Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

619 in Ireland

Resolved

 – Sarah777 (talk · contribs) indef. blocked for disruption. seicer | talk | contribs 23:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Can someone please remind User:Sarah777 that users cannot remove AFD tags? I think she has removed it 3 times in the last 24 hours and I don't want to be the only one putting it back. Mangostar (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, because that would breach 3RR and you'd get blocked. Don't make a virtue of necessity. Why did you delete 20 articles? Sarah777 (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added the header and left the user a note. Hopefully this will be enough to discourage any future disruption.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please apologise immediately for characterising my edits as disruption. Sarah777 (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Repeatedly removing AfD tags is very clearly disruption. I'm surprised that such an experienced contributor thinks it isn't. No-one is ever going to be blocked for replacing it. Black Kite 01:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you refer me to the Wiki-rule that says that? Haven't come across it. The tag was a "bad faith" tag by an editor who engaged in mass deletion of articles. I happened to be the author of these articles but am aware of WP:OWN so that isn't the basis of my objection. My objection is that this Mango chap seems to be a law unto himself and is now, apparently, supported by Admins in his vigilantism. Not good. Sarah777 (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly stated in the AFD tag itself - "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." And it's pointless anyway, because removing the tag doesn't prevent the actual deletion discussion from continuing. Black Kite 01:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And the actual procedure is here --Rodhullandemu 01:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

On the opther hand, He's getting lots more support for delete at the AfD now that there's a call for attention there. ThuranX (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And this AfD is where, exactly? Could the members of The Club share that with an interested party? So that I can more widely alert people to its existence. Sarah777 (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The outcome of any anti-irish AfD is a foregone conclusion, given that Anglo-American pov trumps the stated policy of WP:NPOV every time. My concern here is that this editor preempted due process which it appears is acceptable to the dominant British Nationalist Wiki-perspective when British pov is being imposed on Ireland-related articles. Sarah777 (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The AfD is linked from the AFD tag on the article (in other words, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/619_in_Ireland). Incidentally, your insistence on blaming everything you don't agree with on some evil Brit conspiracy doesn't do you any favours, you know. Black Kite 01:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

← Simply put, AfD tags are not to be removed until the AfD is closed. Even in cases of a bad-faith nomination (which this does not appear to be), there is no valid reason to remove the tag from the article until the AfD is closed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The statement widely alert people is a little concerning. I just want to preemptively remind you of WP:CANVASS. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Trust me here THTFY; there is absolutely no need to put things "simply" for me. I understand what is going on here rather better than most. IMHO. Andrew; that apology please. Then perhaps I might address your anxiety to keep this AfD decision within the Club. Sarah777 (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything Andrew needs to apologise for - he quite correctly called you on your disruptive editing. Exxolon (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not only is Sarah's removal of an AfD tag on multiple occasions disruptive, but comments like The outcome of any anti-irish AfD is a foregone conclusion, given that Anglo-American pov trumps the stated policy of WP:NPOV every time is completely beyond the pale, and should be repudiated. Corvus cornix_talk 02:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah - for a start off, the article was nominated for AfD not by Mangostar, but by User:Tim!. If you look at his contributions ([1]), he has also been adding a lot of events to "Year X in Ireland" articles. Secondly, he quite correctly informed you of the AfD ([2]). Thirdly, the AfD tag (which you kept removing) directs people to the AfD discussion, which will also be read by those who peruse WP:AFD. Fourthly, you're not going to get an apology out of Andrew because he was in the right. Black Kite 02:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No apology; no discussion. Mango deleted 20 articles - any of you chappies notice that? No? Why? Corvus; the truth cannot be eliminated by and Wiki-self-delusion or Wiki-political-correctness. My observations are manifestly correct. Sarah777 (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I need to say it again; the 619 in Ireland article was not nominated for deletion by Mangostar. Black Kite 02:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And Mango has not "deleted" anything. He has nominated the articles. The deletions would come following a consensus discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 02:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah is referring to a merger of some "Year X in Ireland" stubs into a "Century X in Ireland" article by Mangostar. Black Kite 02:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Which makes sense to me, but paranoia is an unhealthy condition. Corvus cornix_talk 02:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So is denial. Toddst1 (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh...no. He deleted them. It is somewhat worrying (though not surprising) that such a collection of esteemed editors can get such a simple thing wrong. Black Kite; pl don't feel you have to repeat what you've already said - no matter how often you repeat it my reaction to nonsense will be the same; the article was not nominated for deletion by Mangostar - yeah!! It was deleted by Mango!!! I gotta hand it to you guys ye've got an evil sense of humour! Sarah777 (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) He did not delete them. He merged them. (2) The article 619 in Ireland is not deleted, it is only nominated for deletion, and that nomination was not done by Mangostar. (3) When people are trying to help you understand things that you clearly don't understand, and you tell them they're talking "nonsense", I'd suggest your best plan would be to step away from the keyboard for a while. Black Kite 02:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You are starting to bore me (with all due respect). He deleted 20 articles in the series. You fuzzy rationalisations don't change that; you are talking nonsense. Sarah777 (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The article contents were NOT deleted. They were simply merged into one longer, more useful article. So nothing's been lost, it's merely the same information in a different format. Exxolon (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's that. Sarah, leave this alone now. The merges are something which is a content dispute and don't require any admin action - you can discuss that with Mango on the talkpages. Meanwhile, you are clearly in the wrong here, both with the disruptive removal of AfD tags and your comments above. I will have no problem at all with blocking you if you carry on, so please don't. I am marking this resolved. Black Kite 02:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[3] [4] [5] All a tad contradictory, and the info in the stub article was not transfered to another article with the redirect, so it was no merge, but in effect a delete. Sarah777 doesn't seem to be the hardest editor in the world to bait. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) No - two different things going on. The 619 in Ireland article was nominated because it was said that the sole event listed actually took place in 618. The merges performed by Mango are a separate issue. Black Kite 07:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sad to say, Sarah's behaviour has become highly tendentious and is getting out of control. This is probably the central issue here, and this is a shame as she can be an intelligent and fun editor. Appears these days though to be interested in nothing but having a fight. Her editorial choices are dominated by strong ideology and her talk page comments are characterised by confrontation, emotive divisive paranoia [6] [7] [8], and misrepresentation [9] [10] [11]. Tendentiously edit-wars and shops, while accusing other established users of edit-warring [12] and vandalism [13] [14] [15] (etc). This has been going on for a while, but after carrying her ideology over to the talk page of a Russian football club last week, I unskillfully and unsuccessfully attempted to get her to alter her behaviour without acting as an admin, but all I got for it in the end was aggression and membership of her Anglo-Cabal. Full of bad faith too. After once getting rid of a POV-fork, Sarah did this. Since I first noticed and involved myself, I've remained passive but I have noticed it continuing to get much worse. I'd urge a totally non-involved established and experienced user to try to get Sarah to behave in a reasonable manner. Preferably this user should come from the highlands of Papua New Guinea or the Amazon jungle or another national background that would make it hard to get membership of this club, as paranoia and mistrust are a very big issues with Sarah. But it's got to stop somehow before its influence on other wikipedians escalates the conflict and tension on the articles she edits. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Zzzzzzzzzz.......Sarah777 (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an amazing discussion about an editor who has been blocked 7 times including harassment and civility issues. Toddst1 (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee restriction

Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks. Those interested in possibly applying a sanction of any kind should consider the above. Daniel (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A decision which amounts to political censorship, nothing else. Originally decided because I made the (apparently) extraordinary claim that the British Empire was historically worse than Nazi Germany. So certain opinions expressed (note) only on the talkpage in response to attacks from other editors are now banned from Wiki? Is that it? (And btw Daniel - 6 out of those 7 blocks were by Adimins for what they reckoned was incivility towards themselves in consversations outside the mainspace area; one was for an accidental 3RR. Sarah777 (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm no apologist for the British Empire but they didn't start a six year war that cost 72 million lives and included the holocaust - it's unsurprising the claim is considered 'extraordinary'. Exxolon (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not meaning to nitpick but didn't Britain declare war on Germany? Not in the least; the Irish famine claimed over a million lives and much more while food was exported under protection of British arms; genocide in Tasmania, countless millions in India etc etc (all debated before; all supported by a vast body of reliable sources. What is extraordinary is the limited worldview of those who'd find such common knowledge extraordinary. But it is a pretty extraordinary insight into the prevailing pov at Wiki. That remark is simply defending naked political censorship in the talk pages. Dress it up in any righteous cloak of your choosing. Sarah777 (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So, because of something that occurred off-wiki in the past, means it is perfectly acceptable to introduce anti-British commentary and clear bias into every imaginable article? Or to produce snide and downright uncivil comments, harassing other users in the process? If that is your sole rationale towards your unapologetic behavior, then I would say a community ban is in order, given that you are not willing to change your editing practices. seicer | talk | contribs 02:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There has been great incivility displayed by Sarah777 above and elsewhere, such as at [16]. And the comments left at User talk:Alison#Moving_Article without agreement are not that encouraging, either. There is also edit warring over tags, and/or obvious anti-British bias, such as [17] "adding a photograph" [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. There was also a lot of reverts and tedious editing at Great Britain and Ireland for a period in mid-May, and the same can be said for List of islands in the British Isles.

Quite frankly, I'd AfD most of the "XXX in Ireland" articles, such as 260 in Ireland and have it redirect to say... 3rd century in Ireland. There is no reason to have blank or nearly empty articles for decades that haven't been filled or completed in months, and it's content that can be applied elsewhere.

Adding in the above, to which there is no real action that can be taken, along with the ArbCom restrictions, I say that Sarah777 has a pretty tight leash. The lack of concern for the comments above ("Zzzzzzzz") and the general disregard for other editors and policies, leads me to believe that additional restrictions are required. seicer | talk | contribs 04:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Zzzzzz was a specific response to Deacon and a reference to an earlier debate on my page - and Deacon knows that. Sarah777 (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I see it in the same terms as Seicer, Sarah. That you've done it more than once is not an ameliorating factor. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with User:seicer. Suggest restriction on Ireland-related articles. Toddst1 (talk) 06:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the edits further and would find it perfectly acceptable to impose a 1RR restriction on articles regarding the XXX in Ireland articles. This is not an isolated incident, and the edit warring at other articles suggests that a revert restriction may be applicable elsewhere. While there have been no 3RR violations, such as at Great Britain and Ireland, the user has been pretty disruptive and has been essentially testing the waters, so to speak. Pretty irritating for other users who have to deal with this. seicer | talk | contribs 06:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also suggest something about WP:Civil. Snarkyness seems to be the default there. Toddst1 (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And "snarkyness" is? Can't find it in Chambers? Is there a Wiki-policy? The picture (one of 1,000 I've contributed to Wiki) was added to an article that is not a dab (see discussion); the rest are selective - usual stuff - for example DGAF was a direct response to an Admin who used the term; never came across it before.

I'm guessing things aren't looking good for Sarah, right now. Yikes. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that would be bad for Wiki because it would mean that charges of "incivility" and now "disruption" are being abused in the cause of blatant, naked political censorship and defence of right-wing Anglosphere pov. Anyway - it's Arbcoms choice if it comes to it. I'll seek a review by Arbcom as any further restrictions re editing Irish related articles is totally unacceptable. Sarah777 (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, since Arbcom has already sanctioned a ban (if necessary), and Sarah's unwilling to accept a lesser restriction, where does that leave us? I just noticed the next section. Duh. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: How many thousand editors do we have that have never been blocked even once? Statistically many of those editors must have extreme and irrational beliefs, but somehow manage to phrase their contributions as though they are rational human beings.Aaaronsmith (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Community ban?

Any reason we're still tolerating this? It sure looks like this disruptiveness is not new. Also, her conduct right here on the noticeboard is.. not constructive. Looks like more of the problem that's apparently been ongoing for some time. Community ban time? Friday (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So, lemme get this straight: defending myself openly and honestly against a series of direct charges is...not constructive. (Of course were I to characterise that as pure Orwell 1984 it would simply be added to the chargesheet - out of context, of course). Sarah777 (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you just did, and swung me over to support such a ban. I see zero constructive attitude on the part of this editor based on my brief encounter since this thread started and given the history, I think it's about time. Toddst1 (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Todd, based on my brief encounter with you I think you were of that mind already. Sarah777 (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Toddst1 that Sarah displays no willingness to work cooperatively or constructively. Her insistence that anyone who disagrees with her, pretty much no matter what, is part of a vast anti-Irish circle is baffling. Her refusal to accept any views apart from her incredibly extreme ones as legitimate is very disruptive, and she shows a lack of willingness for self reflection, as evidenced by the above thread. At the very least I support a ban from all Ireland-related articles for at least as long as it takes her to cool down and gain some perspective. I would not oppose a complete ban. And by the way, Sarah, my ancestors were Famine emigrants, so don't even bother with your normal rant at me. - Revolving Bugbear 21:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So - eh - what 'incredibly extreme' views would those be?!!! And I have denied a dozen times that I think there is any "conspiracy" re Irish articles; I have said that there is embedded cultural BIAS that is out of control and that folk beleive is consistent with WP:NPOV when it clearly isn't. How can I be 'constructive' and 'meet halfway' folks who characterise mainstream views in Ireland as 'incredibly extreme'!! And R Bugbear; regardless of where you ancestors hail from I will argue my point and kindly adhere to WP:CIVIL - I don't "rant". Had I said that of you someone would now have already added that to the charge-sheet. This is almost funny were I not the target. Sarah777 (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Some 'extreme' views that demonstrate your complete lack of appreciation for history:

the British Empire was historically worse than Nazi Germany - Go to Dachau one day. That will give you some perspective. Any oppression is despicable, but the barbarism of inventing an industry centered solely around mass murder for purely ideological means knows hardly a peer in history.

Not meaning to nitpick but didn't Britain declare war on Germany? - Yes, after Germany invaded Poland. So, no, Britain didn't "start a six year war that cost 72 million lives" -- Germany did.

I apologize for my use of the word 'rant'. But your rhetoric here really pushes the bounds of credulity. And statements like these belie your claim that you don't believe there is a conspiracy:

A decision which amounts to political censorship, nothing else.

Could the members of The Club share that with an interested party?

Then perhaps I might address your anxiety to keep this AfD decision within the Club.

That remark is simply defending naked political censorship in the talk pages.

Of course were I to characterise that as pure Orwell 1984 it would simply be added to the chargesheet

It is in your best interests to stop trying to defend this inexcusable behavior and start showing some contrition. You are way over the line, and everybody but you sees that. - Revolving Bugbear 21:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

←Having had no interaction with Sarah777 before (that I'm aware of), I'm somewhat dismayed with the behavior shown (with regard to the AfD's, POV issues, and general tendentiousness). I'd Endorse Friday's proposal, or a topic ban. (Although given her contribution history/interests, I think a topic ban would amount to a de facto general community ban). --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha, if there were enough reasons not to nuke sockpupeteer Betacommand, based on his promises to behave, there's no reason to nuke Sarah. Apply the same standards to her. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Support, my experience with her has been on List of events named massacres and predecessors, and she has been a consistently disruptive force there. (e.g., this recent return to the talk page simply to insult an editor and make spurious insinuations of Holocaust denial.) - Merzbow (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Sarah has a right to argue her views, but no-one has ever challenged this right and the community has a right to protect the encyclopedia from disruption and its good editors from tendentious editing and wasted time. Not all ArbCom decisions should be ignored (sigh), and the Arbcom ruling was issued only after things had previously gotten like this and many editors had already wasted so much time ... i.e. it was made for a good reason, and any admin here would be acting very reasonably to enforce it. However, it would also be good if Sarah took a wikibreak of her own accord to pre-empt this. If she hasn't already perhaps the time would make her gain better realization of what exactly the community is not prepared to tolerate. If not, some restrictions should be enforced, both for the encyclopedia and its other editors, but also, because of Sarah's mentality and attitude to editing, to protect Sarah. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Sarah has a right to argue her views, but a) she has to do so reasonably and civilly, and b) the community has a right to call her out of what she's arguing is offensive. She has not done so reasonably and civilly, and I think the comparison of the British Empire to Nazi Germany is patently offensive. - Revolving Bugbear 23:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah is an extremely good provider of content regarding Irish geography, culture and history. These subjects are inevitably intertwined with Britain, and often lead to conflict. Therefore it would be a huge loss to our coverage of those areas if a topic ban restricted he contributions. I think we should think very carefully about whether this can be resolved in another way.

