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

ASIO File

A community decision was made to redirect the article at AfD. A user has repeatedly[1][2] reverted to the pre-redirected content and has unilaterally rejected the community decision. I have restored and protected the article to prevent this happening again. The user and I have some history, with which I will not bore you. However, I'd appreciate a check on my use of page protection by an uninvolved admin. Thanks, Papa November (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be Frei Hans (talk · contribs · block log). The Junk Police (reports|works) 13:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Concur with protection of redirect. I have also left a message on Frie Hans talkpage confirming your actions as correct. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User Block Requested

The editor involved in the above page Frei Hans (talk · contribs) should be considered for a block based on the evidence and pattern of engagement submitted at this WQA filing. This kind of needling and disruption is intolerable. Eusebeus (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Papa November has already started an WP:RFC/U against the user (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Frei Hans). I would see what that accomplishes first in hopes that a block can be avoided in the interim. MuZemike 14:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to think that this RFC/U could encourage Frei Hans to reform his behaviour and that a block won't be necessary. I'd appreciate it if people could head across to the RFC and put in their 2p. Papa November (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He filed an SPI just now - evidently he thinks Verbal and A Man in Black are your sockpuppets.[3] If he continues to do this, especially if he doesn't respond to the RfC, a block may have to be made, hopefully only a short one to stop his disruption. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He's refusing to comment at the RFC and is just updating his SPI to include every user who warns him. Can an uninvolved SPI clerk please make an assessment ASAP on this, please? Papa November (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised I haven't wound up on that list yet.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm giving him twenty minutes more. If he doesn't come up with anything, I'm just gonna' close it as disruptive. If anyone would rather skip the wait, I won't complain. Watch that you don't jinx it, Sarek. lifebaka++ 17:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

*cough* This is kinda' ridiculous now. It appears my generosity has been rewarded. Could someone just close the fiasco quickly? lifebaka++ 18:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

← OK, there are now ten very well established, totally unconnected users on that list. This is pure disruption. Could someone please make an assessment ASAP before he manages to unveil our evil conspiracy? Papa November (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What the heck? I gave him advice (based on the WQA filing) this morning, and yet I don't make his list of obvious Socks? Where's the justice??! FFS, this sucks! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Such is life. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked for 24 hours. Sorry to those who didn't want to see a block here, but this seriously didn't look like stopping otherwise. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, hopefully the 24 hours will give him time to reflect and give me time to finish writing my thesis! Papa November (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 18:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Good block. The SPI filing out of retaliation is total nonsense. --Caspian blue 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He did a tit-for-tat WQA filing this morning too ... don't forget that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to add Caspian Blue and Bwilkins to the check user request???---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I bet if we CU'd Balloonman, we'd find out he really is Spartacus! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

...or that User:Joey the Mango is User:Abductive (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abductive/Archive). MuZemike 18:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• At a guess, it would seem we are dealing with someone who has some sort of mental illness. Hans Adler made some persuasive comments to that effect at the RFC/U. Perhaps out of respect and us all generally not being douchebags who mock mentally unstable people we should wind this down and stop with the jokey? → ROUX ₪ 18:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• UM... could we NOT diagnose other users please? It's terrifically rude and inappropriate. Comment on behaviours, not on people. You know better, I'm sure. (asking others to be calm is goodness... asking others to be calm because the victim is mentally ill (in your opinion)... not good. Thanks) ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Since it's only a temporary block, we should facilitate a way for Frei Hans to allow him to respond to the RFC/U on his talk page until the block expires. If nobody opposes by the time I finish lunch and get back home, I'll boldly facilitate that. MuZemike 18:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point I should make a note: he already feels that a whack of people are ganging up on him. The RFC/U is not going to help that belief. I'm one of the most patient folks, and really am having trouble with the behaviours here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What is our other option then after the block expires? I think it's safe to say that the SPI accusations et al are likely to continue tomorrow, so what process do we follow to avoid further disruption or, at the very least, what do we do if and when this happens again? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The only option is to indef block if the disruption continues. Blocking is not a punishment but rather a protection of the encyclopedia. It doesn't matter whether the user has a mental illness or not if they are being absolutely disruptive and are unwilling or unable to modify their behavior. An indef block is the only way to prevent this type of thing from going on if they come off of their block and are not at all willing or able to stop the disruptive actions. Mental illness or not, disruption of this sort can not be allowed to continue without action; we can try to accomodate someone who has a problem, and be more patient with behavior than with a simple troll/vandal, but if a user's actions are consistantly disruptive, they need to be indef blocked, whether they are trying to be disruptive or honestly cannot help it. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the irony

User:Free Hans has been blocked as a sockpuppet of user:Frei Hans. Let's be vigilant! Papa November (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That's block evasion (see Free Hans' edit, which has clearly occurred during the block) and hence warrants a reset and/or extension of Frei Hans' current block. MuZemike 00:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

...and now re-blocked 31h. MuZemike 00:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reset, 31 hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not indef block him? Or checkuser back FH? The Junk Police (reports|works) 02:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like that'll come soon enough. Meanwhile he's put up an unblock request. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser request

Per User talk:Frei Hans, I have boldly went ahead and requested a CheckUser on the two accounts, just in case someone else is doing a number here. MuZemike 07:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a reasonable belief that Free and Frei are not the same person, merely someone trying to get Frei into additional trouble. A wise CU would compare the findings for Free Hands to a few of their recent mortal enemies, if possible. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a very wise CU but I am working on it. Can you enhance the SPI with who those "mortal enemies" are? ++Lar: t/c 11:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to admit I'm not happy about that terminology. Bwilkins, I'd like to know who you think they are also. Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Frei Hans has suspicions about all the people he listed at the SPI above. If you see any merit in checking my account, be my guest. However, I don't think we should pander to his conspiracy theory unless you see it as being necessary. Papa November (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Mortal enemies"? "Conspiracy theories"? I don't think this kind of wording helps, please try to put things more neutrally, y'all. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Anyway I wrapped up the check. Free != Frei. No grounds for further checks presented, and I adjudge it unlikely anyway. ++Lar: t/c 12:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if the wording was considered bad (too much Transformers 2...at least it wasn't a Meagan Fox comment) ... Frei Hand filed SPI's against a number of users. I will put $10 down that one of them, or someone with whom he is having the content dispute, is Free Hand, done as an attempt to discredit Frei. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Would anyone like to own up to that now before we find out who you are? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible that this may very well be a sock of Macromonkey (talk · contribs), as a similarly-named account was just created (User:Bullrangifer) to discredit User:BullRangifer). MuZemike 00:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that this type of situation does justify a fishing expedition of among all those who have been involved in this case, even myself. Creating such a sockpuppet in this type of situation is a very serious matter, and justice must be done. They must be found and suffer the consequences. Start fishing, and do it fast. Note that none of this excuses Frei Hans for his actions and extreme bad faith, but whoever did this knows better. I'm not sure that Frei Hans has the ability to know better, and that he has already shown that he is unsuitable for this environment. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Macromonkey. MuZemike 00:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a start, but I don't see any evidence of enmity between Macromonkey and Frei Hans. Of course he could still have done it as a mischievous prank, just for the heck of it. That's the essence of much vandalism.

No, the most likely way to find the prankster is to do what the police would do - look at who has been in conflict with Frei Hans, or who has criticized him, especially recently, myself included. This is the only logical method, and it's what is usually done in such situations in the real world. Let's do it here. When a sock has been proven to be a Joe Job in such a touchy situation, then the perpetrator must be found. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have tweaked my previous comment as it was apparently ambiguous. I've chosen the word "among". -- Brangifer (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. It came back negative. I saw the one-letter differences and the disruptive-only nature of both accounts and thought I saw a connection. MuZemike 05:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Longer block possibly required

After the user has been unblocked, it appears he went right back to the behavior he was blocked for, assuming bad faith of several admins and calling me a sock. Please discuss his new bad-faith and baseless accusations.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Diffs? → ROUX ₪ 06:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Frei Hans is upset; he was screwed by the 'Free Hans' account and is venting on his talk page. I've advised him to drop the sock allegations and focus on the RFC/U. Daedalus sure isn't helping things over there and should go away. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A indef block may be good. The Junk Police (reports|works) 01:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We'll see. Ideally, it shouldn't be necessary. lifebaka++ 03:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This may be a little redundant, but it may not. Since the above post, the user has continued to call others socks and make even more bad faith and baseless accusations against, as far as I can tell, any and all who disagree with him or offer him advice. I'm really getting tired with this behavior. Edits so far have been solely to his talk page, he seems to be treating WP as a battle ground, with everyone who disagrees/offers advice having 'wronged' him somehow. I really don't get it. With the exception of two edits, all of his energy is on his talk page. Check it out if you already haven't.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Frei Hans is in defensive mode at the moment. He's having a really hard time coming to terms with the fact that he's doing something wrong and he also doesn't seem to be able to understand that the Free Hans incident is no longer an issue. He keeps trying to explain that he is not Free Hans and that he should not be punished for Free Hans' actions even though several users have attempted to explain to him that this is explicitly understood by the community and he no longer needs to keep explaining himself with regards to this. Regardless, I think that at this point any further posts on his talk page about this issue will inevitably be taken by him as badgering and harrassment and he will continue to feel the need to defend himself; this should be avoided because it will only escalate the situation. He may need some time to collect his thoughts and I think all of us should refrain from commenting on his talk page further. He's been encouraged to participate in his own RfC and address those issues there. Undoubtedly, further disruptive behaviour by Frei Hans will likely be met by extended blocks but there's no sense in us being adamant trying to convince him that his previous block was justified if we know that he refuses to acknowledge his wrongdoings. Failure to acknowledge previous wrongdoings, by itself, is not a blockable offense so we don't need to drill it into him as though he'll be indef-blocked if he doesn't fess up. But further disruption is most definitely blockable and he has been made well aware of that so let's leave him alone until he either specifically asks for further involvement by the community or until he does something that merits community action. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm done on his talk page. He has not commented at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Frei Hans#Response and I don't expect him to. Frankly, he is trolling his own talk page and anyone in sight. Jack Merridew 09:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I just blocked him 1 month for filing a second abusive SPI request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Verbal. Since I'm also named in it, can someone else close?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, sorta'. Someone else closed, but I went ahead and slapped a conclusion of "OMG NOT SOCKS" (paraphrased here) on it before it got archived. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've extended the block to indefinite, something which I feel is largely a formality. Unless Frei Hans can trust other editors - and he's basically accused everyone else of being a sock - working here will be impossible. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I still didn't make the list of possible socks?? Let's take a quick note though that he possibly does not understand the difference between MEAT and SOCK (if that is the case, I'm afraid of what's in his shoes). As everyone on his lists does discuss policy and delivers consensus-based results, you're right, in some way bizarre form of the word, we are all meatpuppets. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

All of them used those templates and the (edit conflict) notice. And did you see? Several had multiple barnstars! These obviously cannot be different people. Everyone's a sock! Auntie E (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget, every last one of the people on his list had registered accounts on Wikipedia. Pretty conclusive, I think. Perhaps we should point him to this list of probable sockpuppets. Papa November (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Bwilkins, unless FH is putting everyone on (which could be what's happening here, for whatever reason), yes, I can grok an outcast-weary outlook wherein all who disagree with FH are a bunch of meatpuppets, the word being somewhat muddled with sockpuppets. What's-his-name's notion of the hive mind is alikened to this. Some folks somehow can't abide how Wikipedia is edited, as there are some who can't abide the New York Times or monkey brains for dinner. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the perfect analogy, I think: "American Express won't give me a credit card. Mastercard won't give me a credit card. VISA won't give me a credit card. Sears won't give me a credit card. Target won't give me a credit card. JC Penney won't give me a credit card. Dammit, they must all be the same company!! (which of course means that it has nothing to do with a crappy credit history)." (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Admins vs contributors

