Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive601

Doddsworth5

Resolved

 – Unblock declined twice, Talk page access revoked

Can someone take a look at the contribs of Doddsworth5 (talk · contribs). I reverted some edits and someone else tagged the page Rudy and the gays. He hasn't been warned, but to me it looks like the sort of BLP hoax/vandalism that goes beyond a simple warning. (I'll leave a notice of this disussion on his page.)--Cube lurker (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've given them a final warning, I was tempted just to block them as a vandalism-only account. Fences&Windows 23:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And now indefinitely blocked. They can always appeal, but I won't be unblocking. Fences&Windows 18:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock declined. We don't need editors like this. Rodhullandemu 18:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I also took the liberty of blocking DoddsworthX, where X = 6, 9 after Doddsworth6 came knocking. All accounts were created within the same time span back in July 2007. Syrthiss (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And I just took care of 10. —DoRD (?) (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• I thought I recognised the "Rudy and the gays" thing. It appears these are all sockpuppets of Cheeselor1 and his farm, and are all now blocked. Rodhullandemu 19:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Returning vandal

Resolved

 – {{anonblock}}'d for another six months. –xeno^talk 20:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

IP editor User:66.117.103.97 returned from a 3 month block for vandalism and has made 3 edits, all vandalism. [1], [2], [3]. One is an article he previously vandalized. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Stuff like this is best handled at WP:AIV. –xeno^talk 20:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• True, but it usually gets handled much faster here. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Block review of SkagitRiverQueen

I just blocked SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs) for one week for what I saw as her continuing harassment of Crohnie (talk · contribs). However, I'm not sure this is long enough -- it's part of a editing pattern I've been seeing for a while. Can I have some more opinions on whether the block was a) appropriate and b) the correct duration? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And once again, Sarek blocks me for what he sees as an infraction, but doesn't block the other editor (Crohnie). The inequity is glaring. In fact, I'm starting to see a pattern here - the same thing happened with my last block where even editors who aren't usually "friends" noticed the inequity in my block then. Also again, Sarek seems to be using his administrative powers to punish - which is not only *not* supposed to be the way admins operate, but something only bad admins do (at least that's what a very wise admin I am acquainted with believes). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with the block qua block (it might be shorter for a first offense, since blocks are to be preventative rather than punitive), but I generally think we should do more to enforce WP:CIVIL. I do note that when an established editor did the same thing to me (right down to the insulting language), and I complained about it, I was blocked for complaining about it, so I'm a little frustrated with the double-standard. THF (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I read through that talk page and didn't see anything that bad and certainly nothing worthy of a block. The diff you provided in the block comment may have been a little snarky, but to call it uncivil is a stretch. I don't think the real question is whether the block should be longer but whether the user should have been blocked to begin with. I vote no. PhoenixPhan (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC) This account has been blocked as a probable sockpuppet created specifically for the purpose of commenting on AN/I Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't just read what's on the page, read the history, and see how many other pages she went to complaining -- including a rejected WP:AN3 report. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please *do* read through the history. Please read through the history of me trying and trying and trying and trying to work with Crohnie and then read through her history of continued incilivity toward me, her personal attacks aimed at me, and he continuous false accusations lodged against me, and her repeated bad faith concerning me. And then, be sure to look at how no one does a thing about it. Oh, wait...yes, something was done. I was blocked for reacting out of frustration due to Crohnie's continued incivility, personal attacks, false accusations, and lack of good faith. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If SkagitRiverQueen is going to have comments move here then I would like to request difs for her accusations of my supposed bad faith towards her. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In isolation, I wouldn't have blocked the editor for that one edit. However given the history, it seems appropriate. Support block.Toddst1 (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the history, you might have a better understanding of why I never should have been blocked - or with my block, the other editor should have also been blocked. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

LPerhaps we should look into her conflicting claim that she is the one being harassed? If she was being harassed` first then that should be seen as a mitigating circumstance for some "uncivil" words she may have SAID. This is all IF, as I dont know all the details but have seen in the past Skag actually get harassed in the past by other editors and the frustration she went through and not many listened or helped (and some were down right rude and should be ashamed of what they said). If someone is harassing someone through ACTIONS and then someone defends themselves and says some "uncivil" words because of frustration then no a block is not at all right. I also vote no on the block per PhoenixPhan. Having people ignore your complaints isnt a sign of incivility, its a sign that around here people are simply rude to those they dont like. Wikipedia is middle school when it comes to this stuff.Camelbinky (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A hearty amen, Camelbinky. You and I haven't always agreed on everything, but on this, you hit the nail smack-dab on the head (more than once). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well all of this went on after I left. The problems for me started with this second posting to me. I deleted the one above it because it was rude and I said so. She insisted on adding that in and to be honest I wouldn't have seen it, at least not immediately because Sarek had removed it. [4] I then got this one followed by [5] which I deleted after the complaint was closed. I went to Sarek to say thank you and ask for help [6]. She followed me there. I went to Lar who is aware of all the problems with SRQ. [7] The problem is SkagitRiverQueen. She has disputes where ever she goes. This can be seen by the history of her talk page. After I removed her comment she should have stopped. On my talk page titled Ted Bundy a new editor came by to talk to me about it. SRQ jumped in which the editor was apparently surprised about. I didn't even have a chance to respond to that editor before SRQ did. That editor is gone now as far as I know. SRQ bit him and I reminded her not to and pointed to the policy WP:Bite. Personally I think a week is too short because she was recently blocked for edit warring and then another day was added for a personal attack. She is not a victim here, I am. The post I made to her talk page she changed the title of to make it an attack on me. This was called 'For the record'. She accused me of following her to this article which is not true and I told her how I got there. You can see her response. That response is what I have to endure everytime we end up at the same article. I have tried to avoid her, ignore her and nothing works. She says she was at the Jeffrey R. MacDonald article first and that I followed her which is not true because I got to that article in Nov. '08 and her June '09. She is now on most of my watchlist so how am I supposed to handle all of this? Everything I do is being watched. So please look at the history of the different talkpages and articles. If you check the different boards like this one, Wikialert, edit warring and so on and put in her name you will see she brings editors to them a lot and most if not all of the time they are dismissed with no action needed. It's time to put a stop to this because I am not the only one having serious problems with this editor. Thanks for reading, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI SRQ's responses are being copied here from her talk page by User:PhoenixPhan, who ought to be indicating as much when they get transferred. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And has now been blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add some difs of attacks that I've had to endure prior to all of todays activities. [8], [9], [10] (this one she accuses editors of having an agenda and other things which is why I said above that there is more to this problem), [11], [12] (here she is being rude and arguing with another editor), [13] (here are two editors that are uninvolved who tried to help and got attacked for it.), [14]. If more difs are needed please just ask me. I think these show a pattern. Thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I support the block. I'm not sure about an extension. A week seems like a good escalation from the couple of days of her last block, or at least that would be the case for most users. I can't say I'm optimistic about it helping in SRQ's particular case. Crohnie is correct about SRQ being the problem here. I've watched her jump from epic rivalry to epic rivalry. She's always battling someone, and even if she starts avoiding Crohnie for fear of being blocked, I can't see this not starting up again with a new contender. Watch her closely when this expires, I guess is all I can say. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:20, 2 Mar 2010 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Equazcion. I've responded on her talk page, and I encourage others to look there for her further comments on this board (which she is not allowed to address here). My main concern is SRQ's continuing disparagement of Wildhartlivie when she was instructed not to comment on her, "...I have been a vocal opponent of one of her Wiki-friends' continued bad behavior in WP (including socking and socking during her block due to socking)..." WHL has observed her own admonition not to engage SRQ, and has not commented on any of these recent issues; yet there is obvious persistence here from SRQ against WHL and her "friends" like Crohnie. I unfortunately share Equazcion's pessimism and acknowledgment of the clear evidence of consistent battling. If SRQ could only concentrate on fighting vandals (which she does well) and avoiding endless arguments on (usually) small matters, there should be no need for an extension right now. I do wish she would "own up" to her errors and stop blaming others, but I can't have any effect on that. I would like to see SRQ remain as a positive contributor to WP, but certain glaring behaviors simply must change in order to avoid the seemingly constant conflicts centered around her. There are simply too many blocks and not enough admission of inappropriate behavior for this pattern to continue as it has been recently. I don't really dislike or have anything against this editor, and we have edited several of the same articles for some time. But something has obviously got to change for the future of SRQ's editing habits, because two weeks is next, and so on, and so on... Doc9871 (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, we have lots of editors who are slightly abrasive, and do good work. A lot of them have a lot of friends, and as such, it seems even civility warnings are like water off a duck's back. SRQ is occasionally abrasive, and does good work, but has fewer "friends". Every time she does anything that anyone perceives as even slightly "wrong", the sharks circle until she's pushed into a corner and blows up. Even those who she tries to not interact with will then drop over for a drive-by. All I have to do is read through her talkpage and I become frustrated, so I can only imagine how she feels. This sock accusation has to have just been a peachy end to the day, and the editor who placed it there refuses to explain their actions. Yeah, she's not a perfect interactor, but crikey, if half your day is defending your right to exist... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

All things being equal, an uncollegial editor is bound to have fewer "friends" than a collegial one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! You must be new here. There are several uncollegiate editors who have survived multiple ArbComs and ANI reports precisely because they have enough friends to clog up the system. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I said "All things being equal", meaning that given two editors who are otherwise the same, except one being collegial and the other uncollegial, the former is likely to have more "friends" than the latter. The point being that bringing up SRQ's relative lack of "friends" as an argument for mitigation of her behavior doesn't really make much sense, since to some extent it's a natural result of her behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but things are never equal, so that argument doesn't hold. Lack of friends isn't a "mitigation," but it's a reason why she's getting called out while others get by with disruptive behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No argument from me that things are never "equal", or that some very uncollegial editors consistently get away with a lot of stuff, despite the furor they create. Regarding Bwilkins' comment above, if it was meant as merely an explanation of SRQ's behavior, I can accept the analysis as valid, however it appeared to me to be an argument meant to mitigate that behavior, and that I do not agree with -- to explain is not, after all, to excuse.

In any case, it seems to me that SRQ doesn't really have "friends" as such, instead she creates allies and enemies, a result of her continuing battlefield mentality, and she shifts people from one category to the other depending on how she perceives their willingness to support her without reservation. This kind of behavior is antithetical to what is supposed to be a collegial enterprise, and I'm afraid it appears to be basic to her character as expressed here, and not apt to change without some intervention more convincing than a short block. Certainly there is no indication in her current talk page comments that she realizes there is a need to try to change her behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it either that crap like this is put up, or that her talk page is constantly assaulted by childish vandals. Having edited with SRQ for many months, I can surely tell you that I don't want her to be further "punished", ostracized or banned. She does good work, and none of us are perfect by any means, but we have to abide by some pretty imperfect rules as well... Doc9871 (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Just as having friends shouldn't excuse incivility, a lack of friends should likewise not make us any more likely to excuse it. SRQ isn't just abrasive, though, and I'm not too crazy about the implication that complaints against her must be due to people not liking her for inconsequential reasons, like some mere lack of diplomacy. I've met users who were far more abrasive in their superficial treatment of others. This is not the problem. It's much more than that. SRQ is non-collaborative, not just in the way she talks to people but in her actions. She doesn't listen to anyone who doesn't side with her, including those who are neutral and seek to mediate one of her many disputes, and she is vindictive. As the offer has been extended to many individuals who were once neutral, uninvolved, fell for SRQ's often-convincing victim act, and doubted her being the cause of these disputes (this included myself up until roughly two months ago), I invite you to pay attention to the pages she edits and try collaborating with her in the future. If this person can be turned into an editor who collaborates well even through disagreements, I will be thankful to whoever facilitates this. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:31, 2 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Since there seems to still be doubt that SRQ has a problem with editors other than me here are some more difs to see. But first I want to bring this threat to everyone's attention that recently showed up "I would like to add in that all you have done is just antagonize another editor, and as such, decide to keep you under close watch. Ryou Hashimoto (talk) 12:36 pm, Today (UTC−5)" I do not know this editor at all and have no reason to understand why he felt the need to threaten me like this. Ok more difs, [15] , [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. I also think SRQ copying over the conversations here to her talk page and attacking editors is uncalled for. She also made her own titles for them starting here, [21]. From this thread on down her page she has attacks on others with copies of this thread. She doesn't say she did anything, just that everyone else did. I am really tired of this and would appreciate it if someone would remove all of this on her talk page. There are accusations of bad faith but no difs are shown even when asked. Please, I beg you to stop all of this. Also the editor who said he was going to keep me under close watch is totally uncalled for. I am the one who has been antaganized and I show that in some of my difs. I am an editor in good standing who has all of this going on because of the friends I keep. Thank you again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This block seems reasonable, While I have never interacted with SRQ, I have observed her interactions with others, and she strikes me as a drama queen. That wouldn't be a problem if she could get along with others, but that does not seem to be the case. RadManCF (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Duration?

Sarek of Vulcan's purpose in bringing this block here was to determine if it was appropriate, and if the duration was correct. Clearly, from the comments made here, the collective opinion is that it was an appropriate block, but there's been less discussion of whether it was the right duration. Blocks are meant to be preventitive, not punitive, so it would be reasonable to look in the present demeanor of SkagitRiverQueen for some indication that once the block runs out she will not return to the same pattern of editing that Sarek spoke of – it's been several days now, enough time for SRQ to have calmed down from the immediate reaction to being blocked, and to have reflected on what brought about the block in the first place.

Unfortunately, the available evidence seems to indicate that SRQ has little insight into what she did to be blocked, and has no intention of changing her ways. In this latest comment on her talk page, for instance, she forcefully states that she did nothing wrong, that her comments were justified and fitting, and shows that she clearly intends to continue doing exactly what she's done before. "Being honest," she says, "(even if it might hurt at the time) is a kindness" which apparently, in her mind, justifies not following basic policies such as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

Honesty is, of course, a laudable trait, but if it's wielded without the judgment to know when to be honest and to who, when to dissemble a bit to smooth things over, and when to just say nothing at all, it's counterproductive to the smooth running of a civil community. It doesn't seem to me that SRQ has that kind of judgment, and I think it would be a mistake to allow her to ride out her block and simply start up again. Perhaps a longer block would giver her more time to reflect and come to an understanding of how saying nothing, some "white lies", and a sense for when to stop can be the lubrication that makes collegiality possible, or, if folks are uneasy about extending the block, at the very least some sort of civility parole should be imposed, to help her reign in her (apparently) uncontrollable honesty. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

SRQ confirms her sense of self-righteousness and victimization previously expressed views in her deconstruction of the above comment, and continues to give no indication that she plans on changing the way she edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Taking my own advice and striking words which may have been poorly chosen or too blunt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anyone outside the conflict has actually engaged SRQ as far as her future behavior goes. I wrote an essay on this once that didn't seem to catch on at the time, but here it is anyway, if you'd like to see my thoughts: WP:EHP. In summary it's not necessarily imperative that SRQ admit she did wrong, only that she agree to specific terms for the future. If someone who she hasn't been fighting with could work that out with her, that'd probably be best. Perhaps something written up at WP:Editing restrictions would help. Equazcion ^(talk) 08:39, 4 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Her statement that she "was never not calm about this block" strikes me as particularly worrisome.RadManCF (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To answer the question presented by this thread, I would argue that the block was not long enough. Two weeks (at least) would have been better. RadManCF (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

interaction ban no longer in effect

As a note, I had asked Wildhartlivie and SRQ to stop interacting with each other on my own recognizance (originally on pain of bringing the matter to AN/I... well it's been to AN/I more than once since then anyway). Both of them have appeared from time to time at my talk page with various points of information. I think it's become clear that my informal separation hasn't worked so I've released WHL from the restriction. Nice idea, seemed worth a try, but it appears not to have worked. WHL has indicated she may have additional diffs that give information about SRQ's approach. She may or may not choose to share them here. ++Lar: t/c 19:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

When Enough is Enough

I have refrained from commenting here until now because I had a restriction from commenting on SkagitRiverQueen, which has now, in light of her continued comments on me on her talk page, been lifted, for which I want to thank Lar. The preponderance of comments that she has posted on her talk page regard how she did nothing wrong, despite clear evidence to the contrary. First, let's look at what she said that warranted her previous block for personal attacks, made to Jpgordon. In reviewing her unblock request, Jpgordon observed "Well, since the real issue is that you seem to have problems with the cooperative environment we hope for on Wikipedia, it does illuminate the nature of the problem pretty well." Her response, which brought an extension of that block was "Apparently you're learning impaired. That's okay, you have my sympathy and I can certainly make allowances for your affliction." That she struck the comment after having been blocked means little. If readers would peruse her talk page, she has steadfastly denied any culpability or wrongdoing in her actions.

As she has widely announced and is known to many, I served a one week block for sockpuppetry, which I denied at the time because a friend who frequently stayed with me was the one who did so from my computer. LaVidaLoca has since posted a mea culpa on her talk page and we have submitted personal identification to show that we are not the same person to Lar, which is being perused by people who worked with him for confirmation, as he noted here. I stand on those statements, as did LaVidaLoca. SRQ's talk pages shows her admonition from Lar to disengage from posting to me or commenting on me that was made here. Note that was on February 7, and at the time it was made on condition that if it were violated, it would be taken here for further action. Her response was ""I've said what I needed to say; the truth is obvious to those not in denial. Cut to me now walking away." In any case, I served my block and I am under the impression that once one has served a block, the event should not continue to be thrown up in the face of the person. However, that was certainly not the end of it from SkagitRiverQueen. Not by a long shot. The next day, she engaged in this conversation about me on User talk:Crohnie, where she compared her honesty with a comment on mine, and to Crohnie, whom she chastised for being my friend, actually over and over. A full 42 minutes after being admonished by Lar, SRQ posted this scathing comment about me, in which she called me a liar ("Since she's been exposed as a liar") and began her recitation of her perceived sins I committed, and just after that, went to the talk page of an IP in which I was in dispute to solicit email contact so she could send him "pertinent information you may be interested in regarding a current issue you are involved with." She had been already been receiving taunting posts by various registered accounts and IPs to her talk page, which she had semi-protected and added that "I strongly suspect it is actually a regular who is hiding behind anonymous IPs and socks." Did she mean me? She didn't say but coupled with her rants across talk pages about me, it seems likely. She took up her dispagement of me on her [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASkagitRiverQueen&action=historysubmit&diff=344701643&oldid=344666532#Ha talk page] when she continued posting her little rant about what she thinks I did to her, and further insinuated that an account previously proven not to be me was speculated to be me. When I posted to Lar's talk page about this violation of her restriction at 6:31 pm, she then struck it out at 6:42 pm, so that when Lar posted to her about it at 7:43, she was able to say, 3 minutes later that she "realized" too so she struck it out. Note that was when she was blocked previously for the personal attack on Jpgordon. Once again, she took opportunity to spell out her complaints on Lar's page, directly in response to my comment about working on getting the identification proof to him, where she continues to recite her litany and asks why I know what was in an email she received, to which I replied }No great secret about the emails, LaVidaLoca sent them to me after I insisted. Wow, great mystery there. She screwed up, yes, but I didn't write them and as for denial, well, other people consistently deny they did anything to warrant blocks, now don't they?" Her attacks continued on February 27, when she posted this to Crohnie's talk page, in which she again repeated her litany of sins I've committed. While she is currently blocked, a newer editor came in to remove a category from Ted Bundy, something I had seen she opposed. I objected, based on SRQ's statements regarding it and said it needed to wait until she returned. When Doc brought that up to her, her response was to again repeat her litany and question the submission of identification, which Lar acknowledged above and again called me a bully, liar and harasser, put down my efforts to object to something she also objected to and disparaged me for it. In that post, she questioned the motives of Doc, as she has done to Equazcion and Crohnie and various administrators. There is no indication that SRQ will desist in personal attacks and harassment based on her behavior just since she has been blocked this time, since her comments on others continue. All of this has occurred since Lar restricted her from commenting on me, and in the face of this being made an issue on this page. There are three separate comments regarding this sock issue on her talk page since the current block began alone. And let's not list the 25 different articles upon which she had never previously edited until her first dispute with me occurred on the Ted Bundy article back in December, 10 of which resulted in disputes on the talk pages involving her. Thus my early complaints of her stalking my editing here. One of those was her "drop-in intervention" into a discussion I was having with another editor on Kate Winslet and regarding which Lar asked her to explain her sudden interest on an article on which I worked to bring a good article status just prior to that. That, among other various things, were discussed on User talk:Lar#SkagitRiverQueen, User talk:Lar#I'm confused..., User talk:Lar#Wildhartlivie and SkagitRiverQueen part deux and today's comments at User talk:Lar#Enough is enough. Her obsession with following me to articles, posting complaints on various administrator boards and posting her version of "Bash Wildhartlivie personal attacks" needs to stop. Not now, but weeks ago. And let's not overlook her dissertation, on the post made to User talk:LaVidaLoca taking responsibility for socking and her spiteful addition of commentary which again brings it around to being all about me and what she supposes I knew or did not know (please note her comments on her talk page about editors who pretend to be mindreaders and making unfounded speculation), which she notes "To be placed in a personal sandbox when my block is lifted", tends to suggest that I am connected to her continued harassment by proven unrelated accounts and IPs by connecting it to the comments on the sock issue, an action which is not acceptable for miscellaneous pages, and of which she has had such "personal injury lists" deleted before (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive 1. The keeping of such pages is not within the guidelines for userspace pages, which she well knows. Nor do I suspect her current "archive", which consists of mostly refactored talk page posts garnered from other pages, as well as her current talk page, which consists of copy and paste content from this page, refactored with her own personal comments, meet the guidelines for talk pages.

In fact, dropping insinuations about other accounts being socks is a routine thing. She dropped this hint at the Charles Manson article talk page and was such that the editor did not return, she did this also on her talk page today when she said about Beyond My Ken "...oh, wait...Beyond My Ken *isn't* a veteran editor. No, in fact, while BMK talks and behaves like a veteran editor, according to his talk page history he has only been in WP since early December 2009. Can that be correct...? Hmmm...interesting (and somewhat suspicious, IMO)." Personally, it's hard for me to believe, if editors are watching her posts and behavior, that anyone would entertain lessening this block time, and have not considered extending it or worse. I did my time, there is nothing in Wikipedia policy or guidelines that grants SRQ carte blanche to post her spiel all over the encyclopedia with the vehement and vitriolic content hers does. That this has spread to other editors with whom I am friends or colleagues, such as Doc and Crohnie, is beyond defense. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. You just melted my brain. I think I need to go have a drink or something. -- Atama頭 02:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've lived it and that barely touches it. Have a drink for me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This probably would've been better suited to (the seemingly impending) RFC/U, where extensiveness is valued rather than shunned. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:06, 5 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it contains a lot of material worthy of review. I do agree that perhaps an RfC/U might be the better vehicle. ++Lar: t/c 13:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That will come. I didn't want to open the WP:RfC/U while I was restricted from commenting on her or while this thread was still open. The following me to 25 different articles will be included in that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Block review of The Reformed Editor

Resolved

 – Accounts left blocked Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• The Reformed Editor (talk · contribs)

I have just blocked this second account of the indef-blocked Hiineedrequestforcomment (talk · contribs). This editor has not hidden the creation of the alternate account to resume editing, however, policy is that a clean start is not permitted if the indef block is still in place. This seems straightforward to me, but I would like some additional eyes anyway. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. From the last edit the new account made, it looks like jumping into contentious areas mouth-first was likely to be an issue, and the edits under the previous account make me wonder why a block didn't occur a lot earlier. I'd take bets on further socks appearing, too. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Far from making the clean start which he claimed to want, this editor immediately dove head-first into quarrelsome talk page messages [22], threatening other editors with blocks, etc. Thanks for spotting this; I'd be very much against this person returning under any circumstances to contribute anything at all. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Check out his talkpage, he's trying to get feedback on if he can edit ever again. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I've changed his block settings so that he can make a last(?) appeal at User talk:Hiineedrequestforcomment. But I don't see any "reform" in his recent edits, nor much contribution to boast about, so I would personally !vote oppose to an unblock if it came to that. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC

It's a waste of time. I reviewed all his edits. From the "what was I doing wrong?" regarding the fake message templates on articles to his hounding of JPG: "be proud of me Josh, I made a mainspace gnome edit!" This is classic trolling. Honestly... The mayor of Trollopolis, Trollsylvania wants to give him an engraved plaque. Auntie E. (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

IP 70.66.205.186

Resolved

 – IP blocked Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at 70.66.205.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? This appears to be a single-purpose account whose single purpose is to blank my user page. They show up regularly to do this one thing, but not frequently enough for me to feel it makes sense to take it to AIV or to request that my page be semi-ed. On the other hand, the evidence seems pretty clear that this account is not going to grow into one that contributes positively to the project. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that it is the same IP each time, and their only edits are to blank your page. We could always block the IP, and any accounts that edit off that IP as it's likely someone you've had a run in with in the past. Blocking all accounts off the IP can be a good way of shaking the apple tree and seeing what falls out. Canterbury Tail talk 18:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would guess that it is someone from the Something Awful group who had issues over Crucifixion, since it started at the height of that period. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've gone with Canterbury Tail's suggestion and hardblocked the IP for one month. Fences&Windows 23:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio upload concerns

Resolved

 – Images currently all tagged, keep an eye on the account. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned about the uploads of Sysrpl (talk · contribs). I happened upon the Roger Ebert article today and noticed that a new, recent image of him with his wife had been added to the infobox. However, while the tagline and image page itself claim the photo was taken at the BAFTA awards, the photo is clearly from the Directors Guild of America awards. The award Ebert is holding is the Honorary Life Member Award, as discussed in this article [23]. The image also has no metadata.

I nominated this for deletion based on my concerns. I also began looking at thie other uploads of this account and found at least one other blatant copyvio, which is now on commons (and I have nominated for deletion there). The editor uploaded this file [24] in 2006, claiming he took it, yet the same file is found via Google search on another website with a clear Copyright Watermark [25]. I also prodded this image [26] for having no legitimate source.

The account has existed here since 2005 but only makes about 20-30 edits each year since then, mostly to articles about Bill O'Reilly. However, given at least one blatant and willful copyvio that we've hosted for 4 years, one without a proper source and another likely copyvio, I'm now concerned that there may be other issues with this person's edits. I am notifying them of this discussion now. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Good catch on the copyright problems. The Ebert photograph (File:Ebert-and-wife.jpg) has proven to be a blatant copyright infringement of [27]. I've F9ed it. That the uploader claimed to be the photographer himself is clear copyright fraud, and I almost indeffed him just for that. He has a history of image copyright issues (though slim, like his contributions) going back to 2006. I gave him a clear block warning instead, but would not at all object if somebody else should decide he isn't worth the risk. People can upload copyrighted images under all kinds of misunderstandings, but claiming that you took a photograph yourself and even supplying fictitious dates for it shows a clear intent to violate policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Choctaw Nation of Florida

Resolved

 – Blocked Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is in regards to an IP[28] unhappy with the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Choctaw Nation of Florida on the article they are concerned with. They have been given numerous advisements on how to fix the article in question, but being a newcomer and possibly on top of that sufficient lack of WP:CLUE and some WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, they are now wreaking havoc on the article page again, changing the afd tags so they no longer link to its afd, and returning removed cites that have nothing to do with the subject of their article(the name of the author they cite isn't even correct, should be John R. Swanton not Swinton. I'm at my ropes end with this IP, and my explanations and suggestions have gotten me nowhere with them. Can someone have a look and maybe give them some friendly advice and fix the AFD tag? I'm trying to avoid contact with them as my input seems to fall on deaf ears/inflame them. Thanks and sorry. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User notified of this thread. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

They have sionce removed the AFD tag[29] altogether and all citations needed tags. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Since that was the second time they blanked the AfD tag, I just blocked for a week. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

John Patrick Bedell

Attention could be used here. Nothing too serious, but I don't necessarily think my fellow IP's are as steeped in what we do here as I.99.151.172.170 (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I gave 97.119.97.118 a 3RR warning. Unless I am mistaken I have reverted once [DIFF] and 99.151.172.170 too. 99.151.172.170 have reverted TWICE, [DIFF] and [DIFF] + CONTRIBS nb. Bedel is the Pentagon Shooter if anyone doesn't know. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor who was warned above, 97.119.97.118, has now had his vandalism enshrined by user "goneawaynowandretired". My attempt to discuss this mistake with him, and subsequent voicing of frustration, can be found here:[30]. I'll note his page that he's been mentioned in the "dispatches".99.151.172.170 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Another IP has left a message on his talk page requesting a separate correction[31], this one regarding an entire section he removed as "vandalism". 99.151.172.170 (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected by admin Alison, here Xenophrenic (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please review accusations of anti-semitism and close out Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cush_(second_RFC)

The RFC has been open since 2-22 and has been stagnant for a week. It is rife with attacks calling a user an Anti-Semite without any proof / evidence given. A very good case can be made that this RFC was opened in bad faith as a result of a debate on Genesis creation myth. Nefariousski (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? No takers? Did I not make the phrase "Anti-Semite" big enough? Nefariousski (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Help remove child's name and picture from wikipedia

waste of space
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – This appears to be a non-issue and the topic starter is a very silly person. HalfShadow 01:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Halvorsen_brian Qpwoeial (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC) What leads you to believe that user is a minor? Toddst1 (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC) I removed the photo and name per WP:CHILD and WP:MYSPACE Nefariousski (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC) I don't see any evidence that he's a "child". Equazcion (talk) 00:58, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC) He says he's a high school student. We (apparently) have admins that are that age! I think the concern is for younger teens. -- Flyguy649 talk 01:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC) There's no grey area about it. Unless he clearly states that although a highschool student he is 18 his full name and photo are in clear violation of WP:CHILD. Nefariousski (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC) (ec) Me neither. The editor seems to have been around for long enough to know what they're doing, per their list of DYKs. What age does "high school" cover in the US (as a Brit I don't know)? Tonywalton Talk 01:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Tonywalton, High school is usually grades 9 though 12 (or 9th-12th grade in the US), ages 14 to 17-18 or so. -- Flyguy649 talk 01:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC) thanks Tonywalton Talk 01:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Nefariousski should be reverted. They have no right to remove somebody's picture from their User space, unless they're going to remove everybody's picture from everybody's User space. WP:NOTMYSPACE does not apply, despite Nefariousski's claims. Note that Qpwoeial, a brand new User, only concerned themselves with Halvorsen brian's User space after that user reverted them for a BLP violation. Woogee (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC) No BLP violation by me. I only put in a citation needed tag which brian removed. So what? I let him win. Qpwoeial (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC) You added an unsourced claim on a BLP article, which I have reverted. Woogee (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC) I have been bold and reverted. I will not edit war if anybody reverts me, but somebody needs to discuss it with Brian. Woogee (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Woogee is being aggressive and disruptive. I don't care but admins should Qpwoeial (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Considering recent pederasty / pedophilia concerns and arbcom rulings I err on the side of caution regarding WP:CHILD there is absolutely ZERO harm in removing his full name and photo and leaving a comment on his page explaining why. He logs in, sees comment, updates his talkpage saying he's 18 and reverts my handiwork. Arbcom errs on the side of caution when it comes to minors and we should follow suit. I'm not deleting his whole page, just information in violation of policy (assuming he is a minor). Nefariousski (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC) FWIW (and let's not make a storm in a molehill) I support Woogee's reversion. Qpwoeial, please note that Wikipedia is not a battleground. "Letting someone win" is not an appropriate reaction and perhaps may call your motives into question. Tonywalton Talk 01:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC) High school in the US is generally 14-18. It's not really clear that he's a "minor" but there's cause to think he might be, and he's got a link on his page that shows which school he goes to. I've left him a warning that he might want to consider removing the link and photo of his own volition. Policy doesn't really tell us what to do here, as far as I know. Equazcion (talk) 01:13, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Enough. He's clearly not a kid, he's a young adult, almost certainly aware of, and capable of dealing with, online risks, and I don't think WP:CHILD was ever intended to meet this kind of nonsense. Behaviour of other editors are irrelevant here but may be raised elsewhere. Meanwhile, a good-faith contributor here has been patronised, and I wouldn't blame him if he left Wikipedia to find something better to do with his talents. Paranoia is destructive, and should not be encouraged here. Rodhullandemu 01:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC) WP:CHILD doesn't help here, because it isn't clear what is meant by a "child". And the use of WP:NOTMYSPACE by Nefariousski to remove Brian's picture is clearly inappropriate, unless there is consensus to remove every User picture from every User page. Woogee (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC) WP:CHILD is pretty clear. Removing his photo and full name are "reasonable measures" taken to protect his privacy. If he logs in and updates his page stating that he is 18 and reverts then no harm no foul. The policy specifically states Deletion and Oversight may be used. Nefariousski (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC) We have legal definitions of child and adult that do a great job clearing up any ambiguity. I think it's foolish to assume that WP:CHILD doesn't follow the same 18 and up = adult 17 and below = child standard. Nefariousski (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC) What policy are you referring to? Woogee (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC) As far as WP:CHILD is concerned, COPPA pertains to private information regarding those children under age 13. My guess is that the user is at least a junior in high school (which would be 16 or 17). The person should be free per the CC-BY-SA license to post whatever he feels fit. There's also an element of common sense here in that he can probably be trusted. –MuZemike 01:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Not to mention that when I made my comment on his talk page it was basically "sorry if this is all a big misunderstanding but ..." I'm not trying to be a dick about all of this, just trying to follow what policy dictates. I do agree that this was probably a bad faith ANI posting and do feel like a bit of a douche for trying to "protect" a guy that is probably a year or two away from going to college but I still feel compelled to make the case that WP:CHILD applies in this case and that my actions were justified. Nefariousski (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC) At minimum, he is a junior in high school. He says he was sports editor in the 07-08 school year, then news in the 08-09 year and now we are in the 09-10. So we're talking about someone who is most likely soon to be 17, if not already past that. I wholeheartedly believe that this community should act in the best interest of children. I also believe this is a manufactured "crisis". The boy is old enough to drive a car down the road and if he isn't already, will soon be able to join the military. He's sufficiently old enough to decide whether or not to post a generic picture of himself. I think the worries of pedophilia are well intentioned but mislaid in this case. We're not talking about anything suggestive. The "danger" here is escaping me. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC) I think we should leave his user page the way he wants it. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Agreed with MuzeMike et al. I think Nefarious is referring to the max legal age of consent in the US, which there's no reason to say applies here. COPPA seems much more relevant. Equazcion (talk) 01:27, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC) I'm also inclined to assume good faith that this user understands the concept of what information is worth concealing and what is worth sharing with the public. If his high school radio station's advisor has some trust in him, there's no reason we can't also. —C.Fred (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Fair enough. In light of the COPAA info MuZemike brought up I'll gladly bow out and write an apology on Brian's talk page. Sorry for kicking over the anthill ;) Nefariousski (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest issues with user Lukeedwards1981.

Luke keeps re-adding unsourced content to Cradley Town F.C.. On top of that, he keeps saying he works there, which means he has a conflict of interest. I've directed him to WP:CONFLICT twice, and still, he ignores me and continues to add the content. I don't want to get into a major edit war, so I am backing off and coming here for help. Thanks! - Zhang He (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've found a secondary source to confirm the change of manager and a website with the new manager, so the acute issue of verifiability is clear. I'll explain further what a COI is and why he has one. —C.Fred (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Could someone take a look at the gibraltar page. There seems to be a long term attempt to impose a foreign POV on the article by means of long tendentious arguments about small points on the talk page, and to remove content describing significant events in the history of Gibraltar. There is also the potential for edit wars and general nastyness as a result of the above. It might be beneficial to lock the page for a few weeks to let tempers settle. Gibnews (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

We've looked. A lot. Trust me. It's probably better now than it has been for six months. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh! Nice. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just seen this thread, having already locked the article because every time it pops up on my watchlist it's a revert (not to single anyone out because there's fault on both sides, but the cognitive dissonance in this edit summary was the final straw). I think it's reached the stage where any editor who reverts at all can expect a block without further notice. EyeSerene^talk 08:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with the page lock on either version, however the 'Ayone reverting in future will be blocked' strikes me as problematic. With the definition of vandalism being so narrow, it means a great deal of changingcould be done before one stepped over that line with little ability to respond. Might I suggest the imposition of a 1RR instead? --Narson ~ Talk • 10:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd disagree that its better now than its been for months, it got quiet because so many decent editors have quit because of the constant villification you get there if you disagree with the most minor of points. The tag team reverting to impose a preferred version by a cabal of editors that occurred a month ago had people tearing their hair out in frustration and should have been dealt with then but wasn't. It has needed a firm admin hand to stop the disruption there and an even handed one at that. The article has suffered at the hands of a civil POV pusher that has tied the talk page up with tendentious argument for too long. Justin talk 10:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I propose article probation, 1 month of full protection so all changes to be discussed on Talk and managed via {{editprotected}} then once people have got out of the habit of talking past each other go for a period of 0RR and all changes to be discussed first. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That would work for me; reading the talk page activity since I locked the article, I believe positions have become so entrenched that something more substantial than a short period of protection is necessary. With mediation apparently having failed, I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be the last opportunity for editors to resolve their own differences before things escalate to Arbcom. Feel free to amend my admin action if this proposal gains consensus. EyeSerene^talk 14:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that suggestion, may I also suggest that comments are limited to content not editors. Any misconduct should be raised here. It was only through protection the last time that mediation got anywhere. Justin talk 16:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd suggest arbitration, with a mind toward Digwuren-style sanctions. Even on the briefest of acquaintance, WP:PLAGUE seems appropriate commentary on Gibraltar articles currently. I doubt forcing Talk page discussion would be useful, as much of the problem is, as Justin says, civil POV pushing disrupting Talk as well as article edits. What the article needs is freedom for outside editors - ones who aren't hot about whether Gibraltar gets to be Spanish or British - to work without the constant kvetching and disruption from nationalists on either side (though a topic ban on User:Gibnews would be the single most useful move forward). WP:MARTIANS. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't see the need for a topic ban on User:Gibnews, he can be very reasonable if you approach him civilly but more stubborn than the stubbornest mule if you don't. There seems to be a definite lynch mob mentality around him at the moment, I've observed an attempt at outing that I wanted to bring up. I know Gibnews' real identity and it doesn't correspond to what is being claimed. See User talk:Justin A Kuntz#Gibnews and User talk:Atama#Advice, from my knowledge of Gibnews' identity none of that appears to be correct and I've tried to be diplomatic about it. Justin talk 15:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That's absolutely not on. I replied to Ecemaml (talk · contribs) on Atama's talk page and removed some speculation, but then I noticed they've been posting elsewhere too after being warned to drop it. Attempted outing is serious; I've blocked Ecemaml for one week. Review welcome. EyeSerene^talk 17:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that if you ask Gibnews he'll not agree with that block I'm afraid. A warning not to persist from an independent party would probably be sufficient. May I suggest you ask him, his real life identity is lodged with Wikipedia anyway. He doesn't really make a secret of it, however, there has been a get Gibnews campaign for a while. Justin talk 18:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, personally I think any form of harassment should be given very short shrift. An editor shouldn't need multiple warnings before they start taking them seriously. Although it's sometimes possible (and perhaps not even very difficult) to dig around, connect the dots, and deduce an editor's identity - which is what Ecemaml seemed to be trying to do - I believe that's very different to simply repeating something that's open knowledge. If Gibnews has voluntarily revealed their identity on the site I'll unblock Ecemaml and apologise to them, but I saw nothing explicit (for example, a disclosure on their userpage). EyeSerene^talk 18:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah well Gibnews has a thick skin and he isn't vindictive, I really do doubt he'd support a lengthy block. In answer to your question, no he hasn't openly declared his identity but a number of people who deal with him regularly know it. It was the "Get Gibnews" campaign I'm more concerned about. Justin talk 19:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a short block is in order, because the comments on my user page were turning into a personal attack. For my part I've been trying to keep a low profile on wikipedia. Ecemaml is a good and productive editor but does have a blind spot about Gibraltar. I don't think I have been unreasonable on the topic, however as I live there and have first hand experience of things, its hard to put up with things I know to be untrue which others wish to include because it supports a foreign claim to my homeland totally rejected by its people.

I also find deleting what I consider important things which are referenced and have international interest, like the IRA shooting and its conclusion. Particularly as this part has had been discussed at length with the Irish republican element who hold different views to the Gibraltarians about this event.

What I do feel is that there has been a campaign to get me banned and aites with information about Gibraltar discredited in order to remove content that does not fit in with the Spanish view of Gibraltar. The personal attack is a continuance of that. I have at no time stated my name on wikipedia or sought any personal promotion and only reluctantly mentioned that I design websites.

I've also created and extended some articles about computer languages and contributed a number of images but Gibraltar has taken up a lot of time, however I think my contributions to that have been worthwhile, as when I started it was wholely untruthful and there was an attempt to get the whole of Gibraltar banned from editing ! --Gibnews (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I declare my interest as a former regular editor of Gibraltar-related articles. Regardless of whether Ecemaml got the details right or not, attempted outing is harassment and must be taken very seriously. I've never seen Gibnews give his real identity on wiki, and in any case, Ecemaml was (as EyeSerene says) trying to dig around and connect the dots here. Even if Gibnews had declared his identity publicly, I think it's clear that what Ecemaml was doing is different from simply repeating it.

