Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Third opinion requested

This sockpuppetry case (filed by User:betsythedevine on May 11) was accusing User:Red Stone Arsenal engaging in sockpuppetry. It closed by me because two previous and recent checkuser cases (from April 27 and May 8) have already shown that Red Stone Arsenal is not related to any other accounts. Upon my further investigations, I found that betsythedevine (betsy) and Red Stone Arsenal (RSA) had content disputes in Start-up Nation where betsy and RSA have opposing POV. I cautioned betsy[1] not to abuse the SPI process to intimidate or assassinate RSA's character even though RSA has a different POV because two checkuser reports have individually confirmed that RSA is not related to any accounts. In her reply,[2] Betsy said she's editing under real-life identity and want me to suppress my comments. Furthermore, she think my conclusion constitute personal attack. So I hope if others could take some time and give some third-party comments. Thanks. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is this on ANI? There's really nothing to this. She did not ask you to suppress your comments, and I'm bewildered as to where you get that idea. And she did not call your comments a personal attack in that edit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You just missed it, Hand, certainly easy enough to do since the exchanges now span four pages: the SPI Betsy filed which will archive here eventually, Betsy's talk, Ohana's talk, and now here at AN/I. In his first entry to Betsy's talk page, Ohana wrote, "Since Red Stone Arsenal and you have opposing POV at Start-up Nation, I really believe that you use the sockpuppetry case to try and assassinate his character. Therefore, I am cautioning you not to abuse the process and use SPI as a venue to silence editors with other POVs."

In response to this accusation, Betsy posted back to OhanaUnited's talk where she explicitly asked Ohana to redact his comments. Instead of retracting or apologizing, he explained his motivation, on Betsy's talk, and she replied very convincingly about what justified the SPI filing. She also repeated her strong objection to Ohana's accusation that she'd used the SPI process as a vehicle for character assassination. At that point Ohana opened this AN/I thread.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I notified RSA about this discussion. I'll say up-front that RSA and I have clashed at Start-up Nation.

Checkuser isn't the be-all and end-all of sockpuppet identification. RSA swims and quacks like a duck, and despite the checkuser results I think her/his behavior should have been considered.

I personally feel your comments toward betsy were a little harsh. I agree she should have done more due diligence before filing the SPI, but (as I wrote) I think RSA's behavior is sufficient for a WP:DUCK block. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Any experienced editor looking at RSA's contributions would recognize instantly that he's no new user. For that reason alone, the suggestion that Betsy was engaged in POV-based character assassination was just way out of line. This is certainly someone's sock. That said, I'll disclose that I was also opposed to RSA's views at Start-up Nation.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no rule saying that editors must be "new users" -- in point of fact, some users edit as IPs, and some change names which is not running a sock in the sense of improper behaviour. Indeed, I seem to recall that many admins run additional accounts. The business that anyone who disagrees with a person is automagically a "duck" is weird and contrary to common sense. If one can not deal with people of differing views, then Wikipedia is a damn poor place to work. SPI is being abused on a regular basis with "duck" complaints - as far as I am concerned, as long as one person is not pretending to be two in a discussion, I really don't care all that much. Cheers to all, and have a quart of tea. Collect (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please give me a recent example of the SPI being abused? Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Look no further. This is one of the example. Filing 3 cases in 2 weeks is excessive and a form of SPI tag team (even if it's done unknowingly). Betsy filed the third case (on May 11) when the second case was checkusered 3 days ago (on May 8) showed no accounts connected to RSA is definitely nowhere near AGF. And the first case (on April 27) was created 1 day after RSA began editing is certainly biting newcomers. Now we're finally getting into systematic trend of the reasons why less new users are editing and getting more warnings. This case is just the tip of the iceberg. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ohana, from your comments "even if it's done unknowingly" and "this case is just the tip of the iceberg", it sounds like you were straying rather on the side of making an example of Betsy in order to deal with something that you perceive as a wider issue. It seems to me that's not an SPI clerk's role. Would you consider striking the comments about character assassination? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My "tip of the iceberg" comment is referring to Viriditas' question of providing a recent SPI example, not towards betsy. Sorry if being unclear. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, but that's actually related to my point - that the "tip of the iceberg" comment seems to be an indication that the behaviour your comments to betsy were attended to address, was in fact the other part of the iceberg, i.e. not betsy's behaviour at all. I find that concerning.

Do you have objections to striking your comments to Betsy? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur that Ohana's comments are out of line, especially for an active SPI clerk. AGF is not a suicide pact, and raising a concern about a sockpuppetry by someone whose POV you oppose is perfectly legitimate. If it were not, we'd have to put up with reincarnated banned users all the time without being able to take action. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ohana, thank you for asking for a third opinion and considering these comments. And I admire the fact that you are trying to protect new users from being slapped with sockpuppeting allegations -- it seems like an unfriendly process to subject someone to, and no way to be introduced to Wikipedia.

Please reconsider your harsh words to betsy. She merits assumption of good faith. If we are rude to one another, and contributing becomes painful, we will lose our thoughtful and experienced and devoted contributors - even more worrying than losing new users.

I Agree with Heimstern and Demiurge above: A comment about character assassination is rarely appropriate, when working with a known and respected user. You could simply decline a request or point out that similar requests have been made recently. Betsy noted below that many of your comments were helpful, and apologized for not preparing the request better. While you explained above your worries about an 'unknowing SPI tag team', I think you owe her an apology in return for the assumptions you made about her. – SJ + 22:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply by betsythedevine

I agree that SPI is not a weapon and my edit history shows that I rarely edit Wikipedia space at all. Red Stone Arsenal was not a particularly strong or active opponent at Start-up Nation; I filed SPI because I thought he was a sock of a particular user (Rym torch) who was flagged as a sock of NoCal100 based on some sekrit SPI method, which had to be done because Rym torch was editing in some particular way that baffles checkuser. But Ohana did not just allege, based on noticing conflict at one article, that I was using SPI to win a content dispute. He also made the PA that "I really believe that you use the sockpuppetry case to try and assassinate his character." [3] I would like that PA redacted. Also, if Ohana's use of the verb "caution," both on my talk page and at the SPI, implies that I was in fact using SPI to win content disputes, then it is wrong for Ohana to "caution" me in this public way. I am embarrassed to admit that I should have done a better job of preparing the SPI, and I apologize for the waste of everybody's time. Ohana's explanation of the steps that should be taken to file a good SPI were in fact very helpful, so for that I'm grateful. betsythedevine (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: None of us takes much pleasure in admitting a mistake, but I'm afraid you really did make quite a serious error in judgment here. I see you went offline shortly after filing this report, but will you please take your earliest opportunity to bring this to a graceful conclusion by striking through the allegations everywhere you made them ( here, betsy's talk, the SPI, and your talk ) and issuing a brief apology on each page, as well?

I ask that not to be punitive at all, but only so betsy's detractors won't be able to dig up any of those pages in the future and use them to disparage her reputation. That would put an end to the strife here, and allow everyone to move on to more productive activities.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment If anyone doubts that those remarks if unredacted would be a source of delight to some, Mbz1 has already discovered and joined the discussion at OhanaUnited's talk page saying "Hi OhanaUnited, I'd like to congratulate you on being the truth-telling boy. You are right, the Emperor is naked, but will you be able to hold your ground :-) Good luck with this! Regards.-Mbz1" [4]. betsythedevine (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Late-edit note: The foregoing was discussed here, with the broader issue discussed in at least three other places.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me as though that comment by Mbz is a breach of the conditions set by Gwen Gale when unblocking her last December: "You've agreed to stay away from ANI, AN, SPIs and AEs for six months, along with going to only one experienced editor or admin if you have worries about the behaviour of another editor". RolandR (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Also of note is mbz1's attempt to remove another editor's AN/I comments. Tarc (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Tarc and RolandR, Mbz posted on my usertalk page, not ANI/AN/SPI, and thus did not violate any terms and conditions. That's why RolandR's comment on Mbz's violation is blantantly false. RolandR, you tagged RSA's userpage with a suspected sockpuppet template and yet the result of this SPI case disagreed with your findings. You should be the first person to apologize to RSA. To all, I did not tarnish betsy's reputation, as another editor also agreed.[5] Betsy chose to edit under real-life identity rather than anonymous. That's her choice. When she discloses her identity, other editors reminded her that it "added inconvenience of having your on-wiki behavior tied to your real life identity". That does not grant her any more or less rights than any other editors to redact/strikethrough/censor comments which some people viewed as negative or the chance that "betsy's detractors won't be able to dig up any of those pages in the future and use them to disparage her reputation", which may not materialize at all. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really the point I was making. Regardless of the underlying conflict, mbz1 has been around long enough to know that deleting another user's post...esp in a high-profile place like AN/I...will do nothing but fuel the eDrama, not alleviate it. This has been a constant problem with this user; if there is a least desirable way to address a conflict or disagreement on the Wikipedia, mbz invariably picks the worst solution. Tarc (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Mbz1 should not have removed a false accusation made by user:RolandR the way she did, but she tried to explain to user:RolandR why his post is a false accusation at his talk page, but user:RolandR removed her message with edit summary "Removed trolling". Only after this Mnz1 reverted a false accusation made by user:RolandR. I believe Mbz1 reverted the false accusations only because she was afraid that some administrator will act on it. It is surprising that user:RolandR still cannot understand why his accusations are false. Broccolo (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I cannot speak for rolandr's motivations, but if mbz1 were to ever post to my talk page again, I'd revert it, unread. Editors with problematic histories tend to earn a reputation that is hard to shed. As for administrator's acting upon an accusation...well, I have faith that they would look into the matter themselves rather than rely solely on what one person says. That's about the end of what I have to say on the matter, I think. Tarc (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

rolandr's motivations are the same as yours which is baiting Mbz1 every time you see her user name. You are clearly biased against the contributor. Please stop this practice. It is getting tiresome. Broccolo (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Like several other editors, I continue to believe that RSA is a sockpuppet, even if CU has not confirmed that s/he is using the same IP as a known puppeteer. I certainly owe no apology. Regarding Mbz's comments, I can find no record of the alleged lifting of the block; all that I see is Gwen Gale's comment on the block log "has agreed to stay away from ANI, AN, SPI, AE for 6 mos, tkng bvir wrs to only 1 editor". That was dated 27 December 2010, so should not expire until 27 June. RolandR (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1 has been busy contacting admins more sympathetic to her cause since then, so things may have changed. Regardless of that, I really don't think it is a good idea for Mbz1 to be commenting on a sockpuppet case arising from a dispute over an article currently subject to ARBPIA remedies, and reverting another editor's comments about that issue here at ANI, when Mbz1 is currently topic-banned from the PIA topic area. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1's bans for AN/I were lifted two months ago, and besides Mbz1 has never posted to AN/I even after the bans were lifted. It was user:Betsythedevine that copied Mbz1's comment left in other place. Mbz1 tried to explain it to user:RolandR but the user removed mbz1's message from his talk page, and left his false accusation to stay here. Broccolo (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As a purely practical and temporary consideration, can we just for the duration of this present discussion assume that everything Broccolo said above is correct, and not argue here over it? If anyone wants to dispute any of it, or feels any point he raised demands some kind of administrative attention, please just open a separate report for the purpose so we can keep this one on-topic.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think, as well, it should be emphasised that checkuser is not the be all and end all, although it does provide a useful indication in many or most instances. I have dealt with sockpuppets who are obviously well funded individuals who have access to a range of ISPs and/or travel - checkuser says no link and explains that position, yet the behaviour is obviously linked. That isn't the fault of the checkuser process to pick it up - it's just simply that the checkuser tool is only meant to do one particular thing, and the people operating it do their best with what they have. If the account(s) are behaving problematically, admins can still deal with them without a checkuser positive - as we've had to do on the Australian project once or twice with particularly determined violators (or just wait for them to horrendously slip up, which sometimes happens! :) Orderinchaos 07:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, other checkusers have commented publicly that particular highly-prolific sockmasters operating in the same topic area where Red Stone Arsenal ("RSA") made his contributions can't be expected to be caught out by our current tools. And progressively more sophisticated methods certainly do become available to evade checkuser detection the more resources someone has.

Since we've seen such a large upsurge of these day-use accounts (RSA edited for only three days) in this topic area lately, it's hard to escape the conclusion that someone has a new tech-toy they're breaking in. These accounts restrict their editing to short bursts or just a few days overall before moving on to the next account, to make it much less likely that behavioral evidence can be pieced together. We can't be certain with the our current tools, of course, but we'll never see an account that quacks more loudly in this particular way than we've seen here, with the Red Stone Arsenal account.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment user:Betsythedevine sees her role here as a fighter with NPOV and battleground behavior. In reality it is user:Betsythedevine who introduces NPOV to articles and exercises battleground behavior. For example with a single edit user:Betsythedevine turned a neutrally written article about a book to yet one more I/P related battleground. She later apologized for adding this quote taken from unreliable Palestinian advocacy site. Yet later the user filed a frivolous AE report, and frivolous SPI request. Isn't this too much for the user who sees her role here as being a fighter with NPOV and battleground behavior of others. I completely agree with the language OhanaUnited used in his closure of SPI request. Broccolo (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Stop! A point of order is called for at this point. I would ask all participants to please stick to the topic and help prevent this from becoming another I/P slugfest. Ohana has a right to a response about whether he was correct to accuse Betsy of a POV-driven attempt at character assassination, and support for that if he was in the right. Likewise, Betsy has the right to be heard and the right to an apology and retraction if he was in the wrong. Please save all the "look at the awful edit this opposing editor made" comments for a different thread, if you consider them egregious enough to bring up on AN/I. Don't lets derail this with off-topic grudges: Lets just try to calmly address and solve the issue that Ohana raised. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Fences&Windows just marked this thread as closed to discussion. But an extremely serious accusation has been made, that of intentional character assassination, and it's grossly unfair to leave it unresolved. It needs to be determined whether that accusation was merited or unmerited. I've returned it to open status for that reason, and on the basis of our refactoring guide ( since closing or hatting a thread is a form of talk-page refactoring ) which says, in part, "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted."  – OhioStandard (talk)

Was character assassination accusation called for or should it be struck-through?

Please briefly indicate your preference below as either Support accusation or Strike-through accusation, with minimal follow-on comments after others' !vote:

Wording of proposal adjusted slightly in response to Heimstern's comments. 07:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strike-through accusation. I understand Ohana's frustration that betsy didn't know how to check for a previous SPI concerning Red Stone Arsenal. But his contribution history makes it immediately obvious that this was a very experienced user rather than a newcomer. Such short-term accounts have become so common in the I/P area that we should be encouraging SPIs rather than blaming editors who initiate them, even if they make a mistake in the process, as betsy did.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• While I'm sympathetic to the idea behind this section, what good is it really going to do? It's obvious that OhanaUnited has no interest in retracting his comments, as he continues to believe he is in the right. I suppose the section could continue if we're hoping to !vote for an exoneration of Betsy, regardless of OhanaUnited's decisions, but is that really needed? The one productive thing that might be considered is if a discussion with the checkusers might be in order to ask them to review OhanaUnited's comments and decide if he should continue as a clerk. And no, I'm not really sure how we'd start such a discussion, and as it's an isolated incident, I suspect little would come of it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  That's not obvious to me at all. I see Ohana asking for input so that he can get further perspective. – SJ + 22:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is the question that OhanaUnited asked us all in bringing this here. Besides, I strongly suspect that this is just a simple misunderstanding that went south really quickly. My hope is that if all parties see that an alternate explanation is actually very plausible that it might still come to a calm resolution.

As I said on Fences' talk page, I absolutely understand how a checkuser who saw an SPI request for the same user three times in two weeks could respond with exasperation and assume the worst, especially when he'd seen a lot of duplicate requests recently. I'm going to continue this in collapsed mode, though, because I don't feel right about using so much real-estate to reply.

Good intentions on both sides?

Okay, I might have responded with considerable heat if I'd been in Ohana's shoes, too. I probably would have, actually. No responsible person likes the idea that SPI would be used to harass editors who hold opposing political views or to bite actual newcomers. Since that's the inference Ohana drew, it's very reasonable that he'd respond aggressively. Checkusers should respond aggressively when people try to use SPI as a weapon. I have no idea how often that actually occurs since I know little about SPI, but it must happen fairly often or Ohana wouldn't have responded as he did. The problem in this case is (sorry, Ohana) that he let his understandably mounting anger at the upsurge in SPI filings and repeat SPI filings boil over and convince him that he could mind-read betsy's motives, and that they were discreditable, when they were anything but. I saw somewhere that Ohana said he found it impossible to believe that betsy didn't see a prominent bar that indicates how to search for previous SPI cases. Well I used to teach user-interface design, and that comment puzzled me. So since I've never filed an SPI myself, I went to went to wp:spi and initiated a "test" case a short while ago, although I didn't save it, of course. I even did so for usernames that I know have had previous SPIs. Perhaps I'm being monumentally oblivious, but I didn't see anything that said "Wait! There's been a case about this just a short while ago!" I didn't see any indication of that at all, actually, and to my embarrassment I still don't know how to search for a pre-existing case. If betsy worked as a checkuser for the next month, maybe she'd be pulling her hair out by the roots and want to knock some heads together, too, at what I assume (from Ohana's comments) must be the rising level of SPI requests that really are POV driven attempts at character assassination to silence or drive off an opponent. Similarly, if Ohana could switch places with Betsy for the next month, he might have a better appreciation for how extremely common throwaway accounts have become in the I/P area recently, and how extremely frustrating that has been. All those articles are on 1rr restrictions, so these accounts come through and make very POV changes in heavily contested articles, requiring editors like Betsy to "burn" a revert if the long-established balance of POV in an article is be to kept roughly even. And since there seem to be literally ten such accounts on one side for every one on the other side of the political divide, these short-term or throwaway accounts are actually very effective at shifting that balance. Despite the lack of technical evidence found to implicate Red Stone Arsenal as just such an account, that account had all the hallmarks of this escalating pattern that we've seen repeated over and over in the I/P area these last several months. That has no doubt contributed to the frustration several of us have expressed at this whole mess, and at Ohana's likewise understandable frustration. For my own part, I'll ask Ohana's pardon for the extent to which I've let that slip into my own communication around this matter. (Please don't comment here since it forms part of a single post.)

Does that make sense to anyone, and most particularly, does it make sense to you, Ohana? Could you have possibly let your very understandable frustration cause you to miss this explanation and assume a motive that betsy didn't actually have? I'm not trying to blame you at all: As I said, I probably would have reacted just as you did, especially since you're so familiar with the SPI process that it must seem transparently simple to you. But is it possible that this is what happened?  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually does make sense to me - thanks for investing the time to write it! (Most of the stuff in here is pretty adversarial, nice to read a considered, well thought out piece trying to see both sides of the situation.) I myself have no idea how the new SPI system works, even though I've used it a few times and found it more efficient than the old. Orderinchaos 07:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comment. I've just discovered something about how the SPI user interface works that's extremely relevant here. I don't have time right now to post it, but I'll do so later today. I will just say for the moment that what I've found demonstrates that Betsy did absolutely nothing wrong in any of this, absolutely nothing at all.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Betsy Devine I am traveling around small places with not much internet, but thanks to OhioStandard for great kindness and to everyone who looked at my request. Taking the advice of OhanaUnited and others, I will now be closing this account I used under my real name. I did so because I thought such accountability was of benefit to the project, but I'm a bit sick of benefit to Wikipedia right now. I am accountable to myself, and I know I filed the SPI in good faith, and so does everybody else who looked into the matter, except Mbz1 and Broccolo. Fun times for them! Good luck with those admin tools, OhanaUnited, you do a heckuva job listening to third opinions. Which way to the door that says "Right to vanish"? betsythedevine (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Try the instructions at WP:CLEANSTART. Your situation is exactly why we have that option. I don't blame your decision, I don't have the courage to even try to edit under my own name. -- Atama頭 19:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question, I believe, Atama. And it's not Betsy who needs the clean start, it's every admin who saw all this and turned the other way.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what OhanaUnited (one of the harder-working SPI clerks out there) was supposed to have done differently here, given the system that we currently have. I mean, is he expected to ignore it and let the accusations get further out-of-hand (which probably would have happened sans the above "third opinion" request)? I mean, not to disrespect anyone, but this seems like shooting the whistleblower than anything else. –MuZemike 08:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Saying something like "Please check the archives in the future to be sure the check you're requesting hasn't already been done" instead of making a groundless accusation of character assassination, maybe? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That would not have helped in this case. In the earlier SPI concerning Red Stone Arsenal and AFolkSingersBeard, the closing clerk, HelloAnyong, commented "I don't really think they're the same. Having said that, I've opened another case regarding Red Stone Arsenal".[6] As it happens, Betsy beat HelloAnyong to the post in opening the SPI. But if the Check User clerk felt concerned enough to support a second SPI regarding RSA, it is clearly inappropriate for another clerk to issue a warning to Betsy for opening this. RolandR (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

An undisclosed culprit

If we were to ask ten user's who aren't really familiar with the SPI process to go to wp:spi and initiate a request for an investigation of the Red Stone Arsenal account that Betsy filed her SPI about, I'd wager that not one of them would see anything in the process to tell them they were filing a a duplicate request. Please take a look at the wp:spi page. There's nothing there at all to indicate that one should begin by scrolling to the bottom of that long and very visually "busy" page, to use the green "search all cases and archives" bar there first. There's no indication, that you should do so before you use the prominent "Start or continue an SPI case here" gray bar that you first see as you read and scroll through the page, in other words.

