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

Accusations made by User:Pixelface

During User:Someguy1221's RfA, Pixelface made an accusation that Someguy1221 was a sock puppet of User:Jack Merridew. This allegation was found to be untrue on the basis of two CheckUsers 1, 2. PF insisted on the second because, apparently, John Vandenberg isn't impartial enough.

It's no crime to voice one's concern about possible sockpuppeteering. HOWEVER, consider Pixelface's subsequent petulance, this thinly veiled accusation that Jack Merridew is running or intends to run a sockpuppeteering operation, and continued refusal to explain just why he thought there was something dubious going on- this leads me to believe that this was nothing more than a dirty and bad faith attack on Jack Merridew, an editor Pixelface dislikes on purely ideological grounds.

Pixelface has a recent record (complaint of disruption and edit warring, complaint of incivility and hounding, complaint of belligerent editing) of objectionable behaviour and this cheap shot is just the latest escalation. I am concerned that Pixelface will continue to use cheap tricks like spurious accusations of sockpuppetry to sink the boot into other editors he comes into conflict with. Reyk _YO! 03:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW recent history also includes Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Terima kasih (thank you). For the record, I am editing with no other accounts than this one, as the AC has directed. All prior accounts are listed in;

• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Davenbelle

For background, see

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Indefinite block lifted with editing restrictions and
• User:Jack Merridew/History

Pixelface is in full battleground mode re myself and has been since E&C 2. When my unban was being discussed, he stated his view rather clearly; archived here.

There was an RFC/U re Pixelface recently which he basically blew off;

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface

I have no idea why Pixelface believes, or believed, I and User:Someguy1221 are related. I'd not heard of him previously or crossed his path in any way I'm aware of.

I would like some action here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser cannot prove a negative. Durova^Charge! 05:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know that. He has admitted that he was wrong; that's not really the issue. His battleground approach to me, others, and various policies and guidelines is of wide concern as the links I and others have offered show. And of, course, there is more if one digs. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, what are you looking for that isn't being addressed at the RFC? What admin action are you seeking? Durova^Charge! 05:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the User RFC garnered a fair number of comments but no real change in behaviour. As to actions, I would think a stern admonishment and warning from the community would be the minimum and a community ban the maximum. Pixelface is relentlessly disruptive. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As a note on the User RFC, PF has not performed any more than 1RR changes on policy/guideline pages since the RFC. But the other factors mentioned do not seem to have changed. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As noted by Masem, the only behaviour that Pixelface has changed is the edit-warring on policy pages, and all the other problems remain intact. Since he has already been blocked multiple times for this, I think a 72-hour block is in order, with an eye towards eventually making it indefinite if he cannot learn to civilly engage with other editors.—Kww(talk) 15:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Are we blocking people for 72 hours now for filing SPIs on self-admitted sockpuppets? And I believe you made a comment at my user RFC about your own civility Kww. Like I've said before, when I'm treated in a civil way, I typically respond in a civil way. --Pixelface (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Masem, your desired outcome was fairly vague. And I never agreed to follow 1RR on policy and guideline pages. Which reminds me, I still need to start a thread about that change to WP:POL which came about in October. --Pixelface (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't blow off that user RFC, although it looks like most of the community ignored it. It was archived by Ncmvocalist after two weeks of no comment, and I had plenty more to say. I edited the page 11 times[1], I edited the talkpage 25 times[2], and I was the first to propose a solution. I promised to not edit WP:NOT during January before you did, and that policy was unprotected as a result. I also promised to not edit WP:NOT for two more months. However, you agreed to avoid all disruptive editing as a condition of being unbanned and you were warned by one of your three assigned mentors after your edit-warring on WP:NOT[3], where you just happened to accuse me of "vandalism." Now there is a baseless accusation. I suggest that if you don't want people to think you're operating sockpuppets, don't operate sockpuppets to begin with. Dominic can verify that he received an email, over 200K, with evidence that led me to believe that you might have been Someguy1221. I really think you should have told Reyk about your history before you let him start this thread. Oh, and please don't leave any more trout on my user talkpage. Cheers, --Pixelface (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, there are three problems with Pixelface's conduct in this issue:-

1. An unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppetry by, and disruption of the RfA of, Someguy1221 - someone completely uninvolved and blameless in this matter. Fortunately this did not affect the outcome of the RfA, and an apology has been made.
2. An unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppetry against Jack Merridew, which was not so much withdrawn as laughed out of court. There's been no apology for this and judging by the apparent past history between these editors, there is unlikely to be.
3. An unsubstantiated accusation that John Vandenberg isn't impartial - to the extent that he would falsely report checkuser findings. I'm not aware of any withdrawal or apology related to this. I'm aware that there is no explicit accusation of falsification, but it makes no sense to say "I question your impartiality, and I've emailed the evidence to another Checkuser" unless one believes the report of the first checkuser to be false.