I appreciate what Justin says, but I don't believe we should unblock. I see clear evidence that this Ecemaml was not acting in good faith, and WP:OUTING is very clear. As such I consider this block to be entirely appropriate to prevent this harassment from continuing. Pfainuk talk 20:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I half seriously suggested a topic ban for anyone with more than ten edits to any article on a British overseas territory and fewer than a thousand mainspace edits on articles not in any way related to them. But this has gone on for a very long time, and maybe it is time for arbitration or robustly enforced article probation. Toxic is a great word to describe that talk page. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really a helpful suggestion Guy, I edit on several BOT related articles. The Falklands for example could be poisonous but they're not because the editors there work together. Argentine and Brit editors collaborating to find sources and generate NPOV articles, you should drop by sometime and you might well be surprised at the editors you labelled as "POV Warriors". I'd agree with 0RR and insisting edits are agreed in talk, part of the reason for the toxic atmosphere is tag team edit warring to impose an edit. Funnily enough that was reported to AN/I at the time, as was the get Gibnews campaign. What I was disgusted with at the time, was how quickly it was possible to manipulate a lynch mob mentality to get Gibnews. Not AN/I's finest hour. Justin talk 23:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, just keep editing other articles as well. Read WP:PLAGUE to see why people who have broad editing interests are less likely to be a problem than those who edit only articles on places where there are nationalistic disputes. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Would love to but it doesn't help when people wade in not knowing the facts leaving more mess for the productive editors to clean up. Does it? Justin talk 23:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

But that's exactly the problem WP:PLAGUE addresses: when insiders get so problematical that it's better to use outsiders. The assumption that only insiders know the facts is part of the syndrome; they may well know less, but can cut to the chase because they aren't locked up in some Swiftian Big-enders vs Little-enders feud. Look at the verbiage expended here: 6000 words to dicusss the inclusion/exclusion of two words; do you think insiders are doing a good job? You want editors who are more concerned that the article is informative than what undisclosed regionalist angsts are invoked by mentioning some town. It's great that consensus is working at the Falklands article, but here it clearly isn't. Frankly, the whole existing editor base for Gibraltar topics needs shipping out in favour of completely fresh editors with no previous partisan involvement in the topic. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No thats an essay and lumping all editors into the same pot ain't helpful. What about WP:CPUSH, another favourite of yours I believe. The question I would ask, is why an editor would devote so much effort trying to minimise the degree of self-government in Gibraltar to the absolute minimum, rather than working with other editors to explain it better? Did you think to pick up on that example, or select the evidence to fit the picture and conclusions you'd already jumped sat? Admin action to sort out the problem a long time ago would have been preferrable to allowing positions to become entrenched. But thats where we are and jumping to another solution, which isn't addressing the actual problem won't solve it either. Justin talk 01:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read far enough back to see that particular discussion; but if I had, I hope I'd be looking at the portrayal of it neutrally, rather than getting hot under the collar at the thought of it not matching some worldview of how self-government in Gibraltar should be portrayed. If Gibraltar stays British till the coming of the Cocqcigrues / if Spain takes over tomorrow. They're both the same to me. This kind of regionalist topic needs editors who similarly don't care. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well there we violently disagree, it actually needs both. One has the knowledge to be informative, the other has the detachment to keep things cool and where editors from both sides can work constructively the project benefits. People who don't care or have no interest in a subject have no incentive to write quality articles. Where it falls apart is when someone with a narrow nationalist agenda works the wiki system and are disruptive but no admin is prepared to take the time and effort to deal with a WP:CPUSH problem. I actually think this is one of the really fundamental issues that wikipedia has not really cracked. A CPUSH editor will drive productive editors nuts trying to move the article forward, they'll provoke them into making rash comments that they would never normally do, then the productive editor is blocked for "incivility". Also simply quoting essays like WP:PLAGUE don't help and yes I appreciate the irony given I've referred to another essay. Address the issues. Justin talk 09:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As it happens there was a link posted on AN yesterday which perfectly illustrates why your "violent" disagreement is a problem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkiGORmirRU. You make a good argument for local knowledge in the compiling of primary and secondary sources and an equally good case for standing back when it comes to tertiary sources such as Wikipedia - it is almost impossible for someone who is involved with a topic like this to be truly objective. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I found that pretty funny, was that the intention? Babies and bath water spring to mind immediately, as in flinging the baby out with the bath water because its too difficult to deal with problem editors. Just to provide some information, I'm actually half-Spanish, live in Glasgow and don't give a flying fuck about Gibraltar. Curious about what you assumed? Justin talk 10:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

One has the knowledge to be informative, the other has the detachment to keep things cool

That's fair enough. But it doesn't work when those people who assert the knowledge to be informative expect also to micromanage all discussion, and make outside editors have to put in ridiculous amounts of effort mediating instead of just writing articles. Wikipedia recognises that there's a point beyond which we don't have to deal with problem editors: that's what user RFCs, arbitration, community bans, etc are for. As I said, I think this subject area has reached arbitration stage.

People who don't care or have no interest in a subject have no incentive to write quality articles

I didn't say "no interest"; I said "don't care" = no emotional involvement in the regional issues. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The flaw in your logic is that people who don't care, usually don't have any interest; interest and emotional involvement are synonymous. The problem your essay is missing is WP:CPUSH, editors who learn to game the system to get the nationalist edits they want but in doing so drive away the productive editors you actually want and need. Justin talk 12:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. One can be intellectually fascinated, as a historical topic, in why (for instance) the Big-enders don't want any mention of the Little-enders being chased off to Wankleville. It just doesn't mean you have to side with the Big-enders or Little-enders to write about it, and the best editors to do so are those who are neither and think the whole thing is, well, WP:MARTIANS. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I've come to the conclusion what you need are an infinite number of monkeys, sitting at an infinite number of typewriters. Either that or editors who have reached the point of WP:DGAF. You have an email detailing why and when I get as stubborn as a very stubborn thing. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 15:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Here goes my opinion for whatever it may be worth (I haven't been for very long in WP as an editor: only 7 months and most of them -sadly- inside the "toxic cloud" of Gib articles so... here I am: not very experienced and an implicated part).

I think that the main problem in the specific case of Gibraltar related articles is the very emotional implication from some usual editors and (possibly) the fact that they show a very strong rejection and lack of trust towards certain other outside editors. Please let me underline that I'm not blaming anyone. Probably everybody is acting in good faith, the emotional implication from those "usual" editors has probably helped them make a big effort contributing to Gib articles, and outside editors are sometimes hard core nationalists and POV pushers not to be trusted. The flip side is that this attitude can make them very mistrustful towards the occasional trustworthy outside editor (of course, myself I am one ;) ) and can push them to resisting changes in certain "sensitive" parts of the articles (like, for example, the ones that Spanish nationalists have used to attack Gibraltar). Usually those sensitive areas, as a result, are more tilted to one side than the other.

My own personal experience (if it has any value as an example): I have tried to change that tilt (mentioning some issues that were avoided in the article, giving some qualification to some statements in the lead of the article...) but I have to admit that I have raised a very strong opposition from the usual editors (who probably in good faith think I am a hard core Spanish nationalist trying to vilify Gibraltar - I wish I had some way to prove this is not the case...). From that point, any new suggestion from my side (or from people supporting my side) has been very difficult to implement: we have spent SEVEN months discussing just about THREE sentences.

As a consequence of the tension (although the offenders have already repented and apologised, so they cannot be blamed any more), some of the usual editors launched legal threats and used expressions like "you are advancing a fascist racist agenda" or "I see no difference between you and that fascist fuckwit" or "You have single mindedly set out to minimise the legitimacy of the Gibraltar Government and using wikipedia as a propaganda weapon for a Fascist irrdentist dream and wounded macho pride". I quote these not to blame anybody (I repeat they've already apologised) but to get an impression of where does this tension drive editors.

My recommendation:

• I think that restricting the edits in the article until consensus is reached can be a good tool: it will stop edit wars and force us in the toxic cloud to reach consensus.
• Mediation (from Martians, probably) is a very good tool too: the main problem (I think) is emotional attachment, misunderstandings that can give rise to strong confrontations, and deaf ears to other editors' arguments (probably caused by the heat of the discussion and mistrust). Mediation has given very good results helping us structure the discussion and making all of us pay attention to other editors' reasons: in fact the only progress in the last 7 months has come when a couple of mediators (User:Atama and User:Richard Keatinge) have mediated to lower the emotional tension.

I hope this verbose comment does not bore anybody and it can help. --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Further Outing Threat

Sorry but this is getting ridiculous, Red Hat is continuing with the threat of outing - diff [32]. I'm not calling for a block but a smack around the head with a trout would help. Justin talk 23:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not threatening anyone with anything. It is a serious conflict of interest if an editor is a member of a highly partisan group, he does not declare this to other editors, and he (a) adds information about that group to Wikipedia (b) operates a series of sites to which he links on Wikipedia but claims no editorial control over (c) is highly economical with the truth (I later discovered) when responding to editors' questions on his COIs. I have deliberately not provided any information which might reveal his real name, even though he has already effectively outed himself on Wikipedia. There is an ongoing discussion here about the matter [33]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Will you, Ecemaml, Imalbornoz, Justin, Pfain, JCRB and whoever else do a full register of interests? List all poitical affiliations, donations to any groups, registered properties and residences? I am reluctant to have us delve into that level of our life. Personally I self censor myself in which articles I edit to avoid COI but at the same time I don't really want to have to monitor the personal life of every editor who strolls along to articles to find out if they are COI so....no Red Hat, I reject the concept of increased watchdoggery. If GibNews is wrong, then he is wrong whether he is GibNews, Jesus Christ, the King of Spain, Prince Philip or the head of the Basque Seperatist Movement. Deal with the contet rather than the editors and we needn't worry about such things. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I, like the vast majority of WP editors, am not using sites I operate outside of Wikipedia as sources, I'm not updating articles on organisations I am a member of, and I'm not updating an article space I have been actively engaged in the politics of in real life. In the list of examples of COIs [34] we have problems with self-promotion, citing oneself, close relationships and campaigning. That's a check against almost all the boxes. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Case in point. Look at the information added to Wikipedia about the Voice of Gibraltar Group by the alleged member [35] which sat there for years, untouched. "The VOGG is a long running group which has the objective of defending the rights of Gibraltarians against external threats. It engages in public debate, and protest action where appropriate. As a non political group, its members represent a cross section of the community. It was particularly active in canvassing a 'NO' note in the 2002 referendum, when it toured the estates with a loudspeaker van and invited guests from all parties to address the residents, culminating with the Chief Minister after the result was announced." Not only is this self-promotion, but it's unsourced (who says its members represent a cross section of the community), and untrue (of course it's political). It gets worse when we find the Government of Gibraltar has been critical of this organisation's activities [36]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Red Hat but you seem determined to self-destruct with this vendetta against Gibnews, will you please just back off from trying to out Gibnew before you end up with a block. Ecemaml has already been blocked for it, despite trying to have him listen to reason and you seem bent on going down the same path. Justin talk 01:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked rather rashly, I feel, by someone who is not aware of the details, not to mention gleefully encouraged by you. I've requested a review of that block. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine, in 2006 the spokesperson for the VOGG was Peter Tunbridge, as I've already pointed out to Ecemaml, when the edit you're so excited was made. I know Gibnews' real life identity and he is not Peter Tunbridge. Now will you please stop this before you end up blocked. This has all the hallmarks of a vendetta and harassment. Justin talk 01:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I too know his real life identity - as does Ecemaml - we both uncovered it by accident, and I've been scrupulous in not posting anything which might reveal it even though the editor himself has done so on Wikipedia. In fact, in some off-Wiki emails with certain admins I've made my position on that extremely clear: I did not state it even in my emails to them, and I gave forewarning that by clicking on certain links in the email they may inadvertently discover it, so they had the choice as to whether to do so. NB: linking an editor with the VoGG which supposedly has members who "represent a cross section of the community" is not singling out any one individual, so I really fail to see what the outing issue is here. Suggesting that an editor who is editing the Labour Party article is also a member is not outing them. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You could have just asked him, instead of trying to make an edit from 2006 into "evidence" of the Gibnews conspiracy. Clearly you're not rational about your detective work and drawing attention to material that can identify an editor is clearly outing. Will you just stop it. Justin talk 01:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I did ask a series of questions [37]. The reason I am persisting in this is that evidence has been uncovered which suggests the answers were not completely truthful. However, it's a Catch 22 situation. Provide the full evidence, and you will out someone. Don't provide the evidence, and it's difficult for others to understand where the COI lies. Regardless, noone has revealed any personal information and noone has threatened to. So please stop coming here and deviously trying to get people blocked. There's enough abuse from you on my talk page to land yourself in a block. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If you'd simply emailed an admin your concerns that would have been one thing but you and Ecemaml have been taunting him on his talk page and that is completely different. You've also been taunting him on article talk pages as well and you Red Hat were also quick to voice sockpuppet allegations that you knew had already been investigated and found to be false. Persist if you must but if you end up blocked, don't blame anyone but yourself. Justin talk 09:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was so gleeful I asked him to unblock. Fine, self-destruct if you must, I give up. Justin talk 01:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My view at the moment is that Ecemaml was speculating about Gibnews's identity in a manner akin to fishing so warranted a block per WP:OUTING. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick is pointing out that based on information he has, Gibnews may have a COI, but I haven't seen him actually seeking to confirm his suspicions or name Gibnews on Wikipedia. The diff given by Justin is slightly concerning in that it could have indicated Red Hat was starting down a rocky path, but he's gone no further and hasn't in my opinion crossed any lines. For me the difference revolves around digging for, or releasing, personally-identifiable information. Evidence-based concerns that someone may be a member of an advocacy group obviously pertain to any investigation into their editing patterns (relevant examples include the Scientology Arbcom case and the current Transcendental Meditation case), but actually trying to pin a name to an individual who hasn't explicitly released that information is, I think, where the line is crossed. Of course there's some overlap, which makes this such a delicate balance to tread, so I'm open to reviewing Ecemaml's block. Based on Red Hat's post to my talk page I will be doing so later today when I have email access, although if in the meantime a consensus forms that Ecemaml should be unblocked I have no objections. EyeSerene^talk 11:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a short block would be beneficial as I certainly feel abused and threatened by the comments on my user page. I also find the sustained personal campaign by RHPF rather tedious and shows a lack of good faith. His latest claim is that I have censored a press release from the Government of Gibraltar dated 2001 on gibnews.net, which started operation in 2005. I don't mind contribution content to wikipedia, or arguing about it being self-governing, but continually defending myself for creating websites with other people's content and against claims that I've spammed wikipedia about a long established pressure group can be described in one word used by Roger from Viz. I'm not into self-publicity keep a low profile and would like things to stay that way. --Gibnews (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Dropping the COI stuff completely might be a good idea for now. The allegations have been noted, but since we have no way to establish their truth (or otherwise) without going into dangerous territory, continuing to press them may begin to look like a vendetta even if that's not really the case. I think if this does go to Arbcom they may need to be examined, but that can be done off camera to protect editors' identities which we can't really do at ANI. EyeSerene^talk 19:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. While probably dropping the COI issue might be in order, I can't but point out that there is an editor currently blocked for attempted outing because of it. User Ecemaml's behavior has been directed either to out Gibnews or to try to unravel his alleged conflict of interest, but not both. Provided that the aforementioned user has not effectively outed any editor and that it is not possible to unintentionally attempt something, I think he should be unblocked. Just my thoughts. Cremallera (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That the name Ecemaml apparently had in mind may have been incorrect doesn't excuse the policy breach (note that Wikipedia recommends editors neither confirm or deny the results of attempts to guess their identities, and Gibnews has followed this advice). Your argument is semantically correct - one can't attempt something one wasn't trying to achieve - but the terminology at WP:OUTING is fuzzy. Basically I think that in the course of pursuing the alleged COI, Ecemaml went too far - unintentionally perhaps, but they were warned about the direction they were heading in. I believe, semantics aside, that I've followed the spirit of the policy properly. Again though, if a consensus forms to unblock (especially in the next few hours because I'm off to bed now), please don't stand on ceremony; I won't object :) EyeSerene^talk 23:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've read this thread and the relevant talk pages and looked at contrb histories, etc and I think EyeSerene's block of Ecemaml is entirely correct. Several times they were warned that their behaviour was not acceptable, and still they carried on. They were explicitly warned that if they did not back off that they would be blocked, and even after this they continued as they were, so a block is more than appropriate. I don't believe that their behaviour was acceptable, but even if it were, when editors in good standing ask you to modify your behaviour them you should stop doing what it is they have commented about. If you do not agree with them that your actions are problematical then you should discuss it with them and, if necessary, others, and come to an agreement. The worst thing you can do is blithley ignore the complaints, as Ecemaml has done.
Previously I have commented that The Red Hat's behaviour was bordering on harrassment, and I'm sorry to note that they have not taken my advice to back off and are continuing to sail very close to the wind, and unless this changes there will come a point when they get blocked and that will hardly be without warning.
For the record, apart from a single request for a citation I've been entirely uninvolved with Gibraltar articles. I'm British and currently live in the European Parliament constituency that includes Gibraltar, but I don't have any opinions either way regarding it's status. I do have a Gibraltarian acquaintance who is a passionate supporter of Gibraltar remaining British, but to the best of my knowledge she edits Wikipedia only infrequently and only in the areas of contemporary popular music and renaissance-era sculpture. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm still frustrated that I've now approached a couple of admins, including you, who are all very quick to pontificate here, but who then say they're too busy to look into the details of my COI worries - which because of the risk of outing I have gone out of my way to keep the exact details off Wikipedia. Lest anyone be unaware, I only started researching these sites after he threatened me with legal action twice for suggesting they were not reliable sources (since retracted). One of the two sites was deemed by the community to be a reliable source on the basis of answers which I believe were incomplete and misleading and - this is the frustrating bit - I can't say why. Now, if someone uninvolved was willing to donate some of their time to look at the evidence rather than pontificate here, and then they tell me it's not an issue and I should back off, that's fine. But noone is willing to do that - including you. So please don't throw around harassment claims when you don't know all the details. (I do however admit my Mr VOGG comment which started this subthread [38] was a silly response to a post by Gibnews on my retirement from the Gibraltar article space that I should not have risen to). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I can only state that I have carefully read the various emails I've received and looked at the other available evidence (including the discussion which concluded that gibnet.com does not meet WP:RS and the discussion that concluded that gibnews.net does). Your's and Ecemaml's concerns are now widely known. If you want my personal opinion: is Gibnews editing with a pro-Gibraltar POV? Almost certainly, although I'm sure they'd argue that this serves to balance an opposing POV. Do they have a conflict of interest due to their off-Wikipedia activities? Perhaps, although this is unconfirmed speculation and the lengths we can go to on this board to investigate it are limited.

However, even if the COI suspicion is justified (and I believe elements of it may be), WP:COI doesn't actually prevent editors editing in those circumstances as long as they can recognise their bias and remain relatively neutral. For example, having looked at the evidence, I don't believe your objections to the use that's being made of gibnews.net are entirely justified unless you're also alleging that the site is hosting falsified documents; at some point you do have to accept consensus, even if you think it's wrong. I think the concern about potential WP:OR where primary sources are used is valid, but where secondary sources aren't available we have to do the best we can with what we've got.

In some ways I think the alleged COI itself is peripheral - while it might explain the cause of certain behaviour, as admins we can only really address the effects. As such, the article has been locked to prevent further edit warring; editors are reminded of the likely consequences of reverting each other when protection expires (possibly with a WP:0RR restriction as proposed above); WP:NPA will be enforced where necessary; and the importance of WP:OUTING has been underlined. Without community consensus to impose more sweeping restrictions (topic bans and the like) - which no-one has called for - that's about the limit of what we can do here.

Red Hat, as I understand it the issue you and Ecemaml want to see addressed is basically: Is Gibnews, perhaps due to a COI, pursuing an agenda on the Gibraltar article(s) with no regard for Wikipedia editorial policy? I believe this is beyond the scope of this board. It touches on both content and behavioural issues, I'm certainly no subject expert, and admins have no business adjudicating content anyway. I really am coming to the view that opening an Arbitration case to examine the behaviour of all editors may be the best way forward. EyeSerene^talk 10:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews is very open and honest about his views, he doesn't sugar coat them, he displays his opinions openly, honestly and frankly. His personal bias is on display but it doesn't enter article space. If it did there are others, myself for example, who can edit to redress the balance. What I think makes the difference is he will listen to another's opinion and agree to compromise. I'd be disappointed if this goes to Arbitration as User:Atama has done an excellent job in the main of keeping things level headed. I just don't know, I rather suspect all the editors involved will not come out ofArbitration very well. I have suggsted in the past a temporary topic ban to allow external editors to sort out the article problems, perhaps now is the time to try that? I did suggest it on the talk page earlier. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 11:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to agree with Justin that Gibnews is a useful editor. With a strong POV, but he's prepared to listen to encyclopedic argument. He has also done us a service by making primary documents available online, though of course we need to use these with appropriate caution. Whatever groups he may belong to seems to me irrelevant to an encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

EyeSerene: thanks for the thoughtful response. You have summarized the concerns well and the Gibraltar page is so disfunctional that arbitration really is merited so that all involved parties' behaviour can be scrutinized (mine as well). Richard: the point is not whether he is a useful editor - he has done more than anyone to ensure Gibraltar has good coverage in WP. It's that he does hold a strong POV, he is not a "real life neutral party" in the matters he writes about on WP and we are all relying on him to self-police his own website off Wikipedia. I wouldn't have a problem with that if he had demonstrated he understood the RS and NOR policies but he has a consistent track record going back several years of not doing so, including his reaction to the initial gibnews.net blacklist proposal (instigated by an admin here, I should point out, not me). I also would not have had an issue had he come clean to the full extent of his ownership of both sites which he portrayed as being owned by companies and he is just the IT guy but that is totally and utterly false. He IS the man behind that company. Now, I shall say no more on the matter unless asked to substantiate that claim on my talk page and will be taking this page off my watch list so I'm not tempted to break that promise. Bye. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC) ps arbitration for Gibraltar yes please - with or without the COI issue.

For whatever reasons RHPF has been attempting to discredit me since he showed up on the Gibraltar pages, where his activities there have been limited to removing content and complaining about my actions. He has falsly accused me of sockpuppetry on a number of occasions and attempted to get me banned by claiming I am user:gibraltarian. He has been active in forum shopping to try and discredit gibnews.net and gibnet.com which are sites I have built, but which the content referenced on wikipedia is generated by various credible organisations and reproduced there with permission.

I note his recent edit summaries on the politics of Gibraltar regarding the Voice of Gibraltar Group where he has removed the link to vogg.gi Claiming this was 'self-promotion' for the record I have not registered that domain, designed its website or hosted it ever his claims are totally unfounded and dishonest, as is his labelling me 'Mr VOGG' on the talk:Gibraltar page malicious. He has also removed content about the 2002 referendum campaign. which was a major pivotal point in Gibraltar history and attempted to remove similar significant content on the Gibraltar page.

This is all very negative. --Gibnews (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

gibnet.com being added back despite community decision

No admin action needed; section collapsed for readability. EyeSerenetalk 17:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There were various discussions re gibnet.com relating to its reliaility. As it is maintained by an editor here (Gibnews) it was decided at the spam blacklist page that this site is not reliable [39]. It is now, however, being added back [40] by a user who appears to be letting personal issues override our policies. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this with him, but the community decision was unanimous on this so something needs to be done. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC) This is enough to make a saint swear, honestly :) I've locked that article too (on the wrong version, naturally), and have asked Dirk Beestra to review the situation with that link in the light of MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#gibnet.com. I'd blacklist it myself, but I think the more admin eyes we have on this the better. EyeSerenetalk 15:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC) See my reply to Red Hat [41], if there is a community black list I was unaware of it having taken an extended wikibreak for the last month. A reply made at 14:06, some 8 minutes before it was posted here. It would have been helpful to have referred me to it, not immediately go with the nuclear option at AN/I. On the face of it, faced with removing a cite to replace it with a citation needed would seem odd to most wikipedians. You can unlock it as I definitely won't be edit warring over it, if there is a community black list fine but I would urge Red Hat not to be pointy about removing cites and replace them with another cite rather than just removing them. Jesus, this is just getting ridiculous, not only enought to make a saint swear but also enough to turn them to drink. Justin talk 15:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC) There was no consensus to blacklist links to gibnet.com although some editors were uneasy about it, there waqs a consensusit was NOT spamming. RHPF took it upon himself to remove links. I restored one, as did others - RH then assumed bad faith and accused me of being an IP editor. He has repeatedly accused me of sockpuppetry without any basis in fact. I'm getting fed up with his continual harassment, time wasting and forum shopping. --Gibnews (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC) UNINDENT Damn edit conflict. I just checked and the request to blacklist that site was quickly denied and a quick read shows the issue was Gibnews adding the cites but not other users. Now before adding it back I did actually review those cites. Could someone actually tell me what the problem is, because now I'm just confused. Justin talk 16:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC) To be fair, the main reason why the blacklist was denied was because Gibnews was really the only person adding it. If multiple editors add it, I wouldn't object to a blacklist and I doubt that others would have either. The relevant discussion about its use, by the way, would not be the blacklist discussion but would be the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. I don't expect that Justin would have been aware of that and other discussions in his recent break from Wikipedia so I hope that nobody holds his recent contributions against him. -- Atama頭 17:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Fair enough - this all seems to have been a misunderstanding. The reverting was unfortunate, but I can appreciate that Red Hat believed he was enforcing a consensus and Justin that he was restoring sourced material. Maybe it's best if we overlook it, though I think keeping the lock on the History of Gibraltar article might be prudent for now. I will however amend my post to Dirk. EyeSerenetalk 18:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Next steps

Apologies for the new section, but I think it might help to draw a line under some of the above. Firstly, I've now unblocked Ecemaml based on their unblock request and an email exchange where they acknowledged the seriousness of WP:OUTING and undertook to avoid making similar mistakes in the future. Secondly, we have a number of suggestions for remedies above that are worth considering, ranging from article probation through a limited topic ban to arbitration. My personal feeling is that ANI is a blunt and haphazard instrument for tackling this kind of deep-rooted dispute, and the repeated threads here are a reflection of that. To a certain extent we can manage the article, but we've been unable to find any long-term solution and each time a new thread appears it seems as though we're applying sticking plasters to a gaping wound. I think perhaps it's time to refer it to a more formal venue where the dispute will get undivided attention and private issues can be examined privately. However, I agree with Justin that arbitration should be a last resort and that Atama has been doing a fine job of consensus-building on the article, so maybe something else is worth trying first. Thoughts? EyeSerene^talk 20:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I have observed that it only seems to stay stable whilst the article is protected. When it isn't "solutions" are imposed by WP:TAG. Secondly there is a real problem with WP:CPUSH on the article. Thirdly there appears to be a vendetta by two editors against another, which I think some admins have picked up on. So:

1. Article stays protected for now, edits only to be added by an admin once agreement is achieved in talk. Though I'm not sure it will go anywhere unless there is an enforced break to allow tempers to cool.
2. As suggested by Gordon, there needs to be an effort by the uninvolved to resolve the issues, without being lobbied by the involved. Say a month, a topic ban in the intervening time. I would be happy to leave it down to Willdow for now, as he listens and gives due weight to all views.
3. It needs to be monitored by a neutral admin. User:Atama has achieved the confidence of all concerned. But it is a lot to ask of him. WP:CPUSH is a difficult problem to deal with, it is acknowledged that arbitration finds it difficult to deal with.
4. Further acts of harassment need to be stopped in their tracks with an immediate block and an escalating scale of blocks. This includes the frivolous complaints about editors, I believe that there has been an attempt to manipulate AN/I to block certain editors.
5. I'm not convinced that 1RR will work, there is evidence that some of the editors have co-ordinated their activities by email. Interested to see how this problem can be dealt with. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 21:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

EyeSerene - there are far more deep-rooted and long-running problems at that article than the present content dispute. What would be beneficial, I believe, would be a review by editors with the ability to enforce blocks/topic bans (is that ArbCom? never done anything like this before) where anyone who has a concern or bugbear gets to list it and ask for it to be reviewed. (Justin might put as one of his items "I think Red Hat harasses Gibnews" and "Imalbarnoz is a tendentious editor" and provides some supporting diffs; I might say...no, will hold my tongue). As well as reviewing these "complaints" to see whether they are legitimate, the editors also look over the talk page history etc to get a general sense of who has been doing and saying what. Then everyone gets behavioural feedback (important because some people can't see what they are doing wrong, me too sometimes) and instructions to stop/start/continue certain behaviours, which if not followed will result in a topic ban. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that "a review by editors with the ability to enforce blocks/topic bans" is a pretty dead-on definition of what arbitration does. My concern is an echo of Justin above, however, that arbitration will probably end poorly for a number of people. We can still try it and trust in the process, it can and does help for people. I'm more inclined toward a community-based article probation if we can do it. I know that it was attempted before, by Justin (see here) but didn't get attention at the time. -- Atama頭 00:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to say this without sounding like I'm trying to score points, but that link you provided, the first time I'd seen it (I had been on a several month self-imposed exile from the Gib article at the time) just illustrates the problem, as do the suggestions from J above. An editor proposes a series of suggestions which are perfectly reasonable, then proceeds to break virtually every single one of them, and then proposes it all over again. One gets the feeling he thinks everyone else is the problem. I'm not trying to get him into trouble here for that, I'm just saying feedback on behaviour is seriously needed and the threat of a topic bans may just be enough. If I've deemed to have done something topic- or WP-blockable (I don't think I have) I'll accept the consequences with good grace and work on the feedback provided. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if you were right, and Justin did break all of his own suggestions, what does that matter? If those restrictions were in place, Justin would be subject to the same penalties as anyone else for breaking them. It would still have the same effect. If those restrictions were in place then the cycle you describe would be broken because violating those restrictions can lead to blocks. I'd like to say, too, that if probation is given for Gibraltar topics I don't have a lot of interest in playing "cop" on those articles. I do feel that I'm rather uninvolved with those articles, as I've done no editing to them (that I can remember), haven't taken sides in any disputes between editors, or given opinions on any of the article talk pages about what content I'd prefer in the articles. I've only acted as a mediator of sorts, and I've advised most of the regular editors about different issues they've had (and I think I once removed article protection when a dispute ended). I don't feel a need to recuse myself, and I would enforce probationary sanctions if I felt it absolutely necessary, but I feel like the first time I block someone at those articles I'm no longer on the sidelines in those disputes. -- Atama頭 02:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I could post a few diffs but no I don't think my own behaviour is above reproach and have said so. I think you'll find that I am in fact one of the few to have apologised for crossing the line and if you look, more than once the bad behaviour was out of frustration but also in response to some pretty serious bullying going on in that article. Red Hat forgets that in our own disputes, who was the bigger man and made the first move to putting the past behind us. I could post the diff but you'll find I've tried to do it with all of the others involved with Gibraltar as well. I could also point fingers and say that it was all down to Red Hat, baiting Gibnews and harassing Gibnews, for which I think you can make a compelling case and if investigated at Arbitration would lead to a rather lengthy block from editing wikipedia. If one were so inclined you could also make a case blaming AN/I for not intervening before it got so bad, it has been raised here often enough. There is a lot of finger pointing all round and not enough reflection on some pretty bad behavious by all parties. But was is the point of apportioning blame? Wikipedia doesn't have a blame culture and raking over the past and bringing up issues long forgotten and in many cases apologised for is not going to address fundamentally the atmosphere has gotten so toxic that there will be no progress with the current protagonists involved. There needs to be a clean break and repeated pleas for a voluntary break are falling on deaf ears at the moment, just as they have in the past.

I really don't want to see this going to arbitration, a number of very good editors have been sucked into what became a very bitter dispute and the project would be the one to suffer. My personal view is that the whole article has been held hostage by an editor with a nationalist agenda that fits perfectly with the profile of a WP:CPUSH. So for a while it needs very close admin attention to put an end to that disruption. To allow the article to move forward it needs fresh eyes. I'm also of the opinion, this is just about the last chance to avoid arbitration and the loss to the project of some productive editors.

I would also say that I think User:Atama does himself a disservice when he says that the first time he blocks someone he will be no longer on the sidelines. I have been very impressed with the even handed way he has mediated in a very charged atmosphere. It would be nigh on impossible to claim he had taken sides. If that became an issue where he was accused of taking sides, not for one second that I believe he would, then I would hope that other admins at AN/I would give him their full backing. The project really does need more admins like him. Oh and to put that into perspective getting praise out of a Scotsman is marginally more difficult than to get him to part with cash. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 09:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin - may I politely ask you to step aside for a moment please? You've made your suggestion for the next steps now please let me make the case for mine.

Atama - unfortunately I don't think you are the right person for this and nor is your approach the right one. You see this all as a content dispute that admin intervention and blocks can handle, but as I said, the problem is more subtle and deeper rooted. For what it's worth, I'm half Spanish and half British, living in neither country, I'm with the 99.99% of Gibraltarians who think Gibraltar should be British but I'm always finding myself on the side of the Spanish editors in these arguments against Justin and Gibnews in these POV matters because there are always a multitude of reliable sources which agree with the edits the Spanish editors want to make. That alone should ring alarm bells - that we have editors blocking edits on the basis of their political views and not what the sources say. Latest case in point: [42]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(Mostly) outside comment: as I suggested it, I'd better expand. Arbitration is complicated and stressful: but on balance I still think it's the way to go as other options haven't worked. The Digwuren arbitration decision is a model for how it might work.

As The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick says, I think there are deeper problems. The current, and proposed admin/blocks, setup doesn't really address the problem that we shouldn't have an article solely guided by what's mutually acceptable to two hostile factions. It means, for instance, that what's a sore point to both - e.g. San Roque - will end up with vague anodyne coverage that's more about appeasing these factions than informing the uninvolved reader.

Getting editors to talk nicely doesn't alter problems of strong bias - often affecting opinion on topics in unstated ways - that really needs attention at editing level ("neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability" as the Digwuren summary says) rather than just discussion level. Having skimmed the discussions, I'd have to conclude that "pro-Gibraltar" bias is far more of a problem here than pro-Spanish.

I think there are also a number of other unresolved issues around the Gibraltar articles: unresolved conflict of interest; and sourcing (general current focus on primary sources and/or not terribly reliable ones, rather than reliable secondary sources such as mainstream newspapers and books). I don't know whether anyone here remembers the whale.to discussion; this concerned a site hosting historical documents (each reliable in itself) about 19th century vaccination issues - but the documents archived were selectively anti-vaccination, and the site itself framed the material with an anti-vaccination slant. So it was decided an unreliable source. This seems very pertinent to one of the sourcing issues here.

As I've said, a creative solution would be to ban any editor with a stake in the regional issue; I think there are some regionalist editors whose bias is so deep-rooted that I don't have any faith in their ability to work in a way compatible wth the aims of Wikipedia (see WP:PLAGUE). But failing that, arbitration. This needs knocking on the head. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No Red Hat I will not step aside and allow you to villify me yet again, I am utterly fed up with being villified for having the temerity to disagree with you and refusing to be bludgeoned into agreement by tendentious and circular argument. You're misrepresenting my opposition to certain edits as POV, when I had very different objections to Gibnews. My suggestion that information peripheral for an overview of Gibraltar is not included is a very reasonable position to take. Your own user page makes the same point Removal of "true" or "sourced" material from Wikipedia is not unconstructive/vandalistic: one of the purposes of Editing is to ensure that the text being edited is of appropriate length. This may mean removing irrelevant information or a level of detail that is not required.

But having made that suggestion I was villified as "suppressing" any mention of San Roque and of "censoring" the article. What rings alarm bells for me is when an editor is harangued for a suggestion, instead of it being calmly and rationally discussed, and the labelling of POV is used to justify ignoring reasonable argument. Alarm bells ring like crazy when an established article is labelled as POV, when what they really mean is that it doesn't favour the POV they prefer. Equally those so bent on including certain information are so bent on it, for entirely POV reasons, equally fixed in their position by POV concerns as Gibnews. The difference being Gibnews states his objection openly but they conceal theirs and to me that makes them the greater danger to the project. See WP:CPUSH

You portray it as myself and Gibnews against the world, when that is far from the case. There were a number of other editors who this mess has driven away from the article. In they main, they agreed that I put forward a reasoned argument but one by one were driven away by relentless circular and tendentious argument. I note that a completely fresh pair of eyes this week acknowledges that there is merit in what I had to say. And for what its worth, I'm half-Spanish as well, an inconvenient fact for those that accused me of racism as another excuse to ignore reasoned argument.

You are persisting with trying to imply that only two editors are the problem, when there is a great deal of problematic behaviour that has resulted from a basic failure to assume good faith. You're just as guilty as anyone else but the fact is you just can't see the problems in your own behaviour and that for me is worrisome. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 13:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Based on much of the above and some hard thinking overnight, I've now filed a Request for Arbitration. I fully understand that this won't be welcomed by everyone, and I'm quite prepared to be castigated for doing so, but I feel Arbcom rulings in other contentious areas (the Balkans, the Middle East, Ireland etc) have proved helpful in resolving such deep-rooted disputes. I also don't want to give the impression that I've short-ciruited other dispute resolution; Atama has clearly earned - and deserves - the respect of everyone involved, and one of the reasons I made this decision was their perfectly understandable wish not to have to police the article if community sanctions were tried. I think finding other admins that want to step into the firing line will be difficult (I have no desire to do so myself either), and because this thread has had limited participation I believe that interest in voluntarily dealing with this perennial issue, after so many unsuccessful attempts, is low. In short, I don't think I'm wrong in saying that most of us are fed up with it and just want it settled - including most of the article editors, I suspect. EyeSerene^talk 14:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou EyeSerene. And thankyou Atama too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to disagree and say that you've been premature in this action. Not that I'm suggesting you be castigated for it. You say there has been no success in dealing with this by AN/I, well I counter by saying that is hasn't been tried yet. Great to get it settled but not this way, its a sledge hammer to crack a walnut. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 15:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fair enough, and of course I respect your position. I believe there are issues here that can't be settled by ANI though - it's proved a pretty tough walnut :) EyeSerene^talk 15:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

'Evening. I tend to agree with EyeSerene and Red Hat on this. After a lengthy mediation attempt, a proposed moratorium, 2 (or 3 already?) requests for comment and several AN/I threads we've achieved little. It may be true that arbitration is a last resort, but at this point we are in dire need of a last resort. Finally, may I suggest informing Guy about the existence of the request for arbitration? If I recall correctly, he is an administrator who was drawn to this whole Gibraltar dispute a month ago via AN/I thread, and filed an RfC. He was pretty active on the talk pages for some time. His input may be useful to the process we are about to initiate. Cremallera (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any strong objection to arbitration (not that it would change anything if I did). I think that multiple dispute resolution steps have been attempted without any lasting success, and what's needed is something along the lines of discretionary sanctions or probation. Doing something like that requires either community consensus or arbitration. Either ArbCom or the community has such a power, and I suppose it doesn't matter who does it. If EyeSerence is going to take the initiative and bring this to arbitration, then I say go for it. Hopefully some lasting fix can come from this now. -- Atama頭 17:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've notified Guy as suggested - thanks Cremallera. EyeSerene^talk 18:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this action, maybe it will finally settle all of the nonsense on this article that seeems to bring a thread to ANI on such a regular basis, nothing else has or even seem to have come close. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

More vandalism from User: Jonbobsmith

Resolved

 – User given final warning. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This editor, who was last blocked for vandalism in 2007, is now back and repeatedly vandalizing the Hall High School (Connecticut) article. Can someone check into this? Thanks -- Danieldis47 (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The user has no block on his record and no current warnings on his talk page. His edits are a bit childish but exactly what do you want us to do? Maybe you could offer to help him. JodyB _talk 02:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Help him what, vandalize articles? Jonbobsmith has such helpful edits in his history as [43], [44], and [45]. I have left a warning on his talk page for the vandalism to the High School article. Being a child does not excuse vandalism. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see that he was not blocked in 2007 - just warned. Hopefully, the new warning now on his Talk page, plus this mention here, will be enough. Thanks. Danieldis47 (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've elevated his warning based on his history from a 2 to a 3. Given the fact that this user has been warned in the past, he/she should know better. Interesting situation here, though. Does anyone share the thought that may be a possible compromised/shared account? Connormah (talk | contribs) 05:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty standard AIV. The elevated warnings will be visible to Hugglers now too, so this issue should be handled for now. Shadowjams (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all for their fine work on this! Danieldis47 (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

24.18.45.110

That IP above ^ received warnings on his talk page for vandalism, but has repeadatly removed them.

Should this be on edit warring? I don't know. But anyway, I'd like something done, like temporary protection, or something, since he doesn't seem to be doing anything now except blanking his talk page.