If you try that, try opening an SPI on Red Stone Arsenal without being aware of the green bar at the bottom of the page, or the need to use it (please don't hit "save", if you do try a test) you may or may not see an obscure notice that says you're filing a second report. If you enter, as seems reasonable,

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Red Stone Arsenal

You won't see any such notice. The page you land on will say you're filing a first report. Sure, if you're savvy enough to just enter,

User:Red Stone Arsenal

after first clearing the edit field of the pre-existing "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SOCKMASTER" text, you'll briefly see an indication that it's a second report you're initiating, but how many people would know to do that, or would know that "second report" means "duplicate"? And even if you do, that text just flashes past briefly, before the page autoscrolls to an edit window. Betsy didn't do anything wrong; she wasn't even careless or negligent. The interface just sucks eggs.

It presents far too much information, and the dual purpose of the page to present open case information along with its case-initiation feature is just hopelessly confusing if you don't already know how to use it. It needs to be changed to prevent this kind of debacle from ever arising again.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

All I have heard the past several years was how submitting sock puppet cases sucks and nothing on how to improve it; the same was with when it was separately as WP:SSP (suspected sock puppets) and WP:RFCU (requests for CheckUser). Nobody seemed to try and offer any improvements on the process, even when it came to requesting a new bot to replace the broken User:SPCUClerkbot, and when somebody did, the entire community jumped on that user. Frankly, I'm not sure as to whether it may be a good idea to scrap the entire sock puppet process and leave it all to ANI or what else to do. –MuZemike 07:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That may be the case. But the immediate issue here, which OS was addressing, was the unwarranted warning to Betsy about allegedly filing a tendentious SPI. OS has shown definitively that her statement that she was unaware of previous reports is credible and in fact very likely. Acting on good faith alone, even setting to one side the fact that several very experienced editors also believe RSA to be a sockpuppet, the warning to Betsy should never have been issued. Nearly all of the response to this "request for a third opinion" have agreed on this, and the warning should be withdrawn without any further delay. RolandR (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. I don't think Betsy did anything wrong, at least nothing that wasn't a simple mistake. -- Atama頭 17:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure she appreciates the support. Would you have a look at why it's important to strike-through OhanaUnited's comments by community consensus under wp:rpa despite his evident refusal to apologize? I'd be grateful for opinions there.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and move to closure

I would like to thank OhioStandard so much for his actions to defend my good name, especially since I have been traveling and can hardly post, and I really appreciate the time people have taken to comment here and on my talk page. I also appreciate a lot being made to feel less stupid about not having understood how to look for earlier SPI cases about Red Stone Arsenal. Maybe that would be a good tutorial to add to SPI, especially if the clerk expects people already know it. And following some good advice I also just archived the most insulting bit from my talk page. Furthermore, Fences and Windows very kindly added a notation to the SPI thread itself expressing the consensus here that I had not done wrong and should not have been rebuked for the SPI. It would have been nice if Ohana redacted the claim but Wikipedia has bigger problems to solve than that. Thanks once again and I don't think any admin intervention is needed except maybe to close the thread. betsythedevine (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Improper image added

Y Not resolved, but RfC/U or other alternatives seems better suited at this point to generate a productive discussion and outcome.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

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

User Mbz1 has added a very provocative image to a reply Betsythedevine posted to Mbz1's talk, subsequent to Mbz1's having posted to Betsy's. Her action makes it appear that Betsy herself posted the image as part of her reply, which isn't the case. Coming on the heels of Mbz1's having poked at Betsy earlier, when Betsy was incorrectly accused of having filed a frivolous SPI request, this just seems a needless provocation to me.

I'm not asking that Mbz1 be sanctioned over this, but since it presents another false impression about Betsy, would someone please ask Mbz1 to remove the image from her talk. No drama, please, just a simple request that the image be removed. I'd ask her myself, but she's previously requested that I not post to her page, so I'll also have to ask that someone else notify her of this thread. I noticed this because I have Betsy's talk page watchlisted, btw. I'll also add that I probably won't be able to reply to any response here very promptly, due to real life demands on my time for the next eight to ten hours. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

M's last edit to B's UT page was a while back (early May) . B posted a fairly lengthy post on M's UT page on 30 May. The image is a sort of reply, and does not appear "provocative" from any point of view. I see no reason for this to be of any importance at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Precedent says that an image like this is completely acceptable. I disagree with its need but when other editors have popped up images that are clearly problematic they have not only not received a reprimand but actually received support from admins under the explanation of more leeway given to editors on their own user page. Image isn't needed but this ANI isn't either. Cptnono (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Just stepping in for a moment: This is now the third immediate and contrary follow-up to my posts that Collect has made here; I evidently have an admirer. But he's in error and needs to look at the history of both talk pages before commenting.

@Cptnono: Perhaps I should have titled this thread "Image improperly added". The problem isn't the image intrinsically, but its insertion in Betsy's comment to make it appear as if Betsy added it. Scroll down from the diff and view the page rendering: It absolutely gives that false impression. If Mbz1 wants to add a flame-war image to her page that's her prerogative, but she can't do so to give the impression Betsy was the one who added it. That makes it look as if Betsy had fanned the flames when it was in fact Mbz1 that did so. You can't edit other people's comments to give a false impression, even if those comments occur on your own talk page.

You're on excellent terms with her, Cptnono; do her a favor and ask her to delete the image before some admin sees this and takes any more severe action. And please inform her of this thread. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not find M's offer to bury the hatchet to be in any way problematic. As for where I respond to posts on noticeboards on my watchlist - that has nothing whatever to do with who posts ahead of me. Indeed, I recall you posting after me on occasion. If one looks at my total number of posts on any noticeboard, one will find a wondrously random assortment - as that is how noticeboards work. One thing is sure - making personal asides about who else has posted does not actually fit into the proper use of a noticeboard. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Also worth noting: Mbz's edit summary reads "added image to thedevine's response"...and this whole thing in concert with the recent "third opinion" debacle just stinks. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the image is provocative, and a misrepresentation of what betsy devine wrote. The image, if desired, should go below the betsy devine reply. Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Image now seems to be gone, so there's nothing more to do here apart from optimistically hoping that Mbz1 would stop doing this kind of thing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I totally get what you are saying, OS. Unfortunately, editors have done far far worse with edit summaries, talk page discussions, essays, and just plain images that highlight how insignificant this "incident" is. I think it is cute but not needed. If Mbz1 feels that the image is not needed then good for her. But mandating that it is removed means we need to revisit many decisions regarding other editor's user pages. Maybe it is time to revisit how the community reacts to what is allowed on user pages and how they are handled. I doubt that is something contributors to the project are willing to actually tackle. So as the tradition has been: Let it go for now. Hopefully Mbz1 will replace it sooner than later. And maybe the image has some point if it has come here.Cptnono (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And there you go.Cptnono (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Question Not really related to the discussion, but I'm curious, wouldn't that image be a derivative work of File:Eliza-Crossing-the-Ice-Morgan-1881.jpeg, as opposed to a public domain work? I honestly don't know, and I may just be splitting hairs needlessly, but it isn't the same exact image, so I thought I'd ask. - SudoGhost™ 03:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The original is in the public domain (according to the States?) and the summary gives all of the detail. The file at commons could be amended to make it clearer. The file could also be deleted if no one is using it. I think it would be cool in an essay on hounding but we could also probably just request its deletion over at Commons. Cptnono (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a good idea about adding an image to essay. I did add it to this one for now, and maybe one day I will write an essay about being hounded and how it feels, of course if I will not get hounded to death before that :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have notified Mbz1 for you all. If there are other notifications that should have went out, can someone else please address that? (I'm off to bed). ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops.I actually just assumed. Sorry for talking about you behind your back Mbz1. Looks like this is all fixed anyways.Cptnono (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Explanation For the last few days User:Betsythedevine has been busy retiring and changing her mind, and claiming such things as:

1. "I don't have the heart to fight injustice when it settles on my own head, especially when it becomes a fun opportunity for Mbz1 to wikistalk into my life."
2. "Basically, I am sick of being harassed by some anonymous person calling himself Mbz1."
3. edit summary: "Links to Mbz1's harassment over the past six months".

• Seeing all that I decided to remind the user an offer I made to her about a month ago. In a polite post I told the user "I believe that, if two users, who usually are not editing in the same area (as we are not) do not get along with each other (as we do not), would agree to disagree and walk their different ways, it is the right thing to do for the involved users and for the community.I believe that, if one user (me in this situation) is asking for this agreement, and the other user (you in this situation) angrily refuses, there should be no doubt who is the victim and who is the hound there.If somebody, no matter who, offered me something like this, I would have agreed immediately with no questions asked."
• In response I got a long ... to both my talk page and the user talk page, in which the user recounted all my "crimes" for the last 6 months linking to both my block logs on Commons and wikipedia,with taking out of content differences and with some of these differences being already used against me by that very user.That post was disgusting.

• I believe that if one user is asking another user to disengage, and if these users are not editing in the same area, and if the other user refuses, there is no doubt who is victim and who is the hound.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yup, I thought this was your goal as I wrote in the following section before you posted the above. As if you didn't know that Betsy's comments were in response to your doing a little jig on her grave, as you supposed, among other pleasantries. She certainly was intending to leave at that point, out of sorrow and pain at OhanaUnited's refusal to retract his unwarranted accusation. And now you think that if you start enough of a dust-up with her, with your vile dog-attack picture inserted into her post, and your monumentally mean-spirited barnstar (see following section) that you can provoke the community into silencing a critic. The community isn't so easily manipulated, though, as I believe you'll discover.

I suppose I'll have to inform Betsy of this now, since you're making accusations. But I hope she'll have the good sense not to be provoked into a fight, or even to respond to this nonsense. The community can handle the kind of strategic accusations you're making here without having to call upon an already beleaguered editor to defend herself from these kinds of attacks.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Frankly people, I have seen a lot of things in EE area, but never anything like that. Yes, it would be grossly inappropriate to place a slogan advocating murder of a living person (I saw it once), but filing an ANI request because someone placed an artistic image of a girl (apparently meaning herself) at his/her talk page?! Come on. That exceeds battlegrounds in EE area by a wide margin.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it urgently necessary to show up to support Mbz1 every time she does something like this, Hodja? Your loyalty is touching, but if you'd read the above you'd know that the objection wasn't the violent image, but rather that she purposely made it appear as if Betsy had posted it.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it. So what? Do not you have any sense of humor? She feels like a person haunted by dogs. Yes, sure. And you are only proving her point by filing this request. Please see Wikipedia:Ignore all dramas. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for making false accusations of character assassination

Well, this matter was sorted until Mbz1 decided to poke the bear again, by taking the time to create and post a customized barnstar (permalink) to OhanaUnited's talk for having mistakenly accused Betsy of trying to silence an opponent by filing an SPI that amounted to character assassination. Since the accusation was clearly erroneous − see "Third opinion requested" now on this AN/I page, or permalink − this just fans the already high flames over this very difficult issue again. The only motive I can guess at for doing so is that it's an attempt to provoke the community into issuing the interaction ban Mbz1 has been pushing for with respect to Betsy.

Pushing for an interaction ban is a standard strategy Mbz1 has used in the past to try to silence those who've been critical of her actions and who oppose her political orientation. Mbz1 actually began this latest round of interaction herself, though, and did so after her first unseemly "you are the truth-telling boy" post to OhanaUnited's talk, and after then following that with an extremely ill-timed post to Betsy's page that culminated in the business with the dog attack image, documented just above. She's evidently willing to risk possible sanctions for poking in a bid to silence Betsy, but the community shouldn't fall for it. We should just tell her to stop poking.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It's also rather ironic that Mbz1 added an image of hounding to her little "essay" about how persecuted she is, poor thing, while still having all but hounded Betsy off the site entirely. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hound Betsy off the site entirely? Really? I am happy to report that the user is as active as ever, and no, I would not like Betsy to leave wikipedia. I would not like anybody to leave wikipedia.

I gave barnstar to an editor bit to "poke" anybody. I did it in a separate section on their talk page. I did not mention any names. I did not link the text I added to the barnstar to any comment made by anybody. To bring this matter here is absolutely ridiculous. Here's is the barnstar:

Truth-telling boy barnstar

Hi OhanaUnited, I am giving you this barnstar for being the truth-telling boy, for being unafraid to say clear and loud that the Emperor is naked.Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope I still have a freedom of speech and a freedom of expression.It was done not to "poke" anybody, it was done to award the editor that I believe should be awarded.Just as simple as that.

That whole matter about so called "false accusation" should be dropped at last. Apparently nobody is going to apologize to user:Betsythedevine for making so called "false accusation". Demanding an apology is a bad tone. An apology should be issued from the heart and not because an editor is threatened with sanctions. For the last few days user:Ohiostandard has been busy preventing the thread about "false accusation" from archiving with the latest attempt being this artificially added comment. user:Ohiostandard conduct on this matter is disgusting. user:Ohiostandard was told by an admin: "By the way, were Ohana's allegations written anywhere except Betsy's talk? If so, it seems a little beside the point, as Betsy herself would be free to remove or refactor comments on her own talk anyway." So, just go ahead and remove the comment you do not like, stop making more AN/I drama. Enough is enough --Mbz1 (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Re the quotation presented just above from admin Heimstern Läufer's talk page, please see here in the since-updated version of the thread from which that quote was taken, where Heimstern has since written that he supports redaction of the comments.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I had to check the calendar to see if this was 4/1 again. On a scale of 1 to 10, this affront is not worth the paper it is complained about on. I am ordering a 55 gallon drum of tea. Collect (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That barnstar is about as clear a case of "I told you so, neener neener neener!" as one can get. In the grand scheme of things, is it minor? For any other user, probably. But it's these types of pinprick-sized jabs that led to mbz being, quite properly, banned from AN/I and related for several months in the first place. Tarc (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The following is a reply to Mbz1

"I did not mention any names"? And you think that excuses your little grave dance? It couldn't have been more staringly obvious that you were referring to Betsy. And no, you don't have freedom of speech here. This is a privately owned website, and all our speech is obliged to further its goals and values rather than indulge our own private grudges.

As for Betsy's having reconsidered her leaving, it's my understanding that she's willing to do so now only because a very strong consensus has emerged that she did nothing wrong, certainly nothing remotely connected to any attempt at character assassination. In fact, you and the editor who goes by "Broccolo" were the only two people who supported those accusations. But I don't suppose your support had anything to do with the fact that you are both vehemently, passionately opposed to her view on Mideast politics, and are probably her two biggest detractors on Wikipedia?

That was a rhetorical question, and I'm going to try not to respond further if I can help it. Your behavior in this whole matter has succeeded in making me angry, which is a pretty unusual event for me, and I don't want to say something I'll regret. But I'd very much welcome the opinions of wholly uninvolved editors, i.e. of those who are fortunate enough to have no strong interest in Mideast politics, and who don't edit in that regrettably contentious area.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Uninvolved Editor I don't edit in that area, I have no real opinions in that area, I have never encountered any of the at-issue editors except for having familiarity with Betsy's name for some unknown reason. I have, however, been following this extremely sad little case ever since it bubbled over onto ANI via the hilarious and ironic "third opinion requested" thread (which should probably have been titled "I have no intention of listening to the third opinion I've requested"). Mbz's posting the hounding image, and this adorable barnstar, would typically prompt a "Uhm, why is this at ANI" reaction from me had I not been following this terrible little escapade, but in this case, it's wholly inappropriate, bordering on grotesque. Ohana's initial accusation against Betsy was ill-advised, surely, but his failure to atone for this accusation once near-universal consensus against it emerged -- and in a thread he started called "third opinion requested," to boot -- is far worse. And...far worse still is anybody celebrating the unfortunate outcome of this fiasco, as Mbz is clearly doing here. It is further strange that Mbz is apparently continuing to update and enhance her celebratory actions by converting them into a barnstar.

  All that said, I have no idea what action or inaction is appropriate here. You might say I'm venting, and you might be right about that. This whole thing -- from the initial accusation to the poor way it's been handled -- has been a shame.

  I think the right way to go is to just drop this whole thing, so long as continued pettiness by involved editors who wish to celebrate the frustrated semi-retirement of a well-regarded editor comes to an immediate halt. And pretending that this barnstar is some kind of general reward and not in specific regard to this fiasco is patently absurd. Anybody who's been following this can tell that that's untrue.ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Two things

• Since Red Stone Arsenal is very likely to be a sockpuppet of a topic banned user, doesn't matter who, none of this would have happened if they had simply been blocked.
• It's unfortunate that the admins who defended the policies of this project by blocking the countless sockpuppets of NoCal100, Stellarkid, Historicist, Drork and so very many others didn't get barnstars. Oh well, c'est la vie. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• The problems in the past two sections could be solved if OhioStandard just removed Mbz's talk page from his watchlist and stopped following her contribs. Just a suggestion. A wise man once said "This is a privately owned website, and all our speech is obliged to further its goals and values rather than indulge our own private grudges". It's time to get a mirror. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Read the thread: I have Betsy's page watchlisted, and it was Mbz1's post there that brought this to my attention. I also have OhanaUnited's page watchlisted, and so noticed Mbz1's "barnstar" there. Nor is it true that attacks on others don't matter if no one takes any notice. Now would everyone please let uninvolved, and non I/P editors or admins comment, if they wish to, without further partisan comments? Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've read the thread. Mbz put an image you don't like on her talk page. She then gave someone a barnstar you don't like. Niether has anything whatsoever to do with you, except for what seems to be an infatuation with Mbz. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• It is quite clear the Mbz1 has issues with civility and letting something die, instead having to make further rude actions that keep perpetuating a sad issue. Of course, since ANI has never really sanctioned anyone in regards to incivility and WP:CIVIL is a dead policy that is never followed or acted upon if someone breaks it, I suppose we should close this discussion. Silverseren^C 01:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Guilty as charged. It was really uncivil of me to reward an editor with a custom-made naked Emperor barnstar, but may I please ask you to look at the mitigating circumstances? I assure you I have absolutely nothing to do with the undressing of this poor Emperor. It was Hans Christian Andersen who did it :-) --Mbz1 (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  You should really stop with this crap. You're not helping yourself. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  What a nice post ;-) I am afraid you do not understand my situation. I am beyond help, so at least why not to have some good time ;-)--Mbz1 (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  If you want to commit seppuku, that's up to you. Keep in mind that with every one of those irrelevant posts which you find amusing, you're just convincing more people who didn't care before that your signal to noise ratio isn't worth allowing you to participate in this project. In other words, while you think you're being clever, you're just giving OhioStandard exactly what he wants. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Betsy, who is traveling with little time and rare internet

I would like to thank Ohiostandard for his great kindness in defending me. It seems to me that Wikipedia would have a lot more luck retaining women as editors if more people would do as Ohio has done here and speak up for a person who is unfairly attacked instead of urging those who are hounded by Mbz1 and others to cowboy up and drink tea. Let me remind people that WP:HOUND rebukes people for editing with the goal of repeatedly causing unhappiness or distress to another editor--as Mbz1 has done to me and to many others. It is not a policy that forbids people to provide diffs from the history of those they are debating. I am always happy when people provide diffs to what I really said. Hugs to all the kind people out there. It is true that my hurt feelings and plans to leave were greatly diminished by 1) having people say kind things in the "Third opinion" ANI and on my talk page, 2) by problems on my watchlist, 3) by Mbz1's continued attacks on my character for being a generally bad person who has clashed with her in the past (an accusation that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of whether or not it is true that I file bad-faith SPIs against content opponents), and 4) that I did want to contribute an article I've been working on Guide to the Lakes. I don't know what admin action is possible here. I am not asking for Mbz1 to be blocked, what good would that do? When there was an AE report on Mbz1 a while ago, I asked for some specifically-worded civility restrictions, but instead she was given a PI topic ban. Anyway, I am about to drive away from this patchy internet into unlikely internet for a few days. If somebody would give OhioStandard a barnstar for defense of the wiki, I think that would be a good thing. It is a wonderful project. betsythedevine (talk) 07:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Postscript

Mbz1 complains in a section below that the above post on June 1 did not contain any diffs showing WP:HOUND. This thread was started regarding recent hounding at the talk pages of OhanaUnited and Ironholds, with the additional "improvement" of the now-deleted essay "Properly follow a proper policy."