Users should go to WP:AE if they wish to appeal blocks on an Arbcom-restricted article. -LadyofShalott 13:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[Content added by sock of banned user removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)] Wikipedia has a funny culture. Since this is your first edit since August 2008 and only have 15 edits from August 2008, some may accuse you of something. I do not think your grievance will get very far. New users are not given the same weight as some others. Whether this is right is a different question. There are a number of essays on the topic, such as protecting the wrong version, cabal, etc. A lot of alphabet soup like WP:JARGON, WP:SOUP, WP:SHUTUPNEWBIE, WP:SHUTUPADMIN, etc. Good luck! Keep on writing (or maybe stop writing if trying to write provokes anger). User F203 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC) And how do other users, who haven't followed this discussion before, now understand what the eff this is about??? Even sockpuppets may raise some valid questions. And the removal seriously interferes with the discussion. Looks like a very questionable decision to me. Pls revert! Gray62 (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I now stumbled upon the case resulting in Ryulong being desysopped some weeks ago. Now, excuse me pls, I really try to assume good faith, but that he here interferes in a discussion about "admins vs contributors", by deleting the comments of that sockpuppet, is an, hmm, interesting coincidence. If there are any rules saying that contribs by sockpuppets HAVE TO be deleted I am interested in hearing about this. Otherwise, this somewhat looks like a manipulation of the discussion because of pesonal reasons to me. Again, I call for more knowledgeable editors or admins to revert the deletions. Without the deleted comments, its very hard to follow the arguments. Gray62 (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I wonder who you're a sock of. → ROUX ₪ 00:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC) It is true that anonymous users do much good and provide valuable content, but they also provide the largest amount of cruft, spam, POV-pushing, disruption and general annoyance. Someone have to work keeping that at bay and mostly only registered users do that job. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Pls add evidence (statistics?) to prove this point. I see lots of POV pushing, disruption, and general annoyance by registered users, too. Only difference my be outright vandalism. And on the other hand, the regulars are much better at exploiting Wikirules as a lever to push their points. Gray62 (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC) RFCU or ArbCom would be a better choice Jay, complaining about administrators to the administrators board is usually a waste of time, for various reasons. Either draft and post an RfC about the admins that you're having problems with, or else take it directly to ArbCom via a RfAR. If you draft an RfC, remember that you need to have tried to resolve the matter first via posts on the userpages of the admins in question. It would also be better if another editor has done the same, so that your RfC can be certified by two users. Good luck. Cla68 (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Jay Waxman indeed seems too knowledgeable of Wikipedia in contrast to his sporadic appearances. However he raises a valid point. I see William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) again is brought up to ANI for his another questionable conducts. After WMC removed several editors' opinions[4], he was not only engaged in edit-warring with AncientObserver (talk · contribs) and Wikieditor06 (talk · contribs) on Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy to remove AncientObserver's comments "3 times"[5][6][7] but also quarreled with the former and then blocked him "as an involved admin".[8] What a nice....block (?) again in a row after the fiasco caused by his other two controversial blocks. The matter is definitely beyond ANI and RFC/U, so this must be dealt by the ArbCom.--Caspian blue 02:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I know WMC has been involved in arbcom rulings before... would one of the remedies not apply to these cases? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I don't know about the past RFC/U and ArbCom cases on him in detail, but just found them.--Caspian blue 02:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley 2 (due to certification matters, it was userfied) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley Solely in relation to this: "Let users generate content, and let the admins maintain wikipedia." - This isn't a valid distinction. Everyone can (and should) generate content. Everyone can (and should) do maintenance. Admin tools permit certain additional actions, but so does rollback, the ability to code bots, Twinkle, AWB and a host of other things. Euryalus (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC) [Content added by sockpuppet of a banned user removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)] I notified all of the mentioned editors/admins with {{ANI-notice|Ancient Egyptian race controversy}}, but you should've done that after you initiated the thread here. That is a common courtesy--Caspian blue 03:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the notice Caspian Blue. I do not yet know the ins and outs of Wikipedia but I do feel that WMC has been irresponsible with his Admin decisions. Perhaps I was being a bit defensive with my responses but I think it's ironic that I end up getting blocked for a conflict that he instigated. I hadn't run into any problems with Admins on Wikipedia until Dab got an Admin to revert and protect this page. This situation is out of hand and needs immediate attention. AncientObserver (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC) The complaints about Dougweller, Akhilleus and Dbachmann seem completely without foundation. Ancient Egyptian race controversy is a highly problematic article,which has been heavily edited by the constantly multiplying socks of Muntuwandi and has been discussed multiple times here. It has been very hard to police. Caspian blue seems to be using this case as a way of getting at WMC for the block of his wikifriend ChildofMidnight: his intervention has very little to do with the afrocentrist issues involved. Mathsci (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Agreed with Mathsci. The admins are doing what they're supposed to be doing: not mollycoddling POV-pushers. This is a bunch of hot air. → ROUX ₪ 06:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Collapsed unproductive section - take it somewhere else, please. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Mathsci (talk · contribs), as you see, I'm separating the issue. Your intention and disparagement are typically to defend your friend, William M. Connolley. I see that whenever WMC's admin tool abuse is reported, you're busy mollycoddlying WMC and attacking people as always just like Cold fusion topic ban (in that case, you were warned for your "typical incivility). Since the admin tool is questioned in a row, you, who was condoned to be rude is no position in speaking of it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Caspian blue (talk • contribs) --12:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Caspian blue, your contributions here are extremely unhelpful, off-topic and disruptive on this noticeboard. Please stop. I was first to point out that Jay Waxman was probably Muntuwandi and I was right. The other four users have been page-banned from Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Please could you refactor these personal attacks? Continually writing things like this - baseless slurs and conspiracy theories - can lead to blocks. Mathsci (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Mathsci (talk · contribs), enough of your unwarranted threats and your gross incivility for which you've warned by admins and editors not only "these days". Of course, your such behaviors are just making yourself a case to the end. The issue on WMC is hardly off-topic, but rather consistently occurring with questions on the admin's ability as many others including "admins" have voiced out. Bear this advice in mind that you can not evade blocks forever that you should've deserved for such behaviors (even one editor left the project because of your OUTing and harassment) and what Abd pointed out.[9]--Caspian blue 14:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks. And, for the record, although the subject is one I try to stay away from as it is so frustrating and the pov pushers have more stamina than I do, it is definitely not one about which I know nothing. I moderate a serious Egyptology mailing list and am even more heavily involved with a website dealing with such subjects among many others. In this case I was acting only as an editor with some knowledge of the subject. Dougweller (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Jay, that is indeed how it's supposed to go. Admins don't wield tools to win content disputes, period, and any admin who is found to have done so should be compelled (by personal recognizance ideally, failing that by ArbCom) to divest themselves of the tools. On the other hand, sometimes it's a social network problem, in that people cultivate friendships/alliances with folks who will help them out on the basis of the relationship, rather than the merits of the case. This is a more pernicious and insidious problem, IMHO. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Actually, Jay Waxman could be another sleeper sock account of Muntuwandi, looking at the editing history. Mathsci (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Well, socking and admin tool abuses are clearly different stories. I have no problem with other admins in good standing. However, if WMC is again reported to ArbCom (pretty likely much so), that is no doubt that his miseuses of the tool (in the case to AncientObserver) would be mentioned. --Caspian blue 12:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I'm sure many admins get complaints logged against them, but WMC's name certainly seems to turn up frequently, doesn't it? Ironically, he's among those who wants Docu defrocked over his refusal to use a normal signature. It will be interesting to see which of those two, if either, gets defrocked first. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC) There is definite abuse going on here. I am not going to go as far as to accuse Admins of being racist. But are these actions biased and an abuse of power? Absolutely. I have repeatedly ask for specific examples of "POV-pushing fringe theories" and so far been ignored. Can Ice Cold Beer even point to a Wikipedia rule that justifies his action? If not this action needs to be reversed. I am tired of being pushed around and mislead like a rabbit chasing a carrot attached to a string. How can you justify banning editors for 6 months who have contributed months of work to an article and then participated in the discussion page to reach a consensus on the content? Enough is enough. Will someone with some integrity please step in and fix this? AncientObserver (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC) caspian blue are you trying to give wmc a warning or a hidden sort of threat???...dimitri before today you have not edtied since july 2008 thats a long time between edits...man i know i have not been no wiki saint but it's clear there are socks abound and they are here trying to bolster a case aginst some sort of reversial of a "TEMPORARY" bann on a couple of fringe theory editors--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Namecalling isn't nice, Wikiscribe. If you are going to support our ban then why don't you point out evidence of us pushing fringe theories? We have reached a consensus on the recent version of the article it is there for everyone to see and we have been banned on bogus charges. I agree with you, you aren't a saint because a saint does not support people abusing their authority. That's what crooks do. We're going to have to take this up with Arbcom. Surely there is someone there with common sense who has the authority to lift this bogus ban. AncientObserver (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC) This already went to arbcom I've been watching this dispute for a while since stumbling across Muntuwandi and his socking activities (something interesting has come up concerning Jay Waxman, but I can't say anything for sure yet). However, what I think is best for this article right now is to apply this little arbitration remedy to both sides of this dispute to get this article looked at by people with fresh eyes and no emotional attachment to afrocentrism or Egyptology topics. This would effectively incorporate the following users (not everyone who would be affected, I don't know this debate too much): AncientObserver (talk · contribs) Wdford (talk · contribs) Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk · contribs) Big-dynamo (talk · contribs) Taharqa (talk · contribs) I'm sure there are others and I might be picking out only users on one side of the debate because these are only the names (other than the myriad Muntuwandi socks, as Muntuwandi is already banned from the project), but this may (or may not) solve article problems currently.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I have banned the following four users from Ancient Egyptian race controversy and its talk page: AncientObserver (talk · contribs) for six months Wdford (talk · contribs) for six months Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk · contribs) for six months Big-dynamo (talk · contribs) for eighteen months After a review of the article and its talk page, I have discovered a pattern of POV-pushing fringe theories from those four users. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC) This was very long overdue. I've read (or at least looked at) several non-partisan books on the topic, but my attempts to keep the article degenerating again into an ostensible scientific, but actually ideological debate about 'race' were repelled by the editors that now have been banned from the article. I am not saying that Moreschi and Dbachmann have an accurate grip on the topic, but at least one can discuss with these people. If I wasn't currently engaged in a controversy in another article, I would get to work on the topic right away. Zara1709 (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC) So after everything we have done to try to settle this dispute rationally we are all blocked for POV-pushing of fringe theories? I would like to see the actual evidence of this because all I have ever done is tried to get along with people and provide credible references to Wikipedia articles. This is absolutely ridiculous. AncientObserver (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Ah, the editing pattern look like Muntuwandi. Yes,  Confirmed Jay Waxman (talk · contribs) as Muntuwandi (talk · contribs). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC) (Reposted from elsewhere)Then why wasn't this said via a warning a month ago before AncientObserver and the other banned persons get banned today? It appears to me that this is more of people lurking in the shadows and refusing to participate in a talk page, but wanting to maintain and defend a specific point of view. While I do not agree with the way the article has been (re)written over the last 3 or 4 months (it is too long), I think this action is merely an example of abuse as opposed to any true intent to make the article better. First of all, the administrators involved while claiming to want to protect the article are allowing edits by banned sock puppets(wikiscribe). Why was all the recent activity allowed, along with attempts to generate consensus if the end result was to not change anything and then ban those doing the work of making it better? If that is going to be considered acceptable administrative behavior, it may be necessary to escalate this further. This is even more asinine considering that the last change was something I personally wrote in the talk page, but never actually edited on the article. Seems to me there is a lot here to be called into question. Bottom line, attempts to hide from the fact that the controversy over the race of the ancient Egyptians started with racism in American society. It goes to the core of the foundations of modern Egyptology which is based largely on European and American scholarship(not Egyptians). Therefore, trying to cover up the fact of racism at the core of the development of Egyptology and Anthropology only reinforces the controversy. My opinion on the article is that we don't need two pages of talk about genetics. There is a controversy. It has been in Egyptology since the beginning and continues in many various ways. Keep it simple and to the point and stop trying to turn the article into a way of slandering African scholars and African points of view in general. That is borderline racist and POV. The fact is that the greatest recent controversy on this topic has come about due to the works of a white author Martin Bernal, not any African scientist. This disproves the idea that only Africans view the ancient Egyptians a certain way. There is no consensus on the biology and genetics of the ancient Egyptians, as various scientists have written recent studies both for and against the African affinities of the ancient populations. Wikipedia is not Egyptology, it does not represent Egyptology it represents the views of the people editing the article. Abusing administrative privileges to push a POV that tries to pretend to represent scholarly consensus is not only invalid but a violation of wiki policy. Wikipedia consensus does not equate to scholarly consensus. Anyone can edit an article and anyone can have a point of view on a topic, whether or not they have articles and books referenced that support it. In order to avoid this petty back and forth between the two sides OF the debate, I suggest that the article be deleted or simply reflect the facts of the controversy in all its forms over the last 200 years and that includes the racist expositions of Egyptian mummies across america by the likes of George Gliddon. http://books.google.com/books?id=g4WalMw26IkC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=gliddon+egypt&source=bl&ots=cnYLNfPVVU&sig=1RZE0aZzL0aJcSc1yl0Bqj9f6Rg&hl=en&ei=zmNTSrbyFIioNtWPzeAI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=13. Race and racism is controversial and has always been, including the race and racism of early Egyptologists and anthropologists instrumental in laying the foundations for modern Egyptology and Anthropology. Samuel George Morton is considered by some the father of modern anthropology. He was a devout racist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptomania Trying to keep these facts out of the article are only evidence of a POV on the part of some editors and administrators in trying to push their own views and nothing else. In fact such actions can even be construed as racist in themselves as trying to lump all people of certain backgrounds together as representing the same views or having the same mind. This deserves to be escalated especially if some people think they can use administrative privileges in a borderline racist and abusive manner. Big-dynamo (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC) As someone from a mixed-race family, I abhor the attempts to describe Wikipedia and/or admins as a whole as being racist. Playing the "race card" improperly is as disgusting as racism itself. Stop making those within the mixed-race community look bad. (Note: it was quite a challenge to stop me from actually saying "fuck off", because that's how disgusting this suggestion is) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC) So that's how racists do things. You block an article purely because you don't agree with the content, you revert the content to a crippled version for no good reason, you demand that involved editors must thrash it out on the talk page after just one racist disrupts the article, and when the involved editors reach a consensus on the talk page which you don't agree with then you just block them from the talk page as well. Nice - typical redneck behaviour. Anybody who regards as POV any relevant content that is heavily referenced to credible sources is themselves pushing their own counter POV, and an admin who bans editors purely because they disagree with content is blatantly abusive. But as that great racist G Dubya Bush himself publicly declared, power is there to be abused. Wdford (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Ice Cold Beer, I would like to find out what your criteria is for determining a "pattern of POV-pushing fringe theories". How do you know that they are POV fringe theories, are you versed in anthropology or Egyptology to know what the mainstream theories are and what fringe theories are. It would be great if you could elaborate, and also give some examples of the pattern of fringe theories that you have identified. I think it has already been established above, that administrators are not "experts" on content and that some of the best editors are in fact anonymous. Secondly we should note that mainstream popular culture is sometimes at odds with mainstream science. So care should be taken when labeling anything as fringe, as some of these "fringe" theories may actually be accepted in mainstream science. The best example, is human evolution which may be fringe in religious societies, but is factual in scientific circles. The basic point Ice Cold Beer, is that you may be surprised at what you are calling fringe, may not be so.Chris Mellencamp (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Just because most of the good contribs are anonymous, that doesn't mean that most of the anonymous contribs are good. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK And additionally even if most anonymous contributions were good it wouldn't mean that these particular ones were.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC) There is definite abuse going on here. I am not going to go as far as to accuse Admins of being racist. But are these actions biased and an abuse of power? Absolutely. I have repeatedly asked for specific examples of "POV-pushing fringe theories" and so far been ignored. Can Ice Cold Beer even point to a Wikipedia rule that justifies his action? If not this action needs to be reversed. I am tired of being pushed around and mislead like a rabbit chasing a carrot attached to a string. How can you justify banning editors for 6 months who have contributed months of work to an article and then participated in the discussion page to reach a consensus on the content? This Gestapo nonsense needs to stop! Enough is enough. AncientObserver (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC) User:AncientObserver While patrolling pages with recent changes, I come across the aforementioned user removing a sock template tagged on his/her user page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AncientObserver&diff=prev&oldid=300836685) and have since reverted the very apparent whitewash. Same time, I have tagged him/her with a level 3 warning with regards to this matter on his talk page. Is it me or is it the time now to think about the actions of this editor? Admins, could this is be another case of a Quack is a Quack is a Quack? I stand to be corrected. --Dave1185 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Please follow the appropriate procedure if you suspect someone is a sock puppet. Putting sock puppet accusations on user pages is abusive and amounts to a personal attack. If you do it again without proof you will be blocked. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC) FYI, take a look closely at the user's page edit history and you will noticed that it was placed there by User:Stifle, who is an admin. Don't offload something you don't have a clear idea of onto another editor if you never bothered to check it through in the first place, makes it look really, really bad on 'ya. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC) My understanding is that a user can edit their own userspace. Launching accusations and attacks on adversaries in editing disputes is highly inappropriate. If there is socking going on, take it to the appropriate board for investigation. There's no need to launch this kind of smear campaign, just follow procedure. Your uncivil and antagonistic comments on that user's page are wholly unhelpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Follow procedure? It's now at AIV, there. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I am getting tired of Dave's blatant stalking, intimidation and harassment. He is constantly coming to my page everytime I get in a conflict with another editor and leaves condescending remarks under the guise that he is enforcing Wikipedia policy. This editor has a personal vendetta against me for what I do not know. I came to Wikipedia to contribute to the articles. I had no idea I would have to become an expert on Wikipedia policy in order to keep from getting permanently blocked from the site but it looks like that is what I'm going to have to do because it has become clear that my presence is unwanted by certain POV-pushing editors and Admins. AncientObserver (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Hello, Dave1185. Long time no see. You know pretty well of "sockpuppetry accusations" without evidences is just smearing one's reputation from your own experience. Please be reminded of the experience and refrain from doing that. Thank you.--Caspian blue 14:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Radical POV pushing and rewriting of history I have reviewed the article talk page and uncovered a pattern of abuse and radical POV pushing. WMC and others are pushing fringe theories and attempting to rewrite history. They are repurposing the aritcle to advance the theory that research into the ethnic and racial background of the ancient Egyptian civilization originated with Afrocentrism in the 1950s and 1960s. This abuse has gone so far as to censor all content and sources that predate the afrocentrism movement. The abusive editors have tried to rewrite history and I don't see any possible outcome other than their being banned from disrupting work on the article. Editors working collaboratively in good faith can develop an article that covers the complete history and debate over the subject based on the best sources. We shouldn't allow fringe arguments and the rewriting of history to distort Wikipedia's coverage. Obviously the idea that investigations of Egyptian ethnicity and race started in the 1960s is completely fantastic and absurd, and we shouldn't allow this type of anti-intellectual censorship and distortion to damage Wikipedia's integrity. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I'm in full agreement with this. The question is who if anyone is going to do something about it? Anyone who looks objectively at the situation can see that there is no justification for reverting this article, protecting it and then blocking users who contributed constructively to reaching a consensus on the talk page. The fact that so many experienced Wikipedia editors and Admins have been involved in this blatant censorship is disturbing. AncientObserver (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Uninvolved Party But Something Needs To Be Said The point of having administrators is to maintain the content on Wikipedia and to help improve the encyclopaedia. This means blocking users that threaten the good nature of Wikipedia and protecting pages when necessary. But no admin should be abusing their powers and using intimidation tatics to win the respect of other editors. By consensus this would be unacceptable. The admin who reverted AO's blanking of his userpage acted against policy that allows contributors to do whatever with their userspace (except in rare extreme cases), even if it means removing a template added by an admin. He reverted the blanking to recover the sockpuppet template and then left a malicious warning on AO's talk page. Whether AO is a sock or not is one thing, but using intimidation and overpower tactics is unacceptable and edits by admins such as this one should not be left untreated. AO may be a sock. AO may not be a sock and indeed a well-meaning contributor. But the truth about AO's identity is unlikely to affect the actions of admins who appear to POV push and then block and warn good contributors because they want control over a particular subject and will do anything to ensure that their POV is maintained. POV pushing is not only against one of Wikipedia's main policies but it is also morally wrong and does nothing to help the neutral nature of Wikipedia. Also, admins should cease ganging up on hard working contributors simply because they are closely affiliated with the admin involved. Wikipedia is all editors working together to help build an encyclopedia. It is not a game of "our team of friends" versus "that team of friends". If an admin abuses their powers, act accordingly. Supporting a wrong-doing admin simply because you enjoy working with them is not a good reason to team up on hard working contributors who are trying to help build this encylopedia. If an editor is in the wrong and the involved admin needs a neutral third opinion, fine. But a third opinion is not simply "I'll second so-and-so because he is an admin and because this guy isn't". As proven in the past, being an admin or not being an admin has nothing to do with how respectful someone is over Wikipedia policies. And warning, blocking and protecting pages to prevent your POV from being overshadowed by Wikipedia's more notable and meaningful NPOV is not exactly the best way to use the admin tool's that you are privileged of using.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Thank you for saying what needed to be said, Sky Attacker. But at this point I think several Admins need to be held accountable for their actions. Wikipedia has a serious problem with Admins abusing their power if the activity of William M. Connolley and others is any indication of the way Admins normally operate. It must be against Wikipedia policy to gang up on editors in order to censor content on articles. I will read up on Wikipedia policy to learn how to handle situations like this in the future. AncientObserver (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Ancient Egyptian race controversy Several editors have been banned from this article and one User:Big-dynamo has have brokened the ban by editing the talk page--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC) For background, see also #This already went to arbcom (and related sections) above. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I'm still waiting on a justification for our banning. We didn't do anything wrong. AncientObserver (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Unilateral banning of everyone one side of an editing dispute Can this ban be reviewed [10]? Ice Cold Beer stepped in and declared a ban on all parties on one side of an editing dispute. I've never seen anything like it, but it strikes me as being pretty outrageous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC) There is already a discussion at wp:ani#Admins vs contributors and now here wp:ani#Ancient Egyptian race controversy related to the editing conflict. But I would like clarification on this particular issue of an admin issuing a ban like this. Or do I need to consult Arbcom about it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Article probation, "any uninvolved admin" can do this on this article. I'm guessing now, but I suppose the place to appeal the ban, or its length, would be WP:AE. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I have repeatedly asked Ice Cold Beer for his justification for banning us and he has failed to answer. It looks like we will need to take the next step. AncientObserver (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC) hmmmm this seems to be a patern at this article,problem editors get banned finally and than parties involved cry and cry until they find a sypathetic admin to take up their mantra and whip and badger the banning admin in submission .. a similar thing happened a while back to a constant problem editor user:deeceevoice and by some miracle got her ban lifted with the same tatics going on here...by the way childofmidnight the out of the blue interest you have in this issue you seem to have a similar behavior patern as deeceevoice reverting admins revisions twice in this case and trying to undermine admins authority not to mention your prose in your edit summaries matching deeceevoice to a t...i think somebody should check this user for being a sock of deeceevoice particlary because there has been a horde of sock puppets at this article--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Certainly banning is an extreme measure, and doing so against multiple editors on one side of an editing dispute with no diffs or substantial evidence showing disruptive editing of any sort is wholly inappropriate. I checked on the article and the article talk page, and the disruption is clearly coming from editors who haven't been banned. For example you continue to cast aspersions and false insinuations against me. These personal attacks contrast with the discussion of article content and sources by AncientObserver and others who have worked on the article. The editors who have been inappropriately banned without evidence or consensus seem also, by the way, to have the content policies on their side. The POV being pushed on the article by the other side of the content dispute is that the debate over the ethnic background of the ancient egyptians originated with Afrocentric scholarship in the 1960s. This is absurd nonsense easily disproven by abundant sources discussing the issue that predate the Afrocentrism movement by more than 100 years (not to mention earlier non-Western scholarship). ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Wikiscribe, where is your evidence that we are the problem editors? Go ahead and show us the evidence which is consist with Ice Cold Beer's reason for banning us. I challenge you to do so as I do him. No, it is plainly obvious that you and your cohorts are the ones causing problems, POV-pushing, breaking Wikipedia guidelines and abusing administrative powers. And as far as sockpuppets are concerned I have heard several accusations that you have already been punished for that specific violation. Perhaps someone needs to check you. Disruptive editors is one thing but I am disturbed by the number of abusive Admins that have come out of the woodwork over this. They need to be punished for their transgressions. AncientObserver (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC) You can keep trying to flip this around to me all you want AO,i was not the one banned than after the ban took effect,all of a sudden, a slew of new editors or old editors (who were dormant for longs stretches but suddenly popped up)came to continue the banned edtors mantra with full bias,that smells of socks..and please do not suggest that i have no right to suspect anybody of sock puppetry particulary with the current circumstances around the article,you suggest that people have the right to engage in sock puppetry against me jsut because i did it once and not even at the article in question, you don't know the details around my case but i served my week block and thats that,also i could bring up the fact that CoM has a little bit of a history of being disruptive as well like a certain sombody else..like i said this is the same tatic that was imployed when deeceevoice finally got banned from this article people rallied there wiki friends some which included admins and banged the drum until they found admins who were able undermine the banning admins actions,so is to whip and and flail the banning admin into submission.As a matter of fact dmitri yankovich below has just been blocked as yet another sock puppet,say what you will about me being a sock,but what i did was not no where near the degree of going on here--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC) [Content added by sockpuppet of banned user removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)] Dimitri - I'm curious. Did you edit under any other user name between July 19, 2008, when you created this account, and today? Cardamon (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I think it is very unlikely CoM and DC are the same guy. If someone thinks otherwise, they should take it to an SPI, and present a lot more evidence than common interest in one particular article. Then, if they prove me wrong, maybe I really am Santa Claus. Otherwise, they should back off and focus on article content. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Where can we go to challenge our bannings? I am glad that other editors recognize Ice Cold Beer's error but we are still banned. AncientObserver (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC) WP:AE - since the topic ban was given in the name of the Arbitration decision, Arbitration Enforcement is where you would need to appeal it. LadyofShalott 01:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I do believe deeceevoice is female. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC) A quick note: I have responded to complaints by a couple of the banned users (and by extension, a couple of folks involved in the discussion here) on my talk page.[11] I would also point out that it doesn't make sense to have the banned users challenge their bans on AE when they're already being discussed here. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I don't know where the appropriate place is to voice our complaints but what I do know is that what you did is WRONG. WMC and like minded Admins and editors are conspiring to protect a biased scope of that page rather than allowing a more accurate broader scope to be maintained and you are helping them by banning choice editors from contributing to the discussion. None of us are pushing for the page to promote fringe theories. All of our contributions have been in the interest of presenting a fair and balanced account of the controversy which does include Afrocentric scholarship and I challenge you to prove any differently. What I believe you are trying to do is get rid of us in a deceitful manner in order to allow the other editors to control the page in a way that you approve of. How else do you explain banning users for months without a shred of evidence that they are doing what you accuse them of? I don't believe for a second that an uninvolved Admin would do this and if we have to take this to ArbCom or wherever else to challenge our banning and get the matter resolved we will. Your action is more than poor judgment it is malicious and deceitful. AncientObserver (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Collapsed section not relevant for the discourse. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Dimitri Yankovich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), editing here and on Ancient Egyptian race controversy seems to be another sleeping sockpuppet account of Muntuwandi (talk · contribs). Mathsci (talk) 06:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Without judgment on any item or editor, I think there are far too many issues and participants within these threads to find any resolution here at AN/I. I would imagine many of these things will need to be resolved at a higher/different venue than this AN board is capable of. I'd suggest that these topics be transported to RFC/U or more likely RFAR. Just saying. — Ched :  ?  06:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Collapsed section not relevant for the discourse. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Mathsci, if you think someone is a puppet, take it to checkuser. Stop this garbage of publically accusing people of being sockpuppets, because it's not helping and is only serving to inflame the discussion. Jtrainor (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Not to put to fine a point on it, but User: Dimitri Yankovich has been blocked as a sock. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC) there is nothing to see here. This was never a bona fide "editing dispute" to begin with, and Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) has only shown that they are willing to be the long overdue admin with balls to end this pathetic episode by taking the time-honoured approach of banning the trolls. --dab (𒁳) 17:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC) It's not an editing dispute any more. Dbachmann, despite previous rebukes for his behavior, has seen his admin friends and allies block everyone on one side of a content dispute (unilaterally and without ever providing a single diff of evidence that they did anything wrong). So we now have a fringe nutjob version of the article suggesting that no one considered who the ancient Egyptians were before the Afrocentrism movement of the early 60s. This ridiculous nonsense reflecting an absurd point of view is being enforced despite abundant sources completely disproving it as utter nonsense. Aren't there any editors and admins with some integrity who are willing to step in and put a stop to the abuse? How can an admin block one side of a dispute like this? It's outrageous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I had never had any interaction with Dbachmann. Your attempt to deflect the debate into a David vs. Goliath episode doesn't work. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC) You admitted that you were contacted by someone to look into this situation. I suspect that you were contacted by WMC who asked you to ban us as an uninvolved Admin. I'm working on filing a complaint against all of you. You are involved in a conspiracy to censor this page and I am going to do my best to make sure you are held accountable for it. AncientObserver (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Actually, Ryulong asked for the community's input (scroll up if you don't believe me). No one has contacted me. I have very limited interaction with WMC over 18 months ago and never on this topic. You're trying to deflect the focus from your behavior to a made up conspiracy against you. It won't work. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Ice Cold Beer, please provide diffs of the disruption that led to your banning four editors on one side of a content dispute. This has been requested many times now. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I enacted the topic bans after two hours of reviewing the users' contributions to the article and its talk page over a long period of time and I found a pattern of disruption. I will not be providing hundreds of diffs; it's their whole body of work that is at issue here, not one or two edits. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Sure you did. As expected you can't provide even a single incident of disruption or POV-pushing by the editors that you've banned. Anyone with an objective mind who goes to the page can see that the users you banned engaged in civil discussion throughout every topic that was brought up. It is Dbachmann and his army of rogue Admins who have been disrupting the page. Arguing with you is a waste of time. You already made up your mind about how to handle the situation the moment you got involved. Hopefully someone in power will punish you for your misconduct. AncientObserver (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Without getting too much into the details of the dispute itself, I do find it most interesting that of the four editors "on one side of the dispute", three are very obviously single purpose accounts who's entire contribution histories are focused on this article, while the fourth (Wdford) has been almost singularly focused on this article over their last 700 edits or so. There is a rather curious level of fanaticism being displayed here. Resolute 00:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC) We're interested in the topic. What's wrong with that? AncientObserver (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Obsessed would be a more accurate term. You don't find it curious that four editors seem to have an absolute focus on one controversial article, and all seem to be on the same side of the debate? The odds of this occurring via random chance are extremely small. Resolute 02:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC) It took me all of five minutes reading the talk page to determine that the now banned editors have frequently disagreed with each other and have very different points of view on the issues covered in the article. The only thing they seem to have in common is the ability to work together to include various notable viewpoints in the article and the recognition that there has been a series of abusive and policy violating actions by Dbachman, WMC, and Ice Cold Beer. These include reverting to a preferred version and protecting. Banning those they disagree with while refusing to explain or support the ban with any evidence. And the use of admin tools to push a particular point of view in a content dispute. And again, the idea that the history of investigations into who the Egyptians were started and ended with Afrocentric approaches is the most ignorant nonsense I've seen on Wikipedia. Even if someone isn't properly educated to know this is false, the sources that have been provided clearly demonstrate that this viewpoint is fictional. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Wrong. Take a look at the "consensus" version[12] of the article that had been reached after all of the good faith contributors had been chased off by the POV-pushers. It creates the controversy by providing a bunch of irrelevant information, perhaps the worst offender being the silly art gallery placed in the middle of the article. The entire article was changed to lend legitimacy to the "debate", which really doesn't exist much outside of fringe Afrocentric viewpoints. The talk page and the last several archives are filled with the banned editors making bad, biased arguments in favor of this version, which hurts Wikipedia's credibility on the subject. As a neutral administrator who has no emotional attachment to the topic, I stepped in to hopefully stop this sort of behavior. Also, I'm a bit confused how when you created the subsection it was a strike against me that the bans fell upon one "side" of the content dispute, but now, according to you, it is another strike against me that I have banned editors from both sides of the content dispute. You can't have it both ways. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC) There are many more people interested in the topic. I only know one editor from the section, not one of the ones who was banned. Wdford for one disagrees with alot of the views of the rest of us who were banned. Why do you have to be obsessed with a topic just because it is controversial? I can only speak for myself but I occasionally post on messages boards and Youtube videos related to the topic. I thought Wiki would be a good place to post some of the material I had been researching and the page in question seemed like a good place to do so. I had no idea that Wikipedia had such a hostile culture. I was getting along with the other editors on the page for weeks with only a few minor arguments and then shortly after Dbachmann arrived all hell breaks loose. The page is protected. We started challenging the lock on the page. Admins and editors show up in my talk page harassing and threatening me and I've been blocked 3 or 4 times as well as now banned from the page for months. FOR WHAT? Posting some credible sources related to the topic and then campaigning to have them kept on the page? This is ridiculous. AncientObserver (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Hi, I am also a contributor to this article, mainly, as well as a few others. I am dismayed at the logic being proposed here. All of a particular point of view are obsessed, therefore should be banned. Yet, that causes others like myself, to avoid editing for the simple fear of being banned. many times I have wanted to edit, and I have seen far too much scrutiny against the side, bluntly speaking, who view the Egyptians as a black race people. I do as well and I wonder, will I be banned or accused of being a sockpuppet or something else? As I review the history of the talk page I simply see that the "obsession" is more of a frustration in that even when the black side presents very well established references, the other side then wants to neutralize the relevance of their contributions, or redo the article, or focus on a method to administer the article for deletion, and so on... I have to actually wonder, who is obsessed? Although you guys do ban those on the other side who are blatently ignorant and vandalistic. --Panehesy (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Case in point. User:AnwarSadatFan put on my user page that I am a sock puppet of User Mutuwandi. I am not. But I came across AnwarSadatFan before in a previous edit when I felt he was manipulating the article with POV. The issue has become one of where even "sockpuppetry" is a technique to silence one point of view, even if it's substantiated. When will it end? When black people just submit and stop contributing in a way that disturbs what white people feel "should" be accepted? --Panehesy (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC) People becoming involved that aren't familiar with the details of the debate? For the record, this article has a long history going back a ways. It has had its name changed multiple times. There have been multiple attempts to resolve conflicts through consensus. I have indeed been banned from the article for 6 months. However, when I started again, the only changes I made were to the talk page. If you READ what I posted I said myself clearly that the article is too long winded and tries to cover too much territory. However, I was asked to try and draft a new introduction to the current article. What I wrote summarizes the facts of the issue of the article which is titled "Ancient Egyptian Race controversy". The point being that any discussion about race and the role of race in science starts with white Europeans and nobody else. Trying to claim that it starts with Afrocentrics is like saying that the controversy over race in America starts with Martin Luther King. Honestly, that is strictly racist and bigoted and deserves to be challenged. Wikipedia was founded by whites and mostly administrated by whites, but I dare any of them to challenge me on anything regarding the history of race and racism in America. Everything I wrote in my introduction was sourced. The fact is that American Egyptology and Egyptology is founded on racism and race science, just as American society is squarely founded there as well. The article needs to be shortened and kept simply to documenting the many arguments and debates over the race of the ancient Egyptians and stop trying to prove what "race" or skin color the ancient Egyptians actually were. This page has changed names so many times and been through so many edit wars simply because of this. Of course white society is historically racist and it is well documented. Of course racists want to pretend to be "observing truth" and "following civilized discourse" even as they promote ganging up on stifling dissent. The point being leave the article as a discussion about race controversy which in America starts with whites and only white and nobody else, period. We don't need two or three pages of pictures and genetics to show that this debate has been going on a long time and has absolutely nothing to do with Afrocentrism in the 1960s as a starting point. Sources: Quote from Crania Aegyptica the first book to use cranial studies to understand the population of ancient Egypt (and prove that they were whites and superior to blacks): Egypt is justly regarded as the parent of civilization, the cradle of the arts, the land of mystery. Her monuments excite our wonder, and her history confounds chronology; and the very people who thronged her cities would be unknown to us, were it not for those vast sepulchres whence the dead have arisen, as it were, to bear witness for themselves and their country. Yet even now, the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians are regarded with singular diversity of opinion by the learned, who variously refer to them as Jews, Arabs, Hindoos, Nubians, and Negroes. Even the details of organic structure have been involved in the same uncertainty, the configuration of the head, the position of the ear, the form of the teeth, the colour of the skin, and the texture of the hair; while the great question is itself undetermined - whether civilization ascended or descended the Nile; -whether it had its origin in Egypt or in Ethiopia. Downloadable from here: http://books.google.com/books?id=XCIkAAAAMAAJ The book written by Samuel George Morton that was the forerunner of Modern Anthropological and cranial studies in Egyptology and Archaeology. He was a devout racist and from that introduction he goes on to present fundamentally racist views on the people of ancient Egypt based on "scientific" analysis of their skulls. Hence, unless you are a racist, such a discussion and such a book is controversial and offensive. This is just one of many books written by many authors of the period who were influential founders of the sciences of Ethnology, Anthropolgy and Egyptology and they were mostly racists and this is over 100 years before any Afrocentrists even existed. They used race science such as the study of skeletons and skulls of people and animals to "prove" the superiority of whites. They defined race as a biological fact of nature. Their "science" is the basis of the ideas of race But these people were not scientists they were pseudo scientists engaged in wholly controversial displays of mummies and mummy unwrappings in order to "prove" that the ancient Egyptians were a white race and that Africans (negroes) were monkeys and unfit to be treated like "real" human beings and engage in any sort of intellectual pursuit. None of this came from Afrocentrics (Africans), it came from whites. Some of the attempts to censor this article, especially trying to omit anything about American racism, remind me exactly of that point of view. Wikipedia, the internet, text messages and no other technology gives ownership of knowledge to any people. Egypt does not belong to Wikipedia, it belongs to the people of Egypt and Africa. Since the beginning of America wealthy whites have been going to Egypt and taking artifacts and pretending it was their own private treasure garden. They had no respect for the history or the people and they simply took what they wanted. This is all clearly documented and sourced. Many of the artifacts in Museums in Europe and America came from wealthy benefactors who financed expeditions to Europe who then donated portions of them to museums. And then to understand what they stole they financed archeaologists and Egyptologists to study it. Many of these people were too racists. That is the origin of Egyptology and the fundamental basis of the controversy. It is about who owns Egypt, who controls the information about it, who has the power to shape the image of it and the history of racism as part of all of those efforts. Another example of the debate on Egyptian origins from the 1800s and the racist views within it: I am a member of the social improvement society of Philadelphia. A question was brought before it for discussion, of which the following is a transcript:'Can the Colored races of men be made mentally, politically and socially equal with the white?" The discussion of this question was continued for eight successive Sunday evenings. The speakers were various and talented..... all shades of color were permitted to participate, each speaker was allowed ten minutes at a time, the greatest latitude, and I may say longitude, were allowed to the disputants, every shade of authority was quoted. .... A Mr. Johnson, a mulatto, lectured in Franklin Hall....the portions taken by Mr. Johnson were, that the ancient Egyptians were negroes, and that they were the originators of the arts and sciences. The discussion and lectures were carried on in the Franklin Hall, and were attended by about nine hundered or one thousand persons. THe only lectures which were not free to criticism were Mr. Johnson's. .... The idea that the negro race ever civilized Egypt, is now exploded among learned men, but we have among us persons who spurn at history, who laugh at nature, who sneer at reason, and who say that "the negro is one of God's creatures, and is therefore equal to the white." .... As it is always right to discriminate upon the nature of the evidence from the character of a witness in a court of justice, so it is equally fair to criticized the writings of a historian, to see if yhe relates what is both probable and plausible.....A case of this kind is now for consideration before us. It has been said, that "Herodatus is the Father of History." If by this he meant that his veracity can be depended upon in his relations of facts, he is certainly unworthy of the title; if it is meant that he is merely the first writer, then his title is correct. .... Herodatus travelled into Egypt, and says, that "The Egyptians were black in complexion and woolly-headed." How far he is to be credited, must be a question for the readers of this book to determine for themselves..... From: Negromania. Downloadable here: http://books.google.com/books?id=zhVHbIVFXnMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Crania+Aegyptiaca&source=gbs_similarbooks_s&cad=1 From this example alone, it is clear the pattern of people coming out of the woodwork in America when the word "negro" or "black" comes up relative to Egypt and why it has always been controversial.... to the racists. Other books documenting the history of anthropology in the "race science" of white Europeans: http://books.google.com/books?id=hwsUXs6ksXUC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=negro+monkey+controversy+19th+morton&source=bl&ots=GutIaXCtKv&sig=KJgnxP6COfZKTxxERCq8k19NSjs&hl=en&ei=HS9VSu6yA5WKNPfg2MMC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12 http://books.google.com/books?id=RtQKAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Crania+Aegyptiaca&source=gbs_similarbooks_s&cad=1 http://books.google.com/books?id=K4RUy9Hs6lMC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=Crania+Aegyptiaca&source=bl&ots=HB0CEcNvm4&sig=fXiwSWqXvQf2pY4DYdfC2c5W6rY&hl=en&ei=y2JVSouxOom6NfKrrMQC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10 However, all whites writing in this time were not racist as can be seen in the work of Count Volney: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1397/1397-h/1397-h.htm Suffice to say, there is no denying that the controversy over the race of the ancient Egyptians goes back more than 100 years to the roots of Egyptology and American society itself. And this is what I wrote in the talk page: The controversy over the of the race of the Ancient Egyptians is subject that has come about as a result of the discovery and study of Ancient Egypt by European explorers and scholars in the 18th century. It refers to the way the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptian population, including skin color, have been portrayed by the scientific and scholarly community and the role of "race" and "racism" in describing such characteristics. The controversy has taken place in many forms including scientific debates over "race" as a biological fact of the modern human species, debates over the labels and terms used to classify human populations, the meaning of labels such as "black" and "white" relative to ancient populations, differing contradictory studies describing the origins and phenotypes of the ancient Egyptians and accusations of racism against the mainstream institutions of anthropology, archaeology and Egyptology. Scholars, thinkers and scientists of many backgrounds have participated in this controversy over time, yet is is the outspoken writings of African authors, the rise of African studies and the development of Afrocentrism that have most often been identified as the source for the controversy in recent years. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy&oldid=299128943 Simply put, this is my sole contribution to the discussion, which I did not have time to clean up and actually add to the page. But the point is that it is sourced and verifiable fact that the controversy has been ongoing since 200 years ago and that racism on the part of whites played a major part, as racism was mainstream science. Therefore, since it is easy to document debates back and forth over the race of the ancient Egyptians for over 100 years in America and elsewhere, it is impossible to claim that such arguments started with Afrocentrics. It is also impossible to deny the racism of American whites in trying to pretend to be unbiased in studying ancient Egypt either as part of the development of Egyptology. Fundamentally the controversy is an attack on white European power and the ability to use/abuse it in the interests of promoting a white controlled vision of history. Europeans need to worry about their history in Europe and stop being so concerned about Africans. Egypt is not Europe's history, does not belong to them and they have no control over it. Wikipedia was created by whites and is run by whites and therefore prone to similar usage. This idea that banning authors because they contradict racist views and propaganda is simply racist and the idea that it is civil to gang up and try and perform an electronic lynching of those who would challenge whites as if whites are the only ones intellectually capable to discuss anything is blatantly offensive and deserves to be called out for what it is. But hence, just like the development of Egyptology, Anthropology, television, the internet and many other things, some Europeans just think they own knowledge, when they do not. The point being if you want to edit the page and present your views then do so. Otherwise, the interaction is hypocritical, since if you aren't familiar with the subject matter and cannot contradict or refute that which I have presented, then you have no basis to say anything. It is simply a passive attempt to push POV. I would love to see you separate racism and race from the discussions in Egyptology since Europeans discovered it in the 1700s. The point being that whites don't have any platform to stand on when it comes to race and racism to begin to even point the finger at anyone other than themselves. They invented the idea of race and they used racism and race-science to enforce their power to push their views down everyone else's throats, but want to claim that Africans are promoting race controversies, which is pure absolute racist nonsense. If wikipedia administrators are coming out of the woodwork to stop someone pointing out the racist history of white people and their "sciences" then they are racist pure and simple as there is no other reason for it. That is the controversy and it isn't simply about genetics and intellect. It is inherently violent and controversial. And if you don't like it then leave it alone. Big-dynamo (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Actually what I said is that wikipedia was created by whites and run by whites and this article is about race and racism in science which starts with whites. Again, any discussion about race in science or America starts with white people and nobody else. Trying to omit that from any discussion about race or race in science is racist. That is what I said. Race and racism has never been about civil discourse and wiki admins (who are mostly white) are in no position to lecture anyone on it. Like I said, this issue is about power and who owns what. Take it or leave it. Any discussion about race in any aspect of anything in the last 200 years that does not start with WHITE PEOPLE is racist. Period. I don't need to bite my tongue for anyone. This isn't a civil discussion in my opinion. As race in America and elsewhere has never been a "civil" issue. Wiki policy is no crutch to lean on when it comes to abuses by people who have power and frankly wikipedia is no "higher authority" on anything including race. And the people who edit/administer wikipedia are people and as susceptible to being bigoted, racist and biased as anyone else. Please don't try and pretend this issue about race is an issue about wiki policy. That is offensive to me personally. Big-dynamo (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC) How interesting. I wasn't aware there was a directory of every Wikipedia users' ethnicity. Would you be so kind as to provide that to us? Thank you. → ROUX ₪ 11:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I don't care about anyone's ethnicity. I care about admins and editors trying to hide the fact that race and racism in any body of study or social endeavor from the last 300 years starts with white people. To claim otherwise is racist. The article is called "ancient egyptian race controversy" and yes controversies over race and the race of the ancient Egyptians started with WHITE PEOPLE. Anyone on this board who wants to pretend otherwise and try hide that fact is racist. Trying to find ways to justify hiding such facts is racist and offensive. The fact that so many admins and people are coming out of the woodwork shows clearly that race and racism are fundamental issues not to be denied. Trying to claim that race in science or the study of history started with black people is racist and wikipedia is racist for supporting such articles. It is tantamount to saying the controversy over race in America started with "the civil rights movement". I am offended by any such suggestion. Race and racism are a painful open sore and trying to play games with it simply reflects that some people are childish and need to grow up. Big-dynamo (talk) 12:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Gigantic screeds accusing the admin cabal of racism are not good ways to have topic bans lifted. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Yeah, Big-Dynamo it's just a waste of time replying to this project. Half the Admins posting are the very ones conspiring to censor the page. We need to take this to ArbCom. I'm going to need other editors to help me on this one because it's required that multiple users agree on a complaint. I think it's safe to say that several other editors are with me on this. Ice Cold Beer's ban is unjustified and he needs to be reported for his abuse of power. AncientObserver (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC) AncientObserver and Big-dynamo, I have seen what happened to the regular editors of the article AERC. I am now absolutely convinced that William and Ice Cold acted wrongly banning us. They failed to see that it is Dbachmann who in the first place brought the disruptive behavior. Why and how can't they see that? Are they blind? Did they forget what is expected from adm? So they decided to take side, now they are unable of singling out any wrong doing from us. Humility is a mark of true humanity. And Wikipedia is a real test of humanity in a globalized world. If they can recognize that they acted too quickly and lift the ban, everything will come to normal. We are all human beings, and in need of forgiveness. Hotep!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Proposed topic ban of Dbachmann [Content added by sock of banned user removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)] See WP:SOCK. Not an appropriate use of an alternate account, and certainly not a new user. I have blocked this account indefinitely. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Endorsed. I went to block this user myself and saw that you had already taken care of it. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Hm. Exactly ten edits in August of 2008, then nothing till now. Hidden sock puppet, obviously. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I'm endorsing this text by Wamuponda. While he may be a sock he definitely made a relevant point: Dbachmann is accusing people of being trolls yet Dbachmann is like a tornado, he leaves a trail of destruction in his path. This is what the arbcom stated about Dbachmann Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_(2) Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_3 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann This case involves two sets of disputes. One of these originated in editorial conflicts over the content of the Afrocentrism article and subsequently spread to other venues, while the other arises from editing of articles relating to the Indian subcontinent. A common element is the involvement of administrator Dbachmann in both areas. The arbcom voted in favor this finding 9-0 Dbachmann has repeatedly reverted content edits without offering any explanation, by way of the rollback tool (evidence) and has ‘’’misused his administrative tools by protecting pages on which he was involved in content disputes’’’ (evidence). The arbcom voted in favor of this 12-0 Doesn’t all this sound familiar. Dbachmann is responsible for re-igniting this dispute. Why is it that innocent editors are being punished for Dbachmann’s abuse of his administrative privileges? AncientObserver (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Admin abuse [Content added by sock of banned user removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)] The constant parade of sockpuppets on this article irritates me. Wamuponda is an obvious sockpuppet of User:Muntuwandi, and is now indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I'm endorsing this text by Wamuponda. While he may be a sock he made some relevant points: From 17 June to 7th July, the article was protected, when protection was lifted, all editors who wanted to contribute to the article were banned. For three weeks, contributors have not been able to make any edits despite countless discussions on the talk page. Isn't this just a sinister attempt to control content using administrative tools. WP:ADMIN states "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools." In this case it is clear that administrators have used various tools in their arsenal to protect content created by their fellow administrator User:Moreschi. This is unfair and runs contrary to wikipedia's principle of user generated content. AncientObserver (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I can't say I'm too pleased with single-purpose accounts reposting material originally posted by sockpuppets of a banned user. Some editors apparently think this is allowed; I think this is meatpuppetry, plain and simple, and it should not be allowed. I think AncientObserver, who started editing Wikipedia on April 3 and who has only edited in relation to Ancient Egyptian race controversy, needs to consider finding some other topics to edit; s/he's already been topic-banned from the article and its talk page, and yet s/he continues to post solely about this topic on WP:ANI. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC) WMC gave me permission to do this on the discussion page so I assumed that it was ok. As far as single-purpose accounts are concerned I readily admit that I made this account specifically to edit this article. I see no problem with that but perhaps you'd be delighted to know that I've made a few edits to articles outside of this one. And as far as being topic-banned is concerned, Akhilleus, it's already been established that there was no credible reason for our banning which is what the text above addresses. I'm going to report this to the appropriate channel. Don't worry about me. Perhaps you should concern yourself with being a constructive editor. AncientObserver (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (unindent) Why are so many editors acting as advocates for a banned and highly disruptive fringe POV-pusher? Muntuwandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jay Waxman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Dimitri Yankovich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Wamuponda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) It's not very hard to spot Muntuwandi's sleeping socks. He has created a whole secret army, which can be identified by WP:DUCK because they head for his favourite controversial articles, which otherwise attract few new editors. Muntuwandi has been doing this for some time now (a while back on Race and intelligence). When subsections are initiated or moved in the wrong direction by these socks, that is quite unhelpful. The fact that other editors do not recognize the disruption being caused and thus contribute to it themselves is quite disturbing. AncientObserver (talk · contribs) should distance himself/herself from this banned user. There's very little that's constructive in his/her recent edits: he/she seems to be a fringe POV-pushing WP:SPA. Too much drama, with no good articles in sight. Mathsci (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I'm well aware that these accounts are sleeper socks of Muntuwandi. However I do not know Muntuwandi's past. I know this user as Wapondaponda who other than activating socks I have observed to be a constructive editor on this article. I've suggested to Muntuwandi that he try to get his account unbanned the proper way rather than creating socks but I still recognize that he is only trying to fight the injustices that have been committed by abusive Admins on this article. No Mathsci, I'm afraid that you are the one who does not see things clearly. It is clearly against Wikipedia policy for Admins to suppress content on articles in order to push a POV and that is exactly what is going on here. 4 editors including myself have been banned for half a year for doing nothing more than discuss the content of the article on the talk page in a civil manner and the Admin in question refuses to provide diffs supporting his justification for his ban. This is clearly a case of WP:ADMINABUSE and after I review procedure on how to handle such matters I am going to report every single Admin involved in this conspiracy, starting with Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs). AncientObserver (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I agree with Akhilleus that AncientObserver is looking more and more like a meatpuppet of Muntuwandi. Mathsci (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC) If I'm breaking any rules please point them out. Otherwise I do not appreciate the name calling. AncientObserver (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Try reading WP:NPA, and contemplate whether your repeated accusations of racism, censorship, and an admin cabal violate that policy. (Never mind that you have a defective understanding of what adminship is.) I don't appreciate name-calling either. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I haven't accused anyone of racism. If someone makes a racist comment I will but I have specifically stated that my problem is with the decisions of the Admins and yes I am accusing them of censorship and conspiracy because that is exactly what their behavior reflects. That's not a personal attack nor is it name-calling. AncientObserver (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC) The spelling police arrive Really, if contributors want to be taken seriously, it does help to run a spell check on the section header before posting. Durova273 02:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC) It doesn't really matter. The contributer who began this was a sockpuppet of a banned usor.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Yeah. Yet even as primarily a media contributor... blushes... retreats Durova273 03:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Even though a sockpuppet created this section the grievance is still valid. We're clearly going to have to take this complaint to the next level. AncientObserver (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Well, you're going to have to go to the ArbCom for that. The article is still under their restrictions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Could we close this up? I don't really see anything productive coming out of this. Apparently an Arbcom case is going to be filed, so the users involved should go do that. If they want to protest their bans, they have been pointed at AE already. Beyond that, what purpose--apart from Big Dynamo accusing everyone of racism--is this solving? → ROUX ₪ 12:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess everyone has to just assume that admins are acting accordingly, don't they?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:PrBeacon (Fhue part deux)