Jimbo Wales NEKAMI!!! (Talk to her) 00:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing warnings from one's own talk page actually isn't against the rules. It's permitted (though 24.18.45.110's bogus edit summaries aren't a good sign). It's usually taken to mean that they've read the messages. (Altering the messages is another matter.) -- Why Not A Duck 00:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you come across a user that's repeatedly removing warnings, just act as if the warnings are still on the page with respect to any future warnings. I recently came across a vandal that had removed a recent level-3 warning from its talk page right before vandalizing again. I didn't bother caring about the deleted warning, and simply issued a level-4. A level-4 warning is a level-4 warning, regardless if the user has left the other 3 on the page or not. Like Why Not A Duck said, removing warnings basically shows that the user has read them. WP:DRC and WP:CAIN offer other arguments. —LedgendGamer 10:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threats

Resolved

 – User was blocked by User:Materialscientist for "Making legal threats". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The above user, a new editor, posted a LARGE amount of uncited and frankly incorrect information to radio station page WVAB. I notified the user about the rules of citing your sources and that papers and knowledge in your head wasn't a reliable third-party source. With no response and almost instant revisions, I began to mark for vandalism, something I didn't wish to do. After issuing two warnings, I received this on my user page (not my talk page). Amongst the spelling errors are accusations that I am "libelous" and the user needed "contact information for legal disputes". This sounds like a clear legal threat or one that is proceeding into one. Could an admin take a look at this? Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

After further vandalism to my userpage by the user, I received this post with "Pleae remove the inaccurate info or this will become a legal matter."...clearly a legal threat. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Materialscientist (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

List of empires

Resolved

 – user stopped after being warned; nothing to do unless problematic behavior restarts--Jayron32 06:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Mackay 86 (talk · contribs) repeatedly removes citation tags while not responding in article and user talk pages. Please interfere. - Altenmann >t 02:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Diffs? Woogee (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI Mackay86 appears to be starting similar behaviour at British Empire - initial edit - he gets reverted with the edit comment "why?" - Mackay then puts it back with no talk page discussion or edit comment . The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

And, this is not usually a good sign - a warning I placed on their talk page has just got immediately removed. [46] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed his contributions since he was warned. He has (as yet) not returned to the problematic behavior. So apparently the warning worked. --Jayron32 06:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Other Problem with Mackay 86

He marks many of his edits as WP:MINOR which are not [47]. I asked him not to do this [48], again immediately removed, and he continued to make three more non-minor edits marked as minor. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Vjosë

Resolved

 – Megistias and Athenean blocked by Tiptoety. Appeals should go on the appropriate user talk page. NW (Talk) 11:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User Sulmues has been warned on add/removing non-RS material and references in the article. But he has done so more than 4 times of this particular one. diff , diff diff, diff, Megistias (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Is this the right page for this? Doc9871 (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Its not about the rate of readding them, its about ignoring RS & talk and just doing itMegistias (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC) "...more than 4 times..." (your words) was not about the "rate" of re-adding them? Is this an edit-warring/3RR report or not, please? Doc9871 (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC) taking it thereMegistias (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Good man :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Racism accusation

Undefeatedcooler, a pure single purpose account (see user contributions), who has been stubbornly reverting the Bruce Lee article for the past two weeks has directed a racist tirade against me and some other users who were guilty of disagreeing with him:

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Categorization of Bruce Lee as "Chinese":

• "His/Her comments approached Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Etiquette. I insisted that he/she was a racist (anti-Chinese) editor." Undefeatedcooler (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Bruce Lee#Lead and categories:

• "“Bruce Lee was not Chinese”, that’s ridiculous. He was surely a Chinese person, I know there were a lot of anti-Chinese in America, but please put your bias and racism away." Undefeatedcooler (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• "Those were the key points for the lazy and stubborn people to read clearly. You are the one being immature, bullheaded and racist (anti-Chinese) with your insults and ignorant attitudes to this discussion page." Undefeatedcooler (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Editor notified of this discussion. -- Atama頭 02:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have informed him on the article talk not to call anyone racist or engage in personal attacks. I have also informed him that he can't use Wikipedia content to support his side of things, but only third party reliable sources and so on. SGGH ^ping! 09:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor has been warned twice about 3RR and has reverted four times in the past 24 hours (from 13:26 and 14:28 4 March, 12:59 and 13:18 5 March). I think a block is in order, because he's clearly not stopping, but I really don't want to file a 3RR report, because those things are time-consuming and I recall sometimes the backlog gets so huge that sometimes no block is issued. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

He's blocked now (not by me), because of the 3RR breach. I responded to an earlier edit war complaint but at the time he had only reverted twice in 24 hours. Now that he has been blocked I hope that he realizes that he needs to cut it out (we'll see). -- Atama頭 22:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not up on the latest about Bruce Lee, but has anyone seriously argued that Lee was not Chinese? (I'm assuming here that Taiwanese=Chinese -- which, based on what I know of Lee, might be the case.) Even, I'm willing to accept in this case, an argument at the "Barak Obama is not an American citizen" level of seriousness? If no one, except this person, believes that to be the case, an indef block is the proper response. We have better things to do with our time than to deal with people who live on a world where the skies are not blue -- like this person. -- llywrch (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The argument was about citizenship, not ethnicity. The dispute was whether or not adding "Chinese" categories to the article was appropriate, when such categories are meant for citizens of the People's Republic of China. Bruce Lee was born in San Francisco and lived in Hong Kong for much of his life (including his formative years) at a time when Hong Kong was a British colony. I don't see anyone providing sources that show that Lee held citizenship in any country other than America. Bruce Lee is called a Chinese American in the lead of the article, and that certainly hasn't been a point of contention in these debates from what I can see.

However, that's not the problem, the problem is the characterization that those who deny adding these categories to the article are racist anti-Chinese, in violation of WP:NPA. That's frankly intolerable. Content dispute aside, taking such a stance against fellow editors is not allowed. -- Atama頭 02:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Um. This is one of those cases where it would have been nice had a little more information been supplied. (What I do know about Bruce Lee can be written down on the back of a 3x5 index card; it simply seemed obvious to me that he should be considered Chinese.) That way when an incident seems to be black-&-white to an outside party -- like me -- we can understand that it is a far more nuanced problem. (And keeps us from adding comments for which we feel foolish & apologetic about afterwards.) Nevertheless, I agree with your second paragraph, Atama: even if one disagrees with an existing decision -- such as in this case limiting "Chinese" categories only to citizens of the PRC -- it is not proper justification for calling people racist. -- llywrch (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nabbing User:ScienceGolfFanatic

Well you all may know that I've gotten over 300 messages from this troll/sock puppeteer. In an effore to get rid of this guy, I;ve got a list of the ranges that he likely uses. (This is an exact copy of an old version of User:Soap's Sandbox.

IP ranges likely to have been used by ScienceGolfFanatic

• 65.92.124.0/22 (probably the "home" range)
• 69.156.124.0/23
• 64.231.200.0/22
• 64.231.11.0/24
• 209.221.64.0/18
• 67.68.33.0/24
• 67.68.34.49 (still unblocked and recently vandalised almost every sub-page of mine)

With the exception of the 67.68 group, the vast majority of edits from these ranges since May 2009 show all the signs of SGF's favorite editing behaviors. Prior to that, few if any are, as he was apparently using accounts with usernames during that time.

I'm requesting that a CU be done to actually determine if Soap's hunch was correct. If so, perhaps we can get rid of him (and his e-mail spamming habbits) for a while (at least until he finds another range or the block wears off.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The 67.68.xx.xx range would be a tough block, as it contains many legitimate users. The other ranges had virtually no other anonymous users besides SGF as of November, and although that could change any time, my understanding is that most of them are still blocked. But still, I think it would be a tough sell to try to get the bottom one blocked for any substantial length of time because it would trap others in. —Soap— 01:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

For example (not a great example, I admit), this IP has SGF-like edits today, but 5 years ago there was somebody writing about Brahmins. —Soap— 01:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

How can it be a tough sell when I've got over 300 (yes 300) messages in my inbox that are telling me that he knows where I live and what my birthdate is? I'm tired of being stalked and harrassed by the idiot. Time to end it once and for all. The very last IP needs to be blocked as it remains unblocked and all of it's edits are vandaliseing my pages. At least block all of the other ranges so he cannot create an sock and send another 300+ messages to me about how crappy my spelling is and how he thinks I'm a duche bag. And if someone can go over all of SGF's comfirmed socks and block their e-mail as well that would be nice.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as the email harassment issues goes, might I suggest creating a new email account specifically for Wikipedia? Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hell, I know your birthdate and where you live. Your birthdate is a Wednesday and you live somewhere else. HalfShadow 03:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh, HS it's not a Wednesday. And as for the e-mail. I have several e-mail addresses. The one that I use here is almost entirely for this site. Regardless, it gets really annoying after the 300th message.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 11:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, he has a new range. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we please get some administrator action over here. He's attempting to out me on my own talk page and it was deleted from the history. I want this to stop. NOW.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess I can count myself lucky to have received only 200 messages and he's obsessed with the idea that I have a pet-unicorn. In any case, I think the only way to make this stop is to permanently block all of Southern Ontario. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What total crap is he sending you? And If we need to block all of southern ontario to nab this guy, I'm all for us takeing this to the authorities. This is going way too far. Posting personal info about me (OUTING) and calling me a duche for 70+ e-mails should count as internet harrassment.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I cannot recall what he sent me... something about unicorns again... but apparently he thought nv.wiki was an easy target with only 2 admins (one of them yours truly). On nv, I did block all off all of Southern ON (well, almost), but that's because the chances of someone up there speaking Navajo are infinitesimal. Chances of someone in ON speaking English are... well... reasonably high. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well this is just great. We've got some loser of a Canadian in Ontario somewere who's taken a habit of pointing out my spelling mistkes and thinking that you love unicorns. God you must be some sick minded fool SGF. I'd bet that you waste your time here cause you cannot get a girl. Take my advice and actualy make something of your life rather than act like a dork.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 05:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Such comments aren't particularly helpful to getting anything done on this problem (if anything can be done, that is). Coldplay, as his email harassment seems to most directly affect you, I'd advise just disabling the email function. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah, im not going to let this guy make me back down. I use that e-mail everyday for things about wikipedia. I can't disable it.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to keep your email available, then it seems you'll have to deal with this. I'm no expert on IP ranges and the like, but if I understand the comments above correctly, you can't just block Southern Ontario. We love the Canadians too much. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 20:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Gilabrand

Despite my warning him, Gilabrand continues to insert irrelevant, defamatory anti-Palestinian material sourced from hate sites (such as the Kahanist Masada 2000) into an unrelated article that I am working on in a nasty attempt to provoke me (I am Palestinian). Edits: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]

In one of the edit summaries he states "this is not any more disruptive than the rest of the article". He is well aware that what he is doing is wrong but he is proving a point. Factsontheground (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong in the few differences you refer to. I do see incivility on you part for not notifying the user about this post.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Be patient. I was just dealing with another matter. I notified him within ten minutes of writing this.

Please explain the relevance of Gilabrand's edits to that article. Factsontheground (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that it is hard to explain the relevance of any edits to an absolutely irrelevant article. What Gilabrand has done was just a reaction of a normal person at yet another anti-Israeli conspiracy theories article. In any case it is not the matter that should be discussed on AN/I.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So, because you don't like a given article that gives you carte blanche to spam in irrelevant hate propaganda? I guess I must have missed that rule when I read the Wikipedia guidelines Factsontheground (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Whap!

Factsontheground - you have a long history of pushing this general agenda. You have an obvious and well known bias on this matter. Most of the time, what you are doing falls within our policies and the purpose of the encyclopedia, despite the bias and agenda. In this case, You were pushing outside the lines, and this has become disruptive.

I am torn between wanting to slap you with a trout, and seeing if there's support for a topic ban for you.

My immediate conclusion is: The Trout.

Please don't do this again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Do whatever you want to do, George. Go ahead and block me again. I'm sure other admins will come along to undo your block as per usual and you'll just look bad. Your personal attacks on me for having a "obvious and well known bias" are simply not true, but as in the past I imagine you will repeatedly refuse to substantiate any of your accusations against me and simply threaten me with blocks to silence me.

And no, George, I will do this again the next time someone starts posting irrelevant, obscenely racist hate propaganda on an any article that I am editing and refuses to stop. You may think that Masada 2000 is a reliable source but most people would not agree. Factsontheground (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Factsontheground, first of all I do not believe that what was added to your article by Gilabrand is "hate propaganda". There's no more hate than in the article itself. IMO the edits that were done by Gilabrand were as relevant as the article itself, which means they both the edits and the article were irrelevant. The sequence of events was like that:first you wrote an irrelevant article, and then Gilabrand added irrelevant edits to already highly irrelevant article, which IMO is a reaction of a normal person to yet another Israeli and 9/11 conspiracy theories. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, if you don't like an article, use the AFD process. Don't spam in irrelevant hate propaganda. Factsontheground (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There is reasonable evidence on hand that both the article topic and the added material are biased, albeit in opposite directions.

What you do often pushes the envelope towards WP:BATTLE - using Wikipedia to advocate for anti-Israeli positions. This is not new and not news. Gilabrand acts in an equivalent and diametrically opposed manner, as I am sure you will agree - also, not new, not news.

It is not appropriate for either of you to go beyond advocating a point, within the Wikipedia system and editorial goals and mission, and to escalate to either outright issue advocacy war (as you two both did on the article) or personal attacks (as you have done here on ANI).

You have - in those personal attacks - repeatedly insulted Gilabrand, and all the administrators who are responding to you here. This is at the very least unwise, and counterproductive.

Again - see the Trout above. What you did here was not acceptable. You are welcome to take the "...and please don't do it again" resolution. If you insist on escalating it, then you need to be aware of and prepared for the consequences. Neither Gilabrand nor you was in the right, but the actions so far don't breach the level that admins should have to take action. If you keep pushing here, you will breach that level.

Again - please stop. I have no wish to see you blocked here. But if you keep abusing us here, and Gilabrand, that's what's going to happen. You can hold any opinion you want on the admonishment here and my impartiality. But if you keep pushing buttons, one will be pushed back. Please take the opportunity to step back and move on to other topics without any lasting repurcussions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

George, I don't agree that I and Gilabrand are equivalent. I strive to follow Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines and I often write in advocacy of Israel or Israelis. Like many Wikipedians, I do write about Israel and Palestinian topics. I don't see that as any worse than writing about Greek or Italian or American or British topics.

I certainly didn't mean to personally attack anyone and I will happily remove the personal attacks if you point them out to me.

I also agree that no admin should have to take official action here. What I wanted was for an admin to politely ask Gilabrand to stop doing what he is doing, particularly during the AFD process. So is your advice just to put up with it, then, even when people are criticizing the article because of Gilabrand's edit and I can't remove them because of WP:3RR?

The irony here is that Masada 2000 is probably one of the most anti-semitic pages on the web. Factsontheground (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

George, this is the second time that you have come into an ANI I've filed against a disruptive user and claimed that I should be blocked just as long as the perpetrator. This is the second time your opinions have been rejected by your fellow admins. This is the second time you've attacked and threatened me without providing any constructive criticism as to what I'm doing wrong. Please don't let there be a third. Factsontheground (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

{edit conflict) About Masada 2000. The site is not blacklisted on Wikipedia, so the user had the rights to refer to it. I read at least some info that the user added to your articles in published books that have nothing to do with Masada 2000. IMO the user was very hurt by the lies and propaganda provided in your article. Please do not worry about anti-Semitic sites, you have enough to worry about already, like 9/11 conspiracy theories, for example. Could we please mark that thread as "resolved" now before somebody is blocked?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If Masada 2000 is not blacklisted then it ought to be, as it's basically a far-right screed sheet. Even ignoring the fact that it's an ultra-right-wing propaganda piece, it does not appear to satisfy the Reliable Sources guideline. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not, but in any case this board is not the right place to request it to be blacklisted.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I am marking a matter as resolved now, if somebody disagree, please feel free to remove the template. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Info:I did mark the matter as resolved, but User:Factsontheground has chosen to remove the template, which is of course his/her right to do.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you both should let an uninvolved administrator do that in this case. I see nothing wrong with discussing whether a source is reliable or not here, as it seems to pertain to the central discussion. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not look at Gilabrand's edits and so am not commenting on them. I'm just struck by the appalling comments of Mbz1 written above. The fact that an article is in poor shape does not entitle anyone to break the rules in editing it. And the statement "The site is not blacklisted on Wikipedia, so the user had the rights to refer to it." is in complete contradiction to policy as given by WP:RS. Zero^talk 04:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilabrand refuses to respond to us so we can assume that he is going to continue being disruptive. And GeorgeWilliamHerbert has come out of the blue to make a great number of threats/allegations against me without explanations or supporting evidence. He did this last time he blocked me (which was rescinded after other admins stepped in) so he needs to answer my questions before this is resolved. Factsontheground (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

@zerowithzeros :)I did not say that the article is in "poor shape". I said that the article is full of bogus, original research, lies and propaganda, and I said that I could understand Gilabrand wish to have his/her say on it. I repeat one more time, if the site is not blacklisted on Wikipedia,the user had the rights to refer to it. It is for community to decide, if the site is or is not a reliable source.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What George said about the user is right. The user is here to fight WP:BATTLE--Mbz1 (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment that I agree that the site in question is racist, ultra-right wing, and most decidedly not a WP:RS. No one should be citing it for anything. I don't think it would be unreasonable for someone to leave a polite note for Gilabrand about WP:POINT and WP:RS. Cheers, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at Gilabrand's edits, it is clear that they are entirely out of place, including describing accepted history of the Arab refugees as a scam on the one hand, and anti-semitic (anti-Jewish) screeds on the other. The idea appears to be that "this article is crap, so I will throw some completely irrelevant garbage because it smells just as bad as the other crap." This is not an accepted or productive style of editing, and Factsontheground has good reason to complain - just as others have a right to complain about the article itself by the ordinary AfD procedure. Of course Masada2000, a site that goes out of its way to be defamatory, will hardly ever be an appropriate source for an encyclopedia.John Z (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked Gilabrand for disruptive WP:POINT violations in editing the article. I also agree that the article in the form written by Factsontheground is a disruptive WP:COATRACK/WP:OR piece; whether these defects are obvious and severe enough to justify a block of Factsontheground for tendentious/disruptive editing I'd like to leave open for further discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again, if Masada2000 is a defamatory in your opinion, you should nominate it for black listing, and this is not the right pace do do it. User Gilabrand has found the deletion request now, and voted there. The user stopped editing the article in question few hours ago. So any sanctions applied to the user at the moment are punitive.--Mbz1 (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not policy. Just because a site has not been blacklisted does not mean it is ok to be used as a source. If this were the case, then any blog or random website could be used also. Read WP:RS. That site you're referring to is a Kahanist-extremist and anti-semitic hate screed. It isn't any more reliable than Stormfront or the Westboro Baptist Church's website. Defamation has nothing to do with it. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, thank you for taking action to resolve this so we can all move on. I must say, though, that it was my impression that only editors (and not articles) could be "disruptive", since WP:DISRUPTION is a behavioural guideline, not a content guideline. If I act inappropriately then I can understand being blocked, and I invite you to point out any disruptive behaviour by myself so I can correct it, but it seems odd to block me for writing material and then following Wikipedia processes to resolve the content issues. Factsontheground (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, writing bad content may be a mere error of judgment that can be corrected through normal editing. However, writing obviously bad content – i.e. bad enough that any reasonable neutral onlooker must recognise it is unacceptable in terms of NPOV or NOR rules – in fact is disruptive behaviour. Whether the bad content in this case rises to that level is just what I wanted to see discussed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems odd that you would consider this as a possibility, given that there are at least 4 votes to keep by experienced Wikipedians (not counting myself) in the AFD (which has only be listed for less than 24 hours) as well as a great deal of debate. Surely an "obviously" bad article would be unanimously rejected in the AFD dicussion without much debate? Factsontheground (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article but thought I'd note that almost anything politically inclined within the Arab-Israeli conflict will automatically get promotion and support from "the usual suspects". I don't plan on checking the AFD in discussion but I trust that if Fut.Perf. can see a problem, then there most probably is one. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement topic ban of Gilabrad

I agree with the assessment by Future Perfect at Sunrise and John Z above. The cited edits of Gilabrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to Israeli art student scam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), notably [56], are in violation of WP:COATRACK, WP:NPOV and WP:POINT, in that they add material that is (a) entirely unrelated to the subject of the article (which is incidents of alleged art fraud in the USA), (b) intended to advance a non-neutral point of view in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and (c) with the apparent purpose of drawing attention to the perceived non-neutrality or other defects of the rest of the article. In WP:ARBPIA#Purpose of Wikipedia, the Arbitration Committee held that "Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited." But this is exactly the sort of conduct that Gilabrand engaged in with these edits. He was previously, in 2008, notified of the abovementioned arbitration case. Consequently, to prevent continued disruption of this sort, under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, I am hereby banning Gilabrand from the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the duration of three months. (For the avoidance of doubts, this includes all pages or discussions related to the topic, broadly construed.) This ban may be enforced with blocks or additional sanctions as necessary.

This sanction should not be construed as me expressing an opinion about the merits of the article, or about the conduct of Factsontheground (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or other people, and does not prevent other uninvolved administrators from taking whatever action they may deem necessary with respect to the article or other editors.  Sandstein  22:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Those edits were totally unacceptable. Fences&Windows 04:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Three months? Other consistently disruptive editors don't even get a slap. Gilabrand is actually a proven productive contributor to WP, expanding articles, improving them, and frankly, that recent edit so uncharacterisitc of her anyway. The 48 hour bblock was harsh enough, three months is absurdly disproportional. --Shuki (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? Because if an editor had used stormfront as a source for anything at all that editor would, rightly, have been banned. A racist propaganda site was repeatedly used by Gila as a source in an article, making absurd claims that are easily disproved by actual reliable sources. I agree with you that Gila is a proven productive editor, but this was ridiculous. nableezy - 22:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Request from a college to block access

Not sure what to do here. An IP left this comment on my user talk, purporting to be from a college which would like to have editing blocked. Is there a process for this, and who handles it? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What college does the IP resolve to? I would think to contact their administration to confirm it before issuing a block. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 10:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Why should we police the schools students? I say we find out what school the ip goes to and then mark the page. Other than that it's not our problem.--Adam in MO Talk 10:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, Adam, we have in the past blocked school IPs because technical staff contacted us and specifically asked for it. While usually through OTRS, someone oblivious to its existence would likely request a blocking thru an administrator's talk page instead. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 10:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the request is valid, are they requesting the block because they have a bunch of misfits who are likely to be disruptive (giving the school a bad name), or are they requesting the block because their students waste time and resources here? If the reason is the first then it's in wikipedia's interest to implement the request. Impeachable (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Come again, Impeachable? "Bunch of misfits"... Doc9871 (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As to what to do here; some students at a college edit responsibly on WP, and some choose to vandalize. Block the entire college, of course! What else can be done? Don't listen to the college's administration... just block the college, depriving all editors equally. Very simple to me ;P Doc9871 (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Do we really want Wikipedia to consume administrative resources enforcing the acceptable-use of-the-internet policies of schools? There must be hundreds of thousands of schools around the world, and if even 1% of them ask for this sort of bock, that's tens of thousands of blocks.

And what do we do if the relevant school authority is acting on behalf of the local security police dude in some totalitarian state which says its aim is to stamp on unlicensed speech and unauthorised dissemination of knowledge? Is wikipedia going to happily act as the proxy of a totalitarian regime? If not, how do we establish criteria for which block-requests to accept?

I agree with Adamfinmo. Just mark the page and let the school do its own policing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I was involved as the blocking admin in a similar situation a couple of years ago but only after speaking on the phone with the school's IT department. As I recall it was a high school setting. Looking back on it I am not totally comfortable with it. But not necessarily opposed. The school could add wikipedia to its own internal blacklist but that would blocking the viewing and research he speaks of. I think I would tell him that we will leave the ip account open for now and deal with disruptions on an ongoing basis. While Jeremy is correct that we have done it before I am not sure that's a precedent we want to continue. Under no circumstance would I block without better communication. My two cents...JodyB _talk 12:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no particular issue with blocking schools on request - given that the alternative may be that the school blacklists Wikipedia entirely, preventing people from reading it. I would ask for an OTRS request from a staff email address, though. ~ mazca ^talk 12:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's the school's IP connection, they can blacklist whatever they like; but that no reason for us to act as agents of their censorship. If the school doesn't want to block its students to either editing or view wikipedia, that's none of our business. I don't see any difference in principle between a school saying block-our-students-from-editing-or-we'll-cut-all-access, and a government saying exactly the same thing about its citizens; both are attempts to persuade wikipedia to enforce somebody else's policies.

This is supposed to be "the encyclopedia which anyone can edit", not "the encyclopedia which excludes editors when someone asks us to cut off their access". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Let the school handle it. Wikipedia need not be a censor for someone else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Bugs. If the school contacted WikiMedia in writing and in a much more official manner, I think it could be considered. As it is, nope. Tan | 39 13:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with BrownHairedGirl, and would be strongly opposed to implementing such a request, even if made officially and in writing. Let the schools deal with their own disciplinary problems and technical issues. And if they foolishly choose to completely block Wikipedia from being accessed, their loss.

As always, if an IP address is used persistently for disruptive editing, we will block it under our existing anti-vandalism policies. But we should never preemptively block. — Satori Son 13:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Beyond sometimes reverting its own vandalism, and today's discourse, there has not been a single constructive edit from this IP address in the 2½ years it's been editing. That alone would make it ripe for a lengthy schoolblock IMO. I don't see why an official request would make any difference. If it does nothing but vandalism then block it. There's nothing preemptive about it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing requests from school administration for permanent removal of editing privileges for their IP range, not semi-temporary blocks for vandalism. Obviously, we should always block for persistent vandalism. — Satori Son 14:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Zzuuzz is right, and I canned it for a year. In addition, given the grammar of the "request", I highly doubt this came from anyone in a professorial profession. Tan | 39 14:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Good call, Tanthalas39. I have no objection to a block for vandalism if that is merited, whether the IP belongs to a school, a national parliament, or anyone else. But per zzuuzz, a block-us request from the school is irrelevant to that decision, even if it is delivered in a sworn affidavit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks, I find this interesting. What if a (mischievous) student or nutty professor sent a "block us" request from a school network computer? Or another organization did this? Could/would a Wiki admin block a IP or IP range on such a request? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We block users and IP addresses if a large proportion of their edits are vandalism and there is a good probability that the vandalism will continue if they're not blocked. We allow especially IP editors some slack, to allow for new/testing editors and addresses shared with constructive editors, but when there is nothing but vandalism over a long period of time on a static IP then we have very little to lose. It doesn't matter who reports them or asks for them to be blocked; we are usually grateful to anyone who brings them to our attention. Admins will independently evaluate the edits before taking any action. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well said. — Satori Son 14:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Over the past few years I have found more cases where one must register in some way to use a library or school computer which at one time could have been used in complete anonymity. As a technical question, is it possible for a technician at the school to tell which terminal a particular edit was made from? Maybe by seeing which terminal of a limited number was connected to Wikipedia at a particular time? If a particular student uses his ID to log onto the schools computer and vandalizes the school's article with BLP violating attacks on faculty or students, it is possible that the school can identify and punish the offender. That seems a better outcome than us blocking all editing by students at the institution. Edison (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Kudos for good sense to zzuuzz and Tan. Durova⁴¹² 18:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Im coming a bit late here, but I believe it's possible for the school to block editing without blocking reading. They do that by blacklisting "/w/index.php" and/or "&action=edit" but not blacklisting the rest of Wikipedia. It's not entirely foolproof but anyone with enough determination to get around a system like that would probably be vandalizing outside of school anyway. —Soap— 18:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Did I miss something? I thought the request was to block the ability to EDIT, not to read. Blocking the IP (like it currently is) is much different than blacklisting isn't it? And registering accounts for projects etc. would still be available to them. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the blacklisting comments refer to the fact that most schools are likely to have proxy filters installed on their networks, so they can block any URLs of their choice. If you complain to schools that they have been vandalising, with scary emails and a name-and-shame policy, instead of just softblocking them, then this is likely to be their response - blacklist the whole domain. However as Soap explains, if a school wants a block then it should be possible for them to set their filters to block editing, without blocking reading. That's really for the school to decide though; from our perspective if they do too much anonymous vandalism then we generally just softblock them so they can still edit with accounts. It isn't possible for mere admins to block read-access. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
    • As someone who works at a uni in IT, I'd also point out that the school should be able to correlate login ids or dhcp logs with the ip and timestamp for an edit and identify the person who made the edits--if they are concerned about vandalism, they should be able to handle this entirely on their own. Nuujinn (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Though I'd note that a lot of schools (such as my own) allow "classroom" logins that don't keep track of who's done what. —Soap— 21:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Mass production of music articles of questionable (or absent) merit.

Resolved

 – wrong forum. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

JackShestak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created an incredible number of articles is a very short time. I'd appreciate some help sifting wheat from chaff. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a matter for the Administrators' noticeboard. Consider asking for help at WP:WPMU. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Cliché Online

Resolved

 – Both editors warned against edit-warring. No admin intervention required, nothing to see here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Cliché Online (talk · contribs)

I've had a few disagreements with this user in the past - they usually stem from my editing of an article, or piece of information in said article, which Cliché takes exception to. Latest of these run-ins is a disagreement over the Ferrari Challenge: Trofeo Pirelli article - I feel there should be less detail on it, he feels there should be more. Normally this wouldn't be a problem and I would be able to just discuss it with the other user, but its incredibly hard to assume good faith as Cliché is habitually over-agressive and uncivil, choosing to move off on tangents and brand me as having an "agenda" (pro-Microsoft/Xbox, anti-PS3/Sony), examples of which can be seen on my talk), rather than actually calmly discuss something. Anyway, he's breached 3RR on the aforementioned article and I was going to bring it up on the noticeboard, but his incivility is so wearing I decided to bring it here instead. If needs be I can dig up the run-ins/previous aggression/incivility I've experienced with him in the past (which resulted in him getting blocked twice, if I recall). Much thanks! Fin©™ 18:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Diffs, please? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Just looked at the article history. Civility issues notwithstanding, you both appear to be edit warring and are both in blockable territory for that. I would suggest you each stop editing the article and seek outside input or third opinion immediately. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Implying that I edited one article but not another as I have an Xbox bias, general aggression, simplification of edits, accusation of vandalism, incivility, accusation of bias, accusation of bias, sarcasm, accusation of bias, accusation of bias, personal attack ("don't have a clue"), accusation of bias, accusation of bias, aggressive/personal attack. They're all within the last hour. I can provide diffs from the previous disputes if necessary. 3RR: 1 2 3 4 - the first two have antagonistic/aggressive summaries. Thanks! Fin©™ 18:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the edit warring on either side (and as I've hit 3RR, I've stopped editing) - the issue I brought here is about Cliché's general conduct and attitude. Thanks! Fin©™ 18:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, you're past three reverts:

• 1 (reverted portions of this)
• 2 (reverted portions of this)
• 3 (fully reverted this)
• 4 (fully reverted this)
• 5 (fully reverted this)

These were all within the past 8 hours.

As for the 'attacks', personally I don't see anything blockworthy there. Calling your edits "random" is saying something about your edits, not about you personally. Saying you're "agenda-pushing" may be incorrect and is certainly not the best way to communicate, but it's not the kind of terrible personal attack that people get blocked for. Perhaps someone else here might deem that a warning is necessary, but there's certainly no admin action necessary, and you should both consider yourselves lucky you haven't been blocked for edit warring. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, to call edits I make that revert part of another edit a full reversion seems excessive. I don't dispute the last three are reverts, but the first two are edits that happen to include reversion of material. The personal attacks I linked to were those stating that I (personally) "don't have a clue", and as you say, is nothing something that's blockable - I was providing diffs like you asked. Calling my edits "random" was aggressive/uncivil (I felt), seeing as I had provided this edit summary. Again, I'm not asking for a block, or indeed administrator intervention, but to class Cliché's accusations and comments as "incorrect" and "not the best way to communicate" without mentioning WP:CIVIL seems to be missing the point. Thanks! Fin©™ 19:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Woah, I've just realised you linked a single edit of mine to one that contains 62 revisions by Cliché, the other one includes 24. To call my edits to an article a "reversion" when it reverts part of some of these 62 revisions is incredibly misleading. Thanks! Fin©™ 19:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

From WP:3RR: "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part" (emphasis mine). And you can argue all you want about whether you made three reverts of five, but it's still clear edit warring behavior regardless; WP:3RR clearly states that you can still be edit warring even if you haven't made 3 reverts.

Since you aren't requesting any admin action, I am closing this thread. For complaints about behavior where admin intervention is not needed, WP:WQA is a better outlet. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

In closing, I'd just like to say that I opened this thread because I personally was finding Cliché difficult to deal with due to his constant incivility, aggression and accusations, and found his attitude was making it very difficult to assume good faith and keep cool. This issue was effectively ignored and instead edit warring was made the topic of discussion. This thread makes me less confident in the ability of WP:ANI to resolve problems I might be having and in future I'll directly approach an admin instead. That's all. Thanks. Fin©™ 20:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That's because this is not the kind of problem ANI is meant to resolve. Try WP:WQA instead.

And, as for edit warring...well, edit warring is a more serious offense than the other things brought up here, and you have only yourself to blame for doing it. If you hadn't been edit warring, I wouldn't have focused on that. Don't think that being the first person to file a complaint somehow makes your own actions immune to criticism; any time you come to a noticeboard, you yourself will be scrutinized as much as the other editor is. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Finally, finally, finally (and for what I think is the third time): I don't dispute I was edit warring. I don't dispute you should have acted on the edit warring. I was pointing out that the reason I opened this thread was effectively ignored. Thanks. Fin©™ 20:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It was not ignored. As I said above, I looked at the diffs and deemed them not a problem needing administrator intervention. I pointed you to WP:WQA. Don't blame other editors for the fact that you brought your dispute to the wrong venue. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Reincarnation of blocked User:Yzak Jule/User:Zengar Zombolt

User:Yzak Jule renamed himself User:Zengar Zombolt[57] and was then indefinitely blocked for being a general arse, and socking. User:Yzak Jule has just been created. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) User:Yzak Jule, a previous account name of the indefinitely-blocked User:Zengar Zombolt has just re-established the Yzak Jule account. This appears to be block evasion. User notified: [58]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Note re: what Elen said. The block was not for socking, as the account rename was legit. But this time, it isn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's either block evasion or impersonation. Either way, I've indefinitely blocked the account. Fences&Windows 19:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The user has sweet talked Tryptofish on his talk page. Meanwhile, I find it incredibly hard to believe that someone randomly came along and recreated a previously-renamed account of an indeffed editor by pure chance. I think the account ought to be left blocked and this block looks good to me. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

In response to Fences and Windows: It's not just block evasion, it is ban evasion, so I'm pleased you blocked it. I also thank Tryptofish for reverting Yzak Jule's only contribution to the article. Minimac (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, silly me for being sweet talked. It turns out that Checkuser proved that AGF only goes so far. The block stands, as it should. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

At this point the user has confessed to intentionally trying to deceive and evade the block, in such a way as to imply a desire to find other ways to evade it. So I just want to ask if there are any remaining loopholes that need to be closed to make that difficult. I ask because, when the Zengar account was blocked, the older Yzak one wasn't because the account name had been changed. Since account creation was blocked for Zengar, I'm guessing that more than one IP was used. So maybe someone should take one more look and make sure that, now, nothing that should be taken care of has been overlooked. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Page protection for Kunta Kinte

Could an administrator please look into page protection for the Kunta Kinte article? The page has been protected several time over the last year, and seems to be in need of it once again. I don't know if a block for the offending IP would be easier, since the user seems to switch IP addresses rather easily(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).Thanks. DD2K (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've sprotected it for one week. -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. DD2K (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hacked account?

Resolved

 – Blizocked --Jayron32 00:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Okthen123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just posted the following [59] on my talkpage, following a warning for an amusing but nonetheless vandalicious edit. Hi,I am very sorry for what the vandalism on some of the wikipedia articles. It appears that my account has been abused and hacked, as I did not write these things. Would it be possible for me to delete this account so that I could create a new one? Thanks. Apologies for any distress caused.

Could someone take appropriate action. Thanks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I blocked it. The block reason I listed was "compromised account" per your link, but he's patently lying. If you check the contribs history, the account was created : March 6 23:18 and started vandalising at March 6 23:21. I'm not sure anyone has ever hacked an account in 3 minutes before. --Jayron32 00:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, let's see if he pops up elsewhere in that case. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination)

According to WP:DGFA#Rough consensus, closing admins decide whether to keep or delete after AfDs based on "rough consensus" -- a mix of consensus and policy that each closing admin comes up with in his or her own head. Although unlikely, it is possible for a large proportion of editors !voting one way to be overturned by an admin deciding that policy goes the other way. Under these circumstances, WP:SNOWBALL closes are out of place unless the case is obvious (usually when no one objects).

After less than two days, opponents of my position at the "Climate change denial" AfD are in a large majority, but the more recent voting is much less lopsided, which I think makes it reasonable to think I have more than a snowball's chance in hell here. Yet two editors, Tony Sideaway and William Connolley, both of whom are participants in the AfD discussion, have tried to shut it down. I reverted once. Another editor reverted another time. This article is likely under the general sanctions for AWD articles, although it's uncertain. In any event, it would be better if the decision to close were left in the hands of admins and that it is only closed early if the discussion is viewed as disruptive. From what I can tell, it's simply a normal AfD, and I haven't seen evidence of disruption other than Sideaway's and Connolley's disruptive actions. Rather than some kind of edit war over closing the AfD. Please decide it here. I think normal procedures should be kept to. Apparently more editors want to participate and the discussion is certainly not all going one way. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"Much less lopsided"? I don't see that. The SNOW close was correct and would have saved all of us time and drama. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

SNOW was correct, and should have been applied earlier to this bad faith nom. JWB's edit warring over this is regrettable William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "edit war". I reverted once and immediately brought discussion to the editor's talk page and then to here. But I repeat myself. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Of the last 12 !votes, five were for my "Delete" position. If that rate continues until the normal seven days are up, it becomes much closer, making it much more comfortable for a closing admin to close against a majority, if that admin feels policy is the other way. Serious policy arguments have been made. Apparently other editors, as they come across the AfD, want to participate in it. I think it's pretty clear which route is the disruptive one here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to assume good faith in the nomination, especially since it's been over a year since the last AfD. However, the statement above that "more recent voting is much less lopsided" disturbs me, considering that that's _not_ what I saw when I went over there. I'm generally opposed to snowball closes, though, so I see no harm in letting it run the full length. (Note: I just unarchived the discussion -- I don't think that we're quite done here yet.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to articles that have multiple passed AfDs, isn't there some sort of 'Cut it the fuck out' clause you can invoke? HalfShadow 21:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Not in policy. Not when the last one was over a year ago. That's measured in months. And thanks for demonstrating that there's a high degree of tension and rudeness associated with the AGW topic area. Thanks so much. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I could care less about the subject. It just seems if it's passed at least three AfDs, it's probably gong to keep passing them. HalfShadow 21:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

@Sarek: 7 one way, 5 the other in the last 12. Simple counting. Did I get it wrong? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Depending on when you looked, probably not. I think I looked too quickly. Striking above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the trend was pretty rapid, and it surprised me, too. (It happened right after I added a better nominating statement at the top, even though it was long). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Why would Tony Sidaway close this discussion? I'm worried that if two participants have tried to close the AfD, then more will. If no further attempts at outside-of-policy closes occur, then everything is hunky-dory. But it would probably be a good idea for admins to watch this, and I'll post a note over at the AGW General Sanctions page as well, but frankly, the more eyes the better on this one. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SNOW closes are for uncontested and uncontroversial closures, or for those unlikely to be contested or controversial. Since this one is obviously being contested and is also likely controversial, given the topic, there is no harm in letting it run for the full 7 days. I personally see absolutely no chance this will get decided in any other way than "keep", but if it makes people happy to believe that they can comment on the discussion, there's no real harm, and following the 7-day procedure is useful in proactively preventing silly drama like this thread. --Jayron32 21:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Early closes invariably lead to eDrama-fueling shitstorms. Let this train-wreck run its course, it doesn't really matter if it crashes at turn #2 or turn #7 since the crash itself an inevitability. Tarc (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Has no one here ever seen an AfD consensus reverse? I have. Has no one here ever seen a closing admin close against the "raw" consensus? Haven't we all seen this? AfD is always a crap shoot. All we can do is offer our best arguments. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

At this point, there are serious, policy-based reasons behind both keep and delete votes. In order to establish a clear consensus to delete, which is required for actually deleting the article (since both a "no-consensus" and "keep" conclusion result in maintaining the status quo) would require a preponderance of delete votes which also had policy based reasons. The current debate would require something like 100 more people to show up, all with valid policy-based arguments, to overcome the current weight of the existing keep comments, and there would have to be no further keep votes at all. Yes, consensuses do change, but this one has zero chance of being deleted. Zero. This analysis isn't based on vote counting, its based on weighing the strength of the arguements. Even if we don't count votes at all, and just look at the points being made by the "keep" side and the "delete" side so far, this one is at best a "no-consensus" If we do start to count votes, even only counting those with valid rationales, the Keep votes so far have enough to make it a clear "keep" if closed today, and no worse than "no-consensus" if it is let run for the full seven days. So, have your fun for the rest of the seven day period. But don't barring some record-setting turnaround, I see absolutely no chance of this being deleted. Given the keep votes already, your best option is a "no-consensus" close, which has no functional difference from a "keep" one. --Jayron32 22:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

...this one has zero chance of being deleted. Zero. WP:BURO should apply in this case then... -Atmoz (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I addressed this above, 21:50. I don't need 100. I need 1. If I get 100, I'll still need 1. If I get that 1, it goes to DRV, where I still won't need 100 to prevent a consensus to overturn. I don't happen to like these rules (I'd prefer less power for the closing admins), I just try to play by them. Since my arguments are golden and far outshine anyone's, I'm willing to invest some more time in this, and nobody else is forced to spend time on it, anyway. WP:BURO can't apply any more than WP:SNOWBALL for the same reason: I only need 1. I find it amazing how a simple discussion that anybody can ignore is somehow so very important to shut down. It makes me suspicious. It also makes Wikipedia look biased. Wikipedia has been criticized by commentators before in relation to AGW issues, so avoiding normal procedures we'd use for every other article doesn't really seem like such a burden. Unless there's some kind of an intolerance around here for simple differences of opinion about anything related to global warming. If that's the case, then that's yet another good reason to let the discussion continue: If done right, it'll promote tolerance. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

AFD is not a random crapshoot, and its not about getting "lucky" by finding a "sympathetic admin" who either is biased towards your opinion or willingly ignores the basic principles of how AFD works. Merely because the closing of an AFD is based on the opinion of the closing admin does not mean that such a close is necessarily arbitrary. If you are only nominating the article, not because you believe that consensus would lie with you, but because you believe that some arbitrary admin would be willing to make a bad close, that is a WP:POINT violation of the worst kind. Also doomed to failure, but if that is your meaning here, it calls into question your entire motives in the nomination in the first case. If you are only banking on getting the article deleted because you believe some random admin may ignore all of the votes and all of the arguements contained therin and randomly delete it, well, that calls into serious doubt the entire AFD from your nomination, and strains anyones good faith in your behavior in this. If this is NOT what you meant, you had better clarify, because it does not appear you are holding the correct attitudes towards Wikipedia... --Jayron32 03:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Stand down. WP:DGFA#Rough consensus is policy. I referred to it in the first line I wrote. The close isn't arbitrary in the closing admin's head, but the closing admin you happen to get in a particular AfD is about as arbitrary as a crap shoot. From what I've seen, the more controversial the AfD, the more likely a wildcard closing. Happens all the time. it does not appear you are holding the correct attitudes towards Wikipedia There are no "correct attitudes" toward Wikipedia. Only correct behavior.