Provided that Pixelface accepts that these are serious conduct issues and undertakes to address them, then I think no further sanction is necessary. I am well aware that the editors on the receiving end of Pixelface's problematic conduct are respectively an admin (now), a veteran editor, and a checkuser, and that as such these people ought to be able to laugh off such attacks. I trust that they will be able to do so, but our discussion here ought not to be about punishment for past actions, but prevention of future disruption, in particular prevention of discouragement to the much less-experienced editors that Pixelface will surely come into contact with. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, my accusation was substantiated, to Dominic, who had previously performed a reliable checkuser on Jack Merridew. Second of all, Jack Merridew is a self-admitted sockpuppet, and is apparently proud of that fact. Third of all, I had no intention of ever submitting my evidence to Jayvdb, one of Jack Merridew's three assigned mentors, who Jack Merridew contacted by himself. I don't think any of his assigned mentors should be performing checkusers on Jack Merridew. In addition to being one of Jack Merridew's mentors, Jayvdb said that Jack Merridew had "earned" a final chance in December and Jack Merridew voted for Jayvdb in the 2008 Arbcom elections. I expect Jayvdb to recuse in any further checkuser requests related to Jack Merridew. It does make sense to provide the evidence which led me to believe that the two accounts may be sockpuppets or meatpuppets to a checkuser, and I did so. Reyk certainly didn't seem to be aware of Jack Merridew's past history and frankly, Jack Merridew should have told Reyk about that history when Reyk told Jack Merridew he was thinking of starting an ANI thread. I have already apologized to Someguy1221 for thinking that he may be Jack Merridew. He is the only editor in this situation who deserved an apology. --Pixelface (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There was no need for Jack to tell me anything. There is a rather conspicuous disclosure of his past on his user page- coming clean about his past is, I think, good evidence that he's acting in good faith now. Reyk _YO! 01:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Above at the start of this thread you called this comment by me a "thinly veiled accusation", which seems to indicate you were totally unaware that Jack Merridew is a self-admitted sockpuppet and has edited under several sockpuppets in the past. Jack Merridew has done several disruptive things since being unbanned in December, but that's a topic for another thread. I'd be happy to list them on a user subpage. --Pixelface (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree with Pixelface's suspicions in this particular instance and encourage him to be cautious when alleging sockpuppetry (perhaps consulting with a trusted fellow editor before making an allegation in an RfA?), he is by and large a constructive and good faith editor who is frequently hounded by those on the opposite end of the inclusion spectrum. A good deal of what is typically alleged against Pixelface is partisan in nature and frequently hypocritical, i.e. dismissing him because of his beleifs when those doing the dismissing engage in the same allegedly poor behavior or worse. Few try to make attempts to reach out and in fact only perpetuate and escalate tensions. It becomes an effort to stifle the dissenting view rather than trying to reach an amicable understanding or a polite agree to disagree. Everyone should spend more time working together to rescue and improve articles rather than on trying to see sockpuppetry under every corner (unless it is blatantly obvious as in the recent report I filed that turned up 25 socks!) or tattling on each other at ANI. WAAAAY too much time is wasted in these discussions rather than on actually building Wikipedia and besides as Sheffield suggests above, it is really not that hard to ignore others when the accusations seem baseless. We typically only encourage people or make things worse by feeding into or getting up in arms over some things that can easily be ignored or passed over. In other words, to Pixelface, please help us work on article rescue and ask someone you trust first if you think sockpuppet looks possibly, because say if you asked me for example first in this case, I would have discouraged making the accusation in the RfA. To everyone else, please stop trying to bait Pixelface and enflaming tensions. We are here first and foremost to build "the paperless encyclopedia anyone can edit". The priority should not be trying to get each other in trouble. Have a wonderful weekend! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that anyone can gode another into behaving improperly, PF is the only editor in these cases that seems to be throwing personal attacks around. There's obviously animosity between Jack and PF, but I have yet to see an instance of Jack attacking PF on a personal note, even when PF starts off that way (I'm not saying there not might be any, I'm just not aware of any). We've been through this before that PF needs to stop engaging in personal attack, even if there seems to be an overwhelming number of more vocal editors that are against his position which may mirror an even larger number of non-vocal editors. WP is not a battleground - calm and rationale discussion is the means to settle disputes, not attacks at editors themselves. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with the characterization of Pixelface as being "by and large a constructive and good-faith editor". He is by and large a chronic source of low-level disruption and bad behaviour. His RFC demonstrates his general unwillingness to recognize the problems he creates, and, if this event isn't sufficient to cause him to be blocked, it should at least put him at the final warning stage.—Kww(talk) 14:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of sock pupperty are common, and often they are proven wrong. Maybe Pixelface had a legitimate reason to worry about Jack, since he has been blocked multiple times for sock puppet abuse:

1. 16:46, 31 March 2008 Ryan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs) blocked Jack Merridew (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts)
2. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive142#Jack_Merridew, listing EIGHT sock puppets of Jack.

To paraphrase Reyk's bad faith attack on Pixelface, now we have "editor[s who] dislike [Pixelface] on purely ideological grounds", Kww and Masem joining the argument.

If I were Pixelface I would have consulted the three admins, Casliber (talk · contribs), Jayvdb (talk · contribs) and Moreschi (talk · contribs) which are mentoring Jack to make sure the bad behavior does not happen again.[4]