And last night when I went to the talk page of BorisG, where I had posted in response to a question from him elsewhere, I found another new personal attack by Mbz1 had been created there with the heading "Unbelievable!":

• Actually it is quite unbelievable.
• First user:Betsythedevine hounding my contributions and brings taken out of content difference about me to AN/I.
• Then user:Betsythedevine is canvassing another user to AN/I thread
• Then user:Betsythedevine is is canvassing yet another user to AN/I thread. I know she would say it was not canvasing because the users were mentioned there. Yes, the mention about them were artificially brought to AN/I request about me.
• Then user:Betsythedevine does everything she could to make and to keep me blocked, including, but not limited to harassing me on my talk page, and then she says: "Oh, how nice of you Boris, to propose the bans and save Mbz1 from full block". Disgusting! Sorry, Boris, I had to say it, please feel free to delete it.--Mbz1 (talk)

Since Mbz1 cannot even restrain herself from hounding me even at the exact moment when her behavior is under scrutiny at ANI, I would just repeat my earlier request at the recent AE concerning her: That some brave admin should create some SPECIFIC requirements concerning civility (not saying "troll" or "hound" or "disgusting" would be a start) and not attacking other users. Perhaps her content ban on P/I could be lifted for as long as she abides by AGF, CIVIL, and NPA.

By the way, I still think it was kind and creative of BorisG to propose AE and ANI bans as an alternative to a full block. Even though what I had thought should happen at the ANI Mbz1 is complaining about was a one-week block, and I later supported the idea of extending the block unless there was some sign Mbz1 planned to change her behavior, I thought it was a clever idea of BorisG to propose a different solution, one I had not thought of. I likewise thought it clever of Gwen Gale to implement it with the additional requirement that concerns about another user should be taken to one (1) designated administrator. Because Mbz1 eventually disputed the admin boards part of her block, it is important to remember that that decision by Gwen Gale was made in a context of trying to find a solution that would both:

(1) Let Mbz1 remain part of the project, and
(2) Set no pre-condition that she should apologize for the behavior others had objected to.

I think goals 1 and 2 are still worth trying to achieve here and now. betsythedevine (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

With respect, Betsy, I disagree that the problem can be dealt with effectively here. The behavior has spanned a long enough time-frame, and so many pages and interactions, that this forum seems poorly suited to me to follow the complexity. Also, at least half-a-dozen editors have indicated their desire to participate in the resolution of the ongoing problem, and that would be difficult to execute here, in part because of the 24 hour roll-off time frame for comments.

I'm strongly of the opinion that an RfC/U would be a more appropriate and effective forum for the necessary discussion; other users have also suggested an AE request. I certainly understand the exasperation you must be feeling at this latest provocation, but for these reasons I think it best to go ahead and close this discussion, as you'd suggested doing before this new development arose. You should of course feel free to revert that action if you don't find this rationale sufficiently persuasive.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hounded (comment by Mbz1)

• Once again user:Betsythedevine accused me in hounding her without providing a single difference to confirm the allegation.
• WP:Hound is: Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work.
• Here are my evidences of me being haunted by User:Betsythedevine

1. "I don't have the heart to fight injustice when it settles on my own head, especially when it becomes a fun opportunity for Mbz1 to wikistalk into my life."
2. "Basically, I am sick of being harassed by some anonymous person calling himself Mbz1."
3. user:betsythedevine making absolutely false claims about my contributions that were obtained by using the tools that should not be applied to my contributions (May I please ask you to read the collapsed portion of the thread)
4. edit summary: "Clarify what Gatoclass is talking about and Mbz1 is objecting to"
5. edit summary: "Friendly wave from another target in the latest round of PA from Mbz1" and so on, and so on, and so on.
6. This post was made, when the article was still in my user space! It was later moved to main space.
7. Talking to yet another user about me;
8. "I too was wondering if Mbz1 had mentioned in her request to you that she herself had posted the link,"
9. "Mbz1's contributions and a wish that she would stay with the project but stop harassing others. "
10. edit summary: "Links to Mbz1's harassment over the past six months". This post violates WP:UP#POLEMIC that states: "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed."

• I did post to the user talk page after she asked me not to, but I did it only after I saw this post made by user at her talk page That's why I posted asking the user to go our separate ways
• In response I got a long ... to both my talk page and the user talk page, in which the user recounted all my "crimes" for the last 6 months linking to both my block logs on Commons and wikipedia,with taking out of content differences and with some of these differences being already used against me by that very user.That post was disgusting.
• I am not asking that user:Betsythedevine be blocked, I am only asking that we agree to go our separate ways because both of us and the community would be in the win, if we do.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I encourage anyone curious to read the actual diffs, the first two of which refer the matter under discussion now -- Mbz1's grave-dancing over the OhanaUnited incident, followed by this. The objected-to list just links to sections in my talk page archives that have been started by Mbz1. From a tiny hotel pub with dicey internet. betsythedevine (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You've already made it abundantly clear that you'd like to be able to silence a critic who holds an opposing view of Mideast politics in this way, Mbz1. You've made the point over and over, here, and on half-a-dozen administrators' talk pages. And you've again neglected to mention that it was you who began this latest round of interaction with Betsy, nevermind your timing or the way in which you did so, which a completely uninvolved contributor here has described as "bordering on grotesque".

As your staunch friend, No More Mr Nice Guy has now twice advised, "You should really stop with this crap. You're not helping yourself." Despite his impression, I don't enjoy seeing this kind of thing. I'd respectfully suggest that you turn off the computer for a day or two. It's what your friends would advise, as well, I think.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've had very little interaction with Mbz, and I can only think of 2 articles we both edited at the same time. But since you seem to put everything in a "who agrees with me on Mideast politics" framework, it's understandable you'd jump to conclusions. I don't know if you enjoy this kind of thing or not, but you've certainly expended quite a bit of time and effort over the past few days starting and prolonging discussions here which involve Mbz. Not to mention I've seen you try to sabotage at least one of her DYKs, so I don't think my impression is far off the mark. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've expended time and effort here defending an editor who was very improperly attacked, and I'm proud of that. If people don't like their names mentioned in such an effort then here's a novel idea: Maybe they should refrain from making and escalating personal attacks.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

MfD filed in relation to this

• WP:MFD#Wikipedia:Properly follow a proper policy

I'm sorry, but I see the creation of the essay as a dick move of major proportions. Mbz has essentially placed her altercation here into "humorous essay" form. This behavior needs to be addressed. Tarc (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Info According to the definition of "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval. " So, this essays expressed my and another editor's opinion. There are definitely no any real user mentioned in this essay. It was written by me and another editor some time ago in my user space, and then copied and pasted to the main space. I actually do not care, if it is deleted or not, but it definitely should not have been brought to AN/I because neither me nor another editor violated any policy.
• On the other hand I am being wikihounded and it feels horrible:

1. example 1
2. example 2
3. example 3

• This essay was written as a humors help to the editors who feel wikihounded and trolled about constantly. It was meant to be a humors help to the victims of wikihounding and unfairness. So the real question here is what is worse an essay, in which nobody is mentioned by name, and that is seldom read, or being wikihounded as for example I am.It is a rhetorical question.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO, those three above examples don't look like wikihounding, it looks like some concerned editors discussing how to deal with a disruptive editor who is on the verge of exhausting the communities patience. Heiro 02:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, and this example with the edit summary "bullshit" is not a personal attack, but a "concerned editor" expressing its opinion? Right?

This essay violates no policy. It was written by me and another editor, (probably mostly by another editor) starting in my user space and then in the main space. I believed the edits made in my user space were deleted, but they were not deleted. Here it is: one example. This edit got moved or redirected together with other edits see here.As you see it was not me who introduced the word "harpy". I do not know this word. The essay was moved to main space by me on April 28,2011 as it is clearly seen from the history.

In any case I do not longer care about this essay, and I asked it to be deleted. The other editor contributed to this more than I did, but I believe they would not mind it to be deleted.

I am also asking the first administrator who sees this post to delete the essay and to block me as a "disruptive editor" because it is much, much, much better to be blocked than to be hounded as I have been for many months. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The above is really the essence of mbz1; half-truths delivered in a Steve Urkel-esque "oops, did I do that?" air of innocence. Yes, policy was violated; harassment of another user. Perhaps this essay was created some time ago, though I see no way of verifying that at the moment. If it were, that is irrelevant to this recent addition, which was added only a few days ago. "There are definitely no any real user mentioned in this essay" is technically true, but it doesn't take a mental giant to read between the lines and see what you're really saying there. Tarc (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm the "other user" who worked on the page, my thoughts on the issue are best expressed here. I thought it would be fun to write a Dante style satire of ANI/Arbcom etc., maybe it didn't turn out as funny as it sounded in my head--but at the time I last worked on it I didn't think it really related too closely to Mbz1 and her conflicts or attacked anyone in particular. Maybe I should have thought it through better--lesson learned, in any case. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Q had any intention of being pointy by helping Mbz1 with the essay. betsythedevine (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The Inferno concept itself seems interesting, so if someone wanted to write this from scratch...untainted by editors' acrimonious, on-wiki altercations...I don't see a problem with that. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Also agreed. I also don't see Qrsdogg as being complicit with the PA via metaphor that Mbz1 obviously intended by creating the now-deleted essay.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the MfD closed now as "Delete," so maybe some admin could hat this section? betsythedevine (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Wikid77

Resolved

 – Wikid77 is topic-banned per community consensus. I see consensus for an indefinite, broad topic-ban from all edits (not just article edits) related to the MoMK affair. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Wikid77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Wikid77 has been editing the Murder of Meredith Kercher page and its related talk page. There's been a long-term problem there with sock and meat puppets being recruited off-wiki to push our coverage more towards advocating the innocence of one of the accused. It's been discussed on this board recently several times.

I started out as an admin there, and this year have participated as an editor. I have made few edits to the article but have participated in some of the talk page discussions. Wikid77 has been slightly problematic there due to sometimes arguing for the inclusion of ridiculous amounts of detail (the layouts and exact contents of the rooms at the murder scene was the latest one, and there was a previous very long discussion about whether to include one of the murder accused drinking a glass of orange juice, I kid you not).

The debates have been increasingly civil and productive but I noticed Wikid77 taking a new tack by accusing other editors, presumably including me, of not being intelligent. This has somewhat disrupted things at the article talk page and been robustly defended by Wikid77 at his talk page, with the memorable "Maybe you would be happier working on simpler articles, until you are able to learn more about hard subjects."

In looking into this user's contributions I saw this fairly recent SPI for which the user was blocked for misconduct on this article.

Now, I am not particularly into civility blocks, but I am genuinely at a loss (maybe through being so unintelligent?!) about where to go from here. I feel like it will be very difficult for me to work productively with this editor at this article, and I feel like this latest nonsense clearly crosses into NPA territory. Will someone please take a look and figure out how best we can proceed? --John (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This recent diff [7] appears to be quite uncivil, and actually quite insulting on several levels. Dayewalker (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikid77 has a history of adding long comments to user talk pages with little apparent intention other than to disparage users whom he dislikes. Some of the comments are openly offensive, others are less hurtful, most are at least inconsiderately and poorly worded. I would urge that uninvolved users review other, recent little gems such as this, this and this. Excerpts from the latter two:

• "... do not feel offended: the managers of the Wikimedia Foundation do not condone the actions of people being so rude and hateful against you; the problem is there are so many hostile people in some areas, and others are getting tired of dealing with them. Normal people do not have time and just prefer not to be around those people."
• "We are trying to make sure that crap doesn't happen to other editors, but remember those kinds of blocks/bans are not the stuff that normal people would do ... There is an article about 'Oppositional Defiance Disorder' (ODD) which gives some insight into dealing with oppositional people. Years ago, I tried to offer psychiatric counseling to some people with severe mindsets (they are obviously off-balance); however, I was reminded, by an admin, how Wikipedia is funded to 'write the encyclopedia' not to provide mental-health advice to afflicted editors, so we just try to avoid conflicts. Perhaps, some day, Wikipedia will have a way to offer the much-needed psychiatric help, but for now, just try to team with positive-minded editors and keep editing."

These are not the only examples that I can find to illustrate this regrettably persistent tendency of Wikid77 to leave crass remarks on user talk pages. SuperMarioMan 04:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note: Immediately after receiving notice of this WP:ANI discussion, Wikid77 decided to cut and run, blanking much of his talk page in the process. SuperMarioMan 04:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually it looks like he archived it, though it seems certain threads (namely a block for violating editing restrictions) did not make it to the archive. It also seems as though he selectively archived threads...and though I'm potentially noticing a theme I'll leave it up to general judgement. I find it interesting that the user has chosen this route rather than come here and explain themselves. The whole thing leaves me with an overall negative impression of his recent conduct... N419BH 04:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes. He is now on a "short WikiBreak", according to the latest revision of the page and the edit summary. It certainly comes at a convenient moment. SuperMarioMan 04:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• I believe in light of Wikid77's recent behavior, right down to his last edit before archiving his talk page, the prevention of further personal attacks on the encyclopedia would be furthered by the use of technical measures to enforce his highly convenient "wikibreak". I also found User:Wikid77/Amanda Knox, which appears to be a blatant violation of the userpage policy. N419BH 05:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • And another: User:Wikid77/Michael Jackson in fatherhood N419BH 05:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have speedied that old page ("db|1="), which was set {NOINDEX} by another admin. -Wikid77 06:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• I tried reading through several of Wikid's almost comically uncivil comments but then my brain started hurting and I suddenly lost the ability to see. Weird. Before this loss of basic Wikipedia editor functionality, it almost seemed as if Wikid was suggesting that numerous editors and administrators are blind, mentally retarded, insane, rude, hateful, childish, and abnormal -- and that was before I even got past the diffs supplied in this ANI thread. The strangest part was that I almost thought I saw something where he chastised two editors for making personal attacks in the same edit in which he suggested that the two editors are mentally retarded, blind children. Oh, wait, it's here! Phew.

  Uhm, yeah, I share other folks' disinclination towards harsh civility discipline but this is, to put it very tenderly, excessive. This break should not be voluntary. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Ginsengbomb, You have misunderstood, the terms "Blind" and "Mental retardation" are in reference to WP:ACCESS, to make articles easier to access, or read, for sight-impaired or learning-disabled readers (in the case of blind then, the text can be read by machine or narrators). Please do not inflame this discussion with wild, sensationalist claims. -Wikid77 06:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing "wild" or "sensationalist" about Ginsengbomb's comment that I can see. It's unfortunate that the same cannot be said of the comment that you made: "I realize that both of you are disturbed, by some unknown frustrations, but Wikipedia has a policy of 'no personal attacks' (see WP:NPA). That policy page was written by grown ups, and it means that negative, insulting words (such as 'cowardly') should not be written as describing particular editors. It is clear, now, that you have a hard time understanding policies and other things, so perhaps ask some other people what the text in WP:NPA means. I do not have time to explain stuff to you, right now, but I will try to find ways for you to understand, when I have more time. Maybe you would be happier working on simpler articles, until you are able to learn more about hard subjects. Also, see the articles on 'Blindness' and 'Mental retardation' before trying to read the guideline WP:ACCESS" (Blatant WP:NPA breaches in bold.) SuperMarioMan 06:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I believe that disturbed is used in the context of being upset by something (rather than being mentally disturbed), and the bit about the policy page being written by grown ups doesn't necessarily imply that the other editors are children. If Ryulong came up with "you have a hard time understanding policies" you would be thanking him for his moderation. As for the rest of it, fire away. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Well ... Wikid77 has directed more than one mean-spirited insinuation at me personally in the past, so I would be naive to pretend that I could assess this situation in a manner that is completely neutral and objective. However, when Wikid's initial comment (which the comment linked above followed) is considered, I find it difficult to believe that his references to "grown-ups" and feeling "disturbed" are that innocent. The following parts stand out:

• "I think we would be happier spending more time working with other intelligent editors, and less time with the slow crowd."
• "They are not so much evil, but rather just way too slow to realize the situation."
• "At this point, suggestions at Talk:MoMK need to be simplified and explained in more basic language, so that the ideas are easier to understand."
• "Meanwhile, we can spend some time working with more intelligent editors and avoid the current frustrations."

It is this constant dabbling in ad hominem, which often entails all manner of pejorative labelling and characterisation of other users (e.g. slurs on their intelligence, their mental health, their satisfaction with life - in summary, asserting that they have significant but undisclosed "problems" with life in general) that ruins so many opportunities for discussions involving Wikid to be collegial and productive. His recent contributions to the Murder of Meredith Kercher talk page have consisted primarily of taunting, with the suggestion that other editors are like "domineering mothers": "Editors who want to nurture their mothering instincts should perhaps try adopt-a-pet or go volunteer to help children at a school, but please understand that adult editors are unlikely to work well in a mother-may-I mode." He later claimed this tirade to be nothing more than "formal notice" about a "problem". SuperMarioMan 15:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• RESPONSE: This is yet another attempt to badger editors working on the article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" when I wrote to another editor that perhaps we should work on other articles about Italian towns or history in Italy, where more scholarly text is needed. I had somewhat suspected, when I indicated that I had lost interest in their WP:BATTLEground games at "Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher" then they would attempt to escalate the confrontations, elsewhere, most likely here at WP:ANI. They had recently deleted descriptive text of the murder scene, against consensus (this edit), text which had described the cottage for sight-impaired users, where a window was broken in a 3rd bedroom, 2 doors down from the victim's bedroom:

"The bedroom with the broken window, nearest the entrance, was on the other side of Knox's room, 2 doors from Kercher's room." (text deleted)

As many times as we have discussed "DO NOT DELETE" without consensus, User:John just went ahead and deleted that text (while discussion was still underway), knowing that I had objected, having added the text earlier that day (in this edit for sight-impaired editors). I gave up on their games, because there is no requirement for me to continue discussing an article where other editors, repeatedly, ignore discussions to reach WP:CONSENSUS and delete text added for WP:ACCESS of sight-impaired users. When I mentioned that I intended to work on other Italian articles, instead, then 2 of them called me "cowardly" (as if I were running from their WP:BATTLEground):

• User:Pablo_X calls me "cowardly" (this edit): making me suspect a WP:BATTLEground mentality, when I tried to leave.
• User:John then also calls me "cowardly" (this edit): as another WP:BATTLEground mentality, when I expected him to tell User:Pablo_X to remember WP:NPA (and retract "cowardly").