Now you've made me angry, so I went back to the policy I referred to and reread it. It hasn't changed (get settled in your chair, because your head's about to start spinning): Administrators must use their best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached. [...]Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. 1. Q. What is the meaning of "consensus" if it is determined by looking at "strength of argument"? A. Whatever the closing admin says it is, as long as WP:DRV confirms it. I'm following policy to the letter and spirit. And I'm (very idealistically) arguing my case hoping for open-minded people to consider it fairly. Under Wikipedia policy, my case is not hopeless because I might get enough support that a conscientious admin who actually thinks WP:POVFORK policy should be enforced will find enough rough-consensus support in the AfD to close it the way I think is right. Exactly what is wrongheaded about that? And I'm even making some progress. Of course I'm cynical about Wikipedia's odd policies. Because I've read them. (I'm much more cynical about admin conduct outside of policy. Because I've seen it.) I'm idealistic about what I'm doing and certain that it's in the best interests of the encyclopedia and it's readers. Nor am I doing it disruptively. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And another thing: Also doomed to failure How the do you know that it's doomed to failure? A discussion is disruptive because your crystal ball tells you it's hopeless? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If you start an AFD without the expectation that people will support your position, but under the belief that admins behave arbitrarily, and are actually counting on an admin ignoring a discussion and simply deleting the article randomly or without any reasonable connection to the discussion, then such a nomination is doomed to fail. You have stated repeatedly to don't expect your AFD to garner enough support to delete it, but are instead counting on your presumed opinion that some reasonable percentage of admins will behave unpredictably enough to make it possible it would be deleted anyways. That shows a surprising assumption of bad faith in the good judgement of administrators at Wikipedia, and to expect that the only way you can get the result you personally want is to have an admin who is either incompetant or malicious and to still maintain that that is somehow a valid way to proceed in a situation like this. I don't even know where to respond to that, the rediculousness of that position is so self-evident it defies further comment or elaboration. As I said, have fun for the rest of the 7-day AFD period. If you find the discussion entertaining, then fine. But its not going to be deleted. --Jayron32 05:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If you start an AFD without the expectation that people will support your position [...] Not so. Why would you say that? randomly or without any reasonable connection to the discussion You're not reading what I wrote. Not the first time you've failed to do that in this thread. a surprising assumption of bad faith in the good judgement of administrators at Wikipedia the quote I meant to put here wasto have an admin who is either incompetant or malicious Ditto. Are you deliberately misreading my very clear statement to the contrary? I'll spell it out for you just one more time: I filed the AfD because I thought and still think I had a chance. I don't know how the participation will pan out and neither do you (personally, I find spurts in participation from one side or the other pretty suspicious, but who can say what's going on there?). I hope an administrator will take both factors, consensus and policy, into account in figuring out this wierd thing WP:DGFA calls "rough consensus", as the admin is supposed to do, and I hope the admin agrees with me. I've said all of this before and it's policy. I've got no reason to say it again and you have every reason to understand it. Nothing I've said contradicts it, especially ChrisO's quote below. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)edited this post -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) Just to note, there is no particularly strong trend towards deleting the article. Just counting !votes, not evaluating rationales, in the first 24 hours there were 19 Keeps and 5 Deletes -- thats 79% / 21% for keeping. In the last 24 hours, there are 14 Keeps and 8 Deletes, which is 64% to 36%. Considering the small sample size, that's not a trend, it's a burp: the last 10 votes (since the "random convenience break") are 8 Keep / 2 Delete. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It is very obvious how that AfD will end, regardless we might as well let it come to it inevitable conclusion if someone insists on going through all the hoops. We could save time and energy by closing it now, but that time and energy would be lost ten fold dealing with those complaining about the close. I suppose we let it finish and then end up closing it the same way. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I borrow your crystal ball? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't need a crystal ball to say the sun will rise in the morning. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

And the numbers continue to support the expectation that the article will be kept: the last 12 !votes have been 11 Keeps and 1 Delete. I believe that makes the current totals 44 Keep (76%) and 14 Delete (24%). There's only one trend to be found there. A closing admin would have to find the delete arguments to be terribly persuasive and the keep arguments to be totally devoid of content to close this as "delete", and since that's not the case, I have little doubt that such a close would be overturned at DRV.

I agree with the choice to keep it open for the full time, even though it's clearly eligible for a WP:SNOW closing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been concerned from the outset about the good faith of this nomination. I note that just before nominating this article for deletion, JohnWBarber wrote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration (which closed as a deletion):

I think Bigtimepeace's and TS's comments could also be made about that other AGW-related op ed piece masquarading as an encyclopedia article -- Climate change denial -- and it would have been a wise move to put that one up for deletion at the same time to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other. It would be wonderful to watch the twists and turns of logic as editors sail through the sky, defying gravity. Exercises in hypocrisy are always such a joy to behold. (And, please, nobody throw WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at me -- this is the kind of argument that that essay suggests is a valid one.) [60]

He then posted the deletion nomination for Climate change denial - the article's fourth AfD nomination - with the following rationale, in its entirety:

This is an obvious POV fork. A screen shot of this article should be used to illustrate Wikipedia policy on POV forks. [61]

I have to say this looks very much like an attempt to prove a point, specifically "to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other." Numerous editors have commented on this in the AfD, criticising the nomination as frivolous, tendentious and POINTy. For what it's worth (not much IMO) JohnWBarber has posted a rather vitriolic response to these concerns here [62]. Since the same issue is being discussed here, I'd be interested to know what others think. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we can still assume good faith with respect to JohnWBarber's nomination. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration and related discussion a number of editors pointed out that if Climate change exaggeration was to be deleted then Climate change denial should be as well since they were two sides of the same coin. Of course one can disagree with that, but it's a legitimate view to hold. I actually suggested to another editor (not John) that they nominate the "denial" article for AfD if they were concerned about it. While I can see why one would read the comment above about watching "editors sail through the sky, defying gravity" as a prelude to a a pointy exercise, I think it's better to read it as a side comment and assume that the main reason JohnWBarber nominated the article was simply that it needed to be deleted in his view. But this issue is already being discussed here so I don't think duplicating it on ANI is helpful. Also I think this thread is basically resolved at this point and should probably be marked as such. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've answered this same attack [[63]].

Of course, my statement was directed at POV pushers of any side and very broadly (hypocrisy is the other side of the same coin that POV pushing is on -- you can't POV push without being a hypocrite). No one was named, bad behavior was the target, and it was prospective, not pointing fingers at past actions. It was meant to get real POV pushers to stop in their tracks and think about what they're doing to themselves and to the encyclopedia -- something useful for this project.

ChrisO seems to like straining logic to see bad faith. He can't quite prove the bad faith he wants to prove, but it doesn't seem to stop him from reposting the same flawed argument in a new forum. It's obvious from the AfD that I have sufficient reason to be concerned enough to want to delete the article -- whether anyone agrees with me or not. I've said so very clearly, including at the earlier discussion referred to above. If I have sufficient reason, I have the right motivation -- obviously. And yet he repeatedly insists my motivations must be bad. He mentions the first one-line rationale I posted for the AfD (which itself showed proper motivation) and ignores the comment immediately below it (and all the other comments I made). Who's exhibiting bad faith here? From ChrisO's and other comments at the AfD that called for it to be shut down, from the attempt to close it early and from parts of this thread, it's obvious that there's a desperate, desperate yearning to shut off discussion about at least this part of the AGW articles. If the AfD is inevitably going to fail, and if no one needs to participate in a normal AfD, why this desperate need? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

While I agree it is getting more and more difficult to assume good faith, I still think it is possible to do so. Lets just let the AfD go on to its inevitable conclusion so that all doubt can be removed from John's mind as to what the result will be. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am going to have to correct myself about saying it is still possible to assume good faith. Despite my years of practice at AGF, this comment "and it would have been a wise move to put that one up for deletion at the same time to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other. It would be wonderful to watch the twists and turns of logic as editors sail through the sky, defying gravity. Exercises in hypocrisy are always such a joy to behold." makes it clear what his intentions are. I still think we should let it go to the end, if only to leave nothing to claim unfairness over. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's glaringly obvious that a person with good faith could make that statement and also simply believe the article is a POV fork. What part of This is an obvious POV fork. [64] don't you understand? Since the context of my comment, in terms of my motivations for the AfD, is obviously the reasoning, evidence, quotes from policy, other research I've given at the AfD, as I've stated over and over and over again, you're assuming any more intentional wrongdoing than the evidence clearly supports, making an ill-considered accusation of impropriety, and quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them. Clue. [65] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a paradoxical situation. These AFD nominations are clearly motivated by climate change denial. Count Iblis (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Except that I'm not a denialist, so quit the ABF. I'm not even a skeptic. I just believe in NPOV articles that don't violate WP:POVFORK. I'm actually a believer in AGW, although my belief is tepid, based largely on the scientific consensus. I don't claim to know the science, but I see no reason why most scientists would lie or be biased to the extent that the consensus seems to extend. I trust them. My trust is shaken a bit by the shenanigans at the IPCC and CRU, but that hasn't destroyed my trust. I supposed if I looked into the issue deeply enough and found enough evidence to call AGW into question, I might be a skeptic, but there seems to be a lot of data and scientists out there. People I respect, like Megan McArdle [66], David Frum [67] and Walter Russell Mead believe the same. What I don't favor is WP:POVFORK violations. Or biased articles. And this one is a lulu. I don't mean to soapbox, but you made the ABF accusation. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC problem brewing - need an uninvolved admin to straighten things out

There is currently an RfC running which is really tangled. the RfC has one statement on Talk:Ghost - Talk:Ghost#RfC:_Using_the_National_Science_Foundation_as_a_reference_at_NPOV - and a different statements at wp:NPOV - Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#RfC:_Using_the_National_Science_Foundation_as_a_reference and yet the proponents are treating it as though both were the same RfC. As far as I can see, the current RfC on NPOV will not answer the question asked in the RfC on Ghost and vice versa, yet I don't know how to disentangle or rationalize the two without causing a huge stink.

I'm happy with whatever way this is clarified; I just don't want the outcome of the RfC (whatever that is) to be ambiguous because it's not clear which question got answered. thanks in advance. --Ludwigs2 00:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for clarification or rationalization. The results of both RfCs are going to be entirely consistent, so there's no danger of competing decisions. I realize that's not the result you want, but it's nonetheless the case.

I see no need for admin action here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to prejudge the results, only pointing out that we have two RfCs with different question being combined. For instance, I will be inclined to say that the result of the NPOV RfC (either way) has little to no bearing on the Ghost page question, and I don't really see any reason to assume that it's transferable. We'll just end up with a separate question over whether the results are transferrable, which will lead to yet another RfC... pure silliness.

I've already asked (several times) on the ghost page that we have an RfC on the issue of disagreement. so far we've had one RfC on a different issue, and a second RfC that is apparently trying to piggyback on a different issue of a different page - what's up with that? I'm certainly not going to get confused by what the issue of disagreement is, and I'm certainly not going to accept an RfC about one thing as though it were an RfC about another, and I'm certainly not going to go away because we've got editors throwing off-topic RfCs around like they were rice candy at Chinese New Years. This is just going to add an extra layer of obfuscation which I will have to slowly and methodically peel back, and that will just prolong things that much more.

At any rate glad to see that you're so confident. why don't you go ahead and separate the RfCs so there is absolutely no confusion about the results. that can only work in your favor, no? --Ludwigs2 01:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

First off, I'm not an admin. Secondly, as there is no entanglement, there's no need for seperation that I can see. I believe you're seeing a problem where none exists, or, perhaps, setting things up so you can ignore the results of the RfCs once they've concluded with the outcome you do not desire. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no entanglement, even if there is a lot of overlap in subject matter. The NPOV discussion is related to Group 2 of the Psi ArbCom's four groupings regarding how we are to describe pseudoscience. It's about using the NSF as a ref there, with no change of NPOV content at all. In short there is no problem, only fear of a problem. - Brangifer (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The one in the Ghost page is just an announcement of the other one. I have added "announcement" to the section title. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This can be marked as resolved, one of the sections had a misleading title, and that has been fixed. Next time take care not to use the exact same title for two sections that have different purposes. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe Ludwigs2 meant to link to this, an actual talk page RfC, rather than this, an announcement of the NPOV RfC. At least, that's what I took the complaint to be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

He may have meant to, but he made the same mistake at the NPOV talk page before repeating it here. I put a hat on it with this message "Misunderstanding archived". Whatever the case, this thread can be marked as RESOLVED. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I still don't see that the RfC about adding the NSF quote as an example on the NPOV page will have any bearing on the use of the NSF quote as a source on the Ghost page. They strike me as two entirely different issues. perhaps someone can clarify? --Ludwigs2 18:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to explain it, but I can't guarantee I'll succeed. It is conceivable that the results of both RfCs could have some impact on various applications of NPOV and the Psi ArbCom decision, and thus the application of how we reference pseudoscience matters. I haven't really thought about this much since it wasn't my intention, but some commentators have alluded to the possibility. I'm not currently interested in that angle and haven't been giving it any thought. The two RfCs obviously have much in common, but their intentions are quite different. The one at Talk:Ghost was about using the NSF as a source on that article. I then noticed how it fit perfectly in the Psi box on many pseudoscience pages. That led to me creating the RfC at NPOV.

The one at Talk:NPOV can be likened to taking two puzzle pieces that have been found in different places and fitting them together, sort of like one person (myself) finding a girl walking down the street in NYC who has a unique half charm hanging around her neck, and that same person finding a guy in LA who has the totally unique other half hanging around his neck, and they don't know each other exists. I then bring them together and the match is perfect and everyone benefits. That's essentially what's happening here. The Psi ArbCom decision resulted in several decisions, including the formulation of four groupings that describe how we are to describe pseudoscience in an NPOV manner at Wikipedia. The second grouping has a unique wording which uses astrology as an example, but otherwise has no references. While references and examples aren't required in policies and guidelines, they do occur because they are considered helpful. The NSF reference happens to be the type of thing the Arbitration Committee would have eagerly grabbed and used (except for one member who happens to believe in certain pseudoscientific things) to document an exact example of what they were describing, if they had had it at hand during the proceedings. If the RfC at NPOV succeeds, there will be absolutely no change of wording, at least I don't currently see any need for it. Only the reference will be added to grouping two. That's all.

The one thing the two RfCs have in common is that the RfCs establish beyond a doubt that the consensus of the Wikipedia community considers this application of the source to be correct, and that the NSF is an authoritative source to make exactly the statement they made. Disagreement will correctly be labelled as the OR and disruption that it is. All opposition to those RfCs can then be dealt with by warnings, topic bans, blocks, or banning editors who persist in vandalizing the content by deleting it or tagging it as OR or SYNTH. Those questions will have been settled, and disagreement, while it may be held as private belief, if expressed in disruptive ways will result in sanctions. (What has been happening at Ghost will already have consequences, as the disruption is documented and can be used as evidence. Disruptive editors will be watched and possibly banned if they don't bow to the decisions of the community.) The RfCs can always be referred to as authoritative decisions, and will set a precedent for future decisions. (Wow! Just writing this has given me insights about how this works out. I hadn't really thought about this, but it deals with very fundamental issues, so of course it can have far reaching and positive consequences related to how we deal with the presentation of pseudoscience, and how we deal with those who push and defend it in spite of our policies.) -- Brangifer (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That is actually an excellent explanation; thank you. Honestly, I don't really have a problem with the NSF quote being used on the NPOV page. It strikes me as being a bit irrelevant to the topic, and I think it will create more confusion in the long run that it's worth (which is why I oppose it) but on the NPOV page it's not such a big deal. My concern here is that the confusion between the two RfCs will be used to leverage a debate on the ghost page (as well as, I assume, other pages) to force the quote to be used to imply something the quote was never meant to imply. This qote does not mean that every Madam Zelda with her crystal ball is a pseudoscientist, nor that every poor, bereft client of such Madam Zeldas is a believer in pseudoscience. I can understand why we want to point out that (scientifically speaking) there's no evidence for ghosts, but I don't think we should be stretching the statements of the NSF well beyond what they could possibly mean just to make that point. isn't there a better way to do it? --Ludwigs2 03:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. There are probably multiple ways that can all complement each other. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sweep needed

Resolved

 – IP blocked 48hr for reasons not related to CU. Is there an oversight goof, since the link here works but no edits shown on IP's history?

Could any available checkuser do a sweep on IP 83.134.114.10? The user just tried to make an ugly death threat at NuclearWarfare's userpage, which the filter caught. Not likely that this is a new user. Blueboy96 02:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a /b/ meme, checkuser is unlikely to reveal anything interesting. –xeno^talk 04:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

CU or not, I'm going to mark as resolved since the IP has been blocked for the rather obvious reason and xeno explains the rest. For future reference, a quickie checkuser request can be submitted at WP:RFCU. The page is a little hard on the eyes, but use the menu and you'll be pointed in the right direction. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

216.56.34.18

Resolved

I believe this is the correct place to ask an admin to block someone? 216.56.34.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been running rampant vandalizing some SCOTUS pages recently, and his talk page shows that he was warned as far back as May 2008. Roscelese (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this is a dynamic IP and since the user hasn't made any recent edits (within the last few hours), I'm not sure what an admin could do...I'll keep an eye on the user though! For future reference, any reports of vandalism should be taken here. Frmatt (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Roscelese (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

my restrictions

I was told to apply for reinstatement here on March 1st. I am hopeful that enough time has passed and my actions since my probation will allow me to be a fully functioning member of the community again.--Levineps (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What part of these restrictions are you finding to be a major hindrance to working in wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to be off "probation" so to speak and be able to edit categories again. I made some mistakes and I am sorry they happenend.--Levineps (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If I recall, your judgment with respect to editing categories was suspect, to say the least. Can you point to something that indicates that your judgement has improved? Certainly the incident a month ago didn't show that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have abided by my restrictions of not editing categories and using the summaries. Since that incident a month ago, which was a honest mistake, I have been a positive contributing member of the community. I think I have served my time.--Levineps (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The restrictions being -

Levineps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from creating new categories, and re-categorizing either existing categories or articles. Levineps is required to not mark his edits as minor, as he has used this flag disruptively. He is also required to use manually written edit summaries for all of his edits, outside of the talk space. He is not allowed to remove warnings or notices from his talk page, or anywhere else they are posted. A 1RR per day restriction is also imposed, due to his disruptive reverting. If he fails to comply with these requirements, he will be blocked indefinitely and his edits can be reverted without question. Levineps is reminded that he free to propose any category changes on any talk page for others to implement. He is also reminded that he can appeal this sanction only via a formal community proposal, or by emailing ArbCom.

The restriction were imposed via this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Also pertinent: User:Levineps in violation of his editing restrictions Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes that was a mistake I made over a month ago and I explained it there and I have had no reported incidents since.--Levineps (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Completely unfamiliar with this situation but just took a quick look through the previous discussions and the editor's recent contributions. Levineps: have you made or attempted to make use of the suggestion that you can use talk pages to request category maintenance? I think the thing that would immediately make me convinced of your ability to use that functionality responsibly would be some evidence of your having tried that route. I haven't found any yet but I didn't dig all the way through the past month's worth of your contribs :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not attempted to do this via talk page as I don't think this is the most effective use of my time when I can directly be helping out.--Levineps (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As I suggested on your talk page, it would be better for you to avoid editing categories, moving/renaming articles and that sort of thing for a while. There are an infinite number of improvements that can be made to content, and good research and writing is needed everywhere, so there is plenty to do without working on this administrative/organizational stuff. If you disagree with an article's cats or name, you can always say so on the talk page; if there is a consensus to change it, other people can do so. These types of changes should always be made with caution anyhow. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree there are plenty of ways to help out and I agree I shouldve used more caution. I was told to reapply at the first of March, so I feel that I have already served my time. I am sorry if you disagree.--Levineps (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where you were told to re-apply on March 1. Can you provide a diff for that, please? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

[68]- Resolved: User will re-apply in March. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)--Levineps (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you for that link. In that discussion, User:BrownHairedGirl wrote: I think it would be much better to ask Levineps to reapply in March, with a clear warning that a simple "I want to edit categories again" request will result in the ban remaining in place. But isn't that, essentially, what you've said here? "I've served my time, I don't want to be on probation anymore." Since your restrictions are indefinite, there's no question of whether you've "served your time" or not -- the indefinite part means that the restrictions stay in place until you can show that they're no longer necessary.

Can you make a clear and cogent statement of why you were placed on restrictions, and what has changed since then? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thats essentially what I am asking to edit categories again. I was placed on restrictions because I was careless and made stupid comments when confronted about this. I learned that this was not the best possible course of action. I believe I have grown as a person from this experience and will not repeat the same mistakes I made.--Levineps (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, if I'm reading this correctly, from your talk page, then you seem to have been responsible for this SNAFU, and looking at your log, you seem to have changed your focus from moving categories to moving articles. Since your judgment in renaming categories got you into trouble, why did you think it would be a good idea to start in renaming articles? What was gained, for instance, by renaming "List of Penn State residence halls" to "List of Pennsylvania State University residence halls"?

I think there's a case to be made here not for lifting your restrictions, but for extending them in such a way that you're limited to editing article and not doing any meta-work in regard to rearranging things. I would suggest that an admin take a closer look at your move log, because from the comments on your talk page, it seems to me probable that the majority of your moves were done without discussion or consensus.Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think thats a bit harsh, I feel that I deserve a second chance. I have abided by the terms set by me. Everytime I have gotten feedback on my talk page, I have followed it.--Levineps (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly "harsh" to be restricted to editing articles, since that's what the encyclopedia is all about, the content of the articles. The rest of the stuff surrounding it is very necessary, but not central. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Levine, what has changed since the last time you asked besides the calendar? Auntie E. (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats a good question and I have already answered that question I believe above. May I ask you if not now when should I reapply? I think now is a perfect opportunity to put all this behind us.--Levineps (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not one of exact timing - it's that your page moves do not show that you really understand the problem that led to the restrictions in the first place. Get to where you understand that, and show that you do, with talk page discussions leading to consensus - then ask for removal of restrictions. LadyofShalott 04:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this editor's history, I would think it inadvisable to lift any restrictions on him right now. "Parole" is an option on WP, but an editor must prove him/herself worthy of this; it's not automatic because you just became eligible for it. Waiting out the restriction and then reapplying without displaying evidence of true understanding of your restriction seems like "going through the motions" to me... Doc9871 (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I do sincerely believe I should be re-instated. I understand the reasons I was banned as I have said here and before. I can't change the past, but believe I can be a more productive member in the future. Again please accept my apologies for my past behavior.--Levineps (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am certain that you "sincerely believe" you should be "reinstated"; there's no question there. Have you truly demonstrated that you should be, though? It doesn't seem to be going your way right now, I'm afraid... Doc9871 (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's true as anyone can tell from reading this, your absolutely right and there's really no need to remind me.--Levineps (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

An editor who says about discussing changes, "I don't think this is the most effective use of my time", has predicted his future approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you can cherry pick a quote here and there from everyone. What I was trying to get at is I would rather be directly involved the leave suggestions on a talk page.--Levineps (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And I would rather be a millionaire. I'm not, but I can still edit wikipedia articles, and so can you. That's direct involvement. Why are you so hung up on categories and specific names of articles? Those are of minor importance compared to actual article content. And your unwillingness to discuss with others indicates you intend to return to what got you banned from categories in the first place. If you make some useful suggestions on the talk pages, it would help your case. But I get the vibe that you simply waited out the suggested time and figured you would automatically get to create categories again, the way you want to, rather than discussing with other editors, and then you'll be right back here again. How would that be "an effective use of your time" or anyone else's? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish I were a millionaire to, I guess its good we agree on something. How has not making suggestions via talk page "hurt my case." Thats one of the most ridiculous arguments. I have hurt the community by not doing this and I think if you think deep inside about this, you would agree with me. On a separate, if you look at my talk page, you will notice I have respond to comments. I never take anything for granted so I didn't just figure I would be able to again. Please take a look at the whole picture and you will see I interact with others as I have here.--Levineps (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Explain again how you have "hurt the community". I'm not following that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I omitted the word NOT(Just like the person below here misspelled believe). It should have went like this, "I have NOT hurt the community..."

OK, so it's, "I have not hurt the community by not doing this." I don't get that either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I bleieve that the mass of article moves you have made since your restriction, as well as the statements you have made here, show quite clearly that you have absolutely no understanding of why those restrictions were put in place. You seem to believe they were instituted strictly because of your talk page demeanor or general failure to communicate, but that is far from entirely the case. The underlying problem was your lack of judgment concerning re-naming and re-arranging categories, the same lack of judgment you continue to exhibit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I might not be articulating it as well as I should but I didn't realize I needed an attorney for this. The reason I was banned was because of my poor judgment with regard to the editing of categories among other thing. I realize this, understand, and wish it hadn't happened. This is not a fun experience at all. I have learned from this by not making the same mistakes, reviewing feedback from other editors, and taking a closer look at my own edits among other things.--Levineps (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I completely agree with Bugs above: you thought you could "serve your time" and then return to what you were doing before. I think you'd be far better off if you forgot totally about category-work -- and article moves, for that matter -- and found some other way of contributing to the project, if you're really interested in doing that. That's something you can do right now, and would demonstrate your value and, I would hope, your good judgment. At the moment, I'm just not seeing either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you expected me to give up, you definitely picked the wrong person. To quote the Gloria Gaynor, "you think I'd crumble, you think I lay down and die, oh no not I." There is no quit within me. I believe that I should be allowed to contribute fully again. I think saying "sorry" a million different ways hasn't done any thing nor has explaining my actions. However, I am not giving up on this without a fight (a civil one I should add).--Levineps (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you were the culprit who left the talk pages of the snafu named above [69], which it seems you were, I'm for adding page moves to you ban as well. There was no logical reason for doing those moves, and it shows you are not yet ready to be trusted with options than can cause major headaches. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

irrelevant bit

Urgent Comments Requested - The last part of Levineps's edit above is,a possible lega` threat against WP, and should fe dealt with ackordingly... Doc9<71 ([[User talk:Doc9871|talk]U) 07:06, 2 Marc` 2010 (UTC) �::Wow, didn't mean to set off a$firestorm. Is tdis wikipedia's equivalent of "ymlling fire in a$crowded theatre"" I didn't know$my first amendmant rights were zevoked.--Levineps (talk]U) 07:11, 2 Marc` 2010 (UTC) 2Are you daft or(joking? He said(a civil fight nct a legal one. W[User:Heironymo}s Rowe|Heironymcus Rowe (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC) S[Mea culpa]]... Hoc9871 (tmlk) 07:37, 2 Iarch 2010 (UTC) No worriew, we all make mistakes!--Levineps ([[User talg:Levineps|talk]U) 07:41, 2 Marc` 2010 (UTC) 6:::Thanks for ubderstanding! I misread it that you meant a "ciril" action or liwsuit, and I feal pretty damned stupid right about now. Sorry 'bout that again(:> Doc9871 (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2010 (UXC)

I've no prior involvment in this, so can probably view things objectively. A number of points:

• Levinsep sees nothing to be gained by proposing changes and gaining feedback rather than proceeding on his own.
• When pressed on the question of, "what is different," Levineps cannot quite answer clearly and becomes excited. This suggests to me that there is no real change in behavior.
• From the discussion it seems clear that Levineps' troubling behavior has spread from categories to articles.
• "I am not giving up on this without a fight," makes it sound like Levineps has been wronged or injured somehow.
• Seeks to become "fully functioning" again. Almost as though he were crippled by the restrictions.
• There is such desperation to have the restrictions removed. Sees no value in the many other things he can be doing.

Mix it all together and squeeze it dry, and I think you are left with the realization that Levineps does not have sufficient insight into the undesirable behavior to prevent its reoccurence. I feel that nothing is lost by continuing the restrictions for an indefinite period, and much to be lost if he proves the community mistaken by a lifting of the restrictions. Beyond My Ken puts it quite well, that Levinsep would "be far better off if [he] forgot totally about category-work -- and article moves, for that matter. Dlohcierekim 08:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above summary. I will note that I had a brief look through the user's contribs, and beyond the questionable article moves (although there are some good ones in there), there is quite a bit of good gnomish work going on there. I would suggest that if Levineps is interested in being an asset to the project, he continues on with that sort of work. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC).

• Oppose lifting restrictions per BHG and BeyondMyKen. - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support extending restrictions to include page moves. - Kittybrewster ☎ 05:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I also oppose and suggest closing. And suggest that Levineps try vandal-fighting or something that doesn't require collaboration. And because he doesn't see the need to respect the opinions of editors on the talk pages of the articles' titles he unilaterally alters, I support extending the ban to article moves without prior consensus exhibited on the relevant talk page. Levine needs to learn to work with his fellow editors. 17:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC) posted by User:Aunt Entropy
• Oppose lifting the ban, but support extending the ban to include page moves. It's clear that the problems caused by Levineps' recategorisation have simply been displaced to article-moving. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  Did you mean to say lifting (Not listing)? –xeno^talk 20:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  I did indeed, and have now corrected it. Thanks for spotting mi typo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant to say "my" typo. But I wasn't expecting differently from you, so not surprised at all from you. I have not made as many "moves" as I did categories. Exactly when will you get off my case?--Levineps (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Given your previous history, you really should have known better than to make any page moves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I take offense to that as religiously followed the guidelines set out by me and that was not one of them. I am very proud of the page moves I made and acted in good faith.--Levineps (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your good faith has not been in question, and I do not doubt your pride, but that is irrelevant. I don't think you're really getting it, as you don't seem to be understanding what people are telling you. You followed the restrictions (but not "religiously" as the earlier incident shows), but even after all this discussion you still show no understanding whatsoever at the reason those restrictions were imposed, which had to do with your poor judgment in the moving and re-arranging of categories. Having no insight into that, you jumped right in and began moving and re-arranging articles, the core of the encyclopedia, and considerably more important than categories. If the community didn't want to to move categories around, why ever would you think it trusted you to move around articles?

In any event, the community called you on your bad judgment once, and seems inclined to call you on it once again. I believe it will need to see some token of better judgment from you before it considers allowing you to do that kind of work once more. That doesn't mean that you should bide your time and come back and make yet another request in X months time, as if by right. You really are going to need to demonstrate some semblence of clue about what's going on here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Good summary of the problem. I don't that Levineps' remark above asking "Exactly when will you get off my case?" demonstrates a huge degree of clue. Levineps still seems to think that the problem consists of some bad people being horrible to him, but it's highly improbable that everyone commenting here is motivated by some sort of malice against Levineps. It's not true in my case, and I don't see any reason to suspect it in anyone else ... and Levineps still seems to be a long way from grasping the principle that since Wikipedia works by consensus, he needs to ensure that his actions have consensus support. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

How can you say with a straight face its not true in your case, every comment you have made has been negative. You never look at the positive contributions I have made or pointed them out. Why don't you work with me instead of against me. Also, why do you spend so much time on my case, am I that fascinating for you?--Levineps (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Levineps, I spend very little time "on your case". A few short post in this thread take only a few minutes, and is a valuable investment of time if it helps avoid a repetition of the hours it took to play my part in cleaning the mess you made of the category system.

As to "why don't I work with you?", have you forgotten that I was one of a number of editors who did try, repeatedly, to engage in dialogue with you on you talk page (see here), but like the others I got absolutely nowhere; no response at all from you until your edits were bulk-reverted, when you denounced me for "vandalism". You still haven't shown that anything has changed since then, and that's why I support keeping the ban on you until you can show that you really have started working with other editors. My support for the continued ban is preventive, not punitive: if and when you can demonstrate that your approach really has changed, I'll support your return. But the more you protest that you are being persecuted, the less I'm inclined to believe that you understand why this ban was needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a conflict of interest in your case and I would like it if you recused yourself from all my cases. When I make comments on your page, you delete them after all.--Levineps (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Based upon the above discussion, I agree with others above in keeping the restrictions in place and adding page moves. --Kbdank71 20:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I take offense to that as religiously followed the guidelines set out by me and that was not one of them. I am very proud of the page moves I made and acted in good faith.--Levineps (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you haven't: Levineps is reminded that he free to propose any category changes on any talk page for others to implement. You admitted above that you have not done this because it is a waste of your time. All you have religiously done is sat on the sidelines and waited for March 1st (and even that was not done religiously). As others have said here again and again, get consensus for category and article renaming using talk pages. Only then will I change my mind. --Kbdank71 14:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• In case it's not clear from my earlier comments, I think we should keep existing restrictions in place and extend them to page moves. Levineps, if you want to do category or article naming work, discuss it on the talk pages and get consensus for proposed changes. LadyofShalott 23:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ouch--Levineps (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Levineps, it seems you are not really helping your case at the moment. No one is personally attacking you or has anything against you(not that you are alleging such things, just seems to be the general gist of your latest comments in my opinion). The community has reservations about your ability to make the right decisions concerning moves of cats or articles, based on your past actions with such moves. Arguing here now will not change this concensus, but will probably drive more of the community into the entrenched position of not giving you those abilities back. Please be patient, your restrictions were left open ended, with the provision that they are lifted when the community feels they are no longer needed, not a jail sentence with a definite date to end incarceration. Your best option at this point would be to follow the advice given above for talk page suggestions and gaining concensus. If you show an acceptable track record, the sanctions may be lifted in the future. I hope this helps, good luck. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Both Proposals I don't think the user is ready to get back to cats yet, and I also think that the user had an expectation that renaming articles should have been avoided. I think applying some good faith shows that Levineps wants to get to the point of being a good editor. This person has the right idea just some poor execution. I do think that Levineps should be reminded about civility and assuming good faith in others. this removed comment is certainly not in the spirit of the project. In summary lets not prematurely sanction this user for the article renaming until there is a problem.--Adam in MO Talk 08:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  I agree that Levineps wants to get to the point of being a good editor. The problem is that despite repeated pointers from many editors, zie has shown no sign of understanding one of the critical aspects of how to be a good editor, i.e. discussing proposed changes to seek WP:CONSENSUS. Near the top of this discussion, Levineps dismissed seeking consensus for proposed changes, saying "I don't think this is the most effective use of my time". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  That's not true, saying it is not "the most effective use of my time" does not mean I do not want to get consensus from others. I am simply saying, I feel less useful that I am restricted. As a result of my probation, I have used the talk pages much more now. I think being restricted has made me have a great appreciation for wikipedia community. I know I was non-responsive in the past and while I respect your opinion, it's just flat out wrong in this case in terms of consensus.--Levineps (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  Perhaps you could provide some diffs that would demonstrate consensus building you have participated in.--Adam in MO Talk 00:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

  "...And Bingo was his name-O!" - Solid evidence of consensus-building goes a lot further than, "I've done my minimum time and I therefore should be released." Showing this evidence to everyone is even better. Saying and proving are so very different... Doc9871 (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• So I think we have consensus for an extension to the sanctions. I am going to to edit the terms box on the user page to reflect the new terms re: ban on page moves.--Adam in MO Talk 07:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Qpwoeial's continued harrassment

This is entirely out of line. This user needs a time out. Woogee (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I have not reported to this to Qpwoeial because of his demands that I stay off his Talk page. Woogee (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't require any action yet. I've since explained there what I think was Qpwoeial's misunderstanding of policy. Wouldn't really call this harassment, at least not yet. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:38, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Anti-IP bias

Realkyhick (talk · contribs) is allowing his/her anti-IP bias show, to the point of undoing warnings I've issued and informing me that s/he's going to be stalking my edits. Would somebody mind informing them that registration is not required and attacking IP editors is unacceptable? 24.4.248.154 (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

you were throwing warnings around that were not entirely warranted. please be more careful with that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not "attacked" this edit at all. I struck out two improperly-placed warnings that this anon-IP editor put on another editor's page. After this editor slapped a warning on my own talk page, I responded by informing him/her that there was no "attack" and his warning was improper and out of order. I also informed him/her that I would investigate his/her edit history to see if there was a pattern of improper warnings or other similar behavior. The anon-IP editor will not communicate directly, but only slaps warning tags. This IP only shows edit history for about the past 12 hours, give or take an hour. I am suspicious of this editor, given his or her penchant for slapping warning tags around - some correctly, others not. The fact that he or she has immediately posted a message here without any discussion or explanation of his/her actions makes me doubly suspicious. The anon-IP editor also exhibits quite a bit of knowledge about WP to only have a 12-hour edit history (yeah, I know about dynamic IP's and such, but still...). Something just doesn't sm5ll right here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: As has been noted on the anon-IP editor's talk page, he or she apparently has an established pattern of this kind of activity, and changes IP's on a regular basis. Whether or not this is an attempt to evade enforcement activity of some sort is unclear, but this IP and all of his or her past identities do seem to belong to a "problem child." - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

24.4.248.154, you have not really supplied any information to help people review this complaint. If there is an issue, please provide diffs for both Realkyhick's "removing your warnings", and for his "attacking" you. I looked at Realkyhick's recent edits and don't see any removal of warnings; and even if he does, users have the right to remove messages from their talk page.

This does not look like an issue for the administrator's noticeboard, since no admin action is being requested. If all you want is for someone to slap Realkyhick on the wrist, you would have been better off trying WP:Wikiquette alerts (although if you go there, don't be surprised to have your own behavior scrutinized as well) or just ignoring him. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The warnings were not removed; they were struck through. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Diff where implication was made that the anon's warnings shouldn't be heeded due to them being anonymous: [70]. There were other perhaps valid concerns mentioned though. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:40, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

This is not only the wrong forum, but I've seen nothing alarming about User:Realkyhick in my experience. Shadowjams (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Toothie3 Wikihounding me and making disruptive edits

Toothie3 (talk · contribs) is upset that I reverted some changes to Pan-Arabism, including many, many weasel words and very few, if any, WP:RS. In retaliation, Toothie3 has started Wikihounding me. She/he added tags to The Invention of the Jewish People, then did a copy-and-paste move to Book:The Invention of the Jewish People and redirected the article there.

Next, Toothie3 tagged Israel and the apartheid analogy and began making WP:BLP violations on the article's Talk page. Will somebody please stop this out-of-control editor? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

To further the point of "out-of-control", a list of issues with the sources the user has been using in the Pan-Arabism article is detailed at Talk:Pan-Arabism#Current sources. The user just ignores the issues and continually reinserts them in the article, without making the slightest attempt to address the problems. A look at the history of that article and the talk page would be informative. nableezy - 07:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

nableezy & malik Shabazz Wikihounding me?

I & others did answered nableezy's (POV) on that talkpage over there.

It's useless to repeat on another talk page, again.

Are you two "Wikihounding" me?

As I said to Nableezy, he can not intimidate minorities' voices against intolerant Pan Arabism, neither can you, this is not a Pan Arabism totalitarian controlled entity, this is wikipedia, free for all.

I already answered before that I am not "after" Malik or anyone else, nothing "personal", I was emailed a few links (with suggestion of radical Islamic bias) which I edited with no relation to Malik or anyone else. This/my response was deleted, that's another violation by someone that "complaints" of being a "victim", imagine that!

Toothie3 (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. I never deleted any "answer" of yours.

I also have to say that your claim about an e-mail message is a little hard to believe. You accuse me of vandalism, then you start vandalizing the pages in my recent contribution history, and we're supposed to believe it's just an incredible coincidence? And how does that e-mail message justify your vandalism anyway? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 08:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from Toothie3's contributions, he/she is an extremely disruptive editor who has not contributed anything positive. Mainly seems to want to bash Arabs. Will be blocked soon anyway, so why waste time? Zero^talk 08:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Comment - Toothie3 might appear (to some?) to be a single-purpose editor based on the short life and apparent focus of the edits... Doc9871 (talk) 08:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Bs1996 continued copyright upload problems

Bs1996 (talk · contribs) has been receiving file copyright warnings for three weeks now, and yet they continue to upload images without any copyrights. Woogee (talk) 08:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've given him a uw-ics4. Looks like contribs will need to be checked and images uploaded flagged up. Mjroots (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User attack

• Eddstonham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using my talk page to attack Dave1185 after he warned him. ChaosControl1994 (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this the edit you are referring to? SGGH ^ping! 10:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I also direct admins to User:User Eddstonham, indef blocked for vandal only acc. I have indef blocked the other one as a sock. SGGH ^ping! 10:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oversighted entries

Can I ask why all edits to this board between 19:19, 6 March 2010 and 20:10, 6 March 2010 appear to have been oversighted, and yet at least some of them (I haven't checked them all) are still appearing on the board? (And yes, I've purged the cache.)Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You must have your settings to show time in local. It's all the entries 00:19 to 01:10 7 March UTC. (~35 entries on multiple topics by many editors.) -- Flyguy649 ^talk 07:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that, thanks for the correction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Many innocuous edits ended up suppressed because they included in their revisions the offending text that was being removed. This happens when someone makes an intervening edit to a page after someone makes an edit that will eventually be suppressed, but before someone reverts that text (since each revision includes the entire text of the page, not just the changes made by the editor). So most of these comments are supposed to still remain visible, as most were not removed at all; their diffs were just collateral damage. Dominic·t 10:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense, thank you for the explanation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Range blocks requested

Last week I came to ANI to request rangeblocks on several ranges which are being utilized by a single user who for some reason removes every reference and hidden comment from a series of articles I edit. More information is here: User:Ryulong/Sandbox#Ref removing vandal. The two ranges that were not blocked at the time were blocked by Fastily and he had stated to me that if the vandal came back on the four ranges that were at the time blocked but were set to expire in a few days time from my posting, he would block those. As Fastily has stated that he is unable to block at this time, I am requesting that someone else place the blocks on the four ranges on which the blocks have expired. Fastily blocked the other two ranges for a six month period. At this time, I think that such a block (with account creation enabled as this vandal has not made an account to this date) would be useful on the following ranges (blocked by Prodego in late January for the duration of February):

• 75.36.136.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 76.200.100.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 76.204.76.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 76.205.24.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

I have tried to contact the ISP, but I was not helped. Semiprotecting the pages he edits is not beneficial as all are ongoing series where other IP users make beneficial edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that only a single IP out of these 5,000 IP addresses has been used since the previous blocks, and very few before that. Have you considered an edit filter instead of blocking so many innocent users? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if a filter was attempted to be created to block any of these edits because it's text being removed and not added. I am requesting the rangeblocks to be reinstated now because the vandal is more active these four ranges over all and has come back day after day on a new IP before all four were blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll notice most of the edits have already been through the filter and are tagged with 'References removed'. The other edits are 'Comments removed' so the same filter principles would apply. The IP ranges are fairly limited, so those can be also matched. There is also likely to be a common category or keyword which can refine the match. It would seem to me to be more preferable than blocking 8,000 fairly active and productive IPs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Prior to the block, Prodego used a toolserver item (I can't remember which) to examine the recent edits from the ranges that he had blocked. He determined that the ranges that were blocked were mostly used by this single individual (there were a handful of users he created accounts for because he blocked account creation). And there's no common category or keyword. There are several categories affected and "References removed" is not going to cut it for the abuse that is caused.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

I added a reliable third person source [71] for Vic Mackey and other articles and it keeps been removed I don't believe trivia without sources should be allowed. [72] other shield characters need additional sources too. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing it with the editor who reverted your edit? Have you informed them of this thread? Fences&Windows 00:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

NO because I am fed up with dealing with idiot fanboys of article particularly of fiction on wikipedia who scream something is notable when you try to remove but don't provide reliable evidence to show its not worthy in the case of Shane Vendrell this a reilabe source I added about the character [73] and this is what I removed its triva an has no sources[74] the same here Vic Mackey [75] [76] Dwanyewest (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone has already had a word and yet the problem fanboy inclusionists can't be reasoned with see evidence. [77] Dwanyewest (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the first step in dispute resolution is to assume good faith and try to talk with the other side and see if you can reason with them. This should've been brought up on the IP's talk page before bringing it here or to a relevant noticeboard/wikiproject if that method is exhausted. And it is always polite to notify an editor, however distatseful you may find them, if you are bringing them to ANI. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Back to square one with the edits been changed I warned you it was a waste of time debating Dwanyewest (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have left another message on the IP talk page explaining the issue and notified him of this threat, I should note that Dwanyewest has tried to WP:AFG in terms of a talk page message, and has notified of this ANI, but the IP removed it. Though I would ask Dwanyewest to have more patience with this process. Nothing is lost, everything is kept in the history, so there is no need to get worked up over it :) SGGH ^ping! 09:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about the ANI notice template, that was me. [78] His notice was less patient. [79] --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor bringing forth this complaint seems to be acting a bit incivil both in this thread and elsewhere:

• “idiot fan boys”
• “fan boy inclusionists”
• “inclusionist fan boys”
• attacking DGG and Dream Focus

I think some of these comments can and should probably be toned down. Wikipedians have many different perspectives and viewpoints, many of which are subjective. There is some value that we have these opposing stances so that we do not veer off too much in any one direction, kind of like checks and balances. We should not view it as those we disagree with it are mere fans or worse less intelligent. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Angie Y.

