Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alastair Haines (talk | contribs) at 23:46, 4 December 2009 (→‎Requested desysop of Cirt, GWH, and John Carter: done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    Continual re-creation of deleted article about 'Team Touchdown'

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

    I'm not sure if this is the correct place to put this - if it's not, I apologise.

    A group of editors have been trying to re-create the same article, all about a non-notable group/club in NSW, Wales.

    The deletion log entries are as follows:

    The editors involved include:

    One of the variations is already protected from creation:

    Is it possible to SALT using a regexp?
    Something like T[e|E][a|A][m|M][*][T|t][O|o][U|u][C|c][H|h][D|d][O|o][W|w][N|n]*

    I doubt that they are going to stop trying to recreate the article, as they have been so persistent so far!

    Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This [[1]] too for a little background. Users were editing a disambiguation page and adding their soccer club info repeatedly.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note All three of the above editors have been notified of this thread, included the one who is currently blocked -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I had nuked another variant (same regex):

    Their repeated recreation after salting of previous spelling (after *its* AfD and then recreation) and associated cloning at Touchdown Jesus is what led me to block Deanops. DMacks (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Further to 4twenty42o's link, 2 more editors need to be added to the list:
    I have left messages on the talk pages of all except the first, which was indeffed. Horologium (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how much good that will do; I suspect these are meatpuppets, not socks. IIRC, Team Touchdown is a made-up football group; this is probably a bunch of guys trying to get their little club on WP. GlassCobra 23:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • One more sock User talk:Millsy360 just found that one on the touchdown jesus article posting the same club crap on a disambig page [[2]] and vandalizing a user page [[3]]. - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Confirmed - a whole bunch of accounts at the SPI case here - Allie ❤ 06:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're back...
    User:Monochrome Scope (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    ...and blocked. DMacks (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though the duration of the lock may be effective enough for now, it will not be as effective hereafter, as when ever the lock is then removed, anyone will be able to recreate the article. An indefinite lock is effective and should be done to prevent any future recreations such as this. If only I had the power to block those responsible for the recreations....--Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 05:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    (section did not archive automatically, so timestamp added. Fram (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    Incivility and hate-speech at Talk:Crucifixion

    I have recently started a complaint that has now been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive581#Canvassing at Crucifixion. I am concerned that it has been archived automatically and will be overlooked. To the best of my understanding, it has not been addressed. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't this now stale? What it is ongoing problem needing admin attention? Fences&Windows 19:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and I removed some of the personal attacks, but as far as I can see all of these NPAs came from random dynamic IPs that in all the cases I looked at haven't edited since. As such, blocks on the IP addresses would appear to be pointless. Is there something else I've missed? Black Kite 19:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Stale only in the sense that no one really ever did anything about it. Continuing personal attacks against me. I've moved some of them to my talk, not all of them. I really am disappointed that I should have to be subjected to this. I've done nothing wrong, and am being vilified for my views about content. This is no way for any editor to be treated. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    :::Is it possible to provide specific examples? Then your concerns can be looked at in better detail.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 19:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've looked through this user's talk page history. Admins, any thoughts on this diff?--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 19:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is very alike to this diff.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 19:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Thank you. For a start, please take another look at the archived part, where I provided a huge number of diffs, and some of them, actually, were from registered users, then go forward through those users' contribution histories. If you'd like, I can then round up more diffs. P.S. after the edit conflict: yes, thanks for that too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this was what I was talking about. Hasn't edited for over 48 hours, and is a dynamic IP. The only remaining IP still talking (unless I've missed something), is the 24.x.x.x one which is being slightly brusque but hardly incivil. If it was actually continuing the personal attacks which the other ones were, I would block it. Black Kite 19:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    True. But is there anything that can be done about the likely sockpuppetry? It is pretty much the same comment from 2 different IPs.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 20:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I just now actually looked at those diffs. In fairness, I have to say that the later one was made by reverting my removal of the first. (And that was very mild, compared to the diffs that I reported earlier.) But the whole business arose from off-site instigation at what is basically a hate site. I've been wondering about sockery in other contexts (an IP says something awful, then another editor immediately comes on with crocodile tears after making attacks earlier, etc.), but I don't see how I could make a strong enough case for CU. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I object to you throwing around the words "hate site" in reference to SA. It's crude and brusque at times, but it's not a hate site. I demand you revert such references.
    After all, if Tryptofish is right about the registered users, can they be blocked?--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 20:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, at the very least, warned strongly. (Some have also been making nasty comments at other editors' talk pages.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, wait a minute, about that 24. IP, take a look at User talk:ShuttheHeckUp. Last comment, repudiating warning from admin, is from that IP address, but in the voice of a registered user. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone please do something about this, because it appears that we've only been scratching the surfaces of the problem here.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 20:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! And this just now at my talk (including telling me to kill myself!). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This as well, possible relation to the registered user whose name appears in the edit? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, looking at that. I semi'd your talkpage for a few days to head off any further stupidity. Black Kite 21:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I just noticed the semi, and I appreciate it a lot. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A day later: the user you see in that link appears to be following me from page to page, and has put the anti-hate speech header that was recently on the article talk page onto his user talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I recommend in future that you don't pick stuff like that up from the article and cart it back to your talkpage. It looks so much worse on an article talkpage, you're more likely to get something done about it. One of the IPs vandalised my talkpage and got offed by Materialscientist for its pains. I've thrown Yzak Jule off myself - so far he hasn't been back, though I don't know if he's been bothering the Fish. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Elen, I'm unsure what you mean. Are you referring to where I moved the bogus accusations about me to my talk? My reasoning was that it had nothing to do with the article talk page, and my replying to it was necessary but also unrelated to the article talk page. This is getting awfully tough for me: I get criticized when I say that I do not object to leaving the bad stuff on the article talk page, and then (if I understand?) I get criticized for moving it off. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't criticising you (sorry if it sounded that way), more along the lines of not taking stray dogs home. That rubbish may have been aimed at you, but leaving it on the article talkpage and ignoring it may have been a better option than shifting it to your talk page where, after all, you didn't actually want some of it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What I didn't want at my talk has been reverted. My experience has been that rubbish that stays at the article ends up getting repeated as though it were true. Anyway, the admins don't need to read this (so maybe I'll move this to my talk -- joke!). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are quite correct Tryptofish, anon users and IPs frequently post slander that is repeated as if true, and administrators are untrained in dealing with this. What you need is a third party willing to delete talk page posts that add nothing to discussion of the article and malign you in attempt to discourage you from editing. Please feel free to drop a note at my talk page any time and I will evaluate posts you believe to be useless and injurious. I cannot promise to agree with you in any particular case. I might be a disappointment. But such posts breach the copyright license and the Foundation is duty bound to protect you, even if, as you do, you opt to exercise your right to publish anonymously. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Alastair, you might want to refactor that slightly. I agree that IPs in this case posted a great deal of uncivil nonsense. I don't think it's an issue about admin training. If anything had been said that actually constituted slander (as opposed to abuse) Tryptofish was free to highlight that. But what you're saying about copyright license is just....nonsense. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, both of you. I appreciate that both of you are sympathetic, and I trust that the admins, will, in due course, do what they believe best helps Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And, at this point, I'd just like to check back about where we stand. As Sky Attacker so very correctly said, we have yet to really scratch the surface of a significant problem here (not just for me personally, but for the good of the entire Wiki). So, I'll repeat Sky Attacker's question: can someone please do something about this? Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Exactly what is to be done? The civility and WP:NPA issues on the talk page have now subsided. Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. If the disruptive behavior has stopped, then there is no reason to hand out blocks. —Farix (t | c) 22:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Farix, it hasn't stopped. It may be moving more to my talk page, but it hasn't stopped. And per above, there may be other issues including sockery. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the history of your talk page, that's already been dealt with with your talk page semi-protected. If it continues, you need to cite specific diffs rather then vaguely cry that someone needs to "do something". —Farix (t | c) 23:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I need to ask this, and I realize it sounds kind of obnoxious, but please understand that I don't mean anything bad by it. Farix, you aren't an admin, are you? (If I'm wrong, please accept my apology for even asking!) If you aren't, please let the admins continue to look at what I think they are looking at. Again, sorry for the way that sounds. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Few administrators are going to act on anything until there is clear evidence. If you have an issue with an editor, you need to bring it along with the diffs. —Farix (t | c) 01:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And now, please see: [4], [5], and [6]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Copy editing, help with sourcing, and a joke? Why, that's the most uncivil thing I've ever seen. Certainly this nefarious user should be banned from Wikipedia forever for helping out other articles noticed under a user's contributions while checking to see if he was violating consensus again. Also, why is this on ANI?Yzak Jule (talk)
    <Comment removed at request of Tryptofish>Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Elen, but no need to remove, just to clarify that you meant it in a light-hearted way, and that you weren't really making a joke at my expense. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a potential WP:STALKING case to me. Yzak Jule, I advice you to completely disengage from Tryptofish, that includes not following him around in his edit history. It doesn't do either of you any good. Tryptofish, if Yzak Jule keeps following you around, start a new complaint with the diffs. —Farix (t | c) 01:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Farix, those points are very well-taken, and I will do so. And to Alastair, below, I do understand that, overall, there are plenty of people being supportive of me, so thanks for that too. But please let me suggest to other editors that it is unhelpful to be making jokes (even if, as I suspect, they were meant as affectionate jibes) at my expense. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent advice from these people Trypt, if you ask me. Certainly I couldn't help better with what you've posted. If there's serious stuff, it can take forever to go through processes designed to screen out trivia like these last three diffs you've posted. Too many people cry "Wolf", and genuine pleas for assistance go unheeded. If there's serious stuff, I volunteer to be your first "informal" attempt at mediation. Don't hit people with clubs when a simple third party could clear it up. Relax, enjoy, there's plenty of people here being really supportive to you. Three cheers for them! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dec. 4: Continuing personal attacks and vandalism of my user page ("America hates you" etc.). I'm going to take it to page protection, just noting it here. The semi-protection of Talk:Crucifixion has expired and edit warring over vandalism by IPs has resumed (reverts by other editors, I'm trying to keep hands-off), so uninvolved admins may want to look at whether extending semi there might be a good idea. I notice that some of the editors who reverted vandalism there did not put the usual warnings on talk pages of the vandals, so admins may also want to go back and make sure that gets done (again, should not be me doing it). (Also, it might be a good idea for uninvolved admins to keep an eye on Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 2#File:Sailor Mercury.jpg.) Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Three days semi-protection due to continuing disruption. Fences&Windows 22:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Shopping for an appropriate forum

    Hey, the shopping season has officially started, right? I'm looking for the right forum in which to discuss my concerns about a particular editor. There are several issues that touch upon many categories, while not fitting neatly into any single category. Do I shotgun my concerns to the various distinct but applicable noticeboards, or is there an industrious admin with significant free time reading this who can formulate a comprehensive, single course of action? Here's the background information followed by my specific concerns:

    On November 6, User:96.231.137.242 added a paragraph to the Bill Maher BLP article. I removed it because it violated several WP:BLP policy stipulations including sourcing, verifiability and inaccurate contentious material. This was my first interaction with this editor. He repeatedly reinserted the content, so I warned him against edit warring and BLP violations. He was blocked for 31 hours for 3RR and edit warring. Immediately following the block of IP96.xxx, User:DyadTriad appears and continues arguing for the inclusion of that same paragraph, eventually re-adding it. Shortly after that, User:Valerius Tygart picks up the same argument, and starts re-adding the same content. I heard ducks quacking, so I initiated a Sockpuppet Investigation here. Checkuser confirmed 96.231.137.242 = DyadTriad = Valerius Tygart, among others. The editor admits using the many registered and unregistered accounts, but denies using them abusively - contrary to the findings of the SPI case page and the checkuser results. Several of his sock accounts were blocked, and the case archived. Since then, Valerius Tygart has resumed re-inserting the contentious paragraph into the Maher article once per day, each day, for over two weeks now — despite objections from editors on the talk page. In addition, this editor has been attempting to modify his archived Sockpuppet Investigation case page, to the point of getting himself blocked yet again for disruptive editing. Despite (and during) this block, as I type this, he is still maintaining his slow-burn edit war on the Maher article with his Tygart account.

    As for forums, I could post on the WP:BLPN so that other editors can tell Tygart what he already knows: he's trying to insert poorly sourced content into a BLP that intentionally misrepresents the subject's views, against policy. But that doesn't stop the repeated reverts. I could post at the 3RR/Edit Warring noticeboard, but the once-per-day revert war doesn't technically violate 3RR, does it? Perhaps I should go to WP:RFPP and request page protection until the BLP violations are resolved? I could go to the SPI noticeboard and say, "Hey - this confirmed puppeteer is editing with some of his accounts while his other accounts are blocked for disruptive editing - what gives?", but the case is already closed. Any suggestions? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Here would appear to be the best place. Did the SPI conclude that Valerius Tygart was the sockmaster? If so, a longer block would seem appropriate. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If what you say is true, then this reeks of gaming. I would suggest a longer than usual ban just to beat it into people's heads that no, we aren't idiots, and we can see what you're trying to do. Things like a once per day edit to avoid 1/3rr is clearly an attempt to skirt the rules. Give them a long ban, and keep them on a short leash when they get back. If they can't play nice, then indef-block. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that User:Valerius Tygart be indef-blocked for disruptive editing. Using an IP to tamper with his own sockpuppet report takes the cake. (If you're trying to convince people that you're an incorrigible sockpuppeteer, that's a good way to do it). He should be told that the block could be lifted if he would agree to edit with only a single account, and refrain from editing the Bill Maher article. He could still participate on the article's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was the admin who blocked IP 96.231.137.242 for edit-warring at Bill Maher, recommended the filing of the SPI, and then blocked the confirmed sock accounts after confirming that they were being used abusively. At that stage I blocked the sockmaster Valerius Tygart (talk · contribs) only for 31 hours in order not to be punitive, and assuming that the socking and disruption would stop. Given that the sockpuppetry has been goind on for over two years and has continued even after the SPI confirmation, I support EdJohnston's suggestion above. Additionally, the Bill Maher article can be semi-protected, if needed to prevent such disruption. Abecedare (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That puts the icing on the SPI cake! Have you blocked the IP already? - Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 12:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tygart has used at least these 2 IPs since the closure of his SPI case: User:96.231.137.242 and User:140.139.35.250. They appear to be static, not dynamic IPs. Tygart claims to use multiple accounts "legitimately", but I stopped assuming good faith after checkuser J.delanoy confirmed Tygart = 140.139.35.250 = Dogwood123, but Tygart denies ever being deceptive or saying, I am not "Dogwood123". Either Tygart or J.delanoy is lying, and I know where I'd put my money. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone is playing possum. Still unsure of an appropriate forum. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tygart apparently doesn't wish to comment in this matter — it has been a few days. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please ban two users from article Gilad Atzmon

    There has been a long term edit war between CarolMooreDC and Drsmoo on article Gilad Atzmon. They have been on various mediations and raised wikiquette alerts and suchlike but it goes on an on, the latest such complaint is at WP:WQA#User:Drsmoo (revised per comments).

    I have suggested on the WQA that both editors should be banned from that article for some months and let other editors have a go at it. I think banning both would lead to least rancour between theeditors and hopefully let them both go off and do something more useful instead. Editor User:Malik Shabazz concurs with this view. Drsmoo agrees but CarolMooreDC is not happy with such a ban. Can this be done or is there a better way of dealing with a problem like this please? Dmcq (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In fact CarolMooreDC now says at the end of that WQA they agree with a voluntary block for two montrhs but wants something stuck in the article. your call. Dmcq (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As Dmcq noted above, I support banning the two editors from the article, either temporarily or permanently. I tried to work with them on a compromise in April, but nothing came of it. Full disclosure: I've made a handful of small edits to the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the article ban, I don't think any changes should be made to the article per any of our wishes before the ban though, or any sections deleted by admins not working on the article. If the other editors working on the page feel that a section should be removed and changed, then they should do that themselves after discussion.
    Similarly, earlier this year there was a 6 month lock on the article. Immediately after the article was unlocked, CarolmooreDC proceeded to remove a whole section, and the edit war resumed exactly as it had been. Along with the constant personal attacks against me on noticeboards. With a 2 month ban, it will just be the exact same thing again.
    I have no objection to both of us being permanently banned from the article, IPs included, to prevent any sock puppetry. I have confidence that the Wikipedia community will ensure that the article follows guidelines. Drsmoo (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully people will read the whole Wikiquette Alert I initiated to deal with issues with Drsmoo in a WP:Biography of Living Persons which had had an WP:OTRS. It still had some WP:RS, WP:OR and POV problems which I could not address without constant reverts by Drsmoo and constantly being followed everywhere I tried to get neutral opinions with false allegations, among others, that I was trying to turn the article into a "defense of his anti-semitism." An obvious personal attack inferring I am an antisemite. This latest, not perfect, attempt for an NPOV section without WP:OR disproves that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was your Wikiquette alert that precipitated this. That you decided to completely impose your POV changes, re-lengthening the article you claimed you had shortened (which you shortened only technically, almost sarcastically, and that was about 3-4x longer than the Hipcorite and SlimVirgin edits) despite no one agreeing with them is another of the reasons this is where it is. You haven't waited for a single noticeboard to make a decision, or accepted any of them. I mean you were even working behind the scenes with other editors on your talk page, outside the article talk page, and badmouthing other editors http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc&diff=279500434&oldid=279498060 "Also, what to do about Rance? He's been rather sneaky about getting his own writings in there without his name being mentioned (going to fix that now) but not as bad as THF and Drsmoo" Why are you so unwilling to let the rest of the wikipedia community, outside the two of us, work on this article by themselves? Drsmoo (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Drsmoo, you are bringing up inaccurately described or irrelevant issues from before the 5 month protection period. The only relevant issue from that time is an Admin's advice on April 6 that Drsmoo was being “unnecessarily confrontational” and, after further incidents, on April 9 against “derogatory views" against Atzmon or other editors. Obviously I should have come to Wikietiquette immediately after Drsmoo's first accusation against me once the article was unprotected. I see that Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility may recommend it more quickly than I originally had interpreted. I have learned my lesson. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And I should have reported you for incivility when you began attacking me over a year ago (October 2008) which you have continued until today http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drsmoo&diff=prev&oldid=247998967 "your questionable edits which delete sourced material and defend only with POV personal opinions" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilad_Atzmon&diff=prev&oldid=247805478 "pushing your personal POV opinion" and on and on and on for over a year, even when you were censured for editing with "an appalling lack of good faith" you continued attacking me. This is the last time I'm going to trade back and forths with you, period. Please explain why you are so unwilling to let the rest of the wikipedia community, outside the two of us, work on this article by themselves? Drsmoo (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Will you two please stop bringing your petty bickering to every forum in which your names are mentioned. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. I was involved with this article a while back (6 months+?), my involvement originating with a WP:BLPN post. It was obvious then that a number of editors were using the article as a battleground, with persistent attempts to quote the subject's political statements (he's a musician, BTW) out of context, and generally developing a WP:COATRACK. Many of the subject's statements are somewhat inflammatory in this controversial area, but attempts to explain the subject's reasoning were always resisted and sidelined, in an attempt (occasionally explicitly stated) to show that the subject is anti-semitic, rather than merely intensely critical of Israel.

    Drsmoo was one of a number of editors pursuing this position, whilst CaroleMooreDC was attempting a more balanced article. Without delving into the ins and outs of the dispute resolution of this interminable issue (who said what to whom), it's clear to me that it is in the best interests of Wikipedia for Drsmoo to be permanently banned from editing the article. At the same time, I'd suggest a two-month voluntary ban for CaroleMoore. I think both can be trusted to use the talk page appropriately, but that remains to be seen. Rd232 talk 15:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have never once been warned of any bad behavior for any of my edits. Calling for me alone to be permanently banned from editing the article, solely because you disagree with my positions is disturbing; especially so, given that you haven't provided any reasons, and yourself state that my editing position is the same as that of many of the editors who have worked on the article (in fact the consensus.) The article has changed a great deal since you were editing it, and now uses solely quotes from high quality reliable news sources such as the Times of London and The Guardian, and no first person sources. After constant noticeboards, not a single one has found the sources and quotes used to be out of context. Drsmoo (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, but it's not the case that you have never been warned for bad behaviour. Tedder warned you on 16 October, and I warned you on 12 November; in both cases, for edit warring and potential 3RR on the Atzmon article. RolandR 16:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "solely because you disagree with my positions"... WP:AGF much? I stated my reasons above. To reiterate: I recall you clearly working towards making the article non-neutral (maximising criticism, often based on quotes without explanatory context; minimising elaboration of the subject's views), and that on occasion you explicitly stated your agenda, in terms of "exposing" the subject's anti-semitism, or some such. Rd232 talk 19:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment—it's certainly a problem when an editor makes over 100 non-minor edits to an article (or over 200 in Carol Moore's case) without adding new content, or adding very little new content. Even without an in-depth review of the case, it indicates that perhaps the article is better off without these edits. I support an indefinite article ban for Carol Moore, who has been edit-warring on the article for more than a year, and far longer than Drsmoo. As for Drsmoo, a temporary ban would probably suffice, as we haven't seen what his editing habits on the article would be like had Carol Moore not edited it, therefore I am in favor of giving him an extra chance in the future if he positively contributes to other articles on Wikipedia. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally I think Drsmoo and Carol are equally to blame for treating the article like a WP:BATTLEGROUND and should be treated the same. As far as Drsmoo's contributions to other articles are concerned, 38% of his mainspace edits and 57% of his Talkpage edits are on this article. If not for his interest in Freddy Adu, Drsmoo would be considered a WP:SPA. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if what you say is true (Ynhockey), not adding new content is a bizarre criterion for judging an editor's contributions to an article as useless. Rewriting, in an attempt to fix problems and find compromises, is at least as valuable as adding new content. Rd232 talk 19:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that Carol feels a post like this is appropriate while this discussion is going on makes me wonder whether she understands the problem with her own behavior. I'm beginning to wonder whether a permanent Wikipedia ban might be more appropriate in her case. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't be silly - that's a ludicrous over-reaction. She's talking about how dispute resolution works or not, in terms of her experience; and trying to do something about it. Rd232 talk 19:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Factual FYI. Since Malik Shabazz mentioned above that I tried to work with them on a compromise in April, but nothing came of it. I would just like to point out that he is discussing the Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Politics_draft page set up by an admin after the article had been locked. And actually, with some help from Malik, Drsmoo and I did come to a "consensus," per this Talk Page section. Unfortunately no one knowledgeable of the issues and willing to opine was a sustained third party to our current talk page discussions on the unprotected article, which aggravated the situation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Unsupported attacks by Redheylin after warnings

    Redheylin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has received multiple different warnings from admins and established editors over a long period of time to cease making personal attacks and unsupported claims about other editors which amount to same. He has continued to do so [7]. Admin action is required here, as the multiple "final warnings" have had no effect.

