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

Review of unblock request and discussion of possible community ban

Unresolved

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI

This conversation concerns the handling of a prolific editor who has been found to have infringed copyright in multiple articles. Discussion is ongoing about the potential handling of this review, which will involved tens of thousands of articles. Participation in brainstorming solutions or joining in clean-up would be much appreciated. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

user:TechnoFaye user page - possible image violation?

User blocked indefintely - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed by Kingpin13. Please do not modify it.
Does her user page violate our guideline (scroll down to the second image)? I left her a message on her talk page and she responded to me that she rectified the problem. I rectified the problem by removing the [| third pic] (a collage), which DID violate a policy/guideline I knew nothing about. If you have further problems, tell me and I'll address them. TechnoFaye Kane 04:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC) We are dealing with a guideline, not a policy, and this is I suppose subjective, thus, a gray area perhaps? I would appreciate another opinion. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Meh, just delete the whole page methinks, far too inappropriate, and not relevant to Wikipedia - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 1. There is nothing wrong with the image; even going by the ridiculous and puritanical guideline, the intent here is clearly to act as a visual depiction of the editor and not as gratuitously "sexually provocative". 2. The material on the editor's userpage concerning non-consensual sex is inflammatory, and it would be irresponsible for us as a project to continue to host it as presented, even in userspace as one individual's opinions. Skomorokh 17:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC) (user notified) To be perfectly honest, I can't actually make out the second image. But agree with point number two, and have deleted the page for now. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 1) I am damned by God with the loathsome disease of autism, and that means I am INCAPABLE of detecting social impropriety "automatically". I MUST rely on published standards. That's the main reason I do Wikipedia, because it's rule-based, and (supoposedly), people's opinions are transparent here. If you'd care to ask, as so many others have, "How can someone so smart be so stupid?", the answer is: I JUST AM. IT'S NOT A CHOICE. I DON'T LIKE IT EITHER AND IT SCREWS UP MY LIFE. 2) When Rubinstein told me that this image on my user page violated WP guidelines: File:Fayekanepics1.jpg <--- DON'T ARBITRARILY DELETE THIS FILE AGAIN WITH NO REQ FOR SPEEDY DELETION OR EXPLANATION WHILE IT IS THE TOPIC OF A DISCUSSION HERE AT ANB!! I read the guideline, observed that he was correct, and removed the image immediately . I even apologized to him graciously, politely, and self-effacingly. If you don't like something I added to my page a few hours ago, then tell me what and why, and if you're correct, I'll delete or modify that too. Do NOT wholesale-delete an entire user's page without giving the user a chance to either defend the page or correct the problem, or worse, without even telling them you have a problem with it. And PARTICULARLY do not do that with a user who has a biological disability that prevents them from having the heuristics normal people use and call "common sense". If WP were a workplace, this would be an EEOC issue I'd take to HR. The ad-hoc, contradictory social rules you normals make are not "common" to me; they are very difficult and complex, and that is specifically because they do not make "sense". 3) I restored my user page with hacker magic. I'd point out that I have "toned it down" since apparantly I talk too muchg about sex. At least, that's my best-guess estimate. I can't know for sure because no one has told me what's wrong with the text. Tell me what on it violates which policy and if you are not lying to me as so many other people do because they think it's funny, I will alter it to be consistent with policy. file:Fayepic2.jpg Now as far, as the other image is concerned, I respectfully chose to defend this one. a) it is not even remotely obscene. Not that there'd be anything WRONG with that. b) where and how I live is an integral part of who I am, and I refer to it on my user page. The pic is relevant. c) It is critical in preventing something I am plagued with without the pic, which is people angrily informing me that I'm fake, an internet hoax, a man, multiple people, someone's master's thesis, a sociology research project (and once, even an AI program). I have NO IDEA why people can't accept me for how I am. But when they see my pic, they realize that I'm just a person. d) The guideline states: "activities that are not strictly "on topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed Wikipedians with good edit histories." I have well over 1,000 edits and have done more than edit, I was a very active participant in the arbitration of the R/I article (the cabal version of the arbitration). TechnoFaye Kane 04:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I have changed both the pictures to links. We all do not need to see the content if we do not want to. Please only link them, instead of transcluding them.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Fine, no problem! Another issue now: someone just DELETED the first pic from wikimedia, without an speedy RFD, even though IT IS THE TOPIC OF THIS DISCUSSION. Don't you admins police each other? Or do you just let the other admins do whatever the hell they want to any user without discussing it first, saying why, or even telling anybody they're doing i? I am restoring it (as a link). TechnoFaye Kane 05:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I asked for the deletion, because the image was clearly out of Common's and Wikipedia's scope. There is no purpose what-so-ever to have a picture of you on your bed naked with the text whip me under it. Wikipedia is not a free web host. A picture of your face would be fine; it would show us you're a person, but a pornographic image, with text to boot that demonstrates it is porno, is completely outside of this project's scope.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Comment. A cursory look at TechnoFaye's contributions seem to indicate at a minimum, questionable edits insofar as their constructiveness, and at worst, a pattern of rather disruptive editing. Particularly these: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].   Thorncrag  05:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Hi, Faye. While I appreciate that your autism may make it difficult for you to comply to social norms, this does not mean that we are going to effectivly let you run wild. As you say we have many policies which make it easier to detect "social impropriety", however, you claimed to have read through the USERPAGE guideline, and still can not see how your userpage violates it? Very well, I'll try to make it more clear. Your user page (before "toning down") seemed to support the idea of tortured and rape (support of grossly improper behaviors) and still seems to advocate rape. It's also completely unrelated to Wikipedia (excessive unrelated content), really your userpage should only be about things directly related to Wikipedia. Your entire userpage (except maybe the email address) seems inappropriate to me, which is why I deleted the whole thing (as well as to get it out of the history). Rubinstein actually pointed you towards the policy page, which also mentions that text can be a problem too, not just the image. I notice that you have restored your userpage, and have re-deleted it, I told you on your talk page not to restore it, and you seem to have ignored me, if you continue to restore inappropriate content, the userpage may be protected or you may be blocked, - Kingpin13 (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Has this user ever added any referenced content? Looking at the edits above this looks like a lot of simple vandalism. Are we sure this is not just someone playing a joke on Wikipedia? Testing how much the community is willing to put up with? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Reading through Thorn's diffs, I'm starting to think this person is not editing here in good-faith.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I have been unable to find any referenced content that has been added by this user. Thus a minimum of a warning is required. BTW this is not the writing of someone who isautistic. Autism leads to an extreme indepth focus usually on a single topic. This user edits many different and unrelated pages with no great detail.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Honestly the first thing I thought of when the user claimed autism was that this was a repeat of User:Sven70   Thorncrag  05:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Faye, as you have unilaterially restored(re: re-uploaded) the image, after I have clearly told you it violates WP:NOT, I have again asked for it to be deleted. Do not restore it. Under discussion or not, there is no reason for it to stay. I would suggest you not upload it again. Take this as a warning, that I will report you to the commons admins if you do.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Any further violation should result in a ban of some duration.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC) They've been blocked indef on commons. They say that there were no warnings or logs of why the images were deleted, despite the clear message box at the top of the page stating 04:55, 6 September 2010 Zscout370 (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Fayekanepics.jpg" ‎ (Commons is not an amateur porn site) (global usage; delinker log). Hopefully they'll take it to heart now, that the image is not allowed, and refrain from re-uploading it.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Interesting development Here, Faye not only deletes my above post, but they call an admin a coward for deleting their userpage, and refactor another user's post. I'm quickly losing any good-faith I have with this user. If they do it again, I would suggest a block.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I reckon that was an edit conflict (not a good excuse anyway). Nevertheless, I made the mistake of making a check of this user's so-called "blog", and parlayed that it might shed some light on their mentality, and I was, let's just say, enlightened. While usually loathed to hold off-wiki activities against someone when it comes to their editing, coupled with this user's editing history, it seems patently obvious to me now that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia.   Thorncrag  05:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC) An edit conflict doesn't explain how they edited someone else's post to remove an at.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I was informed the above was actually the result of the owner of the post doing the editing. So I guess it was an edit conflict.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC) (I replied to the part of that deleted message directed at me here) - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC) It's clear that with the selective links Thorncrag posted above, and the irrelevant comment here about her blog, Thorncrag is letting his personal distaste for TechnoFaye influence his judgement. It's fairly absurd that she is being punished for violating vague rules and expressing unpopular opinions. I realize Faye tends to push things to the limit, but I would recommend that people focus on actual rules she has violated, and not let this whole mess get muddled because of your revulsion at her opinions about rape and race-based intelligence.—Chowbok ☠ 07:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I think we're dealing with a "Wikipedia is not therapy" situation here. And the idea that WP is rules-based is an artifact of well-meaning but misguided fringe philosophy influencing WP's early policy-makers. (They are great people but had some funny ideas, just like all of us do). WP operates by good judgment and editors who try to make it operate by rules get into endless drama and conflict. Faye, my best advice if you want to keep editing Wikipedia is to cultivate a neutral, fact-based writing style (including in talk and project pages); avoid personality displays or bringing your personal life into Wikipedia in any way; and avoid topics and areas (in article as well as project space) that tend to attract conflict between users. Art, science, and technology tend to be peaceful subjects and are (with exceptions) usually good choices. Anything connceted to religious or political tensions in the outside world (including scientific subjects with political implications, like "Race and intelligence" which you have been involved with) is probably not a good choice. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC) It's either a crazy person or an eleborate troll. The self-professed beliefs make the following clear: 1. User is not capable of improving content in any important area and is likely to degrade it. 2. The pro-rape activism and general demeanor is so creepy that this editor is likely to drive away other more competent editors. 3. At some point, someone who babbles about the comparitive brain sizes of "black" vs. "white" embroyos needs to be tossed out on their ear. Doing the right thing here "shouldn't" be hard, but somehow it is for wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I’ve seen TechnoFaye make some useful contributions, although not recently. (Although I also haven’t been paying attention recently.) When she was involved in the race and intelligence article this spring, she added some content to it that was well-sourced, but also kind of opinionated. The content that she added had to be cleaned up by other editors in order to make it satisfy NPOV policy, but several of the sources she added to that article are still part of it. I agree that she can be abrasive, but I’m definitely able to assume good faith about her. What her behavior looks like to me is the result of a lot of ignorance about what sort of behavior is expected from her here, combined with some amount of laziness about looking up policies before someone tells her that she’s violating one of them. I also agree with Chowbok that we should be focusing on actual policies she’s violated, rather than her opinions. If this is the first time she’s gotten in trouble for putting an inappropriate image here, I think a warning would be sufficient. As far as I know, this would be the first time she’s been blocked or warned by an admin for anything in over three years. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Would you be so kind as to provide diffs? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Agree with Bali Ultimate (strongly favouring the latter hypothesis). Recommend indef ban. --JN466 16:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, I think I'm reluctantly with JN466. Not everyone is capable of being a productive editor. The community does not need to tolerate people who do not, or cannot, work collaboratively, no matter what reason is put forward for that collegial failure. Wikipedia is WP:NOTTHERAPY, and we are not required to permit people to disrupt the project just because they have a valid medical excuse (or claim to). Captain, it's not an issue of good faith: A good-faith disruption is every bit as disruptive as a bad-faith disruption. The only difference is that most good-faith people eventually learn how not to be disruptive. There's no reason to expect this disruption to stop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Woah, Indeff ban? its still a bit early, She is unfamiliar with our rules and has misjudged them which is typical Austistic behavior. I dont see anything here that is irredemable in this user yet. (questionable behavior to be sure but not to the point of banning)Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I seem to fallen into a "AGF trap" per some googling searching at a JN466 suggestion I am inclined to think we should probably pass the information she has provided to VA Law enforcement. This individual is sick and needs help that wikipedia can not assist with.Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Oh come on. Now you're just being ridiculous. —Chowbok ☠ 20:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Chow I tried to AGF especially being autistic myself, This person already has some notoriety on line for this type of behavior this appear to be just one instance on a wider trend of this person's disruption. If some one is doing this disruption for fun as a hoax thats cause for concern, if we take everything she has said at face value thats also cause for concern Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC) While I have no point of reference as the userpage has been deleted, I did have a look through her image uploads, and, via some searching, her blog. I will say that I find nothing particularly offensive about her image uploads. One is a very fuzzy one (apparently of herself) barely showing a nipple. The other is a collage that mostly seems to have pictures of her face, with a couple "nudie" photos that may be considered offensive. What I have not seen are any polite requests asking her to edit the photos, or to warn that they may be deleted if she does not revise them. And then there is a bar graph she created based on research apparently from a scholarly journal. Finally, her personal life (most notably her blog), whether or not she chooses to share details of it in public, is totally irrelevant to Wikipedia and has no bearing on her edits or whether or not she should be blocked. It is also nobody's business to file reports with law enforcement! What law has she broken? Writing a blog that shares her apparent enjoyment of bog-standard S&M activities? Her edit history does not indicate, to me, this this is a person here to damage the encyclopedia or play games, but someone simply volunteering their time as they see fit. There is no vandalism. I see nothing destructive or malicious, and I see a lot of bad faith being assumed of her. I really wish people would attempt to discuss and explain their issues to other users before immediately going to AN/I and creating a lot of drama. In any case, I do not think WP:COMPETENCY applies, as nobody has really taken the time to tell her specifically which photos she should not upload, and what she should and should not place on her userpage. She has shown plenty of willingness to make modifications if people will simply ask her politely and explain which rules she is breaking. Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I am not basing my arguement on what she said off-wiki. I am basing off the pattern I see a pattern off-wiki that we are only the latest to fall for. Block her and hide this Thread per WP:DENY. Her edit are questionable not to mention she has already danced with ARBCOM? Now a substaitial block log? I see less and less worth keeping. If she is willing to got to WP:MENTOR we might hold out some hope. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC) This makes me think of lonelygirl15 as a point of reference. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Okay, I'll bite. What on earth has she done that makes you say she should be arrested?—Chowbok ☠ 22:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Whoah, I see now where you get confused my statement above. contacting VA law as more for Health and safety purpose of this individual. A} she is appears to be mentally ill enough to need some help. B} If she is in the area she is in a tent the way she makes it sound then mostly likely she rigged up something that is not up to code and is likely siphoning off the grid in a less than safe way. Now that is assuming everything she says is true. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Okay, that makes a bit more sense. I don't think she's in that cave anymore. And none of this is relevant to the issue anyway.—Chowbok ☠ 23:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Exactly, I am not reading to in depth about this person only off the now deleted page, why Some of her views are revolting to me that is not the issue to me. The issue to me is this person's statements if they are true.... raise concerns to me about the safety of the editor in question. These combined statement are not a kink and some weird things to say but rather eivdence of severe mental problems. The same way if some one posted they were talking about killing themselve I think here we should be concerned about the health and safety of this person's habitation and mental state. The health safety of those around here campsite also is valid question due to the possibility of forest fire from the aforementioned electrial issues. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC) it would be really helpful if people would actually stop and think, then look at this user's edit history, then consider whether overall this user is editing constructively or is just editing disruptively overall, instead of lingering on content issues. As a completely un-involved editor, I took a look over the first two pages of this user's contributions and saw nothing solidly constructive, but instead mostly disruption. I have never heard of the topics of race-based intelligence, nor this other pro-rape business. While admittedly naive to these and other topics the user frequents, they strike me very much as either fringe or downright hoaxacious. The users personal web site only buttresses what I and other reasonable editors have come to discern as an ongoing pattern of disruptive editing (that is, using Wikipedia as an extension to their own activities). Seems to me there may be, at best a real competency issue here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a personal web blog, nor therapy, and not a place to socialize and this user has a history of violating those rules. A block log substantiates this hypothesis. Perhaps an administrator can just issue a strong final warning and we can all move on.   Thorncrag  21:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC) The idea that there are race-based differences in intelligence, while certainly controversial, is hardly "fringe". There are many legitimate scientists arguing that there is, in fact, something to that. It really sounds to me that people are ganging up on Faye due to her advocacy of an unpopular, but hardly unsupported, theory. It's also hardly fair to judge an editor who has been here for several years on only the "first two pages" of contributions. She's been here several years, it's not too much to ask that people to go back more than a few weeks in her history before making a judgement.—Chowbok ☠ 22:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC) And again, Thorncrag isn't even trying to hide that this is based largely on his personal revulsion at opinions she holds, hardly a legitimate reason to ask for a block, much less a permanent ban (!) or, as somebody else suggested, that she be turned over to the police (?!).—Chowbok ☠ 22:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Pardon me Chowbok, but you are not even reading my posts. My concern is founded upon the user's disruptive editing history, but buttressed by the user's other activities. I beg you to please stop and think before continuing to post your seemingly wild assertions.   Thorncrag  22:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Way to not address anything I said. If I'm arguing with you, how could I not be reading what you wrote? Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm ignoring you. By your own admission you only looked at her last couple pages of contributions. There have been lots of points of time when I would hate to have been judged on that. You have an obligation to look at more than two pages of contributions of a long-time editor before arguing she be banned. And I'll bet if everything was exactly the same except that she was arguing that there isn't a race component to intelligence, you would not be taking such a hard line.—Chowbok ☠ 22:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Plus you keep bringing up her blog, which shouldn't even be under consideration. It's hard to believe you're being even remotely objective about this.—Chowbok ☠ 22:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Okay, I do apologize if I gave the impression that I only looked at the recent edit history, I did look further. I was only trying to explain how I produced the series of diffs that I posted above which you seem to think was so unjust and prejudicial.   Thorncrag  22:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC) It is hard to believe you are being objective yourself, Chow, given your history with this user.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC) "My history with this user" before this ANI, in its entirety: 1) I complained to an admin about an inappropriate personal comment she made; 2) I told her I liked her setup in a cave. You can judge if that makes me hopelessly compromised.—Chowbok ☠ 23:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC) It definitely makes you involved, and you shouldn't be saying the opposite of others when you are.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC) From having spent a bit of time looking into this off-site, along with others, I am absolutely positive that Faye Kane is a sockpuppet persona, and here for other purposes than building an encyclopedia. It is an interesting story, but I have neither the desire, nor the option, of outing the puppeteer here. As far as WP is concerned, the editor should be treated as a troll. --JN466 23:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I really dont think so, "Faye Kane" with or without "Homeless Bumstress""into google and you'll see how elaborate this would be for someone just to sock here. this person has profiles across the web spouting similiar stuff. If its a sock is a dang elaborate one. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I don't mean a sock of another WP editor. I mean an online persona created by someone interested in creative writing, online identities, and a whole lot of other things besides. --JN466 01:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC) That I can believe, so can we end this now this now? Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I agree with other people that this person is not really helpful on Wikipedia (as one of the identified edits [9] shows). We need an encyclopedia which is not written by clearly crazy people. I would recommend a ban. II | (t - c) 05:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I would strongly object to a "no crazy people" rule on Wikipedia. There's no reason crazy people can't be valuable contributors. See William Chester Minor.—Chowbok ☠ 06:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC) What do you think of the above edit, where less than a month ago she added "but all the men would die with a big smile on their face like the guy in that TV ad for fraudulant herbal viagra" to the gamma-ray burst article? II | (t - c) 07:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC) OK, I agree that edit was pretty ridiculous. But has an admin actually warned her about this? I still think there’s a good chance she’s genuinely unaware there’s a danger of her being blocked or banned if she continues this sort of thing, and she ought to be given a chance to reform her behavior first. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC) IF one needs telling that that edit is not appropriate then there bigger issues here, based on the various edits come constructive, some not. this editor is clearly aware of what we expect from people here. Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC) A summary Okay, to summarize the points that have been made here about TechnoFaye: She thinks women want to be raped. She thinks there is a link between race and intelligence. She's homeless. She's crazy. Can somebody please tell me how any of these are violations of Wikipedia policies?—Chowbok ☠ 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC) WP:FRINGE WP:NPOV WP:SOCIAL... and if the user really is homeless how is she editing Wikipedia? WP:COMPETENCE ...just for starters. Now would you please stop waving your red herring arguments, and address the substance of the issue, which is the user's disruptive editing history NOT the personal challenges the user alleges?   Thorncrag  00:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC) WP:FRINGE only applies to the mainspace, she does not own a home or pay rent, she stays with friends (what does that have to do with WP:SOCIAL?) WP:COMPETENCE is not a policy. Therefore, only WP:NPOV remains. LiteralKa (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I love how you're the one bringing up all this personal information about her, like talking about her blog, and I'm the one going off-topic. Fine, whatever. I think a couple of the edits you link to were inappropriate of her, and she should be warned about them. Some of them were legitimate arguments and you're wrong to describe them as disruptive. I don't see any of it as block-worthy, much less ban-worthy. Does that address "the substance of the issue" however you're defining it currently? Your links are inappropriate. Race-based IQ difference theories are not fringe, although they are a minority opinion, and just because you're clearly not familiar with the latest research in the area doesn't make it fringe. I don't see an NPOV violation in your links above, as the arguments she's making are on talk pages, not in article space (her inappropriate edits in article space are a matter of tone, not POV). WP:SOCIAL? Well, she probably did have too much personal stuff on her page, but that seems like a pretty arbitrarily-enforced rule, and I feel confident that she wouldn't be having problems if she had less controversial views. But yeah, she should trim that down. She did ask what would be appropriate and what wouldn't above, and nobody responded, which is unfair. Maybe somebody could just edit her page to something acceptable instead of just deleting the whole thing next time. WP:COMPETENCE is not even a policy.—Chowbok ☠ 01:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Faye isn’t homeless anymore. Her blog entries from before a few months ago talk about her living in the cave, but some of her more recent entries (I’m not sure if they’re still accessible, since they were at [10], which doesn’t exist anymore) say that she’s now living with a psychologist named Tony Roberts. Race and intelligence also isn’t completely a “fringe” topic, although there are definitely fringe theories about it. As an example of a non-fringe commentary about this topic, it was one of the main subjects of a report published by the American Psychological Association in 1995. Among other things, their report states that there’s a difference of around 1 standard deviation between the average IQs of blacks and whites, and that nobody knows what’s causing it. I don’t think the American Psychological Association could be considered “fringe” by any standard. Now, I suppose one could claim that Faye has been advocating fringe theories about race and intelligence, although that hasn’t yet been demonstrated. But if this topic is notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article about it, there’s nothing wrong with her having been involved in it. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Just a quick thought, not really in reply to anything, if this was a man supporting rape, and every time a female editor tried to speak to him he accused them of attempting to butter him up for sex, wouldn't we have dealt with it a while ago? - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Per this edit I would say she doesn't really seem to have much interest in addressing the concerns raised here. - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC) A few months ago I raised some concerns about TechnoFaye. The discussions are found in this WQA archive and this ANI archive. Interestingly I was ridiculed by a number of editors for raising concerns about the user. I began to have doubts myself. I started to wonder whether I had my head screwed on correctly since many in the community didn't seem to think there was anything problematic with the user. The user then posted this comment on my page with a link to her blog in which she refers to me as her "simian friend", among a number of other unpleasantries . I have previously expressed my opinion that sometimes Wikipedia seems too tolerant of problematic editors. These editors take advantage of this tolerance by continuing with their pattern of abuse. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Yes Wapondaponda, you were "ridiculed by a number of editors" for your shopping around a made-up charge against me which 6 different admins thought was ridiculous to the point of literally laughing in your face. And let's make sure to show everyone here at wikipedia what I say on my blog, even though doing that is a direct violation of WP policy. TechnoFaye Kane 20:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC) The Tony Roberts with whom Faye is allegedly staying also says he is a "high-functioning autistic", "fascinated with the arts as means of knowing and becoming and with the creation and maintenance of identity under conditions of media saturation", writing "experimental fiction that occupies the boundary between qualitative research and literature." About his writing, he has said, I at times like to think of myself as a writer. On those rare occasions when I write something decent, I am writing in the spirit of Thompson, inserting myself fully into the situation, making myself a character, laughing at myself and kidding the life out of the people around me. Here the same Dr. Roberts argues that it is necessary to erect straw men that make people aware of others' and their own bigoted attitudes. And so forth. This is all laudable, interesting and very well, and Faye will no doubt continue on her blog forever, insisting that she is who she is, and that we are bigoted assholes, because that is the game that is being played here, but use Occam's razor, and ask yourself whether what is happening around this user account actually serves Wikipedia. --JN466 13:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC) "Faye is Dr. Roberts" again. `Somehow this escaped the dozens of regulars at my blog who've known me for five years, including several who have spoken to both of us and two who have met both of us. I have posted pix of him and pix of me. If I take a picture of me standing next to him, would that help? Probably not, no. Not to arrogant people who insist in the face of evidence things that aren't true. You wanna talk about Occam's razor? SOMEONE, a woman, posted naked pictures of herself including when she was homeless. At very least, some woman lived in a tent in the woods and is currently a friend of Tony Roberts. Why does she have to BE tony roberts? On facebook, you'll see that he has a friend who's met me. She needs to be in on this conspiracy too, and so do the other two people I live with who are also on facebook. What's wrong with the homeless woman being Faye? What's wrong with me just being me? Am I SO weird that I can't even exist? And WTF does any of this, including who I live with, have to do with Wikipedia? Yet this kind of bull shit is being used to BAN ME PERMANENTLY. This is not just a demonstration of the abuse of power, it's also a demonstration of the banality of evil and how people only abuse power when no one's looking. That is, you'd NEVER ban someone and give as a reason "she's homeless" if you thought Jimbo was looking over your shoulder. But in the crowded, fast-paced ANI, nobody really pays attention to injustice, so fuck this crazy Faye chick, let's just wiki-assassinate her, and the hell with it. You wanna know where I got my crazy idea that blacks have average lower IQs than Asians and whites? FROM A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON RACE AND INTELLIGENCE. I never knew it until then, and I looked up the ref used in the article. It turns out that the statement that blacks have lower average IQs comes from a report published by the American Psychological Association. Yet along with being homeless, that "crazy belief" is being given here by WP admins as a reason to throw me out of wikipedia. I haven't been responding to this sham, rigged, preordained-conclusion process much, but before you ban me for being homeless, my political opinions, who I live with, and things I say outside wikipedia; you need to read my reply to this whole thing here. I put it someplace where I can intersperse your statements here with my comments in yellow, and where you can't just delete it on a whim, like you have so much else I've had to say. TechnoFaye Kane 20:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC) The account that says all women want to be brutally raped, that all women are lying when they say the don't want to be raped; that says the brains of black fetuses at two weeks old are smaller than white fetuses; that isn't so much interested in the question of race and intelligence as in spewing a bunch of pseudo-scientific garbage "proving" black inferiority; that treats wikipedia as a cross-between an x-rated myspace and a social experiment is... actually controlled by a racist white guy who likes to troll and play games on the internet? Woulda thunka it.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Because of my user page? That's the only place in wikipedia where I talk about my sexual activity. TechnoFaye Kane 20:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC) WELL THUNK HARDER, BALI; I GOT THAT PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GARBAGE THIS REPORT BY THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, and I never once said, ANYWHERE that anyone was "inferior", nor do I believe it. TechnoFaye Kane 20:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Faye, firstly, your way of responding to comments (i.e. starting in a seemingly random place and then cutting others comments up and surrounding them), makes it rather difficult to reply to you, please see WP:INDENT for a neater way to respond. Also, shouting (bold + uppercase) makes it rather painful to read through your messages, please tone them down a bit. Anyway, you seem to be under the impression you've already been banned, and are accusing us of having unfairly banned you, since you're not banned this doesn't really make much sense. You don't really seem to be understanding the reasons why it's being suggested you be blocked, I don't think anybody is saying that you being homeless would be a reason, except maybe Chowbok, who seems to be misunderstanding as well. You are very clearly either misrepresenting, or misunderstanding us, the only reason your other post was removed is because it was removing other users posts itself (as well as attacking another user). If you want to re-add it properly without the personal attacks, I doubt there would be objections. Also, don't use the fact that most of your social-activity as in the userspace as a defence, since even the userspace is not meant to be used for socialising, or pretty much anything unrelated to Wikipedia, as you should understand if you'd read WP:USERPAGE. Wikipedia is not a social site, and it's certainly not the right place to be looking for people to have rape you, because you seem to be using it for this purpose, it's being suggested you should perhaps be blocked, unless you actually accept Wikipedia is not the place to bring your sex-life. If you kept it off Wikipedia I doubt any of us would be the least bit interested in blocking you for it. Also, your common vandalism to articles, is again something it's been suggested needs to be dealt with, something you've so far ignored, instead you seem to make up the reasons people are saying you should be blocked, and then respond to those (admittedly poor) reasons. - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC) It may be worth pointing out that this is not a "report by the American Psychological Association", as TechnoFaye states, but an article by Rushton and Jensen in this peer-reviewed journal published by the APA. The same journal also published these responses profoundly disagreeing with Rushton and Jensen's evidence and conclusions. Any academic journal will feature and discuss different opinions; that's academic discourse. Neither article represents the position of the APA. --JN466 02:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Guys, someone can write on their user-page that they are the reincarnation of Siddarcha Guatama himself, back to bring enlightenment to all, filled with good karma and the ability to edit with utter detachment and equanimity. All we can say is, "okay, but when it comes down to it all you really have to do is comply with our policies and be a good collaborator." Someone can say they are a professor at a small private university, and have doctorates in theology and canon law and you know what? Our only response ought to be, "okay, but when it comes down to it all you really have to do is comply with our policies and be a good collaborator." Based on my editing patterns and what I have written on my user page you can make some reasonable inferences about my intersts, but if you think you know who I really am or what my real expertise is in, you are fools. I can say anything I want to on my user page and when it comes to dropping clues about hwo I really am honestly, it is not that hard to game people. No one should ever have believed Essjay's claims about himself. Did he comply with policy? To the extent that any of his edits were verifiable, did h deserve respect as a knowledgable editor? Did he work in a collegial way? If so, he should have been respected for that. There are other editors - Tim Vickers, DGG, who tell us who they are. I have tremendous respect for them, but not because of who they say they are on their user pages - if I believed their user pages I am just a mark, a sucker. The point is not that user pages are always lies. In any good con some people win. It is why people keep going back to the slots at Vegas. Of course some people are who you believe they are. But the fact remains: I respect DGG and Tim because of the wuality of their edits. TechnoFaye's user page makes claims about herself. Often times when she (or he) edits, she makes claims about herself. So what? We have no way of knowing whether she is telling the truth about herself, whether those are photos of her, etc. None of it matters. When I called attention to her user page I was NOT inviting ANYONE to judge her personally. My only question was, to what extend was the user-page complying with our userpage guidelines, and also given that they are guidelines and not policy (and also that our first policy is to ignore all policies) should we really be concerned about her userpage. TechnoFaye could be an autistic nuclear engineer. He could be a priest who likes having a secret. She could be a psychiatrist combining a hobby with an experiment. He could be a famous free-lance writer with a PhD and three MAs who realy really realy does not want anyone to be able to guess who he really is. We do not know, we cannot know, and we shouldn't want to know. I just raised a question about the applicability of our guidelines to the user page. Some of you have looked at her recent edits and believe that there are other concerns. Whatever. But you will get nowhere if you make any assumptions that you know anything about her. TechnoFaye has been editing here a long time. S/he knows how everyone else edits and s/he knows our policies and guidelines. She is not a newbie, so we can assume that she has the knowledge of how Wikipedia works that we expect. As far as i see the only task is to use our policies and guidelines as points of reference to judge whether she is a valuable contributor or a disruptive editor. But you have to decide this based on her actions at WP not her identity. I called attention to her userpage NOT because it is at all revealing about who she really is, but simply because it is an action at WP and thus reflects on the encyclopedia. That is all we should care about: actions at the encyclopedia and their contribution to or detraction from the encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Good points, SLR. We should only be concerned about use pages if they are offensive, creepy, or used primarily or exclusively to promote some fringe POV that the Wikipedia community does not believe is notable. (I feel we should make an exception for quality writing, but only on a case-by-case basis.) We should sanction or ban editors who aren't productive contributors &/or who don't play nice. As for the persona Wikipedians present, we shouldn't be overly concerned about that unless it is needlessly distracting. (By that, an example would be for one to claim to be a specific important politician without providing some kind of verification.) What I saw happen was that a number of people felt TechnoFaye's userpage was unnecessarily creepy, & it was deleted. (She could have presented the same information with a couple of links to her other web pages.) As for discussing the persona of TechnoFaye . . . well, IMHO it's human nature to want to gossip about other people, but doing it on WP:AN/I really doesn't contribute to writing an encyclopedia. -- llywrch (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Slr, specifically brought up the issue of the image, which is what this thread should address. But, because of this thread, TechnoFaye's conduct in other places has also attracted attention. I think most Wikipedians are quite open minded when it comes to editors with some eccentricities. There are times when we even appreciate their idiosyncrasies. It seems likely that TF does have some condition that predisposes her to make anti-social remarks, whatever it is I empathize with her. But I also feel that her disruptive pattern of editing has shown no sign of getting better. When I raised the issue of TF a few months ago, I got the impression that many admins were too afraid to deal with the issue because of TFs self-diagnosed condition. Realistically, I don't see a voluntary end to this disruption. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Proposed decision was recently closed with a number of topic bans issued out. TF had been involved in the controversy from early on, but following a bout of disruption, stopped editing for a while, I think this was based on advice from Tony Roberts as indicated in this thread Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race and Intelligence/Archive 5#Why_the_changes_today.2C_and_the_end_of_this_mediation. Therefore TF was not a subject in the Arbitration proceedings, however had her drama continued, she most definitely would have. Her conduct may even have been more egregious than the conduct of some of the users who were sanctioned. So it is somewhat disappointing that shortly after the arbitration ended TF reappeared with her drama. It may be a coincidence, but I don't know. Nonetheless discretionary sanctions were authorized by Arbcom. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Slr, are you saying that any editor should feel free to do what Essjay did, that the only one at fault in the Essjay saga was the community, not Essjay, and that Essjay's behaviour should only have been judged by his content and talkpage edits? --JN466 17:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I was making a general point. This is not the place to get into a tangent about Essjay. If that is what you want to discuss take it to my user talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Editing only - problematic or acceptable? Per Slrubenstein's observations above - New section to focus on TechnoFaye's edits (only). Are they productive, a mixture, largely disruptive? Are they within the range we tolerate, or outside it? I will be reviewing the edit history in depth. I invite others to do so as well (and where done above in the other-focused discussions, restate their opinions on this topic, narrowly focused...). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I'm not really sure another section is needed for this, since users are already looking at Faye's edits above. Whatever Slrubenstein's reasons for creating this thread were, that does not mean we can't look at other possible problems with the user. However, while looking through Faye's contributions, I came across another edit, which were it from a new user, would, I expect, be considered vandalism (not in the mainspace, but file space): here - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC) As I've tried to state many times, taken separately, all of the factors regarding this user independently may not warrant this kind of attention, but taken altogether strongly portray a history of disruptive editing. That's really all that matters, the disruption being caused.   Thorncrag  22:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC) You've failed to cite anything but WP:NPOV that was relevant. LiteralKa (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC) That comment went with a chart that I uploaded. I don't know what happened to the chart, as only the comment remains. I just uploaded it again HERE. I made the joke description because the chart is self-explanatory and doesn't need a description. The chart went into in the race and intelligence article but was deleted by those trying to Bowlderize it. In short, the "evidence" you just provided was NOT vandalism, it was a humorous(?) dummy description that I assumed would never be seen by anyone--and wouldn't have been if you guys weren't digging for dirt on me. I'd also like to point out that there would be no point in adding a nonexistent gif merely to include the description field as it would be impossible to ever use in an article. No one would ever know it's there. Since (I assume) it's impossible to upload a GIF with a description, but not upload the GIF, I'd like someone to explain to me what happened to my chart. My best guess: shortly after april 7 when I uploaded it, one of you admins fucked up my cited, legitimate, professional, relevant chart because they didn't want it known that blacks, on average, score 80 on IQ tests (70 in Africa). Basically, you're not only trying to prevent people from looking through Galileo's telescope, but you're preventing people from understanding why black kids fail, and that allows horrible things to continue, like the white man calling black kids "failures" even when they diligently work to their full potential, or all the dedicated inner-city teachers in a Rhode Island school fired for being "incompetent" which was assumed because no matter what innovations they tried, the black kids never scored very high. That's MY motivation for being involved, BTW. it's not racism. As I remember, I added the chart to the R/I article, but someone reverted it, claiming that a chart of IQ by race is not relevant to an article specifically about IQ by race. I'd like to point out that that's the kind of biased BULL shit that rubenstein and wanaponda have been doing to the R/I article. When 3 others complained about their tactics, rubenstein had his admin buddies ban them from editing the article so they can continue methodically dismantling it unimpeded. Look at it now. It's a shameful collection of lame, disproven excuses explaining away for the IQ gap, with near nothing about the gap itself and exactly nothing about the evolutionary-biology reasons scientists believe the gap exists. THAT'S the kind of thing that happens at wikipedia. It's exactly the kind of crap that made me abandon the bizarre nightmare "real" world you non-autistic people have created and go live in a cave in the woods for three years. Oh, and I'm not "self diagnosed", BTW. ALSO: you guys seem to be looking at only my edits of the past few months, most of which involve the arbitration of the R/I article. To see what I've actually been doing for the project in the past five years, look further back, like HERE. That should end the talk about me being a troll. Oh, one more thing. Mike Roberts is WAY pissed off that you guys claimed he was me. It seems that since you called me all kinds of horrible bad names and then assert that it's really him you're talking about, that you are maligning him professionally, since he teaches research design and his students all use Wikipedia. For example, you publish--for the whole world, his friends, and all his students to see--that: [Dr. Roberts] is spewing a bunch of pseudo-scientific garbage "proving" black inferiority. [He] treats wikipedia as a cross-between an x-rated myspace and a social experiment. [Dr. Roberts] is actually by a racist white guy who likes to troll and play games on the internet. I talked him out of going to his lawyer (I'm sure I'll be profusely thanked by you guys for that) and he's now writing a furious addition to this conversation. I'm telling you about it ahead of time so you can be sure to arrogantly ignore it. TechnoFaye Kane 01:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Faye, that is completely out of context, and even further, not even close to what was said. Bali's post never even mentioned him, or even used the words you put there yourself, making it as if the post targetted him, when in fact it was aimed at you. Bali never even addressed Roberts. If you think we're going to thank you, because you posted your blp violation to him, and talked him out of suing us for something that didn't even happen, something you mischaracterized to him, you have another thing coming. And I do need to ask, why bring up the possibility of a legal suit at all?— Dædαlus Contribs 03:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC) I gotta say, although TF wrote a very long comment in this thread, her much shorter edit summary which Kingpin13 referenced made more of an effect on my opinion about this. It's also left me at a loss for words. I sincerely hope it is a unique edit summary. For her, at least. -- llywrch (talk) 05:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC) (in reply to Faye) The chart is still there, no admin deleted it, you can see it at File:Flkrace.gif. I was just linking to the comment rather than the whole graph, since that was what I saw to be the problem. Saying it was meant to be a joke, isn't really a justification, as a lot of vandal are just vandalising because they think it's funny. I think you need to spend a lot more time trying to understand the community here, and our social norms. If you read through WP:VAND you'd see that crude humour is considered to be vandalism: "Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor". So it IS in fact vandalism. - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Selection of problematic edits [11] Edit summary: "Hey Ben: FUCK YOU!" [12] Edit summary: "revert fucking vandalism" [13] Edit summary: "THAT'S who, smartass" [14]...""let's hassle faye because we don't like her 'I'll fuck anybody' sexuality""... [15] Edit summary: "jettison bull shit" [16] "... I dearly wish it were white men who had the largest dicks--particularly in circumference. ..." Edit summary: "Enough bull shit. Enough!" [17] Using Wikipedia as a reference (note ref to Hunter S. Thompson in preceding line) [18] "... You're right ... I don't want to fuck Chowbuk. I want Chowbuk to fuck ME. " [19] Talk page commentary -- no source in sight, except Faye's blog on Roberts' website: "UHH... EXCUSE ME, I HAVE SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THIS BIASED, POV PART damn capslock! part of the article" First of all, Professor Camille Paglia (a REAL feminist) would strongly disagree with all of this. Read her writings. Secondly, At risk of being shouted down, [http://www.drtonymroberts.com/faye/phasedaze.htm I was gang-raped in 2002] and I LOVED it--it was the closest thing I'll ever have to a religious revelation. "A woman's physiological response to sexual contact is involuntary and in no way implies consent. Women can become aroused, their body can produce natural lubrication, and they can even orgasm against their will while being raped. " Yeah, I can just see the girl, lying there, cumming and cumming and trying to remind herself "oh, yeah, this is supposed to be bad...fuck it... UNNGH! UNNGH! DON'T STOP...." Now the anti-sex "feminists" dig themselves in further: Furthermore, even if the victims orgasm is intensely pleasurable, ...Which I'll just bet it is, since orgasms ALWAYS are...! it can lead to great stress, remorse, and self loathing, or perhaps feelings of guilt because they enjoyed the orgasm while being raped. All typical sick/puritan/american teachings. I can just see the catholic teenage former-virgin trying hard to convince herself that the thing shen loved so much was "bad". Here's the icing on the bullshit cake: Also .it can cause emotional difficulties if the victim begins to associate orgasmic pleasure with the trauma of being raped. !!! Yeah, she lies in bed every night, cumming intensely while remembering the magical experience she was so lucky to have. WHAT'S PREVERTED HERE IS THE DOUBLE TALK AND DENIAL OF THE OBVIOUS: SOME WOMEN **LIKED** BEING RAPED. OKAY? GET OVER IT. I'm not going to repair this section to make it more objective because it would just be reverted. But I want the Bowdlerizing brownshirts to explain, here, WHY they would revert the truth fromm Wikipedia. [20] Deletion of sourced material from Sexual fantasy; edit summary: "rm politically correct bull shit" [21] Deletion of sourced material from Rape; edit summary: "none of this has anything to do with rape." --JN466 13:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Also note that there is a largely inactive Dr.TMRoberts (talk · contribs) account; [22][23] --JN466 14:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC) JN466, did you have to quote all of that talk page edit? Now I have to go and boil my eyes in Dettol for 20 minutes. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Well, the question is should Wikipedia continue to tolerate this drama. At this stage I think a firm yes or no is appropriate. Any waffling will simply encourage further disruption. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC) It's tolerated this, so to speak, because her low edit count (less than 1400 edits in 4 years) has kept her under the radar. There's ample evidence that her inability to empathize with other people makes her problematic; if you think it's enough -- or can provide more examples to the list JN466 has provided -- then the next step is to propose a community ban. I believe that's done at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. And if that account JN466 mentions can be proven to be related, it should experience the same fate. -- llywrch (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC) As I said previously, I think the issue that really matters here is that she hasn’t been given any warning or a temporary block for anything since 2007. An indefinite block or ban is supposed to be the last recourse for someone who’s refusing to change their behavior in response to any lesser sanction, warning, or any other form of dispute resolution. It isn’t supposed to be the first recourse, which is what’s being proposed in this case. How does anyone know that she wouldn’t change anything about her behavior if an admin were to warn her about it in her user talk, block her for 24 hours, or file a WQA or RFC/U about her? Nothing like that has even been tried. And I wasn’t aware that it’s consistent with Wikipedia policy to even consider a ban for someone about whom this hasn’t been tried yet. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Ermm... Have you taken a proper look through her talk page for warnings? There's one on there at the moment from fences and windows (User_talk:TechnoFaye#WQA), there's more warnings in the history as well, but a small numbers of edits over a very large amount of time, as mentioned by llywrch, could contribute to them being few and difficult to find. Also, she appears to be canvassing on her blog, (Campaigning and Votestacking) although that doesn't seem to be working. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC) (outdent) JN466 - thanks for all that. I had been focusing on more recent edits, but the history is useful. With that said - Some of those are stale or not actionable. I don't think that blocking the user for actions in 2008 and 2009, or edit summaries to vandals that were rude and abusive, are called for. Dropping that type of incident, and looking at recent edits, we are left with a core of very problematic edits, which do concern me greatly. I will post a few diffs later today. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Some problematic recent edits: on Gamma-ray burst - grossly off topic on Barbarism (linguistics) - apparently incorrect and was shortly removed This on Talk:Vagina [24] ...followed by these on Talk:Vulva [25] [26] [27] Approximately half their content edits since the beginning of July were either problematic in some way (described here or above) or were reverted by people as unsourced or otherwise improper, but don't rise to the level of justifying a sanction. That reversion by others is typical, however, is a strong indication of problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC) I recall Mikemikev had only one prior block before he was indefinitely blocked according to the user's block log. Don't mean to be gratuitous, but here are some more comments. From the user's blog entitled AT WIKIPEDIA, FAYE GETS HOUNDED BY A CLUELESS, ANGRY, LYING BUFFOON! "But our simian friend doesn't want to join the discussion about crazy naked women. Instead, he wants to beat this to death" "And there, this tale told by an idiot comes to an end, as Wapondaponda struts and frets his way across the stage and is heard no more.The sound and fury, however, have just begun. For, as The Foole exits, God enters--and They are not amused". SO anyway, Ludwig beseeched his Lord God to ass-fuck him privately instead of in front of all his sheep. But He is a stern God: All this was said AFTER the threads and warnings from Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive84#User:TechnoFaye and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive605#Incivility_by_User:TechnoFaye. So this is clearly a deliberate attempt to personally attack certain individuals and the user posted the link on my user page specifically so that I could read her attacks [28]. A few others include, As to the discussion itself, see below, after wapanamonda and rubenstein's bullshit. [29] Excuse me, but that's A.Prock of sh*t[30] It has gotten to the point where whenever I see a TechnoFaye post, I try to avoid reading it because many of her comments are unpleasant. Old incidents may be stale, but if they constitute a pattern that persists into the present, which is the case, then I think they are still relevant. It is clearly unfair for editors who have never personally attacked TechnoFaye to continue to be at the receiving end of such vitriol. We seem to be focusing on TF trying to see if there is some way that the user can come around and be productive, but we should not forget the unnecessary drama and stress that the user places on many other volunteer editors. It is not our responsibility to put up with this level of drama. For the good of the community, I believe it would be best to bring an end to this predictable pattern of drama. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Closing comment: The consensus which seems to have formed here is that TechnoFaye's edits are disruptive, and not a net-benefit for the encyclopedia. She has violated multiple policies and guidelines, and despite having been warned and blocked in the past, her behaviour continues to be problematic, as shown by the more recent diffs provided above. Nor does she seem to be keen to change her behaviour, based on her edits at this ANI thread. Having read this thread, as well as discussions in other on-wiki venues, there appears to be a consensus that TechnoFaye's contributions are overall not beneficial, and I have therefore indefinitely blocked TechnoFaye. - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