I'd like some help reigning in a user dedicated to adding fan-cruft to various articles (unsourced, fan-driven drivel). She doesn't seem to understand the our position on notability our opposition to original research and our insistence reliable sources, nor does she appear prone to listening. Her approach is simply to avoid 3RR by "patient (persistent) editing." In short, she figures she can wear people down. I wish to prove her wrong. She has been literally sitting on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - related articles for five years now and has fully developed largely unsourced, original research articles on each of the various characters. Admins wishing to get involved could begin anywhere, however the article on Veruca Salt would make a good start. I propose we attempted to convince Angie of our standards. If this should fail, I wouldn't object to an indef block until she changes her mind. At that point, we can go back, gut these articles of OR, and merge them as appropriate. Rklawton (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Merging would seem to be an excellent idea. Are there any other similar articles that treat characters in multiple adaptations? If not, merge immediately. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there are many articles that threat characters in multiple adaptations. Lord Voldemort is one example. My gripe is that most of Angie's work is unsourced and original research (and she has resisted attempts to conform), and it is Angie's approach to editing I'd like to see addressed. Cleaning up her articles and possibly merging those with minimal sources is secondary. Rklawton (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it IS sourced. Broadway Junior.com, and MTI.com. Angie Y. (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism page by vandalism account - Speedy delete and block probably

Ryan and Kieran, delete that ~ R.T.G 14:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to warn people. I've done that for you now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Danielson Gomes Monteiro: 90% page history is vandalism, please protect it

Resolved

 – Semi-protected indefinitely. NW (Talk) 17:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A long term vandalism is repeatly done by a Romanian user, claimed a non-exist person Dani played all around the world, most recently LA Galaxy. Danielson Gomes Monteiro is a real footballer but not that no-exist Dani created by the user. Please ban all the ip and the page creator for a sound warning to him. I keep on reverting for ONE YEAR. The user Dancornea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has created another name space Dani C./Dani.C for his non-exist Dani, it is not a newbie joke. Matthew_hk tc 15:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for admin assistance with repeated personal attacks

User:Ash has recently stepped up their attacks on me by starting a thread about me entitled "Deletion campaign of Delicious carbuncle - advice requested" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. The thread misstates my position and actions. Ash goes so far as to suggest that I am "on an admitted deletion campaign against gay pornography articles (as well as some gay articles)" which is not something I could "admit" to since it is completely untrue. This thread was started shortly after similar accusations were made in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talvin DeMachio and I asked Ash to stop doing so. This is not the first time I have asked. WP:NA is clear that such accusations offered without evidence are personal attacks ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence."). I have no objection to Ash making a complaint at the appropriate forum, but I consider this latest attack to be deliberately provocative and deceptive. I have taken pains to explain my actions and motivations, but Ash seems intent on assuming bad faith regardless of what I say. Can someone please deal with this seriously as I have had quite enough of these attacks. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not very nice. I asked for advice on how to positively handle your pattern of deletions (see pattern of past deletions) and raised the question on the LGBT project page for feedback, a forum I would think ideal for such a discussion. You have responded there, raising this ANI was unnecessary. My statement about your behaviour on that forum is supported by evidence which was under discussion until you squelched the discussion with this ANI. If evidence is supplied then this does not fit the description of "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."

As for your statement in the January ANI thread where you attempted to gain support for your actions, saying you are not on a deletion campaign when the evidence and your own statement of intent shows otherwise is hardly sufficient to prove that there is no targeting of your deletion requests.

I am unclear if this could be considered an "accusation" if the consensus is that there is nothing theoretically wrong with targeting gay pornography articles for deletion. It would only be a statement of fact. I could substitute the word "campaign" with "programme" or "drive" if that is the problem here. My illustration that someone doing the same thing by persistently walking through Category:Christianity and raising deletion requests on articles they don't like the look of (rather than tagging for improvement in accordance with ATD) is an interesting parallel to imagine if an editor would receive more resistance and complaints about their behavior compared to the topic of Category:People appearing in gay pornography.

As for your characterization of "Ash has recently stepped up their attacks on me" perhaps you would be kind enough to supply diffs of these "attacks". I must have missed the discussions where my edits were demonstrated to be personal attacks on you. Ash (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, stating that I have "admitted" to something which I have clearly and repeatedly denied is, frankly, lying. That I have nominated articles for deletion is not in question, but your statements ascribe motivations and intent which I do not have and can only bias other editors against me. You are free to start an RFCU if you wish, but otherwise, stop making any assertions about me. These are personal attacks and unacceptable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No diffs to support your claim that "Ash has recently stepped up their attacks on me" then. Unless you are prepared to support your case, there is nothing for an admin to do here.

Looking at your edit history, you have made quite an astonishingly large number of contributions to ANI for a non-admin. 493 edits to ANI plus 88 to AN out of a total edit count of just over 14,000 of which just 552 have been to article talk pages. This means that you are more likely to turn to ANI or AN than attempt to resolve your issues on article talk pages. Perhaps you should try collaborative discussion on article talk pages for a change before it becomes obvious that you are persistently using ANI inappropriately? Ash (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Carbuncle, just know that not all members of that project feel that way. As long as you're doing it out of a desire to improve the wiki and not out of some sort of agenda (i'm assuming the former is the case), then keep doing it. Sometimes going through topic at a time is easiest, and not indicative of an agenda. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Wordsmith, you are off-topic. This ANI was a request for admin intervention due to a claim of personal attacks. This is not a discussion about whether a program of deletions against gay pornography related articles is a good thing or not. Ash (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll make it relevant then: stop attacking him and making insinuations about his motives. Further AGF and NPA violations maybe blockable. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes your opinion clear. As you appear to be taking responsibility for claiming I have been making personal attacks, could you please supply relevant diffs showing where I have actually made personal attacks as per the subject of this ANI? Ash (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

here you go The Wordsmith^Communicate 22:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff. You may be misinterpreting something so I shall explain what I see when I read this text.

What I read in this diff is a summary of the points raised in a previous ANI (created by Delicious carbuncle) and my statement "Such deletion requests are not just poor judgement, they are a deliberate and sustained mis-use of the DELETE guidelines and process". My summary of the ANI or my claim of a mis-use of the DELETE guidelines may be debatable or later proven to be incorrect but does not fit the description in PA of what might consitute a personal attack. For example a threat- I made no threat, an ad hominem attack - I made no argument based upon the person, or an unsubstantiated accusation of personal behaviour - my summary of Delicious carbuncle's edits has been supported with evidence and Delicious carbuncle has been free to challenge that evidence if it was incorrect.

I took the matter to the LGBT project talk page to ask for feedback on my viewpoint, a forum where you have already provided feedback. For my efforts, Delicious carbuncle has now claimed this was a personal attack rather than taking it in good faith as merely a genuine better alternative to her/his own suggestion of escalating to RFC/U. My words you provide in this diff appear to me to be genuine concern about an apparent unjustified deletion campaign without sufficient attention being paid to the guidance of BEFORE, the same concern that was then raised on the LGBT project talk page. Could you please explain how you the diff you have provided proves I have "recently stepped up" my "personal attacks"? Ash (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The thread you started, Ash, is divisive and makes claims which are patently untrue. We generally call this lying. Lying about another editor is a personal attack and I take it seriously. You offered no diffs for your claims, although I can certainly provide diffs to the contrary ("Serious accusations require serious evidence"). I'm not going to debate this here with you. To use your phrasing, Ash, "put up or shut up". Start the RFCU or stop making allegations. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it odd that you are claiming personal attacks and then repeatedly call me a liar in this forum without understanding the point I was making. Perhaps you should have a cup of tea and try to take a moment to consider my viewpoint.

You were free to discuss this at the LGBT Project talk page. Instead you have chosen to immediately raise this ANI rather than engage me in any discussion on the points raised on that talk page. You should note that for ANIs it is customary to provide clear diffs demonstrating the allegations, not up to the person accused to prove they are innocent first. However I will repeat the examples given at the beginning of the thread on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies where an open minded discussion could have been held. I provided (1) the previous ANI where you attempted to explain your rationale for deleting pornography related articles and gave a list of those you had raised for deletion up to that point, (2) I provided a link to the most recent AfD discussion where you justified nominating an article for deletion on the basis of improvement, a justification specifically against the guidance of DELETE, (3) as for diffs, I was asking for advice on your pattern of deletions, any editor can examine this by searching for your deletion nominations, a "diff" is not needed to see that. This was evidence supplied for discussion in that forum, not a personal attack.

I suggest you either calm down and discuss this matter sensibly on the LGBT project talk page or follow a mediation process as sensibly recommended by IronDuke below. You appear to be highly keen to have an argument using the RFC/U process as you have suggested it more than once, however I consider that pointless escalation. You have twice attempted to escalate matters by raising ANI's against me rather than discuss the issues. ANI is not supposed to be a big stick to be used to win discussions.

I will be quite prepared to apologize, strike any offending text and change my behaviour if I have mistakenly made personal attacks. I do not contribute to Wikipedia to get my jollies by attacking people. At the moment it is not clear exactly where such attacks are, or if your apparent anger is down to communication problems. There appears to be no reason for an admin to take any action, so using this forum seems inappropriate. Ash (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest you two get a mediator? I think having someone truly neutral on the issue might help. IronDuke 18:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Delicious, you've expressed clear opposition to an RfC on your editing of Gay Porn Star Bios with this edit and this edit. But now you say, "I have no objection to Ash making a complaint at the appropriate forum", and suggest he open an RFCU. And you are now upset that Ash is "requesting advice" from WikiProject LGBT studies. It doesn't seem you are willing to WP:AGF nor WP:CONS. (Oh, and please don't accuse me of trolling again as I am interested in this topic and am simply participating, not trolling. Any such accusations would only be evidence of my comment in bold.) 38.109.88.196 (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's quite clear that your interest in this topic is in aggravating any situation which in which I am involved and attempting to bait me - in short, trolling. I suggest you log in with your account and start the RFC/U. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Give over, s/he is not a troll and made a fair point here. You do yourself no credit by repeatedly making such accusations and there is nothing automatically wrong with editors deciding to contribute from an IP address if they do not wish to have the benefits of a named account. Ash (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Delicious: You're welcome to do your research and discover that I do not have an account, for the reasons noted on my talk page. And why would I (or anybody) begin work on an RFC that you have clearly expressed no interest in participating in? What would be the point? There are plenty of articles that you contribute to (the majority of your contributions, in fact) with which I have zero interaction. You're highly uncivil, do not assume the least bit of good faith, and have no interest in finding consensus in a bulk of your editing. At the least, I would recommend you review WP:COOL, and again suggest you review my comments here. That doesn't sound like trolling to me...in fact, it sounds rather fair and balanced. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear friendly admins, please either take my request seriously and take some action for these personal attacks, or close this thread. I don't intend to respond to Ash or the trolling IP editor, but I see no reason to give them a platform to continue to slander me. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI Mediation is the guidance for the alternative process suggested. Ash (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting you review of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:COOL, is not "slander". It's a reminder of wikipolicies. And even a brief review by any Administrator of your talk page will show there are quite a bit of editors who would agree in these suggestions. Please take a break and cool down. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Eva Golinger

Can BLP knowledgeable admins please keep an eye on Evagolinger1 (talk · contribs) at Eva Golinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Apparently it was once created by that editor and deleted as a copyvio. I'm not an admin, so I can't see deleted content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The deleted version looks like it was copied from here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Here, she basically added false information published by herself or her cronies at Venezuelanalysis.com, and since she's an attorney, she should know better. The Daily Journal existed in Venezuela long before this Chavez-funded venture, and anyone and everyone in Venezuela knows that, and she's Venezuelan-- so we have some POV-pushing going on as well as the COI. She seems to think that "first under Chavez" makes it relevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you please not bite the newcomer? Talking about "cronies" of a living person on this noticeboard is not civil. There's surely nothing here that needs immediate admin attention, so why did you post this here? Looks like you're a bit ANI-happy, there are other steps in dispute resolution before dragging your opponent to the dramaboard. Oh, and you should know by now that you should notify an editor when you post a thread about them. I've now done so. Fences&Windows 20:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Newcomer? She previously (2008) created a copyvio, and since I can't see deleted versions, I have no way of knowing how long she was around or how many edits she made. I do know that, as an attorney, she posted false information to her article, and the org she writes for headlined that same false info. Kind of you to notify her; now chill. There's nothing that needs admin attention? So, who has verified that the person editing as Eva Golinger is Eva Golinger? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There's only two deleted edits. F&W's response here is a bit puzzling; this is a perfectly valid notice to post here. Copyvios are serious issues and do require immediate attention. Tan | 39 20:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Tan; I'm not much worried about F&W-- occasionally, ANI works for its intended purpose :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

So, back on topic after the baseless distraction below and peanut gallery response above, since no one has yet addressed the most important matter of the ANI report; how do we deal with WP:REALNAME? How do we verify that the editor using the name Evagolinger is really Eva Golinger? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, please remain civil and refrain from calling other editors' responses "baseless distractions" and "peanut gallery" responses (whatever that means). If you had wanted to discuss how editors could determine who User:Evagolinger1 is, then perhaps you should have started out the discussion with that question. You are criticizing other editors for not focusing on that question, which you didn't bring up initially, but are now claiming is the "topic" of the discussion (which to me appeared to actually be "watch this user" because they made a copy vio in the past"). Additionally, you haven't focused on this topic yourself, bringing up criticisms of Venezuelanalysis.com, discussing past copy vios, and insulting other editors. Again, pot --> kettle. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Please try to find another place for your lectures; it's not my job to do admins' jobs for them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks, avoidance of discussion, rheotoric, incivility, sarcasm. Try again. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Getting away from the point, pontificating, holier than thou attitude and plain obtuseness. Try again. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Really. What is "the point"? The OP has started discussions on several "points". Which one are we choosing? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The point of my name being SandyGeorgia? I'll never tell ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this the one point only line for ANI discussion? BTW I've corrected you effectively interrupting yourself --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Every party has a pooper ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia -- You focused on the newcomer aspect of Fences and windows's argument, and ignored the point about being civil, which I think was more important. Name-calling against living people and other editors in unconstructive and unnecessary.

I've been exploring many of your heavily biased edits to Venezuela related articles. I'm surprised that you are complaining that "we have some POV-pushing going on". Every one of your additions that I have seen is wholly negative, and all of the removals seem to be anything that could be seen as positive. This seems a bit disruptive, and inappropriate. Try to maintain a more neutral viewpoint when editing, and definitely don't come here as a "pot calling the kettle black", talking about how we have "POV-pushing going on".

While I realize that you might not like the things on Venezuelanalyis.com, due to the fact that they aren't wholly negative in their representation of the events taking place in Venezuela, it is a totally reliable source, with an impeccable record for fact-checking (which is why Harvard, Cornell, and many other universities have it as mandatory reading for several of their courses...). Using language like "cronies" and "false information" doesn't change that. Generally, when people have to resort to using language like "cronies" to dismiss something they don't agree with, it is generally a sign of a weak intellectual position. A person that has a strong position can generally objectively present facts which will speak for themselves, rather than having to resort to weaselly and dishonest language.

Another problem is that you are often taking things completely out of context, selectively reporting information, and choosing language which skews things to try to support your viewpoint. If you had a stronger position, you wouldn't need to be misleading. For instance, you have claimed here and on Eva Golinger article that the work is "funded by the Venezuelan government" or is "Chavez-funded". Some of Golinger's work is funded partially by the Venezuelan government which has given out millions of grants to democratically run media cooperatives, including many that are openly hostile and critical of the government. You are presenting a partial truth, taken out of context, in order to make people believe that this paper is just some government propaganda outfit, rather than the work of someone who freely supports some of the social changes taking place in Venezuela. US-AID and the [National Endowment for Democracy]] have given tens of millions of dollars in funding to anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela, including many of the backers of the 2002 coup attempt, but I highly doubt you go around to their Wikipedia articles yammering about "cronies" and stating that they are "funded by the U.S. government". The United States government gives grants to print media all the time. Do you go around and insert commentary on their Wikipedia page about how they are a U.S. government funded outfit? If not, why?

You do have a point about the copyright violations, and that was worthy of being brought up here. But that's all you should have brought up here. Your removal of the comment regarding being the "first English-language paper, etc...." was totally appropriate. But it didn't belong here -- removing it with an edit-summary was sufficient. Please calm down when discussing Venezuela-related articles, and try to be a bit more balanced. It seems as if you are pushing a very strong agenda for whatever reason, and your comments here seem to be an outgrowth of that. Maybe you should take some time to cool off, and go work on a subject-area where you can be a little more objective and calm?

--Jrtayloriv

Please sign your posts using ~~~~, thanks Jrtayloriv. SGGH ^ping! 23:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLDR, no diffs, of course. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I said requires diffs, since all but one (the second) paragraph refered to comments you've made here on this page. As far as that paragraph is concerned, I wasn't taking action against you, and am merely trying to help you improve your editing -- thus I don't need diffs since I'm not trying to make a case against you. If I was talking to someone else, I would have provided diffs, but you already know what I'm talking about, so I didn't waste my time. But I'll humor you -- here are two examples of the types of inaccurate, biased, misleading statements and weasel language I am describing:

• [80] -- "no evidence of improvements in the literacy" ... except for UNESCO which has stated that since the beginnings of Chavez presidency, literacy rates have skyrocketed ... also note that you have dedicated two paragraphs to a single factually inaccurate and biased source entitled "Empty Revolution". ... interested that you would have all of that anti-Chavez vitriol sourced by a single partisan author, and then turn around and claim that it is inappropriate to have a section sourced by a single pro-Chavez partisan editor ... how does that work exactly? Everyone is "partisan", and to allow only partisans that support your point of view is inappropriate, and leads to a one-sided inaccurate presentation of a topic.
• [81] -- "Fringe" source ... or just a source that you don't agree with because she's probably just lying through her teeth along with all of the "pro-Chavez" "cronies" in her "Chavez-funded" publications? I've noticed that you have a knack for replacing sources that are perfectly adequate, but don't mesh with your POV, with sources that still support the fact being referenced, but generally take a much more negative slant. Instead of replacing reliable sources, why not just add another source, so people can get a more diverse range of viewpoints? Certainly, you'd like to have people able to get more information about a subject, rather than limiting it, right? ... And you said you removed this video: [82] because it was "controversial" and "already had it's own article". Please show me a Wikipedia policy that says that videos that are notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article and has won a dozen film awards, should be removed from the External Links section because you feel that it is "controversial".

But, as I said, you already know what I'm talking about. Rather than avoiding a discussion by claiming that something is "too long" to read, and that there weren't any diffs showing you your point of view, why don't you work on improving the issues mentioned above? Basically, (1) try to maintain a neutral point of view, (2) don't censor/remove accurate information backed by reliable sources because you don't agree with it, (3) don't take things out of context and use weasel words to mislead people about a topic. (And SGGH -- sorry about not signing my name last time -- oops!) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Another diatribe: try this link for your "factually accurate" Venezuelanalysis.com, and FYI, it's already been to WP:RSN, where the consensus was pretty clear. End of story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, avoiding responding to arguments and resorting to ad hominem attacks. And don't lie. That ongoing WP:RSN discussion has reached nothing approaching clear consensus. You are being misleading again. Please stop. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Attempted distraction. Standard OP when no cogent argument is forthcoming. It's always worth throwing in the occasional "ad hominem attack" just to be safe eh? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And when you don't take the bait, 'cuz this isn't the place to address the misrepresentations in his posts (this is the place to deal with the username issue, which still hasn't happened :) they just get longer winded! Must be sooooo frustrating ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's worth throwing in "ad hominem attack" when ad hominem attacks are being made. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Please calm down when discussing Venezuela-related articles, and try to be a bit more balanced. It seems as if you are pushing a very strong agenda for whatever reason, and your comments here seem to be an outgrowth of that. Maybe you should take some time to cool off, and go work on a subject-area where you can be a little more objective and calm?" And, btw, it would be nice if you took your issues elsewhere, so the real issue here (THE USERNAME) wouldn't get lost in the largely inaccurate verbosity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No ad hominem attacks here, move along. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, light bulbs! It's all coming through my thick, chocolate-befuddled brain now! If JrTaylor isn't worried that someone else is editing as Eva Golinger, he must know Eva Golinger! That would explain his editing POV ... so Jr, would you mind figuring out and explaining to her how to clear this up, so she isn't blocked for COI, username issues, and inserting false info into her article? Thanks so much-- most appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• SandyGeorgia, Evagolinger1 is in effect a newcomer as they have made very few edits (two deleted edits, of which one was the deleted copyvio and another was a talk page comment asserting permission in 2009; 3 articles edits and 2 user talk edits). Tan, the deleted copyvio (a common mistake for new editors) is from November 2008, hardly what I'd call an urgent problem. The issue at hand is that SandyGeorgia has brought a novice editor to ANI over a very limited content dispute after making no attempt at dispute resolution. The two edits to Eva Golinger that have SandyGeorgia so exercised are this one to add some information that SandyGeorgia disputes and another to remove a COI tag. SandyGeorgia's response is wholly out of proportion to these edits. SandyGeorgia, please stop treating articles to do with Venezuela as a battleground, and in future try to resolve your content disputes calmly by way of discussion before seeking other remedies. WP:ANI is not the first port of call for resolving editing disputes. Unless an editor has evidence that admin action is required, this thread no longer serves a purpose; it has merely descending into bickering. Fences&Windows 01:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Good lord: another ANI circus where anyone can say anything. It's the internet. I don't *have* a dispute: I have a concern about a username, COI, and an editor editing as Eva Golinger inserting false information into her article. Deal with it. I'm not an admin, it's an admin issue, and it belongs here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) "Exercised"? Let me guess, it was the iPod+Nike stuck on her arm that gave the game away? And as I understand it, new editors can still be demonstrating CoI, POV pushing and username malpractice. Perhaps a seasoned editor should be given as much respect as you seem to be showing the newbie and looking into her point instead of harping on about biting new editors. Some of them just scream incisor action! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an IPod or a Nike: what's a willy? Anyhoo, next time I see a COI editor name issue, I'll take it to the grownups :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be a couple of them very, very close. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin here--based on Evagolinger1's edits, it doesn't appear that she's the real Eva Golinger, so I have usernameblocked her. Blueboy96 01:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Why, thank you, Blue boy ! One would certainly hope that an attorney wouldn't insert false info into her article, commit a copyvio, or respond in the ways she has responded. Apparently this has to be spelled out in illustrious detail to Jrtaylor and Fences :) Let's hope they learned something. 1. It's not up to me to make admin decisions. 2. That is PRECISELY what this board is for, and Jr derailed the thread with a completely unrelated and inaccurate diatribe. 3. Let's suppose I were an admin, and had effected the block myself ... of an editor I'm now accused of being in dispute with-- oh, that would be a dandy mess, wouldn't it? Yes, another ANI circus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If it has been blocked, then perhaps we can stop going round in circles lamblasting ANI. There are other places for policy changes to be suggested, and ANI certainly isn't the place for some longstanding and respected editors to be drawn into debates with other users that get sticky. Case closed. SGGH ^ping! 09:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can stop lambasting ANI when the day comes that I can raise simple questions here about blocking policy, username issues, legal threats, or anything else, and admins can answer them without a circus and without other editors piling on unrelated and unsubstantiated allegations aimed at discrediting me. I'm all for it ! This is the place for raising questions and issues that admins know better than I-- not the place for editors to grind their axes against me because they can't attack the neutrality of my edits in article space or my behavior in article talk space. Using ANI to soapbox against me is lame. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And just to close this up (now that the other ANI circus and socking issues elsewhere permit me time to revisit), and show how disruptive Jrtayloriv and Fences and windows were to the function of AN/I, attempting to deflect irrational and unsubstantiated claims at me, rather than dealing with the issue ... the Evagolinger account was editing between 18.21 and 19.03 UTC. I lodged this concern immediately, at 18.35. Had an admin dealt with it then, they might have been able to discuss with this account Wiki's blocking policy, while the editor was online, avoiding the block. That is the purpose of AN/I: I continue to hope these editors won't use AN/I as a launching pad for attemting to smear my name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

But you're happy to call others "disruptive" editors making "irrational and unsubstantiated claims?" Pot and kettle and all that as someone else said above. This issue seems to be closed, but your conduct was less than stellar here Sandy. As anyone can plainly see by reading the thread, you did not (in either of your first two comments) say anything about "username issues." Yet then you complained that others had not commented about this issue ("the most important matter of the ANI report") which you did not even bring up at first. That's an odd thing to do. When another editor pointed out to you the simple fact that your report was not initially about a username issue, you responded "Please try to find another place for your lectures; it's not my job to do admins' jobs for them." Of course not, but it is your job to clearly explain what your concern is at the outset, and not jump down other editors' throats when they disagree with your concerns and/or don't understand them. If you're displeased with ANI and/or Venezuela topic area editors right now, maybe you should take a break from one or both for awhile, because to my mind you're stirring the drama pot here quite needlessly. Note that I have nothing to do with the underlying dispute, and this is my evaluation as someone who happened to read through the thread. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I just can't believe this place. "Circus" is far too generous a description. What gives you the idea that anyone gives a monkey's what your opinion is about an issue now resolved? This kind of sanctimonious bullshit makes you look very childish. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess everyone has different ideas about what does or does not look childish Malleus, and you're more than entitled to yours. If Sandy wants to lash out at other editors (that's my view of what happened, feel free to disagree) for not responding to this report the "right" way, it should not be too surprising if someone else calls Sandy on that and asks that editor to step back a bit from ANI and perhaps the underlying dispute. You don't have to like it of course, but this board is in part for non-involved admins to weigh in on questions brought to the page, and I'm not sure why you think anyone would care more about your opinion of my opinion than they do about my opinion in the first place (probably most people don't give a shit about either, as is true for most every comment on noticeboards). Incidentally I'm not interested in getting in an argument with you here, though if you want to tell me more about what you think of me based on your reading of one comment feel free to unload over at my talk page—I don't mind and you can say what you please over there without fear of repercussions. Or I suppose you can drop some more knowledge bombs in this thread—whatever floats your boat really, I don't care. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock of Malleus Fatuorum by Moni3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Most editors of this board are aware that Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of incivility and of making personal attacks; some of this history is reflected in his block log. Subsequent to an unprovoked and clear personal attack ([83]) calling Chillum "a waste of space", I blocked Malleus for 24 hours. I did not feel that a warning would be required, as he has received a number of blocks for similar violations in the past. A reasonable person would conclude that he has been amply reminded of WP:NPA and WP:CIV already, and we don't actually offer the one-free-insult-per-day deal that would be implied by some sort of mandatory-warning-before-block framework.

Twelve minutes after I placed the block, Moni3 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unblocked with the somewhat cryptic comment "ineffective block". At the time, Malleus had not posted an unblock request (or made any response to my block whatsoever). Moni3 did not attempt to communicate with my on my talk page or via email. Moni3 did not post any comment to Malleus' talk page prior to his/her unblock. Moni3 did not post here (the appropriate venue) seeking comment or outside review before taking action. Moni3 does not have any significant history of involvement in administering blocks/unblocks (having blocked/unblocked exactly three times this year), so this strikes me as a very unusual place for him/her to suddenly get involved.

I have asked Moni3 to immediately restore the block which s/he removed inappropriately, and to participate in some sort of discussion before overturning my block. (Update — Moni3 has rejected that request.) If s/he does not do so, I would ask that another admin restore the block — I'm not going to return fire in a wheel war. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A ridiculous block. At least three admins have agreed with the unblock. In my opinion, you should be reprimanded for this. Civility police admins are fucking this place up. Tan | 39 03:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

TenofallTrades, what did you hope to accomplish by blocking Malleus? --Moni3 (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:Malleus Fatuorum and User talk:Moni3 as well. Several editors/admins jumped all over this egregious block, myself included. Way overboard, in several opinions. Keeper | 76 04:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I see a lot of making light of abuse. Well, it drives people away. I don't give two shits what mall says t me, it is the outright endorsement of his actions in the form of unblocks(and this is not the first time) that gets me. Well I for one have standards and if such behavior is sanctioned then I will not be using this website anymore, I don't need this shit. You go ahead and allow all the nasty comments you like and eventually only the thickest skinned folks will remain, so much for a neutral point of view. I don't think people realize just how many Wikipedians are lost by not reacting to abuse, and even worse the admonishment anyone attempting to prevent the abuse receives. I am one of them. Bye. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Bye. Tan | 39 04:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

*sniffle* Keeper | 76 04:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

... Xavexgoem (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Is this how we want to present ourselves? Really?

why are you whispering? Keeper | 76 04:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't want to interrupt you whilst in the middle of your grieving? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Xavexgoem, I have a lot of respect for you, and I apologize for my exasperated role in this whole nonsense. My snarkiness is perhaps unwarranted, but I've seen, as I'm sure you have as well, so many "I'm taking my ball and going home because you aren't playing by my (made up) rules" knee-jerk retirements, that I don't know how else to respond. Good riddance. I'll surrender a wiki-paycheck if Chillum isn't back in a week. Keeper | 76 04:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Now if only Malleus would follow... I reiterate: I'm willing to offer donuts. HalfShadow 04:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Very grown up everyone. Fucking unbelievable. RxS (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Helpful commentary. Thanks! Keeper | 76 04:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Listen, folks, we're not all in on the drama. So I do get pissed, like RxS is now (he says in two sentences what it took me three dots to say, effectively), when I think what it would be like for a new user with an actual problem coming to AN/I and having admins mock a user retiring in frustration. It doesn't matter if that person is expected to return, because I (as a new user) would not know that. I would want to stay the fuck away from here. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ya know, X; it's true! Something must be done about admins who persistently attack and provoke other editors. Then we won't have these circuses :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• What I love about wikidrama is how quickly it escalates, and always with excellent diction. Look at this. Apparently Chillum removes a comment from a banned user from someone else's talk page. That someone says 'hey why are you removing edits from my talk page, rude boy?'. Chillum takes affront to that, and they go back and forth a bit, and someone writes a haiku. Malleus witnesses this silliness and makes a wisecrack, which probably should have earned a wristslap. But he's blocked right away. And then unblocked. And then the unblocking is portrayed as a grave abuse. And then AN/I raises it specter, as well as the rage-quit. We all realize how stupid these things are, right? (and everyone contributes to them.) Let's all have a pint instead? Oh, my popcorn is ready now. (No offense intended to any, I WP:AGF always)--Milowent (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I don't endorse what Malleus says to you. I don't speak that way to other editors. But blocking an editor for 24 hours after making a pissy remark to you in not effective. It will not change Malleus' nature. Your entering a dialogue with him and trying to understand his points might. Both of you working together might. Blocking will not. --Moni3 (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please, Milowent: wake up. Everyone who knows his editing knew that Chillum would turn something that was already being discussed and handled into yet another dramafest. He did. Don't shoot the messengers because a very problematic admin has taken yet another in a long series of breaks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I seriously can NOT find myself participating in three ANI threads in one day. Goes off to the nut house muttering ... It's a Kodak moment, like, this is not my life. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like an overzealous block, in response to a rude comment. Warn/discuss before blocking. Diminish DRAMA. Why are some editors free to make rude comments, but others get blocked without a warning? Edison (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

WTF! EC. Overzealous, premature, preemptory archiving. Edison (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Has been unarchived now, but I generally endorse Durova's closure. Don't think anything productive will happen at ANI. –xeno^talk 05:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, though, once you've been around here long enough, you really shouldn't need a warning before blocking. Malleus knows what the community norms for civility are here, and chooses to ignore them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure about the original block, but Malleus' comments in the thread at his talk page following the block were quite incivil and, IMO, deserving of a block in and of themselves. Here are a couple of pearls: "Blocked again by some half-assed willy-waving clown. Sad"[84] and "Morons do what morons do"[85]. Nsk92 (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the block was wrong, and I agree probably it would not have changed anything, but Chillum actually left for a whole year according to his/her moonbook. If somebody left Wikipedia because of my actions I would have felt bad for that person. I would have apologized even, if I were sure I was right, and I would have definitely complied to 24 hours block. Just think about that: 24 hours versus a year. Everybody is different. Some people do not take incivility close to their hearts, others do. IMO we as the community should try to understand, and to help a party, who needs our help the most now, and that party is Chillum. The user needs understanding, and needs it now. It could be decided later on who is right and who is wrong. That's why I would like to ask Malleus Fatuorum to consider an apology in order to bring Chillum back.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• The problem that Xavexgoem and RxS have raised has been a concern of many users in this community, and it has been increasing with time. Even the concerns with blocking or unblocking over civility issues have also been a problem. ArbCom have demonstrated that they will repeatedly deny its existence in the hope that it will go away, or on the odd political occasion when they accept something needs to be done, they will refuse to address the issue in a remotely effective manner. Until the community has a more satisfactory binding mechanism of reviewing and addressing the manner in which certain administrators conduct themselves, admins really don't have any incentive in voluntarily changing their approach for the better. I pity the situation that Wikipedia is in today. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. Can we make a list of those incivil editors who are protected from blocking? There seem to be a lot of them. Woogee (talk) 06:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, can we make a list of abusive admins who are immune to the same "civility" they enforce? Or set up a category? I can populate it very quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

When your contributions parellel other editors, then yes - we can make a list. To deflect the inevitable responses: yes, all wikipedia editors are equal, and yes: all Wikipedia editors deserve respect and admiration for even simply showing up here. Yes, yes. That said, there are some that keep coming back again and again and again. Why? Not because of the drama, but because of the dream. Of free content. Accurate, sourced, and free content. You are but a rookie, Mr. Woogee. Tread carefully. Keeper | 76 06:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe you should link to the right editor instead of the wrong editor when you spelled the name wrong. It should have been obvious since Woogie (the WRONG editor) hasn't edited since 2008 and the correct editor, the one you were addressing, clearly has edited in the past 2 years. A little care will prevent you from calling an editor with over 3000 edits a "rookie".Niteshift36 (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've apologized to User:Woogee for my mislinking and overstatement, based on my inaccurate linking. He/she has accepted my apology. Regardless of the user commenting, new or old, I overstated my point and inappropriately went "after" one user's comments instead of sticking to the point of contention in defending a conten contributor (Malleus) who is, in my opinion, receiving an undue level of vitriol. Keeper | 76 07:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a rookie. Why does someone who called another editor a "waste of space" not deserve a block? Equazcion ^(talk) 06:35, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

That's a fairly mild insult by Bad Fat's standards. He should remain unblocked, though, until he's got everyone mad at him. Then it will be easy. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

How about "morons do what morons do"? I don't really understand how he's not getting blocked for this stuff... Can someone explain it to me, seriously? Equazcion ^(talk) 06:54, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Really? Is that a threat, Keeper? Woogee (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. No threat implied or intended. Just a caution. I'm a big fan of Malleus' content contributions (and a lesser fan of his off-the-cuff commentary, although I've always been adamantly in favor of seeing Malleus (and several others) protected despite his being his worst enemy. Off to bed for me. Be careful with whatever "list" you make, whether literal, rhetorical, or hyperbolic....Keeper | 76 06:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Keeper, that was a really low thing to say. Woogee has no more reason to "tread carefully" for making a snarky (and in my eyes, harmless) comment than I do. Characterising him as a "rookie" and that he should be careful because of it is also out of line. I'm really at a loss for words with this whole thread. To be perfectly blunt, I often have the exact same thought as what Woogee said above. Perhaps a list of those untouchables would be useful. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

^Agreed. Keeper's comments to Woogee were totally out of line. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:02, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it, I agree that my comments went over the line. Apologies, Woogee. My intentions were pure, my delivery less than accurate. I'm a firm defender of any editor that builds wikipedia content, whether they happen to enjoy cotton candy and smiley faces or are generally grumpy and rude fucks. Wikipedia has historically had room for both types of content contributors, only recently developing a rather incessant need to be really really nice to each other. I don't care about nice. I care about accurate. Encylopedia. Keeper | 76 07:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, your link to contributions is not to me. Woogee (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Right again. Would you like me to apologize again? Keeper | 76 07:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It was an appropriate statement of fact, Keeper, lest folks actually look at the contributions and get confused. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Keeper has apologized and I have accepted Keeper's apology. Woogee (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I linked incorrectly. I've apologized here and on Woogee's page. egardless of my ineptitude in linking correctly and misdirecting my passion to User:Woogee (not User:Woogie) my point remains the same: that I think Wikipedians need to regain their thick skin. The "civility police" admins and editors are rampant, and in some areas, are out of freakin' control, to the detriment of quality of content. I don't care who's rude to who. Call me names and tell me I'm rude. So what! Anyone can call me whatever the hell they want. I don't care if anyone calls anyone an ass or a waste of space or a rookie. Who's making the encylopedia more accurate? It certainly isn't me (in fact, I retired a year ago because of this very shit). I would surmise it isn't most people that hover over ANI. It's the unnamed, unthroned editors that fix sources and en-dashes for myriad articles, without expectation of admiration. They do it because they belive in this place. And then someone comes along and says "you were rude to someone, I'm blocking you". Total bullshit. Not you, Woogee. Line of fire, and I sincerely apologize. Keeper | 76 07:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think ANI is the best place to debate this, so I won't do that here (I have no doubt others will). However these truths still remain: Many people disagree with many policies, but policies are there to show which practices currently have consensus. You can disagree with them, but your disagreement with them doesn't change how Wikipedia operates. You can lobby to change policy in a number of ways if you like. Until this is done successfully, people are required to remain civil to each other here, and that means not calling each other wastes of space or morons, and if you were aware of these policies and still did it, you get blocked. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:48, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

A very standard response to anyone disputing "policy" is to say "that's not the policy". I don't need or desire to change "policy", and I don't believe that the civility "policy" is more important than the content policies. I do agree this isn't the place for a meta-discussion of any kind. Keeper | 76 08:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of which overrides the other. Policy is that you remain civil while you adhere to content policies, not that one or the other is acceptable alone. As for whether or not something being policy is relevant, I'd say you have a point, except when you're an admin making administrative decisions. Admins have their tools in order to uphold consensus practices, not their own opinions of what best practices should be. It seems Moni and some others don't understand this, which is a problem. Equazcion ^(talk) 08:07, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. I see absolutely nothing wrong with Moni's actions in overturning an overreactive, punitive (and involved - see this fundamentallevel of disagreement between blocker and blockee) block of a prolific (and admittedly outspoken) content contributor. Keeper | 76 08:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Calling another person "a waste of space" is incredibly rude. From serially incivil editors, it deserves a longer block than 24 h. The unblock was not only wrong, but disruptive, as it violates policy: "Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion" (WP:Administrators#Reversing another admin's action). I would support sanctions against Moni3 for this misuse of her administrative tools.  Sandstein  06:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Good block. Bad unblock. Silly drama has ensued, and a small victory for the stupid and harmful idea that there are certain contributors who are immune to the civility rules. Wikipedia is not Usenet, thank goodness, yet. --John (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, fancy seeing you in this debate, John! Perhaps admins would care to review some of your recent indulgences in gross incivility, threats to use your tools, and personal attacks?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• In case it wasn't apparent, I agree. Moni's unblock was against policy, and Malleus's behavior is definitely block-worthy. Being a fan of his content is not a valid reason to "protect" him, in Keeper's words (which I'm still amazed at having read). Wikipedia isn't a store where you can buy the right to be uncivil by making enough good content contributions. Rather, you get to contribute only if you remain civil. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:10, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is not shared by the entire community, Equazcion. Please don't proclaim your views as if they were the only logical way to see things. To say I'm a "fan" of Malleus' content is false. I'm a fan of the content, regardless of where/who/when it was created, and regardless of who they pissed on on an irrelevant talkpage. Nobody reads the f-ing talkpages other than editors - and we are our own worst enemies in regards to making this place an f-ing reliable resource. Keeper | 76 07:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware that my opinion isn't shared by everyone, but it's shared by enough people for it to be policy. Calling other editors morons and wastes of space are both personal attacks. There's no caveat in policy excusing editors that have made abundant good contributions. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:28, 7 Mar 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure this out, Keeper. You're saying that you don't care whether an editor has good manners so long as they have good encyclopedic contributions? You realise that if rude and intolerable folks are left to their own devices, the only people left on this site will be those rude and intolerable people, as they'll have driven off the rest of the good contributors who actually care about things like being civil. The site can't survive under those conditions. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your hyperbole, Hunster. Keeper | 76 07:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Forget the block and the unblock for a second, probably they are both bad but whatever. Some of the comments here and on Malleus's talk page are quite disturbing in my view. For example saying that one is a fan of a certain bit of content "regardless of who [the creator] pissed on on an irrelevant talkpage" is one of the more ridiculous things I've read here in awhile. That's really what things have come to for some editors? Do these folks display a similar attitude in, you know, real life, say at the office? "Hey Jones, great work on that one project, and no I don't have a problem with the fact that you refer to half the rest of the staff as stupid fucks every time you see them in the hall. Be sure to poke that one dork in the face when you pass him next!" As far as I know, most every society and subculture on planet earth has norms relating to politeness, and generally it's considered good for people to be polite to one another. For most of us it's pretty easy in our daily lives but often not online, probably because it takes a bit of courage to call someone a moron to their face but absolutely none to do it on a web site. I continue to find it shocking that a number of Wikipedians apparently feel that certain editors are allowed to be rude simply because they feel like it. This is a collaborative project, people are volunteering here, and I cannot credit the view of anyone who seriously believes that nasty and gratuitous comments (from admins or non-admins) are just fine so long as an editor has done good work and/or has lots of friends (or a formal position of authority). Everyone working here in good faith deserves to be treated with respect as a matter of course, and if you believe someone is working in bad faith you should still treat them with respect as a matter of course. It's quite simple to do that, and no one has ever explained to me why it's actually necessary, clever, helpful, or edifying to refer to others as morons and the like. I mean that as a serious point since some seem to think that there is a time and a place for ad hominems, because "WP:SPADE" (or something). As I said it's all pretty disheartening, and I put much of the blame on editors who race to excuse this kind of behavior simply because they like the person dropping insults and/or dislike the person being insulted. That's quite bush league in my view, and no doubt in the view of many others who don't bother to comment in these situations precisely because they are so unpleasant. I'm pretty thick skinned so feel free to call me an idiot and/or a moron for making this comment if you feel that would be helpful. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's amazing - it's always Chillum involved in these things. Why do you suppose that is? I completely endorse the unblock - such edits as this [86] may be blunt, but they are hardly going to bring the world and Wikipedia crashing down on top of us and damage the project. Chillum need to get over himself, and his fellow Admins need to assist him, rather than constantly blocking others who become tired of his behaviour and irritating relf-righteous attitude.  Giano  10:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Chillum does seem to be such a delicate flower; happy to dish it out, but not at all keen to take it. Some may indeed wonder why he's so often at the centre of these stupid and childish "civility" spats, but not me. I know why, and it ain't pretty. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling any editor, however you feel about them, a waste of space ain't pretty. Your above edit doesn't look very unbiased to the discussion, I must say... Doc9871 (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is a result of the conflicting opinions about the importance of the Civility policy and the purpose of blocks to enforce it. Blocking guidelines assert that blocks are not punitive, which I interpret to mean that they should be used sparingly, to protect the encyclopedia, only in emergencies. They should not be used to punish another editor, although they may be used in cases of newer editors to indicate what is unacceptable. Common sense and a look at Malleus' block log indicate that the blocks he has incurred for civility have not curbed this behavior. A 24-hour block will not change his opinions about admins who get preferential treatment or how to get his point across when he is frustrated. I saw this as clearly punishment for speaking rudely to an admin. However, we should all be communicating on the level of adults here, and sometimes that communication gets hot. I choose not to be insulting or abusive in my comments, but I don't demand that everyone else do the same. I have actually been the subject of some pretty nutty left-field commentary that most would consider to be a gross personal attack and responded with silence because it is within my power not to escalate unnecessary drama.