I don't agree with Sarah on a lot of issues, but have discussed her concerns about Wikipedia a length. She is largely correct in her assertions that Wikipedia has cultural and Anglo-American (or perhaps, more correctly, Anglophone) biases. I agree with her on that. The problem is that those biases are inherent to our core policies, particularly those that govern verifiability, common usage, reliable sources and minority opinion. Unless we change our policies (and lets be honest, that is not going to happen anytime soon) those biases will remain part of the Wiki-process. So, we are left with three choices: We accept that is how Wikipedia is and live with it. We work to change those policies to counter said biases. Or we rally against each working example where we feel one of these biases are reflected, taking on the "Anglo-American POV" one article at a time. Sadly Sarah has chosen the latter course of action. I'm not sure Sarah will change change her opinions, and neither should we ask her to. But is there a way we can harness Sarah's knowledge and enthusiasm while minimizing the scope for nationalist driven conflict? I don't know, but I would urge we consider other creative solutions before jumping to premature topic bans. Rockpocket 23:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly Rockpocket, I'm surprised to see you adopting Sarah's classifications like that, and I think it is unhelpful. But anyways, in the last while (and I am understating here), Sarah's positive contributions are dwarved by the amount of time she causes to be wasted by her tendentious editing; if she can't stop that, the rest doesn't matter. In fairness there are a number of editors at the opposite end of the scale who are ideologically just as or almost as extreme, and it would be slightly bothersome if their editing patterns were not also checked, but it shouldn't take several arbcom decisions, 7 + blocks, and months of wasted editing hours from so many users to sort out every single hardline tendentious editor who decides to spend their hours on wikipedia. Though not directly related, the Four Principles of the Eastern European arbcom case are worth bearing in mind for these editing matters, and if they are adhered to on all sides (fat chance I guess), such differences of geographically-based ideology, where they exist, can be resolved ... mostly. Such differences are not however a pretext for ignoring large-scale disruption. A creative solution, if creative enough, would be great of course, I agree; but ArbCom isn't there so that any time its resolutions have to be enforced the community designs ways to get around them. The onus I'm afraid is on Sarah now, she will at least to need to show some good will first. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of endorsing a 1RR restriction, but after seeing her block log, I say it's time to close the door. Endorse community ban. Blueboy96 23:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful to whom exactly? I think someone needed to point out the great big hulking elephant in the room. Organizations, like ours, that work within a framework like to perpetuate the myth that the framework itself is value neutral. That is clearly not the case. There are lots of little quirks in our policies, or at least the general interpretation of them, that means we value establishment, Western, English-language sources more than non-establishment, non-English language sources. Does that justify disruption? No. Does it mean those people who follow our policies are pushing POV or guilty of perpetuating bias? No. But lets not kid ourselves, Wikipedia is no more immune from systemic bias, than any other Western, white, male dominated institution. I'm trying to explain Sarah's motivations here, not excuse them, and I'm sorry if that hinders the process of throwing an establish content contributor under the bus. Rockpocket 00:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As above. I know as well as anyone wiki has inevitable "bias"; the way knowledge and information is presented is always and will always be a function of power to some extent (as will where allegations of "bias" emerge), but as above ... this cannot be used as the excuse for every tendentious editor, or to prevent enforcement of basic wikipedia policy. Sarah as a content-editor, not exceptional, and again, as above. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems we are in agreement over the problem, just not the best solution. Perhaps my reticence is borne from sensitivity to the potential for a shitstorm that comes from upsetting the delicate Irish/British balance with ill-thought out action. Particularly when it is against one edit-warrior, when there are others who are engaging in similar behaviour from the opposite perspective. Sarah does need to learn to tone down the rhetoric, but a community ban seems ridiculously punitive. Before going down that road, can't we at least engage with her and make it absolutely clear that the anti-Britishness and edit-warring has to stop henceforth or else the ArbCom conditions will be strictly enforced? Rockpocket 01:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the only thing I've suggested is that either she impose a wikibreak on herself or some restrictions be placed. I think this is fairly moderate. The community's patience has its limits, so is the amount of time we should be expected to spend on every user like this. You say "Before going down that road, ...", but she has already had 7 blocks and is subject to a set of ArbCom rulings ... it's not like this is her first time. And after everything, she has spent this morning, despite this long discussion, casting aspersions against myself and leveling tendentious accusations of incivility against the other folk here. Where do you think this can go now, given that she ignored the counsel I gave her last week, and the counsel you have been giving her more lately? I despair of hope here. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support a topic ban, and support a 1RR restriction for all articles. And dole out a block for any continuing uncivil/anti-social behavior. I am also endorsing a community ban if it comes down to that. Given the track record of Sarah, and her reluctance to engage in any constructive discourse ("Zzzzzzzz" and etc.), any discussion that continues here without any action will only result in continued edit warring, a strong-POV warrior and a diluted 'pedia. The derogatory comments and general harassment, with the multitude of warnings and notices, means that it is time to put the hammer down. And no more "conditional" pleas to refactor a block down. seicer | talk | contribs 01:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support This user is an absolute POV nightmare, completely unsaveable, best off finding wiki that suits her views. MickMacNee (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm about two clicks away from banning Sarah777 from ANI. Per arbcom, Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Log of blocks and bans. ANI is a page; Sarah777 has disrupted it; the disruption includes anti-British remarks. If anyone other than Sarah777 prefers that I hold off, speak up. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That might be a little over the top. Of course, I'm not an admin, so... HalfShadow 03:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If it continues, sure thing. But this is an ANI thread about her, so I'm a little hesitant to do it myself. Not that there have been any useful contributions from Sarah on the ANI front, though... seicer | talk | contribs 03:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if you're going to post about her, she sort of has the right to respond. If she digs herself a deeper hole doing so, that's her problem, but you can't say you weren't fair about it. HalfShadow 03:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say - enforce the ban in this instance, but not as a general ban to AN/I; there may well be instances where Sarah777 wishes to report disruption, or bring issues to the wider community which are legitimate and necessary. As such, let's call this thread over as 'nothing for admins to do', thus effectively ending this thread. If Sarah777 continues here after archive boxing is done, give her a block for persisting disruption, and move on. ThuranX (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks folks, I'll hold fire for now. I'm not in favor of closing the thread because there's an active community ban discussion that should play out. I don't know about everyone else but I've had a gutfull of these nationalistic squabbles, whether it's the English v Irish, Polish v Germans, or whatever. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow my example: Hate everyone equally. It saves time. HalfShadow 03:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You're obviously a flippant wiseguy who isn't taking this seriously. I admire that in a person. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The situation as such has pretty much wound itself down, except for deciding exactly how hard to smack her. Perfect time for a dose of humor. HalfShadow 03:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Especially her continuous removal of AfD tag is clear disruption. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Based off what I'm reading and looking through everything, I'd also support a ban. We don't need users like this. Wizardman 03:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I was under the impression that I was supposed to respond here. Is that not the case? (Ref the remarks about the Zzzzzzz...; it was suggested I wasn't addressing the charges being made). Could someone please clarify whether I am or am not supposed to reply to the issues raised here? Sarah777 (talk) 03:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

'Reply', yes. 'Be a dick', no. HalfShadow 03:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Breach of WP:CIVIL noted. Your link didn't really relate to anything that I've posted here so I must ask what the point of it is? It was a simple question I asked; a simple 'yes' or 'no' was all that was required. No incivility necessary. For the second time on this thread I wish to note that had I said that to you it would immediately have been added to the list of 'dispuptive/incivil" I'm charged with. Sarah777 (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You're the one swirling the drain here, not me. Given your track record so far, calling someone else out for incivility is ironic at best. HalfShadow 16:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

So, what exactly am I supposed to say? There are so many comments, charges, diffs, opinions and indeed expressions of political pov that some guidance would be helpful. Please. I wish to be careful because already my attempts to reply to direct charges have been deemed incivil and in one instance contrary to the Arbcom Ruling. Sarah777 (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support community ban. Reading this, I was astonished to see an experienced user say, "Which Wiki rule says AFD tags cannot be removed?" - but then I read all this censorship/racist/conspiracy drivel. We don't need this. —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support ban. I'm usually reluctant to support such measures applied to users without long-term blocks, but Sarah's behaviour here was astonishingly unconstructive, so I don't think that longer blocks will help. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Question Are we talking about a topical ban or a total ban? -- Ned Scott 07:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban, Support civility parole and 1RR on all Ireland related articles, with a clear statement that any more crossing of that line will be subject to rapidly increasing blocks. Black Kite 08:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like some people are advocating a total ban, which seems like a terribly punitive reaction. If we think there is a problem here, then lets decide what the problem is and inform Sarah that it needs to be solved, rather than dish out bans. If Sarah is willing to address her concerns about bias in a more constructive manner, then we may not need to ban her from anything. Sarah is a reasonable individual and does take guidance, surely at this stage she deserves an opportunity to demonstrate that under the threat of further action? Rockpocket 08:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not an Admin however looking at the ban log I feel that a total ban would be wrong since the editor has only been blocked about 4 times (Not counting the blocks which have been undone). A ban for a week or a topic ban should be the way to go if she has been uncivil, disruptive and hasn't maintained good faith with other editors. Bidgee (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose an outright ban. Sarah can be infuriating and has a massive POV when it comes to certain Irish political and geographical articles. But she has also done an awesome amount of work, especially on Irish historical and geographic articles. By all means, implement a topic ban, a la Vintagekits and make sure it's unambiguous. But an outright ban? Noooo. I've been dealing with her for years here now and I still don't think she's beyond redemption here. She deserves a chance - Alison ^❤ 09:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose a topic ban or 1RR. The only problem with Sarah is her tendency to come in all guns blazing forcing her own version of NPOV. MilkFloat 09:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support We should seize any opportunity to get rid of a nationalist POV-pusher like this, instead of mollycoddling them. --Folantin (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose a ban. (I'm not actually sure whether I'm allowed to comment here, not being an admin.) Sarah does a lot of good work editing Irish geographic articles, and I would be loathe for Wikipedia to loose that. Much of the time it seems like she is only person working on Irish geography. A topic ban would be tantamount to a full ban, and so I'm not in favour of that either. However, something clearly needs to be done, as her abrasive incivility and constant harping on about some Anglo-American conspiracy is disruptive to the extreme. (Like Rockpocket, I have quiet a bit of sympathy with the idea that there is a systematic Anglophonic bias in Wikipedia, but Sarah's approach to resolving this is far too hotheaded, and simply polarises people against her.) I don't think 1RR will make a jot of difference, though I don't oppose it being tried. A lot of Sarah's disruption is her talk page comments, not in reverts, and 1RR is still plenty to edit war with were she to want to. I think a better approach would be to take a very harsh view on talk page incivility, and I would support a policy where she routinely got a shortish-term block (say 24 or 48 hours) for incivility. A block can always be lifted if she acknowledges the incivility and shows some contrition: two things she generally fails to do. I believe that after a while with such a policy, there is a reasonable chance that she can curb her incivility. Due to quantity of her very good contributions, like Rockpocket, I do believe that we should be looking for a creative solution to this, and not being too trigger-happy with community bans. — ras52 (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment (I indicated my support for a topic ban above): Sarah is demonstrating that she still doesn't even understand why people are upset with her and refuses to let go of the assertion that there's something political going on here: "I think the record will show that the main cause of the current dispute is the manner in which one editor took it upon himself to delete twenty articles from the 7th Century"; "(Wikipedia) gives vast power to hordes of Admins imbued with Anglo-American POV to enforce their worldview". I'm not sure how some of these creative proposals will help her get it -- 1RR won't stop her from being uncivil, and civility parole, as we've seen with other ArbCom'ees, is very easy to weasel one's way out of. Sarah needs to stay away from areas where she's going to be disruptive until she understands the complaints against her. - Revolving Bugbear 12:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - A clarification; those attacking me and even some supporting me keep referring to my claim of a "conspiracy". How many times do I have to state that I have NEVER claimed there is any conspiracy but rather that Anglo-American pov is endemic in Wiki due to the cultural background of the editors. So please stop referring to "conspiracy drivel" etc; it is simply untrue. Rockpocket explained the problem up above rather well and it would be educational to carefully read his comments. Also the irony that "nationalist editors" are a terrible thing on Wiki (as per some of the above) strikes many Irish folk who have to cope with endless British and American Nationalist perspective here on Wiki as absurdly ironic. Surreal really. I admit removing the AfD tag was wrong but it was done in the context of seeing 20 articles I had worked on deleted without any discussion at all (nothing to do with any Irish/British dispute); that was of course wrong. Beyond that you must carry out your deliberations in the knowledge that while I'll stick to civility rules reasonably administered; stick to rules about templates, edit warring etc and a specific list of named articles for 1RR - I will not accept accept generalised 1RR or any exceptional civility requirements and most especially I will not accept any curtailment if discussion of Irish matters comes up in talkpages. If you reckon that comparing one Empire to another is intrinsically offensive but that stating that many Irish people, victims of the offended Empire, cannot say being referred to as "British" is offensive; then that is a problem for Wiki's credibility more than for me. I am making this comment so that both my supporters and detractors are clear about the parameters around what I will and will not accept. My other point in closing is that I've made 25,000 edits over two years; uploaded 1,000 photos, creating 300 articles (excluding the "years in" stubs) and the vast majority of my edits, 99% plus; are in areas that have absolutely noting to do with the Irish/British dispute. Sarah777 (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, what you will and "will nit [sic]" [23] will not accept is irrelevant. If the community decides that someone who asks for which rule bans the removal of AfD tags, and claims that a conspiracy of administrators is pushing an anti-Irish POV, should be banned or restricted, that is their - very commendable - decision. —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I will treat that remark as a calculated provocation both in tone (nit (sic)) and content (repetition of the conspiracy charge). Ciao. Sarah777 (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

First, you do realize that conflating the British perspective on Ireland and the American perspective on Ireland is ridiculous, right? Remember that war we had against them? And that other one? And remember the enormous emigration of the Irish to America? Remember the trend sympathizers in America in the 70's and 80's who thought the IRA was cool? In many places in America, including where I come from, the dominant POV is far more sympathetic to the Irish than to the English. Your conflation of the American perspective with the British perspective, in addition to flatly defying academic and historical trend, serves only to obfuscate the fact that your own views are fringe. Furthermore, the fact that there is, in fact, a systemic bias on Wikipedia does not make your own views necessarily correct.

Second, call it a "conspiracy" or not, as I demonstrated above and as you have clearly demonstrated both inside and outside of this thread, your actions demonstrate a belief that there is a deliberate push to censor your views. This is just untrue -- you are welcome to express your views as long as you do so in a reasonable, civil, and non-disruptive manner. You have failed to do so, repeatedly, and that is why the community is tired of you. - Revolving Bugbear 14:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - agree with Sarah about indicating there is a systemic bias which stems from contributors' demographic groups, which includes a pro-American and pro-British POV, is completely different from saying there is a conspiracy. However, given the arbcom ruling, she could be more tactful in making this observation. While I understand and respect Friday's position, I think Sarah should be given another chance. I think the approach outlined by Ras52 of short blocks for talk page incivility, which would include hot-headed remarks, is worth pursuing. PhilKnight (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Short blocks? She's had seven, and hasn't indicated that she's learned anything from any of them. And, as I said above, we've seen repeatedly that incivility blocks are easy for the user to weasel their way out of, no matter how explicitly the remedy is worded. (See the pseudoscience debacle for examples.) Do you really believe this approach will change her behavior? - Revolving Bugbear 14:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Seven bans? I only see four since three out of the seven bans were lifted. Bidgee (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, seven blocks. One or two were brought to an early end on promises of good behaviour, but seven clear blocks nonetheless. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - qualified...

To sit in solemn silence in a dull, dark dock

In a blue-screen prison with a life-long lock

Awaiting the sensation of a short, sharp shock

From the cheap and chippy chopper of a permanent block.