WT:BISE and User:Triton Rocker: indef block review request

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

Long-time fans of ANI will recall several prior threads about this editor and their enthusiasm for the term "British Isles". WT:BISE exists to consider usages of this term through the project, and Triton Rocker has been very active at WT:BISE. They were the first (and to date, only) editor to be subject to a topic ban, and have been blocked several times for violating the topic ban, disruptive editing and edit warring.

WT:BISE brings together multiple different groups of editors. It is vital that these disparate groups discuss issues with as little acrimony as possible. In short, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are as important at WT:BISE as they are elsewhere in the project. To that end I have been removing personal attacks and warning editors. Triton Rocker has been warned before about this.

Triton Rocker has just completed a week block for edit warring at Terminology of the British Isles. Two of their first edits, post block, were this one and this one. On the face of it, a humorous edit summary: "HighKing's nuts" (in a discussion which, among other things, did involve horse chestnuts) and a mostly on-topic post in which Triton Rocker's views on other editors' motivations played a relatively small part: "This is just another ridiculous and desperate attempt in a nationalistically motivated campaign, defying logic, that should not be entertained."

I've blocked Triton Rocker for these latter two edits. The block is indefinite, as it follows on from several blocks relating to editing in the British Isles area. I feel the block is justified because these two edits demonstrate that Triton Rocker has failed to take on board the concerns expressed by the community, here at ANI, and at WT:BISE. I do not accept that these edits are minor: they were, I am certain, calculated to allow the maximum wikilawyering possible: in short, they were designed to game the system and provide the editor with a degree of deniability. I do not regard that as acceptable. I regard both edits as overt/covert attacks on one or more editors.

I have told Triton Rocker that I would have no objection their block being lifted - if they make a commitment to addressing the issues raised in this and prior blocks. That offer stands. I've also offered to copy any comments Triton Rocker wishes to make here, to ANI, so that they are able to fully participate in this discussion. The last time I did this the comment I copied was, frankly, unacceptable and attacked several editors including am admin. Nevertheless, I remain prepared to assist Triton Rocker. I believe, deep down, there is a good editor there - one who is struggling to adapt to frustrations of working in POV areas.

As this block is an indefinite block against an established editor I am seeking review here. TFOWR 11:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems a bit severe. Off2riorob (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Triton needs to accept that he can not make any comment on BISE which could in any way be against the rules or considered as against the rules. If he agrees to finally accept that properly then the indef block should be lifted. He knows he is going to be watched closely, he knows there are people that may want him out of the way, i do not get why he continues to act in the way he does especially after just coming off a block. The only way to play this game is by the rules. I hope Triton accepts hes got to be far more careful with his comments so he can be given another chance. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Are nuts called conkers in Ireland? This whole BISE has become a POV joke. Off2riorob (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Conkers are called Conkers in Ireland too yes, and conkers are nuts. The problematic bit of his comments is the "nationalistically motivated campaign" in my opinion. Whilst that is exactly what has happened (often known as the Crusades), and there is a clear case of censorship now taking place on Ireland articles, we are meant to avoid any comments on possible agendas on the BISE page. If triton agrees to avoid such comments again the indef block should be lifted. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I believe Horse Chestnuts do get called "conkers" when used in sport. Part of the problem with this, as with so many POV areas, is civility - rather than work together to drive the process forward, a popular past time is to see how far one can take incivility. In other POV arenas I've even seen editors question just how far they go, without any apparent trace of irony. The reason I've been removing WP:CIVIL-vios and warning editors is that civility (or a lack thereof) has a profound impact on the overall process: once the attacks start they continue, unless dealt with. I'm not keen on civility blocks, but I see no way to avoid them in POV areas where civility is seen as just another weapon in the POV warrior's toolkit. This is basically a vicious circle in several ways: incivility spawns further incivility, just as systematic removal of a term has resulted in systematic addition of the same term. TFOWR 12:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(in reply to Britishwatcher) Thats a big troupe of elephants (herd) in the room to not be able to mention. I think it would be better for Triton if he was unblocked and topic baned for a couple of months, that way he will get the chance to watch it all and see it for the joke it is. If TRocker can leave this issue behind him he has the look of a decent contributor. Off2riorob (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, TR is already topic banned. TFOWR 12:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So here we are again at AN/I discussing more British Isles related problems. I wonder when, if ever, the movers and shakers at Wikipedia will grasp the fact that all these problems, even the current one, can be traced back to one single user, HighKing, and his relentless drive to eliminate British Isles from Wikipedia. This user has developed a whole industry around getting rid of British Isles including "guidelines" and a special examples page at WP:BISE. It's that very page which has resulted in this latest uncalled-for block on an editor who just by chance came across the diabolical situation regarding British Isles and tryed to do something about it. He is the latest victim of the continuing, subtle crusade to remove British Isles. I urge his block be lifted and an immediate topic ban placed on all the protagonists at British Isles, otherwise we'll be back here again, and again and again and other editors who stumble into the mayhem will no doubt be consumed by it in the same way Triton Rocker has. Wake up to reality! LevenBoy (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

TR is "topic banned" is he? So tell me - what can I do regarding British Isles that he can't? LevenBoy (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

TR is topic baned. What you need there is TB3 which restricts him talking about it also. Off2riorob (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not support any form of ban which restricts people from raising matters on the BISE page, unless we are ALL banned from talking about it. Id submit to a complete ban if certain editors were included. We could then all get on with our lives or other things. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You can add British Isles somewhere, Highking will revert it and then we will have to debate it for the next few weeks. If Triton adds it anywhere, it will be reverted and he will also get a block, of atleast 1 week. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. LevenBoy (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It does seem that a lot of people closely related to this issue are having problems with HighKing and I feel that you would be remiss to deal with Triton but not address this other user's behaviour also. Having said that, it does appear to be wikilawering of the highest order. Especially if those are the first two edits after a block. A reasonable discussion with Triton about what other topics he may wish to edit if his band is lifted seems like a very good idea. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, they were the 3rd and 4th edits after the prior block. If Triton Rocker were to edit outside the British Isles arena, I gather than British motorcycles is a subject with which they have a huge amount of familiarity, but I dare say there are other areas too.

I became involved at WT:BISE after this ANI thread, which named 2/3 editors as being "problematic". Since I've been involved none of these 2/3 editors has given me significant cause for concern. These 2/3 editors include High King (and a participant in this thread).

I absolutely do not accept that dealing with one editor's problematic behaviour requires that we also consider another editor's behaviour: each case can - and should be - considered individually, on its own merits/demerits. Otherwise it simply becomes a question of shouting loudly about one editor whenever a "comrade" is threatened. Take a read of WT:BISE (and its archives) and see how many threads degenerate into a "High King is responsible for global warming"-type rants. TFOWR 12:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

While you're taking in the discussions at BISE and the archives, pay attention and see if you can identify the core group of editors who continually disrupt with breaches of CIVIL and other policies, full stop. And you may also with to note the tactic whereby any discussions of these editors at ANI or WQA or SPI also get hijacked into an anti-HighKing tirade (just like they're trying to do here). Thankfully the community is also wising up to this and Cailil made a good point at a previous ANI. --HighKing (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

TR lasted a total of 4h 25 min after coming off his last ban before he made an edit which got him this ban. TR needs to be taught a lesson and the ban is fully justified. This has nothing to do with HK or any other editor other than TR. No one else is to blame for his actions. Bjmullan (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think an indefinite ban is a bit much, but agree that he has strayed past whatever thin lines of civility exist on BISE. I recommend his ban be lifted, but that he not participate on BISE for a period of time. Hopefully this will give him time to cool down. I disagree with the attacks on HighKing, he has a POV definitely, but as far as I can tell he does his best to remain civil at all times, even under attack. Chipmunkdavis (talk)

On a point of order: it's an indefinite block, not a ban. I opted for indefinite as it was clear that short-term blocks weren't working. However, being indefinite, i.e. not "infinite", it can be lifted at any point. Indeed, I've made clear to Triton Rocker what action I'd want to see in order for the block to be lifted. TFOWR 13:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the idea, above, of a Third option, whereby TR is banned from "British Isles" related topics - actually all British-nationalist-related topics, including Talk pages. Perhaps if this can be agreed at the BI general sanction as TB03, the indef block could be lifted and TB03 applied. --HighKing (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Far too broad. TRocker should be able to edit articles related to the British Isles and any British Nationalist articles but is only to be restricted from inserting or removing or discussing the expression British Isles and it should have a time limit of some months. Off2riorob (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is some form of ban on stopping people from even joining a debate at BISE then it has to be for a limited amount of time. Banning someone for a few months from even joining the debate, when some editors have been involved in this dispute for years seems extreme. But if he agrees to follow the rules and avoid any comments like he made today he should certainly have his indef block lifted. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• The block is appropriate. Triton Rocker should remain blocked until he recognizes site policy and standards, per normal procedure with repeatedly blocked users operating under restriction. If TR acknowledges site policy and standards and agrees to abide by his restriction then he should be unblocked and the topic ban should be given a limited duration (ie 6 months from the time of unblock). I'd suggest adding civility parole but wouldn't make it conditional on an unblock.
  On a separate point it is becoming fairly clear that editors (on both "sides") don't understand that the 'British Isles' topic is under probation and therefore any edits (to articles or talk space) in that area will be scrutinized and if out of line will be sanctioned (that includes here) [31].
  @Off2riorob, Triton Rocker is already restricted as you suggest--Cailil ^talk 14:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A 6 month topic ban if he agrees to play by the rules is far too extreme. (if by topic ban, it means not being allowed to even discuss the BI issues.)BritishWatcher (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BW, Triton Rocker is already topic banned and it is to that ban which I'm referring (the one that restricts him from adding/removing the term BI from articles). His ban currently has no duration which may mean Black Kite was imposing and indefinite topic ban. In light of that and the fact that a 6-12 month topic bans are the norm, this would be a step forward for TR. Also abiding by the rules is a minimum requirement for all editors, it should not be seen as an achievement for anyone to do so--Cailil ^talk 15:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

An indefinite restriction from the whole wikipedia is not appropriate at all user Calil, its excessive. We are a contributory website and we are obliged to do our best to allowusers to contribute in some good faith way. This isn't a police state and his disruption is for minimal than deserves a site ban. I didn't apply it so I don't have to live with it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, Rob I didn't propose an indefinite restriction - my proposal is conditional unblock on agreement to abide by the rules.
Please do not misrepresent what others say Rob. I have not mentioned a 'site ban' in my above post at all--Cailil ^talk 15:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I believe you are commenting as an independent I was not surprised to see you are flying the I am proud to be Irish flag on your userpage. We are all requested to rise above our partisan opinions and allow this user to edit in whatever way possible, I did not misrepresent your comments, ban block call it what you like yo8u supported an indefinite restriction as appropriate, I don't. Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Rob I stated that I would not allow anyone to be subject to personalized comments based solely on their nationality. You have directly speculated on my motivations based solely on my country of origin. I said in relation to Triton Rocker that I would escalate the matter then - I will do the same now - I will give you one chance to redact that remark if you don't take it I will escalate it immediately.
Also as a point of order there is a HUGE difference between a block and a ban. And I support the indef block as TFOWR applied it (which is one based on a conditional unblock)--Cailil ^talk 15:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a disgraceful comment and a breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. --HighKing (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No its not, its a simple statement without any accusations at all. Off2riorob (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The whole point of an indef is that it can be listed IF the editor concerns undertakes to behave differently. Despite multiple blocks Triton persistently refused to admit any fault and immediately reverts to the same behaviour within hours of coming back. At this stage the community needs Triton to acknowledge the issue and undertake to behave differently. Otherwise I suggest a full topic ban (at the moment he just has a sanction not to add "British Isles") on the subject so he can do good work elsewhere. The demonisation of HighKink is getting silly - that editor has abided by all the rules for well over a year now. --Snowded ^TALK 15:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Demonisation, bit strong isn't it. I think it is clear that if Highking was removed from the issue there would be no issue at all, no problem , nothing to deal with, no threads at ANI no BISE action page, nothing just a calmer less disrupted wikipedia with a few links to Bisles that suggest such excessive terrible things such Conkers is not the correct word for all the BIsles and flaura and fawna perhaps should be only in the Northern Ireland and Uk. and such tedious miniscule issues. Off2riorob (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really, High King has co-operated fully with the nomination process. Also for the last few months the vast majority of cases are British Watcher, Triton etc. inserting (or nominating the insertion of) British Islands and/or related proposals on stable issues such as Derry/Londonderry. This whole area is not one where one group can place all the blame on others, or argue that removing one editor would mean the problem would go away. --Snowded ^TALK 19:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not been exposed to HighKing's previous actions, but from what I've seen, no matter what he has done in the past, he has been an active, and constructive, contributor to the BISE page. Let's stick to the discussion of TR's block shall we? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually ever read essays like WP:TE and WP:CPUSH, or considered that WP:CIVIL is a behavioural guideline that is infact about a lot more than just being polite, and then actually taken a good long hard look at HighKing's long term contributions and tactics at venues like BISE? The idea that he is being 'demonised' is frankly ludicrous, it's borderline insulting to the intelligence of everyone who is familiar with this dispute, as is the often pushed idea that the pro-BI crowd's misbehaviours exists in a vacuum unrelated to him. The only thing 'silly' about this dispute, is that things like TE are routinely ignored, let alone the total apparent invisibility of guidelines like WP:GAME, even by the people supposedly monitoring the discussions, and people are getting blocked and gamed off the issue left right and centre, for simply calling a spade a spade and then flipping out, instead of not simply bending over and taking it when facing some extremely high-end acts of gamery and tendentious campaigning. There a a hundred and one behavioural policies that he breaches all the time, practically daily, when you realise what they actually say, which is really not constructive for the pedia when the underlying issue is just his complete and utter misunderstanding of content policies like NPOV. As can be seen by this yet another ANI, when it comes to oversight in this dispute, the only thing that anybody ever bothers with is the low-hanging fruit - the people who are just being meanies!, or providing block reasons to people on a plate. Everything else is simply left alone, in the obvious favour of those who have the greatest staying power and ideological will to play the long game. And in this dispute, the outstanding leader in that respect is HighKing, 100%. He's supposedly not a campaigner. Well, has he ever, ever, put sustained editing effort into any other cause on Wikipedia? MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Mick, thanks for pointing out WP:CPUSH, I wasn't aware of it. Having now read it I find it quite astounding how it so accurately describes HighKing. Let's look at the introductory bullet points:

Wikipedia, and specifically the dispute resolution process, has a difficult time dealing with civil POV pushers. These are editors who are superficially polite while exhibiting some or all of the following behaviors:

• They often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme.
• They attempt to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or give undue weight to fringe theories – pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like (PCCTL for short).
• They revert war over such edits.
• They frivolously request citations for obvious or well known information.
• They argue endlessly about the neutral-point-of-view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue weight clause. *They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is verifiable, so it should be in."
• They argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think tanks rather than from the scientific literature.
• They may use sockpuppets, or recruit meat puppets.
• They repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, and/or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times.
• They hang around forever wearing down more serious editors and become expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV.
• They often make a series of silly and time wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration again to try to wear down the serious editors.