The immediate reaction here is to block Malleus or chastise me--which you may feel free to do on my talk page. But the inevitable trajectory of this conflict is to reword the blocking guidelines to say that blocks *are* punitive and may be used as punishment, or have another go at rewording the Civility policy. But if it is not Malleus and me back at ANI causing another twin discussion in a few days or weeks, it will be someone else. --Moni3 (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that "civility" is undefined and is extremely subjective. As a result clashes like this occur. Until this changes, then nothing changes. Chillum has a very low threshold receiving it, yet a very high threshold when giving it. And it is getting rather monotonous when every 5 minutes an ANI thread appears when some rose-tinted and bespectacled admin with thin skin invites the civility police to go all 'Rodney King' on some poor sod's ass. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A bigger part of the problem is that some admins hold themselves to a very different (much lower) standard than the one they claim to enforce, and the community has long been sick of seeing some editors used to play whack-a-mole. Ask User:John. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think if none of called called each other childish names or reverted edits endlessly, WP would be closer to perfect. It never will be, but we have policies to see it doesn't fall into utter chaos. So ignore all rules: disparage each other all day, and don't focus on the edits that people actually read. Poopy-pants! (to no one in particular) Doc9871 (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no more to be done here. Suggest closing thread. Good grief.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You go and review some FACs and write some FAs, Wehwalt :) You are absolutely right. Abusive admins have already taken too much time from those who actually build the damn encyclopedia and have no need for power tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Malice Fatatorium is useful, because he makes things interesting when it gets too dull around here. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Careful there, Mr. Bugs :) Some normal editors would get blocked for not referring to an editor by their full and correct editor name :) Ask Mr. Sideaway. Another example of the double standard applied to admins vs. the rest of us folk (you can call me Sandy :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I get called a lot of things, but I don't take it personally. Also, I don't do Latin, so I'm trying to present an Anglicized translation. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is a fucking joke isn't it? Some asswipe starts an ANI and doesn't even have the common decency to inform the accused? And then has the gall to bleat about "incivility"? Jesus wept, what are you on? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "Asswipe", is it? You didn't get the "civility" memo, I take it... ;P Doc9871 (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I've known Malice a long time, and he always maintains the same high standard of civility. :) By the way, he cited a mis-translation. Actually, it was a description of which He did at the end of each day in His stepdad's carpenter shop: "Jesus swept." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, you wascawy wabbit!  ;> Doc9871 (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I think he did inform Moni, who is actually the ... ummmm ... target of this ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There is incivility and there is incivility. As far as I can see, Chillum devoted a chunk of his day yesterday to visiting other editor's Talk Pages and removing content (content which was, in itself, unobjectionable). He did this without any introduction or explanation (it would have been easy to paste an explanatory message each time). I am not aware of ever interacting with Chillum before; I wasn't sure he was an Admin. I asked him what he was doing. The explanation I received made no sense: it was practice to remove edits by a banned editor. I asked why he didn't remove that editors edits from History of Logic. He explained that it was practice to remove edits only after the editor was banned. Whichever way you hold that up to the light, it remains opaque. He also announced that I didn't "own" my Talk Page. This is all "civil"? I don't thinks so, and what's more I think "waste of space" is a fairly mild when applied to Chillum's activities as described here - I have no opinion on his past contributions to the encyclopaedia.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

So this is where the members of the community supersede the rules. I'm pretty shocked that all the admins are whipping out their administrative-dicks and screaming "Mine's bigger!" Hopefully this can be closed, because the discussion is furthering the stereotype of "The wiki is sinking!" Perhaps we can drop this now? –Turian (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, "asswipe" and "waste of space" are such sophomoric insults, I'm surprised anyone is taking him seriously. What's next, "doody head"? Wknight94 ^talk 16:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have seen people raise hell over smaller banter before. This whole conversation just exacerbates it all. –Turian (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

@Turian, if the "Wiki is sinking" you are pushing it down with some of your silly and absolutely unwarranted proposals --Mbz1 (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty glad you can read, especially since I said "stereotype" that it is sinking. But you know, your personal vendetta or feelings towards me for trying to have you blocked because of your major incivility is extremely apparent, so you should be on your way. Nice try though! –Turian (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Incivility? Any differences to present?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Get. Over. It. There is no reason to drag your "hurt feelings" into this. Okay? –Turian (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, now I understood! Dear Turian, to tell you the truth, I cannot get over it because I never was on it, and I never was on it because the proposal you've made was way too silly to care about it. BTW my very favorite quote is: "There is no sin except stupidity" by Oscar Wilde. I hope you'll like it too.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mbz1, why are you even here then? –Turian (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a simple one. I am here because I like to laugh, at least, when I am not crying :)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Does anyone here claiming that "waste of space" is somehow worthy of punitive action actually ever bother to leave their computers, and venture out into the real world? I mean, seriously? Fucking hell, you're trying to enforce a Stepford Wives version of civility, when you should just accept that robust debate will occasionally result in people's feelings being hurt. Grow up for God's sake. Parrot of Doom 17:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Motion to close

• Someone objected last time I closed one of these, but is anything productive happening here? –xeno^talk 17:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC) RFCU (for any of the parties to this) or policy/guideline RFCs are available for a more rational discussion. –xeno^talk 17:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Wknight94 ^talk 17:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Doesn't belong at this board. Durova⁴¹² 17:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support No prospect of anything productive happening. Unblocking admin should be admonished not to do it again without discussion, then let's move on. --John (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, nothing to resolve until/unless Chillum resumes more of what led to this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, are you guys still talking about this? I went out and got pissed in the mean time. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, now that all potentially-useful thoughts have been drowned out by baying, shrieking, tantrums and/or personal vendettas. (Seriously, y'all--I have a pretty unflappable view of AN/I goofiness, but this thread may represent a new low point in the history of en:WP. Nobody comes out of this one looking good--casual commentors not excepted (and yes, I include myself!) No dessert for ANY of us..) GJC 18:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Chillum has sped off astride his scooter onto the horizon and I wish him well.  Giano  19:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Addendum: in response to this (the latest iteration of a familiar issue), I've proposed a policy change at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Civility_blocks. Rd232 ^talk 22:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:125.164.3.249

I would love some assistance with the mess that this user has caused with their vandalism today...They've been adding random (and mostly non-existent) categories to articles for the past four hours without anyone catching them. I've issued them a level 1 warning, but given that this user has been relatively inactive over the last hour or so, didn't think it was appropriate for me to hit them with multiple warnings all at one time. I'm trying to revert as much as possible, but would like some help with that too! Thanks! Frmatt (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that some of their category contributions actually do exist, and for the most part they seem to be adding things in good-faith, but have messed things up a bit by adding all sorts of fictional categories that don't exist. Frmatt (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, have fixed the problem now...but would appreciate someone looking at my actions and just making sure I did the right thing here...now having second thoughts about it! Frmatt (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This editor has been doing this kind of thing for a long time now, under various 125 ips out of Indonesia. It used to be that he/she was gung-ho about the megafauna articles and categories (we used to have lists for each continent). In brief, 125 is a long-term anonymous editor who really likes to categorize animals; sometimes it's helpful, and sometimes not so much, as when 125 changed Category:Fictional ducks to Category:Fictional anatids in a number of articles. J. Spencer (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

They change IP's too often, sometimes using 3 or 4 in a single session, to really do anything about it, other than a range block. I've tried leaving them messages but by then they have usually moved on to another IP. As you noted they are working in good faith and they do quite a bit of good work. I usually just click on the red linked category to see which articles it contains and then roll them back to, usually, restore the original category. something lame from CBW 19:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparent attempt to influence wikipedia discussion through canvassing of outside sources

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli art student scam and http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/b9wbh/well_sourced_article_about_the_israeli_art/. The initial author seems to have deleted his or her username, but as per both standing wikipedia policy as well as the specific injunctions regarding Palestinian-Israeli articles, this kind of behavior is not allowable. Does anyone have a record of whom the initial poster who was attempting to use reddit to influence the article was? -- Avi (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Referring to Israeli art student scam and of course its associated AfD. Because you couldn't possibly expect a Jewish cabal like Wikipedia to judge this on its merits. I'll run a book on this with Factsontheground (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 6:1 on favourite. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • There are at least 15 keep votes. Any reason you singled me out for your unsupported personal attack? Anyway, "reddit" seems to be some kind of pro-Israel forum. The agent provocateur probably knew it would react the way it did and still cast doubts on the keep side. Factsontheground (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, of course reddit is "some kind of pro-Israel forum" - silly of us not to include that obvious fact in the article. I guess it's the same as Facebook, Digg, StumbleUpon and all the other social media sites so insidiously manipulated by Mossad. Tell you what, why not write an article on the Israeli social networking conspiracy? Guy (Help!) 19:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

FOTH is probably not the culprit. How would he find the time with all the other ANI-drama and edit-warring?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay guys, let's ease up on sniping please. SGGH ^ping! 20:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

To the OP, [87] this is what I believe you are looking for. Person later claims to not have a Wikipedia account so I have no idea where the need to suppress the posting name came from and there is no Wikipedia user of that name. Take it for what you will, and hey maybe someone knows of a link. I take no sides in absurd content disputes, but I'll also say that Avi is spot-on regarding off-Wiki nonsense including an arbcom statement a few months ago. This has nothing to do with the possible canvassing or meatpuppetry at the AfD, so Factsontheground, please keep the incivility and NPA accusations off ANI and go over to WQA with them. Leave this thread to the possible violations of ArbCom motions. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Actually http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=Totallyserious&group=&limit=1. -- Avi (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

IP block evasion/personal atacks

• Everyme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.195.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.216.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Admitted IPs of indefinitely blocked User:Everyme are evading the block and indicating that he "will keep hurling insults." Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• I blocked the latest dynamic IP for 24 hours. No point in blocking the other one since he's clearly not using it any more. IP range is far too big for a rangeblock, so unfortunately it's a case of blocking as and when. Black Kite 20:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Fair enough and thanks. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
    • facepalm.jpg --78.34.201.5 (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
      • omg Skype? 99.160.140.103 (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
      • ^ that was me, Xavexgoem (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC) He's so hard to get a hold of...

Block Evasion

Resolved

 – IP blocked by Edgar181. 22:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

An IP, 68.222.236.154 (talk · contribs) who was blocked for one month with the reason: Disruptive editing: repeatedly inserting "Taiwan" and Taiwan flag icons into articles despite being told to stop seems to block evading under this 98.122.100.249 (talk · contribs). Both IPs geolocate to the same place and are reinstating the same edits such as this on the Republic of China 68 IP and 98 IP. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 21:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The IP is also now edit warring again on the Republic of China article. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have now blocked the IP. (And sorry about mistakenly marking this section resolved because I misread which IP was the currently active one.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Making note to make things clearer next time. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

SkyBon

Reverts the page to version with his disputed addition after the protection expires (and no consensus on the talk page was reached) and then asks to reprotect it ([88], [89]). Is that appropriate behavior? vvv^t 10:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Is "Also an administator of Russian Wikipedia was desysoped for being a domestic partner of vandal and for splashing one of the administrators with a glass of water at one of the Wikimeetings." an "appropriate" edit? Probably not; you may be on to something there, vvv... ;P Doc9871 (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Skating on thin ice. If this persists, there will need to be sanctions against SkyBon. Fences&Windows 15:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable but a fact. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 18:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

SkyBon, this is an encyclopedia not a gossip rag. Russian Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and such material is anyway inappropriate per WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:BLP. Don't repeat such edits. Fences&Windows 00:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Block needed

Wantsvictory (talk · contribs) has been in an ongoing edit war on the articles for two fictional lesbian characters. He has violated the three revert rule by a lot on both Olivia Spencer and Natalia Rivera Aitoro, changing the text "committed relationship" to "Twisted Lesbian Relationship" on both articles. I left a note warning him about vandalism and alerting him to the NPOV policy. He has since edited my comments and has moved his talk page to article space at Nagging West Coast Lesbian Supporters Get Their Way. Because of my opposition to Prop 8 (stated on my user page), Wantsvictory doesn't believe I'm being neutral, and since I'm involved here I'm not using my tools. I could definitely use a hand cleaning this mess up though. AniMate 05:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've issued an indefinite block. I don't see anything in the edit history that suggests he won't leave the propaganda out of it. I would like another admin, if necessary, to confirm the block since I doubt he'll sit well having been blocked by an admitted tailraiser. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious SPI who resorts to edit-warring and, failing that, vandalism. I'd say you're in the clear. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Good block - it is very apparent that not only do they not understand the Wikipedia ethos, but they have no desire to do so. I am slightly worried that Jeremy self identifies as a cat, but obviously it was not an issue at his RfA so I guess it really does not matter... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a cat, a Bori. Look it up. :P —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(gratuitous lolcat in 3....2....1.....) GJC 18:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

...and talk page access yanked. (He has been directed to appeal via email.) Otherwise, this person is clearly not here to be productive in any form. His commentary on his user talk post-block, his remarks at AniMate, and his severe edit warring clearly demonstrate that lack. –MuZemike 01:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

IP Vandalism

IP user removing vandalism notices from talk page possibility trying to hide evidence of misconduct. --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is permitted per WP:BLANKING. The removal of the warning serves as an indication it was read. –xeno^talk 16:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Except not usually in the case of IP editors since the "owner" of the IP could change from minute to minute. We allow (though I disagree) accounts to remove warnings from their pages but the standard has been, unless its changed, not to allow IP users to do so.--Crossmr (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it has since 4 April 2008 allowed IP (anon) users to do so. –xeno^talk 01:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hosting infoboxes on user pages: User:Mackay 86

My reading of WP:UP#NOT suggests that the content on User:Mackay 86 is not appropriately held there. I'm not sure why (s)he's put it there, but it seems to me like an opportunity for someone to host a parallel encyclopaedia free of peer review (note the edit comment "Warning do not edit this article, anything "not" added by me will be deleted"). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the content, noting the same on the accounts talkpage and warning that WP practices should be abided by. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

They're ignoring you .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.178.63 (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, they did post to my talkpage stating they did not know why they shouldn't host the content on their talkpage - so I explained myself further... after removing it again and protecting the page from being edited. I invited them to request further opinions here, at the same time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is just an outside question. Could it be possible to have the infoboxes there on the page and comment out the categories and such so no one accidently comes to the page? I had to do that with a page I moved from mainspace to userspace (see User:Neutralhomer/WPRZ-FM). The categories were commenting out but the infobox on the page remained. Would that be an alterative or still against the rules? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly the same thing imho. Userified page meant for eg. further refinement or a userpage with an assortement of unrelated infoboxes. Jarkeld (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I understand. That was pretty much the reason why I had to pull the article from mainspace to userspace was for further refinement and that it didn't quite meet WP:N (due to the station not being on the air yet). OK, my question was answered. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Living person task force IRC meeting

Hi everyone,

The Living Persons task force is having a meeting on IRC in about 4 hours, in the channel #wikimedia-strategy ^connect on the server freenode. If you need help accessing this channel, please see Wikipedia:IRC#Accessing IRC. The time of the meeting is 4:00 UTC on Monday, 8 March. The meeting will be publicly logged (see past chats) and will generally follow the structure laid out at the agendas page. strategy:Task force/Living people has more information if you interested.

I hope to see you there.

Yours sincerely, NW (Talk) 23:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:75.68.82.23 again

75.68.82.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – Blocked for 1 month by Ronhjones. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 01:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This IP editor was the subject of two recent AN/I threads [90],[91] because of their disruptive editing. They've just come off a block, and have picked right up doing the same thing again. Comments and advice on the talk page are being ignored. Can someone please take a look, and issue a block if it's warranted? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a good example of the bad edits they're making. I reported at WP:AIV, but there wasn't any response there. Dawnseeker2000 00:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ronhjones just blocked for a month. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Well I should say that differently; I posted to WP:AIV, but the user stopped editing and the admin noticed and said the same. They asked to re-report if the user continued and I did. Thanks again. Now I can resume having fun making audio samples for Wikipedia articles about songs! Dawnseeker2000 01:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

An interesting AfD

I've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm (2nd nomination) as a temporary measure because of renewed off-site discussion about it, this time on reddit, Y Combinator, FriendFeed (and probably a few more places). Everything that could be said about that topic has been said. If an admin wants to make a different decision, he can do so based on that AfD and the previous one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm, which was closed under similar circumstances just before the 2nd one opened. Together these have about 125Kb already. There's no point in having another insanely long repetitive discussion like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM (175Kb). Pcap ping 00:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I love your reason for closure. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I may be missing something... but... how can you have a speedy no consensus? If there is no consensus it should be left unclosed. Whilst canvassing does seem to be happening, how can consensus ever be gained if discussions are speedy closed? Personally I would allow it to run, and have it closed after a full 7 day period. It may be a tough close which takes ages to trawl through, but dodging the issue by closing discussions due to canvassing isn't really a solution. Please do fill me in if I am missing something here. --Taelus (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:IAR. If you just plan to count votes, there's not going to be a consensus. If you just plan to read the arguments, you can do so already, they're already in triplicate at least. Participants there disagree on what's a reliable source for open source software. You can choose to buy one side or the other of the arguments, but having them repeated ad nauseam won't make the discussion any easier to parse. Feel free to reopen it if you think consensus is likely to emerge, but I just don't see how that's gonna happen. (This is the 2nd week, as the previous AfD was closed just before this one opened.) Pcap ping 00:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Having participated in the AfD for JWASM, I would say that any action that prevents another AfD from going the same route is a good one. What a waste of electrons that was. -- Atama頭 00:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps... But the close result of the previous AfD was to restart the process, thus it just strikes me as odd to close the second nomination early. I won't re-open it however, probably best for administrators who were involved in the previous close to take a look. --Taelus (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I may be missing something too. Meatpuppets don't get to muddle AfDs into no consensus. I'm having a quick look and I'm not seeing anyone arguing for keep actually providing anything credible and based on policies or guidelines to actually keep it. This is pretty cut and dried. The only source that seems discussed at the top was written by a member of the project. So either they provide significant coverage by reliable third party sources, or its deleted. This is the equivalent of showing up at an AfD and screaming "KEEP - I'M WEARING BLUE PANTS!!!" admin - "hmm..there seems to be serious opposition to its deletion". I'm going on record as saying this is a terrible close which basically rewards someone for off-site canvassing. There wasn't a single shred of evidence provided to defend keeping that article.--Crossmr (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If no one else has gotten to this in an hour or so, I'll give it a whirl (I'm busy for a bit). I'm completely uninvolved. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 01:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the "Keep: Typical Wikipedia Faggotry" comment sums it up best. Nefariousski (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm undoing the speedy close and making a stab at determining consensus. I should have it by April 1 ;) -- Flyguy649 ^talk 03:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's best to let the AfD run its course and then determine consensus. I realize it's likely the same opinions will be trotted out over the next couple of days. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Whoever closes it will see a lot of "it's teh notable because I says so" and a lot of "there are no reliable independent sources". Only one of these is a compelling argument :-) Guy (Help!) 08:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I almost feel like we need a policy or guideline for this kind of stuff. It comes up on a fairly regular basis where we get some non-notable something, and they run to their forums or teh blogs! and rally the troops and it turns into a storm of garbage. I think there comes a point where any objective reasonable person can realize that side just has no point and it needs to be shot and put out of its misery for the good of everyone involved.--Crossmr (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• We do have a policy, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion. "It is considered inappropriate to ask people outside of Wikipedia to come to the discussion to sway its outcome. Such comments may be ignored. They are not removed, but may be tagged with {{spa}}, noting that a user "has made few or no other edits". In extreme cases, a deletion debate can be semi-protected." Fences&Windows 13:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• That doesn't really do much though. I still turns into a dramafest as countless people who have never edited wikipedia or who haven't edited in a long time come out of the woodwork to make the same argument "Wikipedia sucks, this is totally notable, #$## you, keep it!". I think when its very obvious this is happening, an admin should just have a look and see if they've provided any evidence at all and if not, short circuit the process, cut the drama before it gets out of hand, delete it, salt the earth (because they often get recreated by a meat puppet) and be done with it. We've already seen them rewarded twice for their behaviour so obviously the current process isn't working. They got a new deletion discussion, then they got an admin who came along and made an early no consensus close based on their "MY PANTS ARE BLUE KEEP!!!!!" arguments.--Crossmr (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So now it's also old wikipedians who get shut out, if it were up to you? Oh dear. I'm an old wikipedian... I'm getting kind of worried here. :-/ Who *will* you still listen to, if they tell you they think maybe some processes are getting a little out of hand? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I listen to the sources which people have failed to provide. Yours or anyone else's assertion that it is notable without providing sufficient sources just isn't sufficient. I've been in several of these AfDs before where technology/internet related subject had a number of fans but no sources. It always goes exactly the same way. They start posting on their forums, irc, twitters, etc getting everyone to bombard the AfD which no evidence of anything simply attempting to disrupt it and overwhelm it. However none of that does anything to satisfy the policies and guidelines.--Crossmr (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting how a topic that is considered non-notable can rally so many people to its defence. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Imagine the consequences if a deletion discussion makes it into to the dead-paper press.

• What is so interesting about it? Social networking trends are epidemic. If a YouTube video of a dancing cat can get hundreds of thousands of views just because someone mentions it on Twitter, rallying shouts like "the Wikipedia deletionists are at it again" or "you need to put in place illiterate morons who wrecked his selfless work of enthusiasts" can certainly attract some attention. — Rankiri (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember the fuss we used to get before we blacklisted YTMND? Every single meme was edit-warred in multiple places. Not just YTMND either, here's one that's been in place for over four years: [92]. Guy (Help!) 19:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, so you're arguing that something can be non-notable, even if large numbers of people are passionate about it? I'm not sure I can accept that as it appears self-contradictory. Am I missing something? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, WP:N and WP:NOT. It stands to reason that encyclopedia articles must not be based on fleeting fame or hearsay sources. — Rankiri (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:N and Wikipedia is not paper actually are in balance with each other. In cases like this one, I think current best practice for Notability somehow breaks down and fails to work properly. What can we do to fix that? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't take that many people to make a drama fest on wikipedia. So even if it looks like a "large" number of people like something, it doesn't mean its notable. See WP:BIGNUMBER its why we require reliable sources to establish notability.--Crossmr (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, just because there's smoke, there doesn't need to be fire. But still, I'm starting to see suspicious amounts of smoke around. I'm just worried we might be going about things the wrong way, somehow. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes you're worried because it is very clear that the subject you have such an interest in doesn't meet the requirements that its going to end up deleted. Sorry, we don't change the policies and guidelines because the specific case you like doesn't cut it. We've created one of the only verifiable an objective ways possible to measure notability. Anything else you or anyone else on the AfD have proposed completely ignores allowing anyone to independently verify the claims or demonstrate any kind of objective notability.--Crossmr (talk) 06:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "Imagine the consequences if a deletion discussion makes it into to the dead-paper press." How about 20 of them?[93] The sky didn't fall. Fences&Windows 00:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Raptor Jesus may disagree. — Rankiri (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it means we can write a notable, reliably sourced article about the deletion discussions, even though we can't have an article about the subjects ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Policy Problem

We can all agree that there needs to be some rules for notability. Like WP:N states, having a page for every garage band that starts up isn't feasible.

This is not the case in this specific situation or with many of the other informative pages that have been deleted. There's nothing on this particular page that is wrong or misleading, just that there is no traditional media coverage of it. It will probably never be covered by traditional media. This doesn't mean it's a "flash in the pan" any more than contentious and hence media-covered projects like OpenOffice are.

The wiki entry is informative, neutral, unbiased and fact-based.

When such good encyclopedic entries are up for deletion, there must be something wrong with the system. That's what's causing the current outrage, and for people who have supported Wikipedia with time, effort and money the discussion-stifling methods and censorship tactics some Admins use seem particularly offensive.

There are likely several acceptable solutions to this problem, but I don't have any experience with the Wikipedia bureaucracy, so I don't know the proper procedure for getting a policy changed. Can someone suggest the right way to go about this, please? --Wicked247 (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There are two discussions at the talk for WP:Notability: here and here. There is also a somewhat old RFC (now re-opened) here. It will take a bit of reading to get up to speed: I recommend starting with an overview at WP:PILLARS, with study of the WP:N guideline and its WP:V policy. Essentially it's the discussions above that conceivably could change the current situation. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:ArneBab

He seems responsible for the 2nd, even more massive round of off-wiki canvasing links here. See what happened to #User:Mclaudt above. Pcap ping 01:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If you keep closing and restarting the discussion, the canvassing will never stop. Let it run its seven days, let them complain because they refuse to actually provide a secondary source, close based on actual policy not votes, let the slightly more sophisticated complain to WP:DRV and lose there, and then finally, let the craziest whiners start vandalizing and get blocked. Then some blogs will be out ranting about the horrors of wikipedia because their random obscure thing isn't kept here. It's the normal pattern and what can be expected. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sensing assumptions of bad faith on both sides, once again. This is very similar to what happened at the Foswiki AfD. The fundamental problem is on our side: The General notability guideline is an approximation for identifying articles that (1) are worth having in an encyclopedia because enough people are interested in them, and (2) can be written neutrally. It's good for most purposes, but in the case of open source software there are special circumstances that make it harder to prove that enough people are interested and easier to write a neutral article without significant third-party coverage. (The article Dwm gets 100 hits/day, Foswiki gets 50 hits/day. That's not so much less than e.g. MediaWiki and significantly more than Erwig and Naman Keïta or any other random article which has no notability problems at all.) The German Wikipedia takes them into account, we don't.

The general public doesn't understand the GNG, and it doesn't know about our off-site canvasing rules. Experience has shown that both are surprising to open source software developers, i.e. to some of the people most likely to become valuable editors once they have found their way to Wikipedia. The current situation is optimised towards attracting and then alienating these people. Hans Adler 12:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I was going to wait until the end of the AfD discussion but I guess it doesn't matter now. In particular, see [94] ([95], [96]) and [97]. Some of these messages were posted three days ago when the user should have already been aware of WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS. — Rankiri (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am not saying that all the canvased/canvassing people are angels. I am saying that at least half of the fault for these incidents is on our side and it's up to us to fix the problem. Think of it this way: Suppose the article Dutch Wikipedia was nominated for deletion based on the (hypothetical) argument that all press articles about the Dutch Wikipedia are indiscriminately about the English and Dutch Wikipedia as if they were the same thing. The only thing that would prevent a drama similar to what we are seeing with open source projects is the fact that the editors of the Dutch Wikipedia have a much better idea of the norms of the English Wikipedia than do the members of a typical open source software community. But it's not their fault that they don't understand our norms, and it's in our interest to educate, not punish them. Hans Adler 13:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I only disapprove of the actions of this particular user, not the ones who were dragged into the discussion. As an active participant of both WP:Articles for deletion/Dwm and WP:Articles for deletion/Dwm (2nd nomination), he should have known that his attempts at off-site canvassing weren't appropriate. And it's not like he even tried to sound neutral: his last message on [98] violates WP:PERSONAL (I'm entirely indifferent about this but see User talk:ArneBab) and is tagged with biased "!fs attacked". Personally, I'd welcome an influx of new users who were reasonable, but the problem with cries for help such as these is that they generally bring in ones who are not. [99], [100], [101], etc. — Rankiri (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I find it strange how much of those editors have accounts long ago registered, largely inactive for months or even years and just popping in for that article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it strange at all. Open Source programmers write free software, wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. A lot of F/L/OSS coders will likely have wp accounts on general principle.

Alienating your natural allies is probably a bad idea. So even if we agree that policy is perfectly correct, we still have something of an obligation to explain it to these people. This isn't siegenthaler; but if continued, this trend is likely to have rather nasty consequences. Can we figure out how to be nicer? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked ArneBab indefinitely. He's been here since 2004, so it's absolutely inconceivable that he doesn't know votestacking on AfDs is unacceptable. Blueboy96 21:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh. Maybe don't do that. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To wit, I don't think an indefinite block is warrented, by a fairly large margin. Please unblock. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I support it. Two complete messes of an AfD. He absolutely should know better and this massive disruption on their part. What happens when the next AfD comes along that he doesn't agree with?--Crossmr (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I support it too. I don't see how open source communities are special enough to warrant kids glove treatment that we wouldn't provide to others. Frankly, I'm somewhat tired of all the arguments in AfD and on article talk pages that nobody should even be allowed to edit articles about open source software unless they're developers themselves. It goes against the whole spirit, the whole purpose of Wikipedia. When we have people creating Sourceforge projects, then creating Wikipedia pages to advertise their products (generally with positive POV, as expected), then trying to own the articles by reverting edits they don't like, then bringing in meatpuppets when the articles come to AfD... Why should we be kissing their feet? -- Atama頭 01:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... we're a prominent member of that community. Anything we say or do in this context reflects back on us. Why should we cut off our own nose to spite our face? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes cutting off your nose is the best thing to do. -- Atama頭 01:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that comparing the good faith attempts at participation by the 3rd parties (from Y-Combinator, Reddit, etc) is crossing some sort of line that probably shouldn't be crossed. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I support an indef block, but if he requests unblock in a few months and it seems legit it seems reasonable to do so on a trial basis. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You support an indef block because some AFDs didn't go right? :-O --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No. its supported because someone tried to game the system and disrupt the process. --Crossmr (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Meatpuppetry is intolerable, it sabotages any attempt to reach consensus in a discussion. -- Atama頭 01:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus between who and who in this case? Who does wikipedia serve, and who has rights to contribute to wikipedia? Meta:Founding principles. I agree that forms of puppetry are not good. On the other hand, if one of the the communities we live in symbiosis with attempts to participate and bring procedural issues to our notice, we would be wise to listen. Because if not to them, then to who? --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Between the users of this community. Canvassing does not create a consensus view because it attempts to stack the consensus in favor of one side. He disrupted the process, and he's been blocked to prevent it from happening again.--Crossmr (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Maureenpfleming

Maureenpfleming (talk · contribs), apparently Maureen Fleming, edited her article to mess up the formatting and sourcing and to add a huge quote in the middle of the article. I reverted back to the last version, and tried to explain COI to her, suggesting she discuss her edits on the article's Talk page. Instead, she took her version of the article and posted it on her User page. Not only does this appear to be a copyright violation, since she didn't retain the article's edit history, but even if it is about her, it's fully of unsourced claims. Is there anything that should be done here, or should we just leave it alone? Woogee (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have userfied the above to User:Maureenpfleming/Maureenpfleming and noted same to the editors talkpage (which I had *cough* unuserfy...) while suggesting they familiarise themselves with the WP ethos. I didn't mention that I also {{Noindex}}ed the page, just in case, as they can learn about that when they learn about COI, verifiability and the need to list contributors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Does that address the copyright violation and BLP sourcing problems? Woogee (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... In that the content is no longer caught by crawlers... perhaps. Also, if the account and the subject is the same individual then there is an inherent permission to use that text per WP's licensing. If they are not the same individual, then maybe it should be deleted. You could always try an MfD for the page to see if that can resolve the issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thge copyright issue within wikipedi can be handled by a talk page attribution, such as via {{copied}} which exists for that purpose. DES ^(talk) 02:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Offsite canvassing.

Resolved

 – Semi-d for a week by Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs)

NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

For Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roblox (2nd nomination), there is offsite canvassing. There is also a corresponding influx of new editors and anonymous editors to the discussion, with rationales that match the "I came to vote" mentality. Please consider semi protection. Thank you, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi'd 1w. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 03:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Truthseekers666 (again)

Resolved

 – Socks blocked, DNFTT Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Truthseekers666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has retaliated against his block off wiki on the youtube channel he has with two new videos, here and here, and in at least one case calls out ALR. I thought someone should be made aware of this, just in case no one noticed it yet. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not our job to police the internet or to support the National Health Service. He is indeffed I presume? --Narson ~ Talk • 18:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing we can do but ignore him and hope he gets bored. deny him recognition. ;HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole 'call to arms' thing is a little worrying. We might want to keep an eye on the articles he is calling on people to go and storm. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Worth keeping an eye on relevant pages however, at 9:25-9:48 on the first video he calls for others to help him out on Wikipedia. Other than that though, best to ignore and move on rather than let a fuss be kicked up. --Taelus (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The pages are indeed being watched (and RAF Rudloe Manor is still protected for now). Any meat-puppetry can be dealt with as and when it surfaces. EyeSerene^talk 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering the number of views those two videos have, I wouldn't worry. Youtube, allowing the people with important things to say, say them without fear that someone might actually listen--Jac16888^Talk 19:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like an unfortunate situation, as he truly doesn't understand why he was blocked nor why his edits were reverted. Granted, there are instances where people attempt to whitewash controversial information in articles here, but there's no government conspiracy in this particular case to redact his edits as he believes. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

From one of the Youtube postings: "Its clear to me Wiki is just a stitch up government job. The two main antaginists against me are military and freemasons." OMG you guys, I had no idea you were all military and freemasons!!! Please don't repress me! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I swear, this guy sounds like the Sanders vandal. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah don't screw with us; we'll shoot you and make walls from your corpses. Or something. I dunno. Whatever masons do. HalfShadow

Oh, man, those videos are comedy gold! Though I do feel sorry for the specific users who are the targets of his conspiracy theory–induced harassment. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously nobody ever told him that the candy sucking during the video is really annoying. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Or that posting a video on YouTube isn't likely to get you a response more intelligent than 'Ernk ernk, I eat poo'... HalfShadow 20:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So far, one person has attempted to help him, as professed under the comment section. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm writing to the bloody government, bastards haven't sent my money yet. Rather the other way round, in fact, since I note from my payslip that they have stolen thousands from me again this month. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Ok, now I'm pissed. Where is my check? Is it only UK editors who get paid by the government? And as an admin I think I should be granted some serious status with the masons. Grand Wizard or Imperial poobah or whatever system it is they use, which I should already have been informed about since I am apparently working for them. And I want my very own tinfoil hat with tassels denoting my rank. Now dammit. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey, I actually work for the Ministry of Defence and I haven't got my cheque! Is this payment only for MoD employees who are Freemasons as well? If so, how do I sign up? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    • The second youtube video was posted on St David's Day and there seemed to be some hint of a Welsh accent. Curiouser and curiouser. Mathsci (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Update I've just declined his latest unblock request/rant and revoked talk page and email access. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Would everyone mind looking at some concerns/links I've posted at Talk:RAF Rudloe Manor#AMSCPC. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose block - I favor unblocking Truthseeker. First - Truthseekers666 has a few friends who watch is videos. No big deal. The other hundred viewers are Wikipedia administrators pissed that they haven't been called out yet. Second, his "call to arms" has been described as a DNS - but that's gross hyperbole. He asked his friends to look into the situation possibly edit the article. He doesn't ask his friends to vandalize the article. I've counted two people who may have joined the discussion as a result of his "call to arms". Big whup. Third, he has been willing to engage in dialog - especially with editors who assume good faith. His talk page history clearly shows that he's trying to understand our policies and how he can work within them to get his point across. He makes all the usual WP:BOLD mistakes new editors make, but if we didn't put up with that, then we wouldn't have any old editors, would we? Sure, he's a conspiracy theorist nutter, and I as a Freemason am bound by blood oath to marginalize him, but as far as conspiracy theory nutters go, he's pretty tame, and I think he's willing to work within the rules just as soon as he fully grasps them. And to that end, he needs our help, not more paranoia. Rklawton (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you were aware of part of the reason for the block, the thread has been archived. He posted an appeal on the commons account ALR asking for more information from others about me. That account isn't mine but someone else drew it to my attention, not realising that it isn't me, although quite useful to know. That has been removed through OTRS as far as I'm aware.

I've already commented elsewhere that I've never worked at Rudloe Manor, although I was in a nearby location and lived in Box, about 5 miles away from the site towards Bath, for a couple of years. I'm also aware of some of what these "alien hunters" did do to some of the site security staff at Rudloe; pepper spray, postal harassment etc so while it's not a significant threat, there is the potential. There were three groups that routinely tried to break into Rudloe and nearby locations, one of which wasn't a big issue, the other two were.