You probably know this editor better by his old nym, Fhue. Fresh out of a suspension for edit warring, he’s decided to get right back to attacking me.[13][14] I tried reasoning with him[15] and I tried warning him,[16] but he just treated my warning with contempt[17] and kept it up[18]. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 06:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said in the Talk page, NRen2k5 just can't stand to have anyone disagree with him, so he personalizes the dispute as an attack. He's already tried this line of wiki-bullying in 3 other admin threads: my initial E.A.R, which he then took to WQ.A, and finally escalated to A.N.I when he didn't get the responses he wanted. So he resorts to profanity [19], [20] and childish insults [21] (as well as removing my words from my own talk page). He continues to understate his role in the dispute, including his own edit warring. PrBeacon (talk) 07:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Let me see if I can help with some things here - NRen2k5 you seem to be misunderstanding the response you've gotten to the many reports you've made about this subject already. Yes, there have been uncivil statements made but by both you and PrBeacon. Both of you need to pull back a bit - PrBeacon, obviously your tone/words/something about your posts is a concern to NRen2k5 so please try to find a way to communicate that's a bit more civil and NRen2k5, you need to settle down a bit in general and find a way to resolve the dispute instead of making these constant time-wasting reports on every board you can find. If you'd like to give a try at resolving the content dispute that's causing the two of you to conflict, I'd be happy to help. Shell ^babelfish 08:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You might try but I really dont see any common ground firming up until he decides to stop playing the victim whenever I disagree with him. As I recently stated on the same talk page, I can admit to a modicum of incivility but not nearly as much as he has displayed. And I know this next point may sound like a schoolyard defense, but he started it (and I give what I get) -- he has been dismissive and patronizing since we first exchanged words at the Whale Wars discussion [22] and then he carried it over to the Sea Shepherd page [23]. Most recently, he attempted to remove my own reply above [24]. PrBeacon (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Those comments are a month old. I didn't start anything. You started this one. Are you going to keep accusing me of “goading” you into getting yourself blocked too? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 18:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Request review of administrative action