A lengthy cooling-off block I could see. Not a ban. Not yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

How long should the block be? A month? PhilKnight (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite all these supposed problems, the longest previous block was only 2 days, so maybe a week, at first. I'm going by the User:Tecmobowl standard. He refused to discuss anything, engaged in constant edit-wars, posted spam, used sockpuppetry, displayed constant hypocrisy about the rules, and still it took moving heaven and earth to get him banned. Incivility, by itself, really doesn't matter. It's against the rules, but it's nothing compared to the other stuff. Who cares what somebody calls you? Editing disruption is what matters. A cooling-off period and hopefully some discussion - and maybe some civil treatment by a select few neutral observers toward an editor who, I gather, feels like she's being ganged up on. A life sentence is way over the line, at this point, and even a month is questionable - so far. P.S. I'm one of those Anglo-Americans, but also 1/4 Irish. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

How about a 1 week block now, and then longer blocks if the problems continue? PhilKnight (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps so. In reflecting a bit, isn't there another venue for this kind of discussion? RFC, or some such? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In light of today's situation, it's obvious that Sarah777 wants to be blocked, so we shouldn't stand in the way of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, an established editor shouldn't be community banned, for calling others Anglo-American PoV pushers; nor for disrupting an AfD. To the best of my knowledge, Sarah hasn't been sockpuppeting, nor has she threatened anyone with legal action or bodily harm. Heck, she can call me a British PoV pusher whenever she wants, or a Donald Duck nationalist. It's not as though she's an 'out of controal' vandal. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, she can't -- it's against the rules. What is your suggestion for getting her to see that? Because she has so far refused. - Revolving Bugbear 16:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah has done a lot of things, but to my knowledge, has never indulged in sock-puppetry, abusive or no. Just for the record - Alison ^❤ 16:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, nobody here is accusing her of sockpuppetry. - Revolving Bugbear 17:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out, that's a positive for her. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I don't think she has climbed the Reichstag dressed as spiderman, at least not recently. So if we're thinking of things she hasn't done, that has to be somewhere close to the top of this rather short list. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no way, I can persuade Sarah to stop hollering British PoV pushers etc, everytime things don't go her way. I've already tried at her talk-page (for her own sake), but (regretfully) I was unsuccessful. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - She has to know (in fact, she probably does know) that her bad behaviour winds a lot of people up. It appears to me as if she relishes venting her anti-British opinions on anybody who crosses her. Yes there are British, American and a whole lot other nationalistic POV pushers but Sarah doesn't recognise her own Irish POV pushing. However, I wouldn't like to see her banned 'cause anyone can see she does contribute to main-space very well but this continuous harangue against everybody who is agin her view of the world is getting pretty tiresome. -Bill Reid | Talk 16:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Sarah doesn't recognise her own Irish POV pushing. - is part of the problem. She isn't pushing an "Irish PoV". She's pushing a radical minority "anti-Brit" PoV that's shared by no more than about 8% of the Irish population (judging by Sinn Féin's electoral success) - yet constantly writes as if she's speaking for all of Ireland. If there's an anti-Irish bias on WP, I haven't come across it - except when Sarah uses her wind-up tactics and pisses off other editors as a result, who themselves become more intransigent. Even if you're Irish and hold fairly mainstream views, but disagree with her, you get characterised as a British apologist. All that said - and I don't know if I'm allowed vote here as I'm not an admin - a community ban seems too harsh at this stage. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• If the community won't see sense, let's just block her liberally for further disruptiveness, for increasing periods. I think it's painfully obvious that her behavior is not compatible with a collaborative project, but if "ban" is a dirty word, let's just do it a little bit as a time instead. Friday (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This is but one example of a problem we often face: how to handle a disruptive and abusive editor who also makes some positive contributions. Our track record in handling such editors is not good. I can see no indication that Sarah777 has made any effort at all to modify her behavior in line with the arbcom case. Let me note in particular that the fact that there are other ethnic/nationalist POV pushers in no way excuses her own conduct. The only solution I see is escalating blocks in response to specific incidents. I think each successive block should double in length: the first would be for a day, the second for two days, the third for four days, and so on. This would allow her plenty of chances and the successive lengthening of the block wold recognize that it's persistent misbehavior that is the problem. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Let's wait I know it seems absurd to give another chance, but I think it at least possible that the unmistakable clarity with which the community has been expressing its view here may have some influence of the editor's behavior. (put a little more bluntly, the threats of permanent ban may have made an impression). I'm willing to give her another opportunity to edit, with the clear understanding that at the first personal attack or expression of generalized ethnic resentment, Raymond's suggestion just above goes into effect. DGG (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm making one more plea to Sarah, to try and resolve things (see her page). One more attempt. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support a topic-ban from all articles relating to the United Kingdom, and also a community ban if necessary. We simply do not need users who cannot get their IRL POVs under control, and we can easily find others who will write good content on Ireland articles without the attendant nationalist nonsense. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose an outright ban. Let's try a mentorship, topic ban, anything we can to keep a good and productive editor with a lot of contributions involved in this great project. If it doesn't work, then yes, come back. But first let's try. Just call me pollyanna but I always want to give people chances (within reason). Sarah, though, do you understand just how serious this is? It's serious. ++Lar: t/c 22:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. Sarah appears to be a difficult contributor, in that she holds an opinion that is shared by only a small percentage of her countrymen and an even smaller percentage of WP editors (or at least those who edit the articles which that opinion relates to), but it is thus conceded there it is an opinion - and WP:WEIGHT exists because it is recognised that to have an NPOV article due consideration must be given to non-mainstream/partisan opinion. Silencing Sarah would therefore silence a valid viewpoint, and small though it may be, in which case the quality of the articles would likely suffer. In the interests of the encyclopedia it is important that a way is found to incorporate Sarah's viewpoint in a representative manner, and for her to recognise that working within the current systemic bias is the only option available. It is not easy, but it isn't supposed to be easy - it is supposed to be an encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. This editors is not simply disposable simply because she has an alternate POV to other larger Anglo-American (dare I say WASPish) POV demographic. --Vintagekits (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose ban for the reasons given. Sarah777 is extreme, and vocal, but fearless and never cowed. This rubs the wrong way. Sarah777 calls it open and honest (BTW, see how we make assumptions? We call her Sarah, assuming that's her name, and that she's female...) I often cringe when reading what Sarah777 writes, and it's often far from diplomatic. While I cannot support the tenacious editting, I believe it is directly related to editors and admins not warning about ad hominen attacks, and the resultant blocks that would naturally flow from this. --Bardcom (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"We" are not making assumptions. [24] Rockpocket 18:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Mentoring

I can't believe I'm saying this. Yeesh! I'm willing to work with Sarah777 and the community and try to get this whole mess sorted, if she's agreeable to that. But ... buuuut. If there's to be any admin action, it should come from me. I'll put in the work and see what I can do and I hope both sides of this Troubles thing can see me as being sufficiently neutral. Does anyone see this as a viable option? - Alison ^❤ 19:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a fantastic idea. I've often seen Sarah making some very strong statements, some beyond what is considered acceptable. I think she could use the help of an experienced Wikipedian. I certainly don't think she's beyond help - there's a lot of good in her, but for the time when she lapses, having someone like Alison to keep watch and help her understand things better will no doubt be of benefit to both her and the community. Perhaps some form of parole tied in with this (some of the suggestions above could help the situation I believe) and I think we could have an acceptable situation. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm dubious. This is not an editor about whom I have a good feeling. I think she is far too wedded to her POV. Nor is she a newbie. Worse, she's hot-headed. The first is worse than the second: put together and I think we have a problem mentorship will not be able to solve. I've seen this type of nationalist a billion times before, and my conclusion from past experience? Alison's time could be better spent elsewhere, and it could well be time for us to wash our hands of this problem. What do we lose? We lose a whole pile of disruption on Ireland/UK articles, and what we otherwise lose in good content we'll easily pick up from elsewhere. Cost/benefit, chaps.... Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)For once, I agree with Moreschi!; anyone who can allege that there's a vast conspiracy, and claim or entertain the idea for a moment that it is within the grounds of policy to delete AFD tags - is more trouble than they're worth. TBH, Wikipedia doesn't need the hassle. —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Alison, I have the utmost respect for you as a Wikipedian, but I'm wary of the "if there's to be any admin action, it should come from me" part. Unless you think you can keep her in line from day one, the next time she crosses the line people are going to be looking for a block. If there's even the slightest appearance that you're preventing a block that someone wants, people are going to get very, very unhappy. Do you really want to stake yourself on that chance? - Revolving Bugbear 21:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is also that. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

And even in the midst of this debate she rails on as if everything is stacked against her and she is never wrong. See this interpretation of a well-meaning suggestion, where she paints (in her very own words) "the majority" with a broad and offensive brush, and essentially swears off essential Wikipedia processes. (By the way, yes, I have seen Moreschi's essay that this is essentially a response to, and I don't particularly love it, but Moreschi is in good standing with the community, and the tweaks Sarah has used to turn the essay from aimed at fringe users to aimed at the majority is telling.) Here's a summary for you:

The smug, inherent assumptions of objectiveness and cultural superiority and neutrality of the majority of editors writing in the areas of history, politics and current affairs on EN:Wiki poses a colossal threat to Wikipedia's content and standards (emphasis mine)

The Anglo-American views himself as on a crusade for his values of reason and enlightenment, and is conditioned to view his culture as the pinnacle of civilisation and more importantly (she conveniently forgot the "nationalist" bit here ...)

The Arbitration Committee, under pressure from a large number of Anglo-American nationalists are being pressured into blocking any perceived opinions that fall outside the Anglo-American POV ghetto

Indeed; in an essay written from the Anglo-American nationalist perspective User:Moreschi advocates use of the administrator's noticeboard as a useful tool to more efficiently eradicate all suspect viewpoints and ensure the unchallenged dominance of Anglo-American pov across EN:Wiki. (calling out a user by name like this in one's user space has repeatedly been labeled a personal attack in previous cases)

Formal content arbitration is a code for political censorship.

Given this, does anybody really think she will listen to reason? Even (all due respect) a reason as impeccable as Alison's? - Revolving Bugbear 21:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wow. Ok, you can forget mentorship. Mentorship works with reasonable people. To write this is not a rational act. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually Moreschi; that essay is, I'm sure you'll recognise, a reflection of your own essay (even if, IMHO, it is rather closer to the facts of the matter). You find the reflection disturbing? BTW; I didn't call you any name that I can see. But you are seriously breaching WP:CIVIL - as, indeed, are many of the other commentators here. I note that "Revolving Bugbear" gets especially agitated when anyone suggests I shouldn't be hung, drawn and quartered. Sarah777 (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, it's not disturbing: it's amusing. It's highly predictable and is exactly what I would expect you to think. No, the disturbing thing is that you would write such a piece, displaying your total lack of regard for NPOV, when you're up on ANI having your community ban discussed. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As I thought it outlines my very high concern about making Wiki NPOV I'd have thought it is exactly the sort of explanation of my position the situation required. You think it is a mark of my insanity. You'll appreciate I won't be agreeing with that assessment. Sarah777 (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree. It is an excellent essay by a rational person; it is not a viewpoint I share, nor a rationale, but it is a well articulated opinion piece. I feel that such a person, if treated with respect, can be engaged in meaningful discussion where a satisfactory outcome may be possible. I would point also to the existence of WP:CSB; where it is also commented the editor demographic can result in a unconsciously skewed consideration of what is "neutral" (and this is where I fundamentally disagree with Sarah, what bias that may appear is not the result of deliberate decision but simply the reflection of the background of the majority editor), and you don't have to be female, gay, black/brown (and all the shades in between), non-Christian/Jewish, disabled, or a non-English speaker/ing culture to be effected by it. If Sarah is blinkered by ascribing a deliberate pro-British bias in respect of her edits, it should be recognised that there is possibly a anti anti-British unconscious reflex to her contributions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Van U; while there are obviously loads of deliberate committed and fully aware pov-warriors I think I have made the point that it is largely cultural conditioning; that it affects all cultures and (though I may not have been explicit) that Irish culture is therefore not immune. Nor am I. One of my repeated points is that I am sensitised to bias in a way that the "mainstream" Anglosphere generally isn't precisely (in part) because there is a different perspective on a number of issues inherent in the Irish Nationalist culture. Like yourself I can respect reasonable pov without actually agreeing with it and would be the last person to claim that I have uniquely escaped the clutches of my cultural conditioning. Though I might claim to struggle against it more than some! Sarah777 (talk) 08:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fond of mentoring. In almost all the cases I've come across the mentor either (1) gradually comes to identify with the mentee so that they become the person's advocate rather than their mentor, or (2) eventually fades away leaving the problem to continue. But in this case I'll make an exception. All this will be binding and irrevocable until someone decides to change it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I've nothing against mentoring but in my case I'd question why it is required. I guess I could accept it on the basis that those steeped in Anglo-American mythology can only be exposed to the outside world in a very moderated way or else it leads to drama like this. I'm coming to understand why Ireland rates highest in the Anglosphere in terms of freedom of expression! Raymond, logically, something cannot be "irrevocable until someone decides to change it", but I get your drift. I'd agree to, say, six months with Ali. I say this with some trepidation as she not only blocked me for no good reason put sent me to the proverbial Coventry for another reason from which I have only recently been returned. In any case I nearly might as well be blocked at the moment because I haven't been able to make a single useful content edit in weeks. Sarah777 (talk) 08:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

So, you don't recognise any part of your editing as being at all problematic by accepted Wikipedia standards? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Rockpocket, Alison, and LessHeard vanU. The point about 'Anglo-wikicentricism' is a philosophical one and fairly undeniable; by and large, the contributors to this project are British and American, writing in English, with the systemic cultural bias that that entails. Just as you don't make a better democracy by shooting those you disagree with, so you don't make a better encyclopaedia by banning those who argue against you. Personally, I don't edit in the same spheres as Sarah, but she's always struck me as an intelligent and thoughtful contributor - albeit that I roll my eyes at some of the additional commentary! (You can, incidentally, wind her up with amusing results by pointing out that the Irish also participated in the British Empire.) She's plugging away, and so far as I can see, doing a good job; it is a bloody nuisance when one's work is targetted for AfD. The rudeness, which isn't the worst I've seen, I would characterise as irritation and is, at least, on an equal opportunity basis rather than being directed solely against British, or some other specific class of, editors. It's a bit boring and adds to the background drone of incivility; but is anything more needed than a 'Please stop it, Sarah'? Yet again, we seem to have a vast amount of commentary that is unrelated to the seriousness of the offense. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Mentoring seems OTT for her having mistakenly removed afd tags (and having acknowledged her error). MilkFloat 11:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• sigh* ... I was kinda hoping that mentoring would work out if we could work together on it but there are too many issues here. I see a lot of editors above that I respect highly, and I'm seeing them arguing strongly against mentoring. The comment, " I say this [agreeing to 6 months] with some trepidation as she not only blocked me for no good reason put sent me to the proverbial Coventry for another reason from which I have only recently been returned." - I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. What Sarah and Bonkers above say is true, though, but that is a massive problem in itself and extends way beyond just Sarah and I don't think I can single-handedly take on that issue. Sarah is an excellent content editor when she's not in full-on "battle" mode - I really like her a lot and love the work she does - but her responses above don't offer me much hope that I can actually work with her. I just don't want to see her banned. I'd love to help, even struggle against a rather tepid showing of community support for this and put in the hard work, but ... she needs to meet me half-way on this thing. If she can't even consider that, then we're doomed from the start - Alison ^❤ 11:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And I thought I was half-way! Where do you place the mid-point Ali? (Ali I was referring to what you said in an email re Coventry - I wasn't critisising; check your record - I don't reveal email content on Wiki). Plus, I don't blame you for that reaction given the background which I wasn't fully clued-in to). Sarah777 (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you should give it a try - a short test would be preferable to not attempting it. Sarah has admitted that she has an inbuilt bias that she needs to be aware of - and who better to sound out than a mentor? As for other peoples opinion; ultimately it is the potential mentor/mentee only that needs to convinced - let the others pursue whatever other resolution they may. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alison, you are welcome to mentor but when you say"any admin action then should come from me", it would be difficult for you to be objective if you are involved in her edits and mentoring, so if you mentor, some other admin should make the decisions about any blocks etc though of course asking your input.:) As for now, I think a short block is in order, don't know if it's happened yet. Also Alison has backed up Sarah in the past, not that I'm complaining though because she backs me up sometimes as well. And of course they're both devilish Irish banshees (joke.) If someone were to mentor, maybe it should be that editor from Papua New Guinea or somewhere? :) To avoid any accusations of bias. Sticky Parkin 12:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Another Comment I think we should get away from all this systematic bias and philosophical stuff, really is a distraction from the main concerns. Any disruptive nationalist from any country can cite such stuff as an excuse for disruptive behaviour, but if we are gonna start swallowing it we might as well get rid of most of our policies. Sarah comes from the English-speaking world and in general is typical of it, except when it comes to some Ireland-related matters; and there she is concerned with the typical topics European nationalists are generally interested in, matters of identity, terminology, national ownership and historical victimhood. It doesn't serve Sarah's or the community's interests dress up run-of-the-mill tendentious behaviour in such glorifying garbs, as it distracts from addressing it. The effect of Sarah's POV on the content however is NOT the main concern ... there are plenty of other users that keep that in check without any admin doing anything. I dunno about mentoring, but Alison or someone else wants to volunteer their services then sure, no harm to that. But Sarah's biggest problem is her highly advanced self-righteousness and sense of moral superiority over everything, which overpowers most other things for her and prevents her having any respect for most of the policies we have. This is obvious from much of her editing (indeed only last night she compared her situation to Jesus on the cross!). When people do things she doesn't like, they are not only wrong, they are treated as if they are evil. Any mentor would need to be able to restrain these character traits from overpowering her, as they so often do, disrupting the encyclopedia, enraging other editors, escalating and spreading tension, and wasting good editorial time (my own biggest concern). If these things can be addressed without AN/I threads and an ArbCom coming up every month, there's no need for anything else to be done. But we only have the past and present to go upon here ... so it'd be good to hear pledges and good faith starting to come from Sarah .... I want to agree with DGG, that maybe all comments will have an effect. I acknowledge though that, in practice, the community will probably have no choice but to wait and see if they do. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

