please block this user, they have made it blatantly clear they don't care about our WP:NPA policy. Responding to a warning against insults with an insult? As I said above, there is no signs he's going to stop, or even sees what is wrong with his off-wiki-harassment.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I gotta agree. A block is the best way to go here, as it seems the user's behavior isn't going to change. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 14, 2009 @ 05:33

Final warning left. AGF that it will be taken as intended. If not, the rope's out as far as it should go, I think.

I have no idea and no opinion on the wider question raised, of whether Collectonian needs to be looked at. Someone else may want to review. One example given was 6 months old and stale - if there's anything newer someone may want to follow up there. But even if there is, Norse Am Legend is responsible for his actions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Trouble IP

Administrators, would you mind looking into the IP 68.39.64.33 User talk:68.39.64.33. I just reverted some vandalism caused by this user at Rage Against the Machine (album). You will also notice that a number of IPs have been changing the album's release date. This IP also has a history of making unwanted edits. --Sky Attacker (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We're sorry, Mario, but our Princess is in another castle... HalfShadow 01:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Dream Focus

I believe some admin attention is needed at this AFD. Dream Focus (talk · contribs) is making some rather bad faith comments about other editors, particularly Collectonian (talk · contribs), Dandy Sephy (talk · contribs), and myself. I've already grown tired of dealing with his poor arguments and always advocating we ignore Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. But it doesn't help when he claims that we are out to destroy Wikipedia by deleting articles.[104][105] As a result, nearly every AFD discussion he is involved in turns into a mess. See also his talk page where he rails against article deletion and the notability guidelines in blog-like fashion. --Farix (Talk) 04:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_Transfer Someone please don't skim through that, but read everything they said, and my responses to that. Don't just take something out of context, and lead people into an incorrect assumption. Dream Focus 10:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's his userpage that rails against article deletion in blog-like fashion. I think it's also relevant to note his recent proposal at the village pump. The proposal itself isn't a worry, but the wording is most disconcerting. ThemFromSpace 04:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• So you are saying I worded it wrong? How exactly? Those who don't want to see something on wikipedia, now have the ability to not notice it at all, without having to delete it. Dream Focus 10:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I edit-conflicted trying to add the same WP:VPP link. It's a fair indication that his mind is pretty well set on the matter, so I suspect any effort to make him consider moderating his views will be wasted. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• What ever happened to assume good faith? Are you doing that here? Dream Focus 10:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 2)Here's another diff that suggests people are on an organized campaign to destroy all coverage of fiction on Wikipedia- which of course is nonsense. I'm a bit concerned that Dream Focus seems to be provoking a "circle the wagons and fight the evil scary deletionists" battleground mentality, but I don't think they've done anything that requires urgent administrator intervention. What's an admin going to do except suggest to Dream Focus that they ought to tone down the exaggerated defensiveness and take note of WP:AGF- which anyone could do and probably should have before bringing this issue here. Reyk _YO! 04:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I never said to "circle the wagons" once in my life. And some deletionists have already stated they don't want fiction articles, in these very AFD you are discussion. Do you deny that some people automatically say "Delete" to any episode article, character article, or article about context of a work of fiction, because they believe such things shouldn't exist? Dream Focus 10:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been escalating over the last few months, and dispute Sephiroth BCR (talk · contribs) and Black Kite (talk · contribs) telling him to knock it off with the personal attacks and bad faith accusations, he still continues unabated and becomes more provocative. His recent behavior is board-lining on disruptive. --Farix (Talk) 04:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Out of context, once again. Sephiroth is friends with you guys, posting friendly chats on each other's user pages, and whatnot. Can an administrator other than him handle this? And I don't recall having a problem with Black Kite, other than my wording being misinterpreted on something on my user page, which I reworded, and he agreed was fine. Dream Focus 10:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It should also be noted his AWB request where he originally stated that the reason he wanted AWB privileges was because he can WP:CANVASS editors who participated in AFD about later merger discussions.