    • After an ANI thread was closed by admin Jehochman with a warning to Redheylin [8], I had hoped that the issue would be resolved. However it appears this is not the case, as Redheylin continues to make wholly unsupported claims that I "make changes to a page with a view to making a WP:POINT on another page", that I use "inadequate citations", and that this is "disruptive" [9].
    Warnings
    ANI thread closed by Jehochman with warning to Redheylin
    Redheylin recent unsupported claims

    Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I tend to agree with the above comments, that the editor in question has in fact continued to engage in what is clearly disruptive and tendentious editing, even after being warned repeatedly to cease such behavior. Unfortunately, I also know that I would be perceived as having a conflict of interest in actively imposing the deserved sanctions myself. John Carter (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should invite the editor to comment here. If we cannot reach a mutual agreement with them to stop pestering you, then several of us can certify an RfC, and based upon the results there, we may be able to implement a community sanction forcing the editor to disengage for you or the topic areas where they habitually get into trouble. I recognize that this is a potentially time consuming process, but I think it is the only way to generate a solid consensus for a remedy that will provide lasting relief. Escalating blocks to the user will just result in more grief; I'd rather not kick the can down the road. We should deal with this problem seriously and decisively. Jehochman Talk 16:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Gave notice to user's talkpg when I filed it [10]. Cirt (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of the above admin/editors have intervened on behalf of Cirt. Cirt has a long history of edit-warring on "new religious movements" and has been in dispute with many editors. I think you'll find that, outside these pages, these things do not happen much to me. On the other hand, as I say, these things "happen to" Cirt with many editors. This experience conditions my impression of this affair. Although I have spent only a short time involved with these pages, Cirt has secured several warnings from admins who allege that all objections to disruption, poor citation, incivility and lack of good faith are "personal attacks" on Cirt, whereas Cirt's own comments are above reproach as she is "highly respected". Well, she may be, but her application for sysop status drew great concern owing to repeated blocks for those very faults on these very articles. I have had no contact with any of these editors other than when they intervened on Cirt's behalf. Their minds were, I fear, made up, and their approaches often questionable. Just now user John Carter has ventured to forbid me ALL bold editing for no clear reason. As for Georgewilliamherbert, here's how we met on my talk page:
    Redheylin - It has been suggested that this exchange of correspondence lead to you acting as Off2riorob's proxy, or collaboration between you two, in complaining about Cirt's conduct (your recent ANI posting). Given Off2riorob's recent disagreement with Cirt the combination of behavior is sort of suspicious. Would you like to comment on ANI regarding the nature of this discussion you two had? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
    • This is to say, as Cirt has been in edit-war with ANOTHER editor YOU must be acting in bad faith. This IS an assumption of bad faith, based on another editor's asking to confer with me on some matter - I do not know which as the contact never occurred. But the above admin used this allegation to turn MY ANI report on Cirt's misuse of citations, which he avoided by repeatedly asking me to define the way in which the information claimed was not present, into a witch-hunt based on his own unsupported accusations of some unnamed nefarious collaboration. This stuff is hard to take seriously - and that seems to make these folks very mad. That's all. Redheylin (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]



    Update: Continued violations by Redheylin

    This comment violates WP:NPA, as it makes attacks not backed up or supported by anything. It violates WP:NOT#FORUM, as it is use of the talk page space for discussion not related to further improvement of this article but rather to increase drama and drag out attacks. And per both of those, it violates WP:BATTLE. I asked Redheylin to remove it. He refused, saying: If you think it's an attack, report it.. Cirt (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Disagreement with Cirt's analysis

    Stating that content isn't supported by the citations used is a personal attack? Since when? And I don't see saying someone has a POV as ideal, although it's sometimes accurate and worth pointing out. Is Cirt denying he has a point of view? I don't see how any of this behavior is blockable, but Cirt's aggressive battlefield approach has been extraordinarily disruptive. If accusign someone of having a POV is blockable then the diffs of Cirt saying the same thing repeatedly are problematic. He's also made numerous statements ascribing bad faith to others and accusing them of collusion. This ANI report is outrageous and some sanction against Cirt and his suitability to have admin tools may be worth considering. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since it was about matters which had been resolved already, and the editor in question has continued to basically continued to beat a dead horse, which is a form of tendentious editing, which itself is a violation of WP:DE. I would have to think that calling someone an "outrageous hypocrite" is itself almost certainly a violation of WP:NPA, by the way, as you so clearly do above. Perhaps we are to take that as being an indication you are unable to understand the meaning of "personal attack"? John Carter (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) has been interjecting himself into disputes, pushing for the POV of Redheylin (talk · contribs) and supporting Redheylin in the prior ANI thread [13]. ChildofMidnight even went so far as to start a duplicate post at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard in support of Redheylin's POV - directly below a post I had just made at the same noticeboard [14]. This could have something to do with the fact that admin Georgewilliamherbert was one of the admins listed above that has warned Redheylin, and apparently ChildofMidnight does not like this particular admin [15]. In addition to Redheylin (talk · contribs), it would seem ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) would also merit a warning regarding WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE. Cirt (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we go again with Cirt's accusations against those he disagrees with. I do not support Redheylin's views and I don't even know what they are fully. I've encouraged him and Cirt to use the dispute resolution process rather than ANI boards and accusations and counter accusations. When someone accuses someone else of doing something they themselves are doing that is by definition hypocrisy. And here again we see Cirt accusing me of something that isn't true after I've explained myself repeatedly (see my talk page). A block of Cirt and a desysop may be appropriate at this point. John Carter is involved and along with GWH has a long history of disruptive and unhelpful stoking the flames and side taking in this type of dispute. I encourage both of them to try to resolve disputes fairly and collegially instead of going after one side while failing to enforce the same standards on other parties (ie. their buddies). ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But there are reasonable and acceptable terms which could be used instead of "hypocrisy", and you have yet completely and utterly failed to even offer a weak justification of the word "outrageous", which in context makes it a even more pronounced attack. I have to assume by failing to address that point you are in effect acknowledging misconduct. If that is so, the reasonable action to take would be to correct the mistake by removing it, rather than offering a rather self-serving defense of yourself. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When I quoted ChildofMidnight on his talk page:
    "That's one of the reasons I didn't think it was important for me to read up on all the discussions, articles, and issues involved."
    I pointed out to him that unless he reads discussions, articles and the issues involved, he's not really qualified to comment on those disputes and also he has not been asked to give input on these disputes it would be best if he stayed away from them. CoM, for your own good I would advise you to focus yourself on the articles you edit and the disputes related to those articles othewise what you're doing may be seen as disruption. It looks like you're ignoring all the diffs that Cirt has pointed out above which include comments about Redheylin's conduct from other editors. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NPA I have amended the subtitle on this thread. Will not edit war if the poster wishes to restore the original wording, but please consider that a calm and factual expression of one's opinion is more likely to be persuasive. Durova371 19:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested block of User:ChildofMidnight

    Please note that the above editor has engaged in further insults above after being given a final warning for blatant personal attacks. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs please? It should be noted that John Carter is involved and has a long history of disruptive and confrontational behavior that I have pointed out to him.
    The irony of this whole outrageous thread is that Redheylin has moved on to other projects and the diffs are days old. I have no idea why Cirt is continuing his disruptive campaigning and battlefield behavior. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the love of God/Buddha/FSM, yes - What this stems from is Cirt's issuance of warnings to ChildofMidnight months back, due to violations of Obama-article Arbcom restrictions. CoM has a long history in unrelated policy discussions of directing antagonism towards those that have had to use the stick against him in the past. Tarc (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tarc was warned for his personal attacks and incivility related to the Obama articles. He was recently blocked for edit warring on those pages and has been trolling my contributions for a long time inserting himself in discussions where he has not involvement to pursue a vendetta. If John Carter and George William Herbert cared even a tiny bit about civility and stopping the battlefield disruption engaged in by POV warriors they would have put a stop to Tarc's behavior long ago. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Distortions and half-truths are very unbecoming of you, CoM. That ArbCom case gave a mild reminder to myself and several others to be a bit less snippy in edit summaries, that is all. Yes, 1 24h block (shortened to "time served" after ~15 or so) in several years of editing. I'll match that up against your checkered log any day. Finally, I have AN/I watchlisted, and contribute here regularly, there is no stalking. When you name pops up in a header, I'll certainly pop in to see what's up and provide evidence of your past transgressions and egregiously bad behavior as warranted. I have not done anything wrong by participating here, so please stop with the misdirection. Tarc (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • CoM - please explain this edit. GiantSnowman 19:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems like a harmless edit conflict. Protonk (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't think edit conflicts happened that way, but fair enough. GiantSnowman 19:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the editor simply copy-pastes the entire bottom window to the top, they can. Also, even when I've picked out my edits to paste into the new version, I can sometimes delete the last contribution (when the last contribution was SineBot). --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • That isn't what happened here. The last edit was by john carter, but protonk's comment is the one deleted. I've seen this happen as well, but its always undoing the last edit, not some random comment.--Crossmr (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • They do happen that way quite often. Eventually liquidthreads will obviate the problem. Protonk (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • What Proton said -- I've done this sort of thing myself without an edit conflict notice. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block of CoM or any other action to make him stop trying to solve people's disputes when he is not asked to give his input. Below he's asking for de-adminning of 3 admins. Only a block will solve this in my opinion, or a warning to stop. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block of CoM. Preferrably indefinite. Crafty (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support permanent restriction of CoM to articles directly concerning food. CoM's presence on political and administrative pages is pure useless drama, and the same horns tooted over and over. PhGustaf (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose indef block, Support block of any other time period other than indef. I understand your position CoM but you have to learn that you butt-in in every ANI conversation. Especially if you are not involved or you don't not know what is going on. Im reluctant to support an indef block as he has not done anything harmful to the encyclopedia though.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 19:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're going to block for not knowing what's going on then you should start with yourself Coldplay. Your statement that I'm involved in "every" ANI thread is obviously ridiculous and false. I am very selective and most of my time is spent working on articles. I am well aware of the situation having been involved in the previous discussion and have tried to help the involved parties work through the dispute resolution process as the discussion on my talk page, the content noticeboard, and Redheylin's talk page indicate. It has been pointed out REPEATEDLY to Cirt that the dispute was over content and required no admin intervention. Cirt was asked REPEATEDLY to stop making bad faith accusations, yet he continues to go on the attack and to engage in disruption. I edit in good faith and I try to offer helpful comments. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I tried at least (watch him find a rollback mistake of mine and request my rollback be taken away) CoM If I were you I would tell the community that you are sorry and don't butt-in were your comments are not needed. PS im not an admin.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 19:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You wrote: "I understand your position CoM but you have to learn that you butt-in in every ANI conversation.". Thats what I've been trying to tell CoM on his talk as nicely as I could but it looks like this will end up in some kind of action since he's not stopping and he escalates disputes in his attempts to resolve them. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "yet he continues to go on the attack and to engage in disruption" COM, please provide quotes, edit diff links, with dates here. Don't point to another page. Specific edit diffs, or your allegations may be dismissed by some. Ikip (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I believe a substantial block of COM is called for. Calling for de-adminning three respected admins because he disagrees with their positions is disruptive, over-the-top drama that gives Wikipedia a black eye. Enough! Jusdafax 19:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - un-officially calling for the firing of 3 administrators, isn't worth an indef-block. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      No one said it would be an indef block. The question is whether something should be done. This poll wont go anywhere though, like most consensus seeking ventures on WP, but hopefully this will bring a change in CoM and Redheylin's conduct because now they know that a number of editors would like to see that change. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - this is one of the best content editors on wikipedia. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Content creation is not a license to freely make personal attacks and harass. This is like saying it's right to pardon people like Bernie Maddoff simply because they're educated. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Endorse-he seems to call for desysops everytime he's in a tiff with an admin. Good content editor or not, disruptive behavior is uncalled for. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I do not know who ChildofMidnight is or how s/he became involved, but I do know that others on the ANI page agreed with me (see the talk-page barnstar) that this editor has mediated with kindness, good faith, good humour and accuracy here, and it is getting ever harder to avoid the conclusion that it is these very qualities that have caused these present attacks.
    • In order to forestall any penalty - such as would be in my view an injustice brought about partly by myself - it is only decent that I offer this forum myself to resign for any decided period from wiki-editing. I know the worth of my contributions, I have nothing but contempt for anything and anyone that seeks to prevent or disrupt dedicated, good-faith editing in pursuit of narrow points of view, but if wikipedia cannot find a consensus of contributors able to see this matter in such a light, I prefer to resign rather than be responsible for the blocking of an editor who, without previous contact or article-involvement and without any obvious rancour towards any other party, but rather the opposite, has offered such a high standard of contribution on this page. Take this as oppose, I suppose. Redheylin (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Going by what an editor and his buddies say about him on his talk page is just about the worst way one can form a judgment about an editor's actions. A better and more objective place to start would be Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles. Tarc (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Going by what an editor and his buddies say about him on his talk page is just about the worst way one can form a judgment about an editor's actions." - I said "this shows (and the present page shows) that I am not alone in the first impression I got". Somehow what I said must have got twisted in your mind - maybe it's something to do with Obama - I do not care. I am simply saying, I prefer to go myself than have another editor blocked for what seems to me clear-headed, mediative wikipedianism. And that stands: that is my offer. Redheylin (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose . Calling for excessive blocks against editors in this way is plain silly. This whole drama should be closed, there is nothing actually going on here, one editor disagrees with another editors standpoint and a bit of adult communication has occurred, but there has been nothing excessive here... (imo). Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment- I would only say that, as the originator of this thread, I never gave an indication of the time span of the block I proposed, and I actually have no real agreement with the lengthy periods proposed above. However, I can and do believe engaging in blatant personal attacks, as this editor has repeatedly done, on noticeboards no less, has to receive some degree of sanction. John Carter (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @Off2riorob. And what good will that solve anything? This only puts off the problem for later (sort of like how the US congress was putting off the healthcare debate for so long) and inevitably, we will have to deal with it. CoM's track record is strongly suggestive this will only happen again if it runs unchecked. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please no, everyone. This whole drama is not productive. Blocking one of our best creators of interesting new articles from namespace is not going to help the project, nor is continuing this whole bruhaha. Let's go back to working on articles, please. Jonathunder (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Even the good editors (Betacommand, ScienceApologist, Ottava) don't get a free pass in the end for their uncivil disruptions. Giving a simply prolific editor a free pass for the same would be setting the bar quite a bit lower for acceptable behavior. Tarc (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block. While the editor was, on one occasion in the past, rather impolite to me, the editor: (a) respected my request to stop; (b) seemsto try to be genuinely civil (although more success in this regard would be better); (c) is a very productive editor. Regarding the last point, it is my understanding that the issue of productivity vs. civility is an open ArbCom discussion (albeit regarding another editor) - until this issue is resolved (and policy updated), I think it fair to give productivity some weight in deliberation of blocks. I wish established editors, who should know better, would be nicer to other editors, but acknowledge that WP:AGF is really hard, sometimes - I'm assuming that something other than blocks and bans can lead to improvements in general civility. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment can someone point me to the policy page where it says if you're productive you're allowed to ignore other polices and guidelines?--Crossmr (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to this situation. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    which is an extraordinary circumstance involving the second most productive editor last year, who is not under prior ArbCom sanctions, as CoM is. There are remarkable differences between the two. John Carter (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "not under prior ArbCom sanctions" - fair enough. My understanding from that case, however, was that ArbCom is considering some response to the appearance that contributions can trump civility requirements. I would like there to be some clear mandate on this (and I am in favor of rules applying equally to everyone) - but my view of reality is that the rules don't apply equally to everyone right now. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While ArbCom may be considering such sanctions in that particular case, that is not necessarily reason to believe that they would necessarily be extended beyond that case. Also, as that is an existing case, and likely to be resolved fairly soon, even an indefinite block, which as I have now said I would myself oppose, could very likely be shortened by that ruling. I really don't think it makes sense to not act on the basis of current problems because of something ArbCom is factually only considering in one other extant case. John Carter (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, block The whole point of a final warning is that if the user does not stop violating the policy after a final warning they get a block, that is why we call them final warnings. When we give a final warning and the disruptive behavior continues we need to follow through. Civility is simply not optional, and nobody has ever gotten consensus that it should not be blockable, or that contributors of content should get a free ride. I hope this discussion is read by the acting admin in light of policy and not as a head count. Chillum 01:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose idenfinitely blocking per User:A_Nobody#Favorite_userpages on which the subject is listed and as he has largely been nice to me. Please note, I am not condoning incivility or personal attacks and strongly urge that all involved refrain from any such edits, but it seems unseemly for me to speak (write) against someone who likes basset hounds and has generally been nice to me. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's silly to ignore the obvious just because you like their userpage. This isn't a very productive edit. Nja247 07:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is "silly." As for anything else, I see nothing "obvious." I am not going to endorse blocking someone who has generally been good to me as that would be a bit of back stab. I do not turn on those who have treated me well per The Golden Rule. Take care. --A NobodyMy talk 00:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Seriously guys, this has gotten way out of hand. Either we block him or we dont. I cant belive that Im going to say this but I agree with Tan here. This Drama has got to stop.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I tend to agree, particularly considering the somewhat unusual nature of several of the comments here. I note that people have repeatedly opposed only an indefinite block, which I myself, the originator of this thread also oppose by the way, but that those other comments are made in such a way as to give the appearance of being opposed to any block. Like I said, I don't think an indefinite block is called for. I was myself thinking of something along the spectrum of 1 week to 1 month. If I had meant an indefinite block, I would have specified that. I did not state any terms because I did not think under the circumstances I should be the one to suggest them. I should also note that my own suggestions are not necessarily binding to the rest of you either. Perhaps in this way delimiting the terms we might be able to stop the extremist posts and actually reach some sort of solution to this matter. John Carter (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Usually, where a duration is unstated, the assumption is indef, regardless of the type of sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Support 1 week block--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strongly oppose block ChildofMidnight is an excellent contributor to wikipedia. Just because a few people dislike some of his actions does not justify preventing this exceptionally fine editor from improving the encyclopedia. Wikipedia would be much worse off if the block happens. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      So because I've made a few edits, you would be okay with me calling you an idiot or leveling other kinds of insults or attacks in your direction because I disagree with you?--Crossmr (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd be okay with you saying those things, regardless of how many edits you had made in the past. I certainly wouldn't want you blocked or banned. Grundle2600 (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Block for a week. Clearly does not know how to handle dealing with other users. A8UDI 03:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the thread below, perhaps an ANI topic ban would be a more targeted solution to the problem.   Will Beback  talk  04:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly Oppose block of ChildofMidnight. ChildofMidnight received a Diplomacy barnstar from respected mediator and admin Atama for his earlier attempt to mediate in this dispute. Half an hour later, he was repeatedly accused by Cirt of "interjecting" himself at User_talk:ChildofMidnight#Why_are_you_pushing_this_so_hard.3F and of taking Cirt's opponent's side. --JN466 04:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, that kind of sums up ChildofMidnight's approach to editing; he can be productive and sugary sweet in one forum, and then positively vile and destructive only minutes later in another venue. This good hand/bad hand approach is the epitome of disruptive. Tarc (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      That is a bizarre comment, given that Atama's and Cirt's comments related to the same actions by CoM; what Atama praised as diplomacy, Cirt castigated as "interjecting". Go figure. --JN466 04:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Of his last 500 edits, I count 44 AN/I edits, with the majority of the remaineder being front page edits on numerous articles. Blocking an editor because you disagree with, at most, less than 10% of his activity is counter-productive and unnecessarily harsh. If CoM's AN/I contributions are a problem, then a reminder should suffice, especially for such a prodigious content creator. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Powerful Support Indef. - Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 04:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Endorse, unfortunately. Child of Midnight has been given more than enough chances, and yet is granted amnesty each time. CoM is undoubtedly familiar with our core policies and despite the ridiculous number of blocks, continues to repeatedly flaunt our policies, particularity when there are opportunities for drama mongering. Why, how many ANI threads bearing CoM's name are there? 10, 15, 20? It's almost as if this user is above Wikipedia's policies! We're here to build an encyclopedia, not make drama. Wikipedia is not meant to be, and was never meant to be a "4chan" or "Encyclopedia Drammatica". -FASTILY (TALK) 05:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way do CoM's edits make WP a 4chan or ED? I'm sorry, but I'm just not following your assertion. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support. CoM can be lovely one moment and vile the next - the work he's done with a "lovely" persona should not exclude his vileness. Ironholds (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Perhaps a topic ban-like what MoP suggested-would be a better idea. Unless it is an obvious breech in policy (Editwaring, Uncivility ect), CoM cannot be engaged in ANI disscussions unless he himself is affected or under discussion.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 11:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Actually all that is needed is that ANI discussions initiated by the user and specifically found meritless may then be followed by a one week block ... so this is an oppose as presented. Overkill is not warranted. Collect (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Initiated by who, CoM himself? As far as I can recall, he never has initiated a discussion in these parts. The disruption stems from his participation in the threads of others, most notably when he hounds admins who have taken action against him in the past. Tarc (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that is in reference to the now closed (as presumably baseless?) and collaposed request to have myself, Cirt, and Georgewilliamherbert desysoped. Granted, in this case I might be prejudiced, but I'm not sure I myself would necessaarily agree with the proposal in all instances, as it would potentially have a quite chilling effect on newcomers to the boards, but am not so sure that it might not be an appropriate option to have available for more experienced editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Carter (talk • contribs)
        • Ahh, ok, I had been considering it in terms of a completely new filing and not just an extension of an existing one as he did here. I was getting more at CoM's habit of always complaining about the alleged "abuse" and whgatnot that he claims to have suffered from others, and I have invited him on numerous occasions to either make a full filing here, or WQA, or RfC, etc...and he never does, claiming that diff-hunting is too much effort. And speaking of the below section, I have rehatted it as CoM has 2 or 3 times now re-opened it. I am fairly sure that the entiure sub-section has been deemed disruptive and pointy on his part, so if CoM opens it again, there may be grounds for action there too. (Also I tagged your reply with an unsigned template, feel free to remove that and put a real sig if you wish). Tarc (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          My "~" key has been having intermittent problems lately, so it might be a good idea to have it on record somewhere. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose community blocks of established editors are always suspect, I see them usually as an easy way to silence critics. If these editors have a problem, take it to RFC. Calling for three admins to be desopyed? Big deal. I might not agree with what COM said, but these kind of threats happen all the time, whether it be threats of arbcom, RFC, desop, etc., etc. When the community continues to have contrasting punishment for editors, the community loses faith in Wikipedia to treat all editors fairly. Ikip (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: 1 week block. Looks like another Giano II scenario with lots of user edits which divides the masses between "he's a fine editor" and the rest would like to see some action on the misconduct and believe that there's no justification for inappropriate conduct (as everyone is pointing out above). --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block/Support WP:DR It's very hard for me to support blocking anyone with an adorable picture of a basset hound on their user page. In all seriousness, a block isn't going to solve the problem here and might drive away a prolific content contributor. What we need is something a little more tailored to the user, and AN/I is a terrible forum for crafting nuanced remedies. RfCs can be dramafests but might be a good forum for letting CoM know what areas he needs to improve in. Arbitration might not be a bad idea either. AniMate 19:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, let me put a kitten on my page and see what I can call you. For the sake of completeness, I support a block because I happen to be wearing a white shirt right now. I mean how can I not support a block while I'm wearing a white shirt. Prolific content contributor doesn't give him a pass to do whatever he wants.--Crossmr (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block, support opening a Request for Comment. I agree with AniMate's thinking here. A block simply will do no good, and it would have no immediate effect in terms of preventing further disruption since disruption does not seem to be ongoing. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight remains a red link. On a couple of other occasions I have expressed my willingness to participate in an RfC regarding this user, so long as a couple of others were willing to assist in its preparation/certification. I have tried on multiple occasions in the past to resolve some of these problems with C of M to no avail (though not so much recently), which I think would give me standing to co-certify an RfC. Clearly many see some problems here, and an RfC (while I agree they can be dramafests) seems like the best way to gauge how the community feels and offer some constructive feedback and criticism. I don't think it's appropriate to jump right to ArbCom at this point when an RfC has not been attempted. As I said I'm quite willing to help get this going, but don't want to dive into a lengthy process without knowing that the RfC will be able to be certified by enough people. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you'd be interested in working on that (obviously these should be editors who have tried and failed to resolve issues/disputes with C of M per whatever the exact rules for user conduct RfCs are). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I may ask, what are the specific edits on the basis of which a block is called for here? While I am aware that ChildofMidnight has been a problematic editor in several respects previously, it's not very clear what he's believed to have done wrong here. Calling for admins to be desysopped? Making silly demands is not sufficient grounds for blocking an editor.  Sandstein  21:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As some point we simply get into straw territory; if this were an isolated incident, it'd probably be nothing. But as I pointed out in CoM's hopefully WP:Plaxico topic below, we are talking about and editor whose talk page once looked like this. Haven't we reached the enough is enough point yet? Tarc (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose - Agree with William S. Saturn and others. Izzedine 07:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment to any admin that might be reading this for any clear cut signs of a consensus. Seeing that since the relisting, the desision is tied 7-7 I would mark this as "no concensus" since there is no concensus, I guess that were all going to have to wait for CoM to do the same thing again before decideing whether or not to block/topic ban him.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 11:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: this is pure class, does no one have a sense of humour? I don't vote, even when I do have suffrage. Good luck CoM, I salute you! Alastair Haines (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, therefore I do not believe that one would be appropriate in this instance, and an indef could be a net loss to the encyclopaedia becuase, as has been pointed out above, CoM is a fine content contributor. I would recommend this discussion be taken to an RfC (per Bigtimepeace, who, as ever, articulately puts across a very sensible suggestion). I would also suggest, perhaps as an alternative, that CoM voluntarily take a long weekend to regain perspective and, on his return, try to keep his head down, stay out of trouble (no calling for desysoppings, no confrontation, no incivility) and focus his energies elsewhere than ANI. Hopefully that would lead to this being the last ANI thread about this editor which seems to be the objective of almost all here. HJMitchell You rang? 12:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since there is a history and no evidence he's going to stop, it would be preventative, I'm still waiting for someone to show me the policy where it shows how many good contributions you can trade in to ignore other policies.--Crossmr (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested desysop of Cirt, GWH, and John Carter