Pixelface apologized that he was wrong, but that wasn't good enough. Jack Merridew added a huge trout to his page, but that wasn't good enough. Why can't editors accept this apology? Ikip (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't dislike Pixelface on "purely ideological grounds". I maintain a civil and friendly relationship with DGG, for example, who is certainly as ideologically my opposite as Pixelface. I dislike Pixelface for edit-warring, incivility, and a complete inability to work with people that disagree with him.—Kww(talk) 14:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Struck comment. So do you agree that Pixelface dislikes Jack on purely ideological grounds? Maybe Reyk should strike that comment too. Ikip (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Judging only on what I've seen, the language that PF uses in talking about Jack is complete dislike or disrespect for the person, not ideology, due to Jack's past sockpuppetry that he was banned for. At the same time, PF also is very opposite in ideology from Jack. It's fine for PF to comment and debate the ideological differences, but I've seen PF engage in attacks against Jack as an editor (including calling him out by his real name). (And to echo Kww, I certainly don't dislike PF as an editor, and respect that his ideology reflects numerous unvoiced editors of fiction and thus useful; I dislike the means which he approaches debate which edges on the border of appropriate behavior.) --MASEM (t) 15:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's hard for me to evaluate. I strongly opposed the restoration of Jack Merridew's editing privileges, and still think it was a mistake on philosophical grounds (I'm equal-opportunity on that aspect as well ... I think it's a grievous error to allow A. Nobody to edit, as well, and he's on the opposite end of the exclusionism/inclusionism spectrum from Jack). That said, I'm not aware of any explicit misbehaviour by Jack since his unbanning.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Kww, so I guess now would be a bad time to bring up this[5][6] edit-warring by you, which immediately followed my edits to those articles? At that time, there was no consensus to merge at Talk:List of characters in Watchmen. And there was no consensus to merge at WikiProject Comics either[7][8]. That first thread is basically WesleyDodds telling WikiProject Comics that he boldly redirected them and another editor saying "yay." Look at all the complaints at Talk:List of characters in_Watchmen since then. Are you seriously saying that the characters Ozymandias is not notable? I can work with people who disagree me. But can you? --Pixelface (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I had reason to believe that a user might be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Jack Merridew, and I think Dominic may agree with me. He did perform a checkuser after I sent him my evidence afterall. I admit that my edits to articles have drastically fallen off as of late, but part of that is because of editors like you Kww, following me around and reverting my every edit. Like this[9][10][11] for example. Have you noticed how I'm not hounding you and reverting your edits to articles? I would appreciate it if you (and anyone else) didn't do so to me. But even considering all my edits in WP/WT-space lately (which many people support[12][13]), over 50% of my edits are still to article-space[14]. Most of those edits came at a time when people were not hounding me, and I was free to improve any article whatsoever, articles like GTD-5 EAX.

Arbcom has never considered a topic ban for me, something that cannot be said about you Kww. I don't know what problems you think I've "created." I'm not the one who said over seven years ago "I agree with this one completely" when someone said "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia." Take it up with the editor who said that and the people who listened to him and followed him. I've never understood your attitude towards me. One of the very first things I remember you saying to me was "Be grateful that I'm not an admin, so I don't have a block button on my screen." And believe me Kww, I am grateful for things like this. --Pixelface (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Pixelface is NOT "the only editor...throwing pesonal attacks around." On his talk page, for instance, someone makes a play on his username by calling him "egg on face" or something to that effect and if necessary, I am sure we can turn up a number of diffs in which editors were incivil to him as well. I don't condone incivility by anyone, regardless of inclusion stance. Pixelface should remain civil, but so should others as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If people are ploying him on his talk page, that's a violation of WP:NPA and they should be brought forward as well. I don't watch his talk page, I know what I see through the various talk page discussions on certain policies and guidelines, and clearly there PF is pretty much the only one that engages in personal attacks. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Kww and User:Jack Merridew routinely engage in incivility and personal attacks. The parole of the latter does not seem to be working as the demands upon his mentors indicate. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for this? I don't see it on the policy/guideline talk pages, but it would be helpful to know if it's happening on user pages. (as to justify any addition behavior remedies) --MASEM (t) 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in evidence that I "routinely engage in incivility and personal attacks" as well.—Kww(talk) 17:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to provide diffs Masem. --Pixelface (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I realize that alleging that a user may be Jack Merridew can be insulting, but I've already apologized to Someguy1221. And Masem, if the user RFC you started on me hadn't been archived when it did (organizing a timeline from last April was proving to be difficult), you would have seen me present plenty of Jack Merridew's inciviilty towards me, going back to December 2007. I didn't start it. But I may put all that on a user subpage. You're right Masem, Wikipedia is not supposed to a be a battleground, which is why I would really appreciate it if would you stop starting threads about me that go nowhere — your recent AE thread comes to mind. You know, a recent paper has found that Wikipedia's dispute resolution system does not actually resolve disputes — and I've certainly found that to be true in my own experience. And I think it's worth noting that the user who intiated E&C2 and listed me as an involved party is now banned from editing Wikipedia. --Pixelface (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I realize that alleging that a user may be Jack Merridew can be insulting- again with the churlish personal attacks. It never stops with you, does it? Reyk _YO! 01:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

One striking element of the RfC is that Pixelface entered no response to it. Also, Pixelface was more recently the subject of a Wikiquette alert. Due to the nature of the surrounding environment (inclusionism/deletionistm) it is unlikely that consensus will form at a community level. So one possibility would be arbitration. There have been enough recent formal DR attempts to justify a case. Durova^Charge! 16:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

PF did respond, but on the talk page, as well as offering one possible remedy that wasn't accepted by the editors involved (including myself, full disclaimer). But there seemed to be no effort by PF to work out towards other remedies given. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, past experience with established editors has been that unless they do something really obviously bannable (legal threats, etc.) it's difficult for the community to take action. Action may occur, but generally slowly and with plenty of drama. Since Pixelface has 12,000 edits and is a participant in a polarized wiki-ideological debate, perhaps the best approach would be:

1. Try a little more dispute resolution.

2. If that doesn't succeed, initiate RFAR.

In the meantime, please exercise care to avoid provocative action. Place trout on the grill, not on the editor's talk page. When a first trout doesn't succeed later trouts are rarely effective. Just be as reasonable as possible. And for editors who agree with Pixelface ideologically, please encourage Pixelface to pursue that belief without sniping at others who disagree. No one likes arbitration, so let's do our best to resolve this amicably. Durova^Charge! 17:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Masem created that user RFC about me 5 hours and 20 minutes after Jack Merridew started an ANI thread about me on December 30, following these edits[15] by Jack Merridew and me to the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, where Jack Merridew stated he was reverting "vandalism" by me. The section of policy I was removing does not have consensus to be policy, it has not had consensus to be policy ever since it was proposed, and many threads at WT:NOT have been devoted to it. The policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not was protected for a month, and was unprotected after I promised not to edit that policy at all during the protection period, and after I requested unprotection. In addition to that, at the user RFC, I promised to not to edit that policy at all during February or March 2009, and I've kept that promise. Jack Merridew agreed to avoid all disruptive editing as a condition of being unbanned in December 2008 and was warned by one of his three assigned mentors about his edits to that policy.

In the Statement of the dispute, Masem objected to my long responses and use of diffs, which makes crafting a response a bit difficult in my opinion. I asked Masem and Protonk for a wordlimit, and received none. Nevertheless, I edited the user RFC page 11 times[16], I edited the talkpage 25 times[17], and I was the first editor to propose a solution.

I am still unaware of which dispute it was exactly that the four certifiers made previous attempts to resolve, and when they attempted to resolve it. Diffs were never provided. I did respond in several areas below on the user RFC page, saying much of what I was going to say in the Response section. IIRC, JzG entered no response at his user RFC. I considered (and still am considering) putting a response in my userspace, going over Masem's complaint line by line, as well as others. The user RFC about me was archived by Ncmvocalist after over two weeks of no comment. During that time I was busy doing other things, and I was actually quite surprised when I noticed it had been archived. I had typed up a fairly long statement by that point. Protonk had also started an RFC on a proposal during my user RFC, and that consumed much of my time.

Bignole did file a recent Wikiquette alert against me, but he seemed to misunderstand some things I said to him, although I admit many were uncivil. That WQA thread was archived with no action. Masem did file a recent AE thread against me, after I suggested a thread about Bignole might be warranted because Bignole was arguing over a page that Arbcom explicitly mentioned during E&C1, an arbitration case which lists Bignole as an involved party. The AE thread about me that Masem started was also archived with no action. I am getting really tired of Masem starting threads and pages concerning me.

John254 listed me as an involved party of E&C2 (but is now banned), and Masem's RFA occurred during E&C1 and Masem edited the E&C2 case pages quite a bit. I think arbitration is a bad idea, since I believe E&C2 only served to inflame the dispute and make it worse. Many of the current arbitrators would also have to recuse. I think the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution policy is lacking in several ways, and that seems to be supported by a recent paper which found that Wikipedia's dispute resolution system does not actually resolve disputes. --Pixelface (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This complaint was filed by User:Reyk. This [18] suggests that the complaint is ideologically motivated. It is uncivil to use AN/I to play the "ban my opponent game". I suggest Reyk drops this mode of operation. Arbitration is probably not necessary here. Judicious application of WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA should be sufficient. Jehochman ^Talk 18:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you point out where Reyk asked for a ban? I don't see it. It was Jack Merridew who stated I would think a stern admonishment and warning from the community would be the minimum and a community ban the maximum. Mentioning a possible ban as the extreme end of a range of possible remedies is a bit different, and it was not Reyk who made the mention. Unless there's another post to that effect? Durova^Charge! 18:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if Reyk had brought it, that wouldn't invalidate it. Nothing about being an exclusionist means that he has to accept misbehaviour from anyone, including ardent inclusionists. This board should be about behaviour, not ideology, and Pixelface's behaviour is certainly open to question.—Kww(talk) 18:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit more worrisome to see an outright accusation of game playing against one editor, based upon a comment made by someone else. If this dispute does sink to outright game playing (which I hope it doesn't) a mistaken accusation by an administrator could be used against Reyk. It would be more helpful of Jehochman to either substantiate the accusation better or else withdraw it. Durova^Charge! 18:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

After getting a new source in the mail today, I have made a suggestion for Pixelface to help me at User_talk:Pixelface#Something_different_to_work_on, but I extend the request to help to everyone. Let's all stop trying to get each other in trouble, escalating tensions in AfDs, etc. and work together to use such sources as the one I mention on Pixelface's talk page to bring these articles concerning the most "notable" fictional characters all up to DYK, Good, and/or featured status. We know the sources exist for these ones and now is the time to pool our resources together to bring them to these statuses. I trust any editors who in good faith are not here to perpetuate ideological disputes will put that all aside and work for the good of the project and who knows maybe and hopefully in doing so, we will all gain better respect for each other in the process. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