Every single one of those is HighKing to a T; quite remarkable. LevenBoy (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we please take the advice of Chipmunkdavis and stick to the discussion of TR's block and let's try and get away from the school boy excuse of he made me do it. Bjmullan (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Having only registered in November 2009, Chipmunkdavis's advice is probably not informed by the fact that most arbitration cases, and certainly all the repeat ones, are always founded on what you laughingly want to dismiss here as a school boy excuse. Can we? Probably. Should we? Absolutely not. MickMacNee (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I did only register recently, which is why I said that I judged HighKing based on what I've seen. If he's no longer running his campaign or whatever it was, we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Did TR continue edit-warring, upon his block expiration? If so? indef. If not? don't indef. I don't wish to see anybody indef-blocked because of their posts and/or edit summaries. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker's response for ANI

Copied from Triton Rocker's talkpage per my offer and TR's request. TFOWR 15:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to make three things clear:

a) I was not topic banned. The only thing I was "banned" from doing was adding the term "British Isles" from topics. I am allowed to edit any article.

b) My point of view (and interest) is non-political and relates solely to non-political uses of the term. A position which I have sustained clearly and accurately with academic quotes, e.g. "used widely in academia without reflecting the United Kingdom's hegemonic interests", e.g. see: here.

c) I have been utterly consistent in this arguing against the politicisation and nationalist use of the term from any nationalist point of view. (I am not English and do not support British abuses of power in Ireland or anywhere else).

Now, please allow us to discuss the "elephant in room" for one moment and get a straight answer.

You have an Irish editor --- supported by others --- widely recognised to be engaged in a campaign to remove the term British Isles despite the above. What is HighKing's motivation?

What cracks me up is how far out of proportion with reality, or any reasonable responsibility to check the facts, his attempts are.

• Forget the distraction TFOWR is causing by scapegoating me just like Black Kite before him --- what we are really here discussing is conkers. It could equally have been Wych Elms.

HighKing claims no true Irishman calls them conkers to remove the term British Isles. Yet the Government of Ireland promotes Conker Championships.

HighKing claims there are no Wych Elms on the Isle of Man to remove the term British Isles. Yet the Government of the Isle of Man states they are the most common (and forget too 'Flora of Guernsey and the Lesser Channel Islands etc').

Now --- this 'opposition to reality' going on and on and on at WT:BISE. I could pick out at least tens of equivalently ridiculous examples and I am sure HighKing has a list more.

Why should we really have to bear the burden that such an 'opposition to reality' for the sake of a nationalist cause is causing just to keep the Wikipedia accurate?

If they have a problem with the naming convention, they need to go to the International Organization for Standardization to sort it out.

Not skew the Wikipedia. --Triton Rocker (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

May I also ask, is this a typical trick, banning someone from editing so that they cannot defend themselves on an admin page? It is not the first time. --Triton Rocker (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It does seem a mightly strange thing to do, I must say. LevenBoy (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

...and that's a pure load of shyte. The editor has been told in the past that while blocked, he may request to have his input into the ANI copied from his talkpage into ANI. Just because he blanks his talkpage rather than archive it, does not mean he's not already aware of the process. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The easiest way to avoid ridiculous is not be ridiculous.

I was indefinitely block for an admins interpretation of a summary note, one of two talk page edits I made, It read, "HighKing's nuts" and referred to ridiculous discussion about chestnuts, in this case HighKing insisting no Irish personal called them conkers. I prove with refereces that they most certainly did. The circumstance was "ridiculous" because it was being use as a pretext for yet another removal of the term British Isles.

Please note, HighKing never complained about the summary. I doubt it bothers him at all --- of course, the events after are too his advantage, so why should he complain?

For the record, I was not making a pun about his alleged insanity. I was making a pun about his testicles. In British English, testes are nuts and I was imagining cupping them in my hand and squeezing them. Grabbing something or someone "by the balls" or "by the nuts" is equivalent to taking a bull "by its horn" (an unfortunate image if ever there was one).

This is, again, a figure of speech in English. Someone who needs their balls squeezed needs to wake up, stop their nonsense or whatever. Please look it up.

Therefore, I was indefinitely banned for an admin's interpretation of something no one complained about and about a figure of speech I was not asked to clarify.

How right does that sounds?

Now, putting all that aside, where is the real abuse, not imagined abuse, happening?

The real abuse of other editors' time and energy by such petty and ridiculous ploys. We had another at the same time for Wych Elm ... again another attempt at British Isle removal on the basis that one reference did not mention IoM. The IoM government stated it was their most common elm. Again, I had to correct.

Surely, the onus of responsibility lies with HighKing to check, check and triple check the resources until he is sure about what he is talking --- not ours to educated him.

Why should others pay for his education? I checked. It is actually against Wikipedia policy. --Triton Rocker (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC) (Copied here by unblock-declining  Sandstein  06:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC))

Length of block

I do not consider it acceptable to follow up on a 1 week block with an indefinite block. Even arbcom does not do this is handing out sanctions: they double it each time. That's normally what we should be doing here; further, this was on a talk page, not article space. And no block longer than 1 week has been yet tried. I sense the frustration of those previous involved, but as someone with no prior involvement in this entire topic area, I have therefore shortened the block to 2 weeks. DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's quite a magnanimous move but I wonder, might you consider removing it altogether? Look at what was said, and the history behind this scandalous situation. TR is no better, nor worse, than the average contributor here. The problem stems from his original, and wholly inappropriate, restriction. If it was not for that then we wouldn't be here at this page (again) today. As I've said before - look at the fundamental problem here, not the symptoms that we now have. LevenBoy (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that LevenBoy's characterisation of TR's conduct as "no better, nor worse, than the average contributor here" (I assume by "here", we mean WP:BISE) is accurate. Triton has been substantially worse than many and in fact, I would say, all recently. Others like LevenBoy are also less than helpful to a calm, rational discoursive atmosphere. I am glad to see the rules being properly enforced, which is what we need. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that procedure should be followed here. If doubling the block is the way it has been done then it only seems reasonable. Especially so if Triton can be encouraged to not repeat any action (no matter how seemingly innocuous) that might trigger a large conflict with other editors or be seen as deliberately provocative. Encouraging him to engage in other topics for a while once the block is lifted appears to be a good solution. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If this is standard procedure? so be it. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think DGG's characterization here is an oversimplification. Doubling is not by any means a required or even standard procedure; it's just one way that can be used. No clear opinion on this particular reduction, but the notion that a one-week block cannot be followed by indef is not supported by policy. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course it can be followed by indef, but it usually shouldn't; I was referring to what seems the customary arb com AE practice, as an example for us. I suppose we have the right to be more arbitrary than they even on smaller matters than they deal with, and escalate penalties when we are exasperated, instead of being judicious. Blocks are for prevention, and no block longer than a week has yet been tried & perhaps this may make an impression. I do not want to think that our penalties here have no proportion to the situation, but rather we take it upon ourself to judge whether someone is likely to be capable of improvement. A practice of routinely blocking for indef, and then change it if someone says sufficient to make us believe they've repented strikes me of being very much like BITE--it will perhaps induce someone to hypocritical statements of conformity, but it will bot produce improvement. Slow increase pressure is much more likely to do so, without driving away editors. The only way to judge improvement is to give the person a chance to show it. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Wedging this in here, as it seemed the most logical place: there's an unblock request. I'm not sure I understand it, but I suspect Triton Rocker may think I'm Scottish and consequently not impartial. TFOWR 16:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

So TFOWR, hows chafing under a cruel westminster fist? Not the best of unblock requests, almost a Personal Attack really. Mayhaps 2 weeks isn't long enough. I also think he should be kept of BISE for at least another week or so after the block expiry, to see if he will try to understand more fully the situation and calm down a bit. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible fix

How about we just restrict every editor that has ever posted on WT:BISE from adding or removing the term "British Isles" from articles? Such removal or addition could still be suggested on that page, but could only be actioned by an uninvolved admin. That wouldn't prevent the usual arguments at the talkpage, and we'd probably end up with a few mysterious new accounts/IPs doing the addition and removal, but that could be reverted (again by someone uninvolved) with a link to WT:BISE ... and frankly I can't think of anything else now. The only other option is a complete topic ban and that would be a nightmare to administer and might also stop those editors doing actually useful work. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No probs. Wowsers, that's what I've been practicing all along. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Some editors, mentioning no names, think it's like that already. LevenBoy (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Each has his/her own way of volunteering for these things. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That is what the vast majority of editors are doing Black Kite, if you check out the BISE page then you will see progress being made. If you want to make a wikipedia wide restriction then that might make sense, but penalizing all editors who have ever contributed to the page is neither fair nor needed. All we have here is one editor who is consistently refusing to change their behaviour even after several blocks. --Snowded ^TALK 19:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• It has merit BK, placing a list of editors (perhaps, as you suggest all of those who edited at WT:BISE- although as Snowded points out there are those from both sides who are not misbehaving) on a form of probation (ie banned from adding/removing the term 'British Isles' and placed on civility parole) and perhaps explaining/outlining how the topic is also under probation could work.
  Also as an FYI Þjóðólfr popped up again asking for a block review. They're claiming to have read this thread - which is a bit odd--Cailil ^talk 19:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object. I for one have never added or inserted the term, but have taken a case by case approach to nominations for insertion or deletion by other editors. neither have I ever broken any civility rules. That is also true for the vast majority of editors who have engaged on the page. Placing those editors under probation is the equivalent of holding the whole school in detention because one kid has scrawled an obscenity on a wall. --Snowded ^TALK 19:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I know Snowded, and I sympathise, but I'm trying to think of some way to prevent this continually bouncing back to ANI with little result. Please feel free to throw some more radical proposals our way, because I'm really struggling to think how to do this. (Well, I can think of a very simple method, but it wouldn't be too popular with the subset of editors that it would affect). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be very simple to (i) apply progressive bans to editors like Triton rather than a series of one week/one day ones despite no indication he has learnt (ii) adopt a zero tolerance to any personal accusations, speculation on motives etc. A few weeks of that would do the trick. To be honest the issue which keeps coming here is Triton, otherwise although there is a civility problem its not going too badly at the moment. I'm not going to even bother with controversial pages (and I have spent a very patient two years here and put up with a lot of abuse) if the reward is to be labeled as needing a "probation". --Snowded ^TALK 20:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I regularly contribute to that page with a view to attempting to create a rational, NPOV basis for each item discussed and hopefully not be too snippy with people. Under this proposal, would I end up with a block record which any future editor glancing at my profile will think indicates bad behaviour on my part? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would you end up with a block record? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I take it that means I wouldn't. Fair enough. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) Hold on we're trying to thrash this out. BK has suggested every editor, I'm not 100% behind that and as I suggested a list. (the next logical step would be to discuss what/who would be on that list).
And James - no an editing restriction is effectively a contract made with the community it doesn't come up on a block log unless said agreement is violated.
Our other potion is a stricter form of topic probation. No warnings just escalating blocks for anything out of line comment/edit/report etc - I'm not sure how I feel about this or how it would be enforced though, but it's an option--Cailil ^talk 20:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Id suport a complete ban on involved editors adding / removing British Isles from articles, i wouldnt say that should include every single editor thats ever posted on the BISE though. It has always struck me as odd that Triton is the only one actually prohibited from adding or removing British Isles. However i am unclear from the wording exactly what is being proposed. Are we saying that involved editors like myself and highking would not be allowed to propose changes at BISE, only allowed to debate them when raised by uninvolved editors. If that is the case, again i would support that on the condition we deal with all outstanding cases, because there are a few major ones that need resolving. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I understand BK's suggestion everyone could suggest changes - but per my proposal the restricted would be under a strict civility parole too.
My suggestion for a wording would be:

Listed editors are on probation in regard to the British Isles naming dispute. They are banned from inserting, removing or in any way editing the term British Isles or words associate with it anywhere in Wikipedia. Listed editors may still contribute to WT:BISE where they may suggest changes. An uninvolved admin will review these suggestions and may (or may not) make such changes. Listed editors are also subject to civility parole

--Cailil ^talk 20:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This sounds good to me. I would ideally like TFOWR to continue as our "resident admin" if he is agreeable, although presumably others are welcome to take an interest too. Would this mean he would still make the final change for us? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont like the sound of this "civility parole". I do not mind submitting to a complete ban on adding / removing the term BI from wikipedia articles, and i do not mind being extra careful with my comments on the BISE page, but i can not volunteer to be held to a "higher civility" standard elsewhere on wikipedia that would put those of us who agree to this at a disadvantage in debates. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Ensuring that any insertion or deletion is discussed before a change is made is actual practice for the majority of editors already. So making it a general rule is a very good idea. Making it a probation should only apply to editors who have broken laws of civility or edit warred. If you want editors to spend considerable time, and put up with vandalism etc. on controversial pages then some support would be appreciated, not a very unfair label. So if you want to organise a review of the behaviour of all editors who have contributed and only "list" those who have not behaved properly, but don't start tarring everyone with the same brush. --Snowded ^TALK 20:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I've thought about this again now, and you're probably right; still, there was no harm in a bit of blue sky thinking. As far as Triton's concerned, the next block should be indef. There are only so many times one can test the boundaries. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand too Snowded but we need to thrash things out and yes of course listed people would be those who violated policies. I recognize the good work you and others have done at WP:BISE and consider the topic lucky to have those of you how do work within site policy there.
As BK said we need to entertain these thoughts even if we decide not to implement them. And to be clear if in future broad disruption does occur I would support the above wording being implement only for those who are repeat offenders of site policy not all involved at WP:BISE--Cailil ^talk 23:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Understood; I am just contributing to the "thrashing out" and your general interventions on this are most welcome. Personally (as I say below) I think the current sanctions are fine they just need enforcing (but I don't propose thrashing there although it is tempting) --Snowded ^TALK 05:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded, as far as I can tell that has been the de facto practice all along. My only issue with a general probation about the words and "words associated with them" would that it may hinder some editors form making constructive edits elsewhere. I feel that this may possibly be abused by some to try and lock other editors up. I'd prefer a little bit of leeway for editors who abide by the rules and conventions of the page, but I guess if a blanket ban is needed, the admins would have sufficient discretion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Beats the hell out of me why for this current situation, we appear to be having trouble managing "Triton Rock" for editing violations, and the hand-wringing and heart-wrenching appeals for run-arounds on what was threatened the last time (and the time before) he violated. And has he demonstrated that he recognizes what the problem is? His Talk page tells a very different story. And it bothers me, because hand on heart, I and others know that I wouldn't be treated so leniently. I've said it from the very start - it's time we applied stricter civility and behaviour standards. I recommend a review of individual editors recent civility and behavior should be done at BISE and other BISE-related pages and BISE-related postings. Persistent breaches should result in those editors being placed on a list. After that, no warnings just escalating blocks for anything out of line comment/edit/report. --HighKing (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

For a couple of weeks now we have had the strict enforcement of comments at BISE, I think its been counter productive and damaged the environment and debate there but as people think thats whats needed there ive gone along with it. The idea that strict civility stuff is spread to other articles which someone deems "BISE related" or "BISE related postings" and would only apply to some editors is totally not fair and completely unjustified. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you are one of the editors with a history of disrupting SPI and ANI threads by turning them into anti-Highking rants, and accusing all editors who disagree with you as being on a crusade to rid the WP of the term British Isles, I can understand why you'd want to prevent enforcement of a core policy like civility. And it's not even strict civility - a pattern of systematic incivility has spread like a virus from a hardcore group of editors which is only now being detected and fully appreciated, and it is only right that the community recognizes how damaging, disruptive, unproductive and time-wasting that behaviour is, and takes steps to remedy the situation. --HighKing (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe my comments are in line with present rules and until i am told otherwise i will continue to make the comments i do. I have been told not to use the term crusade on the BISE page, since being told not to, i have avoided all such comments on that page. The BISE page certainly now does have strict civility enforced, if that is the environment we have to work in fine but such restrictions should not apply to every conversation on the matter of BISE or articles relating to BISE. I think there is clear evidence that a crusade took place to remove British Isles from wikipedia, 100s of diffs can be provided to show this has been taking place. I believe that is at the heart of the disruption, that is the trigger that has caused us all to be involved in this dispute today. I certainly never had any intention to worry about "British Isles" when i originally joined wikipedia, that was until i witnessed attempts to rid wikipedia of the term, including totally unacceptable attempts to move the British Isles article itself as if it was no longer used. All of that of course does not justify anyone breaking the rules, and that includes Triton but the idea that it is those who support inclusion who are to blame for everything simply is not true. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Systematic incivility across a range of articles and Talk pages, directed mainly at a single editor, are hardly "in line with present rules". And I believe a review of recent contributions relating to behaviour and civility for all BISE editors will reveal a telling pattern. If the powers that be are really serious about knocking this problem on the head, it would take less than 30 minutes to identify a solution that actually targets the problems, rather than proposing a catch-all idea that penalizes those who constructively contribute. --HighKing (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well according to the debate below such a catch all idea is no longer being considered. Ive said a few times i think it would be a good idea for all "involved editors" to agree to never add or remove British Isles from articles but i agree that it should not be applied to all editors, and it should be a matter of choice to submit to such restrictions as most of us have done nothing wrong. Ive certainly not been adding lots of British Isles to articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. Rather than spend 30minutes examining the behaviour and civility of the editors involved at BISE across the range of articles and Talk pages, the only suggestion is to tar everyone with the same brush, or nothing. And behaviour and civility extends beyond whether you added lots of British Isles to articles. --HighKing (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Myself, I like Black Knights earlier suggest that none of the prior editors add or remove the term from where it or one of the disputed equivalents exist. But I will always oppose jumping to indefinite in situations like this--the situation could have been avoided if progressively longer blocks had been tried earlier, instead of repeated blocks for 1 week or less. We need to treat everyone fairly, & an editing ban about the term, applying to everyone involved, would be the fairest. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  At the moment only two editors, Triton and LevenBoy are adding the term without discussion at BISE, all other editors are respecting the BISE process. Not so long ago ANI agreed to sanction any editor who added or deleted BI without agreement. So far only Triton has been sanctioned, and has refused to accept the sanction, breaking it after each block. The remedy is in place and just needs enforcement, along with a no tolerance policy to breeches of WP:Civil. Fairness is all about enforcing community sanctions, it does not require treating people who have followed the letter and spirt of the rules in the same way as those who have flagrantly and persistently broken them. --Snowded ^TALK 04:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  Oppose such an arbitrary restriction on editors who have just posted onto a given page, the vast majority of contributors there are trying to address the issue, to tar all of them with a topic ban is ridiculous and unjustifiable, if there is an issue with an editor address that editor not the whole of the project. Codf1977 (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  At the moment the system is applied to everyone involved: systematic addition or removal of "British Isles" results in a topic ban; continued additions/removals post-ban result in blocks. I'm open to the idea that we move straight to an effective topic ban on everyone, but "everyone" is the problematic part - everyone at WT:BISE is easy enough to determine, but then there'll be editors who either have no idea that WT:BISE exists, or who know and avoid it like the plague. I like the current (topic ban) system because it can apply to any editor: an editor who has never posted at WT:BISE engages in systematic addition/removal, they get warned (and told about WT:BISE), they continue, they get topic banned. If we now topic ban everyone at WT:BISE we place the good faith contributors at a disadvantage relative to non-WT:BISE editors. I think there are issues we, as a community, need to firm up, however:

  • What scale of blocks are applied to editors who violate their topic ban? This is currently ad hoc. A quick look at TR's block log shows blocks of increasing and diminishing length, varying with the nature of the offence (some of which, in my view, were vios of the topic ban but not logged as such). I've heard at least two suggestions, neither of which provide a clear indication as to at what point we should say "enough!" and move to an indef block:
    • 1:1:1:1 (one day, one week, one month, one year);
    • Double the length each time.
  • Civility. I'm not big on civility blocks, but attacks and incivility have a tendency to escalate drama rapidly and bog down discussions. I don't believe enforcing civility is that much of an issue: we have one or two policies in place that adequately cover this. It is likely, however, to get worse before it gets better - enforcing civility is going to increase in the short term the amount of wikilawyering.
  • Consensus. WT:BISE tends to attract more participants than article talkpages, but that isn't always the case. How do we handle situations where there is a consensus at WT:BISE but article editors haven't participated?

  I still have confidence in the WT:BISE process, and the issues I've seen are all issues I've seen in other POV areas, but this is one area that seems to appear at ANI far too often. TFOWR 10:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has contributed at WT:BISE, can I say that there is a world of difference between saying "well, you know what the procedure is, so you have no excuse not to follow it" and "you are topic banned from this activity in case you ever decide not to follow the procedure", and I VERY MUCH object to being topic banned for having attempted to make helpful contributions to something. To be a real topic ban (and to answer Jamesinderbyshire's query above which was rather brushed off), it would have to be recorded as such. Yes James, community sanctions such as topic bans ARE recorded centrally and CAN be looked up by other. The idea of adding a civility probation on top of that, due to the extreme civility restriction on the board, is just outrageous.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Elen just so you understand TR was banned for disruption edits made to to make a point in a topic area under probation. Not because of anything else.
And you are incorrect Elen. While we do retain a list of editors who are under active sanction / probation (at WP:GS) but unless they break that it does not appear in a block log. James asked: "would I end up with a 'block record which any future editor glancing at my profile will think indicates bad behaviour on my part?" and that question was answered.
As above I'd prefer any such future list comprise only those who have already and are repeating policy violations.
While I understand your objection to civility parole I don't agree at all. Over the last 6 months I have seen a number of accounts conflate people's nationality with their motivations which is in breach of every tenet of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:TPG. Such comment creates a poisonous atmosphere and will have to be stamped out. Civility parole happens to be a uniform sanction that is easily understood by outside sysops and is therefore easily enforced. And as DGG points out if the enforcement had followed the usual escalation in Triton Rocker's case, he may have gotten the point sooner. That said I am not suggesting it be applied generally - just to those repeat offenders--Cailil ^talk 20:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Having been one of those subject to the conflation you mention then I fully support the idea of civility probation if, and only if it is applied to repeat offenders. I think Elen is objecting to it applying to all editors on the page. Its also worth while having a look at Triton's responses to his recent blog. They show no sign whatsoever of any recognition of the reasons for multiple blocks. TFOWR' use of a indef block to try and force acknowledgement was the correct action and its a great pity it was reduced to two weeks without discussion. We are getting exactly the same drawn out pattern we had with Irvine22 that went on for over a year on a broad range of articles. Indeed its noticible that Triton used some of Irvine's pet "attack" subjects after the first block. If you want a radical proposal then ban single purpose editors (reasonably broadly construed). They are without exception disruptive. Also reinstate the indef given Triton's unblock requests, its more than justified--Snowded ^TALK 05:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Elen is objecting to it applying to all editors on the page Too bloody right I am. The proposal was to impose a topic ban and civility parole to ALL editors of that page - I can read as well as anyone else. If that were to happen (and there seems to be support for it among some of the contributors here), then the sanction would HAVE to be listed on the appropriate page, or else it would not be an enforceable sanction. By all means, if I fail to follow the procedure regarding the use of the term, any admin is welcome to block me, because I DO know the procedure, so I have no excuse for not following it. If I am incivil on the page then block me, as I am aware that the page is on a civility restriction. However, this is worlds apart from attempting to impose a topic ban and civility parone ON ME PERSONALLY, just because I entered into a discussion on a talkpage.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Triton Rocker has asked to be able to defend themselves here, which obviously can't happen while they are blocked. I have advised them to make any such posting on their talk page. It should then be copied over to here. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That's kind of you, however Triton Rocker should already be aware of the process from a previous block as well as their current block. TFOWR 17:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'd suggest we keep things as is. If TR causes trouble again, then 1 month then 3 months. If we unfortunately get to that point, we can discuss where to go next. Other editors don't need to be punished with difficulties on the account of a handful of users who are causing trouble. I'd suggest to administrators that if you think a conduct issue is too minor to enforce by a longer block in regards to this particular user, don't bother because short blocks are evidently not working in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Snowded mentioned the blocked account of Irvine22, this has caused my sockery senses to heighten. IMHO, the TR account has come across as being similiar to the Irvine22 account (being basically a sh-t disturber). GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion resulting in Irvine22's comm ban. Not seeing a huge connection, myself, but I've zero experience with Irvine22. The one thing that caught my eye was "latest fad is to find any Irish or Welsh person with an English birthplace and label them as “English” or equivalent" - I have seen Triton Rocker do that, though with an editor rather than an article's subject. TFOWR 14:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

So now people are talking about imposing a topic ban and civility parole on myself, Snowded, James and others because of a sock of Irvine22. Cracking. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect sockery, but an SPI would need to be convened to confirm such a suspicion. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Elen, I appreciate your concern but I think it's overstated. I don't at this stage support the topic ban and civility parole, but if it were implemented I truly believe it wouldn't affect you in the slightest. You - and the editors you mention - don't add or remove BI from articles - you discuss the usage at WT:BISE. Likeiwse, I've never known you to be anything other than civil. TFOWR 15:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I get a clarification on what the affect of a blanket ruling for all the editors of BISE would be? Right now it seems like everyone will be dumped on a list somewhere to watch, which seems unnecessary. Additionally, people know to be civil, and a defacto system has been built up to inform TFOWR of any incivility. This seems to have improved the situation so far, I reckon we should see what happens with this, let it run its course. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

First there is no support for that. BK mentioned it and then decided against. I stated that it should be applied to a list of repeat offenders only. Currently DGG said it might be the fairest way but I don't see anyone agreeing with that at present. Currently there is no resolution to enforce a blanket sanction.
From my reading of this I would suggest that in future if problems persist repeat offenders only would be sanctioned - that is my position and if I understand him correctly TFOWR's.
That said from a perusal of edits there is currently far too much ad hominem and incivility in the topic area. For instance this comment by User:Scolaire (which they have been warned for). None of this is acceptable and you all need to understand that this topic is under probation - if editors step out of line it will be sanctioned. If that message doesn't get through and in some cases (and I emphasize some) it isn't. These cases are appropriate for civility parole if behaviour doesn't change soon--Cailil ^talk 18:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