    This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    The extraordinarily disruptive and confrontational approach to editing taken by these admins is inconsistent with our civility policy and our core values. I think some sort of action may be warranted to rein in their behavior, especially in light of the loss of so many content contributors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had some complaints about your comments in the past Protonk, but I haven't seen anything too outrageous from you recently. In fact I agreed with you on a subject recently, which came as something of a surprise to me (sorry I can't remember off the top of my head what it was). So keep up the good work. I'm optimistic that you may be on the right track going forward. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    CoM, I think you're going overboard now and perhaps need some kind of disciplinary action to make you realize you're on the wrong path. None of these admins has involved themselves in any objectionable behavior. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    CoM is also failing to follow even basic etiquette now, such as well, notifying at least me of my being the subject to a thread here. My terms of desysoping are quite straightforward. I have said I will ask an uninvolved administrator to review the actions in question and go by their judgement. I am therefore asking User:Protonk to review the complaint. Nor did CoM give notice to Cirt of Georgewilliamherbert, or even give the latter of even using his full name. I have now myself rectifed that clear violation of etiquette, considering CoM apparently had no interest in doing so. John Carter (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not aware of this thread? You just left me a note about it on my talk page. Is this type of dishonest behavior allowed from admins? I don't think I'm going overboard at all. I think this type of outrageous conduct is why we are losing so many content contributors and why have so many disgruntled editors. This is a content dispute that was over and it's been reinflamed by Cirt's relentless battlefield campaigning. His accusations and assumptions of bad faith against me are almost as bad as Tarc's. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is basic courtesy' to at least notify people that you are requesting that they be desysoped. Although you had the time to post the above comment, you apparently didn't think it worth notifying either Cirt or Georgewilliamherbert of this request. I think I'll let your own choice of actions speak here. John Carter (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please refactor your false statement. You're certainly making my case for me that you're not well suited to possess administrative tools. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A big ol' YAWN - directed at this entire thread. Can we all move on now? Tan | 39 19:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wowsers, these are the most simultanious calls for indef blocks, blocks & deseysops, I've ever seen. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to the allegation that I made a false statement, I note this quote from the top of the page: "You must notify any user that you discuss." CoM gave no such notice. I also note that Protonk has declined to review my actions. I therefore request any uninvolved admin seeing this thread to do so. I will abide by that decision. John Carter (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I already requested that you refactor your false statement once, and instead of doing so you now repeat it. I notified the editor who wasn't aware of the thread and I'm happy to provide a diff if necessary. Please refactor both your false statements pronto and cease your disruptive and civility violating behavior. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm closing this entire thread. This has degenerated into mud-slinging, finger-pointing and bickering. Nothing useful is happening. Tan | 39 19:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) CoM, I can read times just as well as anyone. John Carter made his "false statement" at 19:16. You notified Georgewilliamherbert at 19:22. We all make mistakes and you'll find people will be less annoyed at you if you own up to them. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't been involved at all here and don't know what it's about. But I just felt the need to comment on the demand for notification: I believe that courtesy only applies to editors who weren't already participating in a given thread. John appears to have been aware of this thread already, having commented within it. I don't really think admonishing CoM for not notifying him is warranted, and probably goes to show how much this thread has deteriorated into a slugfest on all sides. Equazcion (talk) 19:56, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC)
    (sorry, I conflicted with the closing -- feel free to move it into the collapse) Equazcion (talk) 19:58, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC)
    My statement was made on the basis of a new discussion taking place regarding me, and Cirt, and Georgewilliamherbert, specifically calling for us to be desysoped. It has been my understanding, perhaps erroneous, that if one were to start such a discussion, even as a subthread of a thread of which they were already aware, that, considering they themselves were not the subject of the prior thread, that the courtesy ruling extended there too. To my eyes, that would be the logical call in cases such as these, because even if one had commented on one section before, that does not mean that they would necessarily think to return to that page, particularly if they were involved in doing something else which might cause them to miss the discussion. If I am wrong in that, I apologize. And I do note, after the fact, that CoM did give Georgewilliamherbert some apparent indication that he was to be desysoped, although inclusion of that notice in such a literally parenthetical way made it at least to me unclear whether that were a warning of a request or a reference to a previous discussion calling for that desysoping. I apologize for my misunderstanding of that matter, but, if anyone does see this discussion, think it might be a good idea to amend the top of the page to indicate that notice should be given any time a new thread regarding an individual, or subthread in which they are themselves not clearly named as a party, would be a good idea. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That'd be some major WP:CREEP. Erring on the side of over-notification is of course the best idea, probably, but my point was that it wasn't so clearcut an underhanded or negligent tactic as to warrant being admonished, is all. It more seems like you were peeved for other reasons (probably understandable) and tacked this on. No offense intended, I might've reacted similarly in this situation. Equazcion (talk) 20:35, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC)

    Closed due to nothing useful taking place. Start an RfC or go edit an article, one of the two. Tan | 39 19:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, the first bit of it makes sense. Leave it for a bit to see if something good comes of it (Wikipedia might get a bit more drama but then the BBC hasn't suffered for that).  GARDEN  20:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Garden, believe Tan jumped the gun on closing this thread. Jusdafax 20:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When this finally fizzles out, please ping me with any useful resolutions that occur as a result of this bullshit. I won't hold my breath. Tan | 39 20:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This particular subsection should be closed, yes. Quibbling about who notified who when is getting a bit pedantic, and a call by the subject of the previous section for desysops of admins he has disagreements with is beyond disruptive. More eyes should be on "Requested block of User:ChildofMidnight", which has not seen a single oppose (other than an oppose of just the indef part). Tarc (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I have already made clear what I think of these editors and the way they use their admin powers. Redheylin (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Tan. Let me know if something useful comes of this thread. Protonk (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest that what might come out of it that would be useful would be a system of sanctions against using ANI and other such pages as a means of disruption, so that wanton, disruptive, mischievous or POV-based actions would be subject to sanction without further action, and that this would particularly extend to admins who work in packs, who engage in baiting, side-taking, gang-buddyism and summary threats, with the ready possibility of sysop suspension at least. Otherwise these pages just become a sophisticated means of edit-warring that removes the debate from the subject of the article, which is clearly to the advantage of the weaker argument, and replaces it with lawyering, policy manipulation, dirty tricks and lynch-mob mentality, encouraging time-wasting argumentation at the expense of what we're supposedly here to do. To those who habitually represent this kind of sentiment as a "personal attack" - you know what to do. Redheylin (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's okay, CoM. When I was new I was way overly arrogant and headstrong. You'd be better if you take a deep breath... take a break for a few days.. realize no one is perfect, and assume good faith by just being nice and not jumping the gun to demand sysopping perfectly fine admins. k? :) A8UDI 11:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this has come up, it's worth documenting that Cirt made two mistakes with regard to a top 15% journal Adamantius stubbed by a reliable editor: he closed a deletion discussion as delete, without there being evidence or consensus for such a decision; and when this was drawn to his attention he made personal attacks rather than seeking information. The results of Cirt's unwillingness to countenance an error on his own part have inevitably been obstruction and disharmony.
    A fragile ego is not a crime deserving desysopping, though.
    Cirt needs pressure taken off him so that he feels confident to be able to apologize, while keeping his credibility. Everyone makes mistakes, disharmony results when there is too much fear to leave space for apology. There is altogether too much drama at this page. I'm glad I don't use it, we've all got books to read and summarise for a hungry public.
    Cheerio. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For a review of my deletion closure in that AFD please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 15 (Decision endorsed). For documentation of disruption by Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) involving the same article, please see [16]. Cirt (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. Still no apology. Still being obstructive and divisive, Cirt (I should add on this specific matter only).
    The journal is peer-reviewed, and reviews by third parties are indexed.
    A discussion that salts without seeking those facts is empty. It proves my point exactly.
    People should never have been asked to share ignorance on the subject. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I support, but did not act, to salt the page. The protecting of Adamantius (journal) was done by admin Jayron32 (talk · contribs), and this shows why. Cirt (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see the "this", Cirt. I do hope it is not defamatory. A personal attack on a proven reliable editor is never a good idea.
    Whatever it is, it is not a reliable source regarding the notability of the journal, because that has only one answer.
    Reliable sources create consensus, making decisions without them is an attempt to circumvent them.
    I trust you won't attempt that again when I recreate the article. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have some reservations about Cirt's personal agenda given his dedication to researching Behind the Exclusive Brethren (which looks like a great article and fascinating book), but his irrational suppression of the scholastic work of more than 50 Italian academics over decades regarding a founding father of Christianity--Origen Adamantius--is the issue.
    Cirt's personal assessment of what is notable appears to be a little out of balance, when it comes to Christianity, but that also is no crime.
    After some time delay, and no reply, I think this can be closed: documentation is adequate, and I certainly don't want criticism of Cirt hanging around like a bad smell. I'm unwatching, please contact my talk page (or email) if further comment is desired. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed: Redheylin topic banned from Cirt

    Preamble: I don't think anything remotely good is coming from this sequence of events.

    Proposal:

    1. Redheylin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has engaged in sustained disruption regarding Administrator Cirt. Redheylin is henceforth topic banned, interpreted broadly, from User:Cirt - may not respond to comments on Wikipedia, leave user talk page comments, mention, file ANI reports on, or revert article content changes by Cirt. Redheylin is not banned from common articles but must use dilligence to avoid responding to or confronting Cirt. This administrative sanction shall last for 90 days after enactment.
    2. Administrator User:Cirt is deemed an involved party and requested to disengage equally on-wiki from Redheylin, without finding of fault.
    • Proposed - Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose For posterity's sake, if this course of action is to be proposed then it should not be proposed by one of the parties named in the initial complaint. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A. I'm not involved in the original complaint - Redheylin is upset with me for having intervened in the original complaint as an uninvolved administrator and attempting to resolve it; per WP:UNINVOLVED this specifically does not cause an admin to become involved and disqualified from actions. I have nothing to do with the content dispute that initiated this.
    B. Anyone, even involved parties, can propose a community response.
    C. As a community proposal, I'm not using any administrator powers to do anything here, anyways.
    Do you believe that this is truly not past the time at which we need to disengage the parties who are butting heads? Do you believe that anything but further disruption will follow from these two continuing to interact on-wiki? If you believe that their relationship will suddenly become collegial and productive, working towards consensus, that's a perfectly great reason to oppose. But I believe the alternative is not only likely but obviously already true.
    Oppose if you want more of this - or you think less will come from another better approach, but not for that reason, please. Think it through. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be indicating there that this goes back to bad blood between Cirt and you and others in the latest Arbcom case on Scientology... This does not make sense as a reason to avoid separating the parties now. If anything it seems to argue more strongly for it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait... according to evidence in the last Scientology case you're another of the Osho followers, Jayen. Is that true? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this Arbcom case going to apply itself to this proposal of yours?--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 04:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Previously arbcom sanctioned editors showing up here without prior involvement, who are personally involved in the topic (Osho / Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh ) which seems to actually underly the dispute, seems to provide strong evidence for Cirt's comment above that this is not tied to any editor but is a group activity by Rajneesh followers. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)

    George, to the best of my recollection, the only editors to have commented here and to have been parties to WP:ARBSCI are Will Beback, Cirt, John Carter and I. Will and Cirt presented evidence against me at ARBSCI, and John Carter supported me. John Carter and I were, more recently, in broad agreement at the Matisse arbcom case, and generally get along well. Will and I have our ups and downs, but he knows that I respect him as an editor, and he has been kind enough once or twice to say the same about me. This dispute is not about any fault lines left over from ARBSCI. --JN466 04:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you denying the claims made in the ARBSCI case that you are a member of the Rajneesh movement? Arbcom made a finding of fact citing Rick Ross' claim to that effect, and your rejoinder to Ross did not acknowledge or deny that part of the claim. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do deny that. For your information, I could cite you diffs where I have been accused of being a follower of Prem Rawat and of Scientology as well. --JN466 04:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to Jayen's comment about ARBSCI, there is one other editor from that case who has commented here: the filing party; myself. In order to avoid appearance of partiality I have commented only procedurally. It is an example which, in good faith, might be best if others also followed. Durova371 06:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cirt's a hardworking, detailed, resourceful article writer, as I've said many times. I for my part have done a great deal of work on "Indian" articles, including recategorising all Indian music, providing illustrations, maintaining a watchlist and rewriting quite a few major articles such as Kabir panth, Meera, Ravidas, Kaula, Saiva Siddhanta and a dozen more. Indian religion has its share of factions and fanaticisms, but the record shows thousands of my edits on dozens of articles and very little friction. I am sorry to say I have found it impossible to reach consensus with Cirt, who seems to find a "personal attack" in every issue raised. I am absolutely capable of conciliation but, like Jayen and every other editor I've seen working on this group of articles, find myself in cases like this time after time, find myself reverted, insulted or met with blank denial. Perhaps it is a failure of mine also - we talk straight and blunt where I come from and won't be bullied - but I can neither negotiate nor walk away from articles that, according to my lights, are being subjected to a strongly negative POV. From my own view, with my own wiki history, I'd welcome any kind of oversight or mediation that achieved balanced articles, constantly improving by consensus. I am sorry, though, but I cannot perceive myself as solely to blame for this affair, and all the admins of wiki and all the blocks they can block cannot change that. However, if a way can be found to achieve harmony without abandoning the said articles to a single editor's viewpoint, I think you'll find me very tractable indeed, because I believe in what I am doing just as much as the other guy. When we are both working for the same goal.... so I'd ask for a more balanced summary of this affair, and, if I show impatience or even contempt, I apologise: I do not mean any offence, I do not have any POV to push, I just want a better wiki and a modicum of civility on the side. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Redheylin has been saying things (diffs above are evidence) that a number of people have objected to. Cirt on the other hand has never engaged in personal attacks or undesirable behavior as far as I know for the little time I've known him. Thats why Cirt was able to collect diffs as evidence against Redheylin while I bet no one can do the same for Cirt. I came new into this whole Osho related business only a few days ago. I was impressed by Cirt's constant patience while dealing with Redheylin and Off2riorob and even Jayen in the old days ([17]). I suggest we give 2 or 3 more weeks to Redheylin and see if things are still the same as before. If they are, then it would be time to file an RfC and go from there. Cirt should not be punished by disallowing him to talk to Redheylin about Osho-related articles because they both edit these articles. Its Redheylin who has to improve his conduct. Red its simple: stay focused on the article, not the editor. See how Cirt does it. People have been editing controversy related articles with differing viewpoints for a long time and it can be done. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose sanction as presented. This is not about Cirt and Redheylin, but about Rajneesh. Any attempt to institute this ban would be counterproductive, because it would, basically, be completely dependent on the level of Cirt's activity involving that content at any given time. There are ways to deal effectively with matters like this. One is to call in other editors who deal with religion. I think I got involved because of Cirt's doing that, myself being an active religion editor. Should that fail, in all honesty, either an RfC or formal mediation would have a much better chance of effectiveness, and, with any luck, much less rancor. "Straight and blunt speaking" and its equivalents are as often as not used as euphemisms for other things which have policy or guideline pages named after them. Cirt has probably been subjected to more harrasment than most any of us for his contributions to wikipedia, includinhg off-wiki harrassment, and I can and do understand how it might give him, at times, a quick trigger finger. I'm not saying this is one of those times, however. I haven't reviewed the matter to that degree. In all honesty, I think the best approach in this instance would be for both to disengage for a while, maybe file an RfC or mediation on whatever they decide the core disagreement is, and go on from there. ALternately, if there were any sort of way of offering potential sanctions to any disruptive editors in discussions relating to the subject of Osho/Rajneesh, that would probably be more effective. John Carter (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: Jayen's "Yes, I do deny that", why then do you still use your sanyassin title? how come you don't make a statement about this on your user page (like Jalal). From information I see online, you left the movement following a leadership rift, (Keerti V Osho Foundation International?) can you clarify this for us? I think it would be helpful to know exactly where you stand on this matter. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this question relevant to the thread itself, please? If it is not directly relevant, would it be asking too much to have the discussion taken elsewhere? John Carter (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jayen466