The action for which I am requesting review is my own. Normally I would bring the issue here first, but as this involves what I perceive as the potential defamation of a living person who happens to be a wikipedia editor, I am taking the action first (ala WP:BLP) and bringing it here second. There is a current years-long struggle over Circumcision and its related articles. Recently, there has been what I perceive to be a dangerous trend trying to alienate editors, one in particular, with what I perceive to be improper conflation of WP:POV and WP:COI, claiming that a particular editor has a COI. I see no other purpose for this other than to try and marginalize this editor, who, in my opinion, while having a distinct POV has edited the article in complete accord with wikipedia polices and guidelines. The discussion stretched over various talk pages, including User talk:Garycompugeek, User talk:Jakew, User talk:Tremello22, to name a few. COI <> POV, and claiming that any given editor with an opinion is automatically conflicted is inappropriate, in my opinion.

Today, someone added a {{COI}} tag to Circumcision with the following edit summary Jake Waskett is a circumcision fetishist and rabid advocate. He joined Wikipedia with the sole intent to remove NPOV from this article. If the {{COI}} tag was ever justified, it is here., a blatant personal attack and unsourced allegation against a living person if there ever was one. I reverted the tag, only to see it reinstated twice in quick succession. Because this relates to a living person, I have locked the article without the tag, and now I am coming here to get a larger perspective on the appropriateness of the action. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you contact WP:OVERSIGHT if you want the edit summary removed. lifebaka++ 17:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That is up to Jake, he has openly admitted his identity, so there is not a privacy issue per se; but if he wants it removed, I'm happy to take of that. My request for review is am I correct in locking the article even though I am a significant contributor to the article and discussions, due to the BLP nature and implied attack against Jake's integrity by continuing to attempt and paint him as a COI violator despite no evidence of any sort. -- Avi (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Good protect. I'd suggest backing it down to indef-semi at some point in the not-to-distant future, though. There do seem to be long-term problems with ip vandalism/extreme POV editing there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine, given the BLP concerns. If it were anything else, there might be a problem, but BLP/NPA concerns can be enough to IAR. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm grateful to Avi for his actions in this matter. I see no particular reason to hide the revision including the edit summary quoted above — my name is stated on my user page, and is no secret. The content of the edit summary is certainly offensive, and would probably constitue "potentially libellous information" per meta:Hiding revisions, but it would probably cause more disruption and in any case I've endured worse personal attacks. Jakew (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree the edit summary of the user who originally placed the tag was tactless but one could claim BLP on any COI of any living person. I have brought this matter up at the COI notice board also. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"COI <> POV, and claiming that any given editor with an opinion is automatically conflicted is inappropriate, in my opinion." No one has claimed this to my knowledge. Vague accusations at shadows does not help this matter Avi. My COI claims of User talk:Jakew are extensive and documented on our talk pages. All I ask is a for an uninvolved admin to look at the whole picture. Avi is involved and typically backs Jake because of their similar POV. When multiple editors tried to place the COI tag on the page he reverted multiple times citing BLP and then protected. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this. Gary, I don't agree that there's a COI issue here. Someone's having a strong POV doesn't amount to a COI, though I agree that it can lead to POV editing, but that's a separate issue (and I don't know whether it has; I'm saying only that it can). Having said that, I don't think Avi should have protected, as he's the second most prolific editor to the page after Jake, and the edit that triggered the protection didn't involve a BLP violation. [25] I hope Avi will undo the protection. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the re-application of the {{COI}} tag is a continuation of the calculated effort to cast aspersions on the credibility of a living person, who happens to be a wikipedia editor, and is covered by BLP. If we can be assured that the tag will not be re-applied as an effort to undermine Jake's credibility I will gladly remove/drop the protection down to semi. The article has been tagged as a POV issue for months, if not years; that is accurate. The COI tag is to attack Jake, and that is wrong. -- Avi (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the COI tag is inappropriate, though I don't see it as a BLP issue—all allegations of COI are criticisms of a Wikipedian in some sense— but as you're involved, it would be better to let someone else handle it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to BLP, that is the area where even involved admins can, nay must, act. However, my involvement is the reason why I posted here immediately after taking the protective actions. -- Avi (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Avi, since you're asking: I believe that the protection was technically improper. While even involved admins may normally take action against clear disruption (including BLP violations), the COI tag as such does not constitute a BLP violation or other disruption. Even assuming that the edit summary does, well, readers don't see it, and reverting does not make it go away. Accordingly, I believe you should not have reverted the page to your preferred version (without the tag) prior to protecting it.  Sandstein  21:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That is why I am asking. I know that I tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to protecting privacy and BLP issues without completely reliable sources. I am not going to revert if anyone unprotects the article, but based on the history of the COI discussions, I fear that the COI tag is being applied solely to undermine the credibility of one of the editors. -- Avi (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well gee whiz Avi, if someone did have a COI that would undermine their credibility. I have already stated this is nothing personal but became concerned about Jake's activities based on other editors post about him. I will abide by whatever the community decides :) Garycompugeek (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

i'm confused - are you saying that the coi tag is a violation of blp? if not, i see no reason for protection of the article. at most, the edit summary could be oversighted, but the editor said he didn't think that was necessary. untwirl(talk) 03:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Avi you have either misunderstood BLP or used it as an excuse to protect the page. Could another admin unprotect the page since Avi seems unwilling? I will not edit war over the tag. I made one revert to show my support for the tag and that is all I had planned on making. I would like to add that I am disappointed in Avi's behavior in this matter and feel it is unbecoming of an Admin/Crat. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Technically, BLP applies everywhere, even if in practice NPA tends to be used instead for Wikipedians. Here, though, the tag appears publicly on the article itself and makes a controversial, and not objectively verifiable, assertion about a person who is a published author on the subject outside Wikipedia. Also, anyone checking to see why the tag had originally been added would see the edit summary with the personal attack. So yes, Untwirl, I agree with Avi that the COI tag can be considered a BLP violation.

Although my personal POV on circumcision is not the same as Jake's, I find that he edits neutrally, adhering closely to what the sources say, and (regardless of whether it's considered a "BLP" issue) I don't see a COI problem, unless we want to put a COI tag on almost every article with significant contributions from a published expert on the subject.

Gary, to get the page unprotected, I think it would help if you would say something to acknowledge the stated opinions of uninvolved editors here and at WP:COIN that the COI tag is not required, and indicate that you won't edit-war over the tag.^{(01:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC))} (involved editor) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Gary, BLP applies to the entire project, and to all people, not just articles and article subjects. Furthermore, have you seen the response at WP:COIN#Circumcision? I am sorry that you think my actions are unbecoming, but the response here and at WP:COIN indicates, at least to me, that I was correct. Please reflect on the fact that it may be your POV that is driving your response here, and not pure logic. Regardless, I will lift the protection now, but reserve the right to re-implement it in cases of further inappropriate taggings and BLP issues. -- Avi (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Many here thought that you were incorrect, myself included. I don't see this as a big deal just that you jumped the gun and were to close to the situation to appear neutral. Thank you for unprotecting the page and thanks for the sock investigation on Rorschach test that was briefly plaguing us. I will not press the COI issue as long as neutrality is adhered to. Garycompugeek (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Koalorka & a sock account

User:Koalorka has been editing under this IP this morning despite his block. See this diff and this archived ANI thread for details.

Separately, there is also a sock account, User:Koalorka1 which he states on the talk page that he won't use it for editing but he has been (but not to evade this block, he's only using the IP for that).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the IP, and extended koalorkal's block for evasion. Toddst1 (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC) and extended again for continuing personal attacks on his/her talk page, this time with talk page edits disabled. Toddst1 (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that in this series of incidents, Koalorka and Nukes4Tots were baited into their abuses by actions of User:Some guy, and that the series of blocks has exceeded a fair assessment of blame for the situation.

I don't disagree that Koalorka block evading does not help. However, the underlying incident is more questionable than Some guy made it out to be, and the end result has been that two extremely good contributors have been blocked for extended periods of time.

I would like to request review of this and consider reducing the block extension if Koalorka agrees to behave himself for the remaining 3 or 4 days until the original incivility block ends. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm...you mean the guy that just wrote this?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yay. Happy feelings breaking out all around.

I am going to AGF that Koalorka feels differently in a couple days. I am, as I noted, working to review and moderate the baiting behavior I believe led to this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It was never my intention to bait anyone and I asked him numerous times to stop personally attacking me. Almost every thing he ever said to me was at least mildy offensive, repeatedly calling me a troll, an arrogant newbie, a vandal, etc. That's not baiting? But responding to that in less than handshake-friendly terms is baiting? Continuing this discussion here is inappropriate unless another administrator shares the concerns that I was baiting him, but as for you I am willing to continue discussing things on my user talk. Some guy (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There are a bunch of members of the firearms project and WPMILHIST who have shared the concerns that you're baiting people. I have eight who have said so either privately or publically, although that includes the two who were blocked for being nasty to you. That said - I see no reason to intervene at this time regarding your actions, in your case, retroactively. I would like to remain focused on admin review of the Koalorka situation (and possibly Nukes4Tots, but not at the moment). You may not feel that this is an appropriate discussion, but you do not have any standing to insist on its removal. ANI does not work that way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm here because of this message on my talk page. I support the blocks of Koalaorka and his socks. It has long been my opinion that there is never an excuse for incivility, as in this instance [26], and that the word "baiting" seems to be only ever used as an attempt to provide such an excuse (see also Wikipedia:Civility/Poll#No (baiting)). Georgewilliamherbert, I think you should consider that your comments in support of uncivil and disruptive editors may serve to validate and encourage their disruption – and I say this without endorsing or excusing actual (i.e., non-"baiting") disruption, if any, that Some guy may have caused.

A disclaimer - I have been the one to most recently block Nukes4Tots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the other user mentioned by Georgewilliamherbert, and for unrelated reasons I have also commented in two of the RfCs initiated by Some guy (1, 2) which seem to underly some of this conflict, but in view of the conflicts pervading that discussion I am not inclined to involve myself any more in what is ultimately an unimportant matter.  Sandstein  05:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to tread a thin line here between not letting Some guy get away scot-free for what he's been causing, and not letting Koalorka and to a lesser degree Nukes4Tots get away scot-free with having gone over the line in response. There were two 1-week blocks for incivility on user talk and article talk pages issued. I haven't disputed their validity or asked for immediate unblocks - I am at this point, with those two, primarily focused on not letting things spiral worse out of control due to blocked editors venting. As has been commented in several places, the "allow blocked users to vent" informal policy is not universally supported (you oppose it for example, Sandstein) but is widely supported. It would be less ambiguous if Koalorka had not IP edited after the block; that certainly did not help.

I'm putting this up for discussion rather than simply pushing an unblock directly myself, because I would rather get some community consensus on these points with adequate context. There was clearly good reason to block initially and with Koalorka the issues continued after that.

Regarding Some guy's current reactions - Editors in WPMILIST and the Firearms project, in good standing with long experience records, who I do not believe have ever gotten into insult matches with anyone on wiki, are stating that they believe that Some guy has been baiting people. Some guy's responses seem to indicate a communications deficit in some way - in discussions on his talk page, he is proving extremely resistant to understanding what people are criticizing him about, and extremely resistant to looking at what other people are saying about him unless he is spoon fed diffs. The conversation there shows that he has a real problem. I don't know precisely what to do about it - I am probably going to spoon feed him the diffs, but he's showing no sign of understanding what he needs to look for going forwards about people criticizing him and trying to get him to change his behavior.