[106][107][108][109][110]. --Farix (Talk) 04:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Another horrible and obvious lie. As long as everyone in the AFD is contacted, it is not canvassing. Stop stating such blatant lies against me. Can you find one example where I've ever actually canvassed? If not, stop making that ridiculous claim every chance you get. And the fact that they gave me the tools after I specifically said what I would do with them, and discussed it, shows I have nothing to hide. Dream Focus 18:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It really wouldn't hurt that much if the AfD crew were more compromising and less robotic in their "This fails ____. Delete it." ways. Often times the nominations are debatable due to things like foreign-language sources no one can read or search for, so in order to cause less conflict you you could put forth other, more real-life relevant rationales and arguments to get your point across instead of simply stating that it (possibly) fails policy. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote for AfD in question "You are trying to delete an article that couldn't possibly hurt anyone" - Uh, I think Dream Focus needs some editors to talk to about valid reasons for deletion. Just because an article doesn't hurt anyone doesn't mean it don't hurt Wikipedia. In fact, an article that is most helpful to someone can very well damage Wikipedia in the worst possible way. Another quote "Why not find proof to support your claims that the notability guidelines should be followed, despite having many obvious flaws? ..." - Another thing that Dream Focus has backwards. Dream Focus is not helping the deletion discussion in any way, and is only hurting it even more given he has failed to show valid arguments in it. TheFarix, Collectonian and briefy me spoke about Dream Focus two months ago about forum shopping. I wouldn't generally consider myself an involved party, but may become one given this post. —Mythdon t/c 04:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I was not forum shopping, I only posted at legitimate places I had to, in order to deal with them ignoring the consensus. Post links to exactly where I brought this up at, and name one which was not valid. Dream Focus 10:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I previously had a mediation-of-sorts between Dream Focus and Collectonian and along with Neon white (talk · contribs), Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs), and LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs), a compromise was attempted but neither party would agree to it. See the discussion here; I ended up archiving it because it wasn't going anywhere. My observation then, which still stands now, is that Dream Focus had a fundamental misunderstanding of our deletion policy that gets carried into his editing and actions; his characterizing of editors !voting delete at AfDs as nothing more than editors destroying the project is something that he has consistently espouesd since joining Wikipedia. Several people have tried to converse with him concerning this view, but he's been adamantly set with viewing the situation as an intractable battlefield. I'm not sure any sort of compromise, mediation, or otherwise is going to work, and frankly, all I see if more disruption coming on the horizon. That he was granted AWB was particularly worrying considering that he openly stated all he was going to use it for was canvassing. I would advise some sort of restriction on his edits in the projectspace. He's more or less intractable at this point and only something concrete is going to stop his disruptive behavior. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• You let her post things while I had my 24 hour ban for reverting the removing of Rescue tags 4 times, thinking it was allowed do to vandalism, then when I came back and posted my questions, you suddenly ended it abruptly before anyone could respond. I listed out all the claims someone made against me, and asked people based on the evidence, to examine each one. Dream Focus 10:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, unless the situation improves, some form of restriction should be considered. PhilKnight (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Dream Focus has for a long time asserted that AfD is a vote, and that vote-counting should always count over weight of argument. More recently he has repeatedly mentioned that guidelines and policies regarding notability and similar topics should also be ignored. See his comment in this AfD - "We'll just wait for others to join in and state their views on it, and see what the consensus is, be it to follow those guidelines, or simply ignore them.". See his talk page for numerous conversations about this. Given the comments on the current AfD ("You aren't helping wikipedia in any possible way. You are just destroying parts of it.") I think we a getting to the point where this editor Doesn't Get It^TM and as Phil said, it is probably time to look at a restriction, possibly a topic ban from AfD. This would cut the amount of disruption down whilst not limiting his abilities to improve articles which are at AfD. Black Kite 09:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