While there is absolutely nothing wrong with this effort, it doesn't address why this ANI exists: PF's means of editing. We will never get rid of inclusionists vs deletionists, even if we work towards good middle ground efforts, and it is important to keep civility in line regardless of where one is editing. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think editors would be more civil with each other if they have some constructive interactions as well. One editor a while back referred to me as an "extreme inclusionist not welcome" on her talk page. So, rather than just take her to ANI for being incivil or what have you, I helped identify socks that were harassing her and we've had various other helpful gestures toward each other. Sure, we'll still be on opposite sides of AfDs, but it isn't mean when we debate anymore. Rather than trying to defeat opposition by calling for blocks that tend only annoy editors, why not try a more carrot approach? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we need editors to behave civilly toward those they disagree with. Behave is the operative word. Speaking polite words while sticking the knife in another editor (and twisting) does not count as civil behavior. The attempt here to get Pixelface sanctioned might have been taken seriously if it had been filed by an uninvolved editor. Disagreements should not be escalated with WP:AN/I filings. People aren't given flowers here--they get blocked or banned. We all know that. Jehochman ^Talk 21:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Make tulips, not knives.

This thread is not about me. It's about Pixelface's pattern of escalating belligerence- behaviour for which I and others in this thread have provided actual evidence. Which is more than I can say for your vague and spurious notion that, just because Pixelface and I don't see eye to eye on the inclusionism/deletionism debate, my objections to his behaviour must be politically motivated. Reyk _YO! 22:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It is unclear how uninvolved Wikipedians are to become aware that a problem exists, if involved parties may not post evidence to a noticeboard. Question to Jehochman: what avenue would you recommend as appropriate for Reyk, if you find this so objectionable? Bear in mind that user conduct RFC and Wikiquette alert have both been attempted already. Durova^Charge! 22:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There was an RFC where plenty of uninvolved Wikipedians reviewed the problem, and you'll notice that WP:ANI is not listed on WP:DR. If a user is making snarky comments, WP:WQA is often a useful. "Help me with difficult communications I am having with this user" is a better approach than "sanction this user for being rude." If a sanctions request is made, the prior dispute and the prior RFC should have been disclosed. Both important pieces of context were left out of the initial complaint. That's what made me skeptical about motives. We're here to help each other, not to assume bad faith and bash each other. Jehochman ^Talk 00:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Many editors aren't talented at initiating noticeboard threads; they don't know what to say. Yet it certainly added to the appearance of good faith that two prior types of dispute resolution had been tried: these people attempted DR over a conduct issue, then sought administrative attention when the conduct failed to improve. This board would be a more orderly place if more editors followed that approach. WP:AGF is indeed a good idea; best to lead by example. Durova^Charge! 05:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Reyk started this thread because of this comment I made at Someguy1221's RFA. I struck that comment 40 minutes after I made it upon MSGJ's suggestion and emailed a checkuser, Dominic, since my evidence pertained to a potential admin, and since it contained some private information, and since WP:SPI says "For exceptionally sensitive matters (e.g., admin sock-puppetry, harassment, privacy), please contact any CheckUser or any Arbitration Committee member, by e-mail." I had already apologized to Someguy1221 two days before Reyk started this thread. I don't know what Reyk wants. I'm certainly not the first person to suspect another user of being a sockpuppet and be wrong, and I think Reyk's creation of this thread has merely served to blow this event out of proportion. --Pixelface (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Reyk, first of all, it's not "bad faith" to think that Jack Merridew may have another sockpuppet, since he is an admitted sockpuppet and has edited under multiple previous usernames (D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5, Davenbelle, Diyarbakir, Moby Dick, Note to Cool Cat, Senang Hati, Thomas Jerome Newton), he has previously lied on a noticeboard about it[19][20], and is apparently proud of being a sockpuppet ("This account is a sock puppet of Davenbelle, and has been unblocked indefinitely.", "for great justice and epic lulz" [21])

My suggestion that Someguy1221 might be Jack Merridew was also not baseless. After MSGJ told me to file an SPI, I began gathering my evidence together. My email to Dominic, who previously performed a checkuser on Jack Merridew during the arbitration case E&C2, was over 200K. Dominic can verify that. During the time I was organizing my evidence, Jack Merridew contacted Jayvdb to perform a checkuser, an editor who said Jack Merridew had earned a final chance when Jack Merridew petitioned to be unbanned (from abusing multiple accounts) in December. Jack Merridew voted for Jayvdb in the December 2008 Arbcom elections and I voted against Jayvdb. Jack Merridew contacted Jayvdb before I could email Dominic, and I questioned Jayvdb's impartiality regarding Jack Merridew. I was not going to send the evidence to Jayvdb.

After jeers and sneers yet another unwelcome trout on my talkpage from Jack Merridew, and after what could be interpreted as insults to me from Jayvdb and Sceptre and MSGJ, I apologized to Someguy1221 for thinking he might be Jack Merridew. No insult was intended to Someguy1221. I think I behaved quite civilly, considering.

I would like Sceptre and Jack Merridew to stay away from me. One thing I was never able to bring up at my user RFC (which was apparently closed by Ncmvocalist after two weeks of no comments) is that last May after I got into an argument with Sceptre's friend Seraphim, Sceptre photoshopped a "badger ring" to mock me and showed it to Seraphim. Then Jack Merridew commented, while banned. Sceptre mentioned that "badger ring" just a while ago at WT:RFA.

Jack Merridew has already been ordered by Arbcom to stay away from one editor. And I want him to stay away from me, although that may be a matter for RFAR and not ANI.