From my reading of this I would suggest that in future if problems persist repeat offenders only would be sanctioned - that is my position and if I understand him correctly TFOWR's. That's correct. My understanding is that that's the current community view: ANI established sanctions to be applied to "repeat offenders". Regarding civility parole, I'd prefer it if it weren't necessary but have no qualms about applying it when needed - the atmosphere turns toxic very quickly. TFOWR 20:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks from Toa Nidhiki05

There is a somewhat contentious RFC on BlueRobe starting up and User:Toa Nidhiki05 appears a bit upset by it. He has posted what looks to me like a PA on one of the users opening the rfc. I asked him to consider removing it but he has refused. Might be worth keeping an eye on the whole thing. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The use of "left-wing meatpuppets" referring to established editors does seem to indicate a problem here. Yworo (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The left-wingers are on an unholy crusade against anyone (particularly BlueRobe and Darkstar1st) that disagrees with them; yeah, I'm upset and angry at this whole thing. Toa Nidhiki05 16:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the large number of potentially contentious userboxes you've created and display on your user page. Typically we discourage political position userboxes. Yworo (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when is that policy? I can display my opinions here, and if that means ticking someone off, so be it. FYI, I've seen 'established editors' with userboxes. Toa Nidhiki05 16:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

See here for content restrictions related to userboxes. They don't help collaboration on Wikipedia. In fact, they are divisive and your comment "if that means ticking someone off, so be it" displays a divisive attitude. I have no problem with the use of standard Wikiboxes available at WP:USERBOX, but self-created "issue" userboxes aren't appropriate. Yworo (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

...And Wikipedia has an entire page devoted to political userboxes. Yeah, I don't think that quite fits your opinion there. Toa Nidhiki05 16:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Toa, please read WP:BATTLE - this is not what we do here. Exxolon (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am currently involved in this RfC and feel the use of WP:Meat to be an attack. I have no relationship with the editors in question and do not edit within their wheelhouse. I became involved after monitoring a discussion at a related notice board, but did not comment until the RfC was opened. I saw another accusation of meatpuppetry by Nidhiki at BlueRobe's talk page here [32]. Some of these editors seem to feel there is a far-reaching conspiracy against them and it is disruptive to the project as their paranoia grows to every user who so much as says a word they disagree with.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I, too, do not appreciate the baseless accusations of "meatpuppetry" from User:Toa Nidhiki05. His accusations that I am "trolling" are also not appreciated. BigK HeX (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole userbox issue was a sidetrack from the real problem here. Toa Nidhiki05, please note that per WP:NPA, "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" can be considered personal attacks. That most definitely applies here. You can't throw out accusations without cause just to inflame a discussion, and the fact that your only response to others' concerns is to throw out more attacks is very troubling. -- Atama頭 21:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You claim I'm 'attacking' and 'battling', but I'm not; I'm stating fact, that is, that constant baiting/trolling by left-wing contributors has resulted in the block of one member and a baseless Meatpuppetry accusation against another. Check BlueRobe or Darkstar1st's talk pages, and you will see what I mean; they follow they around eveywhere. I'm angry that these members try to act like staff and make frequent threats against anyone that disagrees with their ideas, and then accuse the other side of making bad faith edits and disrupting the page (which is actually doublespeak code for 'disrupting their plans'). In conclusion, yes, I am pissed, and rightfully so. Toa Nidhiki05 00:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll point anybody interested in seeing context here to the RFC/U for BlueRobe, where they can see diffs, instead of empty accusations. I've been repeatedly accused of "stalking" or "hounding" BlueRobe due to my involvement with him on three pages I've been working on since before BlueRobe even registered as an editor, or showed up at the articles in question. A certain group of editors -- which includes ToaNidhiki, North8000, and Darkstar1st -- is repeatedly attempting to frame the issue as one of "lashing out in response to hounding/stalking". But they are essentially using the terms "hounding" or "stalking" as a misleading shorthand for "citing Wikipedia policy to an editor who is disrupting multiple talk pages, making flagrant personal attacks, and refusing to provide suggestions for article improvement which are based on reliable sources". Multiple experienced editors, including several sysops, saw User:BlueRobe's conduct as an egregious violation of all sorts of Wikipedia policy. They were also unable to find any evidence of "hounding" or "stalking", and the group listed above has not provided any evidence of it, even though asked repeatedly. I am hoping that BlueRobes recent block (which resulted from the RFC/U), will serve as an illustration to these editors (who have yet to acknowledge that they understand why BlueRobe was blocked) of what is and is not acceptable conduct on Wikipedia discussion pages and articles. Again, just look at the diffs, rather than the empty accusations. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, you claim that what you are stating is based on fact. Generally on Wikipedia we use diffs as evidence when we want to establish the basis for a complaint. You have repeatedly failed to do so, and that is especially problematic when you use such charged language. It is difficult for anyone to give your complaints any credence when you can't back them up. As has been said before, continuing to accuse people without evidence is against policy. If you continue to do so you risk being sanctioned. -- Atama頭 20:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Has anyone actually read Toa Nidhiki05's user page and noted that this editor is a 15 year old youth with Asperger syndrome. Before you wear yourself out you may find it worthwhile reading this snippet of information:- #Asperger syndrome and interpersonal relationships. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed it, but I don't feel that being an aspie editor should be a pass for disruption. The editor has had the chance for civil conversation in a myriad of venues and refuses to stop making accusations. When new editors enter the discussion to attempt mediation they are lumped in with the conspiracy. If there is an editor who has experience mediating disputes with Aspergers users I'd love to see them try to step in to cool this editor off. A block would likely just inflame the feelings of isolation. Maybe impose an interaction ban between some of the editors on Toa Nidhiki05's list of alleged abusers and himself.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A call to cleanse Windows Phone 7

It has been brought to my attention that some Windows Phone 7 fan sites have been putting out a call for fans to go to the Windows Phone 7 article to "fix" it or remove text perceived as being negative.

The largest of all Windows Phone 7 sites is WMPoweruser.com, which recently wrote this article, asking fans to edit the Wikipedia article. Yes, the fan site attacked me, labelling me a troll against Windows Phone 7.

Recently, there have been more attempts at removing referenced content in the article, often by editors who edit no other articles or subjects. So I ask for advice on what can or should be done. Can some admins keep the article on their watchlists for a while?--Lester 16:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing we can do about the external article, but if edit warring happens on the article, it can simply be semi- or fully-protected as appropriate. In the meantime though, I'd just ignore that article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a major reconstruction beginning on the article. The only obstacle is lester (talk · contribs)--intelati^(Call) 18:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

the community agrees with CalumCookable (talk · contribs) but he's afraid of a edit war with Lester.--intelati^(Call) 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There has obviously been a content dispute going on for some time. Which of the processes at WP:DR have you been through? David Biddulph (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Calumcookable has just begun the community consensus part. So far me and one other editor, have agreed with his changes.--intelati^(Call) 19:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm that other editor. What are we supposed to do if there aren't many people (including Lester) contributing to the discussion of changing the article? We already posted up templates that gives the readers and other editors indication that there are multiple issues with the article being discussed on the talk page. Our ultimate goal is to simply make the article have a neutral point of view, and actually have the article discuss the product itself in a NPOV. Currently, that isn't that case. --Interframe (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

'Interframe', you can't complain about not many people coming to the talk page when you make uncivil comments such as this one.--Lester 05:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Lester is reversing many of the changes I and some other reader made. There are lot a of people actually edition the article, but it's being reverted. If I reword the section, Lester would revert it right away. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFC. Templates on the page itself help, but only catch the attention of people visiting the page. -- Atama頭 21:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Now we wait. (Jeopardy theme song:)--intelati^(Call) 21:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

All of the proposed changes are in the talk page. can someone change the wording (of the WP:RFC) so that it is a place for the people to place their views on the article and the changes?--intelati^(Call) 01:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC) never mind. :)--intelati^(Call) 02:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible for fan websites to change the consensus out of shear numbers? Does Wikipedia have any defenses to avoid this sort of thing? --Lester 10:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus isn't meant to be based on numbers. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not a windows 7 Fan. Right now, the article's title SHOULD be called "Criticizem of Windows Phone 7" The only thing I have read of the windows phone 7 is on www.maximumpc.com. Thanks.--intelati^(Call) 15:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What I am trying to do is to get uninvolved editors in the conversation and remove the fancruft and Balance the article for a Neutral POV. (added later) Ok, now this is a user problem is now that CalumCookable (talk · contribs) is threating lester (talk · contribs) to revert back his additions until he is blocked. I want someone to intervene on the conflict before it is out of control.--intelati^(Call) 15:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been involved in editing this page and consider it to be very biased (against the Windows Phone 7 platform). Many changes to improve it are promptly reverted. A lot of the controversy has been because of a "missing features" section that some insist has to be there. It's a phone and a feature can't be "missing" if Microsoft knew of it and decided to not put it in the device. For instance, the phones don't transform into a jet and fly you to an island they create for you even if some tech reviewer somewhere thinks it should. My proposition is that there should be a section for announced features, features removed from Windows Mobile 6.5, and a reception section (this has been added but is very poorly structured and written). I'm tired of contributing because most of what I add gets removed in hours. This article needs someone to step in. CaptainStack (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is very biased against Windows Phone 7. In fact, it's more of a list of what Windows Phone 7 isn't rather than what Windows Phone 7 is. More emphasis is being placed on what WP7 doesn't have than what WP7 does have. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

'Illegal Operation', it may help your credibility if you were not making derogatory edit summaries such as this one.--Lester 04:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The only thing is that with Lester, is that his actions are very annoying.--intelati^(Call) 15:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Incredibly stupid comment by myself.--intelati^(Call) 02:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

He didn't call himself a troll, it was just an IP edit; nothing to see there. Ryan Norton 22:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I haven't been commenting on WP7 because Lester (and occasionally some confused or SOCK random IP) just reverts a lot of productive changes made and is a classic case of WP:OWNing this article. He's just completely ignoring the countless people who have changed and commented about that article. Also, "missing features" - that is all. Ryan Norton 20:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been commenting either because of Lester. I have absolutely no problem with mentioning "missing features" in the article, but many of the points are debatable and whenever we try to discuss things like this, Lester is often the only editor to disagree with changes. Now I'm sure Lester has good intentions, but he believes everyone editing the article is a fanboy, and there have been many cases of this, but some editors only wish to have a NPOV in the article, and have the article just actually discuss the product instead of focusing on other things, like the Android and [Apple iOS]] articles. --Interframe (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Zaspino and user:Theobald Tiger and IP'S

The two following threads are really one thread; I've joined them up so as to make them easier to discuss. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

Zaspino

I would hereby like to report the user User:Zaspino as I feel harassed. This user has not made any edit which was not in an attempt to prevent me from editing (see). This user is continuing an argument that was present on nl.wiki here. Since the account has apparently been created simply to counter my edits I definitely feel harassed. Since the user is asking for ridiculous things and thinks these are solid points no argument has convinced this user of the correctness of my claims in the articles morality and teleology. The user insists on retracing steps and is asking for references of the references I made and is furthermore insensitive to any changes I made, explanations I offered and references I left.

Now, I am willing to listen to most everybody, but my patience has run out with this user since there appears to be no reason in him. Unfortunately it shows that my patience has run thin, but I hope this matter will be properly dealt with since this user is not editing here to benefit the encyclopedia in my opinion, although he claims otherwise.

--Faust (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling people trolls is not nice nor does it help your situation. —fetch·comms 20:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I am being advised to offer evidence of the attempts I have made to resolve the dispute. First of all I have given a reference (Which is what this mess is about according to Zaspino). Second I gave a reference of my reference and then I decided to continue that argument on the users talk page. Finally I repeatedly asked the user not to repeat our steps. After that I took some time off in the weekend and arrived right back into the same mess. Seeing as it is withholding me to edit here with any kind of nice feeling or idea that this will end at some point I decided to ask for a block. The examples are only taken from the morality article. It is the first case ever that I have heard of a reference being needed for a reference... If evidence is needed of this mess on the nl.wiki, just ask.. --Faust (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• It would be clearer if you would refer to the specific differences link for the places where you feel that Zaspino has been harrassing you. Pointing us just at the whole talk page doesn't make it clear which particular action it is to which you are taking exception. One problem was that you got confused as to who said what, as shown at this diff; the words in question had been added in a section heading in this earlier edit by an IP, and not by Zaspino, but you refused to accept it when Theobald Tiger explained it to you. David Biddulph (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is simply ludicrous. Faust's arrogance gets in the way of his judgment, causing him to consider any objection to his edits as being inspired by a non-knowledgeable team of conspiring users. Zaspino (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not an arrogant man. I undid yet another attempt of Zaspino's to push his POV without consensus here. --Faust (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Theobald Tiger

I would hereby like to report the user User:Theobald_Tiger as I feel harassed. This user has come to en.wiki to prevent me from making any edit here, after a dispute I have had with him on nl.wiki. Not a single edit since he has 're-awoken' on en.wiki is about anything else. Apart from that this user is insensitive to any and all arguments I have given in favor of my edits, including references, references of my references, explanations, dictionary suggestions, etc. I see no reason to continue discussion with this user since the user is clearly only interested in preventing my edits. That is why the user keeps retracing our steps and shows no recognition of changes I made on behalf of edits, nor recognition of clear sources........and worldwide recognition... --Faust (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• you will get a lot more sympathetic response if you quit calling them trolls and be more constructive in presenting your issues. Please provide some specific diffs where you believe admin action is required. Blocks are not punitive, rather they are invoked to stop future disruption. For that to be apparent i think you need to provide diffs of poor behaviour and examples where you have tried to go through the various dispute resolution stages :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I am being advised to offer evidence of the attempts I have made to resolve the dispute. First of all I have given a reference (Which is what this mess is about according to Zaspino). Second I gave a reference of my reference and then I decided to continue that argument on the users talk page. Finally I repeatedly asked the user not to repeat our steps. After that I took some time off in the weekend and arrived right back into the same mess. Seeing as it is withholding me to edit here with any kind of nice feeling or idea that this will end at some point I decided to ask for a block. The examples are only taken from the morality article. It is the first case ever that I have heard of a reference being needed for a reference... If evidence is needed of this mess on the nl.wiki, just ask..

NOTES: 1)I have requested both FTOWR and Shell Kinney for advice and help, but both seemed to be too busy to assist. However, in the emails I sent I predicted this chain of events. That fact, I think, counts strongly towards my point. 2)For me the primary reason I feel harassed is because this very same activity has been going on on nl.wiki. Since no realistic points are made by the users and no recognition of sources is shown there is no more reason to discuss matters further to me. --Faust (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

NOTES: 1)I have requested both FTOWR and Shell Kinney for advice and help, but both seemed to be too busy to assist. However, in the emails I sent I predicted this chain of events. That fact, I think, counts strongly towards my point. 2)For me the primary reason I feel harassed is because this very same activity has been going on on nl.wiki. Since no realistic points are made by the users and no recognition of sources is shown there is no more reason to discuss matters further to me. --Faust (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Faust, by "FTOWR" do you mean me? We've talked a bit recently, so it's possible, but I don't recall anything about this. Do you have a diff? I'll have a dig through my talkpage archives but a diff would greatly help. TFOWR 21:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• I went look at the Teleology talkpage to see the two famous "trolls" Zaspino and Theobald. I found two users who seemed knowledgeable and bent on improving the article. And one user, Faust, who was behaving in an uncivil and inappropriately condescending way: "I have adapted the above in a way that I think will be more comprehensible to Zaspino"... "Theobald, you are interrupting a discussion that might prove a learning experience to Zaspino... please stay out of this." Here is an appropriately critical post by Zaspino, and here Faust's response to it. If anybody there is to be called a troll (which we're not supposed to do anyway, yada yada), it's not Zaspino, nor Theobald. Advice to the community: it would be good if somebody kept an eye on this article (unfortunately I don't have the time myself). Advice to Faust: don't be so bloody rude. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Going by your posts on their talkpages, apparently you regard this ANI posting as a "request for blocks". I don't think Zaspino nor Theobald are in the slightest danger of being blocked. But you might be, if you carry on in the same way for much longer. Bishonen | talk 21:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

@TFOWR, Yes, I meant you, apologies for the miswrite. I sent you several mails, but never got a reply. I also alerted Shell Kenny, but she is short on time I think. @Bishonen: I can understand your opinion, but I ask you to bear in mind that I knew I was being harassed from Zaspino's first edit here since it was a continuation of events on nl.wiki. That simply makes me lose my patience. Apart from that neither Theobald, not Zaspino are knowledgeable in the field, as is obvious from ALL comments they have made. They are only good at rhetorics. My case is made by the fact that I alerted TFOWR and Shell Kinney to what was going on at the very first post Zaspino made and predicted this chain of events. --Faust (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So you were in battle array from the very start? No... I'm afraid I don't see that as making your case. Bishonen | talk 23:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

Ah, email! That would explain it. Let me have a dig... apologies for not looking into it, I suspect yours isn't the only email I've missed. TFOWR 23:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, caught up with me email. Faust sent me two emails on 27 August and 30 August which raised concerns Faust had with one of the editors discussed here. Faust subsequently sent me two emails on 2 September which additionally raised concerns with a second editor discussed here. Basically, I can confirm that Faust's comment above re: alerting me is correct. Beyond that, I'm way out of my depth: this is - as far as I can see - a content dispute involving philosophy. If I were to reply to Faust's emails now I'd basically say: ask the experts. TFOWR 16:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Actually, it proves that I am not the one who was in battle array from the beginning and that I have been very patient without any reason for that. In an attempt to get through to Theobald, for instance Theobald clearly states that he has no intent to get to an understanding. This explain his unreasonable denial of my references and his continual stating of falsities quite clearly. It shows that no matter what he will never accept anything other than his POV and is not interested in building an encyclopedia based on truth. Since Zaspino and Theobald are in a tagteam together, continuing a dispute from nl.wiki here I cannot understand why this would reflect negatively on me.--Faust (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

IP'S 157.242.159.225 and 76.168.95.118 and 79.182.17.168 and 173.58.234.86

I would like to report the Ip's stated above, which are used by the same user. This user insists on places his personal definition in the morality article, without reaching consensus. I have undid the revision four times now and I think an edit-war is just not done. Although a majority is in favor of a revision, I am not convinced this should be done since the thoughts outlined in that revision are POV's explained elsewhere in the article, now being trumped as a general definition. I cannot escape the thought that they are in a tagteam with Zaspino and Theobald, since I can think of no good reason why such a user who would be interested in moral ethics would not have a user page, but suddenly come to the rescue of Zaspino and Theobald. --Faust (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The revisions I undid are 1, undone because of a POV posited as a definition, 2, undone because of the same reason and requested to discuss first on the talk page, 3, same reasons, 4, same reasons. Although the IP's vary I think this is the same user, if not, it is a tag team.

NOTE: if you want them, ask for the 'whois' queries I did. They are seperate companies, but the user has acknowledged to be at least two of these IP'S and any more random browser appearing saying the current version is not correc after months of never being under dispute just when there is a dispute with is transferred from the nl.wiki would make this story even more (if possible) unlikely. --Faust (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I can clearly see Faust's indignation, but I fail to see what I actually did wrong. As far as I know I have broken no policy here and I have treated Faust respectfully. My concerns are with the content of en.wiki and I cannot help but notice that Faust's edits and proposals often show faulty reasoning and wobbly and untidy wording. The last few days my criticisms have been directed at precisely those defects. I have been careful not to refer to nl.wiki issues. I am not here to quarrel as my edit history amply testifies. I am definitely not the same editor as any of the above mentioned IP's (I have never contributed to en.wiki anonymously) - the anons actually know a lot more about the taxonomy of ethics than I do. By saying "In an attempt to get through to Theobald, for instance Theobald clearly states that he has no intent to get to an understanding" Faust refers (without my consent) to an e-mail exchange with me. His conclusion is an outright lie. Furthermore, I do not form a "tag team" with Zaspino or with any of the anons mentioned above. On his talk page Faust states: "I am a horror at following policies, but a miracle at seeing what is going on..." To cut a long story short: I think Faust's ability to see what is going on as well as his ability to communicate leave something to be desired, to put it mildly. Theobald Tiger (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I know I am just an anon IP, so I ask you to WP:assume good faith and hear me out. I am not any of the other IP addresses and I find it a little premature that the conclusion is that I am especially when the user that is multiple anon IP's has disclosed his conflict of interest. I am a anon user who generally performs wikignome activities, primarily stubbing and copy-edits by solely using the Random Article tool. Prior to my edit, my ISP made the unfortunate decision to change my IP rendering my past edits inaccessible to Faust. I know this is not a standard way to edit Wikipedia, but it is the way I chose to give back here. The cleanup tag on the page made me decide to investigate the talk page and I felt that a consensus existed that Faust was not interested in as well as brought the article into conformity with Amorality. However, I also sought greater consensus with an RfC. As for the Whois, I decided to check that out too. Interestingly, one of the multis that Faust is claiming is not even on my side of the world and does not appear to be a proxy either. Also I fail to see a WP:3RR violation for edit warring at least if I am figuring out the times correctly and good faith is assumed. I wish to state that I only edited the part in question a single time.--173.58.234.86 (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, Faust never warned me with {{subst:ANI-notice}} upon my mention at the noticeboard and only mentioned seeking blocks in passing in the Talk:Morality page. I had to dig this page up myself and I find this the wrong way to offer constructive criticism of a user on Faust's part.--173.58.234.86 (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If indeed you are none of the other IP's and you arrived at the page by sheer coincidence I owe you an apology. I find that hard to believe though. It would be a one in a million chance, but even those occur. Your argument that one IP is an IP from somewhere else on the globe is one I do not take seriously since you might as well have a server somewhere. Since you are making the exact same -incorrect- claims the others do and wish to make your case by ad hominem remarks I must remain at my prior conclusion though. Tag team comes to mind. --Faust (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do take note of my RfC however, which I do hope can eventually solve this problem once and for all. You don't have to believe me if you choose, but know that I am trying to do good.173.58.234.86 (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If indeed you are none of the other IP's and you arrived at the page by sheer coincidence I owe you an apology. I find that hard to believe though. It would be a one in a million chance, but even those occur. Your argument that one IP is an IP from somewhere else on the globe is one I do not take seriously since you might as well have a server somewhere. Since you are making the exact same -incorrect- claims the others do and wish to make your case by ad hominem remarks I must remain at my prior conclusion though, especially since you seem to be watching my edits, as is the MO of the others. There are just too many similarities to be a coincidence, also the MO you are displaying is one that can easily be considered harassment. Tag team comes to mind, but, as said, I may be mistaken, in which case I apologise. --Faust (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Faust, your pomposity seems to be very much out of proportion when compared to the quality of your editing and your comments. Your user name gives rise to the suspicion that you are aware of that fact. If you are roleplaying, please stop. This is an encyclopedia, not a game. Hans Adler 16:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As I think further escalation of the conflicts between me and Faust can no longer be avoided, I have asked an administrator who has been involved to a certain degree in conflict resolution for advice. (I am prepared to leave the judgment of Faust's edits and proposals to the en.wiki community minus myself, as did one of the anons.) See Ask for Advice. Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Of course, I could have simply quit the scene without bothering an admin. I am not important, and though I am not completely unfamiliar with ethical and philosophical issues, I am not a specialist either. The reason that I doubt whether my exit is desirable or not is that an extremely mild-mannered, well-read and knowledgeable editor as Pfhorrest, who writes clear, unambiguous and with precision about ethics and philosophy, is left alone in fighting the dragon (if not supported by the community). See for example [33]. Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have already explained to Faust that this IP and 157.242.159.225 are the only connected with me. He continues to accuse me of edits made by different IPs. I and several other IP-users have already complained about his grouping us together with some conspiracy theory to do with nl.wiki, which I have never even visited. Now he's doing whois lookups and still alleging we're the same people? Mention this again and I will report you or harassment. 76.168.95.118 (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is getting ridiculous. The users Theobald and Zaspino have no interest, nor knowledge on the matters discussed. They are merely trying to block well referenced edits on behalf of their own POV. I can understand that some people share that POV and that, perhaps an objective statement on the subject is undesirable to them. However, I will need at least ONE source to support this POV. As to the knowledge of Pfhorrest, I do not think this is so tremendous. The only thing that I was happy with, until recently, was his ability to argue his points. However, he has chosen to edit an article which is in dispute without giving a source as well, which disappointed me greatly. --Faust (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Block review: Heymid

Heymid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I just blocked Heymid for one week for various unhelpful and uncivil comments. Heymid has been asked, advised and warned to stop meddling in dramas that don't concern him and I very recently warned him that his presence on the English Wikipedia would be untenable if he continued. The other day, he re-involved himself in the Marksell/Timothymarkell drama that he was advised by several admins to stay out of, resulting in yet more warnings, but today, he told an administrator that they would end up in front of ArbCom and [... lose their admin privileges]. I believe the block is justified based on the pattern of behaviour, the same pattern which lead to him being banned from the Swedish Wikipedia.

However, before anybody accuses me of being out to get Heymid, I have spent a lot of time trying to help him over the last few weeks, to the extent that I convinced another admin who was considering blocking Heymid that he should be given another chance. I am still willing to do everything I can to help Heymid, but I believe that the block is necessary to prevent further disruption in the form of fanning the flames of dramas in which Heymid is not a part. All comments are welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There is also related discussion at User talk:Heymid#Blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse. HeyMid's comments were completely unnecessary and unhelpful, and a threat such as that could serve only to escalate what was at that point a fairly civil discussion between two other users of which HeyMid was not a party. HeyMid's archives for July and August are littered with warnings from many other users cautioning him against these very same things. Obviously warnings aren't enough, thus a block becomes the next logical step. Resolute 21:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• I endorse the block, but FWIW, I'm not an admin and don't make a practice of following blocking policy. This editor has been so obtuse, disruptive and persistent in the "I just don't understand" responses, that I've given thought to whether s/he might be a Mattisse sock, but can't convince myself that's the case. In any case, it doesn't appear anything short of a block would end the disruptive comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Does the punishment fit the crime? I submit for your review that a week long block is mildly excessive and does not fit the crime. I suggest a shorter block along with a very stern final warning. Basket of Puppies 21:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Heymid has had more than his fair share of warnings, stern and friendly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No doubt, but a week-long block seems a bit excessive. Basket of Puppies 21:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Eep. Maybe the long-term pattern is worse than I currently perceive, but on the face of it, this appears to be an atrocious block. Sorry.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merit of the block, I really wish admins would ask for review here before making such blocks, not after. If you're really not sure about a block, so much that you need endorsement, do it beforehand. That way, if you were totally wrong at least the user won't have a spoiled block log. I otherwise don't understand the purposes of such threads - they're either a "Yep, good block" (which you thought anyway), or "Nope, bad block, why did you not check here first...". Please come here first before making blocks you feel you need support for. Aiken Drum 21:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The blocked user and another editor requested he make this thread. I don't think he doubts the validity of his block. -DJSasso (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but HeyMid initially accepted the block: "Last, but not least, thank you for the block. I believe it is needed, and I need to calm down." It was only after BoP challenged the block that HeyMid changed his mind on it. HJ posted the review here as a courtesty to HeyMid. Resolute 22:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't challenge the block- I asked for a review of the evidence and a review of the length of time of the block. Basket of Puppies 22:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it is just a general comment - too often I'm seeing block first, check after threads on here. We should be getting consensus for blocks of established editors before making them, not after. Aiken Drum 22:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse, Heymid has been singularly unhelpful in the last few weeks, inserting himself in various disagreements and dramas that he has not taken the time to understand. No individual action warrants a block on its own, but the continuing pattern certainly does given the warnings he's received. ~ mazca ^talk 22:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse Heymid has been a pain to several users and across the project recently. Their snide remarks and comments to established users has been received with nothing but patience across the board. Heymid has received everything from polite reminders, to stern warnings, to users outright stating that they wish to be left alone. All of this to seemingly no avail. This isn't just an issue with certain recent comments, but an overall collective of issues that Heymid simply refuses to acknowledge, nor pay attention to. A week will hopefulyl give Heymid an opportunity to realize that they are just like every other user: held to the same standards, the same accountability, and the same opportunities. I previously thought an issue with language and translations were at fault, but it has become apparent in recent days that is not the issue at hand. Fully endorse. Jmlk17 22:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse I watchlisted Heymid's talk a few weeks ago after some incident or another and am surprised that the block took this long to happen. After a thorough reading of his talk history, I'm convinced that this is a good block and that the duration isn't at all excessive. I believe that Heymid could one day become a productive contributor, but he may need to mature a bit before that happens. (Not posting his stated age here.) —DoRD (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse I think heymid should stop jumping to conclusions about situations that he was not involved in. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 00:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. I was on the verge of implementing a similar block no more than a week ago, but HJ convinced me not to. There are walls of text consisting of everything from friendly advice to stern warnings in his archives, none of which has been taken to heart. A week will give him time to actually read through it and hopefully reflect on what needs to change if he is to continue contributing to the project. decltype (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. I have found Heymid quite frustrating to deal with. This in particular was very troubling. He simply would not accept what I was saying to him. Then, in a somewhat extraordinary move, he struck through a portion of one of my comments in the request for rollback. A break will do him some good. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. I have had a few dealings now with Heymid, and as much as I like to go out of my way to help younger users to become productive participants on the project, I feel that this individual lacks the level of maturity necessary to be a net benefit to the encyclopedia. He does make some good contributions to articlespace, I wouldn't deny that. However, he seems almost incapable of making a post to projectspace that isn't disruptive. I'm HUGE on the idea of giving second chances (and third, and forth, and fifth) to users whose presence is a benefit to the project as a whole, even if they have behavioral issues that cause problems behind the scenes. In the case of Heymid, however, the good edits that he makes do not mitigate his problematic nature. Trusilver 18:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Heymid

Endorse HJ's block isn't incorrect at all; he has done everything he can in order to prevent further disruption from me. I wrote two bad messages yesterday which led to this block. The events that led to this block mean I will not accept, support, propose nor request an unblock.