With Respect, and this is not pointed at Deek. A lot of the problems with Wikipedia come from the way editors make directed personal comments at other editors. This is wrong. For example, in the posting above (and I could probably find thousands of postings just like them, so nothing against Deek, just using it as an example):

• Sarah's biggest problem is her highly advanced self-righteousness and sense of moral superiority over everything, which overpowers most other things for her and prevents her having any respect for most of the policies we have
• When people do things she doesn't like, they are not only wrong, they are treated as if they are evil
• disrupting the encyclopedia, enraging other editors, escalating and spreading tension, and wasting good editorial time (my own biggest concern)

Not only is this language highly emotive, it is also odd/questionable why there are no warnings on Sarah777's Talk page. Is that not the correct procedure? If anyone has suffered an ad hominen attack, where did they place the warnings? No warnings = no offense. If wikipedia stopped tolerating ad hominen attacks in the first place, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. --Bardcom (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing the behaviour of a user and everyone is entitled to summarise the matter as they see it; believe me I could be very much stronger in my language here. Regarding warnings ... they are not required, and for the user in question seem to provoke rather than prevent. Admin involvement in certain Hiberno-British matters though has been less than sufficient of late shall we say, compared with other matters ... on that you are correct. I am a little part to blame as I took an extremely gentle approach, protecting rather than blocking, attempting to counsel rather than warning. That's a lesson I guess. The history of the topic and the aggressive characters of those involved I suspect may have put more admins off from involving themselves and, despite several ArbComs apparently, issuing warnings and blocks. Despite all the revert-warring, incivility, trolling, etc, on these pages over the last few months, I think the only block I saw was the "accidental" one handed by User:Stifle to an admin removing provocative comments from a talk page.;) Which pretty much sums it up I guess. :D But Sarah has been blocked 7 times already, and is subject to arbcom rulings on her civility ... I think there's too much tendency here to find every excuse possible. Wiki has to start dealing with the real issues rather than find excuse after excuse for every tendentious editor ... seriously there are more urgent requirements of our time. So said this AN/I has just about run its course as far as the possibilities of action are concerned. It's become far too unfocused and destructive to achieve anything, other than perhaps the future involvement and supervision of more admins, and maybe a mentor or two. Which maybe something at least. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Believe me I could be very much stronger in my language here too, but does WP:CIVIL not extend to this page? Sarah777 (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

At the time, I am opposing mentoring and supporting an editing restriction/1RR for Sarah777 on any related articles pertaining to Ireland or Great Britain. As an experienced editor as Sarah777 is, I don't see how a "mistake" can be made in removing AFD tags -- it was done purposely, and any apology made long after the fact is kind of diluted. Furthermore, Sarah777 has expressed little to no interest in the mentoring program, stating that she sees no reason for it. In other words, "I have done no wrong." I don't think that Sarah777 will face a community ban at the moment, given the varying opinion voiced above, but it's always something to bring about if reform does not work.

The notion that shes stating quite a few editors have breached civility in their replies is laughable. The same excuse has been used countless times already in varying discussions, and in the above reply to Pndapetzim, I see no breach of civility.

It may be worth a try with the mentoring, but it only works both ways. If Sarah777 sees no need for it, and isn't enthuastic about reforming her biased-editing patterns, then I don't see how it can possibly work. I do commend Allison, however, for bringing up the topic and for being a willing participant in the mentoring program. seicer | talk | contribs 15:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And after reading User:Sarah777/The Real Plague, I am inclined to believe that mentoring will not work with an editor whose mindset is pretty much going to stay the same, regardless of any mentorship that we offer or any blocks that we dole out. seicer | talk | contribs 15:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

After seeing that page I agree! It would be a pity to lose an editor who has been valued but to have an fixed opinion and unwilling to change isn't good for the Wiki(p|m)edia project. Bidgee (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

'Scuse me here but....you want me to change my opinion in order to contribute to the encyclopedia that anybody can edit?!!!!! Words fail me.....and that must be a first! Sarah777 (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No, we want you to learn to keep your opinions to yourself. This is not the same thing at all and I'm finding it tragic that you can't see that. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 22:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

'Fraid that ain't what it says on the tin Redvers. "have an fixed opinion and unwilling to change isn't good for the Wiki(p|m)edia project". "Change" is a different concept to "keeping to oneself". Do I have to explain everything? Sarah777 (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I've just read User:Sarah777/The Real Plague. In fact, I did more than that. I pasted it into Word and did a search/replace, replacing terms like "British imperialist" with "Irish republican" and, y'know - yep, pot, kettle... I've seen everything descibed there in "The Symptoms" section being used by that particular cabal here... But I digress. Real reason for posting is to ask is there any conclusion to this? Alison has withdrawn her mentorship offer. Blocks here are meant to be preventative, not punitive, and Sarah isn't engaging in anything disruptive at the moment. What say we draw a line under it and move on? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

How clever Bastun; you've recreated the original! Well done. Super. Sarah777 (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the essay in userspace; I've seen a lot worse. I would dearly love to see evidence of Sarah having learned from this episode, given the amount of time that others have put into it. It may be that she has; perhaps only time will tell. We can all make mistakes, but the test is whether one repeats the misbehavior or not. --John (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to raise mysterious expectations here John; what I've learned is not to delete an AfD tag or you get nominated for a Community Ban for a completely different and imaginary offence!! I certainly won't be deleting any more AfD tags; the Community can sleep sound in their beds in that certain knowledge. And I've learned a lot more that would only get me attacked if I were to tell you here. I don't beleive, for example, that one should change ones NPOV principles to suit those who don't really grasp the concept of NPOV. And of course I learned some other stuff that I hope to put to good use in trying to rid Wiki of this POV problem about which we are all concerned. Sarah777 (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Disruptive Editor

--Msmariah1 (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC) I am new to Wikipedia and as of yesterday, I have only posted here once before. I recently attempted to post some information on the Sally Hemings page. I have a history degree and I have studied this subject extensively. However, as soon as I would post it, it would disappear. As I am new, I did not realize that a disruptive editor (Ward3001) was deleting my posts as soon as I posted it. Not knowing this, I continued to repost thinking it was my computer. I also didn’t realize that there was a message center. Once I happened upon the message center I saw a barrage of messages from Ward3001 accusing me of edit warring, which until recently I did not know the meaning of.

Ward3001’s first contact accused me of copyright violation, which was unfounded. Quotations are not copyright violations as long as one indicates who the quote is from. Again, I did not know how to respond to him. I attempted to click on his page and send an email but he does not receive email.

• Comment: Administrator Will Beback first reverted the copyvio here and cautioned Msmariah1 here. Ward3001 (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Once I figured out the use of “history” I went back to my original post and made a reference to what I believed were his motives were for disruptive editing. Then on top of copyright violations, he sent me additional messages and he added “POV pushing, edit warring, and personal attacks,” much of which is news to me.

• Comment: Personal attack in edit summary here. Ward3001 (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted quotations from reputable sources founded in the historic and scientific community. What kind of encyclopedia is this if you can’t list quotes? In fact, I have seen quotes listed on Wikipedia many times.

Also, it appears that another editor, Ave Caesar, felt the need to get involved. Ave Caesar warned Ward3001 not to violate WP:3RR. I don’t even know what this means. But if another editor has to get involved to tell WARD3001 not to violate the editing rules, then that does not speak well for Ward3001 as an editor. Thanks.--Msmariah1 (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Msmariah, please note that I gave you a more formal warning for 3RR. I warned both sides in this situation. WP:3RR means that you are allowed only to make 3 revisions, in whole or in part, to any one article during a 24hour period. Ward's edits did not necessarily violate 3RR, in my mind, however since he was reverting what seemed to be copyright violations. My warning/note on 3RR to Ward was more informal for that reason. --Ave Caesar (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well that's not what you seemed to indicate when you and he corresponded on your talk page. --Msmariah1 (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msmariah1 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, you might try engaging in discussion on the article's talk page. Go back to the Sally Hemming article and click the discussion tab to the right of the article tag and place your comments about the article at the bottom of that page. Discussing edits on an article's talk page is much better than edit warring.--Ave Caesar (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not edit-warring. I didn't even know what that word meant until today. I'm reporting a disruptive editor, which I'm entitled to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.237.25 (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Just for information purposes for whatever administrators might read any of this, currently there is a checkuser request to verify if banned user User:Tweety21 might be editing as Msmariah1. Ward3001 (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Confirmed sock of Tweety21. Ward3001 (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This is my first and only wiki account. Now this really is harassment. Stop stalking me. Go ahead and check; I have no idea who this tweety person is.--Msmariah1 (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ward3001 you are an absolute lunatic! Now that's a personal attack that you can claim. I AM NOT tweety-whoever. I have a dynamic ip address. My IP address changes randomly every day or so. I have no idea who this tweety person is or whoever else you're accusing me of. I feel sorry for the next person who just happens to have that ip address you blocked! I have no idea who you people are trying to link me to.

If you want to ban me then fine but don’t lump me in with someone I have no clue about! I am reporting this to the FCC and the Attorney General's Office!

Good riddance fascist! ~msmariah1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.236.83 (talk) 07:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the above should remove any further doubts. She did this before, too :/ - Alison ^❤ 07:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So I'm going to get reported to the FCC and the Attorney General? Oh noez! (lolcat, someone?) Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of Rollback by user:Gulmammad

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

Gulmammad keeps using rollback to revert content and not vandalism. Furthermore, he is using it on Armenia Azerbaijan article for which there have been 2 arbcom decisions where users must discuss there reverts in talk. He neither discusses things in talk or provides any edit summaries as rollback doesn't do this. See subsections below.

Rollback abuse

01:50, 20 May 2008
11:12, 20 May 2008
18:18, 21 May 2008
19:56, 23 May 2008
18:21, 24 May 2008

Evidence that I tried to discuss Gulmammad's use of rollback with him

User_talk:Gulmammad#Use_of_Rollback

After you left a message in my talk page I didn't use the rollback. --Gulmammad (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Relevant Arbcom decisions

WP:ARBAA, WP:ARBAA2

I am not being involved in any of these (even I haven't heard of it!), so please don't try to push me into any of these. I am an editor whose aim is to improve wikipedia by making contributions in any area. You can check it by investigating my edits here. --Gulmammad (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Other reverts contrary to WP:ARBAA2

18:18, 24 May 2008

Please revoke user:Gulmammad access to rollback and please place him under supervision as per WP:ARBAA2. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a content dispute to me, whether an IP made the edit or not. I have temporarily removed his rollback rights with no prejudiced for them to be given back. Tiptoety ^talk 21:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Good call Tip Toe. _{1 != 2} 21:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I also recommend he be placed under supervised editing and revert limitations for the manner in which he performs his reverts. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I consider this to be planned personal attack to me. --Gulmammad (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Gulmammad

To revert the last vandalism, 18:21, 24 May 2008, I used undo. Please be accurate Pocopocopocopoco!

Here are explanations for my actions those I've done using the rollback tool:

1. 01:50, 20 May 2008: Andranikpasha, who is already in supervised editing and revert limitations, removed well sourced information from the article.
2. 11:12, 20 May 2008: An IP address 212.73.95.1 repeated the action!
3. 18:18, 21 May 2008: An IP address 91.103.28.248 repeated almost the same action!
4. 19:56, 23 May 2008: An IP address 83.217.229.146 repeated again the same action!
5. 18:21, 24 May 2008: Pocopocopocopoco removed from Azerbaijan related article template {{azerbaijan-stub}} giving an edit summery "may be controversial to have a flag with a crescent on an article about christian monastery" which I didn't use the rollback but undo.--Gulmammad (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but those edits the IP's were making do not appear to be vandalism but instead good faith additions and as such you should not use rollback to revert those changes, but instead something that allows you to use a edit summary. Tiptoety ^talk 22:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC

As it is written in the instructions on how to identify vandalisms, the edits were done by unknown users, IP's (with having already warnings in their talk pages for vandalizing and making unconstructive edits), which often appear to be unconstructive or vandalism. That is why I didn't have to deal with their edits as often editors do in similar situations. I already stated in my talk page that I had placed back most of edits those have been made by 91.103.28.248 after I got message by Pocopocopocopoco. That was the only fair use of the rollback tool which I did after dealing with many unknown IP's with many kinds of warnings in their talk pages.--Gulmammad (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Gulmammad called my good faith removal of the azerbaijan stub vandalism yet I provided what I believe is very good justification for it's removal in the edit summary. He used undo and provided no justfication for the revert. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

To date no consensus has been established regarding using rollback for more than vandalism edits. Take that for what you will. -- Ned Scott 03:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to place Gulmammad on supervised editing, nor do I see any relevant link to any of the arbcom cases you (Pocopocopocopoco) have listed above. Tiptoety ^talk 05:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I see, there's a bunch of IP addresses reverting the articles in support of User:Andranikpasha, who is placed on revert parole by the administrators in accordance with the arbcom ruling. This is not a first incident of this kind, previously there was another bunch of anonymous IPs doing the same: [25] I think it is time to semiprotect the articles in question, then the use of rollback will not be an issue. Whoever stands behind the anon IPs would have to use his registered account if it's done. Grandmaster (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And also, removal of {{azerbaijan-stub}} template from an Azerbaijan related article by Pocopocopocopoco [26] is highly questionable and disruptive and deserves attention of admins. Grandmaster (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I gave a rationale as to why a flag with a crescent and star might not be appropriate for an article on a christian church/monastery, especially an Armenian one. It has also be discussed in talk here. Furthermore, you have no evidence that those IPs have anything to do with user:Andranikpasha. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Tiptoety, according to the arbcom cases WP:ARBAA2 and WP:ARBAA, any editor which edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan in an aggressive manner can be put on revert parole and supervised editing. user:Gulmammad's edit qualify as such because he would make repeated reverts without leaving an edit summary and he would edit war with those IP addresses. Note that other editors have received blocks for even less on Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles. For example if you scroll down this subsection, it says that user:Meowy was "blocked for 24 hours for failing to discuss a (in itself, questionable) reversion". user:Gulmammad on the other hand has made 6-7 questionable reversions and has abused the rollback tool in the process. At the very least he should be put on supervised editing and revert parole. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Meowy was on parole and limited to 1 rv per week, as he has quite a history of POV editing, Gulmammad is not. Your reasons for removing a stub template are no good, and you should stop doing that. And the IPs should stop edit warring, if they are not related to any registered users, they need to register an account and stop hopping from one IP to another to revert the articles to the version preferred by Andranikpasha. Grandmaster (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That is why I suggested supervised editing instead of a block. Also, I don't need your approval or permission to make edits. The edit I made was discussed in talk previously and I provided a good rationale in the edit summary so it was a perfectly reasonable edit. Also, if you have a problem with IPs making edits to wikipedia, you should take it up at WP:PUMP. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Block Review

Special:Contributions/89.132.108.224 - admins will also be able to see two deleted contributions. This IP's first edit was to insert something like "The day after tomorrow I will make all Jews dead", and it didn't get any better. I initially blocked for 55 hours because quite frankly, I think warnings are unecessary for edits of that gravity. On checking the IP, it is a Hungarian ASSIGNED PA, which I understand to mean at least for the time being a personal broadband addess, and reblocked it for a year. Just looking for a second pair of eyes. --Rodhullandemu 01:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that warnings are unnecessary and if it were a known static IP, that block length would be appropriate. [27] says "CATV dynamic IP pool" so to me that means it might change, but really, I have no idea how static they are. They might get reassigned every time the cable modem is reset or they might get reassigned every other year. --B (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Its often rather hard to tell with non-US ISPs and cable systems, since all too often they don't really separate the dynamic from the static address ranges. However, if it says "dynamic IP pool" I would be inclined to believe it until categorized otherwise, and reduce the block to a month or so. It can always be lengthened later if needed. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it from RIPE's website, "This address space has been assigned to an End User for use with services provided by the issuing LIR. It cannot be kept when terminating services provided by the LIR." AFAIK, RIPE covers Hungary. If it's a single user, it will only be reallocated when that user leaves the ISP, when it will be used by some other person. If it's assigned to an institution, we might expect to see similar edits from a block assigned to them. I will reduce to a month and see what happens. --Rodhullandemu 07:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, it's two users, living in the same house, fully named with addresses and emails to boot!

F.U.R hurts Wikipedia 18:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• FYI this IP has been back spouting the same nonsense on the talk page, which I have now protected for the length of the block. --Rodhullandemu 00:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving the block at a month, then see if it starts up again. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block - looks reasonable to me. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Good block. Good protection. I agree that a month should be sufficient, with longer blocks as warranted on return. Warnings are a courtesy and certainly not required with such blatant ill will. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Telefonicas nationalist vandal

There is somebody that for a very long time has been making repeated edits, despite being warned, to pages about Spanish regions. The edits are usually of a type that removes the reference to the region, and just replace them with "Spain", instead, so it's somebody with some sort of nationalist agenda vandalising pages. They usually get reverted, but his technique is to to loads of minor edits, and repeat them over and over and over, and sometimes they get through. Here is an (incomplete) list of some of the IP-addresses he has used, all from Telefonica.