concur. If he's keen on expanding wikipedia, he can help "rescue" articles by improving them. But this harassment has got to stop. Suggest AfD discussion ban + strict canvassing ban. yandman 09:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wow! A group of people who always seem to be posting in the same spot, and saying the same thing, and who have all previous confrontations with me, are all the first group here to try to distort things and gang up on me. Great. Each time they state that something doesn't meet the notability guidelines, I mention that it doesn't have to, those are just guidelines/suggestions not policy. Then the same discussion goes on again. You automatically know certain people are going to say "keep" or "delete", if you see them making the same decisions in every AFD they participate in. That isn't bad faith, its detecting a clear and obvious pattern. Lets break down one current occassion after another, and deal with them in an orderly manner, shall we?
  • If the majority of people say KEEP, NOT merge, for an article, and then after its over, someone merges it, then I believe everyone in the AFD should be contacted, and asked to participate in a merge discussion, to see if that is what they wanted. How many people believe that is fair? I've only done it once so far, however next time the situation comes up where that happens, I will contact everyone. That isn't canvassing. Read the definition on its wikipedia page. Dream Focus 09:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • If an AfD is closed Keep, and then someone merges the article, then fine (and you'd be justified in un-merging it as well). But apart from that, you're only proving that you're still labouring under the misapprehension that AfD is a vote. If you don't agree with the result of an AfD, take it to WP:DRV. Then everyone who commented in the AfD can have their say. You're not helping yourself by constantly attacking people in AfDs, and if it continues you will find yourself sanctioned for it. Black Kite 10:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • So if every single person says KEEP, you can still merge on your own, even though the closing editor says "KEEP", is that it? Without a merge discussion first, they can just be bold, and eliminate everything on the article page, nothing left but its history and a redirect, and no information other than a single sentence ever "merged" to the new location. Dream Focus 10:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I suggest you go back and read what I wrote again. Yes, there's no reason why someone couldn't merge an article that had been Kept at AfD, but any editor would be completely justified in changing it back, and saying "look - the AfD said Keep - if you want to merge it,start a merge discussion". Black Kite 10:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Don't you consider that bad faith on their part? They tried to delete it outright, but failed, so they delete it anyway, but call it a "merge" even though nothing is actually merged. The only difference between a delete and a merge in these cases, is that the article history is preserved, and there is a redirect there. And far less people will be around to notice the Merge discussion, unless someone contacts them all and tells them about it, which is what I plan on doing. Dream Focus 10:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. You've been told several times now that a "keep" result does not prevent further editorial actions. The fact that you immediately assume and then accuses others of bad faith is part of the problem. Combine this with your attempts to turn AFDs and merger discussions into pitched battles over inclusionism and deletionism. --Farix (Talk) 11:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"They tried to delete it outright, but failed". Who are these sinister "theys"? Do you mean those who disagree with you? How did they "try to delete it"? By participating in a discussion? How did they "fail"? What do you think this is, the House of Commons? yandman 12:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Some editors have boldly state that it didn't matter if something was voted keep or not, they were still going to delete it, and attempt to do so the moment the AFD ends. Other times I see an editor having a fit arguing with everyone in certain discussions, and then when she fails to convince anyone else to delete something, tries her secret merge tactic. I'll find some case by case examples of this common tactic, if you want. Dream Focus 17:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Some examples of my claim, since some think I'm being paranoid or doubt my words. From the History of quanternions AFD, most everyone saying Keep, and one editor says:

  Comment on future redirect: It doesn't matter if this article is deleted or not. If it ain't deleted, I'm just going to replace the whole thing with a redirect to quaternion. --C S (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

  Which is what he did, undoing efforts to restore it. That isn't an isolate incident either. The mentality of some deletionists is quite clear. [111] There are many other examples, but I think I've proven my point, that these people exist, and things like this happen regularly. Dream Focus 17:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This misrepresents the situation somewhat. A number of editors did indeed redirect History of quaternions to Quaternion#History as a temporary measure while the "History of" article was being rewritten. Redirects are normal editing practice, and at least anyone clicking on History of quaternions got a legible article to read. After the redirect had been repeatedly reverted, the article was replaced with the text from Quaternion#History[112] - which had the same effect. User:C S was one of the editors who collaborated to rewrite the article.