Combining HJ's 2nd RFA and his prev contrib's log shows that HJ is probably an inexperienced administrator with little to no knowledge on how to handle problematic users like me. Therefore, it would be gladly appreciated with more feedback from more experienced administrators who have been at Wikipedia (and even an administrator here) for years. It would probably be greatly appreciated by HJ to recieve some good feedback on how to handle users like me in the future. Also some feedback regarding how I can solve my behavior would be gladly appreciated by me.

HJ, I would like to point out to you that I haven't ignored the advices you've written to me. I have read and tried to follow them. Like you (and other users) have adviced me, I have since completely ignored Tournesol and WP:SPI, which at least is a step forward.

Regarding my meddling with Djsasso, please note that Shirik somewhat triggered me to join the discussions regarding Djsasso, by (as seen in the diff) putting up a courtesy notice with the WP:ANI-discussion, because I was probably somewhat involved in the Djsasso case. When I wrote at his (Djsasso's) user talk page, I didn't understand that BoP was talking to him, not me. Thus, it became a case of misunderstanding each other. It's basically my history of messages that don't supply anything to the discussions that is the reason as to why I am currently blocked.

Probation terms

I have come to a few final points which I believe are worth covering. The terms are the following:

1. I am banned from editing any page in the user space, except for my own user page. However, IMO, this shouldn't include fixing of obvious typo errors. However, if I want to add or modify material or other sorts of controversial edits, which may be reverted, I have to be absolutely sure I have the permission to do so by asking for permission at the user in question's user talk page.
2. I am banned from adding or modifying material at user's user talk page. As written above, I have to ask for permission from the user in question before doing it.
3. I am not allowed to join discussions which I am not involved in anyhow. However, I think I should be allowed to post a message saying for example that the user in question has been blocked, etc. Basically, something that does supply something to the discussion.
4. I am not allowed to refactor (modify) someone else's comments.
5. Any violation of these probation terms and I'll be indefinitely blocked. Those probation terms will be instated immediately after the block has expired, and for an indefinite period.

If somebody says that they want too see more restrictions (such as a complete ban of editing any user page except for my own) I will accept it, if required. Finally, if someone decides to file in a report of me at WP:RESTRICT, I will not be angry. Thanks. /HeyMid (contributions) 14:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

copied from User talk:Heymid per request.

I welcome Heymid's statement, above, and broadly accept it: I'd be willing to see Heymid unblocked early, contingent upon sticking to the above promises. However... I'd like to see the above points "wiggled" slightly:

1. Userspace is sensitive. Some editors really don't like anyone editing "their" userpage. Me, I don't care. I'd like to amend the first item thusly... no typo fixing. No userpage editing ever. Except where editors have indicated it's OK (Heymid, you can edit any page in my userspace).
2. I understand where the prohibition on adding to user talk pages comes from, but I'm not sure it's healthy - Heymid will need to talk to other editors. I'd accept the prohibition on modifying user talk pages, and I'd accept a restriction on posting, but not a blanket prohibition.
3. I'd suggest that any post to discussions in which Heymid is not involved should be avoided, or should be run past someone else first (yes, I'll volunteer, but I'd suggest a number of editors should be available).
4. Refactoring other editors' comments: agree, don't do it. It's usually problematic whoever does it.
5. Agree, though note that I'm happy to see Heymid's current block lifted immediately given these commitments.

TFOWR 15:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I make something of a further recommendation. Heymid should not be refactoring user comments on talkpages etc obviously, but could I suggest that he take all project space noticeboards (AN, ANI, WQA etc) off his watchlist, and not come here unless he himself has a problem he wishes to report, or is asked to come here by another editor. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No objection here, though wouldn't it be covered by #3? TFOWR 16:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not satisfied with these probation terms, as they're overly specific in certain cases and overly vague in other areas. TFOWR has pretty much hit the nail on the head for me, except I don't think he should be unblocked early. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep the block instated, and we can see how Heymid does after it expires in regards to keeping up with their own set terms. Jmlk17 17:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• FYI user has put forth an unblock request. –xeno^talk 18:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Kind of odd, considering they were seemingly thankful for the block yesterday and actually agreed with it. Curious to see what happens now. Jmlk17 19:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize to the whole community for all of my disruptive actions; I have completely understood why I am currently blocked and I am absolutely sure I already know how I'm going to resolve these problems. Also, please note that I've never requested an unblock; in fact, I Endorsed the block in the first word of my first statement. Thank you for your time. /HeyMid (contributions) 09:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Heymid per request Bejinhan talks 10:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

So if you've never requested an unblock, whose edit was this? David Biddulph (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher, again, uninvolved admins please

You may know that the above article has multiple problems, in that there is a concerted campaign beign waged to alter the article so that it suggests that one of those convicted of the murder, Amanda Knox, is innocent. One editor has been indeffed, others blocked, and one topic-banned for disruption pushing this POV in an excessive manner. Recently I protected the article after a week of editing which saw half of the 70 edits being reverts of each other. The idea, of course, was to provide discussion before making changes. The talk page however, is still a horrible mess, and continues to attract NPA and BATTLE violations. This section shows a ridiculous argument over changing "has" to "had", for example.

Within the last few months, at least 12 new accounts have been created and appeared on the talkpage. All are wholly or also wholly SPAs on this article, all share the same POV, and the majority have the same attitude of "if you don't agree with us, then you must be biased and POV yourself" - they don't understand the concept of neutrality. Myself and fellow admin User:MLauba - along with the occasional other admin - have tried to police the edit-warring and general talkpage disruption as best we can, but it is now becoming difficult under the weight of SPA "consensus" and attacks on other editors.

Main issues

• User:PhanuelB (created slightly earlier than the others, in April - first edit was [34]) has been blocked three times for increasing lengths for violations of NPA, BLP and BATTLE; he has been repeatedly asked to edit collegially and will not. Requests for him to provide examples of POV in the articles are inevitably met with huge screeds of "this is what the article should say". His participation in the talkpage thread mentioned above is typical. Today, he has (a) finally suggested that a "consensus" of recent SPAs should be favoured ([35]) and has also accused myself and MLauba of bias/POV in the article, without any justification except that the protection is preventing himself and the other SPAs from editing it [36]. Obviously, we cannot sanction him ourselves for this particular PA itself, though on overall behaviour it would not be unreasonable - I would ask someone else to look at this please, and at least offer a stiff warning.
• One of the recent SPAs, User:PietroLegno, has also joined in this behaviour; [37]
• There is quite a bit more, but I don't want to TLDR - we really do need someone uninvolved to have a look at this. The talkpage is a good place to start. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Has a checkuser report been filed? A parade of SPAs, and in particular a claim that consensus among the SPAs should dominate the page is causing a major sound of socks quacking in my ear. If this "consensus" is all or in part supported by socks, then a CU could help and would potentially clear out some or all of the SPAs, depending on how many are socks of one person. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Main user (User:PhanuelB) notified. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Some socking is possible but meat-puppetry is obvious even to the blind.TMCk (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Some SPAs come from advocacy sites and most can be found expressing their POV view by a simple Google search. That wouldn't be a problem if they would stick to our policies of NPOV which the majority of those accounts don't adhere to.TMCk (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading the statements below I might should add that I'm also an involved party at MoMK.TMCk (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A number of the editors in question have off-wiki forums in common (although, I should stress, there is no bang-to-rights evidence of collusion between them with regard to WP), so think this is more likely to be an off-wiki thing than an SP thing. But I don't think anyone would query instigating an SPI, even if it does draw a blank. I'm an involved editor, BTW. Also, I think there may be one or two "pro-Knox" editors in the mix who have a POV but are not behaving unacceptably in terms of pushing it.--FormerIP (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been a bit involved in this (not too recently though), and agree with Black Kite on the issues that the article is facing. To be quite frank I don't have the time or inclination to keep up with everything that is going on but look in now and again to make sure that the article isn't being turned into a soapbox. Given that the last 500 talkpage edits only go back two weeks I am pretty impressed that Black Kite and Mlauba are still there trying to keep on top of it all. Quantpole (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite honestly, the two admins deserve a barnstar for their effort and endurance.TMCk (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, but it may be seen as apple-for-the-teacher. --FormerIP (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(I won't place a barnstar to their account for the reasons you layed out (and neither should someone else doing so IMO). I merely was trying to make a point about their effort which might be unknown to those not following the case.TMCk (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC))

Full credit to the two monitoring administrators who are doing their best to give the talk page at least a modicum of control and restraint. External links such as this (check out the comments panel) are troubling and provide evidence to support TMCk's observations. This particular username crops up all over the internet — for example, compare the YouTube channel to a remark in this newspaper comments section (third contribution down) and spot the similarities in content. It is clear that an agenda is being pushed. Recently there has been an assertion of "pro-guilt administrators", a phrase that used to be spouted liberally by the aforementioned indefinitely-blocked user. I won't throw any more names around myself, but I find it difficult to discount suspicions of sockpuppeteering with much ease ... and the Kercher talk page is no stranger to sockpuppeteering campaigns. Since the topic is spiralling out of control, I endorse the suggestion that a checkuser investigation be arranged. SuperMarioMan 17:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit: as others have stated, meatpuppetry is probably mixed up in all this as well, hence a clear-cut case for a sockpuppet investigation no longer appears to exist, and I have struck through that last sentence. SuperMarioMan 19:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out in my comment further above (even so there might be some sockpuppetry going on as well) the main concern is meat puppetry which a SPI cannot resolve.TMCk (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

With a fair wind it might. I don't think the main protagonists are socks of each other, but there have also been quite a few new editors popping up to voice their agreement and then disappearing. --FormerIP (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not looked at the precise content dispute, but i get the picture. When stuff like this happens, the whole crowd-source model fails miserably (leaving aside to what extent it "succeeds" in other situations when there are strong points of view but the "rules" are obeyed). What should happen before the few admins that really bother go crazy is that a group of five or so editors that don't particularly care who is right and wrong here be given some power to sort out sources, reflect the fact that she was convicted, reasonably reflect some of the supporters' skepticism and why (in summary, representing weight and principally understanding that it should not require thousands of words -- the encyclopedia article is meant neither to be a book on why Knox is clearly innocent or obviously guilty.) Once the "expert group" gets it sorted put that bit off limits unless or until new "evidence" or meaningful info (say, an interview with a prosecutor saying he now regrets the conviction or something) comes to light. I recognize this will never happen -- but it would yield a better article with less strife, and less stress for admins dealing with it, who i commend for their patience.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea but, in principle, wouldn't it be a bit like an enforced content decision and therefore un-WP? --FormerIP (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it would be "Un-WP" as "WP" is currently construed. I don't understand why the experience of years can't be used to tweak what WP "is" to deal with these periodic bumbertrucks. At any rate, it's a meta debate and will leave it be in this thread.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Back to the point: What is needed are uninvolved admins who will enforce policy when those two admins are being attacked and cannot act on their own since they're an involved party in such case.TMCk (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed. With regard to the other issues, the large amount of overlap on many of the SPAs contributions indicate that an SPI would not be productive. This is clearly an off-wiki campaign and can only be dealt with behaviourally, although at least two of the SPAs contributions are similar to previously blocked editors. Those editor's contributions, however, would be stale in any checkuser. But the major issue here is to get more admins involved, please. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a read-over of the talk page presents clear enough evidence for keeping the page protected. The SPA's who want it unprotected give the usual edit-warrior evasive arguments about "wikipedia standards" and such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Very good (outside) observation, Bugs.TMCk (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, Bali. Maybe it would be better to wait until you have heard both sides of the story. I'm a little busy at work now.PhanuelB (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You can place your view anytime at your convinience. There is no rush and no deadline to be met.TMCk (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to use wikipedia to try to make a case for somebody. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned that the moderation of the Murder of Meredith Kercher article may be heavy handed and actively discouraging new editors. Rather than starting with the gently worded, low key reminders of Wikipedia rules typically given for fist offenses, the first warnings are often harsh. The message is not "Welcome to Wikipedia", it's "Go away". Specifically puzzling is the immediate block of user Gregmm who made only one edit[38] that was constructive, properly referenced and well formatted. The text from that edit remains in the article to this day. This user was also blocked from editing his own talk page, an action reserved for cases where there is continued abuse of the talk page. --Footwarrior (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason given for the block was "block evasion" and at no point where they blocked from editing their own talkpage. I do not know which blocked editor was meant as violating their block but they could've placed an unblock request at any time. Also the only edit from that editor remained in place because of the page protection and no edit request to remove or alter it was made in the short time since then.TMCk (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(More in response to Footwarrior). Further, I'm not sure but you seem to show no worries whatsoever about all those SPAs popping up and presenting the same POV very strongly. There was only one of those new accounts (PietroLegno) in who I had some confidence till their post today: "...and our two pro-guilt administrators...", a familiar pattern.TMCk (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If the user was not blocked form editing their own talk page, why was the page template altered in this edit[39], removing the information on how to request unblocking. The users talk page also gives the reason for the block as "abuse of editing privileges". Was there an investigation leading to a sockpuppet block? --Footwarrior (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That I don't know so you have to ask the blocking admin. The block log clearly shows no removal of talkpage privileges.TMCk (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It was felt that any unblock request could be better handled through the unblock list. Are you going to answer TMCk's other points? Black Kite (t) (c) 20:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I second the latter and would appreciate that since Footwarrior is a longstanding experienced contributor who doesn't engage in those SPA's stereotyping. So whatever points he's raising should be responded to accordingly - and vise versa.TMCk (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I probably should've made it clear before that I do not include Footwarrior in the bevy of recent SPAs that have invaded the talk page. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any over-the-top biting of new editors here; a flood of editors who wade straight in to a controversial article throwing accusations of bias left and right do not need 'gently warning'.  pablo 19:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

New editors are free to post any "new" information on the talk page. They don't want to do that, because they know it won't go in the article, being based on unreliable sources. Hence they are pushing for the page to be unprotected so they can edit-war again. Check the start dates and contrib lists of some of those cats, and you'll see they are recently-created, single-purpose accounts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

When "new" editors suddenly appear on the page (and edit only that page) and start attacking other editors, accusing those that don't agree with them of bias, and demanding that their viewpoints be included in the articles, then as administrators we are obliged to explain the problems that they are causing. Footwarrior, if you can find an example where a genuine new editor was treated harshly without even a warning as to their behaviour, please feel free to point it out. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm not convinced that the sanctions administered to certain users are excessive or conflict with policies (Phanuel, for example, has been invited to contribute in a constructive manner on numerous occasions despite blocks, which does not suggest that the general attitude is one of rejection), the atmosphere at the talk page often descends into unsupported accusation and entrenched bitterness in a trend that has regrettably endured past the indefinite block and topic ban handed down in June. A whole host of these allegations have originated from users who perceive the current article's treatment of Amanda Knox as incorporating negative bias — however, I've seen little or no evidence of new, single-purpose usernames instigating calls for a harsher treatment. The essential area is a deep-rooted lack of civil conduct from certain participants which, due to repeated conscious or unconscious refusals to understand the point, leads to sensible, measured sanctions adopted being frequently construed as unjustified, conspiratorial "oppression" of such users and the so-called "truth" of the Kercher case. Extreme POV is bartered about in the guise of NPOV. This poisoning of the well appears difficult to cure at this stage, but it is just the one set of like-minded users behind it all. SuperMarioMan 20:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

When you have a single edit warrior, it's usually better to block the editor. When you have a host of them, it's usually better to "block" the page. It's regrettable, but sometimes necessary, to prevent disruption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I still don't have an answer on why editor Gregmm was blocked. Was a sock puppet investigation done before the block? --Footwarrior (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support MLauba and BlackKite's actions in this matter. NPOV is more important than "that anyone can edit", and enforcing protection is an excellent way to force meat/sock puppets to engage on the talk page. If they can't engage civilly on the talk page and make their points, then there's no good reason to either assume good faith or alter the article accordingly. Jclemens (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments A couple of things first, in terms of background. I first watchlisted the article in February following one of the so many regular ANI spillouts that have been happening throughout the history of this whole sorry mess. I took a very long time before taking any action - protecting the article with one sole intention, to avoid getting the one user who has been indeffed in the meantime from getting a (in retrospect well-deserved) block for edit warring in a "breaking news"-type headline on top of the article (in all fairness, to counter another fake breaking news inserted, maliciously, by an IP vandal). I did that because a medcab case had been opened by that same user, and until that time, I was still not entirely decided on whether the article was two opposing POV ducking it out, or a single POV trying to slant the article. What didn't help in April was that the article was a completely unsalvageable mess of opposing statements, a 'he said / she said' disaster where in the name of "neutrality" every single statement in favour of the prosecution had been countered with a wealth of counter-statements.
• The two editors advocating innocence for Ms Knox at that time both represented a very aggressive brand of POV-pushing including endless aspersions of bad faith, intimidation, harassment, violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. One of these has since been indefinitely blocked, the other one is under a topic ban that he has kept testing and is about to expire - both of these enacted through ANI without any hand of mine.
• In the climate inherited from these two editors, I do share some of the concerns voiced by User:Footwarrior above: that the view of the long-term editors of the page become tainted in a way that every single new poster advocating a POV in favour of Ms Knox is automatically greeted with extreme scepticism. We must, at all times, be able to distinguish between contributors who appear to be wanting to promote a more favourable POV for Knox in good faith (such as User:Footwarrior himself for instance) from the aggressive SPAs like User:PhanuelB who are completely unable and unwilling to compromise and have now limited themselves to snide comments, sniping, assertions of bad faith and overall just plain disruption despite countless invitations to contribute in a constructive manner. Rest assured that the burden of this toxic climate rests entirely on the shoulders of the extreme POV pushers.
• I will also point out that contrary to User:Footwarrior's claims of heavy-handed administration, I have in the recent weeks refrained, multiple times, from imposing well-deserved blocks on part of the new-comers in favour of more mild reminders and invitations to rephrase attacks directed at other editors. Those have been, to this date, ignored.
• I therefore stand fully behind every single administrative action taken on the page or on some of the users by User:Black Kite and myself and will welcome any additional administrative eyes on that article and all related pages.
• Last but not least, as expressed in the previous ANI discussion, it is by now my firm conviction that User:PhanuelB has failed to demonstrate any further use for Wikipedia, having been, without fail, a net negative to the project from the first to the last of his contributions. I will reiterate that I believe Wikipedia will be better off with this user banned, or at the very least topic banned. MLauba ^(Talk) 21:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Lest I forget: regarding the accusations of bias, I challenge anyone to be able to present any personal opinion of mine in regards to the topic of the tragic murder of Ms Kercher or the three people who have been convicted in Italy in connection with that event.MLauba ^(Talk) 21:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• And I would also challenge anyone to the same. Whilst I do not believe it would be incorrect for myself or MLauba to remove PhanuelB from the topic (a topic-ban would effectively be a block anyway), it would be better if a previously uninvolved admin did so. The removal of PhanuelB would at least enable a far more collegial environment on the article. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

MLauba and Black Kite issue a challenge. All allegations of WP:BLP violations they have made against me are completely and categorically false.PhanuelB (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

.... and another one weighs in [40]. Frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of this. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB should not be removed. He gives sound sourcing and has put in a great deal of effort to achieve a better article. I don't find his behavior any less appropriate than those that are asking for his removal. I read this desire to remove PhanuelB as a way to remove an obstical in maintaining a different point of view then what he has. I don't think this is fair or desirable.Jaberryhill (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I see my name has been taken in vain here and I would welcome the opportunity to respond at great length. Unfortunately it is impossible to know what is acceptable commentary on Wikipedia these days and what is not. Evidently what I see as spirited but not unfair commentary is unacceptable to some people. So let me make four brief points:

1) PhanuelB clearly should not be banned. He has done nothing to deserve that. His proposed edits have been impeccably sourced. He is very well informed about the details of the case. He has been very intelligent and flexible in relation to certain contentious issues. He is, in short, a breath of fresh air in an article that badly needs it. 2) For reliable commentary on what has gone on in the article, I suggest that you consult the comments of user Footwarrior. His (or her) commentary has been judicious throughout. This is a veteran user who understands why some of us newcomers feel badly used. 3)While I would have to know a good deal more about the particulars, I am inclined to think there is some merit in the kind of approach Bali suggests. More than anything I would like to see the article on the Sollecito-Knox-Kercher case reflect the fact that the defense put on a vigorous case and that well credentialed observers have made telling points against the verdict. Absent this, it is impossible for an uninvolved reader to understand why the case inspired so much controversy. 4) Please recognize that, the rhetoric of Black Kite and Mlauba to the contrary not withstanding, there really is another side to this story. I am quite sure that if I could sit down with many of you individually I could demonstrate that this is true. PietroLegno (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

NathanWard1234 (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)It sounds to me like Black Kite simply wants to silence someone he disagrees with. Black Kite wrote "The removal of PhanuelB would at least enable a far more collegial environment on the article" I think what Black Kite really meant to say was - I wish PhanuelB would go away because he really bothers me. This is getting pretty ridiculous. Many people disagree with the current content on this article. It is time to stop blocking those people and start listening. You have been provided with excellent sources for the suggested edits. You cannot keep the truth out of this article forever. In the spirit of Wikipedia, listen to reason, listen to the truth. No one has made any suggestion that they feel the article should be biased on way or the other. I have seen many people simply showing concern that the article is not accurate. There are many intelligent people here. Presenting an article that is as inaccurate as this one currently is, undermines the intelligence of all involved. It's time to stop with the back and forth bickering. It's time for both sides to set aside the defenses that are currently up and take an honest look at all suggestions. The truth is available. This article needs to present the truth. There is no other solution. Restricting someone's ability to participate is no way to resolve issues.

I too have seen many people "simply showing concern that the article is not accurate." I am one. We discuss changes on the talk page and attempt to improve the article with each change. Then there is another bunch of editors, yourself included, who show concern because the article does not say "Amanda Knox never done it not her boyfriend neither it was the other guy honest". There is a difference.  pablo 23:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"No one has made any suggestion that they feel the article should be biased on way or the other." I would like to assume good faith, but unfortunately a lot of "suggested edits" from users such as Phanuel boil down to poorly-concealed screeds of POV-pushing in an NPOV fancy dress outfit. For example, the notion that this proposal from last month replace a whole section of the article (and increase the page length by about one-third) is staggering, almost defies belief, and comes across as more of a wind-up than a proper "suggested edit". "You cannot be serious!" SuperMarioMan 02:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"unfortunately a lot of "suggested edits" ...boil down to poorly-concealed screeds of POV-pushing" Equally unfortunate are the 'suggested edits' submitted to simply correct quoted sources to faithfully represent the language used by the WP:RS rather than the editors translation as to what he thinks the WP:RS meant to say. POV-pushing can refer to "suggested edits", or it can refer to long standing statements already included in the article. As to PhanuelB, I do NOT believe he should be blocked. He has argued his position passionately but he hasn't been vulgar or attacked anyone outright. The discussion has gotten somewhat heated at times but that's to be expected. We're not a bunch of little girls here to go off crying when we butt heads. I think we'll all survive. Tjholme 67.168.126.17 (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The diff linked to above is just one of many disruptive edits made to the Meredith Kercher topic over a sustained period. Yes, we will survive, but it's a shame that, in the case of some users, our editing and behavioural guidelines haven't. SuperMarioMan 03:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that this article is derived from sources that present the claims of the Italian authorities as fact. "Reliable sources" say Knox tracked blood around the crime scene on her bare feet. Forensic test results, however, show this claim to be false. I'm not sure how to fix that within the parameters of your rules, but I do have the data if anyone cares.

As for "sock puppets," what do you expect if anyone can sign up using any name? You might as well throw a Halloween party and complain about the costumes.Charlie wilkes (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia suffering because it's the soft option?

I noted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive633#PhanuelB Challenges Allegations of WP:BLP Violations by Administrator MLauba that there was documented appalling behaviour across the WWW that really has no place at Wikipedia. I wonder now, after some further research, whether our continuing problem is that Wikipedia, now, is the soft option. I notice that several of these self-same people with the same agendas and the same pseudonyms have had their contributions to various discussion fora, from the comments section of this article on The Economist (where a PhanuelB comment no longer appears) to Michelle Fabio's web log, variously blocked, restricted, or erased. We seem to be having this continuing trouble because Wikipedia hasn't proven to be as strict on shoving this campaigning and disruption out of the door as the rest of the world; hence the campaigners congregate at Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• You're very likely right; the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit and ranks very highly in Rome Google must be v. tempting for any campaigner.  pablo 23:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is moving beyond the "take it or leave it" phase and more of the world is taking it seriously as a source of information. This comes along with mixed blessings. Agenda-driven editing is going to become a major issue, and my impression is that Wikipedia's current governance structure is simply not equipped to handle this impending threat.   Thorncrag  23:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Uncle G: I agree that this is an issue, but perhaps it merits discussion somewhere other than here. I also think there may be a thing of editors with certain POVs finding in WP talkpages a place where they can give their opinions and will not be ignored or ridiculed, because of WP:NPA and WP:BRD. I think User:PhanuelB has no agenda here to improve the encyclopaedia, only to soapbox on one particular talkpage. I can provide an account with diffs to show this (won't TLDR for now), but can this be dealt with from here or would it require someone to launch an RFC? --FormerIP (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. Let's make us less of a soft option, then. I notice that across the web logs and suchlike there's a perennial "Oh pseudonym A and pseudonym B are just person C doing some astroturfing.". They don't have a mechanism for this. Wikipedia does. So let's start using it. Let's start with that sockpuppetry case that was suggested above. Let's clear out the single-purpose accounts that turn out to be sockpuppets. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPCGuru perhaps? Uncle G (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think that will give thin pickings in this case, actually (in spite of my above comments). We need a hard line on soapboxing and (IMO) a topic ban on PhanuelB, who adds nothing of value and prevents any constructive discussion between editors with different takes on the article in question. --FormerIP (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Prior to even reading the latest discussion here I had made a unilateral offer to PhanuelB here. If it becomes necessary I will bring the indef block I issue here for review. I hope he will have the sense to back down and stop soapboxing and then it won't be necessary. I would happily modify the disincentive offered to a topic ban if we felt that would be kinder; it seems to me like the user would experience one as badly as the other but YMMV. --John (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Note that PhanuelB replied to John's offer by repeating his view (without any evidence, of course) that myself and MLauba are biased administrators [41]. The rest of his screed is a mixture of wikilawyering and outright falsehoods. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but let's break this down into stages. TexasAndroid above says that the existence of sockpuppetry is blatant. Xe's not the first person around the WWW to suggest this. So let's tackle that problem with the mechanisms that Wikipedia has for it. Once we've eliminated any sockpuppetry, and reduced the participants to one account each, we can have a clearer idea of where things stand. (Administrators will know why I picked SPCGuru (talk · contribs) as one potential sockpuppetteer.)