Special:Contributions/88.8.104.231, Special:Contributions/83.33.114.150, Special:Contributions/88.3.17.174, Special:Contributions/88.8.106.89, Special:Contributions/88.3.26.16, Special:Contributions/88.3.17.174, Special:Contributions/88.6.222.3, Special:Contributions/88.8.111.222, Special:Contributions/88.6.209.240

As you can see this has been going on for a long time. He has been warned many times, and must be aware of the warnings as he has made edits with the same IP-addresses even after receiving final warnings, but has so far avoided blocking by switching IP-addresses. --Regebro (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The two 88.6.*.* IP's are shown as being static, and so probably aren't a part of this. 83.33.114.150 can't be included in a range block, if one is placed, because it's too far away (numerically) from the other IPs. Even taking those out, you'd need to separate rangeblocks to take care of all of the 88.3.*.* and 88.8.*.* IPs - 88.8.104.0/21 (affects 2048 IPs) and 88.3.16.0/20 (affects twice as many, 4096 IPs). With as small a scale as we seem to be dealing with, I don't think it's worth it. Each of the IPs can be individually blocked if need be. However, looking at the contributions, some of those listed haven't edited in a long time. Only a couple have edited within the past week. I don't think this requires any action at present. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Calculator for anyone who wants to double-check my numbers. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocking individual addresses are likely to be ineffective anyway, as it's unusual that he uses the ssame adres for any length of time. I'm also guessing reporting the user to Telefonica is pointless? Anybody have any experience with them? --Regebro (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to request an abuse report if you like, however I'd point out again this doesn't show very severe vandalism. Several of these IP addresses haven't been heard from in weeks, months, or years. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that is relevant, as it's evidently the same person. --Regebro (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I just hope that, next time this guy appears, we can just get him instantly blocked for repeated vandalism instead of having to issue increased level warnings for someone who is obviously the same guy. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll keep my eyes open, but if it has to be within couple of hours, as it seems to be from information I had before, then it's going to be tough. --Regebro (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This user has now created an account, User:Granadin, and started doing edits that are not obvious intentional POV vandalism. I'm taking this as an indication of good intent, and following the case and are attempting to communicate. --Regebro (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User:PrinceGloria

User:PrinceGloria has continued to place non-consensus information in Isis Gee even though a dispute resolution in in place. This is clearly infringing after the user was asked to stand down [28].

He been taking part in an edit war in isis gee. This entry is in dispute and a consensus version was agreed. User:PrinceGloria has in part inflamed this edit war by reverting contemt that is in dispute and labeling other users as sockpuppets which has been proven to be false. For example, Isis Gee came last in the competition but User:PrinceGloria has misinterpeted this to read as if she didn't. Please block for a short time for exacerbating the edit war. If one looks at the edit history of this user it is clear that he is simply removing negative content.

Polishchick99 (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please check the users who voiced their "concerns" @ Talk:Isis Gee & Talk:For Life (Isis Gee song), check their edit histories, compare comments to those written by User:Eurovisionman and the anonymous IP he has been found to probably use to circumvent his ban and finally the misspelling of Isis Gee as isis gee. God, I feel like Hercules Poirot and Miss Marple in one! PrinceGloria (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this case but can spot an obvious sock when I see one and Polishchick99 clearly is a sockpuppet account, of who I don't know and don't much care. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

When your first edit is "Why have I been bloked??" (sic), it's a little suspicious. When your 2nd edit is "I heard some stuff on the radio and can Eurovisionman please put it in", it's getting pretty obvious. When your fourth edit is "non-POV" but focusing on a song being in last place (over who wrote it), you are getting ignored here and blocked if you continue this blatant silliness. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is getting outright hillarious - I have a filthy mind, but it just cracks me up when a self-professed "chick" declares she was "bloked". PrinceGloria (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This is actually important The user who reported myself here is now actually abusing the articles in question, possibly acting as one of multiple rather crude sockpuppets for a user who has been originally banned, and now has uploaded unfree media claiming them to be his/her own work. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ohh grow up, I didn't know why I couldn't edit the entry - the page is blocked to newbies. I heard about this on the radio and saw how the entry is full of PR and contributed. It seems that the whole world is a sockpuppet for this user!! Contribute to the discussion. Can someone please take a good look at the edits by the user in question - all reverting material. PrinceGloria is inflaming an edit war.

Can you contribute to my points in the discussion?????!??!??!

Polishchick99 (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, okay...Just stop, please. This is like watching the mentally ill fight. HalfShadow 21:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, can someone do a checkuser immediately and put a stop to this? Now we have new images coming in (Image:My picture of ISIS GEE.jpg) along with the constantly changing users? Semi-protection isn't working as that stupid "fake tan cyborg" crap keeps getting reinserted at For Life (Isis Gee song). Recommend immediate blocking (I'm sort of involved so I'd rather not) to put a stop to this. There is some serious BLP concerns around here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If there's any more, add it to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eurovisionman. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the image and blocked Isgreatestman and Polishchick99 as obvious sockpuppets. The others I'm not sure about so I'll wait for the checkuser to be done. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Eurovisionman was blocked for 55 hours, which has now expired. Do we wait on the CU, or do we sanction for abusing alternate accounts as identified above? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's now free and commenting at the checkuser page. More of the same soon enough I expect. If someone else wants to, could they please reformat the checkuser request. The last thing I would want is the clerk to have to deal with that disorganization. Why is it so hard to get checkusers taken care of? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ricky, you are biased in this matter. I ask a non-biased admin to look at my edits.

From what I can see my edits are sourced and valid. I simply added that there is some controversy in the Polish media related to Isis. This was sourced from a major Polish magazine. I also posted comments from the BBC host who is now in the press calling for a change to the Eurovision rules. The host's comments are all over the media - one would think that this is possible relevant and not vandalism as you have said.

A dispute resolution was initiated by another admin. Unfortunatly you and Prince Gloria have not taken part??

Calling for a non-biased admin to investigate.

Eurovisionman (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Like everyone has told you before, verifiability is more important than "truth." Things like a random DJ says that a living person is a man (based on a random Polish blog that doesn't pass as a reliable source) is inappropriate. Unsourced rumors about a hidden PR campaign on YouTube and on Wikipedia is just wrong to add. The fact that a BBC host supposedly called her a "fake tan cyborg" (based solely on a video that only people in the UK can see and no one else has been able to confirm) is also not helpful and probably gives undue weight to criticism (and really doesn't belong at the article on the song where it is now). For all of these things, you would think that it would be possible for someone else to repeat the story. I only got involved when PrinceGloria remarked on your first WP:BLP violations. Would some other admin like to get involved and settle this again? The article already went through WP:3O and User:Kevin Murray supported removal unless sourced. Also, comments about Eurovision as a whole aren't appropriate for the article on her. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Tamr007 copying user page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Move discussion to the MfD. Tiptoety ^talk 19:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

---

A new editor, Tamr007, created a complete copy of my user page on his user page[29]. I removed it, asking him to not just copy and paste someone else's user page to his user page. I removed it again with the edit summary of "please be a little more mindful; its fine if you use the code to make your own, but just copy and pasting outright is rather rude, as is accusing someone." He again put it back, this time trying to hide it with comments.[30]. I went in and removed all the "borrowed" content[31], but he put back again[32] and again[33]. With 3RR all out the window, and frustrated that Tamr007 seems to just be putting it there to be annoying as he blanks all talk page messages I've left with stuff like "cool", I nominated the page for MfD [34], noting that I felt it was an "inappropriate copying of an entire user page." He responded by quoting "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." [35], blanking his talk page again (which I accidentally reverted thinking he'd removed the MfD from the user page itself)[36][37], partially restoring the copied page back to his user page[38] and again blanking his talk page and replacing it with "Cool." He followed up by also quoting "Wikipedia:Ownership of articles".[39]

This editor has done view other edits, which consisted of creating an inappropriate Television task force that I userified and explained how to properly start one, which seems to have been what started this whole silliness. He initially seemed to start as a misguided, but well intentioned editor, but seems to have decided to just go nutty because his task force was rejected. I feel his copying of my userpage, including some semi-personal details and gives the impression he/she is claiming credit for articles I've created or worked on, is inappropriate and would like it removed and his behavior stopped. Is this copying a violation of WP:USER or something else? Can the page be completely deleted to remove the copied stuff from history? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: I left the AN/I notice as required, but he also blanked it[40] -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

He is allowed to blank messages. Also per rules. He is allowed to copy our userpage as long as he does not claim to be you. He is in the right as I do not see him claiming to be you. Rgoodermote  03:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

His original copy does[41] and its word for word copying of everything written on my pages except he reversed the HE/SHE at the top. As the original includes lists of articles I've created or taken to featured status, that is a defacto claim of being me, I would think. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had people copy my user page and have edited it somewhat but I don't have an issue as long its not a page trying to make it look as if it's my account. It maybe wrong for them to copy your user page but I don't think there is a policy on Wikipedia which states you can't copy other editors pages (I could be wrong and happy to be wrong). Bidgee (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

All pages are licensed under the GDFL, so anyone can copy/modify them to any end. If you feel a page misrepresents the contributor's edits, it should go to WP:MFD, as there is no rule against copying other people's pages. MBisanz ^talk 03:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

True, but GDFL requires attribution, by my understanding, which is why we don't delete merged pages and why, when merging, we're supposed to note where the content was merged from. We have to keep the history to ensure proper attribution. His straight forward copy and pasting does not meet that requirement, by my understanding? It is also at MfD, but his responses (and lack there of) seem to indicate that he is doing it just to be disruptive. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well he would need to attribute it, a line like "I copied my userpage from Collectonian's" would suffice for GFDL purposes. But unless they refuse to attribute or recreate after an MFD, I'm not seeing the pissue. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to sound rude, but who cares? I mean it is just a userpage. We are ultimately here to create a encyclopedia (I am starting to sound like a broken record) not another myspace, if he wants to use your userpage, no big deal, granted that he replaces your username with his. I say move on. Also, may I note WP:OWN. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Would your response be the same if it were your user page he were copying, including all parts referring to being an admin? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would be, and I have actually have had my userpage copied a few times before. In regards to the admin part, that is completely different, there are policies that restrict users from impersonating site administrators and as such I would remove that content from the userpage. Tiptoety ^talk 04:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to assume we need to resolve the problem (noted per Tiptoey above), my take is:

• The relevant section of the license is #4, "MODIFICATIONS", seen at Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License.
• A) is met by being a different userpage, B) is met by listing "From [[User:X]]" (assuming there is no other authors of the page, vandals dont count by virtue of being reverted), C) is met by linking to [[User:X]], which implicitly notes the original publisher is Wikipedia, D) is fine per the GFDL thing at the bottom, E) per D, F) per D, G), per D, H) per D, I) arguably requires you to link to the history of [[User:X]], J) per C, K) per B, L) per D, M) is not applicable, N) per M, O( per D.
• From that, it seems that all is required is a link saying "Copied from [[User:X]]", and if X wants to get really pedantic, a link to the history of [[User:X]] as well.

Thoughts? Daniel (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead an placed a notice on the user in question userpage. Tiptoety ^talk 04:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Blah, that looks like an eye-chart Daniel, but accurate in its GFDL wording. MBisanz ^talk 04:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand (after reading that over and over) is that all that is required is that the copied userpage clearly states where it was copied from, and now that it does I do not see any violation. Looks resolved to me. Tiptoety ^talk 04:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on, copying somebody else's User page is harrassment. Corvus cornix_talk 04:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the problem here is not in GFDL compliance. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 04:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It was one element of the problem. The other is, obviously, whether this was a disruptive bad faith copying, and whether misrepresentations have been deliberately made. Daniel (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Harassment? This does not appear to be anything but a new user who wants a userpage and saw one he likes from someone whom he likes (per his userpage). I mean has WP:BITE gone though anyones mind here, I mean it appears to be a good faith account. Tiptoety ^talk 04:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

May want to read through the edit history...that's him being sarcastic after first saying I was a stalker. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any indications of a newbie trying to edit under good faith. Corvus cornix_talk 05:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Full protection on Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've fully protected this article against editing due to the resurgence of an edit war after the lifting of the previous protection. As I know there is an ongoing arbitration case dealing with this article that I don't particularly wish to add myself to, I thought it best to note the protection here. There is also some fairly strong evidence of socking in the article history that I plan on checking out over the next day or so, and any comments on how to deal with that would be welcome. --jonny-mt 04:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As an involved editor, my suggestion is for an editing restriction on the disruptive SPAs in question until the ArbCom case finishes. We shouldn't get into the question here of whose socks they are, and meat vs. sock, for that is what the case is exploring. However, we should do something to protect the article while the case is running, otherwise, it will be full-protted for a month or more. So I suggest that the accounts listed here (except for Giovanni33) be restricted to editing only the pages of the ArbCom case for the duration of said case. With the understanding that should additional SPAs show up in the meantime, they will be accorded the same treatment. - Merzbow (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be necessary as the article has been fully protected (as jonny noted above). I request that it should not be unprotected until all sides pledge to resolve their differences through discussion and not edit warring.

Bless sins (talk) 05:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Such a pledge is certainly not going to be forthcoming from me. The side of the dispute I am on has not used any socks. Jtrainor (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a nice idea, but the whole reason sockpuppets are allegedly being used is to disrupt the page and POV push. Until they are restricted it will not be possible to reach consensus on the page - that much is clear from their attitudes and editing behaviour. Remove them from the equation and then a solution may appear.

I should note for the record that Supergreenred was unblocked on the strict directions he not tag-team edit war. Clearly his return to the page is a sign of his true nature. John Smith's (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Though it's easy to get confused, Supergreenred was actually unblocked on the condition that he not edit war/tag team revert.[42] It was User:Rafaelsfingers who was supposed to stay away from the article. Anyway SGR did start edit warring which is precisely not what they were supposed to do.

The sockpuppet issues are at ArbCom right now, it would be wrong to take any action with respect to that since the Arbs can handle it. Personally I think the article should just stay protected until the G33 ArbCom case is over. Topic bans for some of those accounts would be fine with me, but it's probably easier to just leave it protected (the main work over there needs to happen on the talk page anyway) and let the Arbs have their say about those accounts.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the socking issue, the wholesale deletion of sourced material from the article, without even pretending to challenge the sources on the talk page, needs to stop. I'm going to start handing out vandalism warnings if this behavior keeps up. -- Kendrick7^talk 10:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You would probably be wasting your time - it's a content dispute. And sources have been regularly challenged on the talk page. John Smith's (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me also if the article just stays locked. Regardless of what happens with G33, I cannot imagine the Arbs won't be showing these SPAs the door (with pro-active remedies against new ones if peace is ever to be had). In the meantime we'll create a sandbox for "Allegations..." and work there. - Merzbow (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That's disappointing. There is an ongoing central discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Terrorism. Maybe leaving this article protected pending a consensus there would be reasonable? --John (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea, John. You've only got a few editors taking part in that discussion when there are many, many more editors in dispute on the article in question. You can't obtain consensus by consulting only a few parties. John Smith's (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually like to ask that you not create a sandbox for this article--while it's a simple matter to merge the histories to preserve the GDFL, a sandbox version worked on by multiple editors would have to be reviewed for inclusion before any merging could take place. I have a good bit of material to review before I start making any proposals, but I plan on getting to that point sooner (i.e. in the next day or so) rather than later. --jonny-mt 07:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

For reference, there is a previous puppet report on some of the accounts at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rafaelsfingers. John Smith's (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Supergreenred has now been re-banned - though the matter of the other accounts has not been addressed. John Smith's (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Only a thought here and I know, another AfD would be very unlikely close in a delete, but does anyone else think this article title (Allegations of state terrorism by the United States) will always draw edit wars, PoV drama and episodes of full protection? Gwen Gale (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, yes. But in part because of the abuse of puppet accounts - if that stopped things would get easier. John Smith's (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Mark Hanau

The creator of this article (who is apparently its subject) blanked the page and tagged it G7 CSD. I, on my first day as a wide eyed admin ploughing through a CSD backlog, checked the first edit, saw it had been made by the tagger and hence deleted the article. I was later told the article had a history of contributions by other editors. So I restored the article because it's not a speedy and my deletion, going by the tag and first/last edits, was a mistake. This article has almost everything, COI, BLP, OWN, suspected socks, sourcing disagreements and a very upset editor/subject who today, wanted the article gone. I'm watching it but I think it's going to need all the eyes it can get for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold here and deleted. I think all in all that is the best option, with the huge COI here. Let's allow this article to die. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a great use of WP:IAR to me. Tiptoety ^talk 06:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. A dispute of this sort belongs in AfD. not AN/I. DGG (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, there was an AfD, but it didn't seem to help. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gathered that the thinking on this is, it's a big nest of worries for such a marginally notable topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if someone disagrees there is always WP:DRV. Tiptoety ^talk 19:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin

The Prem Rawat area really needs an uninvolved administrator to step in. See here and here. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of those threads looked archived to me. Tiptoety ^talk 19:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he means the actual area needs someone new to step in. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero is correct. I apologize for not being more clear. The area of dispute is fairly narrow, so it would not be particularly difficult to monitor. These are long-term ongoing issues that show no sign of abatement, even after the completion of an ArbCom case and despite an ongoing mediation effort. I agree with Rlevse's closing, but some firm and consistent enforcement is really needed to bring that area under control. Vassyana (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

User:William Ortiz - disruptive editing, accusations, and now possible sockpuppetry

User:William Ortiz has been repeatedly adding unencyclopaedic material to Nigeria. After I reverted this edit by User:William Ortiz, the user undid my edit with the edit summary "(Undid revision 215063894 by Mr. Carbunkle (talk) per WP:SOURCE)" and left a message on my talk page that similarly accuses me of being indef blocked User:Mr. Carbunkle. I am not. A brand new user, Pretmaybe (talk · contribs) has now started making the same change to Nigeria that started this whole episode. Can someone take a look? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Pretmaybe's revert may very well have been due to an edit conflict. William Ortiz' editing however is strange indeed. --Ankimai (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Pretmaybe as an obvious sock of William Ortiz. The fact that this account was created in 2007 but only started editing two minutes after one of the edits in question shows that not only are the two linked, but that User:Pretmaybe appears to be a sleeper account. And as we all know, where there's one sleeper account, there's more--I'm going to file a request at WP:RFCU. --jonny-mt 16:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonny! I note that Pretmaybe (talk · contribs) was welcomed shortly after creation by AR Argon (talk · contribs), who seemed to be very welcoming that day (check contribs for 27 August 2007). AR Argon was recently blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user User:Connell66. Just sayin'... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I was adding relevant sourced material to Nigeria that I spent hours researching the sources of. Animai decided they like to destroy my hard work. Later I accidentally made a mistake when I thougt I was fixing a spelling error and it prompted Delicious carbuncle to wikistalk me ever since. Delicious carbuncle has never been before to Nigeria and then just suddenly he went around there following me and editing warring. Then he mysteriously comes here and files a big report. Wikistalking! This part never addressed that these were good edits I did. I'd also like to see the results of that checkuser as I very much down that Petmaybe even lives near me and even if they do then you likely just got lucky. That user also didn't go and do any adding things in and it looked like they got caught in an edit conflict doing multiple edits. I have tried talking to Akimai that user doesn't like to respond and I'll just wait and wait, but they are very fast to revert. Carbunkle also mysteriously put up some stuff I made for deletion. Stalk stalk stalk! Plus he is complaining about me asking if he was Mr Carbunkle but he created the name see logs [43]? He did make that user! William Ortiz (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Other than fixing that "spelling error" where you changed Chanel No 5 to Channel No 5, I don't think I've worked on any of the same articles as you, with the exception of Nigeria. If I see something like that I usually take a look at the editor's contributions. I would have reverted some of your other changes, but other editors got there first. Your diff shows that I registered User:Mr Carbuncle as a doppelganger account after you asked me about it, not User:Mr. Carbunkle, but I suspect you know that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/William Ortiz --William Ortiz (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to confess that I'm surprised. The repetition of edits, the timing, the sudden burst of activity, everything pointed to User:Pretmaybe being your sock. But you can't argue with technical data, and so I offer my sincere apologies. That being said, there are still other issues to deal with above, and I still believe there's something strange about Pretmaybe's edits, so I'd like a little more time to review before I unblock. If any other admin decides to unblock in the meantime, though, I'll trust their judgment and won't consider it wheel-warring. --jonny-mt 02:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In the article Nigeria it is unfair that a single person who wants to use an article purely as a promotional piece to make a subject look good and only that are given priority over Wikipedia's policies like WP:RS. And the other one, Delicious carbuncle his edits are purely reverting and I see no content adding, and I also see a lot of following people around. Content adding takes time and work. William Ortiz (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Request immediate block of 82.77.123.143 until edit to Antalya can be investigated

I was "validating" a new addition to Antalya external reference, a presumable .com site, most likely spam, but no big deal. May have been a "mere" coincidence but my computer crashed. It has firewall, etc. the whole nine yards. Reported it to Microsoft of course.

This user who is probably an ordinary spammer (no big deal if that turns out to be true) - we will handle him per normal channels. BUT he needs to be kicked off until the question can be resolved. This will not impact him nor Wikipedia in any major way given his history of editing. BTW, because I crashed, I will not be doing the investigation! :) I hope some admin will. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: The link in question is the official travel guide of Antalya, and worked fine on my machine [Windows Vista/Firefox 2.0.0.14], probably just a coincidence. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:48, May 26, 2008 (UTC)

Works fine for me as well. Time for a Mac? Kevin (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Persistent mulitple IP vandal

This case has become too complicated for WP:AIV because the vandalism is occuring from different IPs, but all IPs are through Hughes Network Systems. The same erroneous information has been added to Christina Ricci multiple times over the past few weeks. No edit summary is ever given, and the vandal has been asked several times to explain. Some AIVs result in a block; others don't because it's the only vandalism from that IP on that day. Here are the diffs for the vandalism:

[44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52].

These are the IP addresses:

• 66.82.9.88 (talk · contribs)
• 66.82.9.109 (talk · contribs)
• 69.19.14.15 (talk · contribs)
• 69.19.14.18 (talk · contribs)
• 69.19.14.21 (talk · contribs)
• 69.19.14.36 (talk · contribs)

Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have sprotected the article for 2 days while a range block or other option is considered. I didn't see much ip activity other than the above range and a couple of independent vandals, but would be unwilling to protect it for longer without consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Do we get consensus the usual way: Discuss on Talk:Christina Ricci? Or should I go to WP:RPP? Ward3001 (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, you do it the way that you believe is most effective! I think opening a discussion at the article talkpage is fine, which may conclude that going and requesting protection at WP:RPP is best. I would also wait and see if some tech minded editor could comment here on whether a range block might be appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dtobias violating the no personal attacks policy

Resolved

 – Original comment refactored by author. No more heat needed here. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

During discussions at the C68-FM-SV arbcom case, Dtobias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided to lodge an unnecessary personal attack in my direction. I asked him to retract his comment, but he hasn't. Perhaps someone can explain to him why such commentary is unnecessary.--MONGO 17:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary commentary? *cough, shithole*, *cough, mental problems, cough*

Check yourself before you wreck yourself. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

My comment didn't name any active contributor.--MONGO 18:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides, MONGO deserves a hell of a lot of leeway when it comes to ED. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"Makes one wonder what mental problems one would have to have to be involved in such a place."

"Everyone who is involved in such a place has mental problems."

These are semantically the same. One is posed rhetorically, which does not remove it from be a statement. Your statement that those involved "would have to have" mental problems is a set of all involved, with a non-insignificant subset being active Wikipedians. You've made a personal attack on many, not "any". This would have been no big deal for the talk page where you left it, but since you simultaneously came here to complain about being insulted while you were making insults - you need to be called on the hypocrisy. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Sematically? No, not true...no one was named...the website is a shithole, so not sure how that would insult YOU. It is a comment about a website and it's denizens...a fair representation of the facts I believe if one were to spend a few minutes examining the content there.--MONGO 18:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Subject of "shithole" statement = the ED website. No need for the statement, but whatever.

Subject of "mental problems" statement = insulting attack on the editors of the website, which includes many Wikipedians.

Making it a group attack doesn't absolve you from making the attack against an individual SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Drats...I forgot, you're an ED admin...so in that case, please accept my deepest apologies...sincerely and with the utmost respect and wikilove.--MONGO 19:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dan is a gadfly who frequently shines light into areas of Wikipedia some people would prefer remain dark...that said, it looked like a hyperbolic example to me, no need to overreact. Kelly ^hi! 18:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he should retract it...it wasn't the least bit helpful.--MONGO 18:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've censored myself now... but your running to mommy AN/I about it says more about you than about me, I think. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So, while announcing that you've refactored your comment, you've decided to take another pot shot at MONGO. What good does that do? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

He takes another pot shot here as well as at the redaction he performed at the RFAr. It works this way...Dtobias can insult others and when they complain he calls them thin skinned, yet he never hesitates to point out other's NPA violations and expects some outcome. The hypocrisy is amazing. My suggestion is that he confines his attacks to the usual offsite venues where I don't participate. There, he and like minded folks can say whatever they want without penalty.--MONGO 18:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

stfu, Dan, you don't need to take parting shots as you leave either. Your comment about who is a jerk could have been made impersonal and still gotten the point across. Simply stating you'd refactored your comment would have sufficed to defuse the situation instead of inflaming it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Hereward77 and NPA

I suggest that this edit to Alex Jones (radio) be deleted, per NPA and Hereward77 (talk · contribs) be further sanctioned. I can't do it mywelf, as the injured party of the personal attack, and previously having been involved in the edit war. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• That is not a personal attack, I am stating a fact here. Your friend Mr. Paul Erdos once said of Karl Marx: "I do believe he was a great philosopher." [53] --Hereward77 (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • One could agree that he's a great philosopher without agreeing he was ever correct. But it would still be a personal attack, even if it were accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Both editors are coming off a block for mutually 3RR-ing each other, so that should be taken into account. That said, regardless of the veracity of Hereward's edit summary (which is questionable in and of itself), in context it was clearly meant as an ad hominem attack. If Rubin has a problem with the edit summary, I think the admin tools should be used to strike that edit.

• • • It is a historical fact that Erdos was given privileges by the Hungarian communist tyranny. Arthur Rubin's article states that he was a associate of this man, and Mr. Rubin is smearing an ideological enemy of communism. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as further sanctions, the edit warring needs to stop, first and foremost. Might I suggest that both of you find some different articles to edit for a little while? --Jaysweet (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I added anti-globalism to the knownfor field. I hope this is a satisfactory compromise, as both appear in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the problem here? If there were a conspiracy theorists Hall of Fame, in Roswell NM, Alex Jones would be greeting visitors at the entrance. We don't need to skirt around the issue. Jones is a conspiracy theorist. All we have to do is examine his output. He is a role model for conspiracy theory. I think he's even put out a set of DVDs on how to be a conspiracy theorist. --Pete (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Alex Jones never mentions UFO's. Again you are smearing him with lazy innuendo. He is a political activist and an American patriot. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

SIGH --Pete (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And I notice you didn't challenge that DVD box set. --Pete (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Your silly remarks prove that you don't have an argument and that you have a political agenda against Mr. Jones. --Hereward77 (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 4) OK, I won't edit the article until a clear consensus is (re-)established. Perhaps an article RfC is in order, although I believe it had already been done. Still, all four of Hereward77's edits are NPA violations, and need to be removed. (And, although I appreciate Pete's support, the question of correctness of the article is not appropriate here, only on the article talk page and/or RfC.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that all the edits in the past few hours except Pete's be deleted, and both Hereward77 be put on an article ban for the next few days? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept an article ban for the duration of the block, although I may comment on the talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Is removing SSP notices from your own talk page allowed?

Resolved

I know that removing warnings and such from your talk page is allowed, but is removing SSP notices allowed? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. Month old. :P Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In any case, the answer is "yes". --Akhilleus (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone block Sarah777?

This relates to the thread above, but I wanted it it to be seen more quickly. After a long AFD discussion that established a clear consensus that 619 in Ireland and related articles should be merged into a century article, I have been implementing this merging. And Sarah, of course, is one step behind me, undoing everything I have done. (After leaving a note on the AFD page--since reverted--that the closer's judgment was incorrect.) I can't believe I will have to redo this all a third time (she's already reverted this once a couple days ago). Mangostar (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it's already been done. Mangostar (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked her indefinitely for disruption. If someone wants to set strict conditions for an unblock, I'm fine with it, but this disruption has to cease. See the discussion at the top for the reason why I did this. SirFozzie (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorsed. I've had no interaction with her that I can remember prior to the last few minutes, but these have been enough for me to believe that this is not an editor for whom productive collaboration is a priority.  Sandstein  23:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse, and agree with the bit about "conditions for an unblock". I think the question about whether Sarah has learned anything from this incident, posed above (don't remember by whom, too lazy to look), has been answered. - Revolving Bugbear 23:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. We waste far too much time on editors who are more trouble than they are worth. --Rodhullandemu 23:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And good riddens. seicer | talk | contribs 23:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh*. For someone who is clearly so bright, she can act damned stupid sometimes. This isn't looking particularly great for her right at the moment, but rather leave he blocked indefinitely, could we look at unblocking under the conditions described above. Perhaps the idea of strictly enforcing the civility/politics parole with increasing blocks for transgressions, while putting her on 1RR on Ireland related articles? Loathe as I am to get deeply involved in yet another Ireland related incident, I will volunteer (with a small v) to mentor her in adhering to it. Rockpocket 23:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Since she essentially rejected mentorship by saying she wouldn't take it seriously, it does not seem to be an option. Thus I can't think of any acceptable conditions that don't include a topic ban. Maybe there is another option, but I doubt it. - Revolving Bugbear 23:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, a 1RR would not prevent her from doing what she just did (which is a colossal waste of poor Mangostar's time), so it does not address the problem. - Revolving Bugbear 23:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

She already expressed opposition to any mentoring, claiming that it is the administrators and other editors who have errored. And seeing these mass reverts and a lack of understanding that the pages were being merged, per comments like this, this and [54], leads me to believe that there is no hope for reform. seicer | talk | contribs 23:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

For someone as un-receptive as she is, I think a indef block is the best way to go here. Tiptoety ^talk 23:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Having discussed the situation with Sarah off-wiki, I can't say I'm overly confident that she would be open to working under those conditions at this time. However, a block tends to focus the mind. I just don't want to close the door on Sarah, if there is way that we can keep her without compromising on disruption. Rockpocket 23:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Eventually, if she wants to return to wikipedia, she'll have to put a proper and civil unblock request in that will address the issues of her block. If she does anything less than this, then the block should stand. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 23:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Her reversion of the merge and monkeying around with the AFD after it closed only reinforce the perception that she is unable to work within acceptable community norms. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, but Sarah777 does not appear to accept that sometimes the community as a whole does not agree with her particular worldview, and that such disagreement does not stem from an anti-Irish bias. Horologium (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse indef block. I spent some time communicating with Sarah777 in March (multiple threads, starting around here[55]), and came away with a sense that she was someone who was an indef waiting to happen.[56] It seems that plenty of good faith attempts have been made to work with her, but at some point we just have to say "enough is enough", block, and move on. --Elonka 00:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not too encouraging. Sarah must have a serious comprehension issue, given that the purpose of the merge was discussed on several accounts prior to the block with her, and given her complete lack of understanding of the basic policies and guidelines on WP, as indicated in the whole ANI mess. seicer | talk | contribs 00:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What a damned shame. Sarah appears to be an otherwise productive editor who can’t see through the haze of her own POV. —Travis^talk 00:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

See RFCU for a pending case. seicer | talk | contribs 01:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And what purpose, exactly, is that supposed to serve other than alienate her further? Really, isn't a pound of flesh enough for you? Rockpocket 01:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be under the illusion that she can reform. Presonally, I'd rather not see this editor return, given all of the illustrious comments made, and the serious comprehension issues. Two administrators, besides myself, came to the conclusion that a RFCU would be best in this case. It doesn't harm to file one, and if it comes back with something more than what we already know, then that's great; if not, that's great as well. seicer | talk | contribs 01:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm under the illusion that when someone who is blocked edits from an IP, then signs their name, a CU is hardly needed to confirm it was them. Rockpocket 01:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with the TOR, and any other possible IP addresses. seicer | talk | contribs 01:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Then may I suggest use one of the many TOR tools available to put your mind at rest, and ask Sarah if she has used any other IP addresses to communicate in the last few hours. Both make more sense then RFCUing someone that have already identified themselves from an IP. Rockpocket 02:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Rockpocket. For her various and sundry other faults, Sarah does not sockpuppet via TOR, and the RFCU can be closed with a mininum of fuss. SirFozzie (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have checked the two IPs identified in the RFCU and neither come back as tor nodes. Now...back to the subject. First off, Sarah777 does have a point in that dozens of articles are being "merged" without any notice. However - and this is the big however - it appears that the information has indeed been transferred to the appropriate article. Unfortunately, the history has not been. Is there a way that it can be done? Secondly, are there any suggestions on how to work with Sarah777 to get her back on the road to good editing? Risker (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that there's any GFDL issue with a merge-and-delete. Some of the text I've seen before, because I wrote it, other parts are definitely the work of Timelinefrog (talk · contribs). Why attribute Sarah777 and not Timelinefrog? Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any merge-and-deletes have happened, actaully, only merges (see e.g. 618 in Ireland), so all history is preserved and there are no GFDL problems. Fram (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The block to put a stop to this was a good idea, however I think the indef block may be unnecessary in the long term. As Risker says, there was no afd notice on the pages in question[57], the AFD initiator did specifically frame the deletion discussion around the one article, and the admin AFD closure didnt state that all of these pages were to be part of the closure. It is easy to see how this misunderstanding occurred, but of course it was unfortunate that Sarah777 took it on herself to also muck around with the AFD.