But no, instead, the 2 of them were acting like they do not understand WP:NPA, so I tried to explain the policy to them, and recommend that they ask others what it means (in this edit), which one of the two of them should have understood but neither did (or perhaps WP:IDHT). However, they also need to understand WP:ACCESS, about writing article text to help sight-impaired readers understand the subject, without insisting that they see diagrams and photos. The MoMK article is expected to be among the top 1,000 most-viewed articles for the year, and sight-impaired readers should be considered. Now, based on their intense reactions, I wonder if they were just pretending not to understand WP:NPA, and were just trying to provoke me (by calling me "cowardly"), before I left their WP:BATTLEground to work on other articles. Meanwhile, I had gone on Wikibreak, to try to avoid more confrontations with them, but they just escalate every disagreement to become a WP:ANI crisis. I think those editors need to be topic-banned (perhaps 3 months); for almost 6 months in 2010, I did not edit that MoMK article (or talk-page), but their quarrels there continued with other editors. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool story bro. Care to explain this? N419BH 05:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) I think he just did. He doesn't see himself as making any sort of personal attacks in the post in which he suggests that two editors are incapable of understanding "hard subjects" (e.g. "policies" and "other things") written by "grown ups." You know, the post in which he's defending an earlier post of his where he suggests that the editors in opposition to his points-of-view at MOMK are not "intelligent," are "childish," and are members of "the slow crowd." As you can see, Wikid is entirely innocent and we should really be discussing sanctions against John and Pablo for calling Wiki's comments "cowardly." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I must add myself to this group of "slow unintelligent editors", for I remain unable to understand how such comments could be anything other than disparaging other editors. And I remain totally baffled as to how "not intelligent childish" editors calling someone else a "coward" is a personal attack worthy of "three month sanction" while the comments by the individual suggesting such are not grounds for same or worse. I also note Wikid77 seems to be saying he was dragged out of wikibreak to respond to an ANI post, when clearly the ANI post predates the wikibreak. Guess I'm just not that intelligent...and that must go for all of us except Wikid77, as we all seem to be reaching the same conclusion... N419BH 05:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Where did you find that phrase "slow...editors" because I certainly did not write that. Also, if I had been the one who directly called 2 people "cowardly" then what a difference this conversation would become. I already noted that some editors might have been pretending they did not understand the policies, as an attempt to mislead me. -Wikid77 07:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The statements about the "slow crowd" were made here.[8] Mathsci (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that WikiBreak didn't last long. Wikid, I notice that you have referred to WP:BATTLE. In your view, do recent edits such as this and this do much to promote a constructive atmosphere at a talk page? We can leave the blatant POV-pushing and misinterpretation of policies and guidelines to one side for a moment. SuperMarioMan 05:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Again, Wikipedia does not require a "Mother-may-I" attitude of begging permission to add each word to an article. Instead, as I noted following WP:BRD: "Let people simply add the text, and then others can discuss if, or how, it should be modified". I think that comment is constructive, but perhaps people who want to insist, on getting prior permission, might feel that simply adding the text is a threat to their WP:OWNership of an article. Anyway, I was on wikibreak, to avoid this attempt to escalate a confrontation, after 2 other editors both referred to me as "cowardly". I apologize if people were offended by my attempts to explain policies to them, if they pretended not to understand policies and that referring to another editor as "cowardly" is a WP:NPA vio. This whole matter seems contrived by calling me "cowardly" (twice: #1 #2), and then taking the discussion to ANI. So, I am returning to wikibreak. I think this is a non-event. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:50, revised 07:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does however require interaction amongst editors to be civilcivility and also requires editors to refrain from making personal attacks regarding others. Statements like: "I realize that both of you are disturbed", "That policy page was written by grown ups", "It is clear, now, that you have a hard time understanding policies and other things, so perhaps ask some other people what the text in WP:NPA means", and "Maybe you would be happier working on simpler articles, until you are able to learn more about hard subjects", seem to cross that line to me, and so far you have yet to address this conduct of yours. All of these statements are contained in one edit by the way, your most recent one before going on wikibreak. I am not one to dig for others, but they are already linked on this thread. N419BH 07:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• I already said that User:Pablo_X and User:John had just called me "cowardly" (twice: #1 #2), so I tried to explain WP:NPA, but now it seems as if they were pretending to not understand WP:NPA but just bait me into a response, as an excuse to flood this WP:ANI page with more conflicts. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • So them calling you "cowardly" is grounds for calling them all of the above? N419BH 07:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You are imagining far more than is really there. Clearly, I was right that they were disturbed (hello?). User:John even filed this ANI complaint, soon after, so, of course, he was disturbed about the situation, and then referred to me as "cowardly". So, you tell me, to what aspect of Wikipedia editing the term "cowardly" refers. I still believe policy WP:NPA is written by grown ups, but I am not sure about the other policies. Both User:Pablo_X and User:John called me "cowardly" as if they did not understand WP:NPA, so of course, my conclusion is that they might prefer working on simpler articles, because else they should understand not to call another editor, directly (personally, by name) "cowardly". So, perhaps you are wondering what I am going to do. Well, I am not waiting to see if User:Pablo_X or User:John apologize for calling me "cowardly" because they haven't yet, and did not apologize after I noted their remarks were against WP:NPA. I really think they should be topic-banned, because when they disagree with something I said, then they reply, "Cowardly" as a clear vio of WP:NPA, and so show no indication that they will be stopped by a policy such as WP:NPA. Instead, they are likely to call other editors "cowardly" and bring them to ANI as well (related to article "Murder of Meredith Kercher"). I expected admin User:John would have told User:Pablo_X that he is not allowed to call other editors "cowardly" but instead, he incited the conflicts, repeated the personal attack of "cowardly" as a WP:TAGTEAM effort, and then escalated the situation to ANI level. I just want them to back away from badgering people. I am not sure all the other actions that User:John has conducted with article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" so perhaps ask him for full disclosure. I generally advise to wait a few weeks to see if matters improve, but when an editor calls a specific editor, personally, by name (on the user's talk-page), as "cowardly" and then pretends there is nothing wrong with that WP:BATTLEground challenge, then I sense future trouble from them. Perhaps ask them if they "understand" WP:NPA and whatever from there. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

My only comment here will be this; calling your actions cowardly might be construed as a personal attack, but really they are of the sort that should be brushed off by any sensible editor. The same applies to you calling people rude/hateful or hostile; it is something they should have brushed off and ignored. Where you cross the line is a) in questioning the mental health of editors and b) referring to editors as "slow" and questioning their intelligence. This is not excused by doing it in a general way, because you were talking about a specific group of people. You completely trampled on the spirit of the NPA policy. And you did so without any provocation, posting on a talk page several days after tempers had calmed down - surely you can comprehend that doing so was like a red rag to a bull, and you can surely see why it was completely un-needed. Here you seem to be claiming to be the injured party; in all of this, I really do not think you can claim to be such a thing. You're contributions to MoMK have been muddled, confusing, often badly written and occasionally confrontational. You've stirred up the pot a number of times now, and I think it is best for everyone if you just stop and walk away. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • Only if it serves to demonstrate that he's not cowardly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I tried to avoid them, by archiving my active talk-page threads (at 3:53]) and going on wikibreak (at 4:03), 10 minutes later, but User:John quickly filed this ANI complaint. And then, get this: people accused me of misconduct by trying to avoid further confrontation with people calling me "cowardly" who then brought this conflict here. However, I think this discussion has revealed that they are purposely ignoring policies (such as WP:NPA) and then coming to ANI as if having done no wrong. -Wikid77 09:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked Wikid77 for one month, for the personal attacks he made and the response to them in this thread, which boils down to "ignore my comments, even those I made before some people called me cowardly, because that is a personal attack directed to me". Fram (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Support block - the obvious inference from Wikid77's reported comments is that not agreeing with the viewpoint that Amanda Knox is innocent is a clear indication of mental deficiency, and the obvious inference from Wikid77's comments here is that he believes he can wikilawyer away any issue regarding same. Whatever, it is the polar opposite of WP:AGF and is specifically disruptive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Long overdue...prying those with emotional/personal stakes in a heated article away from the topic area can only be a good thing. Rather peculiar that almost all the major players from one side of this wiki-battleground have gone largely silent the last few days. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Good block. I wonder if we might need a topic ban one month from now if this behavior continues. --John (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Just pointing out that this user was previously blocked for a month for similar conduct issues, and already subject of a three month topic ban last year. It is a long-term, recurring issue. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support block - quite obviously and, quite frankly, it's about time anyway. Wikid came within an inch of an indefinite topic ban in September 2010. See this previous WP:ANI discussion (I'll note that it's quite a long read) for further information. His block log is rather illuminating. It will reveal that all of Wikid's blocks, with the exception of one, have been a result of his egregious POV-pushing, incivility and sockpuppetry at the Murder of Meredith Kercher topic. It seems to me that only blocks or other restrictions will put an end to all this nonsense in the long term - his behaviour here, at this discussion, in which he has not even come close to acknowledging the offensiveness of his numerous comments, hardly bodes well for the future. SuperMarioMan 15:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose block. It's highly ironic to see complaints of incivility from some of the people complaining about Wikid. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC) — CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: WP:POINT objection. CodyJoeBibby (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account, dedicated to the Murder of Meredith Kercher topic, who has demonstrated incivility to match Wikid's on multiple occasions. For an example of what I mean, please see this response made during a discussion between him and Wikid at his user talk page. His opposition to the block therefore carries little weight. SuperMarioMan 15:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support block. The incivility has unfortunately risen to this level which has made the editing environment at the article too terse which needs reversed and not escalated. Wikid77 seems to have turned the heat up recently which has the potential to goad newer editors into the same unacceptable behavior.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Having read the archive posted by SMM above, I now propose an indefinite topic ban for Wikid from editing or commenting on any matter related to MoMK or Amanda Knox etc. --John (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban

• Support as proposer per the above discussion, the serial incivility and failure to learn, on top of this previous WP:ANI discussion. --John (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Too many chances, not enough preparedness to listen to other users and refrain from indulging in mindless abuse. Completely lacking in awareness, even now, of the offensiveness of his remarks. Has poisoned the atmosphere at multiple user talk pages with one long attack after another, goading others into persisting in their own uncivil behaviour. Take this example, from an edit made in the last week: following the block of another user (with whom he shares a POV) for personal attacks and harassment, he comments on their talk page not so much to offer advice as to coach them into continuing their incivility. SuperMarioMan 16:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: I would prefer an indefinite topic ban. I doubt that a restriction of at least some length is not warranted given Wikid's response to his block notice: "Well, bless your little heart, and at least you didn't blame it on 'Amanda Knox' like some others. I suspected with many users away on normal summer vacations, there just weren't enough other users to block ... I am still on Wikibreak (despite the failed attempts to anger me), so I might be slow to reply ... oh wait, did I just use the word 'slow'?" SuperMarioMan 22:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support based on his attitude and unwillingness to acknowledge calling another editor an _(idiot) unintelligent person. He shows no willingness to actually cooperate when the block expires. Croben ^Problem? 17:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - User has been nothing but disruptive on this topic and is very opinionated and attempting to insert his POV into the article. 86.17.191.238 (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 17:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC) — CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Oh, really? Why's that, then? SuperMarioMan 18:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Total failure to recognize unacceptable nature of communication with regard to this topic. Total lack of atonement. Indeed, editor seems actively committed to what any uninvolved party would typify as disruptive behavior, to the point of inciting others to join him in his endeavors. This, in concert with previous action against Wikid77 relating to this topic, makes a topic ban seem unfortunately appropriate. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Even if this was the first time this has come up, the severity of the disruption would prompt me to support a topic ban. But Wikid77 has come to ANI over and over with this issue. This is definitely warranted. -- Atama頭 19:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Meh Support: anywhere between 6 months per LHvU or indefinite per John. This needs to extend to user talkpages though. Disruptive editor, being a martyr in the cause of great justice may appeal a little too much however. pablo 20:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)changed  pablo 15:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support 6 month topic ban; this permits Wikid77 to expand his experience of editing the project in area's where he does not have such a passionate need to communicate his viewpoint, with the carrot that he may return to the topic with a hopefully more collegiate attitude (or they will attempt to sock around it, or wait out the sanction and return to old behaviours, in which case we can then simply ban them outright). It would be useful if other supporting respondents would indictate what tariff they feel is appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support 6 month topic ban across all namespaces on Wikipedia, including on his own and on other users' talk pages per LessHeardVanU's rationale in the hopes that Wikid77 may change.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment What will really help the entire situation is for a couple of admins to watch the MoMK talk page and attempt to moderate the tone there. The hostility and back-handed insults have been far too common in the past. I honestly think 6 months is too long, mostly because I don't consider Wikid77 the worst of the editors (Cody gets my award for that). Something shorter - maybe a month, to start, but then also see that applied to other editors that also demonstrate similar behavior. If it continues, escalate the topic ban to longer timeframes. 75.54.53.245 (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - High time to take one of the ringleaders out of the battlefield. Tarc (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support The evidence here is too clear that the topic ban should extend to all related articles including the persons and government entities involved. Collect (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban broadly construed for 6 month or indef. with the option to appeal after 6 month. An earlier block for sock puppetry and a previous topic ban (all related to the MoMK article) were to no prevail. TMCk (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Editor is clearly unable to abide by policies within the topic; enough drama already. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban; user has already been blocked multiple times and topic banned for three months once, but this has served no purpose, so far: as soon as the block/topic ban is over, Wikid always goes back to his old ways. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The topic ban proposal seems to have quite a lot of support based on the consensus that is emerging here. If the restriction is to be imposed, I would recommend that notice read to the effect of:

Wikid77 (talk · contribs) is hereby banned (for six months/indefinitely - duration still to be decided) from making edits that describe, discuss, or otherwise relate to the Murder of Meredith Kercher case — broadly construed — across all namespaces on Wikipedia, including on his own and on other users' talk pages.

Wording is as drafted during the last WP:ANI topic ban proposal discussion related to Wikid77 in September 2010. SuperMarioMan 20:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Given present disruption, previous sockpuppetry etc and 'coaching' at (among others) the talk pages of Zlykinskyja, CodyJoeBibby and particularly the the topic-ban flouting with PhanuelB^diff I think that this wording covers most bases pablo 20:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes - the parts "broadly construed" and "on his own and on other users' talk pages" should be emphasised. However, obviously, there should be a caveat stating that MoMK-related edits would not constitute a violation in the project namespace if made in response to discussions at WP:ANI etc. that directly concern Wikid77. SuperMarioMan 21:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I proposed an indefinite topic ban rather than a definite one because a definite one has already been tried and failed to arrest the problems in this user's editing. Indefinite does not have to mean infinite of course, but I feel like the indef ban (maybe with a review after a year) is the logical next step in escalation. I would urge those suggesting a six month ban to consider this point. Having said that, I think there is probably sufficient consensus for a ban of some kind already. --John (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

For me, six months would have to be the minimum, given that the earlier three-month topic ban seems to have had little positive effect. I too would favour an indefinite topic ban this time around, although I would argue the case for an opportunity to appeal after six months (or perhaps longer, e.g. 12 months). At any rate, I see little hope of Wikid's attitude changing in the foreseeable future, if his latest contributions to his talk page are anything to go by. I agree that there already seems to be a fairly solid consensus here for some sort of topic ban to be imposed. SuperMarioMan 02:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What about a one year ban (splitting some of the difference)? By that time, I would hope the appeals process would be finished and this dire need that the SPAs have to right what they perceive to be a great wrong will be over. The situation should be very different by then (I hope). If not, and he resorts to the same behavior, then I would support an indef ban or indef block.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Six months, 12 months, indefinite (perhaps with the chance to appeal after a certain period) - I would support any one of these. Of course, as John states, an "indefinite" topic ban need not be "infinite". However, the problems with Wikid's editing are entrenched and persistent, and his conduct has experienced a significant deterioration in the last couple of weeks in particular. That is why I favour an indefinite topic ban - there is little or no sign, even now, that he actually understands how disruptive his recent actions have been. With luck, an uninvolved administrator will soon wrap up this discussion so that we can all move on. SuperMarioMan 10:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Indefinite & broadly construed topic ban, with option to appeal in no less than a year's time. Nothing has changed since Wikid77's last topic ban less than a year ago, which he had violated early. And his thinly veiled attempts to egg other users on must be covered as well. MLauba ^(Talk) 09:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - If a user is advocating a point of view, that's clearly against the wikipedia way. If the user's primary focus is the Knox case, then maybe a topic ban until the case has run its course would be appropriate? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• I agree in principle but will note that there are still two possible appeals (one ongoing) for the defendants, which can take a couple more years. Plus, what happens if the defendants remain unsuccessful when the issue is that this user is already convinced that the previous rulings were injust? MLauba ^(Talk) 10:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• I think a specified period would be better; given the previous weaselling and wikilawyering about the meaning of 'three months' the duration should not be open to interpretation. pablo 11:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• If the appeal process is likely to take 2 years, then make the ban be 2 years also. After 24 months, then see what the situation is. Oh, and I do recall wikilawyering about how long a month is (maybe in a different situation), so specify the date and time on which the ban ends, and then there will be no dispute. For example, noon UTC on June 3, 2013. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Your memory of the wikilawyering about the length of a month is actually spot on. Same editor, same context, last year's topic ban. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Since 2012 is a leap year there is a good chance he repeats his wikilawering and comes in a day early again :) TMCk (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Something's fishy here

...or perhaps WP:DUCKy. Take a look at CodyJoeBibby (talk · contribs). Considering he registered his account on April 1, 2011, he certainly seems to know his way around. Same thing with BruceFisher (talk · contribs). Both of these are Amanda Knox SPAs. I am finding it difficult to believe that these two are new editors to the project. N419BH 20:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I made a similar suggestion regarding CJB a while back in an earlier ANI thread about him. Considering how many SPAs have come and gone to the Knox-related articles I wouldn't be surprised. -- Atama頭 21:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

BruceFisher (editing under his real name) is not CodyJoeBibby if that is what is being implied. I doubt that Mr. Fisher is socking.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I for one didn't mean to imply that, and I assumed that N419BH didn't either. I'm actually not familiar with BruceFisher. But CodyJoeBibby blipped my sockradar, see here. What got me was the repeated use of the "but I'm a new editor" excuse, something I've seen sockpuppets do, as they try to use their brand-new-and-different-editor masquerade to its fullest advantage. But I didn't feel like pursuing at the time and still don't. -- Atama頭 00:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not implying anything, as without specific evidence tying two accounts together would be a major assumption of bad faith. I do not believe the two are related, though I find it hard to believe both are new users. Perhaps Fisher edited under an IP previously. In any event, it's CodyJoeBibby that seems to be quacking, and quacking quite loudly I might add. As for who the sockmaster might be, I have a hunch, but I don't have enough evidence to back up said hunch and it would therefore be an assumption of bad faith to publicly state who. There seem to be a very large number of SPAs here. N419BH 01:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Well this article does attract a disproportionate number of SPAs,^list most of whom appear to have some knowledge of the editing history of the article and its talk page. I suspect that some wander over here from some advocacy forum or other seeking to right great wrongs. pablo 08:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Just be bold and lanuch an SPI if you want - certainly worth a punt in my view. GiantSnowman 20:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• I would argue that the grounds for an SPI are insufficient - at least, at the moment. If puppets of some description have indeed been editing at the article or the talk page recently, they would more likely be meatpuppets as opposed to sockpuppets. Pablo does have a point about external, off-wiki pressure. I strongly doubt that CodyJoeBibby, in particular, is a doppelganger of BruceFisher (or vice versa), because there are quite clear differences in their writing styles. SuperMarioMan 09:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not a sock puppet. I also don't plan to do much if any editing of the MoMK article in the near future, as it has in fact improved quite a bit in my view. We'll see what happens with further developments in the case. May i say that I feel that Wikid's treatment has been excessively harsh. He seems to be a pretty constructive editor on the whole. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree in part. Wikid77 seems to be a very productive editor in general, outside this subject. But I do not think that contributing to this subject area is a good thing, either for Wikid77 or for Wikipedia. Hence a topic ban is the way to go. I don't think it's harsh, but I do think it's sensible. pablo 19:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there some way Wikid can appeal this decision since he has not been able to represent himself given that he was silenced by an administrator early in this discussion. This is a breach of basic principles of justice which hold in all democratic countries. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

He could start a new thread when his block expires, but I highly doubt consensus would change. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a democracy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the typical response from someone who knows nothing about the law. Principles of justice still hold in Wikipedia. In my opinion, they have been violated. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked users retain the ability to edit their own talk pages, so Wikid would be able to refute the arguments in favour of a topic ban from there if he so wishes. However, given some of his most recent comments at that talk page, a convincing refutation would not appear to be forthcoming. SuperMarioMan 22:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Balls. Silenced how? Where? Blocked certainly, also on a tactical wikibreak. But any number of people would happily repost any comment that Wikid wishes to make on his talkpage. It's happened before. pablo 22:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Move to close

There is near-unanimous support for the topic ban in principle. Would it now be possible for an uninvolved administrator to determine the duration (six months, indefinite, or something else), based on the consensus from the arguments and comments above, and then enact the topic ban? SuperMarioMan 14:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything else needs saying. Admin ho! pablo 23:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. All it needs is an uninvolved admin to step in and do the final ruling but it's weekend and admins are usually rare at this time of the week as they need their break too, just like everybody else :)TMCk (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Still, is there any chance of this being wrapped up soon-ish? The discussion has been going on for three days. SuperMarioMan 02:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User HighKing back at compaign to remove British Isles from Wikipedia

Irish nationalist editor HighKing is back at his campaign to remove all use of the British Isles from Wikipedia. Expanded now to remove all references to Republic of Ireland contrary to British Isles and Ireland sanction defended by the corrupt Irish admin Cailil. Usual suspects involved.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gasteruption_jaculator&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carex_hirta&diff=prev&oldid=431968470
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pigeon_Valley&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Story_of_Your_Home&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hammer_of_the_Gods_(video_game)&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Ireland&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Lingo&diff=prev&oldid=431550569
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Francesco_Spinacino&diff=prev&oldid=431178625
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_W_I_Weston&diff=prev&oldid=431178289

Can we address this one at the source of the problem for once and for all, or are you going to allow it to blight the Wikipedia for ever and waste everyone's time and energy? Sven the Big Viking (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC).