    TexasAndroid, The Magnificent Clean-keeper, et al. are you able to compile a list of accounts that you suspect of being sockpuppets? Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a handy list of what I perceive as SPAs here. I do not think that there is necessarily sockpuppetry, but some sort of orchestrated campaign seems likely.  pablo 12:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Socks aren't all made out of cotton. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My socking thoughts way above were based solely on the summary at the start of this report, not on any personal analysis of the situation. The summary read to me like a classic case of abusive sockery. Others, who have actually looked into the situation, have countered me repeatedly in this thread that sock puppetry seems unlikely to them. Very well. But to specifically respond to Uncle G, no, I have no lists for use in a CU case. I was merely suggesting a direction for handling the situation, a suggestion that in hindsight appears to not be all that useful. <Shrug> - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB came up previously during an SPI case, but there was no indication of inappropriate uses of alternative accounts. I'm very confident that this still is the case. If anyone has any evidence or a well-founded suspicion feel free to open an SPI case or contact me, but continued speculation is not helpful. As MRG says, it's of course possible that there is off-wiki coordination, but with a widely contentious topic like this it's also quite possible that SPAs with a strong POV simply arrived at that article independently, as readers.
Anyhow: If (if!) an editor is repeatedly found to violate NPOV and is unwilling to work as part of the community then WP:SOCK doesn't matter, and speculation about it is only distracting. Amalthea 14:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Amalthea here. Again, we have to be careful not to over-react to a small group of bad apples and go on wide-scale witch-hunts on the sole grounds that several users share a view. I believe that several of the more recent users can be brought on board. I do also suspect that there may be a concerted off-wiki effort that at least some may have joined, but that isn't problematic per se: the article is currently locked and this forces people wanting to change it to come to the negociation table, and behavioural issues can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Socks will eventually betray themselves (see the transformers issue below) and again dealt with when the need arises. I suggest we step back from this, but would also welcome if uninvolved editors would take a moment to coach some of the more aggressive newcomers on the acceptable standards of discourse on Wikipedia - my efforts in this area will necessarily be seen as more threatening due to past history. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that Wikipedia is the soft option for agenda driven individuals. They get to mask their disruption behind Wikipedia's desire to always assume good faith. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is essentially a victim of its own success and growing visibility. At some point, the fundamental rules need to be changed to make it harder to screw up Wikipedia. But it doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime soon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

With a couple of exceptions, the editors on pablo's SPA list have been acting in good faith. Should we be assuming they are meatpuppets with bad intent simply because they dispute the prosecution version of this case? --Footwarrior (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can assume that. It seems likely, given the clumping of some of their initial edits and the similarity of many of their posts that there may be a campaign going on, I don't know. I just made a list because I was surprised to see so many new accounts suddenly take an interest in this article. You can draw your own conclusions.  pablo 20:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for affirming the point, namely that they are trying to push a personal agenda. That is not wikipedia's purpose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Or someone familiar with the case who read the article and discovered it included incorrect information and did not have a NPOV? --Footwarrior (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be reasonable if it were a couple of accounts. In the last few months, no less than thirteen new accounts, wholly or nearly wholly editing on this article, have appeared. Even if they are not sockpuppets of each other, there is clearly an off-wiki campaign to slant the article in favour of the claim that Knox is innocent. Now, Knox may well be innocent. But the article can't include speculation to that effect, and it certainly can't be slanted in favour of claims that she may be. We can only report facts. The fact that the verdict is disputed is discussed already. Perhaps it's worth a bit more space in the article, perhaps not. But that's something that needs to be discussed sensibly. The number of accounts poisoning the well with continual attacks on other editors is not acceptable. I wonder why it is that the neutral, long-term editors on this article do not do this? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

They were found guilty and some critics didn't agree with the verdict. That might be worth mentioning. But it is not wikipedia's purpose to be a vehicle to try to prove someone's innocence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a constant problem. Reporting the facts that Guede, Knox and Sollecito were found guilty of various crimes - and these are facts, not opinion - is seen as making the article "pro-guilt".  pablo 20:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

resp. to Uncle G: As I pointed out before, although sockpuppetry is possible the main concern is obvious meatpuppetry which besides PhanuelB (who is now indef blocked) should be the main focus of this thread.TMCk (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"...some critics didn't agree with the verdict. That might be worth mentioning." If the controversy is to be mentioned at all then it needs to be supported with some background to explain why some critics didn’t agree with the verdict. To do otherwise is to imply that their critique is baseless, and that would be promoting a non-neutral POV. The issue of Knox's trial should be split off onto a separate article so it doesn’t overwhelm the Meredith Kercher page. She deserves to have her story told and to have it told accurately and completely up to and including the fact that AK, RS and RG were legitimately convicted of the crime. Given the international attention the controversy surrounding the investigation and subsequent trial has received I suggest that the issue deserves it's own page. This is not without precedent. Other famous trials have dedicated pages (eg Trial of OJ Simpson) and other convicted murderers have dedicated pages (eg Bundy, Gacey, Manson). I request that the issue of a "Trials of " page be reopened for discussion by the whole group and not simply dismissed without a clear statement as to reason. Tjholme (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well how about discussing your ideas about what you consider consists "accurately and completely" at the article talk page, rather than here? That's what it's for.  pablo 21:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB's Response

Seems to me that I should have the opportunity to respond to this before any of the neutral (hopefully) administrators new to the discussion make any conclusions. Another thing, you can only block somebody for things that happened after the last block. I don't really have the time to do this today as I've been doing too much of this at work. I have significant points to make and should have the opportunity to do so. Maybe somebody could make arrangements to keep this important discussion around a little longer than normal. PhanuelB (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Another thing, you can only block somebody for things that happened after the last block. according to who? :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason this SPA shouldn't be indeffed at this point? Strikes me as likely a net benefit to the "project." That's what i'd do as a first step.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Enough is enough. --John (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

endorsed, obviously. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Endorse the indef. After several month of disruption and no improvement to be seen I can't think of any other option.TMCk (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Endorse indefinite block. This user has been a troublesome burden to the topic right from the start, and like Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs) has indicated no desire whatsoever to adhere to the editing and conduct guidelines of Wikipedia. Perhaps I sound over-sceptical, but his above request for discussion to be deferred strikes me as little more than stalling for time in the hope that other users begin to view his conduct in a more sympathetic light (this previous ANI report that he opened last month started on a note of full conviction, but in the end came to nothing following the refutation of his assertions). There is only so much that assuming good faith can achieve when dealing with problem editors such as this one. I hope that this will be the last indefinite block that arises from this topic, and that no other user goes down a path similar to PhanuelB. SuperMarioMan 15:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Do Not Endorse the indefinite block. PhanuelB should not be considered and interference for trying to gain a neutral pov. He clearly has a postion, but if the article itself is not neutral then adding information to counter that bias is only a corrective measure. The goal should be as neutral of a pov as possible in a controversial and disputed murder case. If a point is in dispute either both sides should be presented or neither. There is an atmosphere of intimidation going on in this article and blocking and banning seem to be the weapon of choice. This intimidation and censoring of opinion should not be allowed.Jaberryhill (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I read the article for the first time yesterday, and in my view, the article is already written in a neutral fashion. My brief interactions with PhaneulB made it quite apparent he was interested only in advocating the "Knox is innocent" position, and had no desire to maintain balance of the article or ensure it is written in a neutral point of view. Resolute 20:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been made abundantly clear, on numerous occasions and at countless venues, that an indefinite block placed on PhanuelB will have been the result of his own actions and refusal to edit in a manner compliant with Wikipedia guidelines on civil behaviour. Yet again, a content dispute is being confused with a conduct dispute, and baseless accusations of non-existent corruption are being levelled at those users who do indicate at least some basic understanding of how we Wikipedians are expected to interact with one another. Jaberryhill, please read MLauba's above invitation for diffs, and substantiate your claims that a group of editors at the Kercher topic are being "intimidated" and their views "censored", or else your objection carries little weight. SuperMarioMan 22:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My first post on the discussion page brought on a not very veiled threat to not go down that area of discussion unless I wanted to be banned. I personally felt my input was not welcome. It is my personal experience on the page.Jaberryhill (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Diff. (Help:Diff explains how to create them). TFOWR 23:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think it is entirely inappropriate for this article to contain any evidence or opinions regarding guilt or innocence found in any RS, including the Massei report, Micheli's report or any report, News article, etc, due to the possibility of this article impacting the upcoming legal process. This is not a court room. Many people are not aware that the articles in wikipedia are not regarded by wikipedia as a RS, and in my opinion they are not reliable due to the subjective nature of the process. The use of guidelines which are only recommendations with the word should constantly appearing can not in any way sufficiently control the process. Guidelines are not rules. Instructions are rules and the use of the words shall, should and may dictates managements decisions. For example: The Events surrounding the murder should only contain information regarding Meredith movements on Nov 1-2, 2007 and should not include anything that could imply guilt or innocence of anyone. This is not a court room. All evidence should be deleted or the entire article should be blocked from public view pending the completion of the legal process. This is not a court room. Deletion of all evidence and RS options of guilt or innocence should resolve this issue. Yoyohooyo (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • All the material in the article is in the public domain. The article does not imply guilt or innocence, it only reports the facts in the case, despite the attempts of a number of accounts to make it suggest otherwise. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't see how reporting the publicly-known and verifiable facts of a trial can affect any upcoming legal process. Pre-trial publicity is often an issue because of the risk of prejudicing the jury pool. But appeals are conducted by lawyers, and have to do with the trial process, not the facts of the trial, unless they have new evidence to suggest a new trial; and it is not wikipedia's place to be either aiding or hindering those efforts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways and game the system here, guys. "All the material in the article is public domain." So are the Steve Moore articles. You dismiss them. You dismiss anything that validates the concern that the STORY ITSELF is of a disputed trial, and you also block the request to have a separate page for Amanda Knox, or anyone else for that matter. You constantly take offense to anyone posing an opposing view of something that very cleary -- "IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN" is a story of dispute. You take the additional step of unilaterally banning those people who post an argument you don't agree with, even when they follow the rules (you claim they don't, which is extremely convenient). I propose that the dispute banner be posted to this page immediately, and the original redirect on Amanda Knox be removed immediately. JSL5871 (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the point made by Black Kite, JSL. He's pointing out that we are not prejudicing anyone's trial by repeating information that is already in the public domain elsewhere. For WP, though, it is not the case that anything in the public domain can be used as a source. We have a specific policy, WP:RS, which guides us on what we should and shouldn't consider. The essays written by Steve Moore do not confirm to this policy because they come from a personal website. That's not something we should start a discussion about in an ANI thread, though. --FormerIP (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Only repeating information from the public domain that represents one pov in definitely prujudicial to the reader's understanding. Just because a documented source was used does not make this strategy correct. This case is rife in old and false information that has been printed in papers. It would be very easy to present an unsound article using what are considered reliable resources. I agree with JSL5871 that the story is the controversy. If the article fails to explain that there is controversy it is failing the reader.Jaberryhill (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It does explain that some people doubt the fairness of the trial. Lots of times in fact. Get your facts straight. Quantpole (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"You take the additional step of unilaterally banning those people who post an argument you don't agree with". As I said above, if you can post one single piece of evidence that I have a view either way on the issue, then please post it. I know you won't, though, because it doesn't exist. No user has ever been banned from the article, or blocked, because of their viewpoint. They have been blocked for disruption, name calling, personal attacks, soapboxing, sockpuppetry, and general refusal to comply with Wikipedia policy. If you discuss the article collegially and rationally with other users, you will achieve far more for the article. If you continue to act in the above manner, however, you will not. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The above poster is typical of the problems the page is facing. Look at this draft in their userspace, and every contribution they have made on the talkpage. How many times do they need to be told that people are not banned for having an opposing viewpoints but for making personal attacks and having a battlefield mentality. Quantpole (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"Battlefield mentality" is really the pot calling the kettle black, no? Let's be clear here, there have been TONS of threats of being banned -- I was threatened privately at least once, perhaps twice, for commenting on the censorship on this page (and this is the talk page, not the actual page) being similar to that in 1930s Germany. If you think that's insulting, than perhaps you should review the issue itself. But it is fact. Phanuel has been abused, as have others. I've monitored this page for quite a while and it is clear there is an agenda to "silence" the opposing view here. I bet someone will attempt to ban me here as well for my comments.

There is a solution to this, as I have suggested before yet somehow it keeps getting ignored, which again, fits into the agenda. The page should have a Dispute Banner on it. The very fact this specific conversation is occuring indicates that the page is, by definition, "under dispute." Also, if the editors with the lock on this page are concerned with the page itself, then they should release the lock, the "hijacking" (again, I used this term before and was threatened to be banned...truth hurts, doesn't it?) of the Amanda Knox page so it can be edited appropriately. Amanda is the focus of a controversial interrogation, investigation, trial, and conviction. That is a story that should be able to be told, and I do not think anyone here has the power to unilaterally decide otherwise. JSL5871 (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I stopped reading after your (repeated) Nazi comparison. That out of line comparison just shows your enormous POV in this issue and so don't wonder if you don't get taken serious by most editors.TMCk (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There's that "story that should be told" again, just like the wording of the other redlink farther down (what a coincidence). All too typical of SPA's - they can't get their way, so they invoke Godwin's law. This megillah started with an issue regarding a particule user. That user is now indef'd, so I think the entire section could be boxed up and the remaining discussion contained to the article talk page. Any non-SPA's disagree? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside self-interest (since it looks like the longer this thread is open, the more SPAs will receive blocks), I concur. --FormerIP (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Another SPA heard from: JSL5871 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

What exactly is it that you're disputing? That she was convicted? Wikipedia's purpose is not to "tell the story that should be told", it's to report verifiable facts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked JSL5871 for his repeated over the top attacks, over which he had been warned multiple times previously. While standards of behaviour are a lot lower on ANI than elsewhere, there is a limit. MLauba ^(Talk) 00:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Back to remaining/unsolved point's

• Back to the remaining point's: We have by Pablo's count 13 SPA's (single purpose accounts so there is no confusion) trying to dominate the article in part by majority consensus and their majority viewpoint (POV). As far I can see, neutral editors (and that incl. admins) have raises their concern about it and so the question is on how to proceed IMO. One solution would be if more admins (and editors of course) would commit them selfs to watch/edit and act on violations of plain soapboxing up to more serious ones (at their discretion) like John who already did both, commit and act.TMCk (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Transformers articles

I need advice. In the last week about a half dozen editors have taken on the task of "cleaning" up the Transformers ficiton related articles. By cleaning I mean deleting without even trying to improve them. I don't know if this is an organized effort of just happenstance that all of them suddenly started nominating different Transformers articles at an amazing rate, and then voting to 'DELETE for each other's nominations, but it has gotten become near impossible for us few working in the Transformers wiki project to keep up with (many of us just started school and are busy). What bothers me is not a single one of these deletionists has offered any improvements in any of the articles they work to delete, and just today about 30 articles were nominated for deletion by this crew. I don't know that anything can be done get them slow them down as nominating articles is their right, but the limited resources of the wiki project (many of us just started fall classes) means we can respond to their demands for proof of notability quickly enough. I'm sure a lot of the articles being nominated deserve to be deleted or merged to larger articles, but others do not. Is there any thing I can do for couple of articles I know just need additional citations and work, and shouldn't be deleted quickly? Often times I don't even know an article has been nominated for deletion until after the fact as these guys often forget to list the nominations at the wiki project. Would it even be okay to ask the Transformers Deletion Patrol to voluntarely limit their nominations for deletion to a certain number a week to be polite? Mathewignash (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Can you provide links to some of the articles in question please? --Selket ^Talk 21:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not involved with any of the deletion debates, but this recent discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard may be informative. If these Transformers-related articles up for deletion are sourced with the sort of sources up for evaluation at the RSN thread I've linked here, they deserve a lot of scrutiny. — e. ripley\^talk 21:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Here's some advice: stop throwing around words like 'deletionist'; all you're doing is painting someone who wants an article deleted as someone trying to destroy the project. Placing you as its saviour, I suppose? There is nothing wrong with deleting articles that don't belong here. → ROUX ₪ 21:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• You can see the nominations for deletion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements. Meanwhile, it is my experience that tagging Transformers articles for improvement hardly ever results in them actually being improved. I tagged a large number for non-free image overuse a long while ago and practically none of them have been fixed; indeed in some cases the tags were actually removed. Some of these articles have been unsourced for years, and many have been tagged as such, as well as having other long-running maintenance tags. There are well over 1,000 (yes - one thousand - that's not a typo) Transformers articles (as an example, Category:Autobots has 357 on its own) and the vast majority are non-notable on their own - some might qualify for inclusion in "List of minor characters in..." type articles. But no-one seems to want to do the work there. Sometimes the only way to get the attention of editors that articles are deficient is to nominate them for deletion, unfortunately. And I haven't seen a single article yet nominated that was at least dubious in its notability. Ha, just saw the two very poor nominations mentioned below. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In question here is the sudden constant bulk deletion nominations in such a short period of time by a couple editors, who all vote with each other to delete. It's CLEARLY meant to get the articles deleted without any chance of fixing those worth saving. There are articles worth saving as a couple that have had work done to them have been kept. Deleting so many so quickly is clearly not in the best interest of writing good articles. Mathewignash (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• I'm guessing that the ones being deleted, happen to be stubs that haven't been expanded in months or more. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You are wrong. Jazz (Transformers) and Soundwave (Transformers) got nominated today. Mathewignash (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Wowsers, those articles shouldn't be deleted. Has Wikipedia decided to do away with fictional or animation based articles? GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Bumblebee (Transformers) and Grimlock now too.
      • (edit conflict) Please correct me if I'm wrong, but last I checked I was pretty sure Wikipedia isn't run by one person. Please, tell me what's wrong about nominating articles for deletion if you (reasonably) think they should be deleted? Isn't that the whole point of the discussion part of AFD? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I admitted in the opening that editors have a right to nominate. My question was as to whether politeness can be expected in nominating only articles that deserve it (instead of the seemingly random nominations) and if this is an organized effort (it seems to be the same guys over and over) whether they can be asked to voluntarily limited their nomination to those that can be addressed in time, for the sake of improving the articles over trying to get deletions. Mathewignash (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Shirik is right, but I agree those two are two very poor nominations - probably two of the most notable Transformers articles. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Mass nominations tend to catch people eye. Were these nominations brought to WP:TRANS? GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Although I feel that the notice on my talk page is enough, the nomination for the Transformers article was not meant to be disruptive. Just thought I would say this before someone left a message. Nilocla ^{♈ ☮} 21:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
            • It's not funny. Don't use the AfD process to make a point. For the record, I could care less about Transformer pages in any way, I'm just speaking on policy and common sense points. Nate • (chatter) 03:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Please remember to assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks both here and on the AfD pages. Otherwise, I'm inclined to think that the AfD process is working. There is healthy debate on those AfD entries and the consensus on several seems to be to keep. If I'm missing something, let me know but it looks like the debate should really be on those AfDs and not here. -Selket ^Talk 21:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • User talk:Mathewignash flocculated mediocrity of Transformers articles when others try to remove fansites or fancruft. He puts it back and says the article is OK and the sources are too. How are the articles ever to improve if the inclusionist cliché keep putting ever useless piece of fan cruft and saying its ok. He probably objects to my adding Dinobots sources which is alot more than the inclusionist cliché have done. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as the nominator of these article, has nominated them in good faith. This ANI report should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • ...and hereby is. --Selket ^Talk 22:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think I got an answer. If there seems to be a concerted effort by a small group to delete a project's articles so quickly the project cannot respond, can anything be done by it? Is it considered suspect that suddenly a couple guys all started nominating articles together, and voting for each other's deletions? I know I'm to assume good faith, but I'm not seeing it here. Mathewignash (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Unless you can prove editors have specially have ASKED to vote a certain way or some other method you accusations are baseless Mathewignash. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• There are any number of consensuses that can be achieved through the AfD process. Some examples are:
  • Keep all
  • Delete all
  • Keep some, delete others
  • Keep some, merge others
• etc. But AfD is the place to work that out. -Selket ^Talk 22:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the direct answer.Mathewignash (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Mathewignash, your repeated characterization of other editors as a "Transformer Deletionist Patrol" is unacceptable. You are going wrong in two places:
  1. You are tarring everyone with the same brush. There's a gulf of difference between Blest Withouten Match (talk · contribs), for example, and other editors.
  2. You are ignoring the warning rumbles about this that were on your talk page years ago.
• I've gone back through the history of User talk:Mathewignash, and in amongst the reams of warnings about non-free content, I find that in September of 2009 you had a conversation with TTN about transformers articles. Instead of thinking "I'll stop TTN dead in xyr tracks and cite sources showing that xyr claims are wrong." you just carried on blithely, regardless, for another year. (I notice, given that these articles are now being nominated for deletion, that Black Kite came to your talk page to talk to you about list of characters articles with too much non-free content back in February 2008. You had another conversation about these multi-character list articles in August 2009.)

  You talk of "writing good articles". Good Wikipedia article writing involves using and citing sources. You've had conversations about that on your talk page in August 2008 and January 2009. You had a further relevant conversation about sourcing for fiction on your talk page in January 2010.

  This is far from being a "Transformer Deletionist Patrol" versus all the poor put-upon editors who are being surprised at suddenly have a lot of work to do. This is you having over two year's notice that there were problems here, including from some of the editors who have now made deletion nominations, not doing pretty much anything about it, and then complaining when the rest of the world runs out of patience waiting. You shouldn't be surprised that you're in the pickle that you're in now. You had at least a year, after you knew without question that there was a problem looming, where you could at leisure have rectified this situation and prevented this from happening. That you are now pressured into working hard to cite sources at a time that you find personally inconvenient is a bed of your own making. Uncle G (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

  • If you have a problem with me, that's fine. I'm only a so-so editor at best. This still fails to explain the sudden deletion nomination of 10-30 articles a day for the past week by a small group, which is the subject of this talk. Sadly it's been explained to me that there is nothing I can do but ask that some of the editors slow down so we can address issues. Some have. I appreciate that. Some have even sided with keeping and improving some of the major articles. It's a nice change, knowing they want to improve, not just delete the articles. Thanks everyone for that! Mathewignash (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • You don't get to dictate a narrow discussion focus in your favour, here, Mathewignash. This is very much also about you, and your continuing failure to do something about a problem with the articles that you've been contributing to that you knew was coming for years in advance. Even now, when someone points out sourcing that xe considers problematic, you utterly fail to get the point and completely fail to address the actual issue. You've had years of warning about this. Learn! Or the discomfort and pressure will continue. Uncle G (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Whether Mathewignash fails to get the point does not justy the mass nomination of over 90 articles in a very short time. That seems rather WP:POINTy to me. —Farix (t | c) 23:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
        • This isn't about justification. It's about how this could have been prevented altogether by taking action a year ago, and gross mischaracterizations of a "Transformer Deletionist Patrol", that you, too, appear to be erroneously buying into. Uncle G (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm not buyinG into anything. I'm just point out that these mass nominations are very disruptive, if not WP:POINy. No one is going to "improve" the articles if they have to go through over 90 articles at once. It doesn't matter how much "time" Mathewignash was given, there is simply no excuse for nominating so many articles at once.

            And please stop refactoring my comments into a format you prefer. Plain indents are less trouble to work with and looks neater —Farix (t | c) 00:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

          • You're buying into it right here. You're still assuming that there's one editor, or an organized group of editors, with an organized campaign to "nominate 90 articles all at once". In reality, there are at least two separate, and as I pointed out above very distinct, groups of editors here. Uncle G (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My issue here is that so many articles are being nominated in such a short time. Is there really an immediate need to nominate over 90 articles in just two or three days?[42] This is simply too much for anyone to deal with and salvage content that is worth saving. The nominators should be told to "back off" for a while. 10 articles per week is a lot of articles to have to cleanup and search for reliable sources, but it is workable. However, 90 articles at once gives noone a chance to look for reliable sources or determine which articles are better suited to be merged into a list. While I do support the cleanup of the Transformer articles, there is no deadline here and there should be no rush. —Farix (t | c) 23:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have seen that these deletions seem to be planned. One editor will nominate, then post on the other user's talk page that they "may be interested" in these nomination. Now these are to pages that the second editor has never edited before. I thought you were supposed to notify Wiki projects, article creators, and maybe those involved with the editing of an article about a deletion nomination. Why are people notifying those whose only interest seems to be a history voting DELETE with them on other articles? If you look here User_talk:Dwanyewest#Transformers_AfDs you will see an example. someone nominate a bunch of Transformers articles for deletion, then notifies the user with a history of deletion votes about how they may be interested (in an article they never edited before!) a few memoents later votes for delete have been added. What was the provocation to tell this individual about the deletions besides their history of voting delete? Mathewignash (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

[43] These kinds of comments are extremely unproductive and uncivil.--Crossmr (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

So I have been told. It was a reaction to coming home and finding 30 articles nominated for deletion by the same group of guys who have been at it all week. Mathewignash (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any good reason the article for Sideways (Transformers) is under TWO nominations for deletion at the same time? Mathewignash (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That would be called an error--looks like a double click on the tool. :-) I've administratively closed the "first" one, the "second" one is ongoing. Jclemens (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Danke shane. Mathewignash (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• My problem with Mathewignash and like minded inclusionist when someone tries to remove fansites or fancruft. The immediately cry "notable" and claim fansites are good sources of information. I also the resent the what seems like an accusation that there's some sort of cabal of deletionists or the insinuation I just started editing Transforemers. What about about the inclusionist who go notable but will have a article which merely mentions a subject once in a sentence and call it significant coverage as evidence of notability. I have added alot more actual reliable third person sources on Transformers than alot inclusionists have see the edits of the ones I did below if you doubt me. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

1. The Transformers (TV series)
2. Transformers: Armada
3. Beast Wars: Transformers
4. Dinobots
5. Transformers: Energon
6. Transformers: Cybertron

I still don't understand why the other editors who nominate for deletion are notifying you on your talk page that you may be interested in those nominations, when these are articles you have never edited in your life. Why would they think YOU are the person to notify? If it walks like a organized effort to delete, and talks like an organized effort delete... Mathewignash (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • I can't speak for others motivation maybe it like you say there think I will vote a certain way. I neither endorse or encourage others to vote a certain way. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Focus on outcomes...

What do we really want to see for transformers? I doubt there's really one answer, but a consensus answer is probably going to look something like...

• Separate articles for the most important characters, as demonstrated by reliable sources, with as much real-world commentary (e.g., how Bumblebee was bought by GM) as possible.
• List articles of the fictional characters not notable enough for their own articles, with verifiable content.
• Less plot information than what we currently have, by a long shot.

But for the life of me, I'm really not seeing how a mass deletion crusade is actually accomplishing any of this. I mean, sure, I suppose it's possible to raise the quality of Wikipedia by deleting poorly written articles... but that's like expelling the struggling students to improve a school's average performance. What I really don't see in all this name calling (cruft, deletionist... they're all pejorative) is a way forward to improve the Wikipedia coverage of Transformers characters. Sure, there's some excision due, but this much? In this haphazard a manner? There's gotta be a better way, really. Have we remembered nothing of POKEMON? Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to fully agree Jclemens. I can't for the life of me see why we would delete an article on the character Jazz. Pokemon, betacommandbot... i guess we don't learn. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on some of the comments above, I believe that the rapid-fire nominations are the results of personal vendettas against Mathewignash. That's not to excuse Mathewignash's unwillingness to bring these articles in line with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, but two wrongs don't make a right. —Farix (t | c) 00:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I did think I was bring the articles in line - I just don't want them deleted out of hand, and I don't discount every sites as easily as others seem to. You may notice my voting history isn't to always KEEP, I often vote to redirect or merge minor articles. One of the users who is usually pro-deletion just made a suggestion to me as to a source for many of the articles I might use to help improve them. This was helpful. THANK YOU! Perhaps we can keep some of these articles by actually improving them. Mathewignash (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That does it. I can't stand it. I'm not going to keep quite about this any more. I have no vendetta against Mathewignash, and I take offense to such a statement Farix. I only to fix what is dealy broken. I've asked for his help and incite on my proposed edits on the Megatron and Starscream articles, but they turned a blind eye. Second, can't you see why anybody delete or redirect Jazz, DJ?? Is everybody blind??? A lot of the sources there come from fansites like TF2005 and their message board which as I recall fansites are unreliable sources. So what, are we now going to look away cherry pick guidelines that suits us? Sakes alive the articles damaged goods and you know it. How am I or anybody suppose to clean up this mess form and push the usable stuff to GA or FA if everybody's making excuses for such sorry pieces of work? I'm sorry, but I can't take this molycodling of bad articles anymore. Sarujo (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have seen when others to reorganise or make some editors will object and say its fine the way it is. In regards to sourcing and removal of info. Besides User:Mathewignash you seem partly responsible for some of the proliferation of mediocre articles such as Transmetal Driver, Mutant (Transformers),Longhorn (Transformers). Besides I am sceptical if any improvements can be made because recommendations were made a year ago, [44] but no action seemed to made. We need to have a minimum agreement of what format Transformers articles should take and what needs to removed. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, lets look. Transmetal Driver, an article I wrote as a newbie 4 years ago, and have not touched in over 3 years. What is stopping anyone from improving it? Not me. Mutant (Transformers) is a page I created 3 years ago to explain a category, and the category was deleted. Then the page was nominated for deletion, I voted to get rid of it! I don't have the authority to delete old pages, even ones I made. Longhorn (Transformers) is also a page I created 3 years ago and have not touched in 2 years. I created as basically a stub when the character was introduced. The company dropped him as a character, so he never got any coverage since then. I never added anything to it, and it's probably deserving to be deleted or merged, as was proposed. I did not vote to keep it. Why are you complaining? Mathewignash (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait are you addressing me?? I have no memory of ever editing those articles. Sarujo (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I was addressing Mathewignash. I should have been more explicit. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a suggestions for Transformers character articles layout which is shown, divide them into categories. Because certain characters have multiple biographies. What does everyone else think. I would definitely eliminate things like toys and unofficial releases because they are supported by fansites. What is anyone else view on my proposal.? Dwanyewest (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

== Cartoon == Sub catogory 1980s Beast Wars Armada == Comics == Marvel Devil Due == Film == == Video Game == Below will others like popular culture

I might go along with this look. A discussion I had with the user named Eh! Steve we were planing a rewrite to the Megatron article. Wouldn't my proposed format be any good? Also you might want to use a No Wiki format for those proposed sections. Sarujo (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your format or mine is good either way the fancruft such as toys and unofficial toys definitely have to go whatever direction is gone needs to be universally agreed. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It it actually an older format similar to one we used before, but we moved to the current one years ago due to the fact that many times a character from one story will share a name, but not really be the same character. First we seperate the character into the different continuities of the character, we do this since many times the characters are completely different characters from one continuity to another.

• Generation 1 character named Ransack (An Insecticon thief!)

• Armada character named Ransack (A Mini-Con truck who is a sidekic!)

• Movie character named ransack. (An ancient Bi-Plane Decepticon!)