I don't know if this is going to end up with him understanding the problem and reforming, him topic banned, or him indeffed, but the issue is very real. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

George has approached me "to help" in an obtuse and aggravating manner (he's trying to make me play games) and despite my repeated comments that his approach of unsubstantiated complaints is irritating and not helpful, he continues to harass me while suggesting he will block me indefinitely if I do not cooperate with him. Furthermore, the substance of his complaints seems to be "other people have complained about you" - most editors who have had issue with my behavior have addressed me directly and I have responded to at least most of them. He has not taken this bizarre and unhelpful approach with the other editors who were blocked but maintain that they did nothing wrong. George is trying to discredit me by "trying to help" in a thoroughly unhelpful manner and then going around accusing me of having a communication disorder and threatening to ban me indefinitely. I am not resistant to understanding what other people are talking about or addressing complaints against my behavior - I am resistant to George's aggravating and now insulting approach and I do not wish to discuss anything with him directly at this time. Some guy (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for illustrating my point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm not sure whether this is relevant, but I recently mentioned to User:Xeno by email the other day that for the first few months of his editing career, Koalorka had consistently tried to remove all mention of Turkey on WP as even a partially European country. Following attempted edits to Ethnic groups of Europe, he was given an ArbCom related topic ban on articles connected with Turkey by User:Elonka [27]. At the time he called me "a butt-hurt Marxist foaming at the mouth"; ELonka did not block him for this. Mathsci (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Some guy

New subsection for issues relating to Some guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I am going to stay off his talk page for the moment as he appears to be increasingly unable to communicate in a constructive manner with me there, though I will post a brief pointer to this there so he is aware.

As I said above, I have seen a number of users who have stated that they felt Some guy is engaging in some form of abusive, in many cases explicitly called baiting or taunting behavior.

Specific examples:

1. Users whom Some guy has been involved in personal dispute with
   1. User:Koalorka - User talk:Koalorka#July 2009, Talk:SIG SG 550#Request for Comment: Article Accessiblity (too numerous individual edits to bother listing)
   2. User:Nukes4Tots - Talk:SIG SG 550#Request for Comment: Article Accessiblity, numerous others
2. Users whom Some guy has interacted with at the firearms or MILHIST pages
   1. User:Yaf - [28]
   2. BillCJ - [29]
   3. User:Commander Zulu - User talk:Some guy#Concerns
3. Users responding from ANI
   1. Administrator Tanthalas39 - [30], [31], [32] (also involved in WPMILHIST)
4. Other criticism from ANI, including multiparty cooldowns to both sides
   1. User:Thumperward - [33]
   2. Kirill - [34]
   3. User:Berean Hunter - [35] and User_talk:Some_guy#friendly_cease_.26_desist in general.
5. MILHIST user expressing incident-related concern of Some guy
   1. User:LWF - [36] (I believe that was referring to this series of incidents, have not confirmed with LWF)

To which, at some level, I must obviously be added at this point, as this has bothered me enough to start an admin investigation over it.

These criticisms have not all ended badly - Berean Hunter is working constructively with Some guy now, as are Sandstein and ToddST1. However, there is a very strong pattern here. It is not limited to MILHIST participants with troublesome behavior histories - quite a number of editors and administrators have concluded that there are behavioral problems.

Also very troubling are Some guy's responses to attempts by Commander Zulu (at User talk:Some guy#Concerns) and myself (at User talk:Some guy#Georgewilliamherbert Concerns) to discuss these issues with him in a civil and constructive manner. Some guy has been exceptionally defensive, repeatedly been unable to grasp the specific point of criticism, had problems communicating, and ultimately has reacted in an emotional and hostile manner including asking multiple other administrators to intervene and make me leave him alone. I spent considerable effort to not insult Some guy in the discussion we had on his talk page, and avoid any discussion about the merits of his specific content suggestions and stick to behavioral issues. Some guy insisted on conflating his behavior and the content / style discussions (logic like that if someone supported an article organization idea, they must support his behavior, when in fact several people who have supported his content suggestions have also criticized his behavioral problems, and the two issues are in fact completely orthogonal and unrelated). He responded in a similarly negative and escalating manner to Commander Zulu's friendly attempt to work with him and provide constructive criticism.

Some guy has consistently been at the center of a number of incidents of rude or disruptive behavior on firearms and military pages over the last month-plus, across a wide variety of pages, culminating in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive550#Article ownership and personal attacks by User Koalorka, and filing the report Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive550#Article ownership and personal attacks by Nukes4Tots though he was not the victim of that abuse. While its true that the people he's seriously tussled with both have histories of incivility and they clearly went too far responding to him in the end, they have not reacted in this concerted manner to others who come in to contribute to MILHIST or firearms articles. Nor have the rest of the firearms and MILHIST editors commented about trolling and baiting behavior this much with any other editor.

There is clearly disruption - The military history project is one of the best run projects most of the time, and the firearms editors while somewhat contentious usually get along well. The disruption started when Some guy showed up. He is clearly the focal point of it. This has been widespread across the topic.

I don't want to propose any intervention at this time. My goal now is to collect and present the situation for review in context, and discussion. Other administrators need to see this. Others in WPMILHIST and the firearms articles may well want to comment. Some guy deserves a chance to explain his role, learn from constructive criticism, attempt to avoid problem behaviors.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

George has been harassing me and threatening me on my user talk. He has been making numerous unsubstantiated claims on my talk page ("everyone is against you", "you are baiting", etc) and refused to back up these claims with any specific evidence, telling me to "go find it". He has been trying to get me to play games and attacking me because I refuse, threatening to ban me indefinitely, and accusing me of having a communication disorder. I have repeatedly told him I don't like his approach and consider it harassment. I have suggested he forward his complaints to another administrator but he has refused. My opinion is that his pursuing a vendetta for other Wikiproject Firearms members. I AM WILLING TO DISCUSS ANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT MY BEHAVIOR WITH ANYONE WHO IS NOT GEORGE. I am not currently engaged in any disruptive or inappropriate behavior. I have nothing more to say.

EDIT: Nukes was not blocked for attacking me. How the hell did I bait him into attacking someone else? Of course Tan was brought up out of context. He substantially withdrew his comment. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tanthalas39&diff=300041640&oldid=300024567

Some guy (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I specifically stated that you filed the ANI report that got him blocked, though you weren't the victim - "....and filing the report Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive550#Article ownership and personal attacks by Nukes4Tots though he was not the victim of that abuse.". I believe that was clear. If not, I apologize for creating any confusion. I did not mean to imply that Nukes4Tots was blocked for attacking you. You two were engaged in vigorous and often rude discussion on multiple pages, and you filed the ANI report for his incivility to another editor, but as you say he was not blocked for uncivil comments to you.

In any case - the specific diffs I asked you to go look for last night are now provided for you (and everyone else) to review. As I noted then, the first five of those diffs took me five minutes to find, and one was literally the second paragraph above one of your comments, in the same subsection, on my user talk page. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the specific issue and diffs.

I have also notified everyone who I quoted (I think), in case they have input they'd like to provide, or if I have misinterpreted their comments. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

How do you suggest I was unaware of a comment I responded to? That seems to me that I am more aware of what happened than you are, but that's just speculation. 05:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggested you were unaware of it because, in the thread User talk:Some guy#Concerns you denied to Commander Zulu, and then in User talk:Some guy#Georgewilliamherbert concerns, that you were being described as baiting by anyone other than the three editors you were engaged in interpersonal conflict with. That you had just recently responded to such a discussion comment seems to indicate that you should have known otherwise, and I was hoping that prompting you a bit would cause you to recall it and go looking for the other examples. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I made a mistake. You know what would have saved a lot of time, not pissed me off, and been generally more appropriate? Telling me. Some guy (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Although not a member of the WikiProject Firearms project, Some guy started editing the structure section of the WikiProject Firearms guidelines "out of the blue". His approach seemed a bit abrasive, with no thoughts towards seeking a consensus with other project members, but I sensed an intense editor who is probably very bright, but very young. The end result was a short dialogue on his talk page here, which ultimately led to the creation of a more robust set of guidelines. Being a Dad, with over 2 decades of "Dad" experience, though, as well as interacting regularly with young adults professionally, I do get a sense of a rather juvenile appearing editor. It is unfortunate that two very productive editors have been blocked in response to the goings-on of this youthful appearing editor. Unless Some guy can learn to tone down his enthusiasm a bit, and learn to work better with others, a cooling off period might ultimately be in order. It would give time for some maturity to develop. Meanwhile, the Wikipedia Project is being penalized in that two normally productive editors have been sidelined. Georgewilliamherbert has tried very hard to put the genie back in the bottle on this whole incident, but Some guy has just not seen the light yet. The assistance of a few other Admins could possibly help calm the waters. I would hate to see the youthful enthusiasm not accomplish good on our Wikipedia project, and be wasted, as well as hate to see the continued sidelining of some of the more mature and productive editors, too. A reset might be in order for all concerned, with careful Admin oversight of all involved editors for a few weeks. If problems resurfaced, then appropriate sanctions could be applied. The only other approach seems largely at odds with overall Wikipedia project goals, wasteful of volunteer labor. Yaf (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

His first sentence highlights the heart of the issue - biggest complaint against me is that I am not a member of Wikiproject Firearms but I am so "arrogant" as to propose structure changes after several members demanded that I do so when I tried to add subsections to several articles with sections over 1200 words. I do not appreciate being taunted as juvenile - I do not speculate on the ages of other editors. I would also like to point out that the BillCJ comment above was taking out of context; I did not perform any of the "reversions" on Nukes' talk page that were mentioned. Some guy (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the type of behavior I have to deal with: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history&diff=prev&oldid=300770465 (he previously asked me "out of curiosity" if I wanted to join the project and I declined ). I am treated, by a few users, with extreme hostility for being an outsider and this persists. Some guy (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Some guy - Notwithstanding the fact that Georgewilliamherbert is a Wikipedia admin with four years of creditable service, I am prepared to examine your claims that "George has been harassing me and threatening me on my user talk". Please provide relevant diffs to substantiate your allegation. If GWH is guilty of such transgressions then he will certainly be dealt with accordingly and fairly, as would any other editor or admin. However please appreciate that such claims are never taken at face value without supporting evidence, be they leveled at a new user or (as in this case) at an experienced administrator. Manning (talk) 05:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note I have not provided a diff for every single post in the conversation, the entire discussion is available at my talk page. Some guy (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Unsubstatiated claim of many users against me, claims I have been baiting, etc etc etc: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Some_guy&diff=301059347&oldid=300951494
• I ask him to back up his claims, lots of questions for him to clarify his accusations: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Some_guy&diff=next&oldid=301059347
• Doesn't answer most of my questions, more unsubstantiated claims of a "wide variety" of editors against me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Some_guy&diff=next&oldid=301089033
• Tell him I don't appreciate his unsubstantiated claims, they strike me as attacks, and I expect him to back them up: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Some_guy&diff=next&oldid=301097155
• "I'm not going to tell you" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Some_guy&diff=next&oldid=301101819
• Asked him to stop at once, told him I was angry, told him further unsubstantiated claims would be considered harassment http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Some_guy&diff=next&oldid=301107580
• Told him any more unsubstantiated claims or attempts to force me to "research" things will be considered harassment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Some_guy&diff=next&oldid=301110458
• Told him in quite clear terms I did not want to discuss anything with him any further: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Some_guy&diff=next&oldid=301116094
• Request on his talk page that he stop and forward his complaints to an uninvolved admin who is not a member of Wikiproject Firearms if they have merit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert&diff=prev&oldid=301142017
• Request for help from another administrator (he hasn't been online since then I think): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toddst1&diff=prev&oldid=301139177
• George follows me there and continues his unsubstantiated claims and trying to get me to play his game, including giving me "hints": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toddst1&diff=next&oldid=301142177

Some guy (talk) 05:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

review of above - Hmmm, I have read all of the above and I found nothing that constitutes "harassment". I note that you asked for specific examples of editors who disapproved of your conduct. Georgewilliamherbert gave his reasons for not laying out examples and instead he invited you to "spend five minutes" looking for yourself. That was his right. You elected to not do so - which is naturally also your right. However none of this exchange remotely constitutes "harassment". The remainder (and majority) of the comments made are quite practical and well-intentioned from what I can see. Other admins are free to review and make their own assessment. Manning (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

He's trying to get me to play games with him. I told him I didn't like it. Do I not have the right to request that someone stop posting on my talk page? The substance of his concerns are past complaints that other administrators have made. His concerns do not reflect an immediate disruptive behavior on my part. I asked him to forward his complaints to a different administrator. I will repeat I am willing to discuss things with anyone else. I don't want to play games, especially not with yet another member of the Wikiproject Firearms. I didn't want to get into arguments or get anyone blocked, I gave Koalorka tremendous patience and tolerated numerous attacks and gave him multiple warnings before filing an ANI regarding his behavior.

All I've been doing recently is participating in a discussion at MILHIST about changing firearms structure. I have been getting into arguments with one member because he repeatedly stated that I my opinions were invalid and I should not be listened to because I dared proprose a change without being a member of the project. Many members of the project have treated me as an "outsider" with an invalid opinion. I dont want to fight anyone about anything. If I was able to add subsections to the firearms articles without being reverted for changing the article structure, I would be happily editing and not fighting with anyone. All I want to do is finish the discussion about changing the policy ever so slightly to avoid silly opinion disagreements. Some guy (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Some guy - Before commenting let me note that I don't really know Georgewilliamherbert very well, and have never had much reason to interact with him, despite us both being on Wikipedia for a long time. Nor have I ever edited any of the articles in question. So I do not have any "allegiance" or "bias" towards anyone in this dispute. However having read his comments, particularly this one, I am of the firm opinion that he has gone to great lengths to be helpful and provide what I regard as highly worthwhile guidance. He has repeatedly praised your enthusiasm and commended your work, and has merely tried to guide you on matters of community participation. I appreciate you do not presently see it this way, but as a completely uninvolved Wikipedian, this is certainly how it appears. Have you ever considered the possibility that Georgewilliamherbert is actually - and sincerely - trying to help you? Manning (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I did until he continually refused to back up his claims of the multitude of editors against me. His suggestions of blocking me indefinitely make things worse. When he did not respond to and obviously ignored my request to speak with a different administrator instead, I stopped thinking he is trying to help me. As George mentioned towards the beginning of the ANI, I have worked constructively with other editors. Then what is the point of this ANI? I'd MUCH rather discuss his concerns with someone else. Is this ANI just because I won't talk to him and play "go-find-the-clues" with him? I am very willing to discuss concerns about my behavior with anyone else (as long as they don't expect me to play the same game). Don't I have the right to ask George to stop posting on my user talk? This next part I honestly don't know the answer to, do I have the right to speak to a different administrator instead? EDIT: Additionally, why was this so urgent? Why couldn't he have waited until Toddst1 answered my request for advice? I'm not vandalizing any pages, I'm not being disruptive at this point in time.Some guy (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Re the complaint that Some guy is being taunted as juvenile - We are not doing that. I, and Yaf, have speculated that Some guy may be unusually young for a Wikipedian in trying to understand and explain behavioral issues (communications difficulties, unusual or inappropriate emotional responses and escalations to constructive criticism). This is "Some guy being young might explain this" not "You're juvenile". Being young is a reasonable and innocent explanation for the issues, if that is true, not some sort of attack. We have many younger editors. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not a juvenile editor. I don't think there is any point in persuing that avenue of discussion further. Some guy (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I was pinged on this thread, so I thought I'd step in for a little defense of Some Guy here. While Some Guy has certainly not helped by taking comments personally and making personal comments in turn, the root of most of these problems is the degree of insularity within WikiProject Firearms (and a couple of related projects), and the attacks directed at any "outsiders" who attempt to influence it: witness Manning Yaf's seemingly innocuous comment about Some Guy's age, which is typical of you "you are not experienced enough to edit here" mindset new users often encounter. I've seen nothing to suggest that Some Guy is an "unusually young" editor. Unsurprisingly, both of the editors listed as being currently in dispute with him are currently serving extended blocks for exactly the same behaviour as has resulted in multiple blocks for both of them in the past. As far as I'm concerned, this will continue until such point as it is impressed upon the WikiProjects in question (and their participants) that they are not free to set their own rules on such things as how to conduct oneself on talk pages and in particular WP:OWN (which seems to be worn like a badge of honour by some people right now). I've previously tried to impress upon Some Guy that there is no pressing need for the encyclopedia to be finished tomorrow and that a little patience has worked for me in this domain in the past; some coaching may be a good idea, but I don't see any need for administrative sanctions on him at this stage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Chris - A clarification re your comment... "witness Manning's seemingly innocuous comment about Some Guy's age...". I agree it was innocuous, but alas it was not me who made it. 'Twas Georgewilliamherbert. Cheers Manning (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

D'oh. Actually, I was referring initially to Yaf's "Dad" comment. Please accept my apologies; I corrected the statement. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Chris hit the nail dead on the head. Several members of the Wikiproject Firearms have taken an extremely unwelcoming and generally outright hostile behavior towards "outsiders" and people they perceive as "newbies".

Let me show you my first ever interaction with Nukes4Tots and Koalorka - they both acted rather rudely towards an editor with a completely valid suggestion for a page change; after I defended the suggestion they stopped responding and I assumed that was a silent concession and added the word "bullpup" to the lead without being reverted.

Let me fill you in on how the discussion at SG 550 began (this overlapped early discussion at MP5 but I really don't want to try to address edits to two different articles and talk pages chronologically at the same time). I made some structure changes to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SIG_SG_550&diff=298458209&oldid=298366934 . Koalorka reverted my changes with summary "absolute no sense" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SIG_SG_550&diff=298471186&oldid=298458446 . I started a talk page discussion asking why the edits made no sense. I made a somewhat hostile comment but I thought about it and corrected it a bit later http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SIG_SG_550&diff=prev&oldid=298715438 . :::: I even created a sandbox version of the page because I was trying to help http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SIG_SG_550&diff=prev&oldid=298878849 . Look at how he responded http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SIG_SG_550&diff=next&oldid=298878849 , calling me a "novice editor", "arrogant and trollish". That was his first response at this page. Do you see how extremely hostile that is? How the conversation could only go downhill from there?

At the discussion at MILHIST, Commander Zulu has demonstrated increasingly hostile behavior towards "outsiders". "No one likes strangers" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history&diff=300375558&oldid=300373811 . He attacked another editor for "appearing out of thin air" "with no connection to the project" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history&diff=300504147&oldid=300501713 ("so what if we are being Elitist?"). He began manipulating and misrepresenting my words http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history&diff=300764275&oldid=300760981 . And this culminated twisting "editing on my own merits" into "I'm too good to join your project" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history&diff=next&oldid=300768755 . He told me to apologize for wasting their time and leave because I was not interested in being a project member. He tried to get an administrator to throw me out of the discussion for not wanting to join the project http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kirill_Lokshin&diff=300771429&oldid=300603964 . Do you see how inappropriately unwelcoming to newcomers that is? Were I not actually an experienced editor with a good understanding of Wikipedia and the patience to persist through such attacks, I probably would have given up and left altogether as I am afraid they may have convinced so many other editors to do.

Please understand the environment I have been placed into. Please understand the enormous patience I have demonstrated in dealing with these editors. I gave Koalorka many warnings before filing an ANI; he maintained his opinion that no personal attacks had occured up to and after that point. I asked several administrators for advice regarding Nukes' behavior before stumbling across his "Fuck you, you little shit" to another editor while I was looking through his talk page history for a discussion he deleted. I have not filed any formal complaints against Commander Zulu because he has been participating in the structure proposal, however unwelcoming his behavior may be. Please try to understand how nearly impossible it is to behave perfectly in these circumstances and appreciate how much I have tried. Please imagine a few editors telling you that you have no right to make changes to an article, but you have good faith and go start a project-wide proposal to change the structure guidelines as they demanded. Please imagine that after you do that, a single editor engages in increasingly hostile remarks telling you that you have no right to create a proposal to make project-wide changes. This is just a hint into what I've faced. I don't want to fight anyone but these circumstances are overwhelming. Some guy (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Berean Hunter

I watched this break out across the articles and followed it in real time as it escalated. Here are my observations:

Some guy was reverted often without explanation. The basic tactics used by Koalorka & Nukes4tots was to revert and place the onus on Some guy to make his case on the individual article talk pages. When a few other folks actually express support for Some guy's ideas, they shift to the tactic of (paraphrased) "well, this isn't the place to discuss this...we belong to this group and YOU will have to go over there and make your case and get them to accept it." The truth is that they simply wanted him to go away and thought that by herding him into the small containment of WP:GUNS, he would be shot down.