You need to be sure you notify the other user involved in the discussion on their talk page. I've gone ahead and done this for you. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This one [9] must surely be regarded as part of a systematic removal? Lancashire Druid (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 14:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What Fetchcomms said. Can some admin please get to grips with this sockology. RashersTierney (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note that user has identified as User:Toug ma Tojer who I recently blocked as a sock of Irvine22, perhaps mistakenly. I really hope an SPI isn't necessary? This is certainly a sock of someone or other. --John (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Toug ma Tojer has the usual remedies open to them. Editing with a new account while blocked is a no-no. RashersTierney (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware, there's a Twitter feed on this topic here; [10] Lancashire Druid (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Nationalists make my head hurt. Can't all these Irish and English people just hug and make up? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Just topic ban all of them, they make the Wikipedia environment toxic and new users see them and walk away. Highking's contributions here have solely been an attempt to remove some geographical term all of which has been totally disruptive and of zero value to the development of the project. Hair splitting disruption from start to finish describes his edits. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is vandalism [11]. A whole section removed because it contains British Isles. Lancashire Druid (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on the removed content and the edit summary, I'd say it's pretty clear it was removed for OR reasons. lifebaka++ 18:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked as a SPA - in the dozen or so edits over the two years of existence they spent over half arguing over the term British Isles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sven seems just as much an SPA as the account you just blocked. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if both accounts are the same person. I can't think of any other reasonable explanation why Druid would come out of a 9 month period of inactivity just to post here.--Atlan (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Sven is also a self-professed sock of a banned user judging from the comment left at User talk:John. Is filing an WP:SPI necessary if the sockiness of Sven seems obvious to everyone here? --HighKing (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

      They seem to have stopped, but if it restarts it will probably be short-lived. RashersTierney (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No Sven is not a "self-professed sock of a banned user" you deliberate little twister of facts. Some child who does not speak Swedish took offense at my name and disallowed it for want of any reason better to trip me up.

Let's put aside all the desperate attempts at poisoning the soup or creating drama and address the main issue, this man's campaign to remove the term British Isles from the Wikipedia. He is doing it again and again and again! Not one word has been said to address this. His trawling attempt to accuse me of being anyone else failed, so let's not waste any more time and address the issue.

Your silences are a confession of knowledge and guilt. You all know. You all know. Sven the Big Viking (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure Highking won't deny he takes exception at the use of the term British Isles. I myself have no idea what all the fuss is about so I can't comment on that. I DO know however, that all you have done since your account was created, is revert Highking's edits and reporting him here. That is behavior very unlike the usual new account, so I don't doubt for a second you are a returned blocked user, and a distruptive single-purpose one at that.--Atlan (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Commodore Sloat

If this user really is the owner of the blog linked to from his user page, then he and User:Jinxmchue are one and the same. Wasn't Jinxmchue banned, IIRC, for a death threat? [12] [13] [14] [15] 96.26.213.146 (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Not that I can tell. Also what is this complaint regarding, specifically? Protonk (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sockpuppetry. For some reason I remember Jinxmchue being banned for making a death threat, and the revision had been deleted, though that may have been someone else. I never actually got into a dispute or even had contact with this user, just saw his name on talk pages frequently and looked at his userpage. Then, I just followed the trail from the domain of the broken link on his page. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Jinx hasn't edited in 3 1/2 years, and your first edit was just a few months ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
      • So? What I was trying to say was that the person behind the Jinxmchue account, (NAME DELETED), may have created a new account, a long-undiscovered sockpuppet. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
        • So, which ID did you used to edit under? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Hi IP96, please do not post editors' real names even on ANI when they are not publicly disclosed on the editors' pages. I have removed the name above and replaced with (NAME DELETED) and requested a RevDel (which has also been completed). Thanks, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I deleted an edit which contained personal information about an editor. Do not post information like that. It will not help your case (whatever that is) and will result in your being blocked from wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger. Are they the same person? If they are the same person, shouldn't some action be taken? 96.26.213.146 (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• It isn't shooting the messenger. Posting personal information about editors is strictly forbidden and normally would result in a block without warning. Protonk (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• As for the original complaint, do you have any record of the ban discussion? Like I said above I don't see a block log that reflects a ban. Protonk (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

An editor who is not blocked, banned or sanctioned is allowed to retire and come back using another name. I do not know if this is the case here, but it would not matter. TFD (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

10 May 2004 - Commodore Sloat first edit (still active as of last week)

Has had several blocks - none since 2008

24 Sep 2005 - Jinxmchue first edit

02 Dec 2007 - Jinxmchue last edit

Had a couple of short blocks - no bans that I can see

20 Dec 2010 - 96.26.213.146 first edit

02 Jun 2011 - 96.26.213.146 talks like he's been around a lot longer("IIRC")

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, it's just an odd coincidence that two Wikipedia users (with wildly divergent views) used the same URL for their blogs. Commodore Sloat added the blog link to his userpage in *2005*; The Internet Archive has a snapshot from February 2006, showing the blog as it looked then.[16] You'll immediately recognize that that is not the same blog that is there now. Further, a post on the new blog indicates that Jinx McHue moved his blog to that domain in December 2010.[17] There is no connection. Horologium (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, his real name was listed, his logs are listed, he is accused of sockpuppetry, and it is insinuated he should be banned. With all of this trash talking of Commodore Sloat, methinks I will drop a note on his talk page, maybe giving him a chance to actually defend himself. Wait, this was done by 96.26.213.146, right? NOT. --(Missouri)64.85.220.196 (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Drive-bys seldom issue warnings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Once Commodore Sloat has a chance to see this thread, assuming Horologium's correct, I am going to make sure I cut it from the archives. This defamation of character by 96.26.213.146 has no place on WP. Irresponsible posting, dude. --(Missouri)64.85.220.196 (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Your threat to "cut it from the archives" is out of line, and your "defamation of character" comment is pretty close to being a legal threat. "Knock it off" yourself, drive-by. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And what user ID have you been using since your last previous edit, 5 years ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

<redacted> or something. --(Missouri)64.85.220.196 (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Not bloody likely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

(od) I know, sorry, this just ticks me off how this can be tossed around without any consideration for some user not even bothering people. --(Missouri)64.85.220.196 (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What connection do you have to the wronged party in this case? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

None. OK, so I thought you were doing the right thing by looking into this, but obviously you just like stirring up things (as everyone knows). So, Bugs, what relation do you have to 96.26.213.146? And why are you trying to lay this socking on Commodore Sloat? --(Missouri)64.85.220.196 (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

None. I'm just trying to figure out what's going on with two drive-by IP's making various accusations at each other, meanwhile refusing to edit under their normal user ID's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright then. I'm not a drive-by obviously (it's a dynamic). I haven't had an account for about 2+ years. I minded my own business and eventually grew tired of users who violated WP:CIVIL as a method of power and then claimed ignorance. Here we have an unjustified claim of socking on a very public board, and it's getting swept under the carpet. In the meantime, this named user is left in the dark. Not good. (And of course I lose my internet in the middle of typing this thereby giving me a new IP, great) --(Missouri)64.85.215.187 (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Things often sit here for awhile, as admins study the matter, behind the scenes. Nothing has been "swept under". And there's no apparent harm to Sloat or whatever. So, meanwhile, why did you give up your registered ID? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you not read what I just wrote? That's why. This long-winded tangent is of no use to the main thread and should be boxed and collapsed. If you say it's not getting swept under the carpet, then there is no longer a need for me to continue. If someone or an admin wants to courtesy blank this thread before (or after) it gets archived, then that would seem utterly appropriate (barring any contrary evidence). --(Missouri)64.85.215.187 (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. It doesn't explain why you're hiding behind a dynamic set of IP's... unless you've got something to hide. Go ahead and box it up, as long as you don't "cut it from the archive". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

(od) You just had to go and refactor your last comment to get in that snippy little jab didn't you? You just couldn't let it be and move on. You seem to enjoy violating civility and claiming "wit" don't you? Isn't an IP more open than hiding behind a fake user persona? ...In some ways, yes. Stop rattling the cage and drop it. Unless you think throwing out accusations is going to stop people from accusing you of whatever you are trying to hide. What is it you are so afraid people are going to find out about you Bugs? Just how exactly are you connected to 96.26.213.146? And just how long have you been beating your wife? Are we done here? --(Missouri)64.85.215.187 (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we? That's up to you. You began this segment of dialogue. Feel free to box it up. Nobody's stopping you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm just curious if you'll let me make the last comment, or if your fingers will get tingly until you get the last word in. I'll just let this hang out here for a while. Bis Später. --(Missouri)64.85.215.187 (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Side note: That was German for Hasta luego. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

To 96.26, I bet you aren't a Republican. 67.233.243.145 (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of that? Now you are baiting just as badly as Bugs. Drop it, for goodness sake. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 20:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is the point. This complaint seemed pretty oddly random, but I recalled that another user, SuaveArt, had a conflict with Jinxmchue. SuaveArt was not only banned, but actually was caught sockpuppeting and using said sockpuppets to attack Jinx. You might want to check if 96.26 matches any information about SuaveArt. I'd be very surprised if it didn't. 67.233.243.145 (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And here is the issue I have with the both of you, and with other arrogant IP users as well. My editing history is out in the open, and you feel free to make snide remarks about my imperfections. You, in contrast, have no editing history. It starts over every time you reboot. That's why some users with dynamic IP's feel free to take drive-by shootings at registered users: because they have no history that can be scrutinized. They are hiding behind their dynamic IP's. Claims about alleged "good reasons" for dropping your registered ID are almost certainly bogus. The real reason is simply so that you can take shots at whoever you like, and never be held accountable for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I will fully admit that I don't have any "good reason" to not have a user account, but I'm certainly not avoiding accountability. 67.233.243.145 (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You avoid accountability every time you reboot - and also by refusing to tell us what your user ID was. And all of that raises suspicions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you've confused me with the other person. Of course, the whole "accountability" thing applies as much to me as it does him/her. I just don't see how the issue applies to those without user accounts. If you examine it deeper, not having a user account is little different to having one. You claim that people "avoid accountability every time [they] reboot," but IP changes happen to many people with accounts. If one of them steps out of line and gets banned, can't they just reboot and make a new account using the new IP? Of course they can and they won't necessarily get caught, either. I'm sure there are plenty of users around who've done just that, some maybe even more than once. Also, there's nothing that says IPs can't be banned. So ultimately, the issue of "accountability" is really a non-issue. People editing with IPs are held to the same standards as people with accounts. Personally, I just don't want to be tempted to be obsessed with the wikidrama that I often see here. This ANI is a good example of that. 67.233.243.145 (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• 67.233.243.145 is not the same person. My IPs geolocate to Missouri. 67.233.243.145 geolocates to Minnesota. Do not confuse 67.233.243.145 with my IPs in the 64.85 range. I'm done here, but I did not want to be impersonated by 67.233.243.145. I added "Missouri" to my signatures above to differentiate. --(Missouri)64.85.220.245 (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, allow me to clarify a few things. I have no relation with the above dynamic-IP user or Baseball Bugs. What occurred was that I happened to encounter a strange case of a domain belonging to an established Wikipedia user (Commodore Sloat), that served as that user's blog, being bought by another Wikipedia editor("Jinx McHue"), who happened to have been blocked in the past. It seems that I was wrong with the alleged death threat by Jinxmchue; I probably had him confused with another user. The link to the former blog was still preserved, unchanged, on Commodore Sloat's page, and was actually broken; but when I went to the domain that Commodore Sloat's blog was formerly on, I saw another blog, and recognized the name "Jinx McHue". There's a possibility that this is not at all a coincidence, and that "Jinx McHue" registered the domain after expiration in an attempt to "get back" at Commodore Sloat for some Wikipedia dispute. Nonetheless, I apologize for the confusion.

67.233.243.145, being in Minnesota, is almost surely "Jinx McHue" himself (not the dynamic IP), and if so, I apologize for confusing you with Commodore Sloat, "Jinx". You are right that I'm not a Republican, and wouldn't want to be one. I hope this clears some of this stuff up. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to honestly say that absolutely none of that so-called reasoning about either one of those two makes a lick of sense to me. 67.233.243.145 (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, for starters 67.233.243.145, there's this ("Jinx McHue's" blog, which has several references to being located in Minnesota), and if you look at the User:Jinxmchue user page, there are several IPs listed as being used by Jinx (put there by "Jinx" himself), all of which geolocate to Minnesota. Yes, it's suspicious that you come from the same state. Additionally, your IP has edits unrelated to this, which are on the pages Talk:Intelligent_design (a crank theory which Jinx loves to defend) and You Can Run But You Cannot Hide, a Jesusfreak fundamentalist ministry; "Jinx McHue" is a fundamentalist Christian.

I agree that the other, dynamic IP user is not Jinxmchue, or 67.233.243.145, but Jinx and 67.233.243.145 seem like the exact same person to me. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Guilt by association? (After a fashion.) I can see why you were banned. Getting around a ban by using an IP identity is still against the rules here AFAIK. It's the same as sockpuppeting, but you know all about that, don't you? 67.233.244.224 (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As do you, apparently. Tell us again, how dynamic IP's are every bit as accountable as registered users? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to insinuate that I'm SuaveArt? Well, I'm not. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What to do?

moved from WP:AN by Skomorokh 08:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to edit-war with the guy, but seriously, what more can I do? I've posted a reliable scholarly source, a university publication, with URL and page numbers, for the text I've entered into the article (I invite anyone to check the veracity of the source). And yet - I simply am "not allowed" to enter this information into the Yugoslav Front article because of one user. I've asked the user to post his sources, he did not do so. Incidentally, he is also now trying to remove, by way of edit-warring, a long-standing, obviously relevant image from the article without consensus and essentially on a whim. This can't be right. What can I do? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've placed FpkCascais on an Arbmac revert limitation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This will hopefully grant more significance to references, as opposed to rhetoric and edit-warring, and encourage a more sources-based debate. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Two issues - why was FkpCascais not informed about this thread (I will do so now), and why hasn't he been allowed to defend himself? GiantSnowman 21:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I posted this thread on WP:AN as a general inquiry about the best possible course of action in the situation described, not specifically as a report on User:FkpCascais's behavior. I made a point of not mentioning his name. That is not to say that the course of action taken by Fut.Perf. will not be highly beneficial towards raising the quality of the discourse in this particular case. Edit-warring has now been eliminated as a means of removing content without discussion. The user did not post any sources, apparently relying on persistance in edit-warring, now perhaps we can have a more focused discussion. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I was just informed now about this thread by User:GiantSnowman. I am already punished without a chance to defend myself, including a note saying that I´ve done "tendentious" editing [18] (?!). Seems clear to me that there was a precipitated wrong decition, lead by a clear agressive manipulation (including total missinformation) of the situation by a involved editor DIREKTOR. I am complaining about this situation and asking explanations and an oportunity to demonstrate what is really happening there. PS: Many thanks Giant Smowman, if it wasn´t your notice about this, I wouldn´t even know about it, cause I never even imagined this was here. Now, these are some facts:

• This issue is currently under mediation. User Direktors edits are highly controversial and disputed. Weather sourced, they fail under WP:UNDUE. Also, it was agreed on the mediation that the parts of the article that are being mediated should NOT be edited, thus every revert of major changes in those sections are rightfully reverted.
• I have an entire page of sources about this issue which I presented at the discussion: User:FkpCascais/Sandbox23. Seems that direktor purpously missinformed you all about being him the one backed by sources.
• I am being ganged-up on that article by a group of editors that share a same POV, and none of them is a participant of the mediation, but all willing to include their disputed edits.
• User:Direktor has been highly provocative and disruptive towards me for a long time now: as last exemples, please see the resposes towards me at [[19]] or [[20]] where in both cases I am attacked and trolled without any reason... This must end. Even after this I was completely stalked by direktor to every single user page. There is a big mistake done here and needs to be rectified. FkpCascais (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, it is clear from the formulation of my original post that the subject was a general inquiry. I am aware of the requirement to notify the defending party and I always do so immediately. The way things have turned out is that now I stand accused of precipitating "unfair treatment" against you. Please, as far as I'm concerned, do not hesistate to post your defence.

That said, I must say I do not quite understand how exactly one defends what is obviously persistent edit-warring (against several users) to remove a long-standing, related image from the article, in spite of clear opposition, and without any semblance of a talkpage consensus? The only justification you posted is that this image is somehow the "same" as this image and that "clearly" therefore one of those two should be removed, to me that simply makes no sense at all. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This is only my opinion: FkpCascais is a fine editor and disputed articles are controversial very much! Photo, with German soldiers and Chetniks, is tendentious and slanted in that section and top position because in March 2004, the National Assembly of Serbia passed a new law that equalized the Chetniks and Partisans as equivalent anti-fascists; moreover photo is of obscure origin: when and where it was made?--Tiblocco (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That is an issue for the talkpage. Neither the original purpose of this thread nor the sanction placed upon FkpCascais have anything to do with the image itself. I for one am certainly open to moving the image about, but not removing it simply because it offends someone's patriotic sensibilities. The only reasoning posted by User:FkpCascais in the summaries of his edit war was that, since there are two images depicting Chetnik collaboration, one "clearly" has to go. "Proclaiming" a limit of ONE image related to a particular subject one finds personally disagreeable, and trying to enforce it with edit-warring, is imho indeed tendentious editing. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The edits of User:Hobartimus and User:Nmate at Hősök tere

These two users are trying to remove the link to the japanese wikipedia correspondent of the article and refuse to respect Wikipedia:USEENGLISH (by imposing the Hungarian name Janos Hunyadi instead of English name John Hunyadi). Can you please warn them in order to make them stop the edit war? (Daccono (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC))

I don't see where either of them have edited today. I do, however, see where an admin has changed the name to its English variant and cited the WP:MOS as the reason for the change. Perhaps that will settle things down. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but I know MoS fairly well due to some recent dealings with longevity lists; this is pretty straightforward. Same reason why we use John Cabot instead of Giovanni Caboto, even though the latter is his real name. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

My bad, I thought you had a mop. Still, the MoS is quite clear, so yours was the good call. I'll keep an eye on the page for a bit. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• First of all, everyone who wants to report anybody at WP ANI, meets a yellow stripe saying that "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion."