In each section we list an infobox, personality, abilies, and the major appearances of the character by the company, in chronological order by when the company started. Therefore Marvel Comics is first, then the TV series (started a few months later than the comic), then the Dreamwave comics, then IDW Comics, etc. Then a list of the toys for the character. If we didn't do this then we'd end up with some mishmash infobox that says Ransack is a insect/truck/biplane who steals thing, is very old, yet is a sidekick... Mathewignash (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Biggest problem I have with what Dwanyewest did is he didn't talk about it just, he just came in one day (under an anon IP) and re-wrote the Optimus Prime page, deleting major sections without ANY talk. I just reverted him as if he was some vandal, and asked that his proposals be moved to the talk page. He seems to have taken GREAT offense at me as some sort of Transformers article dictator. He did not propose any changes to the Wiki project, he just came in and did a major rewrite to a page in a manner that wasn't the way we had agreed to write the articles in the wiki project - so of course I reverted it! Mathewignash (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, just what is the point of talking about such drastic changes to an article when you, Ignash, the sole editor available on the project, won't even give your incite on the proposed change? Have you forgotten the time I tried editing Starscream and Megatron? You reverted my attempts to improve those articles told me to to discussion. When I gave my proposal, you fail to respond. So again I ask, what's the point to discuss something when somebody only responds to something that happens that they don't agree with? Sarujo (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

To be more specific I made an attempt to edit those articles on September of 2008 [45] [46] I made some drastic changes to the Megatron and Starscream articles. You came in and cluster reverted them shortly after. [47][48] Then I did a cut and paste of the two. [49][50] After doing this twice, you came to both Megatron, Starscream, and my asking to discuss the with you the edits. So I complied, and wrote a response figuring that you would respond at my talk page as it seem like the right place to do so. When I got no response after seven days as I didn't realize at the time an editor needs to post a "talkback" template on said poster's corresponding talk page, I went to the Megatron talk page to mention that responded in my talk page. Six days pass, so I cut and pasted my proposal there. Finally, you respond and make a sugestion. Okay so I did. I created my own sandbox and started working on a potential Megatron article uninterrupted. So in April of 2009 (seven months later), I sent word on your talk page for your thoughts on my current progress. No response. It's been over a year now. So again, I ask, what the point? You seem to only care when the article aren't being edited your way. So why should I or anybody do a consensus discussion with any editor who's going to turn the other way on any proposition they just don't like? It seem that mass editing, is the only way to get editors, such as yourself Mr. Ignash, attention. Sarujo (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

About that Megatron thing, I'm prey sure listing the Predacon alligator as a version of G1 Megatron falls under fancruft, since that's from interpreting the on-package bio which was written without knowledge of the Beast Wars TV show. It's just a minor, unintentional thing. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. NotARealWord (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Alot of this is gonna be needed to be started from scratch. Guidebooks must be useful GI Joe use it for characters I imagine Transformers have it for their characters. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

CU results

 Confirmed:

• Claritas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Nefesf9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Anton dvsk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Blest Withouten Match (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

If I have not mentioned an account, consider it  Unrelated unless a reason comes up to justify running a CU. I will leave to uninvolved admins and the community as far as blocking is concerned. –MuZemike 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

er...how is this related to the transformer thing?--Crossmr (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Look at the recent edits of all these users. Very sad, I often disagreed with her but this is shocking to say the least Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Man, that's what I get for following WP:AGF. I'm too much of a softy. Anyway, I think there are still problems with a lot of the articles. What would people think about consolidating the AfDs? That way the community can have the discussion in one location. --Selket ^Talk 02:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The new sock needs to be blocked; two are already indeffed for socking, so no worries there. Claritas is already retired, but if he/she decides to come back they will need a stern warning about this sock history. Maybe a mentoring from Jack Merridew or something. BOZ (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Incredibly disappointing; I always found Claritas to be a rationale, leveheaded writer. —fetch·comms 03:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Like any other editor with a pretty firm agenda, it is disappointing, but hardly surprising, that this conduct has transpired. Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Very disappointing that someone will be so hell bent on getting rid of "low risk" articles that they would pull a stunt like this. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It is what it is though. We still need to focus on outcomes. Not everyone who argued for deletion was a puppet. --!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selket (talk • contribs)

True, but when people start socking in AFDs, it's going to taint the outcome, even if it turns out to be the correct one. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I blocked Blest Withouten Match. What length block is appropriate for Claritas? Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• To what extent was the socking disruptive? On a crude search I can't see any use of the socks to !votestack, but of course I might be looking in the wrong places.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it has more to do with the fact that the socks were waging a crusade (essentially) against Transformers articles and nominating a heck of a lot of them for deletion. Thus, some of the accusations made in above sections about a "secret plot" to delete them seems to be accurate. Silverseren^C 04:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Which causes bad feelings for those arguing for deletion, because they all get tarred by the brush of one cheater. And bad feelings for those arguing for retention, because they wonder if more people are stacking the deck against them. And bad feelings for those of us who just want the whole mess to result in better Wikipedia articles, because none of that will be forthcoming due to all the stupid, avoidable drama. Aaaargh. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Can't believe Claritas has been socking. I knew they were nominating lots of fictional articles but socking? And s/he currently has an an article at FAC. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I haven't followed this situation at all, just kind of stumbled upon it yesterday. On the surface, disruption may not be apparent. From the looks of things, it seems that the Claritas account was arguing for deletion/merging/whatever to reduce the amount of Transformers articles (and I had seen them going at fiction-related articles from a few other franchises in the past few months as well). Then, the account "retired" about a week ago. When the apparently previously innocuous sock account picked up right up with Claritas' work, I think that's the point where it became disruptive. The community tends not to like that sort of bait and switch scenario. "Ooh, I'm gone, but look here, my good friend is ready to pick up where I left off, so there must be more people out there who feel the same way I do!" If I were to make four sock accounts, and spend 10 hours per day editing with all five accounts (two hours per day each, or whatever) on the same thing in the same way, why it would seem that there was a small army of active, like-minded editors out there doing the same thing - and, if that thing "we" were doing were to rub people the wrong way, then that would be a problem, wouldn't it? It taints the water in any discussions where people are trying to determine consensus. BOZ (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading this news makes me feel like I just wasted my time. Sarujo (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• This is the point where it is important to not give up. This is the point where the single person with the disruptive agenda has been spotted and stopped. This is the point where you should be concentrating upon the other discussions, and the points raised quite properly by other, quite independent, people, not part of any sinister "patrol", who have been trying to discuss and rectify problems for years. Uncle G (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I said that Blest Withouten Match (talk · contribs) was distinctive, above. (Mkativerata, this is what is known as a bad-hand account. Fetchcomms, this wouldn't be the first time that someone good at writing about subjects that xe likes takes a slipshod and cavalier approach in nominating for deletion things that xe doesn't like, with boilerplate rationales and no research. Good content writing and tunnel vision about what subjects are "worthy" have gone hand in hand before.)

I also pointed out that Mathewignash, TheFarix, and others were making the error of tarring everyone with the same brush. Jclemens' analysis of why that leads to further problems bears re-reading. There's no way that Black Kite and Blest Withouten Match are part of a "Transformer Deletion Patrol", and this insidious and entirely wrong-headed idea needs to be stamped out before it further affects discussion and editor relationships. One person deciding to go on a crusade (as was clear from the Blest Withouten Match account alone) is quite different from the other people such as Black Kite, J Milburn, and so forth, who have (as can be seen from Mathewignash's talk page) been discussing the problems here for years. The two should not be confused in any way.

Selket, consolidating the discussions was tried. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Transformers/Proposed centralized transformers discussion. Yes, Claritas closed and moved the discussion. Perhaps, in light of the above, you should see how many editors are now in favour of re-opening it. Uncle G (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The person behind the accounts has only made it tougher for him/herself. If a new account comes along & re-nominates those articles for deletion? it quite obvious who it'll likely be. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Conditions for block reduction of the Claritas account

Ok. Claritas has screwed up. Royally. But I'm not certain that this (apparently) one-time going off of the rails is enough to consider them banned. They are indefinitely blocked, but as is often said, indefinite != infinite. OTOH, a block of some duration is definitely in order IMHO. So, the question in my mind are, what are the conditions under which Claritas would/could be unblocked? (And, of course, *only* the Claritas account, not the socks.) A length of time? Some sort of restrictions? What are people's thoughts as to what would/could/should be required for an unblock of Claritas? - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• See what they say in a year. They were socking with the clear intent to deceive and stack discussions. That is not acceptable, and we need to draw a really bright line. → ROUX ₪ 20:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say nothing less that the standard offer would be acceptable to allow a return. -- Atama頭 20:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• WP:SO specifically says it's not for extremes. I'd say deliberately messing around like this is an extreme. → ROUX ₪ 20:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think it's an extreme the way the essay is meant to take it, as an example of how "extreme" a situation would have to be, it mentions law enforcement involvement. But my opinion is that nothing less than the standard offer should apply, I'm not against a stronger restriction. Wikipedia inevitably has an Achilles heel in regards to sockpuppetry; it's such an easy way for people to manipulate the encyclopedia in very disruptive ways and nearly impossible to prevent beforehand, and we can't be very proactive against that kind of abuse. The only kind of deterrence I can think of is to maintain that we have little tolerance for that behavior so that editors might want to think twice before doing it. -- Atama頭 00:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Isn't the block length kind of moot until (or really, if) Claritas returns from retirement? I say put it as an indefinite block with an explanation for the block on Claritas' talk page and, if Claritas returns by indication on the talk page or some other means, then a review can be made of the block and a decision for the future worked out then. Silverseren^C 21:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Claritas isn't retired, s/he is merely using sockpuppets. → ROUX ₪ 21:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I received an email from Claritas earlier today (before her indef):

Email

Hey, I saw the thread at ANI. I've had a lot of problems with good-hand/bad-handing and socking from the start (several previous accounts - check Adorno rocks). I've coupled the creation of good content on one set of accounts (this one, Adorno rocks, Blest Withouten Match) with outright hoaxing and deception on others (check the article on Paulius Galaune). I've decided to come clean (demonstrated hoaxes on Nefesf9). The principle reason I'm retiring is that I don't think I'm positively contributing to the project, but I'd like, as a token, to get William H. Prescott's article to FA. Could you exempt me from the auto-block so I can answer questions in the candidancy ? I don't mind being indeffed afterwards, and you can check that I don't edit any other page. I'm not going to come back in the near future, because I need to learn to treat the project in a mature way. I'm an aspie, and tend to be obsessed with "gaming systems" (I know about NOTTHERAPY). I hope the Wikipedia community has enough faith in me not to question my contributions on this account. I'm emailing you because from your comment at ANI it seems that you've appreciated my previous work, but you can put this up anywhere if you think anyone else might want to read it. All my previous alternate accounts have been blocked, apart from Claritas-test, which you might want to (just used to see what welcomecreation looks like). Many thanks, Claritas.

I do not think that, based on the consensus here, unblocking would be a good idea, especially due to this admission of using even more socks. I have also blocked Claritas-test (talk · contribs). I am just posting this message on here as xe indicated on xyr talk page that xe was unable to communicate due to the block. Thank you, —fetch·comms 22:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Standard offer (that is, one year with no socking) seems to be the best that could be done for this account now. You might want to add other conditions (full disclosure of all socks, etc...) but i haven't looked into it enough to say more. As for his desire to bring an article to FA -- well, if he has a friend in goodstanding here, they can proxy for him if they care enough. But the kind of socking involved shouldn't be tolerated -- ever -- and his personal desire to "just do one more thing, so please conditionally unblock me" should be refused.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• SO is an essay and one with many issues, can't support it. The block is indefinite and any unblock discussion needs to be had in a central place and a consensus formed. The community was abused, the community can decided at some future time if they want to let her back in.--Crossmr (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Based on the email provided, there is no choice but to permanently ban this user unless and until they undertake to not do what they did. In a year let's revisit this. As to the FA... this is one of those cases, I think, where the good of Wikipedia is best served by allowing Claritas to comment. Use a specific section of their talkpage and transclude into the FA nom as needed. → ROUX ₪ 00:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should prejudge. Let her conduct during the FAC be a test. I am glad she has come clean, if indeed she has. Then, if she asks for an unblock at some future point, we will have evidence of conduct after the block to help us make a determination.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The articles so far claimed to be hoaxes created by the bad-hand accounts, in the above electronic mail quotation and in discussions elsewhere, are:

• Paulius Galaunė (AfD discussion) — cleaned up by Renata3 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Jonas Asevičius-Acukas

Uncle G (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

VolkovBot overly eager to remove interwiki links

VolkovBot is an interwiki update bot run by ru:User:Volkov in a reckless manner. It should be blocked unless and until its operator is willing to run it in a more responsible manner.

See its recent contributions - removing some or all interwikis, some to articles that are redirects to the right topic, others that appear to be completely correct. Particularly egregious was the removal of almost all interwiki links on Input. Apparently it is being run in -auto and -force mode, despite the general feeling that this is a bad idea.

Volkov has been contacted in the past about this and merely created a note arguing that it's up to other bots or humans to repair the links it breaks.

I am sure there are some good edits in there. However, it is not worth the cost. One incorrect action means someone has to figure out how to restore links on any number of languages and somehow figure out what is annoying it lest it do it again - and that assumes a person with the skill to do so is watching.

The bot is currently making about one edit every two minutes on the English Wikipedia (and of course more elsewhere). GreenReaper (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the bot for now. It's an indefinite block but other admins are welcome to unblock as soon as this problem is resolved. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I would also note that VolkovBot's bot flag was speedily approved three years ago with no discussion and with obvious errors in the submission ("X edits per TIME", no mention of period). It also says it is to be run in "automatic supervised" mode. The 24-hour operation suggests otherwise. GreenReaper (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The BAG request, which was approved.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted some of the bot's edits, including the one above. ~NerdyScienceDude 03:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• That's right, the bot is run in auto-force mode but ONLY when it processes interwiki conflicts. In some cases multiple redirects or article status mismatch (normal article vs. disambig, like here) cause complex interwiki conflicts and the bot is unable to resolve them in a single run. In this case it tries to restore valid direct links later based on it's removal log. Interwiki conflicts are in fact multiple and have accumulated over the years. I feel like fixing errors is in no way reckless, and bot's edits are in fact analysed and manually fixed whenever possible (e.g. like here or here). Simply reverting bot's edits is not a good idea since all problematic links are restored and the conflict remains preventing the bots from keeping valid interwiki links up to date. My or any other bot will then restore valid links. You may see e.g. this page history where the links were reverted and restored back by different bots until they were manually fixed. I suggest unblocking the bot. It may seem to be overly eager - that's because it's processing the list of conflicts from the English wikipedia (NB: large page!) right now. Please let the bot do it's job and be a bit more patient and bot-friendly ;-) --Volkov ^(?!) 05:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What seems strange to me is that your bot was approved with zero discussion, and that request wasn't even filed correctly(as noted above).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot be sure why there was no discussion. It was 3.5 years ago. The bot was already active and approved on several other wikis at that time. Maybe this was the reason for the prompt approval at en.wiki. --Volkov ^(?!) 06:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Just like disputes at other wikis have no place here, neither should bots, just because they are in use on other wikis, be approved without any discussion.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That was not my fault ;-) --Volkov ^(?!) 07:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really commenting on this specific case, just giving some background. Generally interwiki bots using the pywikipedia framework are speedily approved, since they are all essentially the same, and it's been proven to be uncontroversial. Normally they aren't approved quite as quickly as this bot, since there are still come things which each individual bot needs to sort out (e.g. the force/auto mode, editing templates, exclusion compliance). These days I doubt you'll find a request approved after 30 minutes. Also, with interwiki bots, the bots edits on other wikis are considered, in fact, bots with global flags are automatically approved to do interwiki here (don't think this bot has a global flag, but just an example of the bot's global edits having an effect on if it's approved here) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it has. --Volkov ^(?!) 08:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are there multiple bots doing this interwiki stuff instead of just one? This is not "the encyclopedia that every bot can edit". When they said "everyone" they weren't thinking of bots. 75.57.241.73 (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Processing the conflict list with a bot is missing the point. The articles were placed on that list because pywikipedia couldn't figure out how to handle them without potentially removing useful information. That indicates human interaction is required. A more appropriate solution would be to use a bot to drop a note on the talk page of the articles in question informing them that there may be an issue. Bear in mind that many things marked as "conflicts" may make perfect sense, since articles are arranged differently in different languages (see below). GreenReaper (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see the problem. VolkovBot removed article interwikies from a disambiguation page. That's right because such cross links cause interwikiconflicts. Articles should link to articles and disambigs to disambigs. The block of the bot doesn't solve the problem in any way because all pywikipedia bots work that way. Please unblock. --Obersachse (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because everyone has access to the same axe does not justify giving it to an idiot (pywikipedia) and letting them run around unsupervised 24 hours a day in a busy street. :-)

You have a particular idea of how the wiki should be setup. But in the real world, this is not the case. Two related topics that have a disambiguation page in English may be covered in a single article on another language. And even if there is a correct non-disambiguation article, it is better from the reader's perspective to link to the disambiguation page than not to link to anything at all, which is what happens when the bot removes the link.

There is also the matter of removing links from "detail" articles in one languages pointing to a more general article that combines two or more topics in a different language; for example, from en:Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords to de:Galactic Civilizations#Galactic Civilizations 2: Dread Lords (which naturally links back to en:Galactic Civilizations). These links are correct from a reader perspective because that is where the topic is covered, and removing them because Pywikipedia cannot understand the situation is not an acceptable solution. GreenReaper (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What is better for the reader? Less, but right interwikilinks or more links, but partial wrong? I prefer less but absolutely right. You may have another point of view. --Obersachse (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm when you are running interwiki conflicts is the exact time you should definitely not be running -auto with -force. Because that is when it will make mistakes. -DJSasso (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

-force with -noredirect. This is the only way to clean up multiple interwiki conflicts and restore valid direct links afterwards. The very same situation was discussed in detail today on the German Wikipedia and also on my talk page. Keeping the bot blocked, or locking the pages, or making edit wars with bots is not helpful at all. Problems remain for ages and what is affected first is the quality of Wikipedia. --Volkov ^(?!) 20:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Threats of Violence + Vandalism: Dynamic Pittsburgh Area ISP's

Dynamic IP addresses in the Pittsburgh area have been vandaliaing the polling results in the PA gubernatorial election here, and adding misquotes, unsourced and undo material to the candidate's website (see here). Tonight, it escalated to the comment: "I ddn't, you fucking piece of garbage. I hope you get shot in the face." I would appreciate it if this would be dealt with, and with an appropriate level of seriousness - given the threat of extreme violence. Thanks John2510 (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected Tom Corbett for a month and semi-protected Talk:Tom Corbett for a week. Pennsylvania gubernatorial election, 2010 was fully-protected by Toddst1 for three days. I think that should solve the problem. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

24.23.213.172 posting offensive text in BLP

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

I'm not 100% sure of the proper place to post this, but this seemed like the best option. Here is the offensive text. I have reverted the edit but I think that it would be best to delete it. HumphreyW (talk) 06:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the guy was convicted, and the IP was making run-of-the-mill vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's just simple vandalism. Next time something like this happens, report it to WP:AIV. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

JIDF sock redux

From the JIDF's Twitter feed[51]:

• HELP THE JIDF: Create accounts on Wikipedia, make 10 simple edits over a few days' time and send login details to: admin@thejidf.org #tcot about 5 hours ago via web

It seems we're going to have to enact stricter restrictions on the articles. Maybe an edit filter or two. Admins are also going to have to watch the article and block any suspicious accounts on sight.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol. This is worse than the time Stephen Colbert encouraged viewers to vandalize Elephant :P -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Haha, considering that he has over 53,000 followers, that is something to think about. Besides, we wouldn't know which pages they're targeting. Bejinhan talks 10:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Internet Defence Force & (I suppose) other Israel related articles (maybe Muslim articles), this is an ongoing problem. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Previous experience with sockpuppets from this source indicates that there will probably be activity at the JIDF article, but not much elsewhere. This activity seems intended to generate attention; the JIDF got press coverage back in 2008 but is now old news. The content disputes in the JIDF article are trivial. WP:DRAMA applies. --John Nagle (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think their focus is just on the article about them this time. This seems to be much larger and may involve much more than just the JIDF. However, I note what is happening on their fan page on Facebook here (37,800+ "likes") and on this big (160,000+ likes) "Jews" page here. This seems to be a widespread mass canvassing effort by Zionists to try to get their POV into this project. Is there a way we can protect all Israel/Jewish/Islam related material from them? --91.210.105.30 (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And note the JIDF/Appletree's latest comment on the Facebook thread: "We're asking people who aren't already involved with Wikipedia to create accounts for us to use, as necessary." This suggests that they are building up a reserve of sleeping socks, without using the same IP more than once. Is there any way we can check/tag all new account creations, so that we can quickly spot when they are misused? RolandR (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Protect if from "them?" Content in these wikipedia articles is already largely driven by ideological gangs. The Jets are currently seeking new recruits for a gang war. I suspect he'll probably get 10-15 meatpuppets/sockpuppets out of it when it's all said and done.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't panic. The "JIDF" appears to be one person with a web site, some Facebook pages, a Twitter feed, and a "blog radio" account. He has little backing from the larger Jewish organizations. (He complains about that on his blog radio feed.[52]) This isn't a major organization like the ADL or AIPAC. Two years on, JIDF has no organization, no meetings, no legal existence, and no "members" other than Facebook and Twitter followers. So just watch for new accounts that edit the JIDF article and read like the previous batch of sockpuppets. And remember it's all a bid for attention; the content issues are minor. WP:TROLL and WP:DENY are useful here. This is a nuisance, not a conspiracy. --John Nagle (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(I think Appletree knows this, so WP:BEANS need not apply) Until he starts actually using said accounts, they would be coming from all over the place, making them impossible to check. –MuZemike 18:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We are probably gonna use a strict WP:DUCK and take these puppets on a case by case basis. Appletree's voice is distinct, so i aint to worried as i highly doubt any established editors are going to turn over their usernames and passwords. So account created after today (especially the first 48 hors after the post.) editing JIDF are pretty easy to deal with. We block POV pushers on political and religous topics all the time so I doubt this is much an issue as we think. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Grammar nit-picking on discussion pages

Resolved

 – User blocked for one week by Fram and cautioned against future similar behaviour. –xeno^talk 16:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There's been an ongoing kerfuffle involving Cuddlyable3 (talk · contribs) at the Reference Desk, where any errors of grammar or spelling draw him to offer sarcastic corrections, disingenuous questions feigning confusion, or even long-winded tirades wherein he insists that other editors are deliberately misusing "it's" versus "its" (or is it the other way around?) in their writing. C3 has been encouraged to vent his grammatical spleen on Wikipedia articles to his heart's content, but advised to leave minor errors in discussion pages and talk page posts alone: User talk:Cuddlyable3#Reference-Desk woes. Currently, he's actively harassing User:APL on his talk page (User talk:APL#Bottle shape) where he has continued to post on APL's talk page despite being twice told not to (in that thread). APL made a third, explicit request yesterday to C3 to either cease and desist or take the matter to a higher-level forum ([53]); I was hopeful that that would settle the matter. Unfortunately, today C3 instead decided follow up with another salvo on APL's talk: [54], [55].

While I would normally just write this off as a contributor being silly over nothing and encourage him to have a cup of tea, this particular case is part of a pattern. In the last week or so, C3 has started at least three threads on Wikipedia talk:Reference Desk, bemoaning the state of grammatical knowledge among Wikipedia editors in general, or specifically attacking and belittling other Reference Desk volunteers.

• 30 August: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#IT'S is the contraction of IT IS
• 1 September: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#In the beginning was the Word (uncollapse the box for absurdity).
• 6 September: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Unpopular guideline? (uncollapse the box for more absurdity).

Additionally, on 30 August I asked him not to make snide posts on the Ref Desk itself when other editors made minor (but utterly comprehensible) errors of grammar. The thread is currently at User talk:TenOfAllTrades#Please don't post snide comments about other editors' grammar on the Ref Desk, as C3 is unwilling to retain any posts critical of his conduct on his own talk page.

Despite being told repeatedly to just move on, he just can't help trying to keep making a disruptive WP:POINT. I was on the receiving end of attacks from C3 in July (in yet another, similar overreaction, C3 responded to an editor calling him a "grammar nazi" by slapping up pictures of Gestapo victims, called another editor who removed a non-free image a "Holocaust denier", issued a timed ultimatum for another editor to consent to mediation over unspecified issues, and called me a "Nazi trivializer") so I don't feel it would be appropriate to issue blocks myself.

Regrettably, C3's grammar obsession has reached the point where it is disruptive to the Reference Desk — not only is he repeatedly clogging the talk page with long screeds on the same topics, but he is also harassing the other volunteers who offer a great deal of their own time and effort to help respond to visitors' queries. Asking him over and over to stop hasn't worked; I am now asking for a block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you pointed them to the talkpage behaviour guideline section, where the first two sentences are, "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. "? As it is part of the WP collegiate environment not to harrass other editors on grammatical lapses, then it might be pointed out that they are being disruptive rather than just pointy - and that sanctions are a real possibility. Personally, I think they should be given one more chance, now being aware that it is they that are in violation of WP practice, to amend their behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC) I issued such a warning. I should think that if it continues, any admin may enforce a short block in the first instance. LessHeard vanU (talk)

He is well aware of that guideline. He reads it as only prohibiting outright editing of others comments, while providing unlimited license for snide remarks and ranting tirades. Algebraist 13:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I likewise don't feel I'm in a position to act as an administrator, but I think we're easily past the point of initial awareness. C3 knows, and has known for some time, that the community disapproves of his behavior, finds it disruptive, etc, etc. His response has been to escalate the conflict, twisting policies to support his crusade. I'm not objecting particularly to "one more chance", just noting that the rationale LHvU has offered is (while worthwhile) not terribly applicable. — Lomn 13:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

((edit conflict) I am slow to post; I had written this in response to LHvU's note.) Not to mention that this is a serious problem under the civility policy: "belittling a fellow editor". For one example, "I can guess what you tried and failed to write in English". This is absolutely unacceptable. I agree with LessHeard vanU, but if this contributor has already been specifically advised of WP practice would think immediate sanctions not amiss. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) He has posted at least twice a selected quotation from elsewhere in that guideline (the 6 September thread on WT:RD, and the thread linked on my talk page); I don't think the problem is a lack of policy awareness. He reads the passage "Do not edit apparent mistaken homophone contractions in comments of others. One may only ask the poster what they meant to say" as meaning that he can and should post an snide question in response whenever he sees a grammatical or typographical error, no matter how unambiguous the meaning of the passage might be from context. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ten... please tell me the section title was meant as sarcasm?  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 13:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, good lord — I wish it were. That's what I get for typing before coffee. The worst part is that C3 will think I was being an idiot deliberately. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, with an anchor so I don't break any incoming links to the section. Gah. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Administrators may refer to the talkpage guidelines from which LessHeard vanU has correctly quoted.

It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule – with some specific exceptions outlined below – is, that you should not delete the comments of other editors without their permission.

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user or someone acting at their explicit request. Do not edit apparent mistaken homophone contractions in comments of others. One may only ask the poster what they meant to say.