Incidentally, Dream Focus commented in the Afd "I say Keep, since there is enough valid information to warrant its own article"[113] I asked him whether he would like to join in improving the article. He replied that he didn't "know a thing about quaternions. [114] which seems to indicate that this was a political "keep" !vote on his behalf. pablo_hablo. 18:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

ironically this report of alleged bad faith, is a bad faith report to ANI. I don't see anything bad faith about what Dream said. User:TheFarix made no effort to contact Dream first to resolve what he sees as a problem. User:TheFarix has no edit diffs in the AfD, but instead focuses on his user page. The same editors who relentlessly delete other editors contribitions are attacking Dream Focus here.

i have asked Dream focus to delete his user page repeatedly. This is because editors who delete are using his user page as ammunition against him, and want nothing more than silence him. Again, I encourage Dream to delete his user page, using {{db-author}}.

It gets really tiring to continue to defend editors [A nobody, Pixelface, dream] who are wonderful at stopping the disruption caused by editors who delete. Unfortunately, these editors are too stubborn to apologize for their comments, and don't seem to realize that unfortunately, being passive agressive is the way editors thrive on wikipedia. Sadly, it is considered less disruptive to delete other editors contributions, ignoring WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE, than it is being blunt. Ikip (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see harassment, just debate. However, the arguments for keeping the article are not very strong, and the article totally unsatisfactory, so I just now !voted Weak Delete. But a time is needed for japanese-speaking eds. to comment. We need better merge discussions, but AN/I is not the place for them. As for a topic ban, I would advise him to concentrate his efforts on more likely articles, and learn that replying to everyone's opposite !votes at an AfD is not an effective tactic, but a ban is unnecessary--just argue the other side, and don't keep answering him. Baiting someone does not help, either. DGG (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Stating the obvious, but AfD comments should be about the article, as opposed to comments about other editors. Comments such as "You aren't helping wikipedia in any possible way. You are just destroying parts of it" are obviously unacceptable - describing this as 'debate' is somewhat euphemistic. PhilKnight (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I believe someone claimed they are helping wikipedia, by deleting articles. That was my response to that statement. Dream Focus 17:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If his past discussions with other editors are any indication, his behavior is not going to improve with more warnings. You'll get better results by repeatedly slamming your head against a brick wall. --Farix (Talk) 17:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I love simultaneous threads about the behavior of inclusionists and deletionists on this board. It is very instructive. Protonk (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Dream Focus is acting in good faith. I also believe that Dream Focus is causing disruption because they cannot see that other contributors are also acting in good faith. Specifically, it is possible to improve Wikipedia by deleting articles; deletion does not necessarily equate to disruption or damage, and this concept extends beyond such trivially simple cases as attack pages and BLP vios. Dream Focus must accept that other editors - even those supporting deletion of articles - are trying to improve Wikipedia rather than harm it. If that happens, then I expect to see an end to the long-term stream of low-level personal attacks and accusations of bad faith from Dream Focus that are the cause, I think, of this dispute.

As an aside, I hate to see the phrases "good faith" and "bad faith" being used as adjectives or adverbs in disputes. This can be ambiguous and lead to further dispute. Instead, be clear about who is trying to help, or harm, Wikipedia - or about who thinks that - as appropriate. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I also believe that Dream Focus is acting in good faith, as can be seen by the number of times I've tried to engage him on his talkpage, including two long discussions about consensus and good faith. If I didn't believe that, the number of attacks on other editors at AfD and elsewhere would have seen him blocked by now. Unfortunately, as I said above, I'm seriously worried that DF doesn't understand the concept of AfD and how an encyclopedia can be improved by removing unencyclopedic content. His recent postings to the AfD mentioned above and to the Village Pump only underline that. I'll be quite clear about this; the next time that I see DF attacking another editor at AfD, I will block him, and I've posted a good faith comment at his talkpage referencing this one. Black Kite 19:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Ridiculous and baseless thread. People disagree with him and that is that. If making weak arguements was such a big deal, then those starting this thread would be starting threads on everyone who makes "disruptive" copy and paste WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT style of non-arguments as well. This thread represents a rather disappointing effort to bully or stifle an opposing viewpoint. Instead of going after Dream Focus, an alternate solution would be to not needlessly nominate so many articles for deletion. Moreover, there are a number of comments in the above cited AfDs by the complainants that look far more baiting and escalatory than what Dream Focus even says. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio/POV pushing at Teesta Setalvad

A new user, and then an IP, are copy-and-pasting this Times of India article[115] at Teesta Setalvad. It's probably a little-watched article, and I won't be around to watch it. Extra eyes, warnings, or a short block may be warranted if it keeps going on. Priyanath ^talk 04:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Persistent inappropriate edits to User talk:24.129.79.213

There has been a long-term pattern of abuse in relation to the said talk page. Various IP accounts have been adding nonsense to the talk page and deleting legitimate notices.