Well actually, nobody of those whose name is mentioned here in the report has been notified about being discussed.

• Second, this discussion is in entirely the wrong place:

At the top of this page it says "What this page is not This page is not part of our dispute resolution process for content issues." and also says "To report edit warring, see the administrators' edit warring noticeboard." Well actually, It looks like a content dispute.

• Third, I have to say that the way in which Daccono behaves himself when contributing to Wikipedia is quite surly:

[21] "remove vandalism from the English wiki; EN wiki should use the scientific EN terms", [22] (WP:NPA)

• Fourth, So it looks like a discourtesy:

[23] For what this page should not be used is that that the reporter tries to recruit somebody to support his POV so that the 3RR supplement of the reporter emulates that of his antipodes ,whereof ensues that that this board might also be used for having the POV of someone rammed thorough an issue by those formerly uninvolved ones that consider the standpoint of the reporter to be sympathetic.

--Nmate (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a POV issue, it's a simple MoS issue; we go by the English name of people. See my example above, or consider Christopher Columbus; accusing people of conspiracy theories is neither productive nor factually correct. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Badger Drink, civility block and unblock by Beeblebrox

I blocked User:Badger Drink for his continued disruptive interactions with Treasury Tag - specifically [24], [25], and similar (see [26] for more). Particularly this block was for personal attacks and for repeatedly ignoring the "comment on content, not on the contributor" mantra. Beeblebrox has then unblocked without discussion with me, and without a wide consensus to overturn the block - which I would hope would be established here. If such a consensus does exist, I have no problem with an unblock, and have started this thread to get wider input. If this thread doesn't show consensus to unblock, I intend to reblock, otherwise all is well. Thanks for your input. Prodego ^talk 00:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Just confirming that I have been made aware of this thread, but I have agreed to refrain from commenting. Badger Drink (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the unblock; I'd show a certain amount of tolerance for people who've been baited by Treasury Tag. Also, to pick a nit, if there isn't consensus either way, the default should be to leave unblocked (since it isn't an AE block); I think that should have been "if this thread shows consensus to reblock, I will."--Floquenbeam (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If Treasury Tag is such a problem, why not block him then as well? Other stuff exists, or in this case, other editors. Prodego ^talk 00:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, because I wasn't here at the time, for one thing. But yes, if BD was going to be blocked for that little spat, TT should have been too. Better they're both unblocked, however, and just go to their respective corners. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Admins should always work together...undoing another's block without at least consulting the blocking admin should be taboo.--MONGO 00:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If Treasury Tag is such a problem, why not block him then as well?

Now there's an idea. Just follow some of the links posted (no, not the one where TT defends a pro-nazi userbox because "he didn't understand it"), the complaints about his behaviour at recent AfDs: User:TehGrauniad/Sandbox1 and WP:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Assistance#Help_with_RfC, WP:Articles for deletion/Terry (Fawlty Towers), WP:Articles for deletion/Silence (Doctor Who) and no doubt others. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's see, we've got:

"I find it quite surprising that such an evidently sensitive, easily upset snowflake would be capable of such provocative statements and actions." - Reply to TT's WQA request

"Your condescending swarm has not gone without notice." - In reference to the WQA community

"res to the illiterate" - Edit summary

Ect. And that's just a small amount. Not to mention the inappropriate tagging of TT's page. I completely support this block. Silverseren^C 00:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This was a poor block. TT brought a complaint against Badger Drink to WQ. It was being discussed, but looked like being at very much the initial phase. Badger Drink responded with a complaint against TT. I've no idea who is in the right or wrong, but that was for discussion. Jumping in unilaterally and blocking one party is unhelpful. There was no outrage in what BD said, and no need to act before a few people had looked at the interaction. It would have been better had you given some opinion of what you thought was going on, suggested a remedy (which might be a block) and awaited a consensus. To block, and then demand a consensus to unblock is putting the cart before the horse. Unblock was justified.--Scott Mac 00:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh - I expect administrators to reduce disruption not open dramah threads like this when they have been challenged quite reasonably - and with a threat to re block - hold your hands up and stop digging. Off2riorob (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support unblock. An editor who is in conflict with another should be able to speak more freely at WQA than in other venues, without being blocked for relatively minor incivility - especially when the dispute and incivility is not one-sided -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock. TT is a frequent flyer in these drama threads, and to be frank, baits with such sarcasm that at times it's going to come back around at him. Not bothering to read in depth this time, as it seldom does any good as far as getting an end result. — Ched :  ?  03:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Let me preface these remarks by stating that in my pre-admin days I was very active at WQA and have have always thought it was something we need as an alternative to the pitchfork-and-torches drama of this forum. Treasury Tag knows the difference between WQA and this board, having posted here many times. He chose to file at WQA. The entire point of that forum is to hash out issues without the threat of a block looming over the conversation. That's not me talking, it says quite clearly t the top of the page not to report if "You want blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures to be imposed/enforced." I don't condone BadgerDrink's coarse tone or smarmy responses, but issuing a block as a result of a WQA defeats the purpose of having a place like WQA. I would also note that two other admins, including a sitting arbitrator who has had his own problems with TT in the past, both stated they thought this was probably a bad block. I noted in my unblock statement [27] that I took their opinions into consideration as well, but somehow that has not yet been noted in this dialogue. While consulting with the blocking admin is something we normally would do before unblocking, in some cases it is not appropriate to leave a user unjustly blocked while we wait for a reply. I deemed this to be such a case. Civility blocks are for the very worst kinds of incivility only, or for repeated disruptive comments after being explicitly warned that a block was imminent. I don't see either of those conditions in this case and therefore I summarily overturned the block. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock per those above, but then, no one would be surprised at that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I was only going to make that one statement here, but I've just noticed the following: When informing me of his objections to the unblock and his intent to open this thread Prodego claimed it was not in response to the WQA report itself [28] but solely for his reply there. Putting aside the fact that that is a fairly nonsensical statement, it also directly contradicts his statement to BD when blocking him [29] "Based on this WQA report, and particularly your response there, I've blocked your account for 48 hours. (emphasis added). Further his entry in the block log says the block if for "tenacious editing, personal attacks" [30]. So, we've got three explanations for this block that don't quite match up with one another. I can only assume he meant to say "tendentious" editing, but that reason is noted only in the block log and was not mentioned in his remarks to BD, to me, or here at this thread. Put that all together and it seems like Prodego isn't even sure himself why he made this block. I think it is time to to admit this was a mistake and move on. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not just do away with civility blocks altogether? When even remotely questionable they are always reversed and nit-picked with "Aw, that wasn't so bad!" Then, we can all act like jerks and just carry on. Doc talk 05:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose any unblock for any reason whatsoever that was not previously discussed with the blocking admin. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• I don't really want to get involved in all this wittering, but would just like to say two things. Firstly—I did not intend to get Badger Drink (talk · contribs) blocked. My WQA report was merely to gather third-party views on whether or not the material I presented was considered acceptable (though perhaps unsurprisingly, that hasn't happened). I support the block because he was behaving very unpleasantly, but I genuinely didn't have blocking in mind at the time I posted the thread, merely reprimand. Secondly—the usual folks have turned out to say that I baited this person by arguing that a particular userbox should be kept, by posting someone a personal attack warning for calling me "illiterate" and by asking them to explain their warning to me about "using improper humour." If anyone can provide feedback on how any of those actions were provocative, I would be interested indeed. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 07:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "Baiting" is a red herring anyway. Being civil or uncivil is chosen behavior. The "look what he made me do" game is just that - a game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Badger Drink's comment were not significantly more inflammatory or out of line with what I frequently see at WQA. Given the lack of clear community consensus on blocking for incivility (see Wikipedia:Incivility blocks), the block seems inappropriate to me. Gerardw (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose any unblock A rogue admin who should have his admin tools stripped for following procedures incorrectly and when approached cannot admit to his errors. He needs to learn to respect other editors like Prodego, and communicate with other people. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note that Blofeld made this remark right after calling me a "dickhead" on my talk page.[31] I trust he will remember that he held this position when his own block for gross incivility comes... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I told you to refrain from making snide dickhead judgements about other editors in your AFD closures. It is completely inappropriate for you to do so when articles can obviously create tension in the heat of the moment. In closing at article at AFD you should NOT act like some kind of wiki God and pass judgements on the editors involved in it but rather on the article itself. You seem to show a complete disregard for your peers on here. In this instance here you abused your position to make a fellow admin Prodego look foolish for his blocking decision.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm...do you think your comment about "snide dickhead judgements" will create tension in the heat of the moment? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

User:MajorHawke

Resolved

 – For now, at least. Thanks, Boing! said Zebedee. 28bytes (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I need some help here. I have tried over the past year to coach User:MajorHawke towards editing within the policies and guidelines of the site, but he's just not hearing it. He inserts original research constantly, and today has flat-out said, in an edit summary, "who cares no sources say it, it's true".

I've been trying and trying to help him understand our policies, but I have to admit that I haven't succeeded. A few weeks ago I asked LessHeard vanU to help me try to get through to him; LessHeard vanU left him a warning and explained to him in no uncertain terms that if he kept this up, he'd be blocked, and suggested that I take him to AIV if he kept it up.

If anyone can think of another way to get through to him, short of blocking, I would greatly appreciate it. If blocking him is the only way to get him to stop acting against the policies and guidelines of the site, well, I guess I'm reluctantly requesting that. 28bytes (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

My 2p worth is that this is reminiscent of the Gobbleswoggler episode. Enthusiasm is one thing, but enthusiasm without WP:COMPETENCE doesn't help the Wikipedia project as a whole. If MajorHawke isn't willing to accept the assistance of an editor of long standing AND the advice of an admin, perhaps it's time for an enforced wikibreak. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The latest. 28bytes (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

24 hour block. Sadly, he's clearly not listening, and is instead lashing out with abuse. People have clearly tried hard to help him with constructive advice and encouragement, but if the carrot won't work then we unfortunately have to resort to the stick -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the user wants to be blocked for more than 24 hours per this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

People get angry when we block them. This is expected. Often, they vent a little. Also expected. I doubt that extending Hawke's block simply because of a little venting is going to help the situation. If he comes back and keeps this up after he's had a night's rest (or a day at work or whatever), then we can consider a longer mandatory break from Wikipedia. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I think this needs defusing rather than escalating. It's just an angry juvenile reaction and I don't mind taking a bit of abuse, so I've given him a (friendly, I hope) warning, and we can see how he behaves when the block expires - I'm keeping my eye on what he does, and I'm sure others will be too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, thanks for stepping in here and for your message to MajorHawke on his talk page. Hopefully he'll come around and listen to the advice; as I told him earlier, if he can pair his enthusiasm with a good understanding of the do's and don'ts of editing, he can do lots of good stuff here. 28bytes (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

NP, I've seen a few similar cases while I've been here, and there's usually a good chance they can be brought round -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've offered some tips and my help. If he takes me up on it, I'll do my best to help channel all that energy in better directions. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Csteffen13

Resolved

 – Other than some possible WP:MEAT, this would have been better served as a WP:SPI case (although that's now looked at), as agreeing with someone does not a problem make. There's not enough WP:DUCKism here, yet. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Csteffen13 (talk · contribs) appears to edit solely for the purpose of supporting Winchester2313 (talk · contribs).

• His very first edit was to support Winchester2313.[32]
• The only AfD he ever participated in was in support of Winchester2313.[33]
• The only AN discussion he's ever participated in was to defend Winchester2313.[34][35]
• His first, and until recently only user talk page contribution was a gushing praise of Winchester2313.[36]
• His second, and most recent user talk page contribution was to admonish another editor for talking to Winchester2313 in a way Csteffen13 did not like.[37]
• He returned to Wikipedia on May 20, after a 5 month editing break, to edit-war in support of Winchester2313. Winchester2313's edits:[38][39]. Csteffen13's edit:[40] His Talk: page comments were also all in support of Winchester2313's positions.
• He has edited a total of 16 unique pages,[41] 11 of them in common with Winchester2313.[42]

Many of Cteffen13's other edits are in support of Winchester2313, though he has also made a small number of other "decoy" edits. Because his writing style differs from Winchester2313's, I doubt Csteffen13 is an actual sockpuppet, but it appears that this little-used (85 total edits) account's purpose for editing Wikipedia is to act as Winchester2313's meatpuppet. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, this seems like it would be more appropriate at WP:SPI as opposed to here. - SudoGhost™

At the SPI talk page they said it wasn't required if one wasn't asking for a CU. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not (as yet) overly informed about the methods and workings of these things, but reading the charge above, I feel a few obvious points would serve everybody well:

1.I am quite active on some fairly controversial articles, particularly Elazar Shach, Chabad Lubavitch and other, similar articles. These seem to attract a number of sporadic, narrowly focused editors, e.g Csteffen13, Yonoson3 and others on both sides of the debate. Brewcrewer has focused here on Csteffen13, but much of what he says might be equally applicable to an editor like Yonoson3 editing sporadically in support of an editor such as Jayjg ?

2. The positions I take in controversial articles are well-sourced, and I hardly rely on others 'support' (or lack thereof) to establsh validity. That others may see things as I do regarding Elazar Shach is not surprising, as the man made a career of attacking other Rabbis and groups, so I'm sure he's viewed with an equal measure of disdain across many lines and by many different groups.

3. I'm not sure what significance an editing crossover of 11/16 topics might have, considering the confluence of so many popular debates within the Jewish religion and various groups of its adherents, especially, again on highly controversial subjects...? Winchester2313 (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that Csteffen13's only purpose for editing is to support Winchester2313, and this is done in many different venues, which one would not normally find an editor with so little Wikipedia experience or with a specific topical area of interest. The question here is, does one actually need to make an SPI report if one is fairly sure a meatpuppet (not sockpuppet) is editing? Or can this board simply ban a little-used obvious meatpuppet account? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious enough an SPI is a formality. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 22:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So Csteffen13 should be blocked then? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd actually prefer to see an SPI and checkuser results in this case. I realize the writing styles are different, but I imagine that's easy enough to accomplish if one sets one's mind to it.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

To what end? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(I've been asked to respond here by Jayjg) Technically a case like this would go to SPI, but I really don't see a reason to split the discussion. If they're not suspected of being the same person (leaving aside any meatpuppetry concerns), there's no technical information a checkuser could provide that would help. At that point, it would be up to a patrolling admin/clerk to close the SPI and decide what, if any, action to take. Leaving it here just skips straight to the admin action part. TNXMan 11:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

@Jayjg: The topic area is so contentious, and so rife with socks, that I'd prefer to see a formal SPI, with checkuser. I loathe socking, and I'm not convinced by the different writing styles that these are two different people; I'd hate to miss catching a possible sockmaster, and only block his sock. By copying the diffs already provided above, it would just take a couple of minutes to file the SPI and request checkuser. Also, and with all possible respect, Jayjg, I'd suggest it's probably not the best practice that ideal perfection would require for you to yourself block accounts on the opposing side of the I/P wars, except in cases of blatant vandalism. I mean no offence; I'd say precisely the same to any admin who's expressed any similarly strong support for the opposite side to your preferred politics in the topic area.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ohiostandard, perhaps you are under the impression that this is an I-P related article. It's not. This is an Haredi Judaism related dispute, and more specifically a dispute that supporters of Chabad have with Elazar Shach, because Shach was very critical of Chabad's leader. I can't ask for a CheckUser here, because CheckUser is not for fishing, and no-one thinks Csteffen13 is an actual sockpuppet, even though he's an obvious meatpuppet. If you want to satisfy your own curiosity, feel free to, but I think most people that an SPI is not required, this is at the right place - in fact, they'll no doubt just kick it back here if you try. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Response: I am not any kind of puppet that I know of, and nice try by Jayjg and Brewcrewer to ban an occasional editor who they obviously disagree with. The simple reason for me being a heavy wiwkiuser and a very light wikieditor is that I really have very little free time. I happen to have strong opinions about Elazar Shach as I bet do most editors. I did in-fact study in Ponevich for almost 2 years, so feel like I have more knowledge about what happened there in the late 80's than most. Still, I limit my edits to things that meet the wp:v standards and try to keep a wp:npov. Interesting how Jayjg warns ME about edit warring on the Elazar Shach page, but not Brewcrewer who keeps warring to support Jayjg's own arbitrary and disruptive editing, which clearly violated wp:npov. Or am I the only one noticing? C Steffen 00:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs) Oh, and the simple reason I support Winchester2313 on most of his edits on these controversial topics is simply because I usually agree with him. I didn't know there was anything wrong with that?!C Steffen 00:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs)

NOTE: I see Csteffen13 has been recalled from his most recent absence to yet again defend Winchester2313 (immediately above), and revert on his behalf. Is it finally time for administrative action? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Response: As I pointed out above and in my edit summary, I'm not here to 'defend' anybody or anything. My edits all conform to the rules as I read them. Its a really sorry situation if all Jayjg can do after harassing and edit-warring with editors whose work he doesn't like is to now try and ban them. Perhaps its time for Jayjg to post another warning on my talk page now, as seems to be his habit whenever he disagrees but can't legitimately deny others contributions. Yes, I think his actions on Winchester2313 s talk page make this clear to anybody bothering to look. As I read it "Wikipedia is not censored", even by long-term editors like Jayjg. Am I missing something here? --C Steffen 13:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate an administrative closure here. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The accounts are  Unrelated technically. Brandon (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Grumptooth

 by User:Fastily S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Meant to make this block VOA. When I tried to change it, it did not go through. Can another admin block indef?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

My thanks to Fastily (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Spurious Greek etymologies

Over the past few months a user or group of users, editing under various IPs, have been engaged in adding spurious Greek etymologies and Greek origins to a variety of articles, beginning from Greek folk dances (Zeibekiko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Zeibeks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Hasapiko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) and spreading to yoghurt (Cacık (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Tzatziki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Yoghurt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) and lately mathematics (Algorithm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). This circus has been going on for several months despite temporary semi-protections, and the latest incarnation is 79.130.92.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Despite warnings and temporary blocks of the previous IPs, he persists in reverting what he calls "vandalism", and is already deep in WP:3RR territory. Clearly a single-purpose account out to spread the obvious truth that the world owes everything to the Greeks and that there is no Turkish or Asian influence in Greek culture. I request blocking the IP and long-period semi-protection of the articles in question (Zeibekiko and Zeibeks at least, since they attract the most attention), so that we don't have to deal with this every month. Constantine ✍ 12:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. The anon uses as his source a site called "www.argyrou.eclipse.co.uk". Somebody please blacklist this. The owner of that site is notorious. Same guy who used to plague Ancient Greek phonology under the username of Thrax (talk · contribs) back in 2005. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Double ouch, I know 'Agamemnon' very well from Usenet, he was a well known kook. The site should definitely never be used, blacklisting's a good idea. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you do that please? I still have this mindblowingly silly Arbcom restriction hampering my work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I can only request it, and I doubt it would be blacklisted. But maybe someone knows more about the criteria than I do - well, I'm sure many people know more about blacklisting than I do. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Any admin can add the string "\bargyrou\.eclipse\.co\.uk\b" to the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist page. Just watch out you don't write \b(argyrou\.eclipse\.co\.uk)|.+\..+" instead, because by doing so you would unintentionally burn the servers, delete the main page, desysop Jimbo Wales and freeze all articles forever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted- hopefully everything is fine, and nothing is ruined. TNXMan 16:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware I could, but I certainly wouldn't want to, that stuff makes me nervous. I'd assumed my sysop permissions didn't apply there. Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Someone should also take care of the WP:RPP requests, they've been overseen, apparently... Otherwise we'll be back to the same business in a few days. Constantine ✍ 17:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Still at it, apparently, coming in from 94.64.43.151, adding undue weight to the Greek origins of the Zeibeks. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

sources of wikipedia verification reverted  :