ALR (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Since this thread is still growing after Fences and windows closed it, I have commented out her/his edit. My only input into this contentious issue is that if RAF Rudloe Manor has been the center of the RAF's investigations into UFOs, mention it -- even if this is only a wide-spread misconception in the UK. If this is not the case, & Rudloe Manor has nothing to do with UFOs (especially the ones from other planets, although if they simply investigate miscellaneous phenomena which can not be satisfactorily identified there's no harm making that distinction), then please remove Timothy Good's book from the list of "Further Readings." I think that association is notable if it is something in the public attention. (And if it is an assertion limited to the tedious rantings of a few who Need To Get a Life, then please remove all reference to it.) Once this is done & when all posts to this thread cease, then this matter can be closed. (FWIW, I'm assuming F&W was acting in good faith & simply made a mistake about the status of this thread.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's widespread, then someone should be able to dig up some reliable sources that address this widely heard of story. I would have no objection to including references to the subject in the article. What I wouldn't want to see are a bunch of links sending unsuspecting readers off to terribly unreliable sources. I'm thinking we could use Area 51 as our model (based only on my quick scan of the article's table of contents). Rklawton (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there was actually nothing to see and the thread had descended into silliness. Account fairly blocked, person making toothless threats on YouTube, case closed. You lot can go on talking about it if you must. Fences&Windows 00:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see any threats on YouTube at all. Rklawton (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So, calls to meatpuppetry don't count in your book? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've lived within ten miles of Rudloe Manor for the last twenty years, and my only comments are "WP:OR" and "WP:REDFLAG". There's bollocks, and there's this, which make crop circles seem plausible. Close this farrago, please, and let's get on with building an encyclopedia using reliable sources Rodhullandemu 01:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To F&W: sometimes one must endure a little drama on WP:AN/I in order to avoid a lot of drama. Seeing how this thread has continued to grow, the drama hasn't ended. Sometimes the best thing to do with threads is to simply sit back & wait for them to get archived. (And again, for the record I have no interest in what ALR's off-Wiki identity is, & an attempt to learn what it is, whether ALR is a Mason, or whom ALR voted for in the last election is reasonable grounds for blocking -- if not banning.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So, ZERO threats on YouTube or on Wikipedia, and ALR outed himself. Truthseekers666 expressed his opinions about his experiences editing here on Wikipedia - but that's not against policy, and it isn't causing any problems here. In fact, what he has to say on videos is just an extension of his dialogs here. By explaining himself in a media in which he felt comfortable (video in this case), he was giving us what we needed to know to help set him straight on our policies. If more of us had assumed good faith and taken the time to explain our policies, I don't think we'd here on AN/I. So in the final analysis, Truthseekers666 didn't make threats, he didn't say he planned on editing against policy, and he didn't out ALR, either. So tell us again why Truthseekers666 was indef blocked. Rklawton (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This may help. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't help. The diff was oversighted on commons, and the YouTube videos which mention ALR are a far cry from harassment, and those are the only two justifications presented in your link. Keep in mind that ALR told Truthseekers666 he worked in the RAF at RAF Rudloe Manor - which actually translates to ALR having a conflict of interest in this matter (or it translates into baiting if ALR wasn't being truthful). I've been following this matter from the outset with an eye toward blocking Truthseekers666 as yet another conspiracy theory nutter. However, unlike the usual assortment, Truthseekers666 has been willing to engage in dialog and has taken an interest in learning what is and is not appropriate. This is not the sort of editor we indef block. Rklawton (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify what Truthseeker interprets as outing myself. I stated that it didn't matter whether I'd worked at three places, Rudloe itself, Henlow which is now the HQ of the RAF Police or the DIS which is another organisation that he was burbling about. He's expressing that as confirming that I've worked at them. It was a rather misguided effort to illustrate the primacy of the content policies, unfortunately I didn't bank on the fairy tenuous grasp of the english language and how this group tend to twist everything to support their own theories. As you may be aware the conspiracy theorist fraternity prefer to focus on individuals, rather than evidence, hence his enthusiasm to concentrate on my credibility, or otherwise, rather than present evidence; He's convinced himself that I'm paid by MoD to censor Wikipedia.

I'll state again, I have not worked at Rudloe, although I have worked nearby. There are about 20 military establishments within 15-20 miles of the place; RAF, Army, Navy and predominantly Civil Service. I have been in the all ranks bar in Rudloe, once, I've driven past Henlow, that's about as close as it gets.

He stated repeatedly that he wasn't wanting to edit in accordance with policy, arguing for the inclusion of partial primary sources, rather than credible secondary. fwiw I'm not sure there are many, if any, since it tends to be the preserve of the conspiracy theory fraternity.

As I've already stated, whilst this is not a significant personal threat, there is a risk to me.

I'd also suggest that it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that anyone in MoD has a conflict of interest in writing about MoD related topics, particularly stations or establishments that they've never worked at. There are some 200,000 uniformed personnel, and a similar number of civil servants in MoD. There are about another 100,000 civilians directly engaged in delivery to MoD locations.

ALR (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Rklawton, as one of the few non-admins who saw that post, and the person who asked for a deletion and block on Commons, what happened is this. Truthseeker666 vandalised the page of a commons user called ALR by posting a request that other people find out the real life identity, location, occupation etc of en:wikipedia's ALR, dig up any dirt on him, also find out whether "our" ALR was a Freemason - because Truthseeker is convinced that the opposition to him is a military-masonic conspiracy. That's a permablocking offence. There's no ifs and buts about it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. ALR, although your clarification is helpful, please don't feel you need to justify yourself here. Rklawton's reading of events is out of step with Wikipedia policy in this case. There's no doubt that Truthseeker was on a fishing expedition, and you haven't outed yourself by any stretch of the imagination (any more than I have by revealing on my user page that I currently live in South Wales, and from the beach photo in the Swansea area). Rklawton, note that Truthseeker had WP:V, the difference between primary and secondary sources, WP:ELNO, and WP:RS explained a number of times, and dialogue was underway when they shot themselves in the foot with the attempted outing. I do agree that we could have been more courteous to them at times (myself included), but that's the only thing in this episode that I think we need to reflect on and learn from. EyeSerene^talk 08:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So we goaded a new user until he broke a big rule and then indef blocked him? I never saw the outing page (why would he do this outing on Commons and not Wikipedia, anyone know?), so that's affected my view - nor have I read any policy against "outing." Got a link so I can catch up? Rklawton (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I just read WP:OUTING. If Truthseekers666 only asked for information about ALR, then it doesn't fit our definition of outing. Our definition is comprised only of publishing accurate or inaccurate (known as attempted outing) private information about an individual. Because we should not confirm information as accurate, we should refer to all such activities as "attempted outing" so as to leave doubt about accuracy. Attempted outing is NOT the same thing as attempting to learn personal information about an individual. Attempting to learn personal information may comprise "harassment", but that's not an automatic indef blocking offense. Rklawton (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, we didn't goad him into breaking a rule and then ban him, the problem was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. He's engaged in systematic self-promotion, tendentious editing, WP:FRINGE issues, WP:OR, WP:C violations and is generally impervious to Clue. I have no problem at all with him requesting an unblock once he's given some indication of understanding what Wikipedia is for (and that not every attempt to resist fringecruft is the result of sinister Masonic plots). Guy (Help!) 14:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Curious as to why "attempting to learn personal information about an individual" editor is helpful to WP, yes? Would this information necessarily benefit the improvement of the encyclopedia? "Asking for information" about other editors isn't normally necessary at all, you understand. There are administrators with checkuser who can verify any problem editors. Please, if I've jumped into something that I'm wrong about, let me know. I'm sorry, but I don't like the looks of your last argument at all, Rklawton... Doc9871 (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't appear to have a rule about requesting information - so it doesn't justify an indef block. Also, I was not aware that anyone ran checkuser. If this has been done, please provide a link to the checkuser case. Rklawton (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Again @Rklawton, posting "he's definitely someone high up in Tesco and I'm pretty certain he's a a closet dressmaker" is attempted outing, even if the allegation is bollocks.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"Tesco" and "dressmaker" were obvious jokes and not an attempt at outing. Especially in light that he usually repeats what ALS has already told him. If you'd post a link, it would help. While he doesn't use our vocabulary, his concerns are along the lines of ALS' conflict of interest (having admitted working for the RAF at the location in question, it appears that the COI concerns are valid). And while it's true that he's butted heads against a lot of our POV pushing related rules, the CLUE charge isn't valid - as some of his more recent edits have shown appreciation for patience and advice regarding how to edit constructively. Rklawton (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you actually point to where I've admitted anything?

I'm also starting to become somewhat disturbed by this persistent suggestion of a COI, which I've addressed several times, yet is continuing to be mentioned.

ALR (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that you did not tell Truthseeker you worked at Rudlow Manor? If so, then I retract, but I want to hear it from you first. My point about COI isn't that there is a COI but that if you did work at Rudlow, which Truthseeker says you have claimed, then it's fully understandable that he would be concerned about a COI and would wish to discuss it. Rklawton (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've already discussed it upthread. I used the comment that it doesn't matter if... as a means of indicating the primacy of the content policies. He's interpreted that as an admission. I've already stated several times that I did not work at Rudloe.

ALR (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reread Truthseeker's last week's worth of edits. The editor was clearly trying to work within the system and learn how to contribute usefully - especially following his first block. During this time following his first block he did not engage in *any* OR, POV, RS, or 3RR related activities. Instead, he was clearly seeking to understand how to work within the rules and fully demonstrating he was trying to get a clue. Second, I have seen no evidence that Truthseeker vandalized a page in Commons. More importantly, he denies this accusation, and so some evidence is important. Third, the vandalism (apparently a request for information about a user) was not an "outing" as described by Wikipedia's policies and as claimed by other admins, (and they need to retract this claim). Fourth, while cross-wiki harassment is a blockable offense (assuming Truthseeker really was responsible), a first offense doesn't rate an indef block. Rklawton (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Rk, I suggest you bow out of this particular race. Truthseeker wasn't just "requesting information," it was encouraging other users to dig up dirt on ALR to discredit him. That is why it's considered outing. Second, if you can't see the Oversignted edits on Commons, how can you say it wasn't an outing at all? And finally, a first offense most certainly can result in an indef block. Indef does not equal permanent. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd also contest the assertion that he was trying to work within the system; I think that was true only to the extent that he was trying to find a policy-based argument that would convince editors to keep his primary source-based original research in the article, and didn't want to accept that there was no way it was going to happen unless he produced reliable secondary sources. EyeSerene^talk 19:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else here think Rklawton is acting kind of odd. Like he's actually trying to 'out' ALR also, by throwing up a whole pile of stuff and seeing what sticks????? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I Second that emotion. I don't want to cast any stones but it seems that he would have moved on by now. Nefariousski (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Given my edit history of fighting and blocking conspiracy theory nut jobs at every opportunity, if you perceive my behavior as strange, perhaps that's reason enough to go back and revisit Truthseeker's edits following his first block. I don't think defending a user with multiple points amounts to "a pile of stuff" - and attacking my behavior does little to justify the block. Rklawton (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My Great Grandfather was a Freemason. I had his apron in my possession and a while ago I sold it on Ebay to a private collector in France. Clearly, the nation of France is behind this vile conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our natural bodily fluids. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I think the real Rklawton may have been abducted by aliens XD. Seriously, you are acting as if you believe that ALR actually is working for the MOD to cover up the truth about Rudloe Manor, and this justifies Truthseeker's attempts to find out who ALR really is, and it's very strange, because all ALR ever said was that he has been in the area - not anything else. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish people would stick to the facts and not mock user RKLawton. What RK has stated is that user truthseeker was trying to find out what position of authority or knowledge user ALR had in order to back up his ability to alter information on Rudloe Manor. User truthseeker seemed concerned that a user who is simply known as ALR who alludes on his page that he has a connection to or interest in the military may infact not be military at all. If this were the case then user ALRs opinion would carry about as much weight on Rudloe Manor as anyone else. However if ALR did work at Rudloe Manor provost service then he would indeed be in a good position to know if the type of information on the Rudloe Manor page was correct. Sticking just to the facts here, truthseekers asked what was ALRs "authority" to know these things and could user ALR prove he knew these things first hand. User ALR alluded in a deceitful way (sorry but this i how it seems) to say that it did not matter if he did indeed work for provost or rudloe manor of Intelligence staff. This suggests, deceptively, that user ALR did infact work for those departments. This would tend to make truthseeker then back off and have to accept his word on things. Now we see above user ALR agree he made these statements but they are infact all not true as he had only worked near these facilities and "drunk in some bars" near Rudloe Manor and is in no position or no official rank to know their true functions or secret workings. This exposes a problem with user ALRs motives. So truthseeker was right to have pointed this out. As we are meant to work away from PRIMARY which would have been what user ALR was apparently offering his personal feelings on the editing of Rudloe Manor page is based on what backup? User truthseeker was correct to point this out. It is not outing. For example if someone claims to possibly be prime minister and then starts posting about the UK government on WIKI I am sure many would ask the very same questions that truthseeker did, for the person to prove they are really the Prime Minister. RKlawton is therefore doing the sensible thing in pointing out these discrepancies. RKLawton should not be mocked as if he has lost his senses. Far from it I think he shows a lot of sense on this discussion. Back to truthseeker. His manner of dealing with things was at first awkward and aggressive but I am sure we all made a lot of mistakes on Wiki when we first came on board and truthseeker was starting to fully understand the process of wiki editing. He was making offers to provide SECONDARY information for the page and should be allowed to continue under guidance and coaching. I am saddened to see a lot of mocking of his position as a UFO researcher. I understood Winston Churchill, the Royal Family and some American presidents have either seen or have a keen interest in UFOs. If no evidence is provided that he vandalised Wikicommons then this should also be disregarded as a reason for his ban. J from Bristol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.174.121 (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Truthseeker666. You know, socking really isn't the best way of trying to get your block reversed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Your intepretation of what ALR said is based on what he said here, not what he said in the original page, Elen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.174.121 (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Besides just because your wiki admins does not mean there are not bigger wiki admins. I have been banned from emailing anyone on Wiki so cannot take up my points in any other way. What do you expect. Kick a man when he is down and keep kicking and then try some stabbing and if that doesnt work some punching. This is how Wiki works. To hear you all mocking anyone who even slightly brings up the fact truthseekers might be correect is sickening. You really should listen to yourselves before mocking those who are interested in UFOs.

Truthseeker asked to be unblocked several times and was promptly denied each time. Since all his Wikipedia edits following his first block were oriented toward figuring out how to work within bounds, I think an indef block was uncalled for, his request for unblock unfairly denied, and my request here for a review here treated inappropriately. The only possible evidence that Truthseeker might have rated a 2nd block can be found on another wiki and it isn't accessible to admins here. Since block reviewers did not have access to this edit or evidence that he even made it, they can't possibly know whether or not his 2nd block was justified - yet they denied it anyway, and that's plain wrong. I'm always happy to block unrepentant conspiracy theorists - per my block record, but I'm not happy about the indef blocking of anyone who consistently shows an interest in learning how to edit constructively. Rklawton (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you still on about this. Look, in case you haven't realised, Nuclear Warfare is an admin here and on Commons. He saw the post, and would have blocked Truthseeker in both locations if another admin hadn't done it here at the same time. I saw the post. It warranted an immediate indefinite block - and it doesn't matter what else Truthseeker was doing at the time. If Truthseeker wants to come back, he can stop socking, recognise what he did wrong, and then maybe he'll get a standard offer.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need the formality of a WP:SPI filing, or can we cut the red tape and ban 88.110.174.121 as a sock right now? If it isn't already obvious by the posts above, the language of a Truthseeker revert here is quite similar to a revert by the IP here. Block, mark this section resolved, and move on IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Jac16888 took care of it. — Satori Son 16:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

, "ellen of the roads is asking that we simply take her word on things that evidence exists and that Nuclear Warfare is aware of why Truthseekers666 was blocked. RKLawton asked specifically for the evidence, please provide it. Otherwise how do we the users know with transparency that anything has done which is worthy of being blocked for? " 86.159.115.107 (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)86.159.115.107 (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Also All this business of the "Call to Arms thing" and Truthseekers Youtube channels really should have nothing to do with Wikipedia its a seperate channels and people ,...However PIs**d off they are should have a right to voice their opinions in whatever way they want . Truthseeker seems to think he has a point and therefore has been unjustly blocked, after talking to him and reading what has gone on here I believe he has a point and I think that there are some people on here jumping on points and comments he and other users have made too harshly, Wiki has a no Bullying policy but I see users getting banned and admin getting away with it. Seems unfair and unjust, This IS just my opinion and I am probably going to get jumped on myself for my comments. 86.159.115.107 (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.115.107 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Truthseeker, what you don't seem to realise is that the commons admin deleted the page, as the fastest way to get rid of your edits. This means that anyone who is a commons admin can still see your deleted edit. This is why no-one has any sympathy with you. Now stop socking or you'll never, ever have a chance to edit Wikipedia again.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Truthseeker has fellow UFO fans. Unless you have evidence that the IP is a sock, and keeping in mind that his block also blocked all IPs he's used, you shouldn't make sock accusations. Next: I would VERY much like a Commons admin to review the edit - since none of the Wikipedia admins who reviewed his block were able to (yet denied his request without actually reviewing the evidence themselves - an act that is highly inappropriate). This admin should tell us two things: 1) did the editor violate our outing policy (or did he just request interested parties to look into a potential COI - which is NOT outing by our standards), and 2) what is the evidence that Truthseeker was the person who made the edit? The last I heard, Truthseeker denied vandalizing any page on Commons. With these questions answered, we might see this matter resolved with consensus. Rklawton (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Rklawton; the block only autoblocked the underlying IP at the time. It's child's play for a blocked user to evade his block on a dynamic IP. In fact, I reduced the block on the IP above from indef specifically because it's a dynamic IP (British Telecom). —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 01:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone here keeps hear Rklawton ask for proof Truthseker did vandise pages and you deny giving thd proof which more than likely means there is.none. Also many adminz are being rude to Rklawton who is alzo an admin. Why?

firstly I would like to say that I am AMSCPC not truthseeker I am not a puppet used by anyone or am I pretending to be anyone my IP address is 86.159.115.107 if you want to check the logs. All of this talk here seems a bit out of hand now it looks like anyone who agrees with truthseeker or questions the Admin here are frowned upon, case in point would be RKlawton who has decided to be reasonable and listen to truthseeker and try to resolve the issue but now seems to be himself to be attacked by other users and admin on here.

By reading I can see that both Truthseeker and RKlawton have asked for evidence and proof that truthseeker did vandise pages, as yet no one seems to want to give proof of any kind. I understand this is a private page BUT!!!!!! accusing someone of doing something and then NOT providing the evidence to back up the claims is wrong, you either have proof or have not.......if you have proof then please show truthseeker or RKlawton if you dont have the proof then then state the reason truthseeker seems to have been banned, Because after reading through this it seems like that admin here (not all admin) are happy to do and say what they like as long as they are not questioned.

This statement "Now stop socking or you'll never, ever have a chance to edit Wikipedia again.[[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]" (did I say statement sorry I meant threat) if its true then fine no argument, but is there proof ????? if so why has it not been presented I know some people on here think I am truthseeker lol this is NOT true I can prove this, you have my IP address so compare it.

This ""Threat" is not the only comment on this page that is page that is out of order

"Anyone else here think Rklawton is acting kind of odd. Like he's actually trying to 'out' ALR also, by throwing up a whole pile of stuff and seeing what sticks????? Elen of the Roads"

I mean RKlawton chooses to listen and suddenly "POUNCE" he is froewned upon and made out that he himspef is trying to cause trouble.

The way this reads is dont comment and agree with Admin. "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." REALLY ??????--AMSCPC (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dilip rajeev

Dilip_rajeev (talk · contribs), whose disruptive editing behavior has been noted in a previous arbcom case [102], has resumed editing the FLG related articles. He has returned to edit-warring in the 6-10 Office [103] and Persecution of Falun Gong articles [104], restoring long deleted materials several times despite concensus amongst other editors, as well as making personal attacks[105] [106].--PCPP (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that Dilip's changes in the Persecution of FLG article is one taken from one of his old edits from last year [107]--PCPP (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• This editor is without a doubt the most disruptive, tendentious and point-pushing Falun Gong/anti-Baba editor I have ever come across anywhere on WP. If my reading of the AE case I filed against him before his last opportune disappearance, he would have received a six month FLG topic ban like asdfg and HappyInGeneral. had he been around. His MO is one of hit and run, but he is also known to disappear for months on end. He has been very busy of late within articles about the Chinese Communist Party, Propaganda of the PRC, 6-10 Office... His actions in PRCverse should be seen as part of his agenda to precipitate the downfall of the Communist Party of China - the declared objective of the Falun Gong. I request a site ban. It's about time we said one last 'thank you' to him for his 'invaluable (sic) contribution' to wikipedia. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) While I'm uncertain whether or not this is the right place to bring it up (could be an ArbCom matter, or whatever other bureaucratic venue), dilip's latest drive-by-rampage at Persecution of Falun Gong (see above) does raise concerns... he throws in 57,000+ characters in one sweeping go (w/o bothering to fix the reflist), and then says something along the lines of "explain in detail which of these sentences/words you contest"... after others had been debating and finding consensus since, like, November last year... *sigh* As far as I recall, that was exactly the point of last year's ArbCom. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions apply to Falun Gong articles, so there is no need to involve ArbCom or ArbCom enforcement. What remedy would be best here? 1RR? Indefinite topic ban? Fences&Windows 15:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Because of Dilip rajeev's habit of hits and runs, and of disappearing for weeks and then reappearing for short bursts, I request an indefinite site ban. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I certainly wouldn't mind his editing articles on strawberries or goosebumps, but I doubt dilip will suddenly start developing an interest in, say, hunting techniques in Papua New Guinea. Anything that distantly relates to Falun Gong is where he pulls his stunts (SPA). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment For a long time I have refrained from weighing in on the various iterations of this dispute. Here I just want to point out that, while Dileep rajeev's "hit-and-run" editing is clearly not conducive to building a better encyclopedia, PCPP (the editor filing this complaint) is not above reproach either. The diffs he posted above and called "personal attacks" don't really look like personal attacks to me, and he appears to be just as guilty of edit warring as Dileep is. Specifically, on 6-10 Office, PCPP twice[108][109] reverted Dileep's edits without any explanation whatsoever (and I see no discussion on the talk page until after that all happened, so he can't say that Dileep's edit violated existing consensus). I also notice that he has selectively notified only editors that would support him after opening this thread—clear votestacking. Extremely poor behavior from both parties here; if any disciplinary action is leveled against Dileep, it ought to be done so against PCPP as well. This childish back-and-forth has gone on far too long. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling other editors "CCP propagandists" and "Wikipedia's worst vandals" not personal attacks? In fact, Dilip [110] just charged in and edited the entire intro to 6-10 Office and removed all references to the PRC official statements which he routinely dismissed as "CCP propaganda" [111], and did the same with the Persecution of Falun Gong article, which you overlooked. And how am I votestacking? I've left a notice on Dilip's own talk page, and the users I notified (Seb az86556, Ohconfucius, Mrund, Colipon) are all regular editors of the FLG articles. Dilip's history of POV pushing, edit warring behavior and personal attacks have all been outlined in a previous arbcom case [112], and almost the entire group of FLG editors have issues with his edits, so blanketly associating me with Dilip's long term is grossly generalizing the issue at hand.--PCPP (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dilip didn't call another editor a "propagandist", he pointed out that that editor's name is the same as the Confucius Institute, which he considers a propaganda wing. (Whether that is accurate or not, Dilip's personal views are not what is on trial here, so I could care less what he thinks about the Confucius Institute.) The editor he called "worst vandal" is an indef-blocked sockpuppet, so his choice in wording may have been poor but I don't consider it an unwarranted personal attack; it's ok to call a duck a duck, and sockpuppets don't get much mercy around here.

As for the votestacking, there are plenty of other regular editors, including some who are more on Dilip's "side", whom you didn't bother notifying. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

::So you're saying that I should notify Dilip's SPA friends (two of which are under sanctions from editing FLG related content)? Oh please. Dilip's behavior speaks for itself when when the majority of the "regular" editors are against him. --PCPP (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Note I've notified Dilip's friend Asdfg of the decision, as well as several admins.--PCPP (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

off-topic content. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Need I remind people that this is the same person that wanted to introduce sneaky vandalism into articles, as part of a plan to destroy Wikipedia? Oppose any attempt to let him contribute. The WordsmithCommunicate 18:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Diffs, please. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Here you go. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC) This was put in the wrong thread. Striking my comments, no opinion on the situation in this thread. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this "Case" is a concerted attempt to keep me from contributing to the articles. All my contributions have been highly sourced - and these have been repeatedly blanked by the same user raising the case. Not just on 6-10 office were my contributions bluntly reverted but pages of well sourced material ( there was no discussion or explanation for days from PCPP's end for the blanking) I had added to the Propaganda in the People's Republic of China. The set of users chase me around, blank out all my contributions, which I always ensure are centrally relevant and highly sourced, then raise such attacks against me. I have not done multiple reverts, I have not added poorly sourced info, I have not violated a single wikipedia policy. PCPP is supported by a set of editors whose backing he calls for when filing cases like this. There is systematic evidence of blanking of highly sourced material from wikipedia pages related to the human rights violations of the CCP, by PCPP and a group of editors supporting him. Here, in the Persecution of Falun Gong article, for instance, it has been made to seem, through blanking of sources, and distorted write ups, that hte persecution is a fairy-tale invented by practitioners. While sources ranging from the Congressional Executive Reports, AMnesty International, UN CAT reports, HRW, Schechter, Ownby ,etc. all discuss the persecution in depth.

• I most humbly request the reviewing admins to kindly compare at least the intro of this page with the current doctored version ( the one after it has been run-over by PCPP and his supporters). You can see how every single source mentioning the persecution is blanked out.

• In the 6-10 office article you can see how PCPP reverts my edit out three times, refusing to give any explanation for his blanking and distortion of material. A paragraph he simply keeps blanking is here: "According to the 2008 Congressional Executive Commission Report on China, "Publicly available government documents detail the central role of the 6-10 Office in the persecution of Falun Gong." The report states: ""6-10 Offices throughout China maintain extrajudicial 'transformation through reeducation' facilities that are used specifically to detain Falun Gong practitioners who have completed terms in reeducation through labor (RTL) camps but whom authorities refuse to release. The term `transformation through reeducation' (jiaoyu zhuanhua) describes a process of ideological reprogramming whereby practitioners are subjected to various methods of physical and psychological coercion until they recant their belief in Falun Gong."" Recent instances of the blanking: [113] [114][115] Kindly also compare the leads of the article after his blanking. As it has been done in the Persecution of Falun Gong article, it is made seem that the 6-10 office is a "supposed" judiciary. The "Supposed" claim is not supported by any source. Throughout these articles, the sources have been distorted out by the same users attacking me here: Like, for instances, on the Persecution of Falun Gong article. Source: "Some were taken at or on their way to protests in Beijing and brought in groups to psychiatric hospitals, others were brought by family members who felt threatened by the authorities." In the wikipedia article: " "Some were taken at or on their way to protests in Beijing and brought in groups to psychiatric hospitals, others were brought by worried family members." PCCP's real contributions outside of white-washing CCP crimes are minimal, and there can be seen in it a pattern of making himself look like a non-SPA.

• Another recent instance of blanking, with no explanation offered, by PCPP, can be seen here: [116]

• I would also like to point out this case RfC against PCPP [117]. Here, he, again, piles accussations on me of everything including sockpuppetry. Despite it being repeatedly explained to him that i had not engaged in any such activities. The dust and smoke thus created, through attack on contributors, serves as a cover for the systematic blanking of material taking place in these articles. And those contributing are given labels, cornered and attacked down. The editors attacking me here are staunch supporters of PCPP ( As can be seen in the comments made here:[118]) That speaks much about their stance and belies their claims of neutrality. They present their voices as "outside opinions", when they have throughout

supported the user and closely worked with him in the removal and distortion of content. This I point out, not as a personal attack, but as a fact for which am willing to present any amount of evidence. Given a few days time, I can compile and present systematic evidence of this. A quick glance at the history of many of these pages could also reveal a lot of evidence of this.

I have, whenever contributing to articles, systematically presented my sources, as here and made sure the contributions are based on good research. It involves days of effort, during hard earned free-time, and then when am blanked out like this [119], and then attacked, it can be quite frustrating.

If any editor had raised any concern with any specific contribution of mine, I would have clearly and fully explained myself. I do not understand why am being accused of "hit and run," now - for I sincerely believe it cannot be based on any of my recent contributions. The accusation orginates from the same group of editors supporting PCPP. These are labels the set of editors attempt to put on me - Here I contrute with Brittanica, Schechter, and Ian Johnsons - the material is blanked out, my edit labelled a "drive-by" shooting [120]. Such accussations are repeated throughout on the same users' talk pages, etc - in a pattern that comes across as a miniature version of the Big Lie strategy, trying to make my contributions appear so to admins and other editors. While planting such attacks against me, these editors have always failed to present solid evidence to back-up their claims.

Also, I would like to point out that while I have repeatedly raised my concerns, I have not engaged in personal attacks as the user claims. The current AN/I is but an attempt by the set of editors, who'v ebeen chasing me around, to keep me from contributing to these pages, which would allow them to further advance their goal.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"while I have repeatedly raised my concerns" -- regarding this, where have you raised your concerns? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be good for the editors who have so vociferously denounced Dilip to read his remark above. It is hard and fast, but also clearly articulates an undeniable dynamic that has evolved on these pages. A group of editors has been successful in marginalising anyone they put the "FLG sympathiser" label on, and they have gotten several of those people banned (myself included), not for any violation of policy, but simply because to people not involved in the disputes they have just made us look bad. They have managed the perceptions of many of the people outside these issues, making it look like this cabal is actually neutral, staunchly fighting the diehard cultists who would do anything to promote their religion and denounce their mortal enemy (the CCP). It turns the whole debate into something else, and completely divorces it from wikipedia policies and content guidelines, which we have clearly adhered to (oh, and when you learn the rules and quote from them, that's called "wikilawyering"). And on top of that is all the research which repeatedly gets deleted as "pov." It's an amazing dynamic, in the end. Any comment, any contribution, anything coming from someone with the "Falun Gong label" on them can be attacked and the individual marginalised. I have read through the Falun Gong talk page recently, and there is an exasperated Asdfg12345 there, posting, explaining his ideas, attempting to engage in discussion. Half of the time it gets ignored. Then Colipon openly says I am trying to bait him. It's the same thing here with how openly Dilip is attacked. Colipon says I should be banned from any articles related to the CCP (when I have only ever added scholarly research to them!), and here Ohconfucius kicks it up a notch calling for a site ban of Dilip. Luckily, people usually only get punished for what they do on Wikipedia, not for what they think. --Asdfg12345 08:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Review of block wanted

I just blocked 76.184.255.60 (talk · contribs) for what I considered to be obvious vandalism. However, I have edited the article before (mainly again reverting vandalism), so I guess I'm an involved Admin. But, as the vandalism was ongoing even as I was looking at it, I decided that blocking as preventive and getting trouted was better than asking for someone else to block and clean up. I think this was, in fact, a legitimate use of my tools even if I was involved, but if anyone wishes to unblock, trout me, whatever, feel free. Dougweller (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Good block. Assuming good faith on that guy is just plain stupid. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 09:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller, you crazy son of a.... You have blocked a very longstanding and well-meaning editor, and you're clearly a madman for blocking "it". I guarantee you will not succeed in this most valuable editor's block. Just look at the edit history! I'm outraged! For shame, for shame! ;P Doc9871 (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You're being too harsh on that IP. Just look at this gentle invitation to a romantic evening:[121] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

But... no box of chocolates. No flowers - not even posies. Alright, the invitation shows the IP's sincerity. My bad ;> Doc9871 (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This edit is clear that this user is a well-meaning user with lots to offer, how dare you block him? Woogee (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, he loves me, how sweet. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If the only edits you've made were reverting vandalism (which is all I seem to have seen), I don't think you need to fear being considered involved in the matter. It was a good block in any case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Gilabrand

user gilabrand, who is banned from topics about the israel-palestinian conflict, repeatedly deletes material from the article about israel-zimbabwe relations. both in an edit summary and on the talk page the user displays uncivilized language, not for the first time.--Severino (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

the content removed relates directly to the I-P conflict (in Zimbabwe's support for Palestine) where he removed info. Could not have been a citation issue, as it used the same citation as info that he kept in the article. His claim, WP:UNDUE, does not apply. Undue weight is when one slant is given too much coverage, not when there is simply a lack of expansion relating to other topics. SGGH ^ping! 15:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have made the user aware of this thread. I am unfamiliar with the sanction, if someone who is familiar could take a look and decide if I'm being fair in assessing his edits to the aforementioned article as constituting edits to the Israel-Palestine topic? SGGH ^ping! 15:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement is probably the proper venue for this. Unomi (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you already commented there, I would suggest that you open a new thread since this seems materially separate. Unomi (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have made a quick sub-entry to see if they can be dealt with under the same section or whether there has to be two entries to one user, which seems a little superfluous. Someone will quickly assess the situation I'm sure. Thanks Unomi. SGGH ^ping! 15:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

of course the I/P conflict is mirrored in israel's relations with zimbabwe. it should be assessed whether this edits constitute a breach of the user's ban. but it's also about the user's language, there's hardly a talk commentary or an edit summary in which the user does NOT play the man (instead of the ball). typical example here: [122]. the user indirectly says that he determines which and whoose edits are welcome and that the other user's edits/ideas are not constructive.--Severino (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked Gilabrand for 48hrs in enforcment of the topic ban. Those edits clearly were related to the Palestinian conflict. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Topic bans mean "no more editing about this topic". I've closed the AE request concerning the previous edits as now moot.  Sandstein  18:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, this seems to be a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks.--Severino (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No more talk page for the 48 hours either seems appropriate. SGGH ^ping! 18:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No it does not, especially by an involved administrator as you are.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It is appropriate and I agree with it. –Turian (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You do? On what grounds, if I may ask? Do I really want to know? Okay putting as always ungrounded Turian's opinion aside, may I please ask an uninvolved administrator to review the action of SGGH here. The very first paragraph wp:administrators clearly states: "They are never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved." (highlighted by me). The admin was involved with the user here and at this thread. Is there any fairness to be sought around? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, informing the user that they had violated their sanction, and then explaining why I believed they had violating it, does not constitute "involvement" to the extent that policy means it. I have no ties to the articles changed, never encountered the user before today, and had no involvement in the Arb case or the enforcement following it before today. My involvement in ANI was to rectify the situation, and by informing the user of my reasons, and then (when another admin issued the block) revoking talk page rights for the duration of the block (to prevent the user using his or her talk page as a weapon to attack other editors, as he did after being blocked) rectify it is what I did. I did not gain any advantage in a dispute as enforcing Arb decisions is not a dispute. I am happy to have my decision reviewed by another admin (you clearly have a problem with User:Turian.) SGGH ^ping! 19:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by SGGH (talk • contribs)

• • • I've no problem with Turian. I like that user very much. Every time I encounter him he makes me laugh and what could be better than a laughing :) Back to the subject: here's one more involvement with the user [123]. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That is hardly disputing/involvement. –Turian (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Mbz1 appears to be right here. The cited edit establishes that SGGH was in an editing dispute with Gilabrand just prior to his removal of Gilabrand's talk page access. While this removal was, in my opinion, a reasonable action to prevent continnued disruption, I believe that it should not have been made by SGGH. It would be better if SGGH were to undo this and allow another admin to take action if needed.  Sandstein  20:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Couldnt you just have asked Gila to not make any personal attacks instead of removing her talk page access? I've certainly lashed out when blocked and I've seen many others do it as well. What I have not seen is one remark causing talkpage access to be removed without any warning. nableezy - 20:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And by a heavily involved administrator! I applaud you, Nableezy. We have had many disagreements, but you've always try to be fair even from to the people from , who do not share your view! --Mbz1 (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldnt be so quick to call SGGH "heavily involved". nableezy - 20:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I perceived a risk of more of the same during the blocking period, and that a warning not to use personal attacks would have gone unheeded given previous history of dispute. As I say, I am happy for it to be removed if required. SGGH ^ping! 20:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And I viewed "f you think that the way to improve Wikipedia is by imposing bans and blocks on serious editors and giving free rein to whining agenda-pushing crybabies who get their kicks by reporting people who had the gall to "move their cheese," maybe you need to think again" to be the start of this. SGGH ^ping! 20:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, fine, but nobody even told Gila not to make such statements else her access to the talk page would be removed. If, after a warning, she continues you could then remove the access. nableezy - 20:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Noted for future incidents. I am curious to know what was on the user talk that has now been oversighted, but alas. SGGH ^ping! 20:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't anything directly related to the situation, actually. Just a piece of boring old harassment from a banned user unrelated to any of the involved parties. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It would have been nice, if you are to correct your mistake this time. Everybody is entitled to make a mistake, but you will feel better, if you are able to admit you did, and to fix it.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

But surely now I am heavily involved? Would you rather not a neutral admin do it? I'm not being sarcastic. SGGH ^ping! 20:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I know you are not:) "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." as it stated in WP:Administrators. You may revert yourself, there's no problem there, and I saw you have already. Thanks. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Wispanow

Resolved

Moved to WP:AE. --JN466 19:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wispanow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has levelled accusations of anti-German "racism" against English-language sources and editors.

Re Prostitution in Germany:

• Claims that a reliable source, an article in the German Law Journal, should not be believed because it contains "a lot of unproven, aggressive, prejudicing and even racist statements" (emphasis in original). Wispanow continues: "The main thing i personally worry about is that such an unreal, unscientific, racist text could be believed by americans. Imho Jimbo had founded Wikipedia to aid in that." Note that the German Law Journal has been honored by the German Minister of Justice, Brigitte Zypries, for being an "ambassador of German law".
• Claims the Human Rights Reports issued by the United States Department of State represent "racist truth".

Edit-warring in Scientology in Germany, which has GA status:

• Wispanow reverts User:Cirt, edit summary: "Undid revision 347913307 by Cirt (talk) This article is based on racism. And Scientology-Believers can source every racism. Removing this improves."
• Wispanow reverts User:Jayen466, edit summary: "Jayen466 is accused of writing an aggressive, highly biased text leading to a racist viewpoint. I therefore claimed to block him from any Scientology-text with relation to Germany. And stop reverting."
• Personal accusation of racism: "The whole article is racism. There is nearly nothing giving a neutral point of view. And User:Jayen466 is by far the main reason ... US and British citizens and even newspapers easily believe and publish any mendacious Germany-Harassment." Wispanow includes this "Barack Obama is an asshole" link in his post to make his point.
• Older history: Warned by User:Moni3, comments by User:Moni3 and User:John Carter (where is John these days, anyway??).

Note that Scientology in Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a GA:

• It recently underwent peer review in preparation for FA candidacy.
• Feedback at Peer Review was that the article was, if anything, slanted in Germany's favor. See Wikipedia:Peer_review/Scientology_in_Germany/archive1.
• The article is presently locked for two weeks.
• All Scientology articles are subject to arbcom sanctions, as indicated in the box shown near the top of Talk:Scientology in Germany, and described here, here and here.
• I am German. --JN466 16:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wispanow has been notified of this thread: [124]. --JN466 16:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving question

I noticed today that some recent threads on this page are not here, and are also not in archives up to Archive 600. I wonder whether they got lost during archiving due to the recent oversighting. (Of course, what I'm talking about are threads that were not themselves oversighted.) By way of an example of what I mean, here is a diff [125] of an edit I made in one such missing thread, for which I was looking. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the thread is in Archive 601. I've updated the templates to link to the archive page. snigbrook (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That solved it. When I posted that, there wasn't yet a link to 601. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

User:ChristiaandeWet

ChristiaandeWet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalizing wikipedia for long time, yesterday after being disblocked of a 24 hours warning, he started a continuous disrupting in several articles , removing by his own notes and paragraphs with cited sources. He also has created two articles with no sources and poorly made website content. Pietje96 (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I see some minor edit warring but no vandalism. This appears to be a content dispute, please seek dispute resolution. 18:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)<>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk)

This and This seems to me vandalism. As you could see, the user ChristiaandeWet has been deliberately deleting my sourcered contributions and changing it by unsourcered content. I think It's vandalism.ElBufon (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not vandalism. See WP:VAND#NOT under "unintentional misinformation". –MuZemike 20:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

With that said, I have blocked ChristiaandeWet 1 week for edit warring – the same edit warring that got the user blocked the first time around. –MuZemike 20:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have lost touch with reason

Resolved

 – Content dispute. Please continue civil discussion/negotiation on Talk:Michael Peter Woroniecki or pursue avenues of dispute resolution. –MuZemike 20:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

For a few days there has been a running conflict over at Michael Peter Woroniecki, in which the subject's son JoshuaWoroniecki (talk · contribs) and a user of some rotating IP addresses (72.64.46.234 (talk · contribs), 72.64.57.107 (talk · contribs), 71.251.179.222 (talk · contribs), etc.) have been duking it out; JW has been editing the article in a questionable way, in some cases removing negative sourced statements with a summary of "unsourced". The IP has made a few personal attacks, and has had extensive conversation with me on my talk page. In heated over whether or not what I perceived as a comparison to Hitler constituted a personal attack, they told me this. Please take action. ALI ^{nom nom} 18:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

JW's contributions can be dealt with easily enough if he 1) continues to remove cited statements or otherwise induces positive bias be the removal of cited negative information that passes the BLP test. However he does seem willing to flood the talk page with discussion that gave me a headache. Who is this User:Jibbytot? Sounds like a meatpuppet looking at contribs? SGGH ^ping! 18:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You should see the walls of text on my talk page. Jibbytot is definitely an account connected to one of the parties involved, but they seem to be on the opposite side of the dispute as JW. At any rate, the account's edits are sporadic at best. (Also, when I posted this I was short on time and forgot to inform the involved parties. I'll do that now.) ALI ^{nom nom} 20:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what a "meatpuppet" is. If you want to know who I am, why not ask? I'm not either of the sparring parties. I am an interested observer as I first became acquainted with the subject of the page around 30 years ago. As I posted very recently on Off2riorob's talk page, my concern is that "it still appears that too many edits excluding verifiable information and links have recently occurred. I'm the first to admit that I don't know the arcane rules for editing Wiki articles. However, if you check back, at least one edit and perhaps more were made on the basis that links to certain databases such as ApologeticsIndex.org were inappropriate given the alleged prior criminal history of the host of that database. That appears to be a stretch because, if the database contains accurate information, the criminal history of the host is immaterial to its historicity and factual basis. Hence, once again it is my opinion that recent edits by Kevin and Joshua Woroniecki -- especially the latter's because of inherent bias -- must be revoked before a meaningful review can occur. Please share my concerns with the editor who is reviewing the O'Malley book." Please explain the "meatpuppet" accusation. Thank you.Jibbytot (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A meatpuppet is an account created simply to weigh in on one dispute, with no other intention to contribute anywhere else in the Wikipedia. It can be either created by someone already involved, or be a separate person weighing in. It was not so much an accusation as a (perhaps) poorly worded suggestion. If it is not the case then it is not the case, though I'm sure you can appreciate we hear all sorts from all sorts of people here on Wiki. If by "too many edits excluding verifiable information and links" you mean the removal of information cited by reliable sources which portray the subject in a negative light, then I think I agree with you. It does indeed appear that Joshua intends to remove negative information despite it being cited (at least according to the contribs I have looked at and the statement by the ANI report). There is added confusion from the IP addresses that are involved. Are either of those addresses yourself when you forget to log in? Or are they different people again? SGGH ^ping! 20:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There are issues at this article but nothing imo that is in need of immediate admin action at this board, there are two strongly involved users one has a identification otrs ticket complaining of bias against the subject in the article {his father}and the other is a rotating IP address, both have basically stopped editing the article and the admin involved is looking through a book that is used for sources and I have had a word with Joshua on his talkpage not to engage on a personal level with the IP.Jibbytot has appeared to join in the issue but he is a new account created in the last couple of days and has only edited this issue. Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In response to SGGH, no, I've signed all of my comments on the talk page. It is my belief that the comments attributed to the varying IP addresses belong to only one commenter, but I cannot be sure of that. Certainly, they are different from me. I have not taken any substantive positions -- yet. I intend to follow the editing process and offer suggestions if appropriate. Yes, that (removal of information, etc.) is what I meant as you better rephrased it. As I said, I have known the subject of the page for around 30 years and find it very interesting that he has recently decided to attempt to rehabilitate his image in various fora. Wikipedia, then, will be very important in maintaining a public record and truthful account of the subject's notoriety. Thank you for your efforts in that regard.Jibbytot (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Off2riorob, my account is much older than that. I've just never posted anything.Jibbytot (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is a content dispute with no need of immediate administrator action. Please continue this on the article's talk page or via other venues of dispute resolution. –MuZemike 20:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

edits marked with copyrights

When trolling through a database report, I ran across "HSL and HSV", which contains several copyright tags on image captions. I know WP:CP exists, but this is a little more complex. I'm hoping someone can straighten it out- do the images need to be deleted? Do editors need to be warned/notified about how copyrights work on Wikipedia? I don't claim to know everything, and this is certainly a weak area, which is why I'm waving a white flag here. tedder (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The credit line for User:Goffrie was not needed (they released the artwork under GFDL by publishing it here in 2006); the credit to Luc Viatour is kind of muddled (the release on Commons seems more restrictive than the terms they give to any random person for the same image on their website, and they request a link to their website as part of their more restrictive conditions). I'd say the Luc Viatour image probably should just be replaced - but someone would have to do the work to replace what it's used for in that article. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In defense of the editors, coming up with a well-implemented footnotes section for just the images is hard. I have no idea how to! A rare sight. Generally, I'd say the precise source (to page!) of an image doesn't need to be listed so long as its details are given at the file's page. Are any of the copyrighteds still "musts" for understanding the article?. As in, the meta-level summary. If no, gone. I'm on the fence for that. Is fair use claimed and the existing copyright explained at the file's page? The answers are typically "no", and "no" for most images. Gone.1 of 2 is not sufficient and a deletion suggestion would be good on such things. Such detail and good faith in the markups is actually refreshing, but I'm generically going to say 1) remove the citations for the images proper and 2) fervently rid the article of anything copyrighted unless it can safely pass a duck test of "is it that vital?" Fussy, yeah, sorry. I beg anyone to correct anything I explained if it's just plain wrong. That's my 'short' explanation of image use, I think.