When discussion did take place on individual talk pages he was told by Koalorka (on 25 Jun) that "You will MOST CERTAINLY NOT remove detailed information without permission or approval from the wider community."

Both Some guy as well as myself asked to be pointed to the consensus being used. When I asked on 1 July, I was told by Nukes that "There is no pate entitled, "Consensus on Section Headers for WP:GUNS project" however feel free to look back at talk and edit histories of various firearms articles. You might want to bring this up on the project page." Asked again to point to this elusive consensus, Nukes4tots replied to Some guy (2 July) "Reading my mind isn't what I had in mind. Over a long period of editing and numerous changes and discussions on various pages, a consensus was built. Basically, the keepers of the consensus are those who edit firearms articles daily. If you want to change the structure, ONCE AGAIN, feel free to go to WP:GUNS and discuss the changes there. Your 'opinion' that WP:GUNS does not have 'enough' traffic (whatever level you've arbitrarilly set as 'enough') does not mean that firearms articles are now subject to your editing whims on what sections should be called what. Further, once you get a consensus there, hop on over to WP:MILHIST and try to overturn the consensus they've built there."

Clearly, they were trying to set an uphill battle for him by labeling that he would need not just one but two different consensus built to try to do anything.

Koalorka told him (2 Jun): "Devise a universal guide on how to use the new subsections, work out the nomenclature, bring it up on the project page and we'll discuss the merits of the idea. You like to hide behind Wiki-policies and refer to them selectively, when they work in your favour. We're going to make you abide by these same procedures. Consensus-building, it can take some time. Hopefully, you'll lose interest and move on to troll 50 Cent by that time." Koa also added (8 Jul): "Not that he'll be able to change anything" and "The futility of his butthurt crusade is entertaining and somewhat sad." Perhaps that is why Koa chose to not make any endeavor to join the discussion at WT:MILHIST#Proposed modification of Firearm article structure the project.

Commander Zulu replied to Some guy (5 Jun), "If I can be honest here, I think a lot of the resistance to your suggestions is coming from the fact you're not "known" to WP:MILHIST or WP:GUNS. No-one likes "strangers" coming in and telling them what to do, and from what I've seen, most of your edits have been largely focused on the Sig 550 and H&K MP5 articles, with one or two forays into things like M1 Garand. It's not a criticism, just an observation. The point is, you can jump up and down about how Wikipedia should work (ie, anyone can edit anything), but without the support of the projects maintaining the articles, you're going to be in constant revert wars. Also- and this isn't a comment or criticism on you personally, but a general observation- the edits made to firearm articles by people not "known" to the Project are, IMHO, generally useless, vandalistic, or otherwise flawed in some way. So, rather than trying to force your ideas on the Projects and getting annoyed when people say things you don't want to hear, why not spend a bit of time helping to improve articles by finding cites for articles lacking them, expanding "stub" articles, or generally improving them without getting too hung up on the presence/absence (or number) of subsections?"

When I responded here, CZ made this reply, "Sorry, who are you? Oh, right, someone else with no connection to the project appearing out of thin air to back up the guy (also with no real connection to the project) getting upset that no-one agrees with him."...and finished his reply with "I think we're perfectly entitled to say 'Go away and stop being a nuisance.' And so what if we are being Elitist? I think, in this project's case, it's more than a little justified." (CZ's full response).

Nukes attitude about this (10 Jun): "He says he wants to contribute and his first act SHOULD have been to join the project(s) and do some of the grunt-work. There's a huge list of things to do that, uh, need to be done. Earn some respect for your editing skills and us "OWNERS" will take Some guy seriously."

In a nutshell, it is thugism. The facts are that the WP:MILGUN MoS always allowed for what Some guy was trying to do and those who were were trying to use it as their defense were wrong about it. But gang tactics seem to prevail here as everyone rushes to state how Nukes or Koa have been slighted with Some guy's "demands". He never demanded, rather he actually followed their advice and went to a project to garner consensus. It seems to have backfired on them. They have been trying to demonize him. On the one hand, people have alluded to him being juvenile while on the other hand he is supposed to be some master wikilawyer.

While GeorgeHW has made considerable efforts to "assist", it is being done in a manner (with bad timing) to play on a previous dispute history of Some guy to undermine his credibility. Right now, is the wrong time to attempt this. Moreover, since group tactics have been used to bully Some guy, he is perfectly right to ask for someone else other than a member of your project to serve in the neutral role for coaching. Since you (GeorgeHW) have stated that you think he was baiting and that the blocks were wrong that makes you non-neutral...you should back away in my opinion. That "indef block" threat seems to be a mistake on your part and undermines your sincerity in these matters and certainly undermined your cause. Lots of other admins in town that can help Some guy when the time comes...

Chris Cunningham hit this nail-on-the-head with his response above. The issue here isn't Some guy. There is an authority issue at hand. The projects are deeming that they have "authority" that supersedes the rights of the general Wikipedia populace with the expectations that you must earn your right to edit "their articles". Never once have I seen any member of WP:GUNS or WP:MILHIST offer what I'd call a sincere welcome or true help to Some guy. I wish that I were wrong about that because it is a shame (diffs anyone?). Most actions seem veiled to protect the members of the gang project or the reputation thereof.

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

User:86.44.18.40

Could the behaviour of this IP please be reviewed. No need for diffs, just look at all his posts. His continuous anti-British rhetoric is getting beyond a joke. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Generally, talking to the user is a good first step. I'm leaving him a note both about this thread and as a warning to stop the anti-British commentary. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann: Underhanded tactics and false accusations

I'm having a problem with User:Dbachmann. He's coming on way too strong. Someone please tell him to back off. There are proper channels to put forth proposals, but instead he's waging a move war against outlines. The OOK WikiProject's discussion list has become clogged with incidents involving him. He even tried on his own talk page to intimidate and connive an 8th-grader into helping him with a mass move. He's buzzed both WP:AN and WP:ANI posting very deceptive and negatively rhetorical claims - the threads were deemed inappropriate for this venue and closed, leaving me unable to respond to his false claims. (Links are included on the discussion list).

The war has culminated in a battle over the changing of a single sentence of the Stand-alone lists guideline. In his post on the talk page, Dbachmann included a false accusation in the heading.

Dbachmann is being highly irrational, isn't playing fair, and he's starting to affect my ability to coordinate the WikiProjects I'm responsible to, and my ability to work on improving this encyclopedia's lists.

I've been working on damage control for 3 straight days (including today), and I'm about ready to snap. I need your help. Somebody please talk to him.

In an effort to clear things up and hopefully bring this war to an end, I have posted the following explanation and proposal:

Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists#Outlines and indexes have been included since the beginning; and a proposal

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist    22:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out elsewhere, your use of language here is fantastically revealing. "Wikiprojects I'm responsible to," "damage control," "war against outlines," and so on. You and the other few involved in these 'outlines' keep typing reams and reams and reams of text that don't actually say much and are filled with circular reasoning. And anyone with the temerity to object to outlines is immediately a bad person--or, condescendingly, misguided and foolish. The wall around your garden is crumbling. → ROUX ₪ 22:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Objecting to outlines is one thing. Running a smear campaign is something else entirely. I coordinate some WikiProjects, and I can't do that if I'm spending all my time answering false claims and rhetorical tactics. And it's not just a war, but a move war - a specific type of editorial war. He should just leave us alone and post a proposal at the Village Pump. The Transhumanist    23:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So.. let me see if I have this correct: your project can impose this outline nonsense all over Wikipedia, but any objections must go to the VP, and can't be discussed with you? There's yet another bit of evidence that this is a walled garden, and yet another reason why this whole project should be nuked from orbit.→ ROUX ₪ 23:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't have it correct, on either count. I'm not here about objections. What brought me here is Dbachmann's highly uncivil and objectional behavior. And I have no interest in Walled gardens. This whole thing began because of adding what Dbachmann thought of as too many links - the opposite of a walled garden. He came across a hatnote from a test run of hatnotes, and has been going on a rampage ever since. As long as he remains civil, I don't have a problem with him. The Transhumanist    23:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the above was very well explained (or handled). I also don't think it warrants an ANI post. I'd suggest closing it, as being at the wrong venue, just like the last ANI thread about this was (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive551#"Outlines").

If anyone reading this wants context for what is being discussed, the relevant discussion links have all been collated (see the May/July 2009 links); the thread at WT:SAL is possibly the most concise/informative.

Lastly, I have notified dbachmann of this thread. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a reason someone hasn't filed an RFC on the issue of outlines? I agree these backroom dealings and once-in-a-while ANI threads aren't helping anything. –xeno^talk 14:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• The reason I haven't filed one is that it's too complicated a situation. If Dbackmann, who has apparently been sniping monitoring the situation all along, would put one together, it would be helpful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I"m actually considering filing one myself (might be worthwhile for a neutral party to file it), but I don't have time to review the whole situation. –xeno^talk 14:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

  Agree that an RfC might be the best way to go here. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, when you go back and edit a snarky comment to strike it out, it shows you thought better of it afterwards. When you do it in the original post, it shows that you really intended to say it. Just sayin' ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, He probably intended that, it is a standard internet method of expression. The other related method is explained at Backspace, and the example there: "My slave-dri^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hboss decided to stall the project.". HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with Arthur, but go even further, that this situation is too complicated to be adequately summarized or addressed by an RfC at all, because: it involves a number of overlapping issues, and a number of unrelated issues. Should I attempt to summarize some of them?

1. The outlines themselves have a long history (since 2001 when Larry Sanger made a list of them), but seem to irk some editors as much as infoboxes/linked-dates/"[blank] cruft"/etc do. Dbachmann himself expressed interest in the format back in Nov 2007, when he said "But type (2) "cheatsheet formats" like List of mathematics topics can actually be useful as long as they are intelligently arranged and not alphabetized." (here). Anybody who hasn't already, should really read the intro paragraphs at Propædia, too.
2. They have been discussed in many venues, including most of the Villagepumps on multiple occasions, but some people are still convinced that they are "new" or "secret" or "unvetted".
3. There is a lot of support for the outlines, from intelligent admins and editors. To name a few from recent threads who have supported the concept of outlines, or who actively work on them: DGG, Skomorokh, rootology, Kingturtle, Rich Farmbrough, John Broughton, Sj, Juliancolton, Phoebe, and many more whose names I don't recognize.
4. The 'aggressive'/'enthusiastic'/'motivational' writing style that The Transhumanist employs tends to get under some people's skin (mine included, though I've worked closely with him for 4 years now). That can't be helped, at either end. It's one of the main problems with Wikipedia, and online forums in general, that people who object to any part of one's ideas will latch on to the weakest aspect of them, and use it to undermine the whole. (Hence hours upon hours of re-writing everything in an attempt to eliminate the possibility of misinterpretation or sidetracking. Good practice but exhausting.)
5. There seems to be a lot of confusion as to what exactly is the 'current' state of things. Also a lot of confusion and disagreement as to the ideal 'end' state of things. For example: what namespace 'these pages' belong in keeps coming up (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and more. (Some of these arguments have been summarised here)). Well, that depends on 'which' pages are being discussed, and whether they should be considered along with related pages. Are outlines considered lists in need of references, or are they navigational pages? (As Dbachmann said: "there is no clear division, and there will always be room for debate. Common sense needs to be applied, case by case. The relevant question is: "is the page indexing Wikipedia, or is it an encyclopedic list?""). Do we want to move all the "navigational (index) pages" to a new namespace?(tried that a few times, no consensus). There are a LOT of navigational pages in mainspace, that for technical reasons should really remain there (Category:Disambiguation pages, Category:Lists of lists, Category:Indexes of articles, and many more), and there are a lot that are somewhere between a navigational(index) page and an article (Category:Glossaries and Category:Timelines and Category:Bibliographies by subject and Category:Outlines and more). As Transhumanist says above, we've been trying to bring some order to the mess (such as renaming pages in a consistent manner, and assigning them to wikiprojects, and giving them a consistent structure) which has naturally brought them up on watchlists, and shocked some people who were apparently unaware they all existed, or how many there were of each.
6. Each type has appeal/benefits/problems. Compare: Japan, Outline of Japan, Index of Japan-related articles,Portal:Japan, Category:Japan, Category:WikiProject Japan articles. (plus all the various sidebar and footer navboxes). Yes, there could be a perfect, autogenerated, utterly-intuitive, never too-much nor too-little indexing system, but noone has built it so far... Until then, we have these manually created lists/indices.

I'm positive there is more that needs to be explained/contextualized (and that I've done an imperfect job on what I have explained), but I've spent just over 90 minutes on this, and need to get on with my day. Hopefully some of the above is helpful (and hopefully none of it is inflammatory or grossly incorrect ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that the projects have specifically avoided OWNing these lists, and have been open aout getting more involvement. It would be useful to see why people who oppose them do so. I'm tempted to suggest it's a personality clash between thread starter and thread subject. Personally - Wikipedia needs some better method of navigation. (I'm not sure this is it), especially since search box sucks so hard. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult to navigate a maze like Wikipedia , where articles get added in an uncoordinated manner. There are many ways to organize, & as a librarian, I know all the extensive arguments for and against each of them. In practice, whatever scheme people are willing to work on is the best--anything can work if people maintain it; nothing can work if they do not. As we cannot compel anyone to work on anything, we have to accommodate what our volunteers actually want to do. At the moment, the greatest activity and the hardest work seems to be the outlines. That's therefore where efforts should go & where mine will be also. I was delightd to see The Tranhumanist's project, and so should anyone be who cares about the users and realises that they are unpredictable. And in general, to try to block other people's projects when they are not actually harmful is not usually all that helpful. I tend to watch out very carefully for OWNership, which I consider a serious threat to the encyclopedia--I do not see it in TH's approach. I see a perhaps over-extended attempt to work with everyone possible, but that's merely too much of a good thing done in the right spirit. DGG (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Although there may be merit to the idea of outlines, the fact is that there are reasonable objections to them that should be addressed now, before the members of the Project commit a lot more of their time to making them, and before even more hurt feelings are generated on all sides. Abductive (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you have more questions at the thread you linked to? (Your last reply was 1 word!) We've been answering all the questions you've asked and discussing all the topics you've raised, so far... (We're not machines, and cannot produce aesthetic improvements project-wide overnight, if that's what your concerns are still ;) Some of the bigger issues that you've mentioned there need a bigger venue; go ahead and start a VPump thread, or similar. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

what I was trying to say is that there are major objections that can be raised against any form of organization. You name it, i ll find reasons why it is not a good way to do things. Yet we must have structure. This is no worse than the alternatives, and that's what you;d need to show. DGG (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The one issue that I think does need scrutiny/comment, is the "scope" of the outline project: How to decide which topics need/deserve/warrant outlines. This hasn't been discussed seriously yet, as far as I recall. My view, is that we should generally follow some sort of restrictive and pre-established list, such as the various vital/core/essential article lists (eg Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1 or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles#List of vital articles). TT seems to follow [what I would call] a more m:incrementalism approach, using Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Projected outline as his plan of intended action. I would welcome an RfC on this specific topic, at whatever location is deemed most appropriate.

(But that should probably come after the confusions above are confirmed as being cleared up. Hopefully Dbachmann will respond to one of the various threads that would benefit from his responses/input, soon. (1, 2, and/or here)) -- Quiddity (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible evasion of block by User:Cjas

This edit [37] may be by blocked User:Cjas using an IP address User:75.171.140.108, judging by the style, see [38]. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it passes the duck test with flying colors. A warning on the talk page, perhaps? Too lazy to do it tonight. a little insignificant 02:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have left a message at the IP talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Note, IP already admitted to being the same user: [39]. -- œ^™ 18:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Fan fiction in Days of our Lives-related articles

85.226.66.142 (talk) was blocked in June for inserting large amounts of unsourced information into articles related to Days of our Lives. [40] [41] [42] These edits were deemed fan fiction and reverted.

Now, 85.226.70.239 (talk) has begun a crusade to continue adding the same fan fiction. [43] [44] [45] The duck test says they're the same user. What should be done? a little insignificant 23:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing related in the past couple of days, so there's no guarantee that blocking would do anything at this point. Chances are good the guy has already reset his router (or something similar) and has a new IP. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A rangeblock might do a little more good, but I'd wait until a 3rd similar IP pops up to get a better idea what range the person this operating from. MuZemike 01:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first time this has happened. See the paste below, taken from User:TAnthony's talk page back in Feb.

Days of Our Lives fan fic vandal Check out my contributions to see how much fan fiction I have been reverting from the IP 85.226.... What can we do about this? We can't ask admins to IP block EVERY Days of Our Lives article. And he/she is on the prowl...it's becoming quite tiresome. How can we handle it? Rm994 (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Since this is such a constant problem, we can actually request an IP rangeblock, which is a block of a series of IPs likely to be used by the same user. You have been monitoring this problem more than I have, so please add any more IPs to the list below which seem to be the same individual. As you can see, so far they appear to be from the same "batch." — TAnthonyTalk 21:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.226.64.75 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.226.65.95 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.226.66.85 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.226.70.42 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.226.71.23 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.226.71.153 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.226.71.186 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.226.72.251 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.226.79.244 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.226.174.41

Rm994 (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to leave the last one (85.226.174.41) out of that request. It's not from the same city, and could conceivably knock out a large portion of Sweden (or almost nothing, I've no idea). I don't have any expertise in rangeblocks, though, so I can't say whether or not it's feasible in this situation. lifebaka++ 03:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Excluding that last IP, all the IPs fall within the 85.226.64.0/20 range. Without it, you'll obviously be back down to 85.226.0.0/16, which is too large to even consider. MuZemike 07:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So do we block the last one, and rangeblock the rest? Or individually block all of them? I'm sorry, I'm not good with IP ranges. a little insignificant 14:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Ledenierhomme

I have told this user countless times to stop editing this article:

Ottoman-Hungarian Wars

without discussing the changes first. Instead, he has ignored my discussion with this response: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOttoman%E2%80%93Hungarian_Wars&diff=300970677&oldid=300910016

I have warned him three times: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ottoman%E2%80%93Hungarian_Wars&diff=prev&oldid=300910016, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOttoman%E2%80%93Hungarian_Wars&diff=300320475&oldid=300207618, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALedenierhomme&diff=300164421&oldid=271778054

Basically, I am exhausted of options in stopping an edit that I wish to discuss and disagree with, of which he is the only one pursuing this edit without a discussion. Gabr-el 02:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've given a final warning to the user. If he continues, he could be blocked. (X! · talk)  · @177  ·  03:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I think if he just explains his edits to me, we can all get along and he not get blocked. Gabr-el 01:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wheel war issue

Resolved

 – admins involved sorted it all out with smiles all around. Group hug! Manning (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? What was the resolution, please? Be specific, be clear, and be precise, thanks. "Group hug" doesn't reassure me at all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm self-reporting a wheel war-type dispute between me (an administrator) and User:Altenmann (also an administrator).

Here's a rough outline of the sequence of events:

1. June 24: I deleted Category:Lithuanian surnames pursuant to a CfD closing (which has been a controversial close in and of itself, but the dispute doesn't touch on the close exactly).
2. July 6: I re-deleted the category a couple of times. The category was redirected to Category:Lithuanian-language surnames. I commented in the edit summary that in my opinion, its creation as a redirect category was probably not a good idea at this stage, since conceivably a "by culture" scheme for surnames could be proposed and implemented, and the redirect gives the impression that the "by language" scheme is the only acceptable scheme for surnames, which is not true and is inconsistent with the CfD close.
3. July 6, User:Altenmann used admin powers to "restore" the category without any explanation.
4. July 7, I re-deleted the page again, repeating my rationale in the edit summary.
5. July 7, User:Altenmann re-created the category for the second time the category was re-created by another user and User:Altenmann left a note on my talk page that my past deletions were misguided.
6. July 7, I deleted the page again, and responded on my talk page, explaining my position.
7. July 8: User:Altenmann re-created the category for the third second time and stated on my talk page that my reasons for deletion are invalid and that I would be reported for abuse of admin privileges if I deleted it again; I responded (in a way that probably wasn't helpful) and now have come here.