She has said she has gone off to bed; lets wait for her unblock request before proceeding. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite means of undefined length, not infinite. Appeals are possible, if the user is sufficiently interested in editing, to want to do so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

user:Kopljanik

Can somebody do something about this nationalistic SPA account. Without reasons he is deleting great parts of articles ( first and second example) . Similar to that he is deleting statements confirmed by sources ( [58] , [59] , [60] , [61] ).

It is possible to see that I have not writen anything about his Greater Serbia nationalistic changes when he has changed language or nationality in articles from Croatian and Montenegrin to Serbian because this can be called editorial dispute, but blanking parts of articles and deleting statements confirmed by internet sources is clear vandalism .--Rjecina (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing the matter with the user? You know, sometimes if you attempt to start a conversation, a common ground can be reached. If you can show that you've tried to work things out and that hasn't worked, you are likely to get better response from admins than if ANI is your first attempt at resolving the problem... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Kikoscup

Resolved

 – blocked 24 hours

Very strange, idiosyncratic edits in a combination of Spanish and English. Insists on creating nanostubs in both languages as well as nonsense. Might not be a vandal per se, but he's really causing a cleanup problem. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I just reported him at AIV. Looks as if he's continuing past his final warning. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Case blocked him for 24 hours. Marking this one as resolved. Re-report to AIV if problems start again after block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User:24.15.173.213

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 hours. In the future, please take this to WP:AIV. seicer | talk | contribs 01:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Should be blocked immediately, severe personal attack and vandalism. See [62] and [63] and [64]. Kilmer-san (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We're sorry, Mario, but our Princess is in another castle. HalfShadow 01:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrator "sasquatch"

Resolved

 – —Travis^talk 03:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone plz. direct me to the administrator named "Sasquatch"? My buddy said i should look him up. thank you. JeanLatore (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sasquatch (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, Special:ListUsers —Travis^talk 03:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats after removal of fan website link

Resolved

 – Blocked, Tiptoety ^talk 04:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

See this edit for legal threats made by Wrcousert after a fan website link was removed from Disneyland Park (Anaheim). I removed the link a second time and see that Wrcousert immediately restored it. —Whoville (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:NLT. Nakon 03:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. Clear as glass personal legal threat. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 03:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse the block as well. Can't be any more simple than that. seicer | talk | contribs 04:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone ever sued wikipedia, successfully or not, for blocking them? Shouldn't they be told, "There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia"? (Assuming that's a true statement.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

user:Web0571

Seems both incapable of communicating in english and appears they may be using their page to spam something. As the name itself doesn't appear to be against any sort of rule, I felt it more correct to post here rather than at Usernames for administrator attention. HalfShadow 03:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, he is definitely spamming. [65] I'll try leaving him a message using the automatic translator. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not resolved. He re-spammed it[66]. Let's try a warning... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they've stopped by now. May have also used 58.213.209.36 (talk · contribs) at one point. Doubtful they'll come back, but you never know. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Excision before metastasis

BOLD and IAR inspired me to make this deletion; if anyone thinks this was wrong, feel free to undelete. -- Hoary (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather we didn't make a general practice of this sort of "history hiding" -- has some implications as far as accountability for actions and transparency of discussion and history -- but from time to time a small deviation from general practice may save a lot of drama. I'll assume that was the idea, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed. -- Hoary (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Monobook.js

Resolved

 – you've got mail

If possible would someone mind mailing me what was the contents of User:Rootology/monobook.js? Thanks! rootology (T) 07:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

IP asking to be blocked

Resolved

 – User blocked for 48 hours by User:PhilKnight. --jonny-mt 08:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please take care of 64.180.66.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? Has promised to post BLP violations until blocked. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Taking the liberty of copying to WP:AIV where it belongs. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see any such promise, but I did notice that the activity stopped after you placed a final warning. I'll delete the BLP violations from the talk page for the time being--if they show so much as a hint of engaging in the same behavior again, put a post on WP:AIV linking to this thread. --jonny-mt 07:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, check that. The protection log for the talk page shows that it is typically left semiprotected to prevent further WP:BLP violations--this only ended after it was upped to full protection for a day in March. Since this seems to have simply been an oversight, I've reinstated the semi-protection. --jonny-mt 07:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The promise to reinsert the offending material until banned was there; you must have overlooked it. The IP has not stopped; note the recent post on my talk page. Thanks for your help though. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oop, there's my problem--I was searching for "block" rather than "ban". Seems they've been blocked for 48 hours now. --jonny-mt 08:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I turned him in at WP:AIV, and the admin User:PhilKnight blocked him at 07:58. Posting these kinds of annoyances at AIV will typically get faster action than here, although in this case it was kind of a race to the finish line. The IP address then left this stupid rant [67] and got his talk page protected also. Of course, it expires in 48 hours. But once a vandal has an admin's eye, he's toast if he tries his disruption again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wallington, London

Resolved

 – Page semiprotected for a month, will protect indefinitely (Well, a "long unstated period" :P ) if vandalism continues when protection expires J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, some advice please. An anonymous IP has an ongoing campaign of vandalism to this (and only this) article. This is the latest example. Where identified, I have blocked the user for increasing lengths of time (currently two weeks with multiple-IPs template). As soon as the block expires, or they obtain a new IP, they're at it again. I have also semi-protected the article on two occasions (currently for a month). Has anyone any further advice on how to handle this, as permanent protection stops other good faith IP edits to the article. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear lord ([68]). I'd semiprotect it indefinitely, rather than for a fixed period of time, and take it off after a couple of months. By protecting it for a specified timeframe every time, the vandal knows exactly when they can resume vandalising. If any good faith IP editors wish to edit the article (couldn't see much evidence of this in the article history amidst all the vandalism), they can use the talk page to suggest changes in the interim. Neıl 龱 11:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, go in hard and call the cops. Having someone arrested for vandalising Wikipedia might make other vandals think twice. Actually, I'm not totally joking, because my reading of Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 suggests that he/she is committing an offence. And there are enough instances of IP addresses for the boys in blue to reasonably determine who the vandal is.--85.158.139.99 (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

He is not committing an offense under the linked wording, because the anon in question is authorized to make the vandalism. (I assume it is known that the ip in question is English, otherwise clearly English law does not apply). Taemyr (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to know the crime rate in Wallington is low enough that they could afford to send the bobbies after an internet vandal. Just semi-protect the article for a long stretch. Even if the date is stated, for maybe a year from now, I doubt the vandals will sit around waiting. In fact, they'll probably be behind bars for some other comparable legal offense, like playing their tellies too loud. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And Taemyr is right, their defence in court would be that wikipedia says "anyone can edit". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Emh, thanks for those replies ... I don't think the 'boys in blue' would be too distracted from their tea - and I thought the vandal was weird! I'll leave it as is until the current protection expires - then reinstate for a long unstated period if it resumes. Kbthompson (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion was fairly tongue-in-cheek. I had happened to be thinking about the Computer Misuse Act and its applicability to vandalism on Wikipedia, and then came across your post so just dived in - that's all! Anyway, probably it would not be a good idea if the police were to turn up at the person's home or place of work. It could after all be sloppily written up by our wonderful British tabloids ("Wallington man arrested for mistake in Wikipedia", or something), thus discouraging nervous newbies from contributing. And it could get horribly twisted by the likes of Wikipedia Review.--85.158.139.99 (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If he were issuing personal threats, it would be a different story. Sending the coppers to visit someone who makes internet threats is a legitimate use of tax money. Most likely the guy will turn out to be harmless. But every time you read about these mass-killings, everyone is surprised when they find out that "he really meant it." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if my own 'tongue in cheek' response to that suggestion caused offence. It was certainly not intended, it shows the inadequacy of the media for conveying irony. He (and I assume that) has not issued any personal threats - beyond name calling - just this one obsession with Wallington. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No offence taken. :) Just be aware that sarcasm begets sarcasm. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete (and withdrawn) AfD

Resolved

 – Page deleted via CSD - thanks - Bilby (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choc-Top was created by User:Sgt_Pikachu5, but wasn't completed. The editor of the article then offered a rationale, and the nominator withdrew and replaced the page content with a withdrawal note. I've reverted the AfD page content and removed the AfD notice on the article, but I don't know what to do with the AfD page, so I guess I have to drop this onto a friendly admin's lap. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, ask WhisperToMe to delete it okay? This anime's article creator is Yelyos. This one, on the other hand, was created by WhisperToMe. Sgt_Pikachu5 11:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Liminzhong (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – Liminzhong blocked for 55 hours.

• It's pretty clear from his edit history and talk page that he intends to use Wikipedia as a place to compile his economy vocabulary definitions. Could someone tell him this is not an appropriate use of this website? JuJube (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, it's looks like he's already been warned and blocked recently. Noting that the specific problem of making that list on his user page might be OK, we have three serious problems that are probably all blockable. 1. He is creating page after page that are quite immediately eligible for deletion. 2. There appear to be copyright issues with these pages. and 3. He's not responded to any warnings, suggestions, or even his block... he has ZERO talk edits. I'd recommend a week long block in order to stop this disruptive editing and encourage him to check policy/ engage in talk when he returns. If after that it doesn't stop, then an indef would be in order. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • he's been blocked for 55 hours, just report again if he continues. This anime's article creator is Yelyos. This one, on the other hand, was created by WhisperToMe. Sgt_Pikachu5 12:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ericthebrainiac

Please see the previous discussion about him.

He was already blocked for trolling once and was advised to stop. Afterwards, he kept up the same behavior as if nothing happened (see edits like [69], [70], [71]). Take a look at his recent contributions and tell me he shouldn't be indef blocked. --Ouzo (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The guy seems to be from another planet, but most of his activities seem to be on talk pages. I don't get why his initial block was revoked. He should be blocked for a short while and asked to explain himself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

He's still ranting about some soap opera he wrote? I can't see where there's any plausible reason to expect he'll magically turn into a useful contributor; he looks irredeemably kooky to me. Looks like Neil unblocked last time but has been making no obvious attempt to babysit him since then. I don't see much point asking him to explain- if he were able to conduct himself rationally we wouldn't be having this conversation. But maybe it wouldn't hurt anything either. I have no objections to either an indefinite block or block with a "what the hell are you doing?" message attached. Just don't spend too much time expecting him to engage in useful discussion, and don't expect him to change. Friday (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The dilemma is that, despite all the discussion here, he was only blocked the one time, and then only for a short while. Give him a week's block. If he doesn't change, give him a month's. If he still doesn't straighten up, then shut him down. This comes close to my "Why are you messing with this guy?" axiom, but the lack of previous blocks implies some initial AGF is in order. I wouldn't hold out much hope either, but maybe he really hasn't yet figured out that wikipedia is not supposed to be used like a blog. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)He has been told time and time again to stop talking about his fictional telenovela stuff. If he can't understand that Wikipedia is not for these things, it is his own fault. --Ouzo (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, today is evidently my turn as "stoopid question asker" but here goes: If you look at his talkpage, Will Beback asked him why he was trying to get Primetime unblocked. Has anyone investigated a possible connection between these two? I don't know much about Primetime, other than that he's been banninated, but seeing that on the talkpage just made me curious. Gladys J Cortez 14:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention his edits on users like User:Soap opera obsessed and User:Passions4everfan. --Ouzo (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note I've blocked him for 1 week for now since it seems unlikely anyone would object. Friday (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Kudos. And for sockpuppetry questions, there is always WP:RFCU, yes? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may put in my two cents' worth, I took a peek at this guy's contribs and talk page. His style is an awful lot like two long-blocked users, User:Wiki brah and User:SuperDude115. Both of these accounts tried the patience of the community to the breaking point and no good seemed to come from it; I tried to mentor both accounts under my previous username and failed. My suggestion is to shut him down for good if he comes back from the break with more nonsense. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Self-confessed vandal with attitude

Looks like we've got ourselves another self-confessed vandal [72] in the making. [73]. M0RD00R (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

He could be hoping to get the school's IP blocked from editing here. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hence a short block would be a good compromise... maybe until the semester is over. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(2x ec)I say, just do nothing. We provide info about vandalisms on IP talk pages, so it's not like his school couldn't find out that he was the one vandalizing, if his school actually had a need to edit Wikipedia. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Paul Christian B. Yang-ed

I spent nearly an hour the other day playing whack-a-mole over this kid's edits. All were either highly POV, copyvios, blatant vandalism or all of the above via his account as well as his IP. He's back with a new sock, User:Pcbyed. I believe a block is justified for disruption and sockpuppetry. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Kentone / Rolo Lamperouge

The article Rolo Lamperouge was semiprotected by admin Daniel Case after over 6 identical unexplained paragraph removals by the Filipino IPs 122.2.187.98, 122.2.179.1, 122.2.188.97 and 122.2.185.14. I reverted these with comments to refer to a discussion on whether the disputed content was proper to the article, which due to a lack of community input was tentatively resolved at keeping the content under observation. No attempts at communication were made by the anons. A total of 4 warnings were issued before I requested admin intervention.

Following semiprotection, the user Kentone performed edits identical to the anons, flagged as "minor" and in one instance appended with comment "removing irrelevant information." I reverted these and submitted 2 warnings to user talk, in the second instance requesting participation in the relevant discussion. Kentone responded by repeating the removal, commenting that "A discussion was already made but you still continue to put irrelevant information" and refusing to further communicate. The current Rolo Lamperouge article is Kentone's most recent edit. I have performed 2 reversions in the past 24 hours, and do not intend to violate 3RR.

This section was previously posted to WP:AIV. I have moved it here on the advisory of TravisTX. Requesting admin intervention or advice on how to deal with the issue?

-- Fallacies (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Kentone for 12 hours for disrupting the encyclopedia. I would comment, however, that the text in question does not appear to be verified. While I make no judgement of the content itself, removal of uncited text is appropriate, and I only blocked on the basis that the removal of the text was marked as minor and that they were performing edits that had earlier resulted in the article being protected from the same edits by ip editors. (I also note, but did not comment, that there had been no involvement in the discussion by this editor, although they referred to it which means they were aware of the situation.) I think you need to find good third party sources for the content in question, or otherwise you may have to admit that it should be removed - in the proper manner, of course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Suicide threat at Suicide

Resolved

 – Hoax from Vandalism-Only Account; User blocked indef & talk page protected.