I didn't disrupt WP:N like Karanacs claimed, I never called Bignole "pathetic", and Masem apparently only opened that AE thread (yet another thread Masem has started where zero action as taken) because I told Bignole that Bignole's recent actions at Talk:List of South Park episodes (which Arbcom explicitly mentioned in E&C1, an arbitration case Bignole was an involved party of) might violate the ruling of that case.

What admin action is necessary here Reyk? I suggest you brush up on the following pages: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] --Pixelface (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, my "involvement" in E&C1 was when I stated that I would not be taking part in said discussion because I didn't have the time to devote to it. So, please stop saying that I was an "involved party", because I wasn't. I have one comment, which was given right when it opened. I never ventured back to the page again. Secondly, I made not "actions" on the List of South Park episodes. Discussions of mergers is not a violation of anything, especially when I did not start said discussion of merger. The E&C1 says, "The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute." Dicussing a merger is exactly that. As for the "pathetic" bit, you called my actions "pathetic", which is the same thing as calling me pathetic. I let it slide, but considering that that wasn't the last time you said that to me at the LoSPe page, that was why I filed that Wikietiquette alert about your behavior. The fact that you cannot even recognize when you are being incivil to other editors shows that there is a problem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I know that Jack Merridew has done some shady things in the past. I also know that, for the last ten months or so, he's scrupulously kept his nose clean. All the evidence suggests that he's a reformed character and almost certainly innocent of continued misbehaviour, and deserves to be treated with the same respect and decency given to any other productive member of Wikipedia. Having a bad record does not make him an open target for your frivolous allegations.

You made a baseless accusation in a very public place rather than going through SPI like you should have. You dragged an innocent person into your attack on Jack Merridew. You insisted on a second checkuser after the first one told you something you didn't want to hear and called another editor's impartiality into question in the process. When conclusively proven incorrect you refuse to apologize to the person you've wronged and continue to insist he's currently sockpuppeteering. And throughout the whole thing you have not provided the community one shred of evidence that you were actually acting in good faith; you refuse to, because apparently Jack might use it improve his nonexistent socking campaign. Personally, I think if your "evidence" was ever released the community would ridicule it as obviously desperate and contrived flim-flam.

Now you say you want Jack Merridew to leave you alone. Well, why don't you leave him alone? Why provoke him into "sneering" and troutslapping you with this muck-raking, when otherwise you have not much to do with him at all except maybe the odd encounter in policy and guideline talk pages?

You are in the wrong here, Pixelface, and your behaviour is getting more and more obnoxious. It needs to stop. For your own sake, listen to all these people who say your behaviour is poor and consider they may have a point. Otherwise, one day, you'll go that one step too far and wind up with a lengthy block. Reyk _YO! 01:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It probably would best for those on both sides to disengage and avoid each other. Wikipedia is a big place and as such there are plenty of articles needing improvement and people can and should focus on what interests them while ignoring those trying to bait them. There's been clear incivility and escalation all around and nothing good or bipartisan is coming from anything. As I've suggested above, we should focus on specific article improvements. We should not just beat dead horses on ANI. Pixelface had suspicions, checkuser didn't confirm them and he said he was wrong and apologized on his talk page. All this thread is doing is escalating things. When I recently asked for admin input on ANI when I suspected canvassing, the editor in question notified other editors and that's that. Just as I asked a question in my thread title rather than asserting he had done wrong as if it were a fact. No need to assume I'm right and no sense going on and on any further against him. I should not and have no interest in demanding anything else or needlessly escalating things. I had a concern, it was addressed and that's that. It shouldn't be about venue shopping or trying to squash our opposition. Thus, this thread too is moving away from constructive discussion and is not going to result in anything worthwhile by continuing it. I hope that Pixelface consults with trusted editors before making any accusations public that may be unwise to make and I hope that editors on both sides will not be incivil toward each other. Moreover, I hope that editors will devote the bulk of their energy to improving articles rather than adding to a battleground atmosphere in discussions. And finally, it would indeed be wise if the various editors with argumentative pasts avoid provoking each other further, and I mean all of us. Let's start the week on a good note, disengage from escalation, and all see how many DYK, Good, and featured articles we can get! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this entire long discussion can be summed up with this sentence found in the first paragraph:

"It's no crime to voice one's concern about possible sockpuppeteering." Ikip (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. Suppose I were to accuse you and some random editor of being the same person. Then, when proven wrong, I profusely apologize to the other editor but sullenly refuse to apologize to you. And when asked why I thought the other editor was your sockpuppet, I refuse to answer, saying "Ikip will just use the information to continue his sockpuppeteering". You'd say I was gaming the system, assuming bad faith and being provocatively nasty to you. You'd be justified to feel that way. Well, that is exactly how Pixelface has behaved toward Jack Merridew. Reyk _YO! 08:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Meh, this is a mess. Reyk, I doubt you're going to get the concrete resolution you want here. I'd recommend filing a WP:RFAR. This has gone through plenty of channels and I don't see anything short of arbitration putting down something strong enough to stop his behavior. The thread here has degenerated rather badly, and is far too muddled with random accusations for an outside observer to make any sense of it. A RFAR would be a better and more organized step. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Jack Merridew actually has not "kept is nose clean" for the last ten months or so, but that doesn't have anything to do with this thread. I never said Jack Merridew was, in fact, operating the account Someguy1221. My comment at Someguy1221's RFA, which you seem so enraged about, was on that page for a total of 40 minutes. And I did go to WP:SPI after MSGJ suggested I do so. My comment was not baseless. My email to Dominic was over 200K and apparently Dominic felt it was reason enough to run a checkuser. I apologized to Someguy1221 two days before you started this ANI thread. I emailed my evidence to the checkuser I was planning on emailing my evidence to. Apparently Jack Merridew couldn't wait and decided to contact one of his mentors first. And checkusers cannot "conclusively prove" that one user is not another. I provided my evidence to Dominic. I don't need to provide you, or the "community" with any of it. And I expect Dominic to not provide you or the community with it either.