If anyone feels I have violated "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning" then I offer my abject apology, which they may have directly if they will be kind enough to provide a diff that shows the offence. A separate subject of apparent mistaken homophone contractions, or more lucidly "messed up apostrophes", is addressed in the last two sentences of the guideline quoted above. I think it would be good now for any admin who is not involved in work at Ref Desk to advise whether the guideline is adequate. Until that happens, it is a guideline that was kept up to now by consensus. I have no argument with that. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That guideline should be understood in context with other policies and guidelines - such as WP:CIVIL, which asks us to participate in a respectful and considerate manner - deriding other editors with rude and disrespectful commentary about minor grammar isn't really on board. Kindly cease out the behaviour in question. –xeno^talk 13:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There are several issues here. Firstly you seem to be being awkward and violating the spirit of the community. It could even be judged as uncivil. Secondly the first line states: so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. This is quite clear in not referring just to editing but to correcting someone generally. Persistent correction of their grammar in the wrong forum is definitely uncivil and in violation of that guideline. Is what you are saying adding to the conversation? Is it helpful or constructive? Is their meaning unclear when you make these comments? From a quick review the answer is no, not really. Such action is, again, against policy. Finally, there seems a strong consensus for you not to do this, I advise you stop. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel you have violated the policy Wikipedia:Civility by belittling fellow editors and have linked to an example above where you said to an editor "I can guess what you tried and failed to write in English". Contributors are not required to be perfect in writing; however, we are required to deal respectfully and civilly with other contributors. In addition, your persistence seems problematic under the policy Wikipedia:Harassment, as it "appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor (Cuddlyable3) for one week for harassment and disruptive editing (including continued wikilawyering). His comment in this discussion makes it clear that no change in behaviour is to be expected, despite the multiple discussions about this and the fact that many editors have indicated that his behaviour is unacceptable or at least very unproductive. As always, if there is consensus to overturn this block, or if someone feels that a reasonable unblock request is made, then I have no objections to any admin changing this block. Fram (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's some indication of understanding the issue, that seems reasonable to me. Previous history of harassment blocks suggests that this is not a new approach to working with others. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Reference desk (the main refdesk project-space pages, not just their WT: counterparts) are discussion pages, visited by lots of non-fluent English speakers (including some very knowledgable mathematicians at the math desk) and nobody should care about imperfect use of English there. If someone ask an English grammar question at the Language desk, that's the right place to address the fine points. Otherwise don't worry about it. There's enough trolling at refdesk already without this extra nuisance. Endorse WP:TROUT with admin sanctions to follow if the problem goes on. 75.57.241.73 (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: Fram's block (with the conditions specified) is fine. 75.57.241.73 (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Cuddly's argument seems to be that we need to respond to questions in perfect English, in order to (subtly) better educate the questioner. I think that's a laudable goal in theory, but that he carries it too far in practice. As discussed on the ref desk talk page, he should take his complaints to the responder's talk page rather than doing it on the ref desk, and he should be much more gentle about it. And if someone tells him to stop correcting his usage, he should stop, with that particular user. Correcting other people's usage "in public" is extremely rude. I'm also kind of a stickler for usage, at heart, especially my own, but I almost always let it slide when I see it in others. I'm always glad to hear from Cuddly when I make an error. But some others would just as soon be left alone, and that's their right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That argument sounds close to trolling. I'm a mathematics refdesk regular, and several math experts answering questions there are non-native English speakers who make English errors all the time, but their mathematical advice is invaluable no matter how bad their English is. Bugging folks about their English in contexts like that is about the dumbest thing anyone could do. 75.57.241.73 (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." –xeno^talk 19:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Usually, yes, surely; I merely plead that we not robotically slave the RD rules to whatever policies have been agreed upon for article talk pages, which exist for a very different purpose. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In any event, WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASSMENT are universal. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes; as I wrote above, I'm not disputing any measures taken above. I'm only trying to head off any future classification of the Reference Desk as an article talk page. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The ref desks are kind of a special case. They are clearly not articles. They're structured like talk pages. But they're not quite talk pages either. Cuddly's error is in his notion that the rigors of English usage in articles should apply to the ref desks just because they are technically not talk pages. But they are closer to being talk pages than to being articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support this block. Pages and pages of interminable pointless conversation have made it clear to this user that his behavior is disruptive, and she's been warned to stop by several people, including myself. Since neither discussion nor warning has been effective in stopping the unpleasant behavior, the block is necessary. (To be honest, I had rather thought she would stop, and stopped reviewing her edits after a few days past my warning. I'm disappointed to have been wrong.) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Another Dr.Mukesh111 sock

Resolved

 – Indef blocked GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Fightiznt over (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The now banned user [56] Dr.Mukesh111 is back with yet another sock. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 14:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as duck. A CU seeing this thread may need to run a sleeper check, but I doubt a separate SPI is needed. —fetch·comms 15:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And another one

Crossingover now (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 15:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Mumble. I had seen Fightiznt over while doing RC patrolling and was wondering whose sock that was. Crossingover now blocked. CU requested. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've fully protected Zeba and Playback singer for a week due to his collection autoconfirmed sleepers. If a rangeblock is feasible, a CU needs to do it. —fetch·comms 15:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed

• Fightiznt over (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) = ProudandRapid (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) = Zedoxxx (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) = Crossingover now (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

However, a rangeblock isn't very feasible - it's a wide range and there are quite a few legitimate accounts that would be caught up in it. TNXMan 16:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. —fetch·comms 16:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I think this is now resolved, for here, for the moment anyway. Restoring the hidden comment Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 16:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Honor rally

Resolved

 – Page protected for 7 days, editors encouraged to work for consensus on talk page before making changes. --WGFinley (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an ongoing dispute about the Restoring Honor rally crowd size section. A handful of editors, such as User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous and an IP user who uses different IP addresses, are trying to undermine the section by filling it with POV. Many attempts have been made to resolve the issue on the talk page but these editors refuse to comply. They are fixed on trying to prove two certain estimates, made by CBS/AirPhotosLive.com and Stephen Doig, are the only "scientific" estimates and thus the only ones to be taken seriously. Needless to say these two estimates are among the lower estimates out there. Estimates by many other reliable media outlets such as NBC have been removed or undermined. Several tags have been placed on the section -- POV, Debate, and undue weight. Several editors have warned the users and attempted to resolve the issue on talk but to no avail. Not only are the edits in violation of Wikipedia standards but they contain poor grammar. Examples:

• Here, the editor tried to "debunk" a certain estimate.
• Here, the editor removed important information about the physical size of the crowd and "critiqued" an "unscientific" estimate.
• Here, the editor inserted a source of questionable notability criticizing non-CBS estimates when earlier he had removed a criticism of CBS's estimate, saying it was not notable.

These are just a few examples I can find at the moment with my limited time. It is not Wikipedia's place to decide which estimates are "scientific" or not and which are to be taken seriously. We need to report all estimates. These users reject this.

I am asking for assistance on this article. Thank you. BS24 (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Response: Objections have been made to good faith edits.

The editor asserts that"It is not Wikipedia's place to decide which estimates are 'scientific' or not and which are to be taken seriously. We need to report all estimates. These users reject this."

Early on this might have been the case, and since it was a valid point, later edits of mine never rated estimate as unscientific or not without citation. See: [57]

• Here, the editor tried to "debunk" a certain estimate.

It would be helpful if the editor was less oblique. The editor seems be referring to a nonexistent estimate of NBC's of 300,000 which by citations, has been both misreported and debunked. Here is the relevant Talk discussion.[58] Since bad reporting of crowd size estimates is central to the controversy endemic to these estimates, the bogus nature of the NBC number was explained to give context, and my hope is that this is restored to the article. I did unsuccessfully try to find a source for NBC actually releasing an estimate of 300,000, and the editor is welcome to try, but so far, the editor has made no attempt to establish the alleged NBC estimate as valid.

• Here, the editor removed important information about the physical size of the crowd and "critiqued" an "unscientific" estimate.

The editor seems to be again referring again the NBC estimate I left in a edit which I had since changed substantially making it now moot.

Regarding the "packed" sentence. This is not an estimate at all, it's hyperbole. Previously the 1st sentence of the paragraph said that the crowd was a large open event. To avoid having the first two sentences being redundant, the first one was removed.

• Here, the editor inserted a source of questionable notability criticizing non-CBS estimates when earlier he had removed a criticism of CBS's estimate, saying it was not notable.

This is the first I've heard of the editor condemning On The Media as "a source of questionable notability". Since we have no idea of why the the editor is skeptical, there's no way of responding to this.

As for who "removed a criticism", this accusation is troubling and cause for concern. Per an edit summary,[59] BS24 said he/she was "Removing blogger sentence per further consideration." . [60]. The editor has not engaged in any any further attempt to defend the source found to be unusable in this case.

The blogger at issue who attempted to find fault with CBS's estimate has been thoroughly proven to be unreliable in this Talk discussion,[61]. After which the editor had quit the discussion, so we have no idea why the editor still feels source deserves inclusion. I would hardly refer to such a poor source by "saying it was not notable", and possibly infer that it was valid but just not that important, I object to an apparent attempt to put words in my mouth and misrepresent my concerns regarding the source. see:[62]

The editor says that I have maintained that the CBS and Doig have made "the only 'scientific' estimates and thus the only ones to be taken seriously." I know of no other scientific estimates made public by anyone with experience in the matter. On The Media unequivocally stated that there was a problem with scientific and unscientific estimates being given "equal weight." And Doig said statistical estimates were the only way to get numbers based in reality, but these citations are not in the current protected edit. This was done by citation of reliable sources. Regarding it is "Needless to say these two estimates are among the lower estimates out there." I have no idea what is being alluded to and would urge the editor to explain it further or withdraw it since it seems to suggest bad faith.

Most of these issues have been dealt with, or should be dealt with on the Talk page, especially the new arrival of whether or not On The Media is a notable source. In general regarding the crowd size estimates, the editor is not able to make good arguments why an unscientific estimates deserve equal weight. Most of the unscientific sources are briefly mentioned because there are so few of them. Because they do not reveal there protocols and procedures of estimation. (They often do not source the estimates, so where they came from is unknown.) There is simply not much to say about them. There has been a suggestion that the scientific methods are given too much attention, and I agree. This could be reduced and improve the section.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the article history and talk page there was clear evidence of an ongoing edit war. I've protected the page for one week so the editors can work out their differences on the talk page to achieve consensus. --WGFinley (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to add it is not so easy to work constructively on this article if an editor uses "questionable" methods to reach his "goals", for example BS24 in this case.82.135.29.209 (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Meeso- personal attacks gone too far?

Resolved

 – User warned of Macedonia sanctions and admonished not to make further threats. --WGFinley (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been concerned about Meeso (talk · contribs) for a while. I gave him a 3R warning two weeks ago [63] and noticed his uncivil behaviour then. Edit summaries such as "go fuck yourself !! deleting bullshit on my talk page" (on his talk page) and " IT IS NOT ANY LESS SIGNIFICANT THAN OTHER INFO! STOP YOUR IGNORANT BALLYRAG! OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT THIS!" [64] are clearly not acceptable. I was considering going to WQA but then found an odd message on his talk page [65] from an IP which was clearly a response to a request for the name of an editor/Administrator editing Kosovo. His request is at [66] and says " Please tell me his name and I shall put him down for ever! I assure you if what you say is true, this admin will be lost from this article and maybe Wikipedia altogether!". I'll notify him now. Note that his sig reads 'Maysara'. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that his threat is probably just shooting the breeze, but it's still unacceptable. He needs to retract it or be blocked. I can put up with a lot in the way of incivility, but threatening editors is beyond the pale. And Eastern Europe articles are already volatile enough. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

His personal attacks and incivility are not just restricted to Eastern Europe. This (both the comment and the edit summary) is typical of his pattern of incivility and personal attacks at Talk:Egyptian Arabic. While not of the magnitude of his threats against Dbachmann, it is still indicative of his overall attitude. --Taivo (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo is protected by general sanctions I have warned him[67] and logged the warning.[68] I've also directed him to withdraw the threat or risk being blocked. --WGFinley (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I retracted my statement (which was not a threat, although of course it is understandable to be thus interpreted by the admin). Maysara (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but any reasonable legal proceeding would determine that to be a threat. --Chris (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

So, what happens when a user warned of discretionary sanctions moves to a topic area not covered by them? Is it just regular content dispute again? --Selket ^Talk 18:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

He's been warned about his behavior here and even if it went outside of sanctions that would still be looked at. If he acts in a simiar manner again free free to report it. --WGFinley (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Outing

Unless I'm mistaken(and granted, I haven't done much digging), the IP's post is outing and should be deleted/reverted, and rev-deleted.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Considered that but the user he named edits under his real name and no other information was revealed I don't think it's outing. --WGFinley (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Last I checked, 'D' was not his first name.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a post on Dab's talk page referring to the old thread with the full name that's still there. However deleting it seems a bit pointless to me since I find plenty of discussions which include Dab's first name including ANI itself 203.184.61.141 (talk) 08:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Acid Bomb

Resolved

Can someone please take a look at Acid Bomb? The article is nothing more than instructions on making a potentially dangerous object. There is currently a prod tag on the page but I was wondering if this can be deleted sooner as something WP should not be hosting. If WP:NOTHOWTO is the only policy violation here and there's nothing that warrants immediate deletion that's fine; I just thought I'd ask the question. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks. We have no CSD for that, but per IAR I have deleted it. --Chris (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Salted also, someone will need to explain why and what before using that title again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as y'all are IARing, you might want to salt Acid bomb as well. -Atmoz (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipolice

Resolved

 – The Cabal has authorized me to certify this as resolved with no action. You don't know, you don't want to know. --WGFinley (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:WikiPolice acceptable? I thought we discouraged this sort of thing... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it's really only intended to be the kind of jokey fauna that is always around. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's humorous. Wikipedia:Village stocks and Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars aren't necessary for the project either, but I wouldn't want them to go away. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly an attempt to be humorous. I find it... not so funny. Doesn't mean it's discouraged, other than by a wide response of "eh, whatever". Jclemens (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh thanks(!) You're looking at the author. Never mind, to each their own of course. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if that seemed too harsh--I don't doubt other people might find it funny--I just don't. Jclemens (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As with the movie Office Space, perhaps the idea is funnier than the execution of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You take that back right now! That movie was/is awesome. Like a hundred million hot dogs. Protonk (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It was good, just not as good as I was expecting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Then you're wrong. As to the substance of this ANI report: the page is pretty weak, but well within the current essay guidelines. I'm not sure what C&E is accomplishing with it, but that doesn't matter. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

At this rate, I expect we will shortly have articles on the jokey fauna Wikipedia:WikiNyarlathotep, Wikipedia:WikiOnychophora and Wikipedia:WikiBicycle Repairman. (Omigawd, did I just trigger WP:BEANS?) -- llywrch (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes

My understanding is that pending changes has now been turned off. Is this correct? Articles have been being semi-protected to preserve the PC functionality, for example here. Is this the correct course? I just wanted to make sure everyone is on the same page. --Selket ^Talk 18:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, perhaps I should have been more clear in my log entry. I meant to say that PC was exhibiting limited effectiveness at preventing vandalism at Israel. Now of course, if there is consensus to use PC on Israel, I'll gladly revert. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is still forming to whether to expand the trial or stop using PC. However, Fastily's change seems appropriate given the article's history. —fetch·comms 22:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Pfagerburg Topic Ban Indefinite Block

Resolved

 – Submitting user blocked under WP:NLT and WP:SOCK. --WGFinley (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul Fagerburg was topic banned from editing or taking action against any sockpuppets of Jeff Merkey. Yesterday, yet again, Paul Fagerburg went after an article which mentions my work in Linux MDB (Linux), tagged it as speedy delete with false allegations claiming it was a sockpuppet of me. It was not. The article was written by John Noorda, Ray Noorda's son who was writing about Novell stuff. The Ip Address resolves to John Noorda's home and is attached to a gateway called "WizNet". Fagerburg need to be be indef blocked. John can write about what he wants. Ownership of his IP address can be verified. I note Fagerburg also went and reverted all John's edits on MDB. Paul Fagerburg filed a lawsuit against me in 2009 and lost and since he has been involved in legal proceedings, he is simply here on vendetta. WP:COI applies here and he has already been blocked once by the ARBCOM for stalking and now continues. Paul Fagerburg ran a website called "Pagan Savage" which I had shutdown by the Courts in 2005 for online harassment and death threats. He is simply continuing his psychotic vicious pattern of personal revenge. Restore John's article and follow the rules guys and stop catering to people with vendettas. Thanks Jeff Merkey. 71.219.58.113 (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that RestoreJohnArticle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just recreated this article. - MrOllie (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

...and now it's been deleted under both G4 (AFD recreation) and G5 (Banned user). I've notified Pfagerburg that this was posted here, as the IP copied it to the user's talk page without actually saying "this is at ANI". UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked this IP user all of his edits were related to legal threats and outing of another user. This isn't the proper venue for this type of thing, it should go to the WP:OFFICE. --WGFinley (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Turns out this user is indefinitely blocked and the IP was used to circumvent it. Case closed and IP blocked. --WGFinley (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Admin evaluation requested please

Resolved

 – No admin action required. –xeno^talk 20:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If anyone has a moment, could they read User:Herostratus's comments at Talk:Gokkun#RFC_on_Image_Inclusion - I feel they cross the line. Exxolon (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Herostratus is no longer an administrator. Tiptoety ^talk 19:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say that Herostratus's comments are pointed, but they are perfectly appropriate under the right circumstances. Not being familiar with the subject matter, I have no idea if these are the right circumstances, but I see nothing which on its face crosses the line. I would not make a habit of expressing myself so strongly, though, but limit its use. --Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling other editors "useful idiots" is now acceptable?!? Exxolon (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

He didn't, he called them catspaws and linked to our article on the concept. If you're deeply offended for yourself that's your privilege, and if you are deeply offended on other people's behalf that's very empathic of you, but either way this is not the complaints department. What is that article for anyway? Apart from the cachet of using a Japanese word, ooh!, it's surely covered in fellatio. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Timmy Polo

Timmy Polo (talk · contribs) was blocked in April for repeatedly adding unnecessary plot details to film articles, and was warned several times. He previously edited as an IP (99.88.78.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) and the IP was blocked for 3 months. Timmy Polo socked many times (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timmy Polo/Archive), and each time showed a lack of competence and clue to be editing Wikipedia. The 3 month block on that IP has expired, and he immediately began adding unnecessary plot details to articles. I am asking, first off, that User:99.88.78.94 be blocked for more than 3 months this time, and perhaps that a community ban take effect. Timmy has indicated on several occasions that he currently attends college (he edited from the West Hills Community College IP, 198.189.228.4, so I don't think it's a matter of him being young and immature. He has socked 14 times, and has continually lied about his name in his repeated unblock attempts. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that his hosting provider keeps the same IP address for so long, but I can't deny the similarity in editing pre- and post-block. Looks like the same person. My inclination, now that he's been fairly warned a couple times, is to apply a longer block immediately upon the next incident. Although I won't object if someone else decides to block anyway. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Again. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

99.88.78.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has just been blocked for one year. I still want to start a discussion about a community ban for Timmy Polo. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

Resolved

 – Unbacklogged. TFOWR 23:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

AIV is slightly backlogged, if an admin could take a look, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Gero II

Ummmm... not sure if this is a browser problem or something and if this is the appropriate place to report this, but when I try to go to the article on Gero II all I get is either a black screen (in IE) or a black screen with just the Wikipedia logo and the tab for article (in Safari). Clicking on the "article" tab does not solve the problem. AFAIK this is the only article that this happens with.radek (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have the same issue (it's actually with the page to which Gero II redirects, Gero II, Margrave of the Saxon Ostmark.) The edit page doesn't seem out of the ordinary... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone had inserted some CSS that created a black screen. Removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks.radek (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason that we don't have a filter for position:fixed in articlespace? I understand that it's essential for daft user pages and the like, but I can't see any plausible reason to allow it on articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Shakira 2010 Tour (its become a bit of a mess)

Resolved

 – Mess cleaned up and move protection applied by Graham87

Ok this is less of a request for administrators to act against an inidividual user its more of a case of correcting the actions of lots of users which has left a tangled mess of redirects and articles.

Background

• Shakira announced a world tour for 2010.
• The article was initially called She Wolf Tour
• This was moved to 2010 World Tour by Shakira
• which was moved to Shakira 2010 World Tour
• which was moved to Shakira 2010 Global Tour
• which was at some point also located at Tour de las Delicias
• as well as Tour of Earthly Delights
• which has just moved via copy and pasted to The Sun Comes Out World Tour.

Issues

• Multiple copy and paste moves
• Messy tangle of redirects.
• Inconsistant article history.

Suggestion

• Histomerge of Tour of Earthly Delights to The Sun Comes Out World Tour.
• Deletion of ALL of the other pages listed as then they serve little purpose.
• Move protection, as seen above there's a history of moving the article.

-- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a dedicated fan who is an admin? Because I'm not touching this one with a ten foot mic stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well as an editor who has the first or second most contributions to the article I wouldn't have requested if I wasn't sure to some sort of degree. Shakira has officially confirmed the tour title on her website if that helps. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

All done, as requested, and I've also moved the old talk page over. I'm not a Shakira fan, just a history merge fan. :-) Graham87 01:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Graham... its been an utter and complete mess. I actually lost track of everything myself and I am one of the subject's largest contributors. phew! -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

User: 214.15.218.60

This user has been warned multiple times (eight thus far) about vandalizing Wikipedia yet continues to do so. The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 23:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you reported it to WP:AIV? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No vandalism since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Report to WP:AIV that is. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Gypsydog5150: Threats of violence, block evasion, sock puppetry, 3RR, vandalism... and other abusive behavior.

Last night an admin made this block of the IP account that made this edit directed to me on a talk page: "I didn't, you fucking piece of garbage. I hope you get shot in the face."

At about the same time, the articles from which this all arose (the PA gubernatorial election and candidate Tom Corbett) were protected by other admins: here and here and here

Page protection (and perhaps the block) forced the blocked IP user to emerge from his IP sockpuppets and begin using his registered account Gypsydog5150, and he has resumed the abusive behavior - despite the block imposed by an admin.

He's done a 3RR on the Tom Corbett page: here and wiped out the talk page (reverting again to the wipe after I restored it) here

These are clearly all the same editor, based on the edits on the articles in question, his various other editing patterns, and his location in Pittsburgh.

All of the IP addresses (which appear to be dynamically assigned) trace back to Verizon in Pittsburgh.

Note Gypsydog5150's contributions show an interest in:

Greensburg PA (a suburb of Pittsburgh)

A Pittsburgh company called Owens and Minor

Van_Halen

Poison

The Pittsburgh IP accounts in question show some of the same interests (and even at least one of the same edits):[69] [70] [71] [72] [73]

I note Gypsydog5150 has a history of abusive editing: [74] [75] [76] [77] [78]

It seems to me that it would be appropriate to take some stronger acction and perhaps a permanent ban, regarding this editor. I take the "I hope you get shot in the face" comment pretty seriously.

I suspect you don't want to get into the substance of the editing dispute, but I'd like to point out that after he was blocked and the pages protected, I restored the Tom Corbett page to a version closer to what he wanted than the revert imposed by the admin. here. I was trying to be fair about it.

His alteration here of the election polling numbers was pure vandalism.

Thanks. John2510 (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis, edit warring, incivility on Gold standard by 71.184.184.238

I apologize if this isn't the right place. The intricacies of WP bureaucracy elude me. There has been a long-going slow-motion edit war at Gold standard with one editor (71.184.184.238) pushing various original research via synthesis. Several editors have shown amazing patience in discussions on the talk page, but these attempts have been met with general diatribes, abuse, more synthesis, and a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The talk page has become huge with nonproductive discussions.

The user has been blocked once already for these issues, as well as trouble at Second amendment [79]. They have received several warnings on their talk page since the block [80], [81], [82].

As examples of recent behavior, This edit continues reintroducing a whole lot of material. I objected to it here because the references provided for one bit where completely inadequate. As one concrete example of the WP:OR, the material "Since the gold standard rewards savers, there is a greater pool of savings which can be used to make investments and start new industries. Under a fiat standard however, saving is penalized,[35] quite often by negative real interest rates [36]..." with that [36] being a link to these charts that provide no analysis at all, never mind a mention of either gold or fiat standards. My objections went unanswered (in any specifics, the editor says they believed they addressed the objections), so I have simply pointed back there when the material is re-inserted (as it has been several times). The most recent time the response was this. Other examples of talk page behavior included this diatribe and this bit.

The problem could be potentially solved just by semi-protecting the page (although the talk page behavior would still be a problem), but it seems more reasonable to block 71.184.184.238. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

71.184.184.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) I have blocked this IP for disruptive editing for 5 days. Previous block from July dictates the length, and the general unwillingness to hold a dialogue in a civil manner necessitates this block. Jmlk17 05:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This IP editor has also been socking.[83] Suggest a longer block if he reappears and behavior remains unchanged. LK (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

use of pages in userspace

Resolved

 – no admin action required, OP is recommended to take the feedback from here —SpacemanSpiff 05:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This section is a good example of something that needs to be addressed. I warned user about not using Wikipedia as a social network and user tells me to "get off my back and fuck off!" Meanwhile, user has continued to use talk page as a forum in follow-up edits. Civility and policy issues with this one. Atlantabravz (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• More neutral title and, given the context I see no reason for admin intevention here. If I were in the same situation I would undoubtedly react to your unwarranted lecture in similar ways. The user is contributing to article space and has wide lattitude, as does every other user, to use their userspace as they will within reason. This was well within reason. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Concur. You left a rather abrupt template on her talk page, and then complain when she doesn't take it with a thank you? There's a reason WP:DTTR is good advice, and you needed to have followed it here- or even better, to have investigated the situation some more before inserting yourself into it. If you have a problem with an experienced editor, some discussion goes a lot farther than a newbie template. Courcelles 04:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Editors will sometimes communicate in a social or friendly manner in their userspace. I have editors I know IRL or off-wiki, and discussing things of a personal nature, from time to time, does not violate WP:NOTMYSPACE. The issue is the number of social edits as relative to the number of project-relevent edits. This is I don't see where this user is any kind of a problem at all. This user is a good content editor, and I see no reason they should not be left alone. --Jayron32 05:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Especially given the sensitivity of the post referred to. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• I would also have told you to fuck off, and stop templating people who are in mourning for sharing their feelings with their friends on Wiki. I'm disgusted that this was your response to reading that post. If you had to say anything at all, words of sympathy would have been appropriate. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• I'd be spitting fire and venom if someone did that to me; I'd probably use even stronger language than that. I don't like sympathy (directed at me) much, but templating me would be far worse. I can AGF that the OP was just taking NOTMYSPACE a bit too seriously, but I hope that they don't do this again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• WP:NOTMYSPACE, as I see it, was created for people who appear to regard this place as a place to network— beyond that, I'm fairly sure we're allowed to have lives that interfere with editing once in a while, and to express that. We're a community. sonia♫ 05:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• I should also point out WP:IAR. A little friendly communication once in a while can go a long way towards cooperative editing, which leads to improvement of the project. I'd say as long it's not a user's primary purpose on this encyclopedia it's more than acceptable. elektrikSHOOS 05:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• I know this is marked "resolved", but I think there's maybe an opportunity for another bit of resolution. I once templated a good-faith content editor. They'd requested article protection at WP:RFPP, I lectured them about something entirely different, there was a heated exchange, and then I stepped back and thought about things. I went back to the editor's talkpage, apologised, and suggested we start over. We started over. I learned a huge amount of background stuff about serious issues on-wiki that the editor was dealing with in the course of her content work. Embarrassingly, the editor forgave me, and came to regard me very positively. I still have to remind her that I was a WP:DICK. She doesn't care. The editor? DocOfSoc. My point, obviously, is that this can end positively for both parties. Atlantabravz has behaved far better than I did, so I'd suggest an amicable resolution is a very real possibility. TFOWR 08:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Community Ban of user:WillBildUnion?

(Sorry if this is the wrong venue).

I was investigating the edit history on some content that appeared to just be suffering from copy-edit errors, but looking further into the user's history, it appears that he's flaunting a topic ban (Greek, Roman, Christian). I'm having difficulty finding out exactly whether or not that's the case, but I thought I might as well err on the side of reporting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Geppert (talk • contribs) 06:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

1. I don't see anything about this topic ban at WP:BANNED or WP:RESTRICT (those are not always kept up to date). Is it mentioned somewhere else?
2. Unless repeated and/or egregious, breaking topic bans is usually handled with a warning, then escalating blocks. 75.57.241.73 (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
3. The mentions I found were on his user:discussion page and here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Geppert (talk • contribs) 07:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The topic ban seems to be in the ANI archives here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - While the topic ban seems to have violated, there's no way he should be community banned for reverting vandalism[84] and adding a reference[85]. A block for the topic ban? It may seem in order, since it's not yet October 3rd, and he's edited two "Christian" articles. A community ban? When his last block was for 72 hours? Massive overkill, IMO... Doc9871 (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  There's pretty strong precedent that a ban is a ban, and that editing in spite of a ban should not be looked upon kindly even if it is benign. If the editor thinks his ban should be reviewed then he should move to make that happen rather than just flouting the sanctions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  A topic ban (where, "Users who violate such bans may be blocked.") is not a community ban. Is a "community ban" tantamount to a "site ban", or not? He should be blocked for violating his topic ban again, not banned by the community. There is a huge difference between these two "bans", and the language needs clarification for us all, I think... Doc9871 (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Enacting Community Bans

I just banned Libb Thims after a discussion at AN. Ryulong raises an interesting point about whether my block notice should include the boilerplate about how to appeal a block. I'm not sure what the policy is on that and would appreciate views on whether this should be removed and whether banned users are allowed to post unblock messages. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Err on the side of mercy. Should he request unblocking, let it be assayed on it's merits. MtD (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that banned users were not welcome to edit here at all, which includes their former user talk pages. Ban appeals can be made by email to Arbcom. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah this isn't a ban imposed by ArbCom, it's a thing that has been done by a handful of worthies on AN. All I'm suggesting is that should he post a block appeal, we should consider it. Just coz. The quality of mercy and all that. MtD (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• In regards to community bans, ban appeals are not limited to AC, and users are permitted to post unblock requests - but administrators are not permitted to accept them in the absence of a community consensus to lift the ban. The reason for this is if the user wants to appeal the ban, it's usually the administrator who notices the unblock request who will need to forward the appeal to the community. This part may not be clear from the theory outlined in policy.
• All that said, in regards to the talk page notification, a polite and less bot-like message ought to be typed and a standard block notice should probably not be used. The talkpage notice should mention the duration of the ban (if it is a definite duration), the link to discussion, and must refer the banned user to Wikipedia:Ban#Review_and_reversal_of_bans on how to appeal the measure taken (unless there are additional appeal terms in the text of supported ban - for example, some bans specifically include "may not appeal before 6 months of the ban has passed" in which case this should be specified in the notice too). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for this page?

Please excuse me if this is the wrong venue. My rationale for posting this here is that it would affect those(meaning admins) that commonly check this noticeboard.

.. To the topic,

I notice that time and time again, users post here when there is an AIV backlog. What if we simply used a template to post a notice to the top of this page when AIV became a certain size in bytes?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)