    In the above section, Jayen466 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) denied being a member of the Rajneesh organization. Quoting:
    Are you denying the claims made in the ARBSCI case that you are a member of the Rajneesh movement? Arbcom made a finding of fact citing Rick Ross' claim to that effect, and your rejoinder to Ross did not acknowledge or deny that part of the claim. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do deny that. For your information, I could cite you diffs where I have been accused of being a follower of Prem Rawat and of Scientology as well. --JN466 04:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Subsequent to that denial, I was emailed a set of links for web content which contradicts that assertion, or at least shows that it was materially misleading. These links include:
    • Here at the ex-site website, he says that he was out of contact with his family for some time while a member original google translation
    • This google groups post to the Caravansarai group.
    • This thread at Rebellious Spirit, titled "Nishkam: Sannyas persecutions in France".
    Links redacted at Jayen's request - the summary points are below in a quote box.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I told Jayen on his talk page, referencing those URLs, that they seemed to establish that he had in fact been a member and asked him to clarify or restate his position; he deleted the question without comment, with TW. I asked again, saying that I would leave the URLs off but that I felt that he really did have to answer the question, as there was now credible evidence on hand that he had misled ANI. He again deleted without comment. I stopped activity on his talk page at that point, as repeatedly continuing to repost deleted requests on user talk pages is specifically listed as harrassment. He still has not answered in the last several hours.
    I believe that these, most specifically the "ex-site" link, demonstrate that there is credible cause to believe that Jayen466 was at one time a member of Osho's organization, at the time known as the Rajneesh movement. There is some sense in those links and others that Jayen is no longer a member; however, I believe that his answer above was materially misleading, in that it denied a connection which is still close enough for our conflict of interest policy to apply, and was materially misleading regarding the subthread's key question, as to whether Rajneesh connected accounts were ganging together to participate in the ANI discussion.
    WP:CIVIL states in part ( Wikipedia:CIVIL#Identifying incivility 2.c. ) that other incivil behaviors includes "lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information;". Jayen has been editing here long enough (3+ years, 20,000 plus edits) enough to know that by now. He also was subject to a specific (non-Scientology, general cult critic) article / topic ban by Arbcom in the latest Scientology arbcom case, relative to allegations Jayen was involved with the Rajneesh movement, and that he was editing with a conflict of interest and disruptively pushing an agenda on that page.
    The evidence is not perfect, but it's persuasive to me. I can no longer AGF.
    I don't quite know what to do - We expect our longtime contributors to be doing so honestly and without gross deception. This appears to breach the communities trust by lying to us above, a specifically policy-listed uncivil behavior, and grossly breach the WP:COI guidelines over an extended period of time by denying that a conflict existed.
    I would like to request uninvolved admin and general community review and input. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Georgewilliamherbert, I made a full disclosure to arbcom about what history I have with the Osho movement, more than a year ago. I do not have to justify myself to you.
    I have also openly discussed this history several times on-wiki. There is no need for you to post links to Internet discussions, in a blatant abuse of my privacy, to make your point. Osho died 20 years ago; I am 30 years older than I was when I first heard of him. Believe me, I have grown up a little since then.
    This is, as I said, a blatant abuse of my privacy. I am discussing family relationships and my father's death at one of these links. I will be asking for you to be desysopped.--JN466 02:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me make it once more clear to you: I am not a member of the Rajneesh movement. I don't regret the time when I was such a member, over 25 years ago, but it is not my lifestyle now, and it has not been for a long time. --JN466 02:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semitransgenic, given that you received a warning by Will Beback in January for a very similar outing incident, am I correct in assuming that you supplied these links to Georgewilliamherbert? --JN466 02:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The warning I gave to Semitransgenic, IIRC, concerned disclosing an editor's RL name. This matter seems different. If I post personal information under "Will Beback" on public website then it's publicly available and linking to those postings wouldn't be outing. The links that Georgewilliamherbert has posted all concern accounts with username "Jayen466", so I don't see how this information is outing. Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) has been a contentious topic, and you have been extensively involved in editing it, having made more than 1300 out of a total of fewer than 3200 edits to that article. WP:COI calls on editors to make suitable disclosures if they are actively engaged in editing. The Rajneesh movement has always been relatively small, so far as I'm aware, and it's new so this is not comparable to editors who belong to large, established religious movements. If you prefer to maintain your privacy about your past or current involvement in this topic then it'd be best if you avoided editing it in the future. Having dealt with the user:Jossi's deep conflicts, and his disruptive refusal to recognize them, I think the community has recognizes that it's hard to be neutral in topics that one feels strongly about. If this matter is so sensitive that you're suggesting de-sysopping someone over it then perhaps it's too sensitive to be editing neutrally. There are millions of other topics to edit.   Will Beback  talk  04:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking your points in turn, (1) RL name – same situation here, at least in part. (2) I would consider my linking to your off-site forum posts as Will Beback (say on WikipediaReview etc.) here on Wikipedia as improper. I believe that is the general community understanding. (3) The Osho article has averaged an edit a day for the past year, and has been stable. There are talk page comments to that effect by multiple editors. So has the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack FA, which I co-wrote with Cirt, and the other articles. To the extent that there has been controversy recently at Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) and Rajneesh movement, I believe any fair-minded examination of the few talk page and article edits I have made will show that I have tried to mediate between more extreme views than my own. (4) If you search for Jayen466 and Osho on WP talk pages, you will find that I have talked on-wiki about my past involvement with the movement, including conversations you took part in. (5) I believe linking to editor's off-site activities is improper, especially so by an admin. There are limits, and that is what the proposed desysop is about. I have never seen an admin link to an editor's offsite posts, regardless where and under what name they were made. --JN466 04:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1) If Jayen is your real name then I don't understand how using it would be outing. I don't see any other name on the linked pages. 2) I disagree that linking to posts by Newyorkbrad or Everyking on WR would be regarded by the community as instances of outing. If I'm not mistaken folks have linked to external forum postings and blogs before. 3) I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that you have not been involved in any conflicts concerning the Osho/Rajneesh article? Can you see how being an involved party with an undisclosed involvement in the topic could make it hard to be a neutral mediator? 4) Would you be willing to avoid editing the topic in the future? 5) I'd be surprised if there is no precedent for linking to off-site postings. Has anyone ever been de-sysopped someone for linking to such posts that have been written using the same name?   Will Beback  talk  05:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with Jayen's assertion of credit for that FA. Actually he slowed down progress during article improvement; he seemed unfamiliar with FA standards and was difficult to work with. [18], [19] Cirt (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was indeed unfamiliar with FA standards at the time, but did contribute content which still stands in the article today. You did the lion's share of the work no doubt, yet we each have a half barnstar in our user space to remind us of the collaboration, so at least one observer thought something useful was going on. Cheers, --JN466 05:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The learning curve of the Wikipedia project is fast in some areas and slow in others. We're still figuring out how to deal with various issues including long-running ethnic disputes, political debates, and intensive new religious movements. In regard to the latter, we have the example of user:Jossi, who used a variety of Wikipedia paths to promote his teacher. Jossi, another editor of a new religious movement of Indian origins who had a problematic conflict of interest, claimed credit for helping to promote FA where he was perhaps more of a hindrance than a help. Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) and Prem Rawat are both Indian gurus who achieved prominence in the West in the 1970s. The followers of these spiritual leaders have a history of trouble editing related articles in a neutral fashion. Let's find a way to resolve that problem.   Will Beback  talk  11:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not by any chance seeking to imply that I am in many ways like Jossi, and "more of a hindrance than a help" at the Prem Rawat articles that have taken your fancy, are you? It would only be human for you to consider me a hindrance there, but I feel compelled to point out that you were admonished for your Rawat editing at the most recent Prem Rawat arbcom, and I was one of the few parties who was not. Glasshouse, stones. Let us also remember that it takes two sides to make a POV problem. In the much-quoted WP:ARBSCI, the number of cult critics that arbcom saw fit to topic-ban outstripped the number of Scientologists sanctioned.
    And just FYI, the only FA contribution credits I claim are those where I have received barnstars for my input, explicitly naming the article, or a thank you post from the author on my talk page. So why make a shoddy comment like that, Will? --JN466 12:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack, where the lead author says that you impeded the article's progress. Regarding WP:ARBSCI, an entire class of editors was sanctioned which outstrips the individually named editors. There have been two issues in the cases that have come to the ArbCom - poor behavior and non-neutral editing. The poor behavior has been found on all sides, but the non-neutral editing has tended to be more a problem with the "pro" sides than the other sides. Wikipedia is still without adequate policies to address what's been called "polite POV pushing".   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we now close this conversation please? I believe Georgewilliamherbert and I have cleared the air between us on his talk page. We have both apologised to each other, and I think we can all move on now to more profitable pursuits. --JN466 21:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Outing: Excuse my butting-in. Contrary to what Will Beback says, I can confirm that given a RL detail in one of the links, I can find over 800 google results. At least one of those results provides sufficient detail to find out Jayen466's RL name, employment and location. Esowteric+Talk 07:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You've looked more closely than I. I've been in contact with JN about it and I'm sure there's a way to redact this down to the relevant parts without any unnecessary disclosures.   Will Beback  talk  10:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the links and asked Jayen to supply a redacted version of the key points in the links. Here is what he wrote back.

    -- In one I describe becoming a sannyasin as a teenager and how this affected my family life;

    -- In another I quote and compare material from several sources, one of them being Osho, saying that there is something similar and of value in what all of them are saying;

    -- In the last one I comment on infighting within the Osho movement.

      Will Beback  talk  20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    correction jayen, January 2008, almost 2 years ago, when I was still wet behind the ears. Following this I made a naive attempt at filing a COI report about you and Jalal when you were both actively tag-teaming on the article.
    Yes, I did bring what I thought was a discrepancy to George's attention, privately, because I saw a denial which appears to be somewhat disingenuous, but I clearly stated I was not seeking a reprimand.
    In terms of why I'm being cautious, I witnessed what I considered, at the time, to be biased and dishonest engagement with the Osho article; you downplayed your knowledge of the movement, and only when challenged on the sourcing did it become clear that your knowledge base was significantly greater than that evidenced in your initial contributions. You were actually very familiar with most of the notable literature on the subject but addressed it only when challenged on the articles content issues.
    Since then you have become the paragon of neutrality, and I commend you on your efforts, but I still find you sometimes cagey (plus a bit of a religious zealot).
    If you were genuinely no longer associated with the Rajneesh Movement, why did you use your Sanyassin title as a wikipedia username? In the interests of transparency, I asked you for an honest explanation for the use of this title, because I wasn't aware you had made a prior disclosure, I fail to see why any of this is problematic.
    Also, this is hardly an outing offense, the link that I posted in January 2008 was not removed by admin for quite some time (though it appears to has since been scrubbed), and you made no explicit statement on that "outing" so I don't see what the fuss is now. If you are concerned about "privacy" why are you using the exact same user name across the internet? We could dig on many user names, and maybe find personal info, eventually, but no one here has ever posted Jayen's real name, address etc. so this is not an outing. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, thanks for your endorsement of my neutrality. Why I used my sannyasin name? Lack of imagination. I already had a pseudonym; I'd used it for posts online elsewhere before, and was too lazy to make up another one. I don't use it at home, if that is what you want to know. I find you cagey too (though I feel a strange bond of kinship when we defend present article status against "newcomers"), and I also suspect you turned up under two different sock accounts at two GA reviews of an article of mine. Well, perhaps your points had merit; I don't regret taking them on board. It was the edit to techno that gave it away. ;) --JN466 11:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And sorry, I had meant to write January 2008. --JN466 11:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    might i also state that I have not, and will not, go so far as to search for your actual identity, as Esowteric appears to have done, it doesn't interest me in the least, it was solely a matter of confirming a direct connection with the movement, which did not involve outing. If you are stating that you are no longer affiliated with OFI or any of it's subsidiaries we should take your word on that. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I am indeed not so affiliated. --JN466 12:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are, however, still posting articles and commentary at websites related to the movement. Even if that's as a happy ex-member, without current affiliation, that degree of connection is something that should be disclosed under WP:COI, and should reasonably have been explained when I asked under the Redheylin/Cirt thread above.
    This section happened because you answered up there in the negative - contrary to what you have admitted here - and then, after I assumed in good faith that you'd answered accurately, I was emailed the links in question which showed differently.
    There's nothing wrong with you having been a member of the organization. If you'd have answered "I am not but was, but I don't think that my comment here was part of an organized effort" and pointed to instances where you've been neutral or mediating, that would all have been fine, and I would have dropped that line of inquiry equally much.
    Chosing to answer "no", however, was effectively a coverup. And particularly confusing if as you say you've admitted it before elsewhere on Wikipedia, to Arbcom in private, etc.
    What you admitted privately to Arbcom is not publicly known - you can't be upset with other users not knowing that. If you intended other users to know what you disclosed privately, you'd have disclosed it publicly. Blaming me for not knowing is not logically consistent. If you'd responded on your talk page that you didn't want to talk on wiki but that you'd disclosed to Arbcom privately, we could have followed up offline.
    I did not intend to out your real life identity; I didn't see any directly identifying information on the links I posted, and haven't followed up with wider searches. It's not relevant here. If I'd seen identifyable information I would have avoided using it. The links to external uses of the identical online pseudonym or handle are not by general Wikipedia policy by themselves a violation of outing policy, as Will has pointed out above. I do apologize if it was made easier to find your RL identity indirectly.
    I haven't spent all night staring at your contributions history, but in the short time I did spend I'm not seeing problematic edits on the Osho erlated articles. The COI policy doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't edit - it means that others should be aware that you have a personal interest that they need to be aware of, so that we can build a more neutral encyclopedia.
    In summary:
    • If you have a COI - please disclose it, voluntarily when you start editing (per WP:COI), and again if/when asked.
    • If you're asked about it, please answer honestly, even if that's privately.
    • Please don't cover up stuff, especially if you've admitted to it elsewhere on-Wiki or in easily googleable manners. The odds that someone will check are high, and even if you didn't do anything wrong to start with the coverup immediately raises suspicion and causes people to look hard for abusive behavior. There's a saying in the US press and in legal circles - the coverup is always worse than the crime.
    • If it's information which is sensitive or touches on real life identity you can ask for private discussions - arbcom exists in part for sensitive private discussions to stay that way.
    Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted with thanks and acknowledgement of your points. I have explained further on your talk page, but I believe nothing more need be said here, and we can all move on. --JN466 21:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Buy me a new microwave as per WP:Overheat and WP:Humor

    My old microwave is not doing the job. I propose we indef block it and buy me a new one.

    • Support: No offense to Jayen or George or everyone else. Just trying to lighten up this drama filled page. I hereby announce the birth of a new movement on this magical date, 12/3: the NoSho movement: if there's a dispute, dont show up. It'll go away itself. Well no not really. Oh well. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Well, thanks for the humour, at any rate. :) --JN466 03:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It's great to be able to find lightness in this tense and abhorrent case of invasion of privacy. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What the hell, ban the silly thing indefinitely, block its IP, and tag it for sockpuppetry. (You ever try to dry out wet socks in a microwave, even a low setting? My brother did once years ago. Ewwww.) John Carter (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no idea if that's supposed to be sarcastic or not, its still hilarious--Jac16888Talk 09:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - it's obviously just misunderstood and is doing what it thinks is right from its own POV. I suggest mentoring; my toaster only burns the bread about half the time, so it might be up to the job. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete- oops, sorry, I meant Strong Oppose. I'm convinced this toaster can learn from its mistakes. It just needs to understand that the way it toasts bread isn't the way we toast bread on Wikipedia. A little insignificant Giving thanks to all that is me 17:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support: Due to blatant sockpuppetry, revealed via it's confusion about whether it's a microwave or a toaster. Possible multiple personality disorder? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 17:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral: My clutch cable broke. Redheylin (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make that STRONG neutral.
    • Strongest possible oppose - The microwave has made literally thousands of valuable contributions, and has been doing so for years. Claims of "not doing the job" have little basis in fact. A few lukewarm chicken pot pies (and the odd finger burned because the dish was hotter than the food) should not warrant an indef block after years of shaking molecules without incident. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point of Order Since this is a volunteer organization, is the microwave really required to do anything? DSRH |talk 19:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose I don't want to created a system where some editors have microwaves and the rest of us are second class citizens. Remember when appliance ownership was no big deal? Protonk (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge, if a self-described inclusionist is permitted to say that. (Then again, the lurkers support me in email.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support and actualize - Because it will help pull our economy out of the recession. And because it's funnier than LOLCats at the moment. Matt57, can you arrange delivery if I drop one off at the Foundation HQ? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose As per key policies against NPA (No Personal Appliances), RS (Radiation Sources) and the basic 5P (level 5 power setting). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      "No Personal 'Appliances'"? Oh, $&!*, so I guess listening to my walkman and using my PC are bad ideas, huh? How long should I block myself for? John Carter (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Leave the microwave alone. It only heats up when you push its buttons. I suggest instead that we topic ban you and your microwave from each other. -- Atama頭 21:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The microwave just needs a mentor to show it how to heat properly.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support In the past, the microwave was forgiven its indiscretions in light of its heavy contribution to food improvement. Occasionally, hands would be burnt, items would get overheated, etc, but we forgave it because it was so very usefull. Now, however, it seems all it does is burn people. If the original justification for keeping it around, ie, that it was a prodigious food improver, no long apply, then why are we putting up with its less desirable qualities? Throwaway85 (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I want to be really careful not to step on any toes here, but the microwave seems to be operating from a particular racial POV. Every food item it "improves" ends up seeming... "blacker". Throwaway85 (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Objection. This is beginning to sound too much like the old, bitter, contentious Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block the sun fiasco. John Carter (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tarc's relentless antagonism and trolling

    Tarc is continuing to hound me and to involve himself in discussions that have nothing to do with him in order to take shots at me and pursue a vendetta. Some sort of administrative action to put a stop to his battlefield behavior and disruption is needed. See his comments in above discussions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I must be off shortly for an hour or so, so a proper response will have to wait. I am disappointed that CoM has yet again failed to note specific actions or words of mine that he feels necessitate administrative intervention. Yes I have weighed in, here and in the past, on his bad behavior. I do not feel any of that input rises to any sort of level of incivility or disruption. If CoM feels otherwise, please, lay out some facts. Tarc (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes COM, please provide quotes, edit differences, and dates. Right now you are offering an unsubstantiated opinion. This already is feeling like an RFC. Ikip (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    CoM's proximate concern is, as stated, Tarc's recent edits to this page. His edits since the beginning of this month to this page are:
    • here at 13:50 December 2, on a matter unrelated to CoM on a thread CoM had not contributed to and before the contentious thread above was started,
    • here at 16:13 on December 2, again on a subject CoM had not contributed to and before the contentious thread above was started
    • here at 19:09 December 2, the first relevant to CoM in which Tarc says "CoM has a long history in unrelated policy discussions of directing antagonism towards those that have had to use the stick against him in the past",
    • here at 19:24 December 2, in which he responds to what he indicates are CoM's early misrepresentation of earlier events regarding what he says is his one historic block and in which he indicates he has this page watchlisted]
    • here at 21:21 on December 2, in which Tarc indicates that CoM's thread calling for various heads should be closed, but the thread regarding the possible block of CoM be kept open, at least in part because, as he says, that thread had yet to receive a single oppose
    • here at 21:53 on December 2, in which he responds to a comment made by Redheylin
    • here at 04:23 on December 3, in which he responds to another editor who had stated CoM should not be blocked because CoM is a productive ditor, citing examples of other productive editors who have been sanctioned
    • here at 13:30 on December 3, in which he makes a statement regarding how CoM does not initiate topics here
    • here aT 17:04 December 3, in which he closes again the call for heads which had been closed by someone else earlier and reopened by CoM, and in which he says in the edit summary that CoM should not make things worse for himself by reopening it
    • here at 17:06 December 3, simply moving a hatnote
    • here at 17:11 December 3, in which he responds to my comment about how placing blocks on editors who initiate unfounded complaints might be dubious, and noting that CoM had repeatedly reopened the call for heads section after others had closed it,
    • here at 17:13 December 3, fixing his own addition of an unsigned template to my earlier comment (this machine is currently experiencing intermittent tilde failure, I'm afraid),
    • and finally here at 1&;22 December 3, his own single addition to this thread above.
    In my own opinion, I believe that the evidence indicates that Tarc's statement that he has the page watchlisted is seemingly accurate, and that in fact the claims made by CoM regarding Tarc are at best distortions of fact, very possibly violations of WP:HARRASS, and serves as further evidence of how CoM just likes starting threads to discipline people with whom he has had disagreements. I personally think that the thread should be closed as the available evidence seems to at least me to be much more critical of CoM than of Tarc himself, and that it should be closed with no action against Tarc. John Carter (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know nothing about this dispute, nor do I want to get much involved. All I know is COM is an editor who is talked about often here on ANI.
    John Carter, thanks for sharing those links. Okay, John Carter's edit differences are all the contributions that Tarc has made to ANI this month. That shows that Tarc regularly edits ANI, and claims that COM is being hounded by Tarc on ANI, if he said this, are probably not true.
    Both of you are accusing the other party of hounding or harrassing. There are six sections of WP:HARASS:
    1. Wikihounding, 2. Threats, 3. Perceived legal threats, 4. Posting of personal information WP:OUTING, 5. Private correspondence, 6. User space harassment
    Is there evidence of Tarc following COM to pages and/or vice versa? (Wikihounding)
    If not Com's hounding claim is bunk.
    Is there evidence of COM violating any of the 6 sections of Harass?
    If not, John carter's claim of harassment is bunk. John Carter wrote: "claims made by CoM regarding Tarc are at best distortions of fact" COMs statments alone maybe "Unfounded accusations of harassment" but COMs statments are not harassment themselves.
    I hope both parties keep in mind that, "Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly." Ikip (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    CoM has recently been posting to John Carter's talk page despite requests to stay off. Does that count? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 21:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Wikipedia:HUSH (6. User space harassment) part of WP:HARASS, also see the essay Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments:
    I think a good argument can be made of Harassment per WP:HUSH if Thejadefalcon edit differences are correct.
    COM can probably claim ignorance though, and apologize to John Carter, as this is a section I have never heard of, and I never actually knew about until just now myself.
    I don't know if "ignorance of the law is no excuse" applies on wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you've gotta consider what is the one feature common to all these dramas? From where I sit, it appears to be CoM. Crafty (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My claim is based on the comments of CoM at the top of this thread.
    As per WP:HOUND, "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annonyance or distress to the other editor". "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." I believe requesting administrative action against someone without anything like just cause in such a setting as this probably constitutes a violation of the above.
    As per that same page, the section "Threats" immediately below it states "Threatening another person is considered harassment. This may include threats to harm another person, to disrupt their work on wikipedia, or to otherwise harm them. Statements of intent to use normal wikipedia processes properly, such as dispute resolution, are not threats." Beyond the open question as to whether filing what I believe to be a baseless claim is considered using "wikipedia processes properly", there is the question as to whether this is not only a threat, but an explicit attempt "to disrupt their work on wikipedia." For what little it might be worth, CoM's warning to Tarc on his user page here is probably more civil than CoM's comments here.
    Granted, this may fall within a grey zone in the eyes of some. I did however make my statements in such a way as to indicate it was my opinion. I stand by my earlier claim that this thread should be closed without action taken against Tarc. If anyone wishes to take action against me on the basis of an alleged personal attack, they are free to do so. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think right now we need to pick one of two things and actually do it. Was tarc bothering COM? if so block him. If he wasn't, block COM for a frivolous report.--Crossmr (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding Ikip's "Both of you are accusing the other party of hounding or harrassing" statement, I would have to express disagreement there. CoM does not harass me personally, and I do not believe that I have ever put forth such a claim. What I have said is that he needs to put up or shut so to speak up in regards to "hounding", "battlefield", "disruption", and I am glad he has finally chosen to do so rather than leave vague hints and innuendo in other threads. I have also pointed out that CoM is a general nuisance and antagonist of numerous other editors, mostly admins, both in AN/I and on various user talk pages. This bad behavior stems from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles, where ChildofMidnight believed himself to be the aggrieved party, only to see the ArbCom committee determine that he was (rightly, IMO) one of the primary aggressors and instigators of the affair. Travesty in motion sat atop of his userpage for awhile, haranguing AC members at various times (Wizardman, and 2), the infamous episode of comparing other editors to Nazis, for starters. Tarc (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    CoM's comment at the start of this thread refers only to this page, quoting here, "See his comments in above discussions". Based on that comment, which refers only to this page, I had no choice but to assume that the complaint dealt only with edits to this page in the recent past such that they appeared on this page, rather than the archives, at the time that comment was posted. I am also very interested in the AE case linked to above regarding Nazis, in which the closer of the discussion indicated that perhaps it was time for the community to take action on its own regarding CoM. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comments toward the bottom of this section above in regard to starting a user conduct RfC. Nothing useful is going to come of these threads, but an RfC could be a good way to go. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The diffs posted by John Carter speak for themselves. Tarc claims to be a regular contributor to ANI and yet how many (10 of 15 or so?) of his posts this month are pointed attacks towards me where he brings up irrelevancies in threads about issues in which he has ABSOLUTELY NO INVOLVEMENT. He also makes statements about my motivations and accuses me of all sorts of things.