I think it's safe to say that me and Jack Merridew know more about our interactions than you do. They go back to December 2007, when I contributed to the case pages of E&C1, where I ran into Jack Merridew while he was a banned user, talking to White Cat. Jack Merridew was banned in May 2007 for harassing White Cat, and was ordered by Arbcom to avoid that user as a condition of being unbanned in December 2008. You probably don't know that Jack Merridew followed me around to AFDs in March 2008, much like he followed White Cat around.

I was wrong about Someguy1221. I admitted I was wrong. I apologized. And by the way, there are only two editors on Wikipedia I've ever seen use the word "churlish." There's you. And the other is a friend of Jack Merridew. --Pixelface (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I know that the WP:BATTLEGROUND has gotten so bad that people tend to assume bad faith and refuse to apologize for anything, because their apology will be used against them as evidence of their bad behavior. I disagree. I really appreciate some acknowledgment from Pixelface that some of the things he said were incivil, at least to one editor. Let's just drop it for now, because the goal is to correct the bad behavior rather than engage in a witchhunt. Everyone deserves another chance if they acknowledge they got carried away. If Pixelface tones it down and stops focusing on the character/intelligence of other editors in discussions about content/policy, we won't have any problems. Moreover, I think he might actually find that he'll attract more bees with honey than with a stick. Randomran (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

General comment: I have two concerns with what seems to be double standards in this thread:

• Outrage over unsubstantiated sockpuppet allegations: Pixelface suspected sockpuppetry; checkusers did not substantiate these suspicions. Pixelface acknowledged his error and apologized. So, he gets a big trout on his userpage (by the way, the same editor trouted Pixelface before...), and taken to ANI... Now, I have had four checkusers done on me. One confirmed my two alternate accounts that have been abandoend since 2007 and another said an account that never edited at the same time as my main account was only "likely" me (that account is also inactive). Yet, in there, I have had a few accounts alleged to be mine on even more baffling of grounds than Pixelface's suspicions regarding these other users. Checkusers naturally did not subtantiate these accounts either and in fact if one editor's username and userpage is correct, he is not even on the same continent as me! So, should someone demand that apoligies be given to User:ISOLA'd ELBA, User:Testmasterflex, and User:Fairfieldfencer? Should those who made unsubtantiated allegations against these editors be blocked for filing frivolous requests? If not, then we should not be up in arms over Pixelface's suspicions as well.
• Concern over suspected incivility: I do not blindly support editors because they are fellow inclusionists. When I asked him to refactor a statement he made, he did indeed stike the word in question. Indeed, incivility should not be acceptable from any of us; that should be a bipartisan stance. As such, it strikes me as not right to demand Pixelface be civil while ignoring how he has been personally attacked and baited by a multitude of editors. Here are just some relatively recent examples: Pixelface opposed in an RfA and so a user says to Support per Pixelface, obviously mocking the opposer (imagine saying to oppose in an RfA because someone supported the candidate...); regarding the same RfA, another editor accused Pixelface of having OCD (a mental disorder); another editor made a play on Pixelface's username and called him "egg on face"; another editor called it an "oddity" that someone would be nice to Pixelface and later referred to Pixelface as "Agitated Toilet Dwarf'; he has had disgusting talk page personal attacks made against him; notice the edit summary as well; etc.

Thus, what we should be saying is that 1) everyone should be more careful about throwing around sockpuppetry accusations; however, at the same time making the accusations especially if an editor in question has a certain kind of past, should not result in sanctions and in all instances if the allegations are not substantiated apologies probably should be made; and 2) everyone should be urged to be more civil and to avoid their opponents. It should be clear that Pixelface should refrain from insulting editors, but it must also be made clear that we will not tolerate personal attacks or baiting of him either. Now as I said above, everyone should try more of the carrot approach and if not then just disengage from opponents. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure why you're calling me out, considering I'm all for letting Pixelface get off by acknowledging some wrongs. But I think you've failed to recognize two factors that distinguish Pixelface's wrongs from others:

1. after accusing someone of being a sock, he went out of his way to freeze out and isolate one of the editors. That's not only a continuing assumption of bad faith on his part, but it's the epitome of violating WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND by using the selective apology to fuel a grudge against that editor. He'd have been better off not apologizing to anyone at all, rather than offering this kind of backhanded apology.
2. His civility is a repeated problem, and indiscriminately targets anyone who disagrees with him. People he has virtually no history with, and certainly no history of being incivil towards him, will find themselves on the receiving end of a personal attack, or an incivil snide remark about their intelligence or honesty. I agree with you that no one is without sin, but we give much more attention to repeat offenders.