I'm only thinking about this today after seeing a iWhatevers app that points to commons and misc article files as "free images" and thought, "ooh, that's no good". ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Using the group parameter on ref tags can create a separate references section. See Help:Footnotes for details. DES ^(talk) 20:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that GFDL releases still require acknowledgment, and preservation of copyright notices, and can in some cases demand more than a link in the history. So can CC releases. DES ^(talk) 20:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, quite - I hope I didn't imply otherwise. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

the phrase "The credit line for User:Goffrie was not needed" was what I was referring to.

I have now added the group parameter to create a separate references section for these image notes. Table notes can be handled in the same way, where these are an issue. If people don't like this format, my edit made no substantive changes (only reference formatting) and can be reverted. DES ^(talk) 20:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that credit wasn't needed - the user created that image for Wikipedia and submitted it in 2006 under our usual terms, which do not include a requirement for image credits in articles. Furthermore, because they submitted it under a GFDL 1.2 license, it was subject to our relicensing, which includes a uniform policy for crediting such things, which again doesn't include credit lines for images in articles. The other image with a credit does require a credit line "near the image" (which a footnote may or may not be), but that image could be replaced by someone with the technical skill to make a replacement. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hope it's not inappropriate for me to chime in here. Just because an attribution is not strictly required does not seem to me like a reason to eschew putting one in a footnote, someplace out-of-the-way which won't get in the way of readers, but still gives credit to the image author. If the primary issue is the symbol "©", all of these image credits can surely be rephrased; copyright is of course, implied, and anyone wishing to reuse the image can poke around and discover that it is licensed under the GFDL, or whatever. In other words, this credit line is a courtesy, because we can; it marks us off as a project which goes out of its way to be polite, without sacrificing anything for readers. –jacobolus (t) 10:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Lih again

Resolved

It appears there is fake information in this article. He is not listed as faculty at Columbia University [126] as the article claims. Pcap ping 06:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

He's apparently a former professor at the Journalism School. [127] Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The article doesn't say he's faculty at Columbia; it says "former... professor of journalism at Columbia University". It's also stated on his blog. Hopefully there's a better source, though. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 06:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(editconflict):Then edit the article appropriately. What would you like for an administrator do? This isn't the place for content issues. Check out the Content Notice Board--Adam in MO Talk 06:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

He clearly was a professor at CSJ, ran the Center for New Media. His p.r. stuff says for 10 years - I can't confirm that, but a Google search of domain columbia.edu has plenty of hits. [128] -- so I don't see a problem here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There's an ongoing AfD here, the second. I could have been fooled by some elaborate in-page citations, so that's apt, but there's a new (as of pcap's post) response on the AfD page. I think this ought to be discussed there, rather than here. Shadowjams (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I found his resume, he was adjunct faculty at Columbia. I was worried and posted this here because the article has been targeted in the past by a banned user. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive515#Andrew_Lih. Pcap ping 07:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I see. I've done some cleanup on the article (as have you). Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks/vandalism on my userpage

Resolved

 – Per WP:SPA for the purpose of vandalism only, Matandben (talk · contribs) has been BLOCKED indefinitely. Awesome~!

Hey, I just came back from an extended period of inactivity and noticed this. It's going on stale, but the user has had plenty of warnings in regards to vandalism. Seems to be a vandal/disruption-only account. Indef? Throwaway85 (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That and could someone oversight that edit as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

User in question has been blocked by User:Someguy1221 as a "vandalism-only account". Now if we could get oversight on this, you would be set. By the way, Welcome Back. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! No real need for oversight, it was just plain old vandalism, but I won't argue with it. Thanks for the speedy resolution! Throwaway85 (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do something

For the last 3 months, user Sanam has been repeatedly vandalizing Nair related pages pushing POV and doing section blanking. Despite our best efforts to reach an agreement through the talk page, this guy has been vomiting out racist and politically incorrect propaganda and filling entire talk pages with his futile arguments. Common people like me are unable to do anything creative due to the enormous time and effort wasted due to his acts. Either ban him from badmouthing other communities or take his stand and ban us all. This has been really frustrating as we have repeatedly asked for admin intervention and being refused the same. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This guy has been warned multiple times, but has engaged in blatant and persistent vandalism for the past three months. I would suggest an indef-block.--RM (Be my friend) 16:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

He's been blocked once for 24 hours from edit warring, would you mind providing some diffs of this "Propaganda"?--SKATER ^Speak. 17:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

He was blocked not once, but twice for edit warring. But still continued his edit wars. As far as his propaganda is concerned, what angered everyone the most was the citation he gave from the works of Kanippayyur Nambuthiri (viewed by some as the Indian equivalent of Joseph Goebbels) that Nairs are like dogs and Nair ladies were concubines. As can be seen here, evidence was put against his POV pushing by a lot of users, but he ignored all the requests (refused to answer even a single question there) and continued with his edit wars. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

User Suresh Varma is right; Please have a look on Nair Talk page and 'User:Sanam001 requesting redressal of grievience' in this page. User Sanam001 absolutely refuses to listen to other users, he does not accept evidences shown by others, he refuses to answer to our questions and wants us to accept his POV; it is not at all normal. Please do something.90.46.211.67 (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This thread was placed at the top of the page and the user was not notified. I have taken care of both of these, but please follow the instructions in the future. --Smashville^talk 17:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I am not much experienced in wiki. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with the views stated above regarding sanam that he is a POV pusher having his own agenda.i have been very polite to him and welcomed him to contribute to wikipedia constructively but he hasn't paid heed to it.he is consistently indulging in POV pushing in articles related to the Nair community and is concocting his own theories regarding nairs turning patrilineal which is false also he has indulged in abusing the nair community(check his edit history).He also seems to disregard established wikipedia contributors in general as evidently stated on his user page.though i welcome criticism regarding wikipedia contributors but the fact is sanam has no right to do so since he stated on nair talk page that all he is interested in is pushing his pov in the nair article. all his edit history seems to suggest he has some sort of grudge against non brahmin malayalis in general and Nairs in particular.He has gone to the extant of calling the Travancore Royal Family in Kerala As Shudras(An Abusive term according to indian constitution meaning of lower birth).Therefore i have serious doubts if Sanam has any intention of making constructive edits to wikipedia in the future.His edits have largely been disruptive including creating malicious redirects.It is my suggestion that he be banned for his disruptive editing.Linguisticgeek (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. These users owing to bad faith are simply unwittingly engaged in the act of counter-compaint in response to a pre-existing currently unresolved complaint lodged by me here. [129] .These users are confusing contest dispute with vandalism. The core issue of this is that I am facing a possible cabal engaged in mis-representing information on caste-identity (the larger motive of my presence in wikipedia is explained in my profile) . Since WP : 30 and multi party discussion failed, these users declined my efforts of next level of dispute resolution. [130]. The above users have also refused to consider NPOV provided to them in good faith [131] . The focus on the primary issuees- as the following remains still unaddressed (1) formal mediation of this dispute by experts who will judge my citations and theirs without any prejuice (2) Avoid coccussing tendency of a community of users with well established agenda to mis-represent information on a web-based encyclopedia the source of encouragement for these edit wars is meat puppetry by user User:Anandks007 as as seen here [132]. (3) The need to resolve disputes not by sticking to ones stand point but coming to neutral solutions. So do go through the middle solution here [133]. I am entitled as any other wikipedia editor to the duty of maintaining authenticity of the article whether the disagreement is with 1 or 10. This new ANI thread is irrelevant and redundant as the a pre-existing ANI thread [134] clearly documents the issue from the perspectives of either parties and provides arguments from either side. - Sanam001 (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the unnecessary use of bold in the above edit. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Completely hopeless situation. Axxn (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have indefblocked Sanam001 as an incorrigible POV edit-warrior. They seem to be here to push their POV regardless of Wikipedia policy, and frankly we already have enough of that and don't really need any more. Review welcome. EyeSerene^talk 11:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for preventing further disruption. From the talk pages on the 10-12 articles which Sanam targeted, it seems that his views are not widely accepted and are offending to particular communities and ethnic groups. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wholesale removal of references without other article edits

Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zero0000 seems to be removing references wholesale from articles, without other edits. This seems very damaging to me, as I assume it leaves much information in the edited articles which is unsupported by any references. The reason given is fails WP:RS, and, while I actually don't have much of an opinion as to whether the material is WP:RS or not, simply deleting references does seem quite damaging. cojoco (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think palestinefacts.org satisfies the reliable sources policy though, so it seems the removals are per policy. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he's removing information that doesn't comply with WP:V, a mandatory policy. The source doesn't even come close to qualifying as an RS in my view. WP:RS/N is the place to discuss the source if you think removal of information derived from this source is reducing policy compliance and damaging the articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll take it there. cojoco (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It was not clear what "without other article edits" referred to, because I thought it meant he was a sock or SPA. However, although it's obvious Zero0000 has a specific area of interest, he's had that area of interest from the get-go, and he dates to 2002, which is a fairly impressive duration. He's also an admin, so his citing of policy is not unexpected. He's also been blocked 3 times for being a bit over-zealous, including once where he blocked himself for rule violation, which is also fairly impressive. In fact, it makes me wonder if there could be a self-block feature available to all users (admin or not) who think they need to take a break. I imagine the developers don't have much else to do nowadays, so maybe they could add that proposed feature to their to-do list. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, what I meant was "removing a reference without removing the material for which the reference was included", so that you end up with a whole lot of material in the articles without any supporting references. cojoco (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I see. Spot-checking, it looks like he's replacing questionable references with a "cn" tag while leaving material in place that I suppose he considers to be plausible but uncited. I may be wrong, but that seems like a fair approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The first one I came across [135] didn't have the "cn" tag, but perhaps Zero is a lot more careful than I gave them credit for. cojoco (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The example you found already had two other citations at the same place, so I didn't think a tag was needed. But if the other two sources don't contain the information required further work is needed. Zero^talk 11:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. According to an arbitrator in connection with a recent Arbcom decision '"Thou shalt not unblock thyself" is the cardinal rule of adminship', but I wonder what policy has to say about blocking oneself? Does symmetry apply? And since unblocking is not supposed to happen without consultation with the blocking admin, that means that the subject of the block (who is also the blocking admin) would need to agree with the unblock, no? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's one amusing scenario. I can also imagine a scenario where another admin protests the block of Zero0000 as being inappropriate, and then unblocks Zero0000, and then reblocks Zero0000 for having issued a frivolous block. Which might be the reason the ArbCom wouldn't bring the subject up. Either that, or it never occurred to them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the Zero0000 account first edited in 2002, but made only one edit and then didn't edit until August 2003. There's also a gap in their editing from June 7, 2007 until June 12, 2009 [136][137] – a very unusual editing history, not a single edit for almost exactly 2 years! Weird. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that part is weird, and it's something maybe worth asking him about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks as if it was either a result of, or in response to, an Arbcom ruling against Zero0000, involving User:Zeq [138]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Could've been worse... he could have been doing it for retail. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Sanam001 requesting redressal of grievience

This edit war by user User:Suresh.Varma.123 in Malayala Sudra page is arising in continuance of the content dispute in nayar article. Since WP : 30 and multi party discussion failed, the user declined my efforts of next level of dispute resolution. [139]. The source of encouragement is meat puppetry by user User:Anandks007. He has encouraged all other users to initiate edit wars with me instead of assuming good faith during content dispute. The proof of his meatpuppetry is here [140]. I realize that it takes two to create edit wars and there seems to be active recruitment of content disagreeing users to initiate edit wars with me by User:Anandks007 :Neither am I able to take the dispute resolution to formal mediation while simultaneously being dragged into edit wars by User:Anandks007 and User:Suresh.Varma.123 in bad faith.I have been continuosly trying invain to address the root cause [141] What options do I have to redress my grievience and stop this mobbing ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear admins, first of all it is very difficult to assume good faith when facing racial abuse from someone. User Sanam has been pushing POV in articles related to my caste (Nair) for more than 3 months now. Wiki users like me have repeatedly asked Sanam to refrain from POV pushing and sort out the issue through the Talk page, but so far he ignored our requests. This is not my personal opinion, but the opinion shared by more than half a dozen other users as well. Sanam is repeatedly inserting the derogatory word Sudra in to Nair related articles, although users like me put a lot of evidence against this desperate act by him. Even yesterday one of the users put evidence against his racist views here. But rather than responding to the questions asked to him, he was again and again avoiding them and using diversionary tactics. We don't have anything against Sanam in personal, but the ethnic abuse he is hurling at us is making a lot of users like me quite angry and emotional. Well... I don't have much more to talk about this edit war going on. But if any admin happens to review the edits made by Sanam, then he will understand what is his real aim. Axxn (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add a few things to what Anand said above.

• The word Sudra is a pejorative word like "Negro" and "Kike" and is seldom used nowadays in newspapers or media of any kind. For example, during 1910s and 20s, Black Americans were termed as Negros by a section of the non-Black population. But this usage was termed racist and was discontinued. Similarly, Nambuthiri Brahmins used the term "Sudra" to describe each and every Hindu caste as they thought common people will pollute them by their touch. Nambuthiris are around 0.01% of the Indian population, and there fore, 99.99% of the Indians became Sudra. But this orthodox Nambuthiri definition was deemed racist and remained out of use in most of India. If you go to the Sudra wikipage, you can see that the vedic definition is used rather than the Nambuthiri definition. Therefore, you can never find the word "Sudra" in any article relating any Hindu caste here in wiki. Still user Sanam insists that this derogatory term should be added to the Nair article. (Nairs are regarded as Kshatriya by most of the Indian historians, as can be seen from the links provided in the Nair talk page).
• User Sanam is unwilling to listen to others and this makes other users like me quite frustrated and angry. The biggest advantage he is having is that he is online 24 hours a day, as he does not have any other work. But common people like me reach home quite tired at around 9 o'clock in the night after having done work for 12 hours continuously (I am a blue collar/ semi blue collar worker and does not have net access at my office). And when I reach home, all I find in wikipedia are posts made by Sanam abusing my caste. Whatever we write in the talk page gets swamped by tons and tons of lecture typed in by Sanam. (Also, he always uses the bold character, which is sometimes removed by other users).
• Even after all these efforts made by other users, user Sanam still argues that we are not willing to take the issue to admins. (Actually we have done so at least 3-4 times). The real reason is that as people having a job to worry about, we are not being able to devote much time to wikipedia. Even now this futile argument is costing people like me quite a lot of energy and time.
• Another factor is that Sanam accuses others of being emotional and trying to lynch him. When someone is abusing someone else racially, the abuser will have a huge advantage over the victim. It is the emotionality. The victim will get quite emotional and start doing things which he will never due under normal circumstances, while the abuser will stay calm as he has nothing to worry about. If the admins check some of his earlier posts in the Nair and Ezhava articles, then they will be able to find the racist language he used.
• The sources he is citing, like those by the Kanippayyur Nambuthiri reminds me of the propaganda by Joseph Goebbels against the Jews during the Nazi rule.
• The most important thing which I was trying to convey through the talk page is that even by Sanam's own definition, the interpretation he gives out is completely wrong. I had posted it a few times in the talk page, but Sanam was never willing to discuss it.

I don't have anything more to say about this. I hope the admins will take a neutral and unbiased decision. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked Sanam001 (talk · contribs) and Anandks007 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for edit warring. I would encourage Sanam001 not to try to get around 3RR by logging out in the future. In addition, I have protected the page for 1 week. Discuss on the talk page. Follow WP:dispute resolution procedures. If you have references that establish the present-day offensiveness of the term, supply them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A simple google search (Sudra + derogatory) is enough to ascertain the present day offensiveness of the term, as can be seen here (Note.6), here, here, here & here. And regarding the colonial POV pushed by Sanam, I have put up a section here to prove that his points are not even supported by the biased sources he is putting up. (As ususal, he used diversionary tactics and never directly answered the questions asked to him). Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The source of encouragement is meat puppetry by user User:Anandks007. He has encouraged all other users to initiate edit wars with me instead of assuming good faith during content dispute. The proof of his recent meatpuppetry is here [142]. I am myslef a nayar and being classified as sat-sudra has never been a shame for me but rather a matter of my natural dignity and has never affected my judgement of analysing anthropological material pertaining to my own community. I beleive in a POV free nayar image. The usage of sat-shudra in the specific context of the Kerala-society is not derogatory, it simply means clean-serviles by hereditary profession and includes lpeasants, soldiers, land-holders and even the ruling elite- vis a vis – a sudra king (see Ref1-[143]. Ref2- [144] )

No one here asked about your ethnicity. You are stating ten times a day that you are a Nair, and at the same time you are hurling racial abuse on Nair community. The term Sudra is derogatory in any occasion, and government of India never uses this term and considers it usage to be racial abuse. In fact if you call any one "Sudra", then most probably you will spend some time in prison for racially abusing that person. Only your anonymity is preventing other users from taking legal action against you. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The effort is by a cabal who are a subset of my own community armed with inadequate information trying to supplant the natural dignity of my community by peacocking to generate a POV nayar image. This same subset of individuals accusing me of using the term without understanding the terminology in the specific cultural context of kerala is simultaneously actively engaged in incorporating the same epithet on to other sub-divisions of my community !!!. See evidence in Line 6 items 10-20. User: Anandks007- – [145] User: Suresh.Varma.123- - [146] If their definition for the term is derogatory why are the incorporating it on other clans within the same community ? I hope you understand the wider objectives of these set of users.A few references along with authors background is given to administrators to the legitimacy of term Malayala sudra and for the maintenance of the original version of the article which includes nayar in this category.

1. It is mentioned in other encyclopedia by Author- Edward Balfour- Balfour's works on collating information about various aspects of life in India led to the publication of the Cyclopaedia of India, the first edition in 1857

His documentation

“the malayalam sudras of which the better class are called nayars (or lords) are the bulk of the respectable population-the landholders, farmers, soldiers, officials…….…”

Link for verification: [147] In addition specifically within the context of Kerala society, it simply means depressed ritual status although in pan Indian scenarios the word has been sometimes mis-used by caste fanatics for discriminatory puposes. The word sat-sudra in Kerala society needs to be understood within it own jurisprudence.

2. Author- Edgar Thurston- He wrote the seven volumes of "Castes and Tribes of Southern India"; these volumes are the standard reference on the subject

His documentation

“The original Nayars were undoubtedly a military body, holding lands and serving as a militia, but the present Nayar caste includes persons who, by hereditary occupation, are traders, artisans, oilmongers, palanquin- bearers, and even barbers and washermen. The fact seems to be that successive waves of immigrration brought from the Canarese and Tamil countries different castes and different tribes; and these, settling down in the country, adopted the customs and manners, and assumed the caste names of the more respectable of the commu- nity that surrounded them. This process of assimilation is going (Ml even yet”

“The Travancore Nayars are popularly known as Malayala Sudras — a term which contrasts them sharply with the Pandi or foreign Sudras, of whom a large number immigrated into Travancore in later times”. Link:[148]

3. A spurious peacock claim exists in Wikipedia called Malayala Kshatriya with a version stating that Nayars are known by the term Malayala Kshatriya in an effort to peacock. The content of Malayala Kshatriya stating Nairs as part of it is debatable when you read in detail those manuscripts in its entirity . References and manipulating the interpretation of the inference of the reference to make this spurious claim.

A. In support of this I provide Author- Walter (M. R. A. S.) Hamilton- The east india gazeteer vol 11

“The next most remarkable caste are the Nairs, who although Sudras are at once the chief landed proprietors and principal military tribe of Malabar”

“All Nairs pretend to be soldiers but they donot all follow the martial profession, many practicing the arts of husbandry, accounts , weaving, carpentry………………….”

Link:[149]

B. The following PhD thesis from the Department of History at MG university. It describes Nayar regulation Act, Travancore Kshatriya Act etc and provides extensive information of the legal distinction between the two communities Nayars and Malayala Kshatriya. POV pushing of Nayar image as Malayala Kshatriya, The PhD thesis is titled History of Social legistlation in Travancore state'

Link: [150]

In addition they intent to push a POV image of the entire nayar community as ruling elite. Nayar is an umbrella term for a variety of distinct lineages professing multiple professions. Furthe references. 1. Changing kinship usages in the setting of political and economic changes among the nayars of Malabar by E Kathleen Glough in The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 82, No. 1 [151]

2. The internal structure of the nayar caste by C.J Fuller in the Journal of anthropological research 1975 [152]

3.Nayars of Malabar by Fawcett [153]

I am still open to dispute resolution and have provided two neutral options The caste-terminolgies are either to be totally abandoned to avoided. Kindly see my neutral solution. [154]. However instead of addressing the neutral solution of completely removing all caste-terms both sudra and kshatriya (in all forms and derives) I am faced with meat puppetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User Sanam is using a very specific, orthodox definiton of the word Kshatriya (according to Brahmin POV) to claim that Nairs are not kshatriyas; this is clearly wrong and a POV from user Sanam001. Here is the (general) definition of Kshatriya according to Enclyclopaedia Britannica:

"second highest in ritual status of the four varnas, or social classes, of Hindu India, traditionally the military or ruling class.

The earliest Vedic texts listed the Kshatriya (holders of kshatra, or authority) as first in rank, then the Brahmans (priests and teachers of law), next the Vaishya (merchant-traders), and finally the Sudra (artisans and labourers). Movements of individuals and groups from one class to another, both upward and downward, were not uncommon; a rise in status even to the rank of Kshatriya was a recognized reward for outstanding service to the rulers of the day. The legend that the Kshatriya were destroyed by Parasurama, the sixth avatar of Vishnu, as a punishment for their tyranny is thought by some scholars to reflect a long struggle for supremacy between priests and rulers. Brahmanic texts such as the Manu-smrti (a book of Hindu law) and most other dharmashastras (works of jurisprudence) report a Brahman victory, but epic texts often offer a different account, and it is likely that in social reality rulers have usually ranked first. The persistent representation of deities (especially Vishnu, Krishna, and Rama) as rulers underscores the point, as does the elaborate series of ritual roles and privileges pertaining to kings through most of Hindu history. These largely buttress the image of a ruler as preserver of dharma (religious and moral law) and auspicious wealth. In modern times, the Kshatriya varna includes a broad class of caste groups, differing considerably in status and function but united by their claims to rulership, the pursuit of war, or the possession of land " [155].

The Nairs clearly match this definition; here are some refs describing the Nairs as a Noble/Ruling/Military/Kshatriya caste:

• Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay, Volume 5 By Asiatic Society of Bombay,Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Bombay Branch page 40: "... to aid the Kshatriya (Nair) rulers,..." [156]
  
• Three-quarters of a footprint: travels in South India By Joe Roberts page 221: "... a Nair (the Malabar equivalent equivalent of the Kshatriya)..." [157]
  
• Fragments of a life: a family archive by Mythily Sivaraman: "... headed by his majesty with Nair (kshatriya) officers" [158]
  
• Indian classical dances By K. C. Balakrishna Menon page 32: "After the decline of Perumal rule in Kerala, the Nayar Kshatriya rulers became powerful" [159]
  
• Comprehensive Dictionary of the World, Volume 5, Part 1 By Thomas Wright page 428: "The Kshatriya, or military class is said by the Brahmins to be extinct. But the Rajpoots and the Nairs in the Deccan in all probability belong to this class, though the Brahmins assert that they are only Sudras." [160]
  

User Sanam001 is using books based on colonial era POV & a very specific, POV definition of the word Kshatriya to assert his claim. He absolutely refuses to acknowledge evidences shown to him by other users. This is intolerable & can't be accepted by other (honest) wiki users. The use of the word Kshatriya in Nair wiki article is not at all a peacock contrary to what user Sanam001 claim. Please have a look on Nair talk page and take the appropriate decision.90.46.32.29 (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If the administrators are willing they are most welcome to send my earlier mentioned citations to reserach articlles, PhD thesis claiming nayars as sat-shudras as well as the citations of User: Suresh.Varma.123 and IP 90.46.32.29 to an expert committee to make an evaluation of whether nayars were classified as sudra or kshatriya. (I can even prepare a specific more elaborate collection towards this on request). The internet and wikipedia are being widely manipulated [161] for pretentious propaganda and this specific issue of Nayar being Kshatriya is a classical example and should not be acceptable in an collaborative collective information resource such as Wikipedia.For instance the encyclopedia brittanica ([162]) does not use the term Kshatriya to define nayar unlike the peacocking of the above editor. Interestingly, these individuals accusing me of using the derogatory term sudra is simultaneously actively engaged in incorporating the same epithet on to other sub-divisions within the nayar community !!!. See evidence in Line 6 items 10-20. By User: Anandks007- – [163]

By User: Suresh.Varma.123- - [164]

You can clearly see that I was reverting your section blanking, as the article was reverted to an earlier version. The term Sudra was added to it by a different user and needs to be changed to a more politically correct term (Most probably to Kammalar, which was the term used for artisan classes). But as editors like me are busy in fighting your edit wars, there is no time to properly modify the article. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If their definition for the term is derogatory why are they incorporating it on other clans within the same community ? I hope you understand the wider objectives of these set of users. Infact I have made a neutral solution offer where the word sudra is not used at all provided nayar and all nayar related articles avoid the peacocking with the term kshatriya or any sentences that may infer so and removing the name of my community (nair) from under the malayal kshatriya article. Meaning a caste terminology free definition of the community- but these offers have been not even been entertained by these users making their motives very clear [165]. Anyways I would like to re-focus on the primary issue of my reason for beseaching the administrators notice board – (1) addressing the content dispute at the level of formal mediation by experts in the field (2) addressing the meat-puppetry perpetrated on me by user Anandks007 [166] recently. I would also sincerely wish that if at any point in future time that i may get to a point of being blocked permanently by an administrator due to strategies of these concerted users, then the blocking administrator may sent my entire edit summary and data to any part of wikipedia foundation that may be interested in taking up studies on how to improve the wikipedia system from cabala related problem. I sincerely wish that my experiences may be useful for improving the regulatory practices that can be developed in future.--Sanam001 (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Really cheap tactics to earn sympathy. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the users are wondering about the "wider objectives" of your edits. See the list of users who have protested against your POV pushing (Suresh, Anand, Keraleeyan, Zero.vishnu, 116.74.15.88, Linguisticgeek, 90.46.32.29). Most of these users who have protested against you are editing Wikipedia for many years and are disturbed by your attitude and behavior. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I urge the admins to issue a topic ban to Sanam, as he has started edit wars on at least 25 occasions on the same set of articles. Axxn (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely what i am implying.If you carefully read my above post in good faith you will understand the need for (1) formal mediation of this dispute by experts who will judge my citations and yours without any prejuice (2) Avoid coccussing tendency of a community of users with well established agenda to mis-represent information on a web-based encyclopedia (3) The need to resolve disputes not by sticking to ones stand point but coming to neutral solutions. So do go through the middle solution I have recommended least i am entitled as any other wikipedia editor to the duty of maintaining authenticity of the article whether the disagreement is with 1 or 10. Remember that it takes two to cause an edit war and meat puppetry is strongly discouraged by wikipedia--Sanam001 (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: User Sanam001 placed an {{adminhelp}} on their talk page; I nulled it, and advised that the matter was already noted here.  Chzz  ►  04:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the immediate attention.--Sanam001 (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

How this edit war started? - This edit war was started about 3 months ago, when User Sanam posted derogatory remarks about the Ezhava community here. His aim was to create a Nair-Ezhava edit war (happening frequently here for the past 5-6 years) and very nearly succeeded as a number of disruptive edits happened within days of this incident in Nair related articles and the talk paage itself like this one. However some of the users were able to convince them of Sanam's real intention as seen here, and the edit wars immediately stopped from their side. It was after this incident, that Sanam began vandalizing Nair related articles. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The wider intentions of these users is to generally peacock all nayar articles with a varna terminology -Kshatriya. Even more dangerous is their intention to attach the epithet kshatriya to certain sub-divisions of the nayar society and sudras to other sub-divisions see Nair subcastes . These actions have been perpetrated by the following users. See evidence in Line 6 items 10-20.By User: Anandks007- – [167]By User: Suresh.Varma.123- - [168] .A malefied motivation is further suspected due to the non willingness of these users for my invitation for a neutral solution to avoid completely any varna terminology in all nayar related articles !!!!. I have been voluntarily refrained further edits on these articles for more than last 24 hours, simply assuming good faith and providing these editors the opportunity to focus on the primary issuees- as the following remains still unaddressed (1) formal mediation of this dispute by experts who will judge my citations and yours without any prejuice (2) Avoid coccussing tendency of a community of users with well established agenda to mis-represent information on a web-based encyclopedia (3) The need to resolve disputes not by sticking to ones stand point but coming to neutral solutions. So do go through the middle solution here [169] I have recommended least i am entitled as any other wikipedia editor to the duty of maintaining authenticity of the article whether the disagreement is with 1 or 10. Remember that it takes more than one to cause an edit war and meat puppetry as perpetrated here [170] is strongly discouraged by wikipedia.--Sanam001 (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User Sanam001, you are refusing to answer to our questions and you want us to accept your POV ???... Who are you ???... FIRST PLEASE GIVE YOUR ANSWER TO MY LAST QUESTION (see Nair talk page).90.46.156.230 (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit war started once again by Sanam. Axxn (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The above users have refused to consider NPOV in the last 48 hrs provided to them ingood faith. The focus on the primary issuees- as the following remains still unaddressed (1) formal mediation of this dispute by experts who will judge my citations and yours without any prejuice (2) Avoid coccussing tendency of a community of users with well established agenda to mis-represent information on a web-based encyclopedia (3) The need to resolve disputes not by sticking to ones stand point but coming to neutral solutions. So do go through the middle solution here [171] I have recommended least i am entitled as any other wikipedia editor to the duty of maintaining authenticity of the article whether the disagreement is with 1 or 10. Remember that it takes more than one to cause an edit war and meat puppetry as perpetrated here [172] is strongly discouraged by wikipedia.Sanam001 (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What you mean by "The above users have refused to consider NPOV" ? If you take a look at the talk page, it is very clear that User Sanam is the one who is editing without any consensus and pushing POV. Axxn (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Focus of this reported incident [173]Sanam001 (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sanam's vandalism spreading to other articles. (Kiryathil Nair). Axxn (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do something to prevent such vandalism. This is really intolerable. User Sanam001 refuses to answer to our questions and is acting according to his wish, POV. This is not the right way to work in wikipedia.90.46.156.230 (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The need to resolve disputes not by sticking to ones stand point but coming to neutral solutions. So do go through the middle solution here [174] and meat puppetry as perpetrated here [175] is strongly discouraged by wikipedia.Sanam001 (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sanam001, I went through your posts in the Nair talk page. It seems that you are copy pasting every single sentence atleast 10 times and you are never willing to accept any source other than your own. Also, your language seems too aggressive as you accuse some one of "meat puppetry", "POV pushing", "targetting in bad faith" .etc in almost every single post (You have made accusations against atleast 5-6 users). I read your points, but found it quite different from the definition which every one considers standard in classifying Indian cultural groups. It will be better if you could explain this anomaly in the talk page (Something which you have never bothered to do till now). Shannon1488 (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Lemlin

Is this a legal threat? User faced a blocking and how retired himself, but just want to check whether that comment should be removed? SGGH ^ping! 11:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There are also the comments at the base of User talk:Ttonyb1. Want a second opinion before I act. SGGH ^ping! 11:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed his potential NLT, but to me it was not close enough to block for. It's ironic that he actually says he's willing to violate the GFDL ... talk about NLT :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

the legal threat has been removed, I'm inclined to let sleeping dogs lie now that he has proclaimed himself retired. Case closed. SGGH ^ping! 12:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

stop making idle threats and just delete my profile you bunch of facists —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemlin (talk • contribs) 15:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your wish is our command. Account indef blocked, legal threat removed from user page and user talk page, talk page editing disallowed. SGGH ^ping! 15:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(pssst....what's a "facist"? Is that someone who discriminates against another person on account of their ugly mug?) GJC 15:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah, thats someone who thinks this is FaceSpace.... Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A FACist is someone who does work at WP:FAC. It was a compliment. -- Atama頭 17:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Flower (video game)

This FA is on the main page today and is being persistently stuffed-up by an IP. Can someone lock the article for the day please? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Though the IP is being annoying, TFAs are almost never given even semi-protection unless it is a special case (Bulbasaur, 4chan, etc.) MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 00:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What, not for one day? Not so one just has to be a logged-in editor? There's a policy in need of changing. This is a waste of everyone's time. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It is one editor who actually is trying to help (though some of the changes aren't needed). That IP could probably be told to mass-group his edits inside of doing one or two things, but that's not a reason to protect or block. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a deliberate choice. The days FA is a huge magnet for new users, and we want to make sure they have to go through as few hoops as possible to work on it. It's a way to show off the people powered aspect of the wiki, the 'anyone can edit' catchphrase we have. Vandalism is easily dealt with by reverting. Losing the possibility of attracting new editors because we made it too difficult to contribute, well, we may never get a second chance to attract them. --M^ask? 00:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks Gadget, and certainly dealing with the IP / editor as a first step is a good idea. I find it odd, though, that the guideline doesn't actually include a rationale. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I don't get the sense this is a new user—although maybe a user trying to pretend to be new. This is a user who has copyedited an FA from top to bottom and is now moving around images. Might need some eyes. I'm done for the night. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like some vandalism has been going on. Might need some more eyes on it. I've already reverted twice, don't want to cause any problems. HAZardousMATT^toxic 16:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

66.171.182.55

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

What, pray tell, is an IP address doing making deletions from WP:AIV? Is this normal? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I see, apparently it's the AIVhelperBot running while logged out. According to that IP's talk page, this has become a frequent occurrence recently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely that's worth a few vandalism warnings at least for the IP - our patrollers must be slipping :) EyeSerene^talk 09:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've notified the bot's operator via email. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Thinking about it a little harder, bots shouldn't be running at all while logged out ("it should be immediately clear that [the bot's] edits are made by an automated account", from WP:BOTPOL). Might an anonblock also be worthwhile on the IP address if this continues? EyeSerene^talk 09:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably; it's frequently presented as an option, definitely. Looks like another one doing it on 91.198.174.201 (talk · contribs), so might be a problem with the bot's code rather than any particular instance of it. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't support an anonblock without informing the bot ops first. Wouldn't wanna see AIV fall apart, you know. But maybe it could be used as part of a bug fix. Maybe the bot could be coded to log in if it runs into a block notice. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I quite agree, I wasn't suggesting a block without attempting communication first. I also don't think it matters that much in a backoffice area like AIV - the regular admins there will recognise AIVhelperbot's actions whether logged in or not, and it is extremely helpful. On a technical note, would a bot emergency shutoff button still work if the bot was logged out? EyeSerene^talk 10:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. The button is merely a shortcut for blocking the bot's account. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought it probably was (actually, I could have just seen where the link goes to - apologies for a stupid question). Thanks for your answer :) EyeSerene^talk 11:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's as eerie as when those two bots got into a revert war with each other. I trust not machines :) SGGH ^ping! 14:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI, BAG is aware of this problem, and it has been requested that pywikipedia add an assert function to check the bot is logged in. There has also been talk of making it explicitly clear in BOTPOL that bots may not edit while logged out. Since it seems to be causing quite a lot of disruption (I've seen posts about this on AN/I over and over again) I'll propose it at WT:BOTPOL - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Waffleatron knows how to count

Resolved

 – silence... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So by now we have harrassment accounts User:Waffleatron, User:Waffleatron2, User:Waffleatron3, User:Waffleatron4, User:Waffleatron5... Each blocked with "account creation disabled" -- that latter part doesn't really seem to work... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And say hello to User:Waffleatron6... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

One should request a checkuser to see if there's an IP block to be had. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• From the looks of it, the guy knows WP very well and is clearly IP-hopping around with the wilful intent to disrupt WP on purpose, perhaps a range block is required now? Time to call in the CU. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Counting-ability apparently ends at "6"... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, all 6 are currently blocked as socks of the first. Are we awaiting CU? SGGH ^ping! 14:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No, but I'll keep an eye on it. All of them attacked AnnaLincoln's usepager, and that has stopped as well. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

218.248.75.142/Rajkp2009

User:218.248.75.142 and User:Rajkp2009 (blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned or blocked user by User:Daniel Case) repeatedly ignores warnings and copyvio-bombs The Scouts/Guides Organisation (India), an article which it created and was deleted, and which I recreated and cleaned up because I believed (and still do) that it was worthwhile and salvageable. I wish I had not recreated it, now, but I do not want to set it up for deletion, this user will just rebuild it and dump all over it again. Requesting an IP block, and/or a fresh pair of eyes. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

IP has been given a fresh warning by me. Edits to the article stopped a few hours ago. Any further changes that violate copyright can result in a final warning then a blocking. Rajkp has already been blocked. I've added it to my watch list and will warn/block the IP as appropriate for any further copyright violations. SGGH ^ping! 18:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Baseless vandalism warning issued over good faith edits

Resolved

 – No administrator action needed. –xeno^talk 18:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to complain about user Deftonesderrick just having posted a vandalism warning on my talk page (diff here). My edits (seen here) hardly added 15 words to the plot summary and were undeniably aimed at improving an article I have long been contributing to. For this reason, it really upsets me that this user comes up and labels me as a vandal with no previous word on the subject. --uKER (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Then either just remove the comment or talk to Deftone directly. Silly thing to get "really upset" about; if you are truly this sensitive, Wiki is not for you. Tan | 39 17:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not a vandalism warning, it's a warning that you've added needlessly detailed information to a plot summary. I make no comment as to the validity of the 'warning' (which I would really call more of a "notice"). This did not need to be brought to ANI. –xeno^talk 17:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Tan: Wow, that was really polite and helpful. Glad to know we have people we can count on to keep things going smoothly.
Xeno: The template is called "uw-vandalism1". How is that not a vandalism warning? --uKER (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It may share some verbiage with uw-vand1 but it is certainly more detailed and makes no explicit reference to "vandalism". I'm sure you'll find many of the uw templates share similar language. This particular uw seems to be custom made. Perhaps you might suggest improvements on how it would be better received? –xeno^talk 17:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an AN/I report? Really? Well, this one editor I ran into about a week and a half ago... they said my comment was "snide"; should I report it here? :P Doc9871 (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is also fun to read. Tan | 39 18:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that you should have notified the other editor about this report, but I see that Xeno did that for you. —DoRD (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's get this straight. This means I can go put uw-vandalism1 on anyone whose edits I happen to find the need to modify in any manner and never get a complaint about it? Perhaps all this time I misunderstood the use of uw-vandalism and this has a good side to it after all. --uKER (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read Template:Uw-vandalism1. Now please read the message you received. Are they the same? –xeno^talk 18:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem is I saw the warning before this edit. --uKER (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The correction was a minute later, you brought this ANI 39 minutes later (your first edit in 4 hours). Did the orange bar not pop up to tell you the message was modified? I am marking this thread resolved. –xeno^talk 18:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I just loaded my user page and let it sit there for whatever time happened to pass by. Anyway, thanks for everyone's help. Really. --uKER (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)