    If it's determined that this is appropriate behavior, then so be it. My understanding of civility, stalking, and harassment are perhaps different than some other editors. I know they are very different from John Carter's. And of course Tarc's involvement on other pages shows a similar focus on me. So while John Carter objects to my polite requests on his talk page asking him to refactor his false statements about me, this same admin thinks an editor following me around to pick fights is appropriate? So be it. I can't understand why we're losing content contributors... ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It is hardly anyone else's fault but your own that you cut a wide swath across AN/I. Let's see if the one above produces a significant block; if it doesn't, then perhaps I will take Bigtimepeace up on his offer to turn that RfC link above from red to blue, if he wants to.
    And regarding "asking him to refactor his false statements about me", could you please provide a diff of one of these? Thanks. Tarc (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    COM, I have noticed that whenever someone says "xxxx speak for themselves" this means the editor will not provide evidence in the form of edit differences, correct?
    John Carter, you did state that COM was involved in: "Unfounded accusations of harassment" I never stated that COM's alleged harassment was directed to you.
    The watered down term WP:HOUNDING originally was called "stalking", "requesting administrative action against someone" is not "stalking", it is not following someone around from page to page.
    Wikipedia:Harass#Threats is more serious than filing administrative action against someone.
    So regarding WP:HARASS, COM has violated WP:HUSH, if Thejadefalcon edit differences are correct.
    The personal attacks:
    User_talk:Wizardman/Archive25#Bias.2C_censorship.2C_and_Arbcom "I was just reading about your fellow Arbcom member's sockpuppeteering and POV pushing." Looks like a bad faith comment, but unfortunately, it is similar to many of the comments here directed at COM. If there is no proof of sockpuppeting then it is a personal attack too.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChildofMidnight&diff=310733806&oldid=310711181 The nazi comment, is pretty over the top, and should be the center piece of any RFC.
    Anyway, COM, I recall now, I think I gave you a barnstar once, over a year ago.
    COM, you better start apologizing quickly, and changing your behavior or you will be banned forever. You obviously either (a) have little evidence against those who want you banned or (b) you don't know how to effectively state your case. Since Bigtimepeace, an editor I respect more than almost every editor on Wikipedia, is willing to start a RFC against you, and I have seen your name many times on ANI, it is probably "a". Ikip (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And that apology had better include a full acknowledfgement of your repeated distoriton of fact, at least possibly bordering on outright dishonesty. The claim you objected to my making at 19:16 Decdember 2 here, to the effect of your having given notice, was and remains factually accurate. You gave exactly one notice, six minutes after that posting, here, at 19:22 December 2. Let me make it clear to you CoM. I will not remove factually accurate information regardless of how often you attempt to distort it. Particularly considering that, given the length of time between my making my posting and your finally getting around to do what the page requires, I have every reason to believe that you only made the post after seeing how I had remarked on your failure to do so. If that is true, as I believe it is, then your persistently raising demonstrably false accusations against others for the purpose of hiding your ownn failure to abide by even basic civility is very definitely something that deserve serious consideration.
    I also note that CoM persists in justifying this claim, now adding that unspecified comments elsewhere, which were not referenced in the original complaint, are relevant I look forward to seeing diffs of those comments elsewhere which CoM has now decided to include in the complaint, after the first version of his complaint was found to be what I and I believe others consider unsupported by the available evidence. John Carter (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The record is quite clear John Carter. You made an absurd and disruptive claim complaining that I hadn't informed you about a thread that you were already involved in. I responded (as did other editors and admins letting you know you were out of line). I also notified GWH that he was included in the thread. You apparently didn't see the notification, and notified him again (as you've acknowledged on your talk page and is clear from GWH's talk page). You accused me of failing to notify him. I called you out on it because your statement was false. Instead of correcting it you repeated it. I called you out on it again.
    You still refused to correct yourself. I reminded you on your talk page that making false claims is a civility violation. You then tried to excuse your incorrect accusations by saying you thought my notification was related to something old even though it's clearly dated. And, as far as I know, you still have not corrected you improper and completely false accusations.
    And yet here you are again continuing to make grotesque distortions to cover up your abusive behavior. Please try to do some collegial content contributing instead of going after editors who dare to point out your improper behavior. Lying about the actions of other editors is a clear civility violation as is failing to correct them when they are pointed out to you. Your comments accusing me of not notifying GWH (posted after I had done so and after I had told you I had done so) remain to this very moment, a testament to your failure to comply with our policies. You should be aware that this type of misconduct may be grounds for you losing your tools. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I regret to say hat your comments above display what some might call a lack of contact with reality. I meant not only myself, but also Cirt and GWH, and at the time I said that you had, in fact, contacted no one. Therefore, there was no statement to correct, because the statement was accurate. There was no false claim. I have demonstrated through diffs above that the only person you ever did contact was GWH, and that after the fact of my comment. I did add a comment later in the thread, which in general is how such things are handled. The record is unfortunately become clearer and clearer regarding your behavior here. I and others specifically asked you to provide some evidence to support your as-yet completely unspported allegations for the comments starting this thread. You have pointedly refused to do so, instead once again insisting that reality be adjusted to your convenience after the fact. Regarding your threat regarding my adminship, perhaps if you read this page you will see that I had alreaady asked in that thread to have my conduct reviewed. I in fact asked two other admins, both of whom stated that was no evidence presented to support the claim. I would think, at this point, your primary concern would be regarding your own credibility in these matters, and that would best be served by providing the evidence which has been requested to support your claims against Tarc, which you have yet to provide any evidence to support, making, at this point, two threads you have started to discipline others based on no evidence whatsoever. I would point out, by the way, that I think I got on your enemies list because of blocking you on October 8 for disruptive editing. John Carter (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IP used for reverts in Israeli-Palestinian disputes

    Question regarding: 166.217.187.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    By the looks of things, this is an experienced user who's reverting things with an anti-Israeli perspective (they call it "consensus") without logging into their account. Reasons could be from laziness all the way up to being a topic banned or site banned editor undercutting their sanction. In any event, such conduct can only induce similar behavior from the other side of the conflict and could easily degenerate any discussion into an electric fence gaming where everyone's trying to figure out who's using an IP to get his favorite version into the article. Here's a sample of said IP fighting in such a manner with another IP and, just recently, this IP has made a revert on an article I'm discussing issues on that is very sensitive and could easily degenerate. Putting it succinctly, I'm concerned with said IP and was wondering if there's any suggestions/thoughts on the issue as how to handle such drive by possibly banned editors best. Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 23:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Your question is vague and unspecified. The answer (to your non-question "I .. was wondering if there's any suggestions/thoughts on the issue as how to ..." etc etc), so far, is: 1st: Please specify --illustrated with diffs; multiple ones if you want to point a 'trend'--. 2nd: no, there are no "suggestions/thoughts" at this level. PS You are not new on Wikipedia. -DePiep (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified the IP user about this discussion...GiantSnowman 00:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jaakobou is constantly opening complaints against others and almost being taken seriously, despite the fact when he's a legendarily WP:DE and POV editor himself. 86.159.67.125 (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is why people can never really trust Wikipedia.

    Resolved
     – Blocked for 31 hours for ban evasion, per WP:PLAXICO. -- Atama頭 02:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am posting this because I want other administrators, who are not so corrupt and morally bankrupt, to see this behavior for what it is: Poison to the reputation of Wikipedia.

    Will someone please review the behavior of Gamaliel regarding the blocking of the account I just created, Technical_reasons. I posted anonymously to the talk page of this article [[20]], which User:Gamaliel then deleted and immediately banned the IP I had posted from. I then created an account in response to his concerns of anonymity and reposted my topic in the discussion page, which user:Gamaliel then called wp:van and removed. After contacting him on his talk page, he then proceeded to ban my account citing block evasion. An indef block with no coherent reasoning given.

    When I posted on his talk page that I felt that he was misusing his admin privileges, the posting was immediately removed by newyorkbrad(talk) with no reason given. I reposted my concerns on Gamaliel's page and another admin, Craftyminion(talk) immediately removed it again, but this time with the potential threat "Don't do this..." Perhaps I should have listened to the voice of the Wikimafia because my account was quickly banned when I tried to follow the WP guidelines regarding my concerns. I assume the threat was in reference for trying to bring to light the unseemly abuse of Wikipedia and admin powers.

    The threat from Crafty and bad faith behavior is in the edit history of the talk pages of Gamaliel(talk), Craftyminion(talk), newyorkbrad(talk).

    142.104.160.216 (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That account was blocked for block-evasion and being an attack-only account. But thanks for giving us your IP address. How are things in BC? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bloody cold, I tell you what. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What, no Plaxico, lol? Oops, forgot to sign. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Previous mischief was done with 142.104.215.217, so I think we already knew where the guy was coming from, but point made. WP:RBI is best here. -- Atama頭 02:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. I'm in a Cabal. :D Crafty (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently, you're also an admin.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What a terrifying thought. >:) Crafty (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently, "mischeif" to Atama and "vandalism" to Gamaliel is an editor posting on the talk page that he or she percieves a bias enforced by certain users with admin powers. If trying to establish NPOV when there are differing perspectives is "mischeif", then every editor should be blocked, no? Absurd.
    Grave dancing in this case further shows the hubris that these admin have, the hubris which flies in the face of what Wikipedia stands for. Malfeasance of this sort cleary undermines the credibility of this project. It is clear that in spite of all the attempts to make Wikipedia fair and democratic, some users seek to attain and use their power in order to oppress those who disagree with them. Remember: If all else fails, just cry sock puppet. 24.69.139.253 (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    142.104.215.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    142.104.160.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Technical_reasons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    98.234.169.63 = Fastily?

    Pardon the digression, but is 98.234.169.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) actually the admin Fastily (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the discussion some distance up the page? Or is it an impostor? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wouldn't it be less drama inducing to ask him about it? That account has been editing for months ([21]), so I don't think it's an imposter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking the IP would be rather pointless. I was going to ask Fastily, but he hasn't edited under that ID since the 26th. It just seems weird for an IP to sign as a user, especially an admin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He's been doing it for months [22], but I admit it's a bit odd. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure whether Fastily is doing that because he is deliberately or accidentally logged out at the time. The only issue I have is with the replacement of the IP signature with Fastily's signature. A better way would be to add a link in brackets after the IP signature. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Deliberately logged out. I'm busy in real life right now so I'm attempting to take a Wikibreak which hasn't been all that successful thus far. I usually end up spending less time on-wiki editing as an IP without the tools so I do that. Please feel free to email me if you need me to confirm this. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 07:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fastily, if you take up my suggestion above, we can mark this one as resolved. Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Any others alternative identities you would like to admit to Fastily?--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 00:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you are asking about IP addresses, WP:OUTING may apply. Fastily, I would really suggest you try to avoid editing that much while logged out. If your IP address changes (and three months seems about right), finding out what you've said becomes unnecessarily complicated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to see some acknowledgment from Fastily's own logon confirming - not that IP address again saying, "Yes, it's me." The reason I brought this up in the first place is that the IP's comments didn't sound like an admin talking, they sounded pointy, like someone trying to fan the flames. We shouldn't have to send someone an e-mail. That also sounds fishy. If it's actually Fastily, he should log on once and post here, and confirm that that IP is him. Either that, or the IP should be blocked on suspicion of impersonation. Which, by the way, is what I was originally going to propose at AIV, but I thought it would be better to bring it here first. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request a review of my block of Lomcevak

    I have just blocked User:Lomcevak. I believe the user passes the duck test with regards being User:Dsmith1usa. They share similar editing patterns, specifically the articles Natascha Engel and Politico-media complex. The user appears to have continued editing the article Natasha Engel in a tendentious manner, and given that Politico-media complex is forming part of Wikipedia:School and university projects/User:Piotrus/Fall 2009, the user has proven unhelpful and disruptive at Talk:Politico-media complex. Given that teh user is attempting to evade a block issued to User:Dsmith1usa by creating a new sock puppet account, I have blocked indefinitely, although I bring the issue here for review. Hiding T 17:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Briefly looking at Talk:Politico-media complex and User talk:Sam Blacketer as well as the Dsmith1usa's contribs, I'd say they're the same. Good block. MuZemike 19:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, very likely - the two articles Natascha Engel and Politico-media complex are relatively obscure - a near-neologism and a backbench MP. You may wish to check User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 51-100#Natascha Engel and User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 51-100#Natascha Engel again et seq. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well User talk:Sam Blacketer#Guidance nails it for me that they are one and the same. Now I ponder if the block should stand? Do you think they're capable of contributing within the spirit of behavioural policy? Hiding T 14:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Incipient edit war at Josip Broz Tito

    I am not an english native speaker. So I’m not sure if this is the right place to point out the following situation. If it isn’t, I beg for you to move it to the proper place.

    User: AlasdairGreen27 and User: DIREKTOR keep engaging in persistent vandalism on Josip Broz Tito, removing every contents inserted by other users, as you can see from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josip_Broz_Tito&action=history. I noticed (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito/Archive_2) that both users had keep deleting any new section of the article that may be perceived as critic towards Tito by the readers, supporting each others in doing so against a lot of different users. I’m not the first one to quarrel about this situation as you can see from the following links, which are mere examples of their behavior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito/Archive_2#Discussion, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito/Archive_2#Whitewashing.3F, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito#Concerning_Wikipedia.27s_Article_Josip_Broz_Tito and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito#Josip_Broz_Tito. Particularly they keep deleting a passage (which was inserted by me in the article), which was heavily sourced, refusing to discuss the matter (“The foibe will not be mentioned in this article”, “End of story”, “I have no comments to make to you”, “There is nothing to discuss”). Despite my warnings (I advise them that they were committing vandalism a lot of times) and my efforts to start a true discussion (they keep refusing to comment their deletions), they seemed unnecessarily harsh towards me since their very first comment to me on the talk page (“you are here not to advance the encyclopedia, but merely to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for your own peculiar POV”, “You will notice that we have rather higher standards than that”, “you've so far clearly demonstrated you are here to push some kind of POV with biased wording”, “enwiki's burly security officers will no doubt show you to the exit fairly promptly”). They refuse to be reasonably cooperative and they show a persistent lack of good faith (“What you wrote was put there specifically and solely in an attempt to prejudice the reader against the subject of the article”) too. You can read the deleted passage here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josip_Broz_Tito&oldid=329320296. You can read our discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito#Foibe and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito#New. I don’t want to start an edit war or to make things worse, so I’m asking you to please resolve the situation. Thanks. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've notified the individuals involved of the discussion. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 19:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On reviewing the article, it seems to be POV in that the other contributors are enforcing WP:BLP-style policies overzealously, despite the fact that the individual in question has been dead nearly 30 years. They seem to have WP:COI issues (two of them profess a personal admiration for the man described by the article on their user page), and are overly prone to resorting to not so subtle bullying of other editors (see talk of same page). I'd never heard of the man before, and have no personal attachment the subject or the countries involved, so I think I'm about as unbiased as they come. Reading this article, then performing a Google search for this man leads to two completely different impressions:
    Wiki article: A heroic resistance fighter and statesman who saved his country from the Nazis and led them as president afterwards, keeping them out of Russian clutches. Made the hard decisions, but they were all vindicated by history.
    Google search (ignoring results sourced from Wikipedia, and there are a lot, indicating the importance of the article): A brutal resistance fighter who committed war crimes in the pursuit of defeating the Nazis. Unified the disparate ethnicities of his country by force, including some quasi-genocidal acts. A military dictator and strongman.
    I'm not saying the article should ignore or downplay his positive sides, but by minimizing and ignoring his negatives, you get a very skewed view of the man. The article also needs some serious trimming; the full history of the Yugoslavian front in WWII and the politics of Yugoslavia for 50 years takes more space than the text actually about the man, though perhaps that is only an indication of how thoroughly he dominated the country and its politics. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tito was a dictator, therefore there's gotta be some negative stuff. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly my point. But the editors mentioned by AndreaFox seem to think *any* mention constitutes a POV edit. They've told people on the talk page to move the info to articles on the massacres in question, but block people from even linking the massacres from the article, let alone describing them. And they're watching and doing the same sorts of reverts on the massacre pages anyway, so the suggestions are a joke in any event. For example, there seems to have been some heavy cutting on Bleiburg massacre at some point; somehow the only part of the article that even mentions the man (and only by nickname) is a brief notice in the section "Criticism of the massacre claims". Yet it appears he was the leader of the partisans that are said to have committed the massacre. I think a lot of whitewashing of genocide is going on in the historical Yugoslavia articles, and it's working too; virtually all of the first page hits on Google for both the man and the example massacre source from Wikipedia, so the *only* view people see is the sanitized version. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While more eyes on this would of course be good, and most welcome, I don't think any admin intervention is required, and therefore this thread can be closed. It must, however, be pointed out, that the original poster is a POV-driven, hate-ridden "justice must be done" contributor. End of story. And lastly in this post, as has been endlessly stated, our aticles should/must be a neutral presentation of the facts as known, from which readers may draw their own conclusions. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the thread is on your behaviour, so you may not be the most suited the person to recommend that it is closed. I have not looked at the article yet and have encountered AlasdairGreen27, but I've read a few articles where the user DIREKTOR has been involved and I've found the user to be a strong POV-pusher.Jeppiz (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)You're (AlasdairGreen27) intentionally painting an inaccurate picture of AndreaFox. At no point in either the edits to the article or the talk page does she(?) make any such claims, express any personal opinion of Tito, or even make any significant changes without copious sources to support them from apparently reputable historians. You are reading into her edits a motivation that they do not support. You aren't making a neutral presentation of the facts, you're intentionally omitting any facts you personally disagree with and pretending it's a POV issue. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To the best of my knowledge Jeppiz, we have never interacted. If you have any remarks to make about my behaviour, the floor is yours. Fire away. Give it your best shot. And before you start to get into anybody else, bear this in mind: Welcome to the Balkans. Here we spend our entire time attempting to hold the line, impose wiki policies, make our articles kind of as good as elsewhere on the project. Yet we are under siege from POV monsters, both registered accounts and IPs, who seek to use wiki to promulgate 'the truth'. And of course, vast numbers of socks, that are all Hydra monsters. As soon as you chop off one head, another one grows. So, if you'd like to join us here, we'd be delighted to welcome you to the party. But hell, I've heard that the Armenian genocide articles are even worse, so you may prefer to hang out there. Your call. let me know how you propose to help. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a problem of meatpuppetry regarding DIREKTOR/AlasdairGreen27 and some user suspect these accounts by a single guy: for evidence read history of foibe killings, Istrian exodus and several articles pertinent ex Iugoslavian history or their personal talk pages: it's canvassing too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.95.254.117 (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I meant to write that I have never interacted with Alasdair, as he correctly points out. Nor do I have a history of editing articles related to Yugoslavia, so I would consider myself fairly neutral. Having looked at the article, its edit history and the users involved, I must agree that AndreaFox seems to have a point. As a third editor already pointed out, the article gives a very idealised view of Tito with all criticism being suppressed by AlasdairGreen27 and DIREKTOR. In a rather flagrant violation of WP:OWN and WP:POV, and with no justification in WP:BLP for a person dead for 30 years, these two editors repeatedly remove even well-sourced and relevant sections that are critical of Tito. As this disruptive POV-pushing is not limited to just this article but seems to be repeated on a large number of articles related to Tito and Yugoslavia, I would suggest that the AlasdairGreen27 and DIREKTOR, as a first step, would be restricted to one revert per week at articles related to Yugoslavia, with the prospect of a topic-ban unless that works. Knowing a bit about the Balkans, Alasdair is probably right when he says that there are regions where feelings are strong, and that there are articles that are in an even worse state. I don't how WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would justify POV-pushing. Needless to say, that goes for everybody involved. While I do think that Alasdair and DIREKTOR are guilty of widespread POV-pushing, that goes for some of the users with whom they edit was as well. The one doesn't excuse the other.Jeppiz (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    they remove my post: [23] and they attaked user:Luigi 28, user: Barba Nane, user:Ducatista2, user: Trusciante, user:Miranovic etc who are not socks. DIREKTOR was restricted for long time after POV battle against user:Giovanni Giove. AlasdairGreen27, DIREKTOR and PRODUCER were reported here as communist gang admirer of dictator Josip Broz