Summary of concerns: I admit that it probably wasn't a good practice of me to simply provide my rationale in the edit summaries when I deleted the category. There's limited space in an edit summary and it's impersonal and not amenable to discussion. I should have initially approached User:Altenmann to explain the deletion and the underlying administrative reason I was giving for it. But at the same time I'm not terribly happy that User:Altenmann has seen fit to use administrative powers to contradict the actions of an admin performing an admin-related function (CfD) by restoring and re-creating the category numerous times once discussion was underway between us. I recognise that I'm guilty of repeating an administrative action with the knowledge that another admin opposed it; I also think that admins do need to respect the decisions made by admins who are closing discussions and not take actions to reverse actions performed by the closer in that capacity without the closer's agreement. In this case, I never have agreed with the other admin's re-creation/restoration of the category redirect.

I'd appreciate it if I could get some feedback from admins who hitherto have not been involved in the situation with the underlying controversial CfD. I don't want this to blow up into a debate over the correctness of the original CfD close, as that has been and is being discussed in ample amounts elsewhere. I'm also not as concerned about hearing opinions on whether or not the category redirect exists (as of right now, it does) than I am about my behavior and Altenmann's behavior. Even if no one comments, I feel better for having self-reported. Thanks. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I can only see one action, admin-power or otherwise, by Altenmann on the category. Special:Undelete/Category:Lithuanian surnames shows multiple recreations, yes, but by Badagnani (talk · contribs). As such, I doubt we can consider Altenmann to have wheel warred. As to the three most recent deletion of Category:Lithuanian surnames, they don't fit the bill of G4. Additionally, the existence of a category redirect (which is in place now) will not preclude a later change of the category to a different organizational structure. lifebaka++ 03:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

He has restored it once (shown there) and re-created it manually once (the latest re-creation, not shown there but viewable here). You are right about the other time though—I mistakenly attributed one re-creation to him that was not done by him. It does make me feel better that it was twice rather than three times, but still ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

*facepalm* It's always where you don't look. So yes, one could consider this wheel waring, and both of you should have discussed this rather than just jumping in. I'd say you both get trouts to the face for that one, but as long as you both can admit you didn't act in the most ideal manner (which would have been discussing before doing any more deleting, restoring, recreating, et cetera), I'd rather not get into any drahmahz. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I appreciate that. And I do admit to that. In a way I did this more for myself than to get the other editor to admit fault, so I'm not too concerned whether or not he shows up to comment. I'm also not interested in continuing the ongoing drama with those who've been otherwise involved and tracking my every move and cursing my name for a variety of related reasons (see comment below). I really just wanted a look by an uninvolved admin. Thx. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - The deletion (and "salting") of these necessary category redirects was very wrong and I concur that they represented a serious abuse of admin powers. This very editor had insisted on the deletion of hundreds of surname subcategories such as the Chinese surnames category, stating that such categories are impermissible, then deletes multiple times and "salts" many essential category redirects Category:Chinese surnames, such as that to the new category Category:Chinese-language surnames. Such category redirects are necessary to let editors who don't know about the new surname subcategorization system know that they need to use a language-based subcategory rather than a culture-based or nation-based one. Impairing our encyclopedia's functionality for our users in such a heavy-handed and thoughtless manner, deleting and "salting" without thoughtful, considered discussion cannot be tolerated any further at our project. Badagnani (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Its called deletion review. Use it. Viridae^Talk 04:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You're damn right, Viridae. What were you thinking, Badagnani? And what are you thinking, using such sweeping and draconian language as "cannot be tolerate"???? He deleted in good faith, the other editor re-created without going to deletion review, and you didn't inform the other editor of DRV as you should have, you actually supported and encouraged him by undeleting without even discussing with teh deleting admin? How the hell did you pass Rfa, I'm wondering about now, although I certainly hope this is an abberation on your part and you usually have better sense. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Our project is not meant to be a war between combative editors but a collaborative process where we discuss with thoughtfulness and consideration prior to deleting and "salting" a necessary category redirect (once let alone again and again and again). DR would not be necessary if admins, in whom we place our trust as fair and impartial, behaved in a mature manner befitting their positions (and acknowledged, and corrected mistakes in a graceful manner when such mistakes are pointed out). Badagnani (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Badagnani, I don't think there is a dispute about most of what you say. The fact is that often users (including admins) disagree about some issues, so DR and DRV is essential and it's not terribly helpful to talk about things in terms of substantive "mistakes". My point here was partly to allow me to admit I made a mistake with another user and it doesn't help for other involved users to drop by to do drive-by pokes in my eye. My concerns are largely resolved here, and I'd like to keep this thread on topic, and was specifically looking for comments from uninvolved admins. If you have other issues to discuss, you can do so on my talk page if they relate to me or in a new section on this page if appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Your comments at Category talk:Icelandic-language surnames and the situation that categories such as Category:Korean-language surnames contain only one or two surnames, due to a failure of you to clean up after the destruction of our former surname subcategorization system you had insisted on just over a week ago shows a fundamental lack of maturity on your part. Please clean up this damage by using your bot powers (used so effectively to delete dozens of category redirects again and again) to repopulate these new "by language" surname subcategories. Leaving Category:Korean-language surnames with only two surnames for weeks at a time while you move on to tasks you presumably find more interesting and less tedious than fixing our now-terribly-broken surname subcategorization system seriously undermines the credibility of our encyclopedia for our millions of users around the world, who must be our highest priority when making decisions such as you made in the recent, massive deletion of surname subcategories. Once that is taken care of by you, there won't be any further discussion needed. Badagnani (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As I said, please bring up your other concerns elsewhere. Or start a new section here. Thx. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - This is not "another concern," it is part of the failure, on the part of an admin, in whom our project entrusts a very high degree of responsibility, to follow through in fixing the damage caused by the deletion of hundreds of surname categories, namely in failing to do the follow-through work necessary to repopulate categories such as Category:Korean-language surnames, which now contains only two surnames. This situation should never have been allowed to happen for a single day let alone over one full week, and makes our encyclopedia look very bad! Please fix this situation promptly and do not continue to respond to this reasonable request in a flippant or dismissive manner, as you did at Category talk:Icelandic-language surnames. Badagnani (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I did try very hard there to explain that (1) the result of the CfD was "delete", not "rename"; (2) there was no consensus in the DRV to change this; (3) reasonable people can disagree about matters such as this, and this is a case of disagreement. I got worn out b/c of your failure to acknowledge any of these points, and so eventually dismissed your repetitive comments. If you think I've thereby abused administrative powers, then please start a new section on this page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Excuses aside, the damage to our encyclopedia's surname subcategorization system you insisted on needs to be undone, so please do so prior to moving on to other tasks you find more interesting or less tedious--thanks very much on behalf of our community and users around the world. You can start by repopulating Category:Korean-language surnames, which, shamefully, currently contains two surnames. Badagnani (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Badagnani, a velvet rope is classically the barrier outside a nightclub. There was no threat of any sort, much less a death threat, and I suggest you apologise immediately to Good Ol'Factory for implying that there was. → ROUX ₪ 05:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Please do not attempt to change the subject. I took the heading--the selection of my username alone to preface my comment, of which I do not approve, accompanied by an edit summary referring to a rope--as a threat at worst, and extremely rude at best. If I had wished to give my comment a subheading, I would have done so. Again, please address the subject at hand and do not attempt to refocus attention elsewhere. Badagnani (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Color me very confused: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. No threat of any kind was intended by my edit, and I apologize for the use of the term if it was misinterpreted as such. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think he needs a strong warning from an admin followed by a block if he continues to persist in labeling other users' comments as threats, particularly after it has been explained to him that they are not. → ROUX ₪ 05:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Again, kindly do not attempt to change the subject, which must be addressed, and the damage the above editor insisted on in regard to our surname subcategorization system, corrected. Badagnani (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Badagnani - You have wrongfully implied that another editor issued a death-threat against you. Like it or not, that implication IS now among the issues at hand. You are on one hand demanding that the admin body review an alleged misconduct you perceive exists, and yet you are acting as if that same admin body has no right to address a misconduct issue of your own. You simply can't have it both ways. I concur with Roux above, an apology is immediately warranted. Manning (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Again, kindly do not attempt to change the subject. I explained the way I took the edit summary in some detail just above. Badagnani (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Which does not explain why you reverted comments on your talkpage--one of them from me, explaining to you very clearly what a velvet rope is--as also threatening. You need to modify your behaviour. → ROUX ₪ 05:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Let's not impose a shrubbery - If Badagnani honestly misinterpreted, that's that. However, the edit warring has to stop right now, Badagnani. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • It is not possible for Badagnani to have continued misinterpreting the original statement when it was explained to him twice that he was wrong, was warned twice for claiming threats, and removed both warnings--again, claiming they were threats. AGF is great and all, but it's not a suicide pact. → ROUX ₪ 05:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree with Roux here. Honestly, I could accept that the initial use of "velvet rope" was misinterpreted as a threat, but it's very difficult for me to see how Roux's first comment on Badagnani's talk page could have been. Administrative warnings are not threats. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I find stubborn consistency at this time of night to be the rule rather than the exception. There is nothing to be gained by pursuing this issue. They made a mistake, they reacted defensively, they stopped doing that, it's over. Pursuing it now just aggrevates the situation. Stop pushing buttons, deal with underlying issue, please. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Uhh.. so now it's okay to repeatedly accuse other editors of making (death) threats? Good to know, thanks. → ROUX ₪ 05:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Roux - I appreciate and respect that you are annoyed. But... just let this one slide for now if you could? For no good reason other than to preserve the peace. Cheers Manning (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
                • I fail to see the point of allowing users to get away with that sort of thing. But whatever. A foolish expectation in at least the vague appearance of consistency is indeed the hobgoblin of little minds. → ROUX ₪ 06:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • Get away with what, misinterpreting something as a threat? If they honestly believed those were threats (and I AGF on that, the response was otherwise inexplicable) then that was a reasonable response under the circumstances. It would be nice if they apologized, sure, but that's not necessary for ending the disruptive issue. Which they ended. You keeping it going now is not helping. 8-P I understand that you're sensitive to the false accusation, and hopefully the social niceties end up addressed, but it's more important to stop the problem behavior than for everyone to shake hands and go out for a beer afterwards. Getting along doesn't mean all being pals all the time. The minimum acceptable getting along here was that they stop - and they stopped. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
                    • One misinterpretation? Sure. Five? Including 'misinterpreting' crystal-clear explanations as threats? No. But clearly that doesn't much matter. I do know that I and many others would have been summarily blocked had we accused another editor of making death threats and continued to do so after being informed otherwise. That you don't see the behaviour as a problem is incredibly disturbing. → ROUX ₪ 06:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
                      • In my interactions with this user over the past few days, I've never been 100% sure if there is a "language barrier" issue or not. I have usually thought not, but then the most bizarre things happen as a result of comments that you'd never expect would be interpreted in the way they are. (Needless to say, this is not the first confusing encounter I've had with the user.) I've asked, but never had a response comment to the question. So I'm still not sure. But it's the only thing I can think of that could explain certain responses Badagnani has made, barring something that would require a move away from AGF. When does one see enough to be convinced that there is another explanation? The user is good enough with English to have accused me of some weird anti-Semitic "fringe" beliefs several times at another DRV and to have suggested elsewhere that I have gone "rogue". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
                        • There is no way with English usage like that--complex sentences, difficult and (relatively) uncommon words e.g. 'exaggeratedly so'--there is a language barrier. None. It would appear that Badagnani called your edit summary a death threat, and then referred to subsequent explanations and warnings as threats, as a way to stifle debate--note that he kep harping on 'don't change the subject' after doing these things, and then disappeared as it continued to be talked about. I still fail to see how any user is ever allowed to get away with saying another editor made death threats against them, especially when it was explained otherwise to them. → ROUX ₪ 11:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
                          • It seems pretty off the map to me too (but I was the target of the accusation, so it's perhaps expected). I'm glad to hear that someone else finds it as "out there" as I do. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Now I've been attempting to follow this. Please clarify for me in case my understanding is wrong: a) there was a CfD where the consensus was "delete" and b) there was insufficient consensus at a DRV to overturn this. Before continuing - am I correct in this understanding? Manning (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's right. CfD, DRV. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • OK I've just read an enormous amount of stuff - I concur (for the moment) with Good Ol’factory's interpretation of the results of the CfD and the DRV. Badagnani - could you please guide me to evidence that your viewpoint represents a consensus position that is not being enforced? Manning (talk) 05:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • But does CFD apply to subsequent category redirects? I don't think it's this way with any other namespaces. --NE2 13:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies to Good Olfactory for my actions which smell like wheel war. Whatever reasons I had, I should have known better to jump into the middle of a heated antagonism, even if I had thought the local matter was trivial and clear. I hope to resolve my disagreements with colleague admin in his talk page, possibly with the help of advise from some other colleague trusted by Good Olfactory. - Altenmann >t 15:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think both of our intentions were in the right place. We just should have both paused and discussed a bit more. I'm willing to have this marked as "resolved", unless Badagnani has further comments here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Great to see administrators behaving like administrators should (not that I expected otherwise). Badagnani has not responded to my earlier question, but I think we should close this off given that the original issue has been cleared up. We can open a new discussion at a later date if needs be. Manning (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read this twice now, and damned if I can see the resolution you seem to find. What exactly was the resolution, please? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

User:23prootie edit warring again

23prootie (talk · contribs) has a long history of edit warfare, for which they have been previously blocked. On 6 February this year they were blocked for edit warring in the Pacific War and Allies of World War II articles (3RR noticeboard), following the block their behavior continued and they were again blocked for a longer period (3RR noticeboard). They then attempted to evade this block and continue their edit warring through a sockpuppet account which was confirmed and led to their block being extended (AN/I post). Despite this, they've recently resumed edit warring in both the Pacific War and Allies of World War II articles. The consistent pattern of behavior in both articles is to include claims that various colonies and dependent territories, and especially the Philippines, were independent states during the war and that the articles are racist for not including them in the various lists of combatants. This position has been discussed on both article's talk pages and has not won any support. Diffs for the Pacific War article in the last 24 hours or so are: [53], [54] and [55] as well as this series of edits on 23 June. Relevant diffs on the Allies of World War II article are: this series of edits, including the following ones which have edit summaries which show that the inclusion of countries is motivated by the editor's personal views rather than any sources: 'Again this is the reason why the Philippines should be listed separately. As quoted from a Filipino politician. "The Philippines is the world's punching bag."', 'I'm adding India, the list is "too white" for my tastes' and 'Is South Korea a developed country?'. Given that this editor's persistent edit warring over these articles has not been stopped by their previous blocks, I would suggest that a lengthy block is in order. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

From their block log, I note that 23prootie was also recently blocked for edit warring on 30 May. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the status of the Phillipines to pass judgment. However this edit: 'I'm adding India, the list is "too white" for my tastes' is grounds for a disruption block, as there was no basis for the addition of the information apart from personal viewpoint. (India certainly lacked any form of self-rule during WWII, this was achieved in 1948). Manning (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to contest the block since that editing "session" was clearly one against three or five, sorry I didn't count.--23prootie (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my insensitive possibly racist comments. Based on the history of my country, it's kinda typical for us to think that way. Kinda like a "white vs. other" thing. Sorry to be offensive. It's just frustrating when you know you're right.--23prootie (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You continue to edit against consensus and you continue edit warring. On top of all that you even dare to leave threatening messages like this one[[56]] acussing others. I don't believe that you are sorry at all. You just want to get out of this situation.--Jacurek (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've at that dispute for quite some time and it kinda gets tough when you know everyone is against you. I know I should have looked for a source since the beginning and I'm sorry for having acted immature, I've learned. As for the message you got. I kinda got annoyed thinking the dispute has been resolved. Punishment is not a solution here.--23prootie (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope it will be not necessary but it is not up to me to decide. Good luck and see you at the TALK PAGES and not edit warrig anymore.:)--Jacurek (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Despite the repeated warnings, including a 3RR warning, 23prootie has continued their edit warring today in both the Pacific War article ( [57] (the summary of 'see talk page' ignores the total lack of support for this there and the fact that they've been asked, repeatedly, to stop edit warring over the status of the Phillipines), [58] (edit summary of 'Yehey! I was right'), [59]) and Allies of World War II article ([60] and ([61]). They are also adding the Philippines to lists of sovereign states of the 1930s (see [62]), which was also part of the behavior which led to their being blocked in February. Could an uninvolved admin please look into this an impose an appropriate sanction? Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, I provided a reliable source. So there.--23prootie (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat - Subman758

User:Subman758 has threatened to sue me. [63] Under WP:LEGAL, he should be blocked until he retracts any threats of legal action. — Moe ε 09:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Craftyminion beat me to a warning ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Something else strikes me as something that should be avoided: Userbox on userpage: "This User lives in California, and believes it to be the First Communist State of America." accompanied by self-made image of the California flag transparent over the Soviet Russian flag (File:Flag of Communist California.jpeg. I'm pretty sure this would fall under Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content examples as something inflammatory or divisive. Not sure, though.. would like some thoughts on that.. — Moe ε 10:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I CSD-tagged the image of the flag. Not sure it's "divisive" userbox but surely a political statement. He's apparently never lived in Vermont :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I wasn't aware that Ahnold was a Commie. And unlike with a true Communist state, he's free to leave. He was in the Navy, right? So some government jobs are acceptable. Also, he's a Yankees fan, so he's associated with the Evil Empire. Regardless of all that cute stuff, legal threats are forbidden. I've reported him to WP:AIV since no one has blocked him yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked him. Dougweller (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblock requested; I've asked him to explicitly retract all legal threats. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. His unblock request called it libelous, so we need him to explicitly withdraw any threats. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

...an unblock will at least give him the opportunity to respond to the CSD on his commie-California image. He has had a few hours to retract his legal threat after being explicitly requested to do so, but did not take it seriously until the block occurred - indeed, I'm not sure he's yet taking it seriously, considering his unblock request. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

He said the legal threat was a joke, so when he says it's libelous nonetheless, is that also a joke? Or is calling it a joke, actually a joke? Time for some Tylenol. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"...either way I withdraw. I do however feel I am entitled to an apology for his slanderous statement..." Can you say, MISSING THE POINT??????--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, either he got it, or is pretending he got it. I have no issue with the unblock as long as he goes and strikes his places where the threats exist. Keep an eye on him for future (if I had survived my RfA, I'd do it myself :-P ) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I was about to unblock, but this diff from Bobak concerns me. Thoughts?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked, as Subman has withdrawn his threat. I suspect this was sarcastic joke, and hopefully he will realize this type of humor is not appreciated. However, we need to keep an eye on him. Pastor Theo (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, he needs to be watched. I also noted other problems, eg this [64]. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Just out of interest, why does NOTCENSORED matter so much when people want cunt on the front page but gets ignored about silly little user boxes? As the front page people are keen on saying "it's only offensive because you want to be offended by it and if you are offended by it you're a book-burning hater of freedom or an idiot or someone who has never contributed to an encyclopedia". If it's good enough for the front page why isn't it good enough for a userbox? 82.33.48.96 (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Because user pages and talk pages are not articles, and they are not supposed to be used for in-your-face political stuff and so on. However, it is helpful to know if a user is an extremist, as it can lead to enhanced scrutiny of his editing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Sole co-founder"

Oeekeepeedeeah (talk · contribs)

Quack quack.  Skomorokh  09:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef for this page move summary. Well, that and an obvious VOA. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

These accounts [65] [66] [67] [68] show no activity besides being the recipient of a welcome by Oeekeepeedeeah [69]. 14:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably he was trying to get his edit count up by welcoming new users. Thatcher 14:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Questwolf (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). IP blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:DanTD#More Notes to Come

I saw an edit by User:DanTD today (a normal constructive one) to his userpage, since that interested me, I turned on the page, and I do find we have a couple WP:NPA violations in the section I linked above. There is also others located at User:DanTD/Old Notes of Mine, and a certain few worry me. The first of the major 2 that worries me is on the older page dating April 18–20, 2009. This is what he said:

April 19-21, 2008: I got blocked yesterday, because another editor decided to tag more of my images for deletion, and I tried to protect them from him. He may do some good stuff here from time to time, but that S.O.B. is among many reasons I prefer not to go to any WikiConventions. I will add more images in the future, but even if I break 20,000 edits, I won't find any reason to celebrate.