A list of the IP accounts involved other than 24.129.79.213 itself can be found here [116].

I believe other unlisted sockpuppets have also vandalised Talk:Satan more recently.

Block evasion has also occurred. Alpha77a (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen some dumb things, but persistent repetitive vandalism of an IP talk page must be about the dumbest. Looie496 (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Arson threat?

I'm not sure if this edit [117] is intended as an arson threat or not. I checked the local newspaper and TV websites and couldn't find anything that states that the school caught on fire.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 06:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really look like an arson threat, more of just some silly vandalism by a student. Might be good to check it out for a bit though. Matty (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I once plotted to burn down my high school using a lit cigarette, but they had a rule against smoking in the building. There's always some catch to any plan. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Bugs, please.....--Caspian blue 13:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

PoliticianTexas sock

AMenendez (talk · contribs) is another sock of community-banned serial-sockpuppeteer PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs). Positive evidence includes:

• Strong interest and opinions about the placement of demographic data at New Mexico. [118][119][120]
• Odd capitalizations appearing in infrequent edit summaries (Please see contribs of recent socks AndrewGirron (talk · contribs) orJWillems (talk · contribs) for more examples)
• Interest in the politics of Northern New Mexico, often manifested by the addition of local politician's parties, despite the non-partisan nature of many of New Mexico's municipal governments.[121][122]^{<-- This diff shows an IP edit that is the same range as many of PoliticanTexas' IPs, for more information please see User talk:DoriSmith/PoliticianTexas}
• Recent socks have also shown interest in New Mexico State University (see DianaRuiz (talk · contribs),[123]), particularly its athletics, which is in line with typical behavior of editing articles about New Mexican high schools and sports, especially pages involving the New Mexico Activities Association[124]

For more information refer to User talk:DoriSmith/PoliticianTexas. –Synchronism (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've had a history with this sockmaster, it seems to be the same sock of PT. Dayewalker (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to be trite, suspected sock puppets is that away. Proper place for investigation. Keegan^talk 07:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You're not being trite. Because he is a community-banned serial puppeteer, it is routine and in accordance with guidelines to bring it here first, I've been told[125]. —Synchronism (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• IMO, bringing stuff like poltix socks here is fine. All that requires is a blocking admin with some familiarity w/ this serial sockpuppet to step in. There isn't actually so much doubt that we have to start a SPI. Protonk (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Englishprince posing as admin, apparently getting passwords this way

Englishprince (talk · contribs) is posing as an admin and has been asking for and apparaently getting passwords from other new users. I am off to warn the people he has conned, but wanted to give a heads up. Should the compromised accounts be blocked? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have indef blocked Englishprince for now. Despite the more extensive list on Ep's talk page, he only asked for passwords on three accounts and only one was fooled: Daffodils333 (talk · contribs). Daffodils333 has been a vandalism only account, but claims to have had a change of heart. I would be fine with blocking it too, but would like to hear what others think fist. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. I'm wondering if it wasn't his sock, the "apology" sounding somewhat over the top. yandman 13:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I agree with Yandman. Is it a coincidence that Daffodil vandalised Prince Philip, and EnglishPrince asked for passwords? I wonder if Daffodils333 'gave' his password out so that others would see that it had been done, and think it was OK? --GedUK  13:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it looked like quite a coincidence that most of the others on the list were indef blocked users from the past few months, and the one truly "duped" editor has such a strange history as well. I AGF'ed in my actions so far, but if people want to block daffodil as well and/or checkuser EnglishPrince to see if there is any connection with some of the other named editors, I have no objections. Fram (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In the interim, again under AGF, I have fully suppressed the edits that revealed the purported password as a security measure. I too have some overall concerns here related to trolling. Risker (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Fram and Risker. I already am watching Daffodil and had had the same sock suspiscions. I will indef block as a vandalsim only account at the next such edit. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Since Englishprince got lucky once, I would imagine they will be back to try again. -- The Anome (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As a Good Faith gesture, here's my password: ****** Does that show up properly? I can't tell. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Kelly Killoren Bensimon