    Those users were all socks, and it seems likely that the IP above is as well. The first edit is a comment on Jimbo Wales talk page for actions to be taken against Alasdair and DIREKTOR, the second edit is about the dispute on Tito. It proves that Alasdair is right when he says that these articles attracts socks and POV-pushers. The accusation that Alasdair and DIREKTOR are socks of the same user seems very improbable to say the least. Let's focus on the facts here: Alasdair and DIREKTOR seems to be involved in excessive WP:OWNing to maintain their own WP:POV at articles related to Tito. It seems to be true that there are socks pushing for an opposite POV as well, but that doesn't excuse reverting edits from legitimate users.Jeppiz (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rememeber that insulting someone isn't allowed on wikipedia: you can't call me "monster". Please apologise for your statement. I didn't deserve it as i have not insult you. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a tad concerned with the less then 3hrs old IP. It's knowledge of Wikipedia & the Tito discussions are amazing. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FFS, as we can see from the sockpuppet intervention to this thread, above and below Jeppiz' comment, there's a lot at stake here. Enough. Given Wikipedia's non-expert culture, the culture of people who know nothing but have enormously strong opinions about a subject, I once again invite one and all to join us at the Balkans party. Those weary admins such as FpaS and Ricky who police these areas would concur, I suspect. To Jeppiz, I wearily point out, once again, DIREKTOR and I are the good guys, buddy. We're the ones holding the line against the loons. Can you not see what is so obvious? We need help here, not nonsense like this. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is you view anyone who disagrees as being with the "loons". AndreaFox's edits at the very least do not appear to be lunacy of any kind, and seem to improve the article. Feel free to contest the sourced claims if the source itself doesn't meet the threshold for reliable source, but don't delete whole sections because you feel they are critical. No, Stalin isn't referred to as a dictator on his own article, but they do point out the mass killings, gulags and assassinations carried out under his watch (I'm sure he didn't personally order every single deportation to a gulag either, just like Tito didn't order every instance of mass murder, but that doesn't mean either one gets off scot free). If you wish to use Stalin to argue against particular labels, like dictator, (which I agree are generally unnecessary) then you also need to admit that merely mentioning a person's actions and orders is also justified. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 21:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment looking at this "affaire" on both it.wiki and en.wiki it seems clear that we have two "parties" Croatian and Istrian ones. I've just blocked last Brunodam's Tamburellista's (un properly named as a sock of Pio's) sock on it.wiki and you can find on my own talkpage the last ridicolus threats by the same troll, so I think I cannot be defined as a member of the Istrian party at all. But imho DIREKTOR seems to use his sysop's rights as the Lord Protector of "Croatian party" (please note that both parties use external forums in order to set up their wiki-attivities), we **must** fight against all these nationalism which are poisoning our Project because I can see any reason to favour the one which seems to be smarter: Croatian party was so lucky when Istrian party were self-destroied by Pio and Brunodam, at the same time the party was so able using Pio and Brunodam's ghost to dictate its own POV. Imho we must make wiki clean by **all** nationalism, DIREKTOR's one too.--Vituzzu (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The time may be coming to restrict all editors-in-question from the articles-in-question, for a period of time. If only to restore the peace. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is blowing up into a discussion of Balkans issues, and WP:ARBMAC and all that. There's no need for it to be so, but if you want it to be, then that's fine. You newcomers to the arena don't really have a bloody clue about the array of issues involved, so, rather than comment, I will ask seasoned campaigners (admins, but ordinary volunteers, like you, who choose to wade in to try to clear up the appalling mess) User:Ricky81682 and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise to comment here. God help us. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very concerned with the attitude Alasdair is taking here. Statements like "there's a lot at stake here. Enough.", " I wearily point out, once again, DIREKTOR and I are the good guys", "We're the ones holding the line against the loons.", "We need help here, not nonsense like this." show all too clearly that these users see themselves as crusaders of the WP:TRUTH. Reading the talk page, I am struck by the arrogant and condescending attitude of DIREKTOR, explaining that if he wants to remove things he doesn't like, no matter how well-sourced, he will do it. IMO, both Alasdair and DIREKTOR frequently crosses the line of "mere" POV-pushing to engage in pure vandalism. They are no doubt convinced that they are doing the right thing, since they are "the good guys" who are "holding the line against the loons." Vituzzu makes a very good point about the need for action about both camps, and I fully agree with GoodDay about the need to restrict both the Italian socks and Alasdair & DIREKTOR from articles related to Tito, Yugoslavia and Istria.Jeppiz (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not endorsing a mass-restriction, just observing that it might eventually occur. I've no intentions of diving into the Tito article dispute. To quote Mike Tyson, I'm crazy, but I'm not crazy. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with your proposal. Maybe it will help the situation. However, what will you do about the passage which i inserted and which was deleted? It is POV or not? It must be reinserted or not? --AndreaFox2 (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've read your contribution and I would say that DIREKTOR's and Alasdair's removal of it is not just POV-pushing, it is pure vandalism. It would be interesting to hear on what grounds DIREKTOR and Alasdair removed the paragraph as it was very well sourced, more so than many other parts of the article. If I were you, I'd report it as vandalism as those kinds of actions are no longer content disputes.Jeppiz (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Silly thread. I've got nothing to add. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no interest in dealing with this crap anymore. Fully protect the thing, let everyone have at it on the talk page, let some admins rewrite it to something somewhat stable and topic ban the characters who use the encyclopedia as a battleground. When even articles like 1102 have nonsensical edit wars, I don't see the point of bothering. Some people just have no interest in creating neutral anything. This garbage is bleeding throughout the entire encyclopedia. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You see Jeppiz and GoodDay? You see? That comes from one of the very few admins who have genuinely tried to help us in this domain. You have no goddamn idea what you are getting into. But please, as I've said above, join us. We'd love your input, or your umpiring. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No thanks, I ran out of gas at the Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta discussions. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that - you are already battle scarred. So Jeppiz, let's hear it from you. Are you just here to throw things from the peanut gallery or do you genuinely want to try to help us make some articles better? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Should I ask for an Arbcom's action? I'm getting more and more bored. --Vituzzu (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So much for the NPOV good-guy speech. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's beyond the pale. As a simple editor who has no interest in the Balkans I hate to stick my neck out here, but for that comment I have to suggest that AlasdairGreen27 be blocked. This is not improving the encyclopedia. --NellieBly (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. If it’s true about wikipeida editors leaving, its no surprise seeing people making vile comments like that. - dwc lr (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with both of you. Alasdair's response to this thread seems to be to go ever more extreme. Repeatedly calling editors who questions his opinions for "twats, using languag such as "fuck directed at them and explicity stating his intent to insult them...[24] And this is the editor claiming he is the good guy. I came to this thread a few hours ago without having ever heard about Alasdair. After reading this report and looking into, I've been able to verify that inly in the last, he has
    • vandalised the article by removing a well-sourced paragraph [25], [26] that is contrary to his own POV. That he calls contributions by editors disagreeing with him "hatemail" doesn't make it better.
    • made clear that he will continue to act in the same manner when his vandalism was questioned by other editors [27]
    • repeatedly insulted several editors for the "crime" of not agreeing with his POV [28], [29]
    Put that together with the comments he has made here, trying several times to argue that this thread should be closed because he and DIREKTOR are "the good guys" who defend the WP:TRUTH. I've rarely seen a more striking case of WP:OWN. In combination with his uncivil behaviour, his removal of sourced claims not agreeing with his POV and his outright refusal to try to discuss the matter, I can only repeat that I think this user should perhaps not edit articles about Yugoslavia and Tito. While this report is about the Tito article, I see the same disruptive behaviour repeated in a less intense but similar patter on many other Yugoslavia-related articles.Jeppiz (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Alasdair looks to me like he thinks he is untouchable probably has got away with that sort of behaviour before. And the we are the “good guys” statement was just hilarious. This guy needs a reality check desperately. - dwc lr (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I regrettably have to whole heartedly agree with the comments regarding DIREKTOR pushing a POV and have witnessed (and continue to witness) this first hand. He refuses to acknowledge any source that disagrees with his POV and attempts to censor articles by removing alternative views he simply does not adhere to a NPOV. Someone needs to put a stop to this individual’s censorship and pov pushing. The paragraph removed from the Tito article appears to be well sourced I wouldn’t necessarily put it in the lead, but none the less I don’t see how its complete removal can be justified. - dwc lr (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Be prepared for a bunch of "new" users to edit war over that. And once they get blocked, be prepared for a bunch of "new" anonymous editors to come. And then be prepared that, because all those edits are coming from several large cities in Eastern Europe (particularly universities) we cannot really stop the vandals because of collateral damage. So then be prepared to be called a Holocaust denier for quoting a line by Albert Einstein from the New York Times. And then the cycle begins anew. And finally then be called an expert on dealing with these characters so you get to keep on humoring the most insane of them. Seriously, short of massive blocks over huge parts of that region, this nonsense will never end. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    May as well give a topic ban for the established users as User:Jeppiz suggested and let people who only care about the quality of the encyclopaedia and aren’t raving mad nationalists edit the articles. - dwc lr (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How about a new rule - only Africans can edit articles on the Balkans, only Latin Americans can edit articles on the Troubles, only nuns can edit articles on US politics...:). I'm not even sure that some of the Balkans editors are based in Balkans countries (so the rangeblock idea would fail), Lock down the articles, all edits to be made on the talkpage first, - with sources or it gets canned - , get in some admins as bouncers to bin anyone who mentions anyone else's nationality, indeed makes any comment at all about the editor rather than the edit. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My 2 cents. The current article of Tito is not POV but is POV*POV*POV simply because it analyze only the point of view of some historical and ethnical positions, but don't analyze ALL points of view. Any article should investigate any historical version (this is a pilaster of Wikipedia), the current article follows only a single point of view of historical interpretation of Tito. In the past Italians and Yugoslavs have always denied any massacre for political reasons, the Tito's action has always been interpreted as "liberation". In this moment to have Slovenia and Croatia accepted in European Union they have dismissed the position of denial and the "official" governments of two countries have accepted that a massacre has had place and this massacre has been organized by Yugoslav partisans guided by Tito as suggested by historical documents and witnesses. What I am saying is that the current article of Tito continue to deny the historical current situation and it's still stopped to the point of view accepted during the years prior 80's: "total denial of massacre". I think that probably after some bans and blocks we will see the some situation of other articles which generate only bans and blocks but not defend the neutrality of articles and don't follow the pilasters of Wikipedia, only because it seems better to follow the easy way but not to solve "the problem". If you need some link you can see these [30][31][32]. In this case what I see is that the article of Tito don't analyze the problem of Foibe and the involvment of Tito (is Tito involved? Is not it?), simple the article is silent. I would appreciate if all discussions will be focused to solve the problem of neutrality and not to reach blocks or bans in advantage of one or two persons. Personally I would have had the opportunity to work in this article adding any new interpretation of the end of II World War but for me has not been possible because I am a peaceful guy and I don't appreciate any war edit and any nationalism. This situation is confirming me that in en.wikipedia it's difficult to contribute for moderate people, it's by this time only a place proper for not moderated people. I am very curios to see the end of this polemic and see what is the decision of sysops. --Ilario (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I hoped to resolve the situation here, but direktor and alan keep acting the same way and they clearly stated that they will keeping acting the same way. So i pointed out their behavior here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Alerts )like jeppiz and others suggested. --AndreaFox2 (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Having read the report here yesterday, I went to have a look at the article and to insert the criticism section that Alasdair and DIREKTOR were repeatedly removing without any justification. I must agree that the whole thing is mine field. Alasdair is currently blocked for his repeated vandalism and personal attacks, but DIREKTOR is continuing in the same way, [33] removing both the POV-tag the only critical paragraph, incidentally the best sourced in the article. I note with some fatigue that he claims that he continues to delete material and pov-tags he doesn't like "to avoid an edit war". The problem is that I, and most others, aren't very interested in Tito and we won't keep looking at the article to keep out the extreme POV that DIREKTOR and Alasdair have enforced on the article. For far too long, the two users have WP:OWNed the article and continue to act in the same way.Jeppiz (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So, exactly how is this supposed to be resolved? I'm somewhat new to this board. So far the only substantial thing accomplished directly was the temporary block of AlasdairGreen27, which isn't exactly the sort of progress you hope for. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.136.89.238‎‎ - reblock needed

    86.136.89.238 (talk · contribs)

    At the risk of spamming ANI with something no one can help with: This user just returned from a block, and may possibly be failing to understand due to language issues (maybe not, AGFing here). Besides some questionable and unexplained edits, the editor has begun adding a Caste infobox to many clan/family name articles, aparently identifying each as an independent caste. This seems incorrect, as a widespread change. Further, the infoboxes are unsourced, and some of the information they contain conflicts with my very VERY limited knowledge. I am too ignorant to say with confidence that this is a Bad Thing, but I think interested editors are going to be backing these changes out, and if they ARE a bad idea, I hoped that someone with more knowledge than I might be able to say whether these changes need to be stopped with a block. I have placed an ANI notice on the anon talk page. - Sinneed 20:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am fed up of reverting this IP's edits. It's like some sort of spam bot, that keeps doing the same thisng over and over again. Thanks--Sikh-History 08:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's just come off a block for similar, it can be reblocked, so I've altered the section heading. If it won't respond to anyone hailing it, then there may be a query as to whether it is an editor of net worth to the 'pedia. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, SH. I just don't know enough to have known if the edits were really wrong. They just looked fishy. The IP is blocked again. I didn't note the blocking admin name or block length.- Sinneed 13:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2 week block by Materialscientist. Editor made another odd unblock request: "Sorry vandalism edited". Resolved for 2 weeks I should think. It was declined.- Sinneed 13:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bot welcomes, guestbooks, welcome template images

    MisterWiki (talk · contribs) seems to be using a bot(?) to add welcome messages (last 500 changes are mostly welcomes). His custom welcome template (User:MisterWiki/Welcome) includes some odd images, and a plea to sign his guestbook. His current signature includes a link to his guestbook. He dismissed one complaint [34]. I'm not sure if any of this is serious enough to warrant notice here, or what our current recommendations are for 'guestbooks' and mass-welcoming (last I looked, we strongly discouraged both), but wasn't sure where else to turn. I have to leave for the day, else I would attempt to research further and communicate with the editor myself. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have noticed these as well in my monitoring of newbie edits. I believe that every time it's been proposed, there has failed to be consensus for using a bot to welcome users. On a personal note, the welcome templates being used are pretty heavyweight and I do dislike them. Gigs (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can remove my spam from the welcome template. --MisterWiki talk (SIGN/REVIEW) 21:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone who welcomes Fartbigbum111 (talk · contribs · block log) after they added "FUK UR MUM" to Vegetable should think again about running an unauthorised bot. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: That user is the only one that have been angry with the welcome itself. He have created 4 accounts (I thought) and I think he have to be blocked, because of sockpuppetry (I think). You can see on my talk page that I've received messages from many users thanking me about the warm welcomes. --MisterWiki talk (SIGN/REVIEW) 21:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Stopped the bot. --MisterWiki talk (SIGN/REVIEW) 22:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So just so we're clear you admit to running an unauthorized bot?--Crossmr (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per this diff [35] he did not have authorization to run the bot at all. He does seem to have claimed to stop it, but I don't see him showing any appreciation that what he's done is wrong. I might suggest a vacation to give him ample time to review the policies and ensure he understands them correctly before he continues editing.--Crossmr (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, we haven't got better things to agonise over than welcome messages? – ukexpat (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If they're causing disruption, as obviously they were in this case, then yes you should be dealing with it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.75 (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's more disruption here, apparently: [36]. I'm not sure what to make of the situation. Looks like some civility problems as well. Gigs (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Spamming people with pictures of your grandfather and cat is just... odd. Redirecting an editor's user page to their talk page without a reason is a big problem. I don't know if that was an accident or not, but MisterWiki really should stop. -- Atama頭 23:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The cat is pretty cool. :-) <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, the bot should be blocked, not just stopped by the editor. Running an unauthorized bot is not allowed. Sadly, the spam welcome is much nicer than the usual one that is such a blast of information as to be useless. I think the editor should be blocked, also, until he understand policy, then asked to redesign that bad, and painfully unwelcoming and unsightly welcome template that wikipedia editors put on new users' pages. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps it's better that we force him out the door rather than put up with the good faith harm welcoming that he's doing (not that I don't agree with the usage of the unauthorized bot, though – to some, it's better than nothing). MuZemike 08:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it should be simple, if he runs it again, he will get a block. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like some acknowledgment from him that he understands the various things wrong and the polices and guidelines he's run afoul of. So far I haven't seen that.--Crossmr (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too. Mass welcoming is a wasted effort; many people create accounts that are never used, so there's no point using the server space. The template guestbook link was rather myspace-y, the pictures are inappropriate, and the grammar is wrong (we ask questions, not tell them). The whole thing gives a rather poor impression. However, running an unauthorised bot is more of an issue, and will result in a block if it happens again. Full marks for effort and for trying to make Wikipedia a more welcoming place, MisterWiki, but run these ideas past someone with more experience before diving in next time :) EyeSerenetalk 17:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I've stopped forever my welcome-bot. --MisterWiki talk (SIGN/REVIEW) 17:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit: I've requested a bot account and I'm waiting for consensus. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MisterWikiBot (2nd) --MisterWiki talk (SIGN/REVIEW) 17:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm really sad about the things written above. If just I would step back in time. I've read the policies and I will never do it again, and I think I don't deserve this. Please, forget what happened. But admit, my welcome message is much better than the default ones :P. Cheers. --MisterWiki talk (SIGN/REVIEW) 18:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

    Your welcome message has problems, but it's not as ugly and overblown as the current one, which is huge and so crammed fulled of information that it's an assault on the senses rather than being welcoming in any way. Why don't you suggest improvements to the current welcome message, like paring it down, adding pictures, etc., as part of your contribution to welcoming folks to wikipedia? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, there was just one user that disliked my welcome message. Just see my guestbook, there's a message from a user my bot welcomed, and on my talk page [37] [38]. --MisterWiki talk (SIGN/REVIEW) 18:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There was just one user that it bothered enough to get into a big argument about. That doesn't mean that everyone else liked it. Also, please stop using images in your signature, they violate our signature guidelines. You can step back in time in a way, you can create a new account and stop using this one completely. Be sure to review the relevant policy first at WP:SOCK#LEGIT, "a clean start under a new name". You must do this carefully, however, or you will find all your accounts blocked. Gigs (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stop myspacing and stop tooling about with your sig. Keep it simple, under 255 characters in wikicode and without images. –xenotalk 18:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Throwaway85

    Resolved
     – Throwaway85 unblocked, Checkuser has apologized, everyone says "no hard feelings" and discussion on problem is happening elsewhere. I get warm fuzzy feelings when these situations work out so well.--Jayron32 05:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone look at his unblock request here? I'm too involved to do it, and I don't have the technical background or checkuser access probably needed. Or if someone is dealing with it, could they post to his talk page and say so?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You should email the checkusers list, but I think several of them seem to be responding on his talk page already.
    I don't think anyone without CU access can usefully respond - the discussion of who's editing using what requires the CU info on our side, to verify.
    I don't find his claims a priori unbelievable, but I have no idea what the CU evidence says. We put people we trust into the checkuser rights bin - let them do their job... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unrelated to OP but I want to chime in here and say chechusers are not always reliable, and in fact make many, many mistakes (mistakes which have no way of being proven as only checkusers have access to the technical info). If the checkusers say you're guilty, that's it. Even if every edit you've made has been helpful and productive, if the checkusers say you're a mass-vandalizing, trolling sockpuppet pushing several agendas on articles you didn't even know existed, then you have no defense. And you will literally get laughed out of the IRC channel if you attempt to inquire about what happened. But hey, maybe I just had a bad experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.75 (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks (@Gwh)--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In my observations, checkusers usually get it right. If anything, they err on the side of caution. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I agree. I just wanted to ensure he knew we all weren't ignoring him and he was shouting into a vacuum.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, you have any diffs to support that accusation? Here's why you should provide such evidence: No one is going to believe you, as I have experienced things, CUs are mostly right, and hardly make any mistakes.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We're currently looking into this, although I can't say for certain when the unblock request will be handled. To address the IP's concerns (ignoring the fact that he's obviously evading a block), generally if we come up with a "confirmed" result, we're about 99.9% certain the accounts involved are the same person, and even "likely" results we're pretty darn sure, especially if behavioral evidence backs it up. That said, we do make mistakes on occasion, and sometimes there are circumstances involved that explain the apparent relation, circumstances which we can't see through the checkuser report. If a checkuser-blocked user is able to provide such an explanation, that is both plausible and supported by the data, the we'll reconsider the block. I should note, however, that these situations are very uncommon. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am definitely sympathetic to the visuals of the situation, and understand fully the actions of administrators and checkusers invloved. I am sure, however, that I am not the only person this has happened to. Is there an appropriate venue to discuss how sockpuppet investigations should be handled, especially when large institutions with thousands of users are involved? It seems that a reliance on checkuser alone in this circumstance can lead to false positives, rare though they may be. I simply wish to spare future editors the ordeal I just went through. Also, if it please the community, I would like to follow up on User:Technical Reasons' actions with my school's network administrators, as I believe it likely that the school's TOS were violated. His behaviour was both unacceptable and damaging both to the community, and to his fellow students, who, like me, had their access jeopardized. I would like to pursue this matter further, but I think it best to obtain consensus in order to do that. Alternatively, I can provide contact information for the Abuse Investigations department, and one of the admins involved can contact them directly. Scratch that. Upon reviewing, he seemed more antagonistic and stupid than racist. Thank you, Throwaway85 (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started a discussion on the matter here. I welcome everyone's input on how we might (or even if we should) attempt to reduce incidents such as these in the future. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Acceptable behavior?

    Hello, let me just first say, I dont know the exact procedures of complaint, but I was send here by admin Beeblebrox; who was the admin involved in the sockpuppet investigation in which Neftchi (myself) and XrAi are accused, I come with a troubling matter. But before I contacted here I had informed Buckshot06 on this matter, as I didnt know who the admin was of the investigation, then I contacted admin Beeblebrox. Therefore, please accept my apology that the following is somewhat the same text I send Buckshot06, however the arguments still remain solid for all.

    Eventhough the accusing party (Izzedine) has withdrawn his accusation, I have several questions on his behavior. Izzedine failed to give a reason for his accusation, instead he simply awaited a checkuser report. I dont believe its right to randomly accuse people this way and not give out a reason. I kindly asked him for a reason, but he ignored to give one, instead he was busy with other things, I note the following:

    • Here he send Intelligent Mr Toad a message and I qoute him saying: "This one seems like a problem editor. If you have further concerns about him and decide to report it, let me know." and gives a link to the sockpuppet investigation that he just a few moments earlier had started.
      • Is this even allowed? When I asked him to eloborate this, he said and I qoute: "Yes (Neftchi), perhaps an edit-warring report needs to be opened in addition to this, as it looks like you are causing disruption to many editors." (this can be seen in the deleted socketpuppet investigation here

    Now you know Intelligent Mr Toad is a user who several times removed the sourced sentence of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic... and start a headline on this matter in the talk page of Azerbaijan.

    • Now suddenly Izzedine joins in with Intelligent Mr Toad, as can be seen here.
    • His anti-Azerbaijan mood continue's in the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic article in where he completely removes well sourced information in the lead, he doesnt join the talk or give a valid reason for his removal, he simply says "ridiculous statement for the lead", see here
    • Its also worthy to mention that his first edit in the Azerbaijan article ever has to revert my edit, as can be seen here
    • In his second edit in Azerbaijan article he again removed fully sourced information, seehere
    • After all this Izzedine, blanked out the sockpuppet investigation page [39] and wanted a speedy deletion of the investigation [40] then the admin restored the information of the investigation [41] but again Izzedine blanked out the entire investigation page [42].