This user(s) are known about anti-nation gestures and tactiks the articles of wikipedia Zeibekiko and Zeybeks are vandalising by them many times ago because just They do not like the Greek origin. I leave in your chance... Noone tryed to do any vandalism WITH ADDING some informations that are certified by world ,Its just a simply source but they dont like seeing it thats all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.92.92 (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I made this new section a subsection of the previous one as they obviously belong together. Hans Adler 12:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Fast block needed on article creator

Resolved

Footyarticlecreator (talk · contribs) is creating about 1 article a minute. Each article says "is a *** player" sometimes with "in the X league". In some cases, the team names appear to be nicknames; there's not nearly enough information here for these even to count as sub-stubs. Articles are being tagged as A7 or A1 immediately upon creation, but there's no reason to let this continue any longer than it has to. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Block needed asap

Resolved

See Special:Contributions/Footyarticlecreator - creating loads of sub-stubs, which are being CSDd as A1, A7. Ignoring numerous requests to desist on his talk page. - Sitush (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

See above section - great minds, etc. - Sitush (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Already reported on WP:AIV. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 13:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Footarticlecreator is  Confirmed as Drodedsweard (talk · contribs), who was blocked 2 days ago for the exact same thing. –MuZemike 15:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure but what I may be too involved here to think straight

An IP and some s.p.a. accounts keep re-inserting identical language into Steven Downes, recounting the subject's own version of a political dispute with a member of Parliament. The language they use is cited solely to the subject's own blog, so I've been reverting its insertion, pointing out the need for reliable sources. Instead, the various identities simply revert to Downes' preferred version (or at least the version sourced solely to Downes' blog). Can somebody else take a look? My union convention starts in 5 minutes, and I've got to be on the floor. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I semied it for two weeks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Thonos's offensive userbox

Resolved

 – Blocked as a suspected sock of Giornorosso by NuclearWarfare. Doc talk 02:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Thonos Who self-identifies as a racist, has a userbox with a Swastika on his user page: a clear violation of WP:UP#NOT. [43]

I suspect Thonos may well be a sockpuppet of a blocked user. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever else they were/are doing, I've blocked the proxies they were hiding behind. Please let me know if they edit again, so I can either a) block more proxies or b) see who they really are. TNXMan 16:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Do we leave the userbox on the page then? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I left my thoughts on your usertalk. There was also a nice personal attack by User:BoxOfRazors in one of the reversions back to the userbox [44]. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've gone ahead and removed it. Anyone is welcome to undo my action if it's unwarranted. TNXMan 16:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make much sense to me as I said. More people associate it with anti-Semitism. This whole thing actually segues into something I have been wondering about, and I know it's more for the Help Desk, but is it ok to put on your userpage that you might have some biases against certain groups (for reasons of declaring your biases)? Like just stating you have a bias, not any offensive names for said groups or colourful descriptors. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I could take BoxOfRazors's comment as a compliment: [45] ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well he got the banhammer anyway. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Dunno how he could nazi that coming... HalfShadow 16:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The editor (whose name is apparently a demon on some video game) claims to be against racial hatred. Maybe he needs flowers sprouting from the 4 tips of his swastika. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As a counter to the use of the ugly symbol of Nazism, I've created this: File:Peace Nazi.png. If the guy had that in his infobox, maybe he would have more credibility? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if Thonos is substituting a generic racist userbox to get his "Disclaimer", but that disclaimer is exactly the same as that of User:Me ne frego, who is a sockpuppet of Giornorosso. Some of the non-race-related interests, such as weather, are shared between Thonos and Giornorosso. Quigley (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Me ne frego means "I don't care" in Italian, for what it's worth. It's not a generic userbox, it's a hand-constructed one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The exact same "disclaimer"? Why is he not blocked indefinitely as a quack-tacularly obvious sock of Giornorosso? Seriously. Doc talk 21:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This user has a Fuhrer of Love

I laughed too hard at your peace nazi image to not make a little crack. -- ۩ Mask

Im still working on that. At infobox size, the dove is too small. Or to put it another way, I need to give the swastika a bigger bird. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC) Looks a little better now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Nuked. Good find, Quigley. Doc talk 02:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

False sockpuppetry accusation

Hi, I have been accused of being the "sockpuppet" of a registered user when I am not. These IP adresses are all mine: 78.176.91.37, 85.103.166.64, 85.103.129.110. I have requested an official review of the block yesterday in the talk page of the IP [[46]] but nobody gave an answer until now. Then, I also notified the blocking administrator for this issue [47]

You can also read my defense in here: [48]

Despite all these, the administrator HelloAnnyong recently blocked that IP as well and also extended the punishment of the registered user. [49]

I wonder what should I be doing at that point, clearly blocking administrator HelloAnnyong is not interested in reading the defense of the accused party.

Thus, briefly re-state my defense in here: -Firstly, The registered user participates in wikipedia from Cyprus, I am from Istanbul.

-Secondly, the only reason why we ended up being editing the same articles because I was following the editor Nipsonanomhmata as he was deleting cited content from several articles, for instance here: [50] and here: [51]These two editors have a history of edit-warring with each other and this is the only reason why I am being accused of being a sockpuppet.

-Thirdly, I and the said user are in fact have one time a little disagreement over the content; he thought that a particular quotation can be used by rewording and shortening when I strongly believed that this has to be a full quotation, thus changed his version, in here:[52]

Not being a registered user, I honestly can not understant how come two persons who do not know each other can be accused and punished without the slightests of an evidence.

--78.176.80.214 (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? You admit to using multiple IPs to edit, but you're not the master? All of your IPs geolocate to Istanbul, which the last time I checked, is in Turkey. And Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk · contribs) admits that they're fluent in Turkish and are active on the Turkish Wikipedia. If you're not the master, then why are you coming to his/her defense? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, someone's got a shiny new boomerang. They threw it in exactly the wrong way though. =( Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out, I initially blocked Seksen and one of the other IPs on behavioral evidence based on the similarities between these two edits. There was a little more evidence, but per WP:BEANS, I'd rather not divulge it entirely. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Those similarities, between one only edit each from each user, seem pretty thin block evidence to me considering the apparent evidence of the users living a very long distance apart - see my further comments below. And if there is more "beans" evidence, could you share it with someone else? I'd promise to keep it confidential if you'd email me with it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Above comments actually prove me right, you do not read the defending party before making a decision.

To answer your comments, of course all the IP's are going to "geolocate" Turkey because all are mine. The registered user is from Cyprus not from Turkey, two different countries. And here is my defense for having multiple IP's: [[53]] which says I have a dynamic IP adress, which can change over the course of time when I am using the same computer. Is there any wikipedia rule that prohibits IP adresses to make edits?

And about your supposed proof; A registered user deletes a properly cited quotation and I revert his changes explaining my reasons to do so: [54]

The same user again deletes the same quotaion and this time the registered user Seksen shorthens and transforms this direct quotation to a single sentence [55]

Then, disagreeing with that decision of Seksen I actually restore the quotation back:[56]

It needs to be added this quotation is included in the wikipedia by neither me nor by the registered user, it seems it has been there for years. Both of us simply tried to protect that quotation from deletion which made us the same person.

You also asked me that: "If you're not the master, then why are you coming to his/her defense?"

Seriously what kind of a question is that? You are making a clear mistake, accuse and punish two different people for a thing they have not done and then ask me why am I coming to his defense. I do come only to my own defense first of all, while pointing out the mistake you are doing as an administrator.

--78.176.80.214 (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Just speaking Turkish and being active on the Turkish Wikipedia doesn't mean someone has to be in Istanbul and doesn't make them a sockmaster - loose criteria like that would make everyone on the English Wikipedia socks, for one thing. Also, people on dynamic IPs do get them changed, and with some ISPs in some countries it can be very frequent (and some people switch their modems off after every session, so will always get a new IP). If User:Seksen iki yüz kırk beş really is in Cyprus (where there are a lot of Turks), and the IPs geolocate to Istanbul, then there is no sock case. Can anyone do a checkuser to find out (but only tell us "not connected" results etc, obviously don't state where the register user actually is)? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, half of Cyprus is occupied by Turkey, so it's really not uncommon for a Cypriot to be fluent in Turkish.--Atlan (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

At User talk:Seksen iki yüz kırk beş, he points out that Northern Cyprus ISPs are handled from Mersin in Turkey, which really is a very long way from Istanbul, and invites a checkuser - and he does stress a number of times in that page that he's a Turkish Cypriot, but nobody seems to be prepared to listen -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Some comments:

• The restoration of that passage by the IP looks a priori legitimate. I have never heard of that particular peninsula, but Greek atrocities to the Turks did happen and are (according to an informant who is a great fan of both Greek and Turkish culture and speaks modern Greek) the reason for the later atrocities by Turks to Greeks. Greeks are generally only aware of the retaliation, though.
• Editing from dial-up IPs without creating an account is totally legitimate, so there was nothing wrong with the first change of IPs.
• When the second IP was blocked, the user apparently acquired a new IP to defend themselves. While this is maybe not the approved way of doing things, it's not deceptive at all and should not be held against the user. Hans Adler 17:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering the IP first edited right at the time Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked [57], and that it shows knowledge of Wikipedia policies and terminology, we are either dealing with a) sockpuppetry via a proxy or some other way to disguise one's IP, or b) meatpuppetry. But there's definitely something fishy here. Athenean (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a dynamic IP, so you have no idea when the *person* first started editing or how much Wikipedia experience they have -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I personally use several ISPs. A couple are located in the United States. Others are located in Europe and others in the Far East and Australasia. The IP addresses that these ISPs use are allocated by their location. I can access these ISPs directly from one PC or remotely from a laptop or any other PC that is connected to the Internet (from anywhere in the world). If I use a Remote Access Server I can use an IP address that says I'm American (from a number of different states), European (from a number of different countries) and Taiwanese or Australian. I could be located in Sri Lanka and you will be convinced by my IP address that I am located in Taiwan. I personally choose to access Wikipedia using the same dynamically allocated range of IP addresses from one ISP. The effort required to wreak havoc on Wikipedia is minimal when you have the technology at your disposal. There is no technical difficulty in editing from an IP address in Mersin and an IP address in Istanbul. But that is not to say that this is what is happening here. I am just informing you of what is possible. But now I'm just giving you all ideas as per WP:BEANS.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 18:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's possible for people to use different ISPs - I have ISPs in the UK and Thailand, and I can route via either from either country. But it's actually pretty uncommon for people to use two or more widely separated ISPs, and we need a lot more than knowing such a thing is possible when blocking people - we need evidence that they actually did it, and we need to actually listen to and consider the defenses offered by the accused rather than just ignoring them -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

What concerns me, and which is why I raised the concern, is the timing and the seamlessness between the edits of one IP address and the next IP address. It is more than coincidence and easily passes the WP:DUCK test. If the IP addresses are not sockpuppets, then the IP addresses are meatpuppets, and if the owners of the IP addresses did not communicate with eachother then the meatpuppet-like IP addresses were just plain unlucky to have got involved when they did. Let's face it an IP address with a short history does not have a very long watchlist. There is no way of definitely proving that they did or did not communicate with eachother to co-ordinate their efforts. Either way the blocking penalties are currently no greater than one calendar month. That is not a long time penalty for all the effort that we have all been put through to reduce the disruption.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 19:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not suggesting there was no disruption, I'm just primarily disturbed that the accused users' defenses were being totally ignored - it read to me like "You're condemned and you have no right to be listened to". But I do actually think the escalation to 1 month is too long for such a weak SPI result, for a user who may well be innocent (though we await further investigation) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Boing, if you actually take a look at the previous case for Seksen, the admin who reset his block the first time actually called for an indef this time around. I figured that a month would be a better choice. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

In this case, if two editors having the ability to use a common language edit the same article during the same day, this means that they are sockpuppets.

Then I wonder what happens if three editors having the ability to use the same language do the same. Editors Nipsonanomhmata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Athenean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Alexikoua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) similary involved in the same edit warring of the same article, where I and Seksen are accused of commiting sockpupettry, making quite similar comments with each other. In a line of continuum during the same day, first the user Athenean deleted the sourced content: [58] then the editor Alexikoua deleted it providing almost the exact same excuses [59] andfinally the user Nipsonanomhmata deleted that passage as well [60] By merely restoring their deletions, we have ended up being the guilty, disruptive, sockpuppet.

In view of the comments by the editor Nipsonanomhmata, how come we can be sure of these three editors are not suckpuppets or meatpuppets, especially since Nipsonanomhmata admits that he "personally use several IP's"?

I do not want to develop a counter accusation, my point is simple; different people can have similar reactions and without you having any proof you can not accuse them of being the same person. As I have repateadly said, I have no relation whatsoever with the registered user Seksen.--78.176.80.214 (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is turning into just a content dispute. Three Greek editors edit one way, 2/3 Turkish or Turkish-Cypriot editors edit another way. yawn and big surprise. Meatpuppets? It's like accusing all Greek or all turkish editors of beiing meatpuppets. DeCausa (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't anybody else think that it is weird to be having meaningful discussions with IP addresses, who are communicating without registered userids, but clearly have lots of experience on Wikipedia? I think it's pretty weird. I also think that we are wasting our time.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 23:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing too special about that. With IP addresses from California (especially 75.*.*.*) we can see this all the time. One of them is a member of WikiProject Mathematics. Hans Adler 09:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Resumed threats from Tokerdesigner

• Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cannabis smoking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several editors have been maintaining quality of some cannabis articles subject to fluff edits and vandalism. I have had to revert Tokerdesigner's edits several times. He once made a run on many articles I wrote in retaliation, and today left a message threatening the same on my talk page, literally threatening the notability of the 44 film articles I've contributed. Please read the message carefully as it is typical of his threats. Standard methods of mediation don't work with this user. I don't feel like defending my 44 articles. Can someone help? Mainly see history of article Cannabis smoking. In addition I have archived a multitude of threats, retaliatory and insults from Tokerdesigner. I need this to stop.Mjpresson (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the message on my talk page to which I responded on User talk:Mjpresson:

== June 2011 ==

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Cannabis smoking. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

That above addition was not left by me. It's Tokerdesigner, who didn't sign his entry above. Yes and I will continue to warn him for disruption but that does not warrant threatening me and the articles I've written.Mjpresson (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't this inquiry getting any response?Mjpresson (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What would you like an administrator to do about this? Where are these threats you're talking about? How can someone "threaten notability"? You're not making a good case here, I think that's why you're getting no response. I'm not saying there's nothing for an admin to do about it, but you have to give us something to work with. -- Atama頭 23:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Super good help. Did you even read the bizarre comments and threats which include asking to meet me in person? It's all quite obvious if you read what I asked you to read. Perhaps I neglected to mention I had to archive them all. When I revert or warn user he threatens to tag 44 articles I've contributed for notability. He's already done retaliatory hits on my articles. I can deal with this myself, apparently. At least my complaint is documented here, although blown off. I've been here a while and know what to do, or maybe someone else is able to help me. Please at least read the comment he left on my talk page as it's typical response to simple and civil reversions and warnings. I knew I would regret trying to improve the cannabis articles. --Mjpresson (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Mjpresson seems to be referring to [61]. Chester Markel (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Quack

I've just indeffed Bradford Guitar Boy 2011 (talk · contribs) as a sock of Bradford Guitar Boy (talk · contribs), who I indeffed a while back for edit warring. the 2011 account has inserted the same material against consensus. Is there really any need for a SPI, or is the duck test enough here? Mjroots (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this may pass the duh test nevermind the duck test. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. A clerk would reject any SPI as unnecessary unless we're dealing with a prolific socker or there's a possibility of sleepers based on behavior. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Stubborn refusal to accept consensus by User:Jfitch

User:Jfitch is a semi-regular editor who is consistently inserting a specific image into two articles, despite accepted consensus to use another. See the lead image of Alexz Johnson and Jude Harrison, which is currently the version that was promoted as a 'featured picture' at FPC (a promotion which Jfitch opposed). The original nomination discussion is here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Alexz Johnson. After being on the verge of three reverts on at least two occasions, his reversal of the image was left in place for months until another discussion took place here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:2099725 FreightElevator 135wb.jpg. It's also been discussed here: Talk:Alexz Johnson#Lead image. Jfitch stubbornly insists that only his opinion of the image to use is right, despite the discussions linked which clearly overrule him. This dispute has been going on since September of last year. There isn't much that I can do as I'm involved, and he refuses to back off. I would like to think that uninvolved users can tell him to drop it already and leave the image alone. Please? This is getting superbly tiresome. Maedin\^talk 19:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Good lord. Is this really an edit war over an obnoxiously small change in the complexion of a photograph? Resolute 20:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue was never discussed as people are claiming. The featured picture discussion was. I have left that discussion alone entirely as you are correct, people decided to feature the edited image. I am not opposing a feature any more, that discussion has happened and moved on. The issue here is replacing images in articles with inaccurate ones. The article images are professional images and are accurate of the circumstances they were taken in. The arguement of 'guessing' what the picture should look like in order to make it more 'accurate' is simply ridicolous as the photo is of a fictional character. The character only exists in the mind of the creators. The creators provided the pictures stating that this is what the character looks like. It's not for anyone here to tell them that they are wrong and decide what it 'should' look like and then try to place this in an article as 'accurate'. This is the issue that hasn't been discussed ad resolved as people are trying to say. The place this can happen is on the article's talk page. Which is where the issue was started to be discussed but clearly nothing determined. Talk:Jude_Harrison. Please refrain from reverting edits based on things that simply didn't happen. JFitch (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Both editors are edit-warring at Alexz Johnson and Jude Harrison over the white balance (!) of the lead image. To get them to stop, I am blocking both for 24 hours. After the block expires, they should resolve their disagreement per WP:DR without resorting to further reverts. Some advice: (a) consensus about which version of a picture should be marked as featured is not the same thing as consensus about which version to use in an article; and (b) any consensus or lack thereof is not a justification for edit-warring.  Sandstein  20:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a block was necessary at this point. Neither of them broke WP:3RR and there is no indication that they would have done so. An official warning probably would have been equally effective and much less drastic. Maedin should have known better of course but I think Jfitch (talk · contribs) is probably not experienced enough to know that. Regards SoWhy 21:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

After reconsideration and discussion with Maedin on their talk page, I agree and have unblocked Maedin. JFitch, on the other hand, has been more clearly edit-warring (including a revert just after their post above), and has previously been warned against edit-warring, which is why I'm not unblocking them.  Sandstein  21:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've unblocked the admin as a matter of urgency. I don't think we should be standing on each other's feet, and the fact that they drew attention to the issue exonerates them imo. Samsara (FA • FP) 21:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I was just about to unblock Maedin; you seem to have been slightly faster. Nonetheless, I do not believe that administrators should get special treatment when applying standard conduct policy; on the contrary they should be held to a higher standard of conduct.  Sandstein  21:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You should know to carefully review cases if a long-standing previously fault-free admin is a party and is actively seeking comment. Regards. Samsara (FA • FP) 21:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

X-Men First Class

Resolved

 – Histories now in correct places. lifebaka++ 21:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Can an admin please review the following pages in light of certain moves and fix them (and probably revert the moves)? It does not appear that they were correctly moved, and there is an ongoing discussion at WT:COMICS about their placement anyway. The original setup was the comic series at X-Men: First Class and the film article at X-Men: First Class (film). Erik (talk | contribs) 20:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• X-Men: First Class (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• X-Men: First Class (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• X-Men: First Class (comic series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The discussion (which I didn't participate in) stopped about two days ago. I don't think there is much disagreement, from looking at it, that the film is considerably more notable than the comic book series, by a significant margin. The main issue with the moves I made seems to me to be the page histories, which are mixed up a little. Everything else looks fine (at least to me). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

80000 edits, and you don't know not to do cut-and-paste moves? In any case, I _think_ it's fixed now -- wouldn't swear to it, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't let me move the film page into simply X-Men: First Class, because that page already existed. Hence I cut and pasted. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Cutting and pasting causes licensing violations. If you cannot move a page, you can list it at WP:RM either as uncontroversial or as part of a request to move that involves discussion. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz and Twinkle

• Walter_Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Relevant policy: Second paragraph

I am getting no where with this user, I think partly because of past. So I'll just quickly outline the last incident with them and Twinkle abuse. The ANI thread from that incident is here. Basically Walter violated 3RR by restoring content that violated the non-free content criteria and incorrectly called another edit vandalism. I temporarily removed access to Twinkle, and restored it later after it seemed apparent that the problem would not continue. It may also be worth noting this ANI thread, although I am not so familiar with it. But these kinds of edits, linked to from there, display the same problems.