After four days offline, I came back this morning and the first thing I saw was this suicide threat at Suicide. I've blocked the poster, Bullyingsucks2004 (talk · contribs), and filed a checkuser request to try and find out where to report this. Anything else I should do? NawlinWiki (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please try to find a CU online to get IP, do a whois and report to local authority. I'd do it myself, but have to leave. Toddst1 (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to go on IRC and contact one of these people: Special:ListUsers/CheckUser. JACOPLANE • 2008-05-27 15:33

Er, there is the possibility (call me inhumane) that the account is promotional for a bullying charity? Possible, but unlikely. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Per the suggestions at WP:TOV, I will be more than glad to take point on this. I am current in IRC chatting with a few admins and hopefully a CU. I will gladly report this to the authorities. Bstone (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I mailed our rookie CU when I saw this, hopefully it's just someone wasting our time. That message reads like Canadian English to me. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have chatted with Jamed_F in IRC at #wikipedia-en. He is contacting the Foundation for approval to release this information. I pray that this delay won't mean the difference between life and death. Bstone (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Fvasconcellos, I also have the information. Can someone pmail me to followup as I'm just leaving here and will be away for a while? Thanks - Alison ^❤ 15:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't imagine that will be a problem, per the user's next edit to their talk page here. As the user is already blocked indef, I'd say our on-wiki actions are exhausted. Is it worthwhile to roust out the authorities in this case? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Further posts from this user indicate it's a hoax/vandalism account. I am standing down. Bstone (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As the user talkpage has now also been protected indefinitely, I'm tagging this as resolved. Thanks, though, for the quick response to what had initially appeared to be a credible threat. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Scary part is, the idiot was still vandalizing via the talk page an hour after he was blocked. Another vandal vanquished.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Cowboycaleb2010

Resolved

Yet another sock of Cowboycaleb1, with the usual technique of harrasing me via my talkpage. D.M.N. (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

CryptidBoy

The new user Cryptid Boy left me a message about a rv I made on the Shriners article, because he wanted to add Yaarab Temple to the list of buildings, despite the fact that a) the building he's talking about has been Fox Theater since 1975,and b) the Yaarab Shriners are currently in a different building. He apparently decided he was going to make an article on the Temple in the same vein, and when I took a look at it, I found this diff, which, while bot-reverted, is wholly inappropriate and not what one would expect from a user with five edits. It indicates that this is a problem or a vandal waiting to happen, and I'd like an admin to look into this. MSJapan (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've speedied Yaarab Temple for A1. I don't think the user has done anything seriously bad yet and I suspect he'll go away again. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a user named User:Cryptid Boy. Corvus cornix_talk 20:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actual user is CryptidBoy (talk · contribs · logs). —Travis^talk 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Block of Giano

I have blocked Giano II for 3 hours for a violation of his civility parole in this edit and previous edits today. I am posting it here because I am aware of the history of what happens when Giano is blocked, but there is simply no excuse for his posts. If you are inclined to unblock, please first think about what the ArbCom editing restriction was designed to prevent, why I have issued the block, and then consider posting here to discuss first. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Also note the following disruptive edits:

• [74] [75] [76] at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• [77] [78] at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC
• [79] [80] at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Stifle (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the block was warranted for the reasons given. If anyone wishes to unblock please be sure you have consensus first. _{1 != 2} 16:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this. While the edits are disruptive and intentionally so, they are dealt with by page protection. While I will totally agree that Giano's comments on Bishonen's talk page (mostly in the direction of some members of the AC, though some in my direction as well) are not in the tone that we would like to see on Wikipedia, I do not think they are so serious as to warrant this block. That conversation annoyed me, because I was trying to enter into it in good faith and have a reasonable discussion, but I do not see block-worthy behaviour here, even considering the history. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Intentionally disruptive, not a tone we want to see on Wikipedia, long history of the exact same thing, no indication that if left alone it will not just keep going on. A small block such as this seems a very reasonable response. In his response to this very block more examples of name calling and assumptions of bad faith, the very issues in his arb-com restrictions. This will not go away if ignored. _{1 != 2} 16:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block Taken in isolation, any one of these may not be warrenting such a long block, however Giano does have a history of abusive behavior, and given that, should be held to that history. Every comment is not taken in isolation, and I have noticed that as of lately, his comments have become increasingly antagonistic as of late. We should not condone this behavior, especially given his long history of such abusive language and personal attacks. He doesn't get to arrive at Wikipedia each day with a "tabula rasa" like he's never commited a civility violation or a personal attack. He has earned the reputation he has, and there should be consequences for it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sam Korn here. The majority of these "questionable" edits took place yesterday and were addressed by other administrators - Ryan Posthlethwaite, Until 1==2, Thatcher and Sam Korn; none of them, by their actions, determined that Giano's edit warranted a block. Stifle now comes along and essentially wheelwars with them; this is inappropriate. Today's edit on Bishonen's page was only made to that page because the thread to which Giano was responding was moved from his talk page to Bishonen's. Bishonen has not lodged a protest about what Giano has written on her page; failing that, the thread should be treated as though it is on Giano's own page - a place where users are generally granted considerable latitute.

I don't entirely agree with Giano's thoughts on IRC, and I don't particularly approve of his language, either. But one has to wonder at what point a committee that took on a case called "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC", and included in its remedies that it would address the IRC question is in breach of its own decision. It's been four months, and since that time the committee has been silent on the issue. Questioning this is no longer failing to assume good faith, I am afraid.

You are right, Stifle. There is a predictable reaction to blocking Giano. He gets angry and intemperate. Other administrators who've already been working with him are disempowered and their actions and opinions belittled. The blocking policy ("blocking is preventative, not punitive") is ignored. And at three hours, heaven only knows what you were trying to accomplish - except perhaps to make it of such short duration that nobody would unblock. I agree with Sam, though...this was not blockworthy. Risker (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much to be gained by this. Giano's ire directed at ArbCom is nothing if not predictable. In fact the only thing more predictable is that he will get blocked and a huge discussion will ensue. So long as he is expressing his dissatisfaction on a user talk page, I would suggest simply ignoring it would be the most effective course of action. I had to laugh at Risker's redefining of "wheel-warring" though. God help us if we start defining, as a "wheelwar", any admin action in the absence of anyone else doing so. Rockpocket 16:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting question, Rockpocket - at what point does a single admin's decision override that of several other admins? Pity's sake, there were four experienced admins, including a former arb, an arbcom clerk, and an arbcom clerk trainee, none of whom felt a block was required. Why is it okay for someone else to show up a day later and decide that all of these people misjudged the situation? Risker (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It is an interesting point, Risker. And I didn't mean to dismiss it. One should expect admins to take notice of the opinion and, if one exists, consensus, of other admins who have discussed a situation. However I do think there needs to be an overt discussion about not taking action, rather than simply interpreting the lack of someone else taking action meaning that no-one else should. The distinction can be subtle, of course, and this is where the balance of initiative and good judgment comes in. My amusement was more at your use of the "wheel-war" label, and the chaos that would ensue of it was ratified as such, rather than your point - which I believe is a pertinent one. Rockpocket 18:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Risker, I didn't see any admins making a decision that there should not be a block. You listed me in that list, and I certainly took no such position. That, and the primary reason for the block was on Bish's talk page well outside the involvement of the listed admins. Please do your homework before yelling "wheel war". _{1 != 2} 17:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't you ever shut up, Until? As for ignoring something, anything, have you even tried it, ever?[81] It's not long since you informed me that you follow all my edits, presumably in the hope of finding something to complain about. It's not because you nurse a secret passion for me, is it? What delightful behaviour. Don't worry, I'm hardly editing now in any case. Bishonen | talk 17:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC).

Please be more civil Bishonen. I don't follow all your edits, no sure what you are talking about there, I assure you that I have have no "passion" towards you. I don't even remember mentioning you Bishonen in weeks. The diff you presented is of a post just above. Really not sure what I can take from your post that is productive. _{1 != 2} 18:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

<sigh>.The diff was of you talking about "ignoring" Giano. Since I was referring back to where you said that, you know. It was on IRC that you told me you read all my posts. That's what I'm talking about here. Forgotten it? So be it. Or are you going to tell me I lie? Well, I don't. (Disappointing about the passion!) Bishonen | talk 21:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC).

Oh please Bishonen!!!! Surely 1=2 nver visits IRC, I just cannot beleive you have said that. You'll be saying next certain Arbs are there too, trying to make new and useful friends. Giano (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have done my homework, sorry to say. He did not say anything on Bishonen's page that he had not said on his own, on which you commented. Posting on his page, or in this case on Bishonen's page in response to a thread that for some reason had been moved from his page, is hardly drawing attention to himself; you had indeed indicated your action plan to leave him alone in such circumstances. Thatcher and Ryan Posthlethwaite both elected take the administrative action of protecting the involved pages rather than blocking. Sam Korn is pretty clear in his opinion above. Risker (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I came across the comments at the crats' noticeboard earlier today, by coincidence, and was a little disturbed by them, not least since they were entirely irrelevant to the discussion. I think 3 hours seems fair, all-in-all; it was admittedly fairly minor incivility. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the IRC clarification got filed away today as "stale". Maybe another clarification filing is needed (I filed that request for clarification), or would that be disruptive? Maybe the community should take the initiative from Arbcom and look at this and this and come up with a more workable and equitable set of remedies, given the arbitration committee's seeming reluctance to take this any further. I think it depends on whether the committee are inactive on these issue because they are happy with the current situation, or whether they are just busy with other things. I might file a request for amendment asking that the whole issue be returned to the community for us to deal with, rather than arbcom. Well, that's a bit more than a request for an amendment, but that is what I'd file it as. Carcharoth (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know that another clarification request would be disruptive, the problem is that you don't really want a clarification, you want the committee to take further action that it has so far declined to do (and, I suspect, is deeply divided about). I don't know how to resolve the situation. Thatcher 19:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• In fact why are we discussing IRC problems on Wikipedia? It is really unfair to the ArbCom and to Giano. But it is more unjust to the community. Indeed, everytime someone brings me something said or done on IRC or something like "oh, user:someone contacted me on IRC and blah blah" I reply by "i am not interested". But I am really interested in seeing some order here. Call me a radical but it may be great to ban all IRC-related problems or discussions about them... [WP:NOIRCHEADACHE]. And believe me, the problem is not Giano or the ArbCom. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That only would be reasonable if in return, admins were forbidden to take actions based on IRC-based discussions, since the community at large has no input there. Though it is my opinion that such a thing should be done anyways. Jtrainor (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Admins make the decision to take action based on their own judgment (within the context of policy and process, of course). If an outside conversation aids them in that, that's fine, but they can't rely on it, no matter where it comes from. If I know some Wikipedians personally, and I ask for their opinions for something face to face, that's perfectly fine, but I can't rely on their words as anything other than personal guidance until they post them on-wiki. The exact same standard should apply to IRC. - Revolving Bugbear 19:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Revolving Bugbear, amazing name I love it, could you just put your point in words more simple. You see, I have the dubious good fortune never to have met a fellow Wikipedian (well actualy I have met 2, but they are unaware of the honneur) You see the Admin concerned here today, poor man, was sent from elsewhere - IRC? the Arbs Sam Korn? - who knows, how these days does one know the difference? Poor Stifie I hope the curse of Giano does not befall him, but at least 1=2 (or whatever his current name is) has stoped jumping up and down like a grasshopper on heat. Giano (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's run through this again: I might have sent Stifle to come and block you? Even putting aside the fact that backroom manoeuvrings are hardly my style, your accusation against me appears positively ridiculous in light of my comments above. Y'know, your valid criticisms of the AC appear a lot weaker on account of your more absurd accusations. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you on the Arb's mailing list? A simple yes or no will suffice. Giano (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Giano, yes he is. He is a former arb. Maxim_(talk) 20:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I read and contribute to arbcom-l. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We'll take that as a "yes" then Sam. I'm sure Stifie and 1=2 (whatever he is called) will be well rewarded for services rendered. Giano (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The cabal is giving out bounties now? Where do I sign up! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's right. I, as a member of the cabal, orchestrated this block (despite opposing it) in order to get you banned (even though I don't want to) and will be giving rewards (what, exactly? Biscuits? Sweets? Super-duper blocking powers?) to Stifle for carrying it out.

This is complete fantasy. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No Sam, not fantasy! Just the Arbcom you are part of and have supported. What else was a civility parole on me, but an attempt to supress the truth? You can't opt out now, you were on that list. Giano (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah but remember there is no such thing as a free lunch - especially when served by this Arbcom! Giano (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not on the arbcom list, I've been on IRC twice since the start of April, and nobody sent me. Stifle (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No Stifie, you have the wrong end of the stick, we all know you are not on the Arbcom mailing list and have limited contact with IRC - we have all worked that one out ages ago - why else were you selected? Giano (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Giano, do you actually believe this? You are either being outstandingly paranoid or you are trolling. These accusations have precisely zero basis in reality. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It was the Arbs clear intention that clueless Admins would leap in and block me. every time I said something they did not like, and that is what certainly seems to happen, or am I imagining that too? Giano (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Adhere strictly to WP:CIVIL and you won't get blocked. Transmission end ... I mean problem solved. - Revolving Bugbear 22:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well GIano - stop giving them that choice - and you can do that while still making your point. Viridae^Talk 22:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

<- from my perspective it all gets a lot easier to understand if you start to look at things as 'you're either part of the problem, or part of the solution' - all I really see above is Giano indicating that because of Sam's involvement with arbcom, he's (in Giano's view) part of the problem. This is actually kinda reasonable, no? - anywhoo... I just wish people would be kind enough to apply some rigour in considering others' ideas, rather than reaching for the paranoia or trolling buttons......

by the way, and intended lightheartedly, this is far from the most silly thing occurring on Wikipedia at the moment, believe it or not! here you can see a genuinely first class wiki bun fight involving arbs being upset at a clerk getting uppity (imagine! trying to actually keep an arb case sane! arbonaughts to battle stations!)

Final note on the above - I think Stifle made a mistake (not the best username to be dealing with criticism anywhoo, no?!) - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• It pains me to say this, but please, everyone, just ignore Giano's trolling. Since I was mentioned above for my role in not blocking Giano regarding his Arb case edits, let me say for whatever it is worth, that I consider Giano's civility parole to apply mainly to cases of alleged admin or arbcom abuse, where Giano is nominally uninvolved, and rides in on his white horse to stir the pot further. Giano has sometimes taken up the cause of editors whom he feels have been wronged, and sometimes he is correct, but too often his approach is intentionally abusive and confrontational and inflames the situation and stirs the pot, and this is what (I believe) Arbcom was trying to deal with, in the IRC case and its antecedents. This dispute regards only his own case, and consists of himself stirring the pot to try and get a reaction out of someone, in which goal he has succeeded once again. It is classic trolling. I think the block was an overreaction, and I think that attempts to continue a rational discussion miss the point entirely that this iteration of the dispute is not about rational solutions. The disruption, such as it was, of the arbitration pages was dealt with by protecting them, and the best response at this point is, sadly, to ignore him. Thatcher 22:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh here we go again - The Arbcom fucks up! So it must be Giano trolling or Giano is paranoid. Well done Thatcher - which one of them wrote that? The Arbcom are a bunch of failing cowards and liars - take your pick which is which. Giano (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hot Summer (song) and Category:House music songs

I created the category House music songs months ago. Late last week, I noticed the addition of a song called Hot Summer by the group Monrose. This is not a house music song by any stretch and is making this list misleading. Naturally, I removed the entry as I have written about (and followed) house music since its inception in the late '80s. Needless to say, the user Noboyo keeps re-adding this song to the list. I see from entries concerning Monrose that he has contributed a lot to their entries; he is either a fan or someone directly afffiliated with the group. In any event, the suggestion that "Hot Summer" is a house music song is horribly misleading and will confuse prospective learners on the topic. Wikipedia is supposed to deal in fact. Both times, I have left messages on discussion boards related to the topic (some of which seem to have been deleted). I ALSO left a report of vandalism, which vanished. Is anyone interested in the integrity of facts at Wiki anymore? Please deal with this issue and this user!!!Mwmalone

With respect, it appears that there are sources that describe Hot Summer as a House song - though other genres are noted as well. Do you have a source that explicitly debunks the proposition that the song is House? I acknowledge that you're more familiar with the genre than I might be - but if there's a source, then it can be included. I'll also note that, while you may have created the category, it is open and available for anyone to edit, add to, subtract from, or otherwise modify; in other words, you do not own it. Please discuss the matter on the article's talk page at talk:Hot Summer (song). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you, Mwmalone, even tried to discuss the matter, or to more appropriately cite source that back your position, anywhere? Since I see no evidence that any attempt has been made to resolve this dispute I don't really see where admins have any role in it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Tancarville

This user has been constantly adding obscure nobility titles to the project, apparently for years now. Their most recent contributions — Count of Meimun‎ and Barone Francesco Gauci‎ — are all up at AfD for lack of notability. The user has defended themself at this AfD, and has even admitted to owning a webpage on Maltese genealogy, which shows a very likely conflict of interest; the same AfD even included a keep !vote from User:Count Gauci, a likely sockpuppet with no edits outside that AfD. (Note that in the page Selimbria, the sources are from a C.A. Gauci...) For years now it seems that Wikipedians have been asking Tancarville to provide sources, which he's been pretty much refusing to do, simply claiming to be an expert in the field. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be any proof of his expertise in the field beyond his own website; no Google Scholar hits, for one. Furthermore, there seem to be issues with incivility and ownership of articles, such as here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the cited diff must have an error of Engrish. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD seems to be handling everything adequately at last. DGG (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

As a result of a previous run-in with this editor, I'm referring this to ANI for action.

Current issue - User_talk:Trident13#Your_edit_to_Danielle_Lloyd_-_.5Bhttp:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fw.2Findex.php.3Ftitle.3DDanielle_Lloyd.26diff.3Dnext.26oldid.3D215228164.5D

Previous issue - User_talk:Trident13#Vicki_Butler-Henderson

Similar pattern, breaches WP guidelines, refuses to accept responsibilty, resorts to personal abuse. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 19:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You threaten him with blocking because he added a statement to an article you didn't like and you accuse him of being tendentious? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Threat of Sockpuppetry and BLP violating content

Please see User talk:Allstarecho#Ronnie Musgrove. 21mellons (talk · contribs) continues adding BLP violating content to the former governor's article at Ronnie Musgrove. The former governor has repeatedly denied any allegations of an affair while married. As such, inclusion of the content is a violation of BLP policy. Unfortunately, 21mellons isn't getting the hint. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Florida babe

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked, by Iridescent. Anthøny 21:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Florida babe (talk · contribs) is back from her block for repeatedly uploading images with no copyright status, and immediately uploaded a new image with no copyright status and stuck it on her User page. It's a clear fair use violation. I understand that she's young, but she still needs to follow proper copyright. Corvus cornix_talk 21:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I'd suggest an indef block. This user just does not get it, and either refuses to understand, or truly does not understand fair use. Until; the user can show that they are able to do so, block. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think this young lady may have gotten lost looking for MySpace. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've indefblocked her. If she posts an unblock request that demonstrates that she understands where she's gone wrong, than feel free to unblock her. — iridescent 21:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)