    I am shocked at this behavior and would like to see an investigation report on his behavior, I wonder is this kind of attitude acceptable or not. I wish you to take a look at this urgent matter as all his vandal-attacks are still unreverted. Neftchi (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Neftchi mixes lies with exaggeration. I withdrew the sockpuppet investigation as [on closer inspection] I thought it was mistaken, now I see he wants to use that against me, well perhaps he would benefit from a negative result of one. He has been edit-warring with several users recently, so you can take his moaning with a pinch of salt. Izzedine 03:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To start from the start Neftchi, no, it's not banned to say someone might be a problem editor, but the complaint has to be well substantiated. If, for example, an editor had a history of adding material that was not verifiable and keep re-adding it after it was replaced by sourced material. that might be an example of a 'problem editor.'
    For the rest, we have two issues, a contents issues with Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, which should be sorted out via, in the first instances, their talkpages, via discussion. My limited involvement with these types of issues has shown that sometimes citations are given which are not full; this can be a reason to replace material. However I should state I've been in discussion with User:Intelligent Mr Toad already on some of these issues, and warned him.
    The other is the sockpuppet issue which had now been withdrawn, thus, unless there's another more experienced admin who would like to comment/give advice, I believe the matter is closed.
    The important thing is to resolve the content issues by the prescribed process: involvement of additional editors, preferably including those 'neutral' in an Azerbaijan-Armenian context. I should also remind all the parties interested that there is a ArbCom decision which allows admins to place sanctions on those involved in Arm/Az articles if they see a need. Further comments from more experienced admins very welcome. Regards to all Buckshot06 (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zaferk keeps putting fraudulent templates on his userboard

    Specifically, he puts templates on his userboard falsely claiming that he is a Master Editor II; and that his userpage has suffered over 9,000 vandalisms! --Orange Mike | Talk 00:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So? Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as a user doesn't claim a position (admin, CU, etc...) falsely or otherwise violate WP:UP, I do not believe that your revert of his page was appropriate. Tarc (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when did we police adding these 'medals'? And "over 9000" is an internet meme. Fences&Windows 01:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My reaction when seeing the UP was that he'd maybe somehow "fool" a newbie into thinking he was actually a veteran editor. As said above, don't sweat it, OM. cheers, --guyzero | talk 04:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with Tarc, as long as he isn't trying to deceive anyone, he can put anything on there he wants. The 'master editor' definition is arbitrary, unofficial, and silly, so it isn't really something to enforce a definition of. Prodego talk 04:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Longer explanation at User talk:QueenofBattle#User:Zaferk. Prodego talk 05:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to quote two things from the top of this page. "You must notify any user that you discuss." "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." I see neither of these. Why not? I've now notified Zaferk. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 13:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Thejadefalcon, Tarc, Hersfold and everyone else for all your kind support. Orange Mike appears to have a personal vendetta against me for whatever asinine reason, but its of no concern, I'm going to take the high ground and leave it here. --Zaferk (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The farce of Wikipedia's user space conventions

    Is there a single user page template on this site that acutally has an official meaning? We have service templates that don't reflect 'service' (and whatever anyone thinks, these do have an agreed meaning by consensus, however pointless they may be), we have retired templates that don't mean you are 'retired', we have indef block templates that can't be put on indef blocked users (who can instead pretend to have retired) etc etc etc. It is so stupid. I've heard all sorts of reasons and arguments for this nonsense situation, all of which assume that all editors are competent in such things as checking contribs and block logs, and none of which ever address the basic point - making Wikipedia's user communication systems look totally nonsensical to new users is Not a Good Thing. Combined with the fact users regularly get away with abusing the talk page with crap like this and this, shows the whole idea of Wikipedia having any kind of normalised interface for communication that you would find in any other so called community is an utter farce, and unsurprisingly imo the opinions of 'so what' et al usually come from users that have been here so long they probably cannot even remember a time when the internals of Wikipedia wasn't second nature to them. /rant. MickMacNee (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You have a point there. But yeah, so what. Why waste energy on policing what users have on their user page?--Atlan (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I am sure somewhere around here some fool keeps banging on about how Wikipedia is a community of editors, and communities as I know them usually operate with certain norms and conventions. In the real world, I can't go around calling myself a Veteran of anything if I am not, or claim to visitors that I am simply on holiday when in reality I have been locked up for being an arse, or smack people in the face when they knock on my front door to simply speak to me. Yet in the nut-house that is the WP 'community', it's all ok seemingly. MickMacNee (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:203.45.210.58 is vandalising David Thorne (writer)

    Please block this article from being edited.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Dempsey (talk • contribs)

    Ignore this, see report below. The editor here is the real vandal. --BlackAce48 (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How am I a vandal? I have contributed to the page several times. User:203.45.210.58 has continually added vandalism to the page over last week. ?? Simon Dempsey (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Simon Dempsey

    He may be reverting in good faith, but he has exceeded the 3RR by reverting [six times] in less than 24 hours. I gave him a [warning] but I thought I'd report it here to get input from other editors. --BlackAce48 (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    I recieved your warning and I understand. Was reverting information that is being vandalised. I have reported the vandal. Simon Dempsey (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's good, I clearly understand that you were trying to revert vandalism, but keep WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR in mind. Reverting six times in less than 24 hours can be viewed as disruptive though by some. I understand you weren't however. --BlackAce48 (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we're done here unless other users want to comment. User was not being disruptive. --BlackAce48 (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reverting vandalism and removing content that is libelous towards living persons is not subject to WP:3RR. The question is if this is considered vandalism or libelous. If someone has that issue of Wired we can see if it discusses him in the negative light and whether or not it is a viable source. However, then it is up to the community to decide if the content is allowable. However, this does not give anyone the right to do revert anything without discussion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the article in question. No mention of David Thorne that I can see. Seems like pretty clear vandalism/defamation to me. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Content added by troll

    The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/27bslash6 (now locked) contains a line of text by a troll that links to a reference that has nothing to do with either David Thorne or the article regarding 27bslash6. The link is about a girl who became famous on the internet. The girl has nothing to do with 27bslash6 or David Thorne and is a ridiculous addition to the article. The user (203.45.210.58) seems to be using the article as a personal vendetta. Possibly for having a comment deleted from the webpage in question.

    I request the content "Comments can be left on the website, although it has been reported that notoriously David Thorne erases or modifies any remarks that criticize, mock or minimize the quality of his work. [9]" to be removed by administration. I also request that this page be permanently locked. Simon Dempsey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    I have blocked the IP for edit warring after a final warning to stop thanked Simon Dempsey for reverting the edit. Extraordinary claims of bad behavior require a proper source, and I suspect the IP was simply trolling or attempting to settle a grudge. The page will not be permanently locked(we call it protected), its protection will expire at 02:35, 11 December 2009. If there are further problems after that time you can come to my talk page. Chillum 03:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, I am the administrator who protected the page; I explained the action here. See also the talk page discussion. Regards  Skomorokh  05:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban of User:TrEeMaNsHoE?

    • Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of TrEeMaNsHoE
    • Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of TrEeMaNsHoE
    • This user was indef blocked in late October. They began socking right away. A few days ago, I extended the standard offer to them. Since then at least 2 new socks have been detected and blocked. In order to simplify the process of dealing with these socks, I propose this editor be banned. Their behavior has been uniformly disruptive, and they have clearly indicated they are unwilling/unable to conform to Wikipedia policies, especially our core concept of respecting consensus. Several of the socks were confirmed by CheckUser, and at least one of them has admitted it anyway [43], adding that they "had an urge to edit false things." This is quickly heading into WP:LTA territory, and the sooner a ban is in place the simpler it will be to deal with. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban. This, being completely biased, as I've blocked some of the socks based on WP:DUCK, including TVCamera (talk · contribs), ReadBedHouse (talk · contribs) and ComputerBasketball (talk · contribs). Reasoning can be found here. — ξxplicit 04:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban. Creating socks specifically in order to vandalize the project while asking to return as an editor is disruptive enough IMO that a ban is appropriate. --NellieBly (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for what it is worth. There is no way in heck any admin would unblock this person, and such serial sockers are a "block all on sight" for admins with Duck-detecting skills and checkusers alike. Usually, there's no need to formally ban a user that stands no chance of being allowed back into the fold under their current behavior. Of course, if they actually obey the Standard offer, that may change, but given their behavior up till now, the ban already effectively exists. --Jayron32 05:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban of TrEeMaNsHoE. Before the socking business started he showed that he was unwilling to follow consensus on disputed articles. See this version of his talk page for a glimpse of his previous editing style. This is not a formerly productive user who got carried away. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the ban, disagree with standard offer. It doesn't have community consensus and shouldn't be extended willy nilly.--Crossmr (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The standard offer is intended to be standard. Unless there are serious reasons to take it off the table (serious offsite harassment et. al.), six months of non-socking is usually enough time to consider a return if the person promises to stop the problematic behavior. Community members are free to agree with the concept or not; it's a baseline for discussion. Durova371 05:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the community or an admin indef blocks or bans a user, they aren't doing so with the idea in mind that some editor is going to come along in 6 months and undo it when everyone has mostly forgotten about it. So until it gains consensus it shouldn't be offered to anyone or considered "standard".--Crossmr (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's a misunderstanding then. SO doesn't presume that all bans expire at 6 months; it doesn't welcome any passing admin to unblock. It does provide a time frame for reopening a discussion (as long as socking doesn't appear to have occurred and the individual promises to stop the problem behavior). This offers people who are willing to reform a reasonable incentive to reform. Durova371 06:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • An idea to which the community hasn't agreed to. Currently they agree to ban a user because they've had enough of them. They didn't agree to ban them for 6 months and revisit the issue especially when most of the people involved in the discussion are unaware of this "offer" and aren't notified when its put back on the table.--Crossmr (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • (EC with above) What she said. The Standard Offer basically says "don't ask for another unblock for 6 months, because no-one is going to bother even considering it." Not "you will be unblocked in 6 months." That being said, every Standard Offer discussion I have ever started, where the blocked user in question actually abided by the Offer, ended up leading to an unblock, but there was an extensive community discussion before the unblock. It's a set of conditions that must be upheld, not a "get out of jail free" card. (after EC), except there is always a discussion, and the principles involved the first time are always notified. At least, every single time I have initiated such a discussion at ANI, I have always notified everyone involved the previous time. --Jayron32 06:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • The principles aren't good enough. If the community has come together to ban a user, the community needs to be notified that there is an unban proposal. They weren't banned by the principals.--Crossmr (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Wikipedia:Standard offer says very clearly that a discussion will take place at AN or ANI prior to action. Durova371 06:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • What part of there is no consensus for that do you have trouble understanding? You don't have consensus for it, so what it says is pretty meaningless. If you're going to re-open a matter that the community came together to decide, you need to notify everyone who took part in that. Otherwise you're using an essay without consensus to do an end run around community consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • So let me get this straight. Community consensus is enough to ban someone, but it cannot unban anyone? I don't get why the initial ban discussion, held at ANI, can be used to kick someone off of Wikipedia, but a second "unban" discussion, also held at ANI, cannot be used to return them to the fold? I just don't understand how the same standard of "community consensus" is being applied differently in each case? Are you seriously argueing that once someone is banned, they may never be unbanned, even by a discussion in the same venue that decided on the ban? I am thoroughly confused by your position. --Jayron32 07:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Because as I pointed out a couple months ago on the essay talk page, and which received no further reply, All of the editors who may have been interested in the discussion in the first place may not be aware that someone is going to bring it back up in 6 months. they expected the individual to be gone and no further mind paid to it. That is the point of a community ban. The individual has exhausted the communities patience. The initial ban discussion could attract several times the editors who might catch the unban discussion, because some people may not watch AN/I or participate it in it regular but have held an opinion on the the original discussion because of an interaction with the user. All of those people who gave their opinion before would be discounted as they are not "principles" and wouldn't be notified.--Crossmr (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The essay is fine - it just writes out a process that can happen anyway, with or without "consensus" that it's acceptable. The idea that there may be fewer participants in an unban discussion than a ban discussion is interesting, but unproven. The theory that the results might be different because of the supposed differing level of participation is also unproven. Unless you have data to support your belief that there is a fundamental difference in principle between a ban discussion and an unban discussion at the same forum that provides the former with legitimacy but not the latter, we should continue to regard them as equivalent. And by data, I mean scientific data of a statistically significant sample. Nathan T 16:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (outdent) What used to happen before SO was written was that banned editors would hang around and make political allies who would initiate unban discussions any ol' time they chose. As often as they thought they could get away with it. Putting a reasonable schedule onto it is a step forward. At any rate, editors in good standing are free to form opinions and express them. It would be nonsensical to suppress open discussion by telling a group of people who agree with an essay that they may not say so. Durova371 16:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nathan you can look at the betacommand unblock for evidence of that. There were many people who missed it, and in fact even after he was unblocked several people who had found out about it showed up to protest. A community ban often involves a lot of people for any remotely controversial editor. Waiting until everyone has basically forgotten about it and then bringing it up again when they don't expect it and aren't informed is an attempt to subvert a previous consensus as far as I'm concerned. Unless the community specifically agreed to wait 6 months and talk it out again. It could be tantamount to forum shopping. Simply waiting for everyone to forget and then picking a day when there seems to be a favorable crowd on the noticeboard. No drama would mean a very quick resolution and a short time for everyone to notice it. If editors were creating allies to continually initiate discussions and incite drama, then that can be dealt with with existing policies, like those against disruptive editing.--Crossmr (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Since you bring it up, what is Betacommand doing now that he deserves to be reblocked? Yeah, people who wanted to see him never come back may be pissed, but it isn't anyones job to decide how those people are going to feel. If it upsets you, that is great. You get to have any emotional response that makes you happy, and if being pissed about Betacommand being back is what you want to do, that's fine. But have you found any fault with what he has done since being back? You will never count me as a "fan" or "ally" of Betacommand, but since his return has he done anything at all which would cause you to think he needs to go again? --Jayron32 19:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One incident, particularly of a very high profile editor and former administrator, is not significant in terms of data. I'm just trying to adhere to your standards for interpreting events here. The idea that an unban discussion is invalid if it doesn't involve all of the same people as the ban discussion is novel, and has no consensus. In order for consensus to form, you'd need to present significant evidence that your approach is warranted. Nathan T 16:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A broader discussion of WP:OFFER may be in order at the village pump or something. I extended the offer in the hope that Treemanshoe might be able to exercise the necessary self control, but he returned to socking withn just a few days, so as far as I'm concerned the deal is off, hence the ban discussion. Some users have noted that a defacto ban is already in place, which is more or less accurate, but with a ban we don't have to waste our time dealing with further unblock requests from either the main account or the socks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban per Beeblebrox's original proposal. Durova371 21:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence of bribery for favorable user statements & related AfD

    Resolved
     – Misunderstanding cleared up OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll try to make it short-- Starting with the trainwreck that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uwe Kils (2nd nomination), Brings me to involved party talk page and this post, End up seeing this text, with "request" carried out [44] [45].


    The connotation is bribery, or at bare minimum a person favor done for a highly involved editor in exchange for 'Wikipedia Karma'? Still bribery. Alleged briber has used supposed large cash donations as a reason for the reversal of an indefinite blocking, to show a history of such ridiculous statements. Similar to a legal threat I figured this should be reported, with no ANIsearch results. That AfD has been tainted and is about 90% content to be ignored, it arguably (weak argument) outs editors of apparently-similar affiliations, and the opinion given from the "bribed" above was one of the few that actually helped the discussion. I know we can't just wipe an AfD and pretend it didn't happen, but a means forward would be nice. I'd personally close as non-admin no consensus since there isn't any forming whatsoever, but I deemed myself with a COI to the article in question after discovering past administrator abuses and these talk postings from persons related to and contributors to that article. With the WP:FANATIC style of edits people seemed scared off, and close as no consensus would allow an open future at least. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see the bribery at all. Could you lay it out plainly, or else strike that portion of the report? Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. The observed pattern may represent canvassing, and that alone is serious enough to warrant scrutiny, even if there has been no bribery. Jehochman Talk 05:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WTF? I don't see any evidence of bribery. I do see, as Jehochman notes, serious off-site canvassing and lots of SPA's. It may be possible that said professor has asked his students to defend his article, but there is absolutely no actual evidence of that. As an aside, once you weed out all of the obvious SPA and canvassed bullshit, I still see enough "keep" or "weak keep" votes from established Wikipedians to indicate this article will likely be kept. Which is a little bit of a shame, since it would make it appear as though the canvassing (and not the inherant notability of the subject) was what saved it. But c'est la vie. I don't see any unusual shenanigans going on here. Just the standard AFD shenanigans that we run into every day... --Jayron32 06:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm 99% sure it's not a truly direct incident, but even 1% is enough to post anything legal. General pattern: Blocked user repeatedly asks for an unblock because of "40ooo" donated. Responding admins blow this off, of course. User is unblocked, and soon after is left a Template:Tk post, to a message which informs them that they specifically gave a particular opinion in an AfD, discussed in talk here. Even if in jest, it's still a personal favor done for a subversive reason in a highly disputed AfD where any one statement from a neutral user could highly tip consensus. This is just part of the canvassing-- that comes from the bulk of users with few other posts, as tagged. Again.... unlikely as hell, but it was still a direct benefit to the person's cause (the article being about themselves). ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    3 users total contacted with messages left. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC) ...I think I'll just try to ignore that last comment fro Jayron32.[reply]
    Which comment? --Jayron32 06:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think some things might be lost in translation here. Are you saying the user bribed the Wikimedia Foundation with the donations he claims to have made over the years? AniMate 06:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)This section is a direct solicitation mentioning money offered to Wikipedia while advocating a certain stance. It's a user bribing another editor. Nothing to do with Wikipedia itself. I apologize for not making that clear. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem confused Datheisen. Where precisely is this editor being "bribed"? --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what he's saying is that by broadcasting the fact that he's donated 40,000 dollars to the Foundation users feel they have to agree with him at AfDs? Is that right? AniMate 06:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. Same user tried to worm out of an indefinite block issued over legal threats to the foundation the same way. (Unblock was proper though) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I get what you're saying, but I think you are reading too much into it. In all cases, the editor mentions (among many other things) that he has donated money to Wikipedia. However, I don't think you can even say it was an indirect solicitation for unblocks or AfD !votes in return for the donation, let alone direct solicitation. It just appears to be mentioned in the middle of a speech. Ultimately, the unblock was proper, and there's nothing to indicate the !vote was in return for the donation (other than !voter politely thanking the user for his donation during a coversation). I don't think there is anything ulterior going on here. Singularity42 (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No argument that the unblock was fine (I went through all of it several times.. I wouldn't want to waste anyone's time deliberately). Policies on those unblocks are clear. It's just kind of depressing that a first action back is to bounce claimed foundation money around for favors to save his own article. The target leading to the block and the subject of vote-shopping are both comical in this case, just as a side. I really doubt any deliberate harm done by the AfD discussion poster and they don't hit the same canvassing MO... but I'm still rather disgusted in how talk like that was used to at least try to persuade someone, like he was entitled to his article because he donated. Can talk further of that or act on it, and you're free to close as resolved if desired. I'm glad my 1% shot at this actually being coordinated as anything was false. Couldn't... not report it, I'm sorry. Not the sort of thing to ever, ever jest about. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see bribery, just incredible quantities of arrogance and entitlement. AAs he alreadyt gave the money, it's more about wheedling, or inveigling based on attempts to foment guilt, but as neither a further donation, nor personal payout, are conditional upon sufficient keeps, it's not a bribe. the AfD looks like a snow close, if any admin wants to wrap this tragic travesty up neatly. ThuranX (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    "'Request' carried out"? Please please please check your diffs more carefully. He requested my support after I voted. Also it seems to me like your last diff doesn't even make any sense. It was text accidentally removed by User:Ohnoitsjamie (and my edit summary describes as much. more detail here). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To be fair, I don't believe Datheisen really meant this to be a criticism of you, Arichnad. I think he is criticizing the actions of the other user and that user's "attempt" at persuading your !vote. You just happened to be the editor that user was trying to persuade. It's that user's actions that Datheisen was trying to raise here. Singularity42 (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I understand that point of view. And I would agree 100% with that point of view. But Datheisen's words say otherwise. Specifically "'request' carried out" and "favor done" are to what I'm referring. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Gah, I'm soooooo sorry. Singularity42 is correct on intention. You're just the person who happened to get the statement flaunted at. "request carried out" is the narrative to finish out a "how", and I screwed up on wording, plain and simple. I spend a ridiculous amount of time researching most matters but I'm not perfect. I said above that I doubted anything on your end whatsoever, and only left you a message about the ANI as a courtesy because you would recognize the subject. NOT because of suspicious.Use my talk page for any needed anger to vent, please. This can be done with I do hope. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, ok, that's fine. It is no problem. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's OK with everyone, I'm going to mark this as resolved. As the AFD initiator, I've been following the "trainwreck"; as mentioned earlier here, Arichnad made one of the few cogent arguments in support of the article (while correctly noting the meatpuppetry and shameful COI). All I saw from Kils was his repeated mantra of "I donated lots of money to Wikipedia so I should have an article," which is more of a blatant misunderstanding of how things work around here than an offer of a bribe to anyone in particular. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relating to this, may I call your attention to the userpage of User:Sylvia klein. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 17:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been trying to work out what this meant since I got involved with this AfD. (I !voted Keep, but am not an SPA, a sock puppet or a meat puppet - or even a puppet on a string, and no-one has offered ME a bribe. No-one ever does...) The whole business is peculiar - is having an article THAT important? Peridon (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone please do something about User:Hasbro sp.

    Resolved
     – Blocked for 24 hours. GedUK  10:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hasbro sp has been introducing original research and POV to articles. Point of focus in this case is an edit to Karai. I explained the matter to him, pointing him to the relevant policy pages and gave him a few warnings after he kept at it. I'd discuss the problem with his edits further, but I get such gems as this, this and this. In short, he doesn't need sources or comply to policy because he's older than me, seen all the episodes, worked at all the companies that had anything to do with the subject, I have stupid intelligence and lack self-respect (or something). I can't argue with that, but maybe someone else can.--Atlan (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for a day. GedUK  10:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ford GT (ongoing)

    TheBalance continued WP:POV, WP:OWN, and WP:WAR violations in Ford GT article. WP:COPY is no longer an issue.

    • Previously archived discussion: [46]
    • Current 3RR violation: [47]

    Again earlier I had added multiple 1/4 mile performance figures taken for the FGT since the only listed figure is not representative of the FGT's actual performance. TheBalance keeps reverting them to only include the very best time tested by Motor Trend.

    A list of major US magazines: [48] Car and Driver ranked #69 Motor Trend ranked #85

    Taken from Motor Trend:

    • [49] 11.2 sec @ 131.2 mph (single figure TheBalance wants in article)
    • [50] 11.6 sec @ 126.2 mph
    • [51] 11.78 sec @ 124.31 mph

    From Car and Driver:

    • [52] 11.6 sec @ 128 mph
    • [53] 12.0 sec @ 123 mph (new time I found)

    From Road and Track:

    • [54] 11.7 sec @ 125.8 mph

    I thought this had been settled by including all the times tested (that I could find) by Motor Trend, which includes the ringer's time instead TheBalance reverted my edit again to include on the rigner [55]. This time adding a discussion to my talk page. [56] which I responded to [57]. Mr.Sakaki (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The attempt at discussion is good; the continued removal of sourced material and reinsertion of comments that imply article ownership most definitely isn't. Where there are differences between sources, we typically provide the fullest possible information and allow the reader to make up their own mind; there's no reason at all to remove the full range of figures leaving only the best. I've re-blocked TheBalance for 48 hours; review welcome as always. EyeSerenetalk 10:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks I'm going to again add the two other Motor Trend 1/4 mile performance figures, I really can't see a good reason to remove them. Mr.Sakaki (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no problem with that. I should perhaps mention that my administrative action was taken only to address the disruption, which was why I didn't touch the article itself. However, this board isn't for resolving content disputes and as long as there's no further edit-warring on the article, settling that will be between you and TheBalance. It might be worth asking for a third opinion or trying some of the other measures listed at WP:DR. As I mentioned above though, I think TheBalance will have a very hard time making a case for excluding all but the best performance figure. If they object to a long list of figures, mentioning the range (ie lowest and highest) might be one compromise solution. EyeSerenetalk 11:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:English Bobby & Personal Attacks

    Not sure if this is the appropriate forum, WP:NPA was not much help. The language used on AN/I means it is blocked on my computer by the family filter. So apologies if I'm in the wrong place.

    There has been long term low level incivility against a number of editors on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar, the editor seems to have a bit of an issue with the confusion between British and English. The personal attacks crossed a line today referring to another editor as senile [58]. I've already removed the attack once but the editor has reverted.