Now, Walter is yet again misusing Twinkle and incorrectly calling other edits vandalism, with this edit. I brought this up on his talk page, but he does not appear to be willing to discuss this issue with me, as shown by this sarcastic response, and frankly, after his edit summary here I am no longer particularly keen to discuss this directly with him myself. He seems to think that the Football WikiProject has the authority to make their own policy and put them into practice without input from the wider community. It seems apparent to me that he is not willing to consider that the edit he reverted was not, in fact, vandalism. The latest argument seems to be that his other work excuses him. He skirts around the actual issue (of misusing rollback), basely accuses me of hounding, or talks about if the edit was "correct" or not (which as I explained to him, is a different issue, and "incorrect" is distinct from "vandalism"). This is becoming disruptive, especially his accusations of hounding. Please read the discussion on his talkpage for the full context. I would appreciate some input and advice from others regarding this. Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Please see my talk page. He is essentially hounding me and abusing his power and attempting to intimidate me, which is what happened the last time he accused me of abusing Twinkle.

The issue is simple and I have answered his question, but on my terms. I acted in good faith and marked an edit that I perceived as vandalism as vandalism. The editor who made it refuses to discuss the issue despite being warned. At the time I accepted that it was a policy. It seems not everyone agrees it is and so I am discussing a change and I have determined not to assume it is until consensus has been reached on the matter. However, at the time, I was acting in good faith, and as such did not abuse Twinkle. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, if the edit was correct or not is a non-issue, if you were reverting it because of this policy you keep talking about (and still haven't linked to) you should have said as much in your summary, instead of hitting rollback (VANDAL). Just because you are acting in good faith does not mean you're not abusing (i.e. improperly using) Twinkle. You still appear to be unable to accept that the user was not vandalising. Do you still "perceive" the edit as vandalism? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, that the edit was or wasn't correct is the only issue. If someone does something not in good faith, that is vandalism. If someone writes obscenities on a page, that is vandalism. If someone refuses to discuss why they think they're not following a policy and continue to edit in such a way as to go against that policy, that is vandalism. Based on my understanding, the editor was vandalizing. There's nothing to accept to the contrary.

I can't link to the policy because there isn't a policy. That was pointed-out later. However I linked to the place where someone said it was a policy. Sorry you didn't see that. I took the other editor's word. That is good faith. I attempted to discuss with the other editor. That is good faith. I only made edits that were in keeping with the policy. That is good faith. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing to suggest it wasn't in good faith (hence, it wasn't vandalism). It wasn't adding obscenities. There was no such policy. Please try to keep it relevant to the issue at hand.

Oh right, so now you decide to say there is no such policy. When exactly did you become aware of this? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I know now that there wasn't a policy, but at the time, and based on the discussion I referenced, I assumed that there was a policy. Hence in my mind there was a policy. Hence my actions were based on the policy. Hence my use of Twinkle was in good faith and the other editor's actions were vandalism. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"If someone refuses to discuss why they think they're not following a policy and continue to edit in such a way as to go against that policy, that is vandalism." No it isn't. We have a very clear definition of vandalism at WP:VAND. In the section giving examples of what isn't vandalism, I see numerous examples of policy violations that aren't vandalism. You are following your own invented definition, and have replied sarcastically when it is pointed out to you. Since you insist on misusing Twinkle, I don't see why it shouldn't be revoked. -- Atama頭 23:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I already said that your good faith doesn't really matter, although I'm not saying you were not acting in good faith. Again, when exactly did you become aware that there was no such policy? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't sarcasm. That was irony. Good to know that my good faith doesn't matter. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

That editor's action were deliberately compromising the integrity of Wikipedia by going against what I perceived as a policy.

Your actions are also deliberately compromising the integrity of Wikipedia by attacking an editor who is acting in good faith. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait. The other editor was deliberately going against a nonexistent policy? In any case, as pointed out by Atama, policy violations are not vandalism. —DoRD (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good faith is appreciated, however, on the subject of if you were abusing Twinkle or not, it is less relevant than you seem to think. Just because a user is violating a policy does not mean they are vandalising, as Atama pointed out. Now please, when exactly did you learn that that policy didn't even exist? Also, this is probably a bad time and place to be accusing Atama of vandalism (or me for that matter, it's not quite clear who that was directed at). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I believed it was a policy at the time, and it was compromising Wikipedia by turning it into a scoreboard, which it's not. This entire issue is being discussed presently though and will go with whatever consensus makes it. My actions were in good faith. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not your actions were in good faith, they were wrong. Twinkle is a tool that can cause havoc if it's in the hands of someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia well enough to use it safely. "Vandal" is one of the nastiest words we have on Wikipedia, and reverting edits as vandalism that aren't can cause a lot of harm, our policy on vandalism says as much. If this was a simple mistake that you would try not to repeat in the future, that's one thing. But you're being willful in your misuse, you're even accusing anyone who criticizes your actions as being disruptive. Frankly, the only reason why your Twinkle use hasn't been revoked is because I can't find where the blacklist for it is. -- Atama頭 23:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yet again, it does not matter if it is, or was, policy. It does not mean that the edit is or is not vandalism. As I've said already several times on your talk page, and others have said here: The issue of if the edit is "correct" or not is distinct from the issue of if it was vandalism, and if you were right to revert it as such.

Walter clearly is not capable of correctly identifying what is not vandalism, and is clearly unwilling to learn, I would support removing his access to Twinkle at this time. I'm interested in what others think about this? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I already said, I would have just done it myself, but don't know where the blacklist is with the new Twinkle version. So of course I support this. -- Atama頭 00:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a general question: What are the criteria for giving a user the authority to do mass-updates like this Twinkle thing does? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the only requirement is that an editor is registered. It might also require that they are autoconfirmed, I'm not sure. But it's basically open to anyone as long as they don't misuse it. Getting Twinkle access involves putting a checkbox on your preferences page. -- Atama頭 00:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see it on the "gadgets" page. Seems like there should be some kind of training or minimum-knowledge test before someone launches that kind of tool. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I am capable of both understanding what identifying what vandalism as, and am quite willing to learn. My actions were done in good faith and will not happen again if I am permitted to use Twinkle. Without it, I doubt that I will continue editing on Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement, clearly not able to identify what's long understood to be vandalism. If you are willing to act in such a drastic manner on the basis of a hazy understanding of policy, you should lose twinkle until you can demonstrate a better understanding of what vandalism is and what it is not. RxS (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So, you're threatening to leave Wikipedia if Twinkle is taken away? I don't have the words. -- Atama頭 00:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The guy's been here since October of 2004 and doesn't know what vandalism is? If he wants to leave, don't stand in his way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Not really threatening, I'm just saying I'll have to re-evaluate whether I can do the things I do now without it. If it's more difficult to edit, I don't know if there's a reason to stay. However, I do see the value in educating people rather than punishing them. Often, an explanation is all that is needed to educate, and that's what has happened here. That's what happened the last time Kingpin explained something. I learned, I adapted, and I'm a better editor as a result. Iterative learning is learning too. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

As for not "knowing" what vandalism is, that's not quite correct. I don't read all of the policy pages. I learn as I go along. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You've been here longer than I have, and years ago I learned what vandalism is. It's hard to imagine how you could have been here 7 years and still not known what vandalism is. Do you also have the rollback feature? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Walter only has Reviewer status. -- Atama頭 00:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't taken the time to seek out the wikipedia definition of vandalism and I have learned a lot through discussion. If nothing has changed since earlier today, I should still have rollback status. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If by "I have learned a lot from discussion", you mean that you now understand why that sort of edit is not vandalism, and that you have learned what we mean by vandalism, and that you understand how carefully twinkle must be used, I'm not sure it's necessary to prevent you from using it, though I would advise a careful review of our policies in general. Otherwise, I think we do not have the option of removing it by protecting the javascript page, as we could have done previously, but we certainly can still say we would block someone if they continued to use it after we found they were using it improperly. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the middle of May my understanding has changed. Going against policy is not vandalism. Furthermore, going against what I perceive as a policy but actually isn't one is not only ignorant, it's probably closer to vandalism than the original actions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Something's out of whack here. You don't even have to have "read the policy" to know what vandalism is, because it is very frequently discussed. I ask again: How can an editor be here for 7 years and have no earthly clue about what vandalism is??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not discussed where I edit.

To suggest that I have no earthly clue is hyperbole as well. I do understand what vandalism is. We learned about it in Western Civilization. They're the people who sacked Rome around the fifth century. They wrote graffito on walls and made life miserable for the civilized world. Etymologically, it now means people who deliberately damage things. So since that and Wikipedia's definition don't quite line up, that's what's a bit out of whack.

The editor in question was deliberately damaging what I understood to be consensus, and refused to discuss changes. That to me is vandalism. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The definition you link above is irrelevant. The one you need to read and understand, which has been pointed out to you a number of times recently, is WP:VAND. —DoRD (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually like the second definition at Cambridge more any activity that is considered to be damaging or destroying something that was good. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:VAND doesn't contradict those, but elaborates for Wikipedia-specific purposes. In this case, any good-faith edit is not vandalism. The dictionary covers the general purpose definition. You're not helping yourself in the slightest by bringing in different dictionaries. If you don't want to take the good-faith aspect into account, then allow me to remove your dictionary citing edits as "vandalism." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz has not only demonstrated a misunderstanding of WP:VAND, xe has also demonstrated misunderstanding of what is, and is not, policy - and the fundamental way that Wikipedia operates. Xe seems to think that a brief discussion amongst a project group defines policy, and that such can be considered policy until consensus determines otherwise. Xe has adamantly refused to abide by actual, existing policies and guidelines, citing such things as an essay (WP:RECENT), and "WP Footbal group policy" [62]. In the discussion, xe wrote, Wikipedia is still not a scoreboard. Period. Nothing you say can convince me that this should change. If people continue to misuse Wikipedia, Chzz too, they should be warned and then banned if it continues. [63].  Chzz  ►  03:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If you notice in that discussion there is a comment it states that there is a policy: "this policy is hard to apply". My mistake was taking the editor's word for it and acting on it without asking to point to the actual policy.

Chzz has not actually pointed to any existing policies or guidelines that contradict WP:RECENT and to the best of my recollection has only pointed to an edit by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales immediately after someone in a wedding said "I do" as if to imply Mr. Wales runs wikipedia. He is just one voice of many.

There are other editors who think as I do on the subject. My stand in the comment as quoted was one diametrically opposed to another editor's stance so as to generate further discussion. If anyone continues to do this - particularly if they misuse rollback, Walter - I think they could be classed as being disruptive. [64] Despite me not commenting for several days on the thread. I simply turned the phrase back. I further understand what vandalism is now as a result of today's discussions, however that doesn't change my position on that Wikipedia is not a scoreboard. I don't believe that this discussion belongs here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's merely a perception, which has been getting increasingly more popular, of what construes vandalism – which is any edit in which another user disagrees with. –MuZemike 03:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't see why this shouldn't be treated like any other newbie user to twinkle who misuses the "vandal" button on it. Given this is apparently not WG's first visit to ANI over such an issue, why should anyone believe they actually do, honestly, swear-to-god, understand what constitutes vandalism? Take away Twinkle and let him edit normally. Stuff can be reverted without Twinkle, and I think taking away TW would force WG to be more open to discussion over edits he disagrees with. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Second that. If you don't know what vandalism is then you shouldn't educate others by labeling edits as it incorrectly, like the diff provided in the beginning of the thread. Taking away Twinkle (or Rollback) shouldn't make an editor quit if they're here to do it right. Doc talk 04:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Because I have shown that I can learn and I have demonstrated good use of the tool. The previous time was not for the same reason, but for a similar one. In the previous discussion, I didn't assume that the editor was acting in good faith. In this one, I attempted to discuss with the editor and the editor refused. I had to use a blunt instrument to get the editor's attention. However, had I understood at the time that I was not actually enforcing a policy but a strongly held conviction of many in the Football group I wouldn't even have done that. Again, I do know what vandalism is. Again, I didn't say I would quit, but that I would have to reconsider how I edit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, since WP:VANDALISM apparently doesn't contradict "any activity that is considered to be damaging or destroying something that was good" and I felt the editor was destroying something that was good, vis: an agreement, I do understand what vandalism is.—Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs) 04:20, 4 June 2011

(edit conflict) If you label an edit as vandalism when it's not, it's either being lazy or not understanding the concept. "Undo" allows you to use an edit summary, and is far more likely to educate an editor when it is clearly not vandalism. But this has been pointed out. Don't quit, and learn from this. Doc talk 04:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, you ask for some specific policy. Are you familiar with the WP:3RR policy? You breached it, in removing the score four times; [65] [66] [67] [68].  Chzz  ►  04:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Is adding an HTML comment removing information or is the removing of the comment?

As for a policy, that's not the one I was asking about. I was asking for one that opposed WP:RECENT and you knew that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) TW should not be used as a "blunt instrument". If you cannot get your message across then either you are saying it wrong or you should seek assistance from another person. - Sitush (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Most of the rest of the football project were watching the match that day. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Walter stills seems to be trying to nuance his definition of vandalism into Wikipedias. He seems to be saying that since his dictionary understanding of the word doesn't contradict how policy defines it, he understands it. I don't think the message is totally getting through, and I think his access to twinkle should be removed for now. He can still edit, I just don't feel comfortable with his attitude. RxS (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that's not what I was going for. What I was trying to say was that a week ago, that was closer to my definition. As of today's discussion I understand more fully what Wikipedia's definition is and I will adjust my understanding to match that of Wikipedia's while editing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz - A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. WP:3RR. I would think it utterly obvious that <!-- commenting out --> text in an article is 'reversing actions' - it removes the content from display in the article - and is absolutely no different to removing it, for these purposes.  Chzz  ►  04:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

tangential discussion re. football live scores

Collapsed my own comments, see below - apologies  Chzz  ►  05:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC) I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I do not seek any form of punitive action; I fully accept that Walter Görlitz is a valued contributor, and their choice to cease editing would be a loss to the project. I am "big enough and bad enough" to shrug off someone undoing a couple of my edits; that is not my concern, at all. I had no intention of raising this on ANI, but we're here now, so let me state my case in brief,  Chzz  ►  05:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Summary of issue I believe it is appropriate, and within all Wikipedia policy, to add appropriate, sourced facts to an article about an event such as a football game, whilst the game is in progress. I also believe that undoing or reverting such edits goes against Wikipedia policy. Walter Görlitz, and some other users, refute this and assert they will continue to remove such edits. I am particularly concerned because new users are likely to be attracted to such articles, and I would hate them to be put off editing at an early stage if such valid edits are summarily removed.  Chzz  ►  05:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC) This isn't really the place for this. RxS (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Desired outcome Either -Walter Görlitz, and the other users expressing the same opinion, accept that the edits are legitimate, and agree not to undo any such edits in future, Or -A new policy is created to justify their undo Or -Appropriate measures are taken to ensure such undo-edits are not permitted Or -Someone explains to me that I'm wrong, and I will accept it and eat humble pie  Chzz  ►  05:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Why have you hijacked the discussion about his use of Twinkle into one about a content dispute? This really isn't the place to settle the content issue. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sincere apologies; sorry, you're quite right. I've collapsed it. I guess this isn't the right place for that discussion. It got side-tracked; my fault. Feel free to remove it, if that's preferred.  Chzz  ►  05:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Allow me take a different approach

If an editor consistently makes edits against consensus, without discussing the reasons for doing so, would that constitute vandalism? At the time, that was my perception of what was happening. It was my understanding that this editor's actions were detrimental to the image of Wikipedia. It seems that what editors are focusing on are my actions without understanding or accepting my perception of the situation. They are focusing on the way I marked the actions as vandalism when they would not have. They are focusing on how many edits I made. They are not focusing on whether I believed that I was actually preventing vandalism or not. At the time, I honestly believed I was preventing vandalism. If the match were tomorrow and I had gone through this discussion, I would not believed that it is vandalism thanks to discussions with several editors. However, my use of Twinkle has correctly identified vandalism on many occasions and so what is at question is the one edit a week ago, which as I said above. I sincerely believed the other editor was not acting in good faith by not discussing his changes, which were also against WP:3RR. I sincerely believed the other editor was not acting in good faith by going against what I perceived as consensus. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"If an editor consistently makes edits against consensus, without discussing the reasons for doing so, would that constitute vandalism?" No. That's not vandalism. Vandalism is when a person is intentionally trying to damage an article in some way. A person going against consensus is still trying to improve the article, they are just going about it the wrong way. And again, we get it, you thought you were using Twinkle properly. We're not accusing you of misusing Twinkle on purpose. But you still misused it, and even worse, you either ignored others who told you that you were misusing it, or accused them of being disruptive for trying to hinder your efforts.

Here's some advice in the future, when you're trying to determine if something is vandalism or not (whether or not you do so using Twinkle)... Go to WP:VANDTYPES. See if the edit falls under any of those specific categories. If it doesn't clearly fit any of those descriptions, it isn't vandalism. For example, look on the list, and see if "editing against consensus" is on that list. -- Atama頭 06:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

I've recently run across an extremely experienced and valuable user who seems to be very upset and despondent. I really hate to start any "dramaz" threads, and I would be very surprised if it could be found that I have ever started more than 3 or 4 AN, ANI, etc. threads in my tenure here. To the point. When I click on a link to talk to User talk:Dr. Blofeld, it seems to redirect me to his user page. I'm somewhat reluctant to edit another editors "user page", but I'm not sure how to "talk" to this person. I do understand that there are many issues which have upset this editor. My question is: "How do we talk to someone who has his user talk page established as a redirect"? — Ched :  ?  06:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not even sure how to notify him of this posting. — Ched :  ?  06:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

He did it himself. Send him an e-mail or post on his page and see how that goes. Not really an ANI issue, though. Doc talk 06:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

He seems to no longer be active on English Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but then he made a bunch of edits after that notification. You haven't seen "inactive" declarations before either? Oy, vey! Doc talk 06:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"User talk pages should not redirect to anything other than the talk page of an account controlled by the same user.". Dougweller (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Branko Lustig wiki page and User:Biblbroks

Biblbroks is making constant changes on Branko Lustig Wiki page that make no sense. This, in my opinion, borders with vandalism. Please advise what to do. Thank you.--Eversman (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

User PMDrive1061

Resolved

 – WP:BOOMERANG. --Rschen7754 10:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I want to bring you to the attention of this admin; User:PMDrive1061 , who made snarky comments against another user (User:Joker264) whom he banned for simply stating his mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.10.107 (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering these edits, [69], [70] & [71] I would say good block--Jac16888 ^Talk 09:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

And in light of this IP edit, I'd suggest semi-protecting User talk:Joker264. Voceditenore (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Can someone remind me what we do about minors?

I'm concerned about the user and talk pages of a young teenager as they have a lot of personal information - family, school, general location. I should know the answer I'm sure, but can't find guidelines about this. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Typically what I've seen done is that we contact the user, asking them to remove the info, and then get everything oversighted. --Rschen7754 10:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

a) email functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org and let them (quietly) sort out any significant issues, before drawing attention to anything.

b) after that has been sorted out, refer them to Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors  Chzz  ►  10:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)