Over the last few days various some IP contributor(s) have been repeatedly removing a fairly well-sourced paragraph about this person's arrest, and sometimes posting a message, purportedly from the article's subject, telling us to stop adding gossip to the article [126]. There's obvious BLP concerns, but there's also the potential of someone trying to excessively whitewash their own article of negative items. Would an admin mind taking a look at this, to see if any action is necessary? ~ mazca ^t|c 15:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed that section as undue weight -- it was the only part of the article that was actually sourced. After the rest of it gets cleaned up, we can look at putting it back in appropriately.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

a paragraph about a misdemeanor of this sort would not be appropriate in the article in any case,. This is exactly the sort of situation WP:BLP is aimed at. DGG (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup SarekOfVulcan, I had to rush off and this looked potentially dubious. Looks much better now - already had a different IP reappear twice to insert negative material again, though. Certainly worth watching. ~ mazca ^t|c 16:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Migraine Associated Vertigo

Hey. I started editing on this page after giving a 3O, and tried to defuse a situation. Basically, Studio34 has been harassing Julcal for adding spam links into this article awhile back. Julcal is most certainly a COI, and the article might be a coatrack. Either way, Julcal just blanked the page and has repeatedly claimed that Studio34 has been stalking her. I thought about escalating this through DR, but the problems seem to be rather heated. I'm not quite sure where to go from here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• support banning Julcal as advertising only account. His activities extent to other articles, e.g. [Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo]. in contrast, I see only 1 edit of Studio34 on the article, but similar good reversions of spam elsewhere. Her editing shows she is following a subject, not an editor. I notified Julcal and Studioi 34 of this discussion, as seems only fair. DGG (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with DGG. This user has at least two problems: WP:COI and WP:BATTLE. [127] and [128] are evidence of seriously disruptive tendencies. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand why my page is a conflict of interests. It only talks about MAV. I originally posted a support section at the bottom with a link to my forum (which has no indirect or direct link to my business) because the way I found my first MAV forum was through an external link on Wikipedia to Studio34's forum. Regarding the battling, Studio34 provoked me by accusing me of being a "known spammer." And as HelloAnnyong says, he keeps harassing me.--Julcal (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)julcal

  Quick note: unless you are refereing to something else I don't see, it's not "your page". It's an article on Wikipedia and that is a direct violation of WP:OWN. Padillah (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see the COI here either. It might have been there in the first revisions, but as of right now it's nothing more than an artice about a medical condition. I don't know if only admins have a vote here, but I don't see a reason for a ban. -- Aeluwas (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • As best as I can tell, the COI exists because Julcal is somehow involved with the subject of the article by being the host of a forum aimed at selling products for the disease. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The forum is not for selling any product. It is a support forum for sufferers of MAV. Have you seen the forum? [129] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julcal (talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Sure, but as long as the article remains encyclopaedic, I don't see the problem. It's a very real disease, and it ought to have an article (Ménière's disease is far less prevalent than MAV yet has had an article for a long time). Julcal created the page to fill that void, and while there was a COI at the start, there isn't now. -- Aeluwas (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • The problem doesn't exist with the article, but the link that was added to the article by the user. It was certainly an advertisement for his forum. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree that I broke a rule, unknowingly, by adding an external link to a forum. But the forum has nothing to do with selling a product. It's simply a support forum for MAV sufferers and does not link directly nor indirectly to any product. I found my first MAV forum through an external link on Wikipedia. The link was removed in less than 24 hours of publication. Regarding the battling, as HelloAnnyong points out in her opening statement, Studio34 "keeps harassing me." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julcal (talk • contribs) 19:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
          • His statement, than you. And I only wrote that because you repeatedly wrote it. Can you give us some information on how you feel as if you're being stalked? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with the comments above about COI and disruptive editing and think that a block is certainly in order. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism and disruption by User:Tennis expert

Help please in dealing with childish, disruptive behavior by Tennis expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

As many of you know, there has been an ArbCom proceeding on date linking and date autoformatting here at Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll.