    Not sure what to do, its seems it will simply escalate if I take further action. Justin talk 16:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Calling me a kid when i'm 24 is insulting so i think i'll take the time to complain about personal attacks while here. Also repeatedly poking at my spelling and calling me a troll are pretty uncivil. I would also like to point out justins bias when dealing with these issues, "failing" to notice any abuse against me whilst constantly harrassing me. As for the apparent insult, i said old people can go senile, i did not say gibnews was senile since i've no idea how old he is! Gibnews and Justin have being trying to gang up on me (and others) since i got here.--English Bobby (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Pls do not change the heading again. Justin talk 17:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh come on, bobby. Word-lawyering is not going to get you out for this; you were just making a general comment about old people, were you? Editing on the disputed status of Gibraltar, a completely unrelated topic, and it what, slipped out? I call bullshit on that. Ironholds (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe he restarted that conversation not me, and also that you are ignoring their uncivil attitude! What relevence does my spelling have on a talk page hmm, not enough to constantly have it ridiculed.--English Bobby (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As for the assuming, i could say gibnew's comment about kids and spelling was probably not a woefull look at our countries education system but more an attack against me. Either way i'm in the wrong as much as he is.--English Bobby (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My only interaction with User:English Bobby has been to revert changes that remove cited material to replace with uncited material and to provide links to relevant policy such as WP:CITE, WP:NPA, WP:RS and WP:V. I presume the troll reference is related to these exchanges [59] & [60]. They refer to User:English Bobbys edit warring on 11-12 October 2009 diff [61] for which I issued a 3RR warning here [62], though I never followed through with a 3RR report as I generally don't like to do that with new users if I can avoid it. I did genuinely try to help a new user but when it simply resulted in personal attacks directed towards myself I concluded he was simply out for a wind up. I probably shouldn't have called him a troll but in my defence his behavious was trollish and on one occasion I explained policy to him no less than 4 times before I made the troll remark. This user does seem to have some serious problems with civility for example see [63],[64]. Justin talk 18:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The help i asked for was not that which you repeated 4 times as i pointed out. You wouldn't listen to what i was saying and continued to be aggressive. I don't know whether you were genuinely trying to help or not but i can assure you (from my side) it didn't work. Back to the whole issue that started this, the British/English thing, i reckon you know Britain didn't exist in 1704 and are only supporting Gibnews through comradeship.

    As for the issue i had with the Turkish Gent, firstly thats not really anything to do with you and secondly i didn't take kindly to being called a joker by him. (Don't believe i insulted him). Anyway i didn't come strait here to try and block him, because i didn't care.--English Bobby (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I did draw this editors attention to wp:npa after being called 'a unionist' which I am not, and his assertion that 'I am not English' because I disagree with his very narrow POV that there were no British people before the Act of Union, which is not what the references say. I think its desirable for anyone writing in the English wikipedia to have a decent grasp of the language, so that others do not have to rewrite their contributions and its courtesy to take the trouble to express oneself properly on talk pages and not to indulge in 'txt speak' and badly capitalised words. Particularly if one is on a crusade for England. --Gibnews (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    When i make contributions i make sure i spell correctly. When i'm talking on the talk pages i'm not so fussed. Also whereas i said your not English (i thought your Gibraltarian) i never said your not British. I think this shows how you cannot tell British from English. And i'm not a "crusader for England" just because edit words or statements that are wrong. Unlike you i'm perfectly happy to work the other way (English to British where it should be).

    Finally, i'm getting tired of this little lynch mob your trying to muster against me. You won't work with me or anyone else since your both embroiled in an edit war with someone else so please leave me alone.--English Bobby (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no 'lynch mob' one editor has complained about your attitude and referred it here as an appropriate place for action. For the record, English describes an ethnic origin, British is a nationality, and Gibraltarian is a status - look them up here - so its quite easy to be all three. Its also immaterial to editing wikipedia, however, I most certainly know the difference. You suffer from an attitude. Wikipedia relies on references, not your opinion, and if reliable references say British - as they do - that is what stands. There may not have been a UK before the Act of Union but there were most certainly British people who did things and all the Act did was formalise the status quo. But I have already explained this. --Gibnews (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Try reading these. Act of Security 1704 passed by the SCOTTISH Government. Alien Act passed by the ENGLISH Government, (Which among other things declared Scots to be alien nationals in England). Hardly the actions of a status quo situation. The Alien Act by my country proves that there was no British nationality or communion of any sort before 1707. Then again user Pfainuk tried to explain this to you but because of your own narrow opions you didn't listen.--English Bobby (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's all take a step back here. Insinuating that another editor is "a kid", especially in a demeaning manner, is a personal attack. Insinuating that another editor is old and senile is also a personal attack. Speculating on other editors' motives or backgrounds is uncivil, as it is a discussion of the editor rather than the issue. I'd invite everyone here to take a step back, breathe a bit, and then: 1) Drop it. 2) Discuss the issue rather than one another, preferably utilizing reliable sources. 3) Seek dispute resolution rather than sniping if you can't come to an agreement. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm willing to discuss the issue, though i'm not hopeful for a quick solution.--English Bobby (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I see lots of biting the newcomer by Justin A Kuntz, in addition to blatant and repeated abuse of the rollback tool during a content dispute. 2 lines of K303 15:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There's another report above about another Gibralter article, this time in a dispute with the Spanish. That dispute clarifies this dispute I feel - Justin and Gibnews are determined to establish beyond all doubt that Gibralter is British - hence repelling the Spanishes. Because of this, they are reading English Bobby's perfectly correct pointing out that certain meanings of the term "Britain" and "British" are not applicable prior to certain constitutional events occurring in these islands (such as the Act of Union, as a threat to the status of Gibralter. It perhaps needs to be pointed out that Spain cannot take Gibralter back because of what it says in a Wikipedia article, and Gibnews's status as a Gibraltarian and a British citizen are not threatened by the article either. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC) =[reply]

    Part of the problem with this dispute is that most of the reliable sources that have been brought up use "British" and "Britain". Presumably, the authors of such sources have either not considered that 1704 is before 1707 or have decided to simplify the issue. The only other wording I think I've seen is "Anglo-Dutch", which I don't consider definitive since the "Anglo-" prefix is frequently used for the UK. I don't think any of the sources we have say that it was an English (and Dutch) force, as English Bobby wants us to say, as opposed to a Scottish (and Dutch) force or a joint English-Scottish (and Dutch) force. We can make a strong argument that it probably was an English (and Dutch) force, but not without original synthesis.
    This discussion started due to an incident on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar. Ironically enough, that that article doesn't actually claim that Britain captured Gibraltar in 1704 and hasn't done since late August - the only wording it uses to describer the nationality of the captors is the aforementioned "Anglo-Dutch force". There are plenty of things wrong with that article, but this isn't one of them. Pfainuk talk 18:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The (modern) English have a habit of referring to themselves as British, even when referring to their ancestors at a time when there quite clearly was no Britain (eg referring to Queen Elizabeth I's British navy). The Scots don't do this - I'm not sure even now that many Scots think of themselves as British. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    But as you said yourself Pfainuk, if a source is clearly wrong then that should be taken in to account. Looking back i think the points you made were correct and still apply. As for what Elen of the Roads said, i think your completly right about gibnews and justins motives (and well put).--English Bobby (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    But it's already taken into account on that article (Disputed status of Gibraltar) - as I say, the article doesn't use any of those sources, and does not claim that it was "Britain" or "British" forces that captured Gibraltar. Talk pages are intended to be used to discuss potential improvements to an article, and the discussion that prompted this ANI was not such a discussion. Rather, it focussed on the removal of a claim that had already been removed two weeks before the discussion began. Pfainuk talk 20:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is quite a different matter to the eternal wrangling with the Spanish over Gibraltar. In 1713 it was ceded to the Crown of Great Britain under article X of the Treaty of Utrecht. I don't need to do anything apart from cite that to show that Gibraltar is British, Ellen. However, Wikipedia relies on sources and the sources generally say British forces occupied Gibraltar in 1704. Although this was prior to the Act of Union which created the UK, the Wikipedia article British People is clear in asserting that as such they existed BEFORE that date. The Official Royal Navy Website says British, and that is in common use on inscriptions on monuments All these have been dismissed by English Bobby because of his opinion. Now I have not complained, or solicited a complaint, but POV warriors who do not read references given and engage in abuse, are tedious.
    However, as noted the language was altered to overcome the uncertainty, which I approve of. --Gibnews (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Donkeyherder1 and User:Donkeyherder2

    Resolved

    page deleted, users blocked/ warned by Tnxman307 HJMitchell You rang? 15:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

    These two users (almost unambiguously the same person) have been doing nothing but disrupt Wikipedia over the last 2 days. Between them, their edits consist of nothing but User:Donkeyherder1 (at AfD after a contested prod) where one of them removed the AfD tag and is obviously determined to avoid the page's deletion and Bob Dole, which leads me to my greater concern. Donkeyherder1 created User:Donkeyherder1/Bob dole Hitler song (blanked and tagged as a G10) which, aside from the misuse of userspace, serves no purpose but to slander (you guessed it...) Bob Dole. Another editor has, thus far, given them the benefit of the doubt but, having discovered that page, I think administrator intervention is now required. HJMitchell You rang? 14:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Found the attack userspace deleted, as shown by this. Did you file a formal warning to this account? - Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 14:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I deleted the attack page, closed the AfD, blocked the second account, and gave a final warning to the first account. TNXMan 14:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Marshal of the Soviet Union

    User IP 201.6.44.137 has been bring up an arguement that was already settled several years ago as to whether Stalin was Political or Political Army. It was agreed already on the discussion page he was purely Political he is still insistant and persistant. Please can the Admins fix the page and protect it. Staygyro (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please use WP:RPP for protection requests. This board is not a venue for dispute resolution.  Sandstein  16:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this an issue? This IP made one edit to this article, and in fact has only ever made two edits on Wikipedia. You have made no attempt to communicate to the IP other than to say "Can you stop this? seriously." I fail to see any problem here other than yourself biting the newcomers. Looking through the history of the article, there is no insistent and persistent changes to the article. Canterbury Tail talk 17:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyvio images moved to Commons

    I'm not sure how it's happened, but File:Kimokbin2006.jpg and File:Kimokbin2009.jpg -- both of them listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 November 20 -- have been moved to Commons by File Upload Bot. Is there anything anyone here can do about it, or do I need to take it up over on Commons? PC78 (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have tagged the Commons files for deletion as copyvios. – ukexpat (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Much obliged. PC78 (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, both now deleted from Commons. – ukexpat (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Help with copyright violation on new article

    In doing New Page Patrol, I found the article ArchiAfrika cut and paste the text from the web site relating to the subject. I tagged it as G12, but someone keeps removing the tag without addressing the crux of the copyright violation. Can someone please provide help on this? Thank you. Warrah (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been deleted by Tanthalas39. TNXMan 16:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sweet. :) Warrah (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for oversight or revision hiding

    An editor has posted a statement indicating that they are 13 years old on this very message board yet no one removed it. This is the second such incident I am aware of involving this particular user (the other one was removed some time ago). It may be time to consider if this particular user is capable of contributing in a responsible manner, and to formulate a different approach toward protecting underage users of WP. User not notified, but feel free to address the issue with them (and good luck with that). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Which Wikipedia policy has been broken? Aside from learning someone's age, what have they disclosed that's cause for concern? If you really wanted oversight you would have emailed oversight directly rather than attract attention to something that was likely missed over by 99% of editors by starting this thread. NJA (t/c) 17:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do really want oversight (or revision hiding, whichever is appropriate in this case) - I've found this method to be more expedient. I believe that there is general agreement that identifying information posted by minors, or information that identifies editors as minors, is unacceptable due to safety concerns. If you feel that the sad lack of policy on this means that it should not be done, please feel free to undo my deletion of that information and close this topic. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Anonymous 13-year-olds aren't a problem. We don't need to worry until they start posting personally identifiable information. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    However on second thought I suppose if you look at it in a paranoid type of way, this innocent disclosure could put the user on the radar of some creeper. I will do what should have been done initially by the person who created this thread and email oversight and they can decide what they want to do. NJA (t/c) 18:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that oversight has been contacted. Revision hiding is impracticable on a page such as this with thousands of edits. Next time if you think something is truly sensitive, treat it as such. NJA (t/c) 18:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's wise to remove this type of information. I don't think there is any need to panic about it, especially when it was originally posted here anyway. Information that I feel is "truly sensitive" I deal with differently, but thanks for the advice. If you feel that no policy has been broken, and that there is no concern about a 13 year old publicly disclosing their age on WP, why haven't you restored their comments? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, maybe the second post where I stated why I too think it was unwise for the disclosure to be made was missed by you? However, I honestly don't get this whole thing, ie you removed it, meaning no one else was likely to see it unless they randomly read every single diff made to this page (which can be hundreds a day). But then you create this thread with this attention grabbing heading to bring direct attention to the very edit. How is that meant to protect them? It really has me confused, but I suppose you'll have to explain to others' as my weekend is about to begin. Cherrio, NJA (t/c) 18:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I saw that but it was phrased in such a way ("paranoid", "innocent disclosure", "creeper") as to make me wonder if you had reversed your earlier position or if you were simply willing to let the oversight folks decide if it was appropriate. I'm still not sure, since you seem to be more concerned about my actions here than about the issue of minors disclosing information that may put them at risk. One of my reasons for posting here is that, as you may note, I did not quote the policy that was broken here, because I am unaware of such a policy existing. I am aware of an RFA which came to some conclusions and outlined some steps to be taken, but that was 2006 and nothing much appears to have happened since then. There is a brief essay at WP:CHILD but it is neither policy nor guideline and says , more or less, handle each case as it comes up. I don't believe that is sufficient and attention is needed on this issue. Enjoy your weekend - perhaps we can continue the discussion on Monday! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as there is no other identifying information, I don't see any reason that a statement of age should be a bad thing, and certainly not deserving of oversight (especially since we have no way of telling if they are even honest about it). I can tell you that I am 68 years old, and that gives you almost zero information about me. Now, information such as province, school location, address, phone number, real name, or the like is a very different case, and if that is combined with age data would make for an immediate e-mail to an oversighter. Sodam Yat (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    An "immediate email to an oversighter" based on which policy or guideline? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mostly off of point #3 under Wikipedia:Requests for oversight, which does mention that it is used for excessive revelation of information, combined with the information further down the page on how to request oversight. Email and IRC are mentioned, but I don't do IRC that much. I mistyped to number, corrected from the original #2.Sodam Yat (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) "Removal of non-public personal information, such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public. This includes hiding revisions made by editors who were accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses." --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Requests for oversight is neither a guideline nor a policy. WP:Oversight is a procedural policy. Neither specifically deals with the issue of underage editors. The application of oversight or revision hiding to this type of information (ie disclosure of information by minors) is done (fairly routinely). Why don't we have a policy in place to inform minors of the community's expectation of their conduct on this site and to follow in these cases, rather than have discussions like this one each time something like this comes up? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was working on an understanding that the Requests page was spun out of policy, since it is fully protected and stable, and is an extension of a procedural policy. If this is not the case, then I am mistaken. As for your question, it will have to be addressed by users more familiar with it than I. Sodam Yat (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD for the 2009 White House gatecrash incident

    The epic deletion battle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 White House gatecrash incident has been "withdrawn" by the nominator. I'm not sure if that is appropriate, since there were some pro-deletion arguments aside from the nominator. I also don't think the closing itself was done properly, as the formatting on the AFD is all weird and the AFD tags are stil on the article. Someone more knowledgeable about this than me should take a look at it. --Blargh29 (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reopened it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought I saw that if the nominator withdraws the AFD, the AFD ends. From a practical standpoint, reopening seems ok unless I fail to see a point. If the nominator withdraws the AFD then it's suppose to close and another user can re-submit the AFD again. Can anyone cite the exact rule? I suggested having all the rules in one place before but an administrator told me to fuck off. Later, I found that a Wikipedia trustee has exactly the same idea of creating a one stop rule book place. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If a nomination is withdrawn, it is closed iff nobody else has commented in favor of deletion. If someone had called for deletion and their reasoning does not heavily hinge on the nominator's statement, then it remains open. I don't recall where this is documented or even if it is, but that's standard practice. Many of Wikipedia's procedures are simply undocumented precedent. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You may be looking for WP:SK. Tim Song (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jimmy Slade

    Jimmy Slade has been adding {{NYC-transport-stub}} tags to all NYC Transportation related articles (see his contributions page and is not willing to stop, or even acknowledge or respond to comments. A few of many examples:

    This even prompted a discussion on the Talk:South Ferry – Whitehall Street (New York City Subway) page, in which the user demonstrated his confusion over what a WP:STUB is. We don't know if he ever read the explanations in that discussion, although he obviously did not heed them.

    Several messages were left on his User talk:Jimmy Slade page by myself and User:Acps110 trying to explain stubs, and asking him to stop adding the tags, and requesting edit summaries, although the user has a tendency to remove the comment or blank [72] [73] the page without a response, and continues the activity.

    He's been involved in a number of other controversies, such as marking user subpages as AFD (see his contribs from Dec 2-3) and this [74] talk page comment, since blanked. There are other controversies, namely reverts to edits on NYC Transit related pages, without explanations or edit summaries. The animation of the Wikipedia globe on his user page might also violate WP:USERPAGE, I'm not really sure.

    (A bit of disclosure -- you may see user Sme3 on some talk pages. That was me, before a recent user name change).

    I don't know what the appropriate action is. A temporary block? A topic-ban? A simple opportunity to explain himself? Could this rapid activity be the work of a bot? I'll leave it up to the experts/admins to decide. Me Three (talk to me) 18:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've notified Jimmy Slade and Acps110 of this thread. Mr. Slade has already removed the notification from his talk page. Me Three (talk to me) 18:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Me Three [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimmy_Slade&action=historysubmit&diff=329712734&oldid=329679439 notified] the editor in question. Just confirming this as the editor in question blanked their talk page. Basket of Puppies 18:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

    My guess is that the user is working off a bad understanding of English. The discussion on that talk page is almost incomprehensible, and I fear that he may be interpreting a stub as 'a smaller article of a whole' rather than 'a short article that needs expanding'. Probably an indef block until he acknowledges the problem would be appropriate, as he seems determined to ignore it otherwise. Sodam Yat (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As linked to above, he blanks a user subpage of mine and sends it to AFD [75] (should go to MFD, and certainly shouldn't have been blanked), I sent him a simple query on his talk page asking him what's up [76] and no reply (but he does blank it.. seems to love blanking). --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support indef block until he starts talking, and the reversion of his edits as vandalism where they are deemed inappropriate. Ironholds (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, user indef blocked. Someone more familiar with the situation than I am (other than a cursory examination of his/her inability to communicate) might want to explain on their user talk page what any circumstances of unblocking are. Tan | 39 19:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just want to say that I didn't intend for this to turn into an indef block for him; I'm a bit torn on what should be done. I've been reading the conversation since this block on his talk page. He has had his share of valid edits (mostly minor cleanup on articles) -- he just needs to state, in his own words, that if he doesn't understand a template or policy clearly, such as WP:STUB or WP:AFD, he won't touch them. I really don't think the guy has any malicious intent. Me Three (talk to me) 22:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree and we should probably discuss with him whether or not he is willing to change. Unfortunately, we might have already scared him off, unless he opened a new account already. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

    Resolved
     – wrong forum

    The article Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident has been locked down because a handful of the usual suspects, (one with a very prominent WP:COI) have been hell bent on shaping the article to reflect a very narrow POV. A lockdown of a current event article for this period of time seems excessive and unprecedented. I would ask that it be unprotected, and that 1RR be observed and enforced on it. WVBluefield (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please file a request at WP:RPP. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Am I knocking on the right door?

    I don't know if I am or not, but one of you will know more than I do: check out this diff; I've seen a half a dozen or more of these weird "welcomes" (from different IPs) go by. I'm going through manually replacing them with a 'real' welcome, but what is going on? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you could pull up more diffs it might be p[ossible to find an older, wiser admin than myself to do a rangeblock. I'll try leaving a note for the one ip identified so far. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to have stopped; I don't see them go by on Recent Changes. Diffs: [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]. Oops, sorry--those are my diffs for the corrections, but I hope it's good enough. (I'd redo it but I gotta powder my nose RIGHT NOW.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the anontalk spammer on open proxies, FYI. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Somehow I doubt that. Firstly, most open proxies are quickly blocked by WP. Second, the good mr. Alm always includes links to anontalk in his spam. Third, he uses a botnet, not proxies. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to disagree. Firstly, I block most of the open proxies. Second he has tried all sorts of vandalbot edits without his links. Third, he has no botnet - he uses publicly open proxies. I have little doubt this is him. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    New editor, new category, weird membership

    I left a note at User talk:Zerschmettert die Schändliche for this new editor who has just created Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship, and seems to be including every politician they can find into it. Is this pure vandalism? Is this something real? If it is, wouldn't it require a reference per WP:BLP? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a serious BLP problem. The Family is a standard whipping post for conspiracy theorists to "prove" that the U.S. is being secretly controlled by a group of power mad christian fundementalists. He needs to be told to stop ASAP, and if he does not, he should be blocked post-haste. --Jayron32 20:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I cleaned up a bunch, but you swept faster than I did. User:GB fan took care of a few of them also. "He needs to be told...": hey, you're the admin here! ;) Drmies (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As an admin, I have access to some special tools. However, I believe that a keyboard is availible for use even by non-admins. I seem to remember having access to a keyboard even before I was an admin. As such, even you could tell this user to stop (it looks like you have) and even you can notify them that you started this ANI discussion, which as the thread starter, you are required to do (but have not yet). I have also started a CFD discussion, found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 4 for anyone that wishes to comment on the issue. --Jayron32 20:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right; I have notified the editor. Sorry--I should have done that right away. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way "Zerschmettert die Schändliche" is German and means "crush the infamy" - Voltaire's call to fight the catholic church and the nobility, so this user is probably on a personal crusade. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 20:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have this sneaking suspicion that he might not even speak much English at all. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    New block evasion by User:InkHeart

    192.197.54.136, a previously confirmed sockpuppet of indef blocked user InkHeart, has resumed editing on a number of articles favoured by this user in the past. Only a handfull of new edits, but these include the removal of some valid templates at Lee Dong-wook [84], and the restoration of prior contributions at Park Si-yeon to reintroduce some nonsensical material to the lead and other unconstructive changes [85]. Clear block evasion, and not the first I've reported for this user recently. PC78 (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP claims to be used by the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, but I've softblocked it for while. Hope this helps; if the disruption keeps up, maybe we ought to think about article semiprotection instead (I was involved with them in their Colleen16 incarnation and seem to recall it's only a small set of articles). EyeSerenetalk 22:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers. This is starting to get a little tiresome, but we'll see how it goes. PC78 (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible eyes needed on article

    Just as a heads-up, I'm going to ask if we could get a few admins to keep their eyes on Eddie Fatu for a few hours; the subject of the article just passed away (in the past few minutes), and since he was a pro wrestler, I wouldn't be surprised to see his article targeted by vandals for a while. rdfox 76 (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Semi-protected until the 11th by AlexiusHoratius. Regards, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 23:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
    Additionally, i'll moniter the page. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 23:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=329767046"