The incident he is referring to is this on his talk page and the section of him reported by NE2, who was working in good faith here, to ANI (see Archive 140). The issue caused DanTD to get blocked for 3RR, but it seems it didn't do much as the above comments seems to refer. The part that is a big NPA violation is the S.O.B., which is referring to NE2, who wanted his copyvio images deleted. There seriously is a problem with leaving this visible for everyone.

The second one I would like to refer to in terms of the little note-rants dates to September of 2008, as seen here:

September 16, 2008: Another day, another a**hole. Until today, my userpage contained two images denouncing the oppression of the Chinese Communist Party, and the terrorists causing all the bloodshed in Iraq, along with the myth that they're all "the Iraqi Resistance." Never mind the fact that neither of them have the same goals or that most of their victims are the Iraqi people themselves. Some user decided that I was somehow trashing Chinese and Iraqi people, and had the images deleted. After trying to search this user's edit count, I found he was himself a communist, and openly goes along with this "Resistance" myth. When I tried to put those images back, he decided to be a WP:DICK and started and edit war with me. Then he goes to the administrators, and accuses me of vandalizing MY OWN PAGE!!!

This is a bit out of hand, as DanTD went on the same spree he was causing in the April 2008 one, with uploading copyvios, and in this case he is calling people a communist and is over generalising the issue here. (See here for the issues). I am looking for the dang issue to be solved here as majorly both violate the NPA policy and should not be accepted here, and again, I am doing this in good faith for the two that have to hear it. I have not had the time to study all of them, but I am sure there is something else, but these two are the ones that worry me.Mitch/HC32 15:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) ... not sure what you think can be done on a urgent basis from activities last year ago ... one is April 2008 (not 2009) and the other is September 2008. If you're trying to show a pattern of behaviour, that's an odd pattern. If you feel long term action needs to be taken, then WP:RFC/U is the correct place. From what you've shown, there's no urgent blocks required. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the only person I was calling a communist, was a user who claimed to be one. I was under the impression that his tagging of two posters on my user page was politically motivated, especially since many of his edits were just that. I've had a discussion with an adminstrator over the user's edit history, which as been reversed by people of every political persuasion. As for NE2, while I realize he was working in good faith, they were the only sources of info available at the time that contained evidence of the information I added to each relevant article. Plus, I've always given credit to the publishers of each map I posted, While there may've been an adequate substitute for the 1950 Vet's Highway map specifically, I still can't find my copy of the books and maps that contained the other images, let alone remember the exact title. The page in general is strictly a user page, and nothing more than a series of random writings of my trials and tribulations as a Wikipedian, something which plenty of other users have written before. ----DanTD (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:UP#NOT ... on top of that, you're never allowed to violate WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, even in "ramblings". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The closest thing I can say this falls under on WP:UP#NOT is #10, and not even that, since it doesn't name names. ----DanTD (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Calling me an SOB is a LIE He hasn't uploaded anything recently, and most of the old copyvio uploads have been deleted, but there may be a few questionable ones left, for instance File:Old Bicycle Path Railroad Crossing in Medford New York.jpg (there's no evidence that it was published - confusing publication with creation is a very common mistake by many people). --NE2 16:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've actually seen quite a few publications that the photo you're showing us was in, and this particular copy I received from the Patchogue-Medford Library's history department, who not only gave me permission to post it on Wikipedia, but insisted that I do it. ----DanTD (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Was it published before 1923? --NE2 21:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Something that old had to be. I just wish I could tell you where. Did you try contacting the e-mail address attached to the image? ----DanTD (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? It could have been taken long ago and only published recently. --NE2 09:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Think of the time it takes place in. An image during the bicycle craze of the 1890's and early-1900's. You honestly refuse to believe that some publishing company wouldn't have shown it? At least some local defunct newspaper? ----DanTD (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't assume stuff here. Either you will get a date of publication or it will be deleted. --NE2 13:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been falsely accused of sock-puppetry. What can I do?

I have been accused of using hospitalityexpert as a sock-puppet which is completely false. What is the dispute resolution of this process?

Mfetzer3 (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Best place to start is to talk to the editor who placed the suspected sock tag on your page. You can do so at User talk:Cobaltbluetony. Ask him politely why he thinks you're a sock puppet (because you'll always get a better reaction that way), and explain why you think he's wrong. Also, read Wikipedia:SOCK#Incorrect_sock_puppet_accusation. HTH--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And after reviewing both your and hospitalityexpert's contributions, it seems you, and quite likely hospitalityexpert, have a conflict of interest with this article. I can certainly understand why Cobaltbluetony might wonder if hospitalityexpert is your sock or meatpuppet.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I left a note for Cobaltbluetony asking him to reply here or to contact you at your talk page. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Background: hospitalityexpert (talk · contribs) and Mfetzer3 (talk · contribs) have both focused narrowly on the now-deleted article Meetinguniverse, which was deleted as promotional at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meetinguniverse. --John Nagle (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So are you filing an SPI, or not? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the complaining party. (Cobaltbluetony (talk · contribs) is.) I just took a look at AN/I, saw this, checked it out, and provided some links so others could look into it. It seems to be a moot issue, since "Meetinguniverse" was deleted via an AfD. --John Nagle (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It may also depend on how you're being accused. If it's being done in-passing, it's nothing to worry about. If they stress it in order to stop debate or your contributions, then they should file their official WP:SPI report, or stop violating WP:CIVIL. If they have filed their SPI already, provide proof against it, and wait for the results to clear you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Note: Same IP. There might be a reasonable explanation, but try honesty rather than assuming we are complete noobs. Thatcher 17:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For non-admins, the deleted contributions of these accounts may shed some light on this. Mfetzer3 created Meetinguniverse on the 22nd and 25th of June and on the 6th of July, and made dozens of other edits to the article and a couple to its talk page. Hospitalityexpert made two edits to the article and one to the talk page, all on the 6th of July. Neither editor has any other deleted contribs, and the non-deleted contributions are visible to everyone, and probably don't need further comment. Both editors are single purpose accounts - neither has edited another article with the exception of tagging a competitor article with {{db-spam}} - and both may have a conflict of interest, but I am more inclined to consider them meatpuppets than socks (see WP:SOCK for terminology), not least because of this remark. Having said all that, I see no reason yet to stop assuming that these editors are contributing in good faith. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of multiple accounts

Since April, I've been having two steady editing conflicts with User:Globalr here and here. In the first case, I added some dates to an article, which he repeatedly removed, apparently because he doesn't like them. In the second, he drastically oversimplified a template, again apparently because he doesn't like the prior form. Oh, and here, he's been warring with about three editors, restoring deleted/redirected entries to a template, again on a whim. Until today, we could maybe have called this a content dispute. But now Globalr has resurrected himself as User:Pepeo, and is doing the exact same things (compare with Globalr). Maybe his edit summaries are a little more menacing, though: "Biruitorul!!! There is no way that the dates will be ever put on here or anywhere. There is no way. That is why these are removed from here."

So: have we reached a limit in this case? Dahn, Avala, LibStar and I have all fought tendentious editing by this individual, who doesn't offer much in terms of productive contributions. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty massively obvious to me, so I've blocked the user for block evasion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Rebroad coming off a ban

Rebroad has come off a ban and seems to be continuing down the same disruptive road. He has inserted his disputed and yet cited addition to the Peter Mandelson article [here], this is not too bad, I reworded it a bit to more reflect the cite and removed the comments about Kenneth Clarke that had nothing to do with Mandelson. He also inserted the same stuff to a page where it doesn't belong at all the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [here], I removed this addition but he has reinserted it and he has now left me a warning on my talk page and has reinserted the comment to the page. It really does not belong there. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)) He is still busy with this campaign and has just inserted this dodgy looking (www. prisonplanet.com) link to the mandelson article, here (Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)) It now looks like my talk page has been vandalised again, the same thing was done by rebroad just before he was blocked for 24 hours (Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

Please take into account the outstanding related BLPN notice wp:BLPN#Peter_Mandelson which was raised by another party in relation to the material of User:Rebroad's original edits before making final conclusions as I don't believe this alternate process has yet been exhausted.—Teahot (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has responded to that BLPN notice. This really needs to be addressed, as the question of whether it should be noted that he has attended Bilderberg Group meetings is undue weight. The people involved in placing that into his article repeatedly, repeatedly claim that they have no ulterior motives, but it seems, to me, to be an attempt to make snide attempts at painting him as a member of the evil world-dominating cult, the Bilderberg Group. BTW, it was a block, not a ban, but Rebroad's repeat of the behavior which got him blocked needs to be addressed. A topic ban might be in order. Oh, and by the way, Rebroad thinks I'm a sockpuppet of Off2riorob. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, there is one +ve response to the wp:BLPN#Peter_Mandelson which Rebroad latched onto. He had however made the first Mandelson/BG edits immediately following the lifting of the ban before that response was applied. I had earlier asked him to refrain from the BG stuff until it was resolved in BLP. As for the edits to the Sec of State article, he was advised 2 days ago to leave that alone. He either does not read or is tendentious. leaky_caldron (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

He is still messing around with my talkpage..this is the recent last edit.. 22:31, 9 July 2009 Rebroad (talk | contribs) (427 bytes) (user is complaining on AN/I that I blanked their page, when it was in fact cluebot. Suspect user is unaware of how to configure cluebot so in good faith am disabling it.)

(Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

He was probably just helping you out, since he appears to think you assumed it was he who blanked your userpage (and appears to be correct in that you might not know how to properly configure cluebot, but that's neither here nor there, really). Let's try not to assume he means you harm, eh? After all, we all know what they say about assumptions. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This was not ClueBot vandalizing Off2riorob's Talk page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition, it was not bad configuration that caused cluebot to blank Off2riorob's Talk page, it was this edit by Rebroad which caused cluebot to blank the page. Perhaps Rebroad should not edit Talk pages until he learns to put comments at the bottom of the page instead of the top. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. That critical thought process never came to me. Stricken above. If you'd like to correct his placement of comments at the talk page (or ask him to include a signature and timestamp with all comments), I'd suggest you take it up at his talk page or file a WP:RFC/U if necessary. Still, it's best not to cast aspirations on his motives and instead merely look at his actions. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is spilling into other articles - I've got some concerns when someone adds "both of who, coincidently or not, have attended Bilderberg meetings" to a lead (Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills). Shell ^babelfish 23:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

And yet he has no ulterior motives. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As explained at the top of this noticeboard, this is not the right place for speculation on ulterior motives or on-going discussion about the pros and cons of User:Rebroad's edits. Please take these discussions to the talk pages of the article involved or to the user's talk page where this is the opportunity for resolution without Admin intervention. As the edits in question only started on 7th July and Rebroad was blocked for 24 hours in this time, I do not believe anything like enough time has been given for other contributors to these pages to express an opinion in order to reach a consensus on the inclusion of information regarding Peter Mandelson attending Bilderberg Group meetings.—Teahot (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me...

... why Josephjames21 (talk · contribs) is not blocked indefinitely yet? The talk page is virtually nothing but notices of copyvio uploads, uncivil arguments between himself and other editors, and multiple warnings for vandalism. In addition, this person made THIS blatant BLP violation [70]. I can't assume good faith with someone like this, they know full well what they are doing. This person is not here to contribute and needs to be blocked for good. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that edit is clearly unacceptable, but I don't think it is safe to assume that any editor who focuses exclusively on WWE, TV reality shows, Hollywood celebs, and comic books knows what he is doing. Looie496 (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

-- <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Looie496, care to strikethrough that generalization? If they're making bad edits, they're making bad edits--but what KIND of articles they edit has no bearing on their intelligence or their competence, as an editor or anything else.GJC 16:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism, inappropriate humor and wikistalking

Headlikeawhole (talk · contribs) seems to have an issue with making edits he believes to be amusing at articles like this [71], [72]. I left a warning at the editors talk page about this and they proceeded to vandalize and mock the warning as "judgmental messages" [73], and then leave a message on my own talk page promising to wikistalk my edits [74]. I've come across a number of people like this lately, who seem to think Wikipedia is for their own amusement and that it's ok to insert snide, unencyclopedic humor into articles. Are we an encyclopedia or a game? And why is it ok for someone to basically vandalize an article with their own personal jokes and then promise to wikistalk someone who warns them? <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like normal vandalism to me. If they don't stop after enough warnings have been given, report at WP:AIV. Chamal ^talk 01:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Mass Redirects

Resolved

 – No admin attention necessary. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Eco84 is creating mass redirects for television stations. For example: CBS Hampton Roads redirects to WTKR or ABC Pittsburgh redirects to WTAE-TV....and there are plenty more where those came from. These are search terms that would probably never be used. These redirects are being made, without discussing them with the TV Station Wikiproject to see if they are needed. I am wondering if they should be nominated for deletion or left be. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to drop the user a note asking for their rationale? That might go a long way towards helping and could avoid numerous deletion discussions. TNXMan 02:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My only rationale behind creating these redirects is that someone may be searching for network affiliates in various cities for whatever reason without actually knowing the callsigns beforehand. For example, is someone in Philadelphia conducting such a search really going to know the callsigns ahead of time for affiliates in say, San Francisco or Seattle? FYI, some of these redirects already existed (for various stations in New York, Washington, and Los Angeles) before I started creating more.Eco84 | Talk 03:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did a search almost identical to these redirects last fall when I was visiting Orlando, and I found myself in a hotel room that was missing one of those handy cards that tells you what's on what channel. A simple search will get you to the right answer, but the redirect speeds up the process. I wouldn't be going out of my way to create them — although I've certainly performed equally gnomish edits, and then some — but I don't think they're hurting anyone either. Mlaffs (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

While it is a good idea and I commend you for your boldness, I worry that there are many redirects out there that won't be used and if they are necessary. With the New York or Washington stations, I can see the need. In Washington, DC, WRC-TV, IDs itself as "NBC Washington" on some occasions. This is the same with all NBC owned and operated stations. But in the case of say, WTKR, most people from Hampton Roads don't say they are from Hampton Roads. I know, I am one of them (I am originally from Norfolk, VA). One would not search for WTKR as CBS Hampton Roads. Also, most people, even the most casual of viewers, know the callsign of the station they are watching. Mostly, because it is part of the branding. In Norfolk, WTKR's branding is "WTKR NewsChannel 3" and crosstown NBC affiliate WAVY-TV is "WAVY News 10". So, it isn't as if people don't know the callsign. Which brings me back to my previous statement....are they necessary? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Are they doing any harm? Redirects are cheap. Unless they're causing some problem I'm not aware of, if that is how Eco84 chooses to volunteer his time, I'd say "thank you" and move on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This does not seem like a problem in any way, and I commend the editor for their boldness. Adding non-controverial stuff to Wikipedia which may make someone elses life easier seems fine. These are all plausible search terms, so I see no reason for us to care... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, if the majority likes them, I will mark this as resolved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

Please take a look at the legal threat on Talk:Charlene Cafritz. The article is up for AfD, but that still doesn't make their legal threats acceptable. Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. Regardless I tweaked the article to make it less definitive (the source used "supposedly made films with Manson" whereas the article said "made films with Manson"). I think it will fail AFD anyway as subject is probably not notable. Manning (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've removed the content from the talk page and the IP address has been blocked by another admin for "abusing the edit filter". Nakon 03:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Seems like this could have been an opportunity for an explanation, rather than a block. Oh well. Funny how we give obvious vandals at least 4 chances to reform before their first block, but this editor, who appears to have been trying to do what they think is the right thing, but who doesn't know how Wikipedia operates, get blocked after one warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Here's the edit filter summary. The user attempted on about 30 occasions in a 14 minute period to replace the page with an identical comment to what Nakon eventually reverted on the talk page. It is possible to assume that the user simply didn't understand what was happening, hence the repeated actions. Manning (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
        • True, but thanks to the edit filter, they weren't actually hurting anything, so a block before talking wasn't critical. No human tried to explain what was going on. I've left a note on their page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Correction. At the most four chances to reform before their first block. Of course, it's the users' discretion to give fewer, depending on the level of vandalism, the target, and severity before blocking. Just thought I'd clear that up. MuZemike 05:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
            • It's only for 24 hours anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I suggest that you all get yourselves over to Special:Contributions/67.40.131.21, or look carefully at the details of those edit filter entries. Those 30 filter entries are one single edit to that article. So you're supporting blocking someone for one edit. Uncle G (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• I guess the IP editor doesn't know that libel and slander are different......unless they simply don't know how to spell liable, in which case they have libel and slander backwards. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • And in either case, under U.S. law (where Wikipedia's servers are located) the dead have no protection from libel. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • "Libel for slander"? That's a good one. The NLT page could pick up on that and warn that making a legal threat "is libel to get you blocked". Self-defining! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm libel to say that I didn't mean to say "I'll sue your ass for this!" I just don't know how to spell "I disagree with your opinion and wish to challenge you in the field of book-related battle." --Smashville^talk 16:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• So many legal threats recently. Geez, what a bunch of merry sues... HalfShadow 17:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

User repeatedly uploading copyvio photos

History asia (talk · contribs) is repeatedly uploading File:Uyghur figures.jpg (now uploaded as File:Uyghur.jpg after I salted the former), a gallery of non-free images he has cut and pasted together; he originally believed he had the right to release it as PD because the copying and pasting was "his own work", and now he has re-uploaded it and is using it in the article Uyghur people with no full non-free use rationale. I have already notified him of the copyright problems, and directed him to other articles (such as Filipino people) that handle image galleries like this without using non-free media, but the user has ignored me and continued to upload this image.

I'm requesting that the image be deleted (again) and the user be either warned or temporarily blocked. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added a comment on the uploader's talk page. If he still persists, I don't see why you couldn't also block him yourself - but I'd say give him another warning first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'll wait a day or so and see what happens. I did notice that, judging by his upload log, this user has a long history (nearly 4 years) of ignoring copyrights, and almost every photo he has ever uploaded has been deleted; here are just some examples [75][76][77]. To be honest, I'm surprised he hasn't been blocked before over this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also made it clear that he has to respect our guidelines and polices, esp. with regard to copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note to all: User:History asia has admitted that most of the images that he had uploaded was scanned from the book "Uyghurlar" (translated as: The Uyghurs) written by Turghun Almas, it was printed in Almaty by the publisher "Kazakstan" in 1992 (Volume 1, in Uyghur, cyrillic script). And according to WP:COPY, these can at best be deemed as derivative works of the original since the uploader did not obtain and has not been able to furnish any written permission or approval from the publisher/author for re-use here on Wikipedia and are to be considered as non-free images. If further alteration of image(s) was done, it would still be in direct violation of international copyright agreements. That is all. --Dave1185 (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Further notes from Wikipedia:COPY#Copyright violations:

“ Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems. ”

--Dave1185 (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Talim

I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this, but there's an issue that has been bothering me for quite some time. The article on the video game character Talim is constantly being reverted back and forth by User:Kung Fu Man and User:Swiftink and an IP address (see page history). There are actually multiple IP addresses, but they all belong to the same person. Both Kung Fu Man and Swiftink have made no effort in reporting this issue, and instead they have chosen to revert; I believe they both have gone against WP:3RR. The issue involves the character's nationality: if she is Filipino or Southeast Asian. The IP address is believed to be Filipino, and therefore it's assumed that he keeps changing her nationality to Filipino since he/she is one himself/herself. There is no reliable source, however, stating that she's Filipino, and the country did not even exist at the time. The matter was discussed on the talk page, but it didn't seem to help resolve the issue. That's why I'm posting this here. Any help on clearing this up is highly appreciated. The Prince (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the page indefinitely to prevent further reverts by the IP. It seems that this has been going on since at least early this year, and possibly longer (once I got to January, I stopped checking how far back it goes). Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)