Throughout the course of this, I and the other members of our group have maintained a page in my userspace here at User:Greg_L/Delinking links. I’ve had to provide a historical link because here is what the article looks like now: User:Greg_L/Delinking links

User:Tennis expert started doing malicious edits on my personal userspace page (see Revision history).

As you can see, my Wikifriends (other editors who are members of a team on de-linking), reverted him numerous times. Tennis Expert editwarred with them and ignored them. All this occurred when I wasn’t aware of it. Finally members who were trying to restore the page to the way we wanted e-mailed me to alert me that this was occurring on my own userspace subpage.

I informed Tennis expert here on his talk page that his edits were not welcome in my userspace. His response was as follows: OK. I will pursue rapid deletion of your biased subpage.

And he carried through with his petty threat here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Greg L/Delinking links. As you can see, many editors have patiently started jumping through the hoops to do a good-faith effort at opposing this disruption. It is a colossal waste of everyone’s time and we shouldn’t have had to do this since what Tennis expert did was not in good faith.

This subpage in my userspace is a list of links pertaining to date linking and autoformatting. There were so many relevant sites that we couldn’t keep them all straight in our heads. So I started this page and my friends on our team added to it. It has been a valuable resource. It is not supposed to be “unbiased” or “biased” or whatever Tennis expert desires. It is a resource we have and continue to use.

Tennis expert’s move is just mean-spirited disruption. I ask that he be blocked for this move. He knows full well what he is doing. Greg L (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've snowballed the MfD and warned TE, please let me or any admin know if he does something like this again. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen. I think a trout would achieve more than a block at this, um, point. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Gwen. You and I both know that what TE did was malicious and intentional and he knew better. Please take a look at all the time wasted by good-faith editors trying to deal with this disruption. This stunt was pure, unadulterated, purposeful disruption. Tennis expert deserves much more than a warning for this. Greg L (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I came so close to blocking him for 12-24 hours. I've banned him from your user space (until you say it's ok for him to edit there, if ever) owing to the disruption, he's now been warned, let us know if he tries to game things again. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it looked like a handy page of links, until you get to the bottom sections, when it starts to resemble an open ended evidence gathering exercise against multiple users, which I am quite sure violates WP:USER. As for Greg now giving the impression he has taken the collation of that sekrit info off site, for the purposes of coordination and collaboration with a select group of users, I am quite sure that sort of thing is not looked on favourably at all. Anyway, now it is speedy closed and moved off site, there is no good reason for the user page to remain in its current state (except of course ironically as a revision history for any action TE might want to take over this quite blatant baiting of another user). MickMacNee (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• It wasn’t moved off of Wikipedia. The site is a pure resource that is a writing aid for the benefit of editors who have a common objective. It is in my userspace. I moved it to another location in Wikipedia userspace where TE can’t find it but where it is still in my userspace. Without going into details, everything I’ve done is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. It is unfortunate that TE’s stunt required this. It’s the first time I had to resort to it. Greg L (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• P.S. Had TE thought strategically, his group would have created their own page with similar links to facilitate their efforts in promoting date linking and autoformatting. I doubt it would have helped, since the community was dead-set against both practices. But the efforts of the pro-linking crowd would have been better coordinated. Better yet, TE (or “they”) could have simply used my page as a resource for them to use rather than duplicate it. As far as I know, it would have been in accordance for TE to have done a wholesale copy of my entire page and modified it in his userspace as he saw fit to better serve their objectives. Or he could have transcluded my page into his userspace to serve as a resource. I put it right out in the open in my userspace and all those on our team edited it while still logged in. The page was easy to discover and was available for all to use equally once discovered. Instead, TE saw fit to simply vandalize it. That was tantamount to spray painting graffiti on a store font. Now the page is history. Greg L (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Drogheda Grammar School

Long-term vandalism by User:Annoyingbeast. Too difficult for me to correct it all. Suggest perma-ban. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for vandalism only account. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser help, please

Could a CU contact me via email concerning [130], please? Acroterion _(talk) 19:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)