• Now, I think there's been progress if Pixelface recognizes that he hasn't been civil. And like I said, I think this problem would all go away if Pixelface focused more on the substance of Wikipedia in talk page discussions, rather than peoples' character or intelligence. But we have to stop with this false equivalency of "everyone is to blame, so no one is to blame". Some people are clearly bigger problems than others, and have not yet taken personal responsibility. Again, it's not about doling out penalties. It's about Pixelface finally taking responsibility for a consistent pattern of bad behavior. I'm glad that you finally agree that Pixelface should refrain from insulting other editors. But if others are prodding him, he needs to learn to resolve those conflicts productively rather than turning every comment that irks him into a battle. If you're suggesting that one insult will give Pixelface a free pass to go buck wild on anyone he wants for the remainder of tat discussion, or that one person's past transgressions will give Pixelface a free pass to indefinitely treat them like dirt, then we're never going to foster a positive environment where we can build consensus. In fact, the bad attitude will spread to other editors, unless we put a stop to it every time it reaches a boiling point. Randomran (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Randomran, where did you think I was calling you out? My post above was a general reply to the thread in general and not directed at anyone specifically. It is below your post solely because your post was the bottommost post when I posted my overall thoughts about the discussion as a whole. Anyway, my recommendation is that everyone refrain from incivility and personal attacks and that those with obviously tense pasts either make good faith efforts to reach out to each other or disengage from each other altogether. We spend too much time going back and forth on ANI, guideline talk pages, and in AfDs as a whole that really could be more effectively spent actually improving articles. Maybe it would be best if all of us involved in some of these disputes to let others give them a try and instead focus on article improvement. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that was a little confusing. Try to keep Wikipedia:TALKPAGE#Indentation in mind, because it usually indicates who you're replying to or which thread of thought you're following. It's not always best to just tack your comment onto the bottom. ... as for this situation, as much as I think a blanket warning is accurate, I don't think it's appropriate to just skirt over the repeated problem with Pixelface. When an editor is the victim of incivility, should they: (A) hold an indefinite grudge with the incivil editor and treat their opponent poorly until they feel vindicated, or (B) use that incivility as an excuse to be belligerent to everyone that disagrees with them? My answer is neither, and probably points towards WP:DR. But I'm legitimately curious to know what you think. We can only make progress here if your recommendation is specific. Otherwise it's just an abstract re-statement of our policies, and you shouldn't be surprised when that accomplishes nothing except postpone the AN/I until next time: with Pixelface acting incivilly, and someone jumping in to say "that's okay, other people are doing it too". Randomran (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Seriously, where is this heading? If it settles in polite agreeement (or even polite disagreement) between the parties, then all is well. But if this is likely to fester into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 3 then maybe a small arbitration now is better than a big arbitration later. As most of the participants know, I've got no dog in this race. But a small case is bigger than a big case. Can (and will) this dispute get resolved amicably on the community level? Durova^Charge! 04:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, a small case will be dismissed. A good, clear, specific warning would accomplish more than a small case. Even if it affects multiple people, a warning would be helpful so long as it is specific. "Everyone drop it and be nicer" is probably the best way for this problem to keep going until it hits something big. Randomran (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see this getting dismissed if it goes to arbitration. The combative attitude is pretty apparent and the exhaustion of all previous aspects of dispute resolution (WQA, RfC/U, ANI) would give such a case some credibility. I'd like to agree with Randomran in that the notion that everyone can "drop it and be nicer" is plausible, but I don't see anything short of arbitration changing behavior at this point. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I think "drop it and be nicer" would be a complete failure, inviting more minor incidents before another explosion. But I don't think ArbCom will be effective, because the other methods of dispute resolution have been undone by the WP:BATTLEGROUNDish defense of "if other people are bad, then Pixelface is allowed to be bad too". I'm not sure why ArbCom would be any different, and would likely end in "we don't take the case... everyone drop it and be nicer". And I've already told you where that will lead. Randomran (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is that the battleground defense is used when it doesn't even apply. I've been accused of chronic incivility twice in this discussion, for example, but no one can show evidence of me being chronically incivil (or even occasionally). Do I hold opinions that Colonel Warden and Pixelface detest? Certainly. Do I consider undoing redirects on articles that fail WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT without making any effort to repair that failure to be disruptive editing? Certainly. Do I think trying to hide the fact that you are doing so by not putting it in your edit summary is deceitful? Absolutely. Am I uncivil about it? No.—Kww(talk) 17:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the whole point of arbitration is to put down something binding and concrete that is a bit more substantive than "drop it and be nicer". Again, I don't know why you think ArbCom wouldn't accept this. There has been multiple avenues of dispute resolution that have been exhausted, and as Protonk emphatically said below, this is a conduct issue, which is what ArbCom was made for. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, Arbcom's ruling in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters wasn't substantive at all. It kind of was "drop it and be nicer." Which is why I thought Bignole should not be at Talk:List of South Park episodes pushing for a merge. Incidentally, in December 2007, I said "I think if this decision mentions List of South Park episodes, the South Park episode articles will be the next target for the merge tag/redirect tactic.", and Jack Merridew, while banned, replied "The rest of your post is merely a massive assumption of bad faith."

At my user RFC, which was instigated by Jack Merridew, the four certifiers (Masem, Protonk, Sgeureka, and Sceptre — notice that Masem contributed to E&C2, Sgeureka was an involved party of E&C1, and Sceptre was an involved party of E&C1 and E&C2 and at Someguy1221's RFA (and I would like to stay away from me)) never explained which dispute it was that they all tried to resolve with me and failed. And E&C1 and E&C2 didn't resolve any disputes. Arbitration cases typically do not resolve disputes. The dispute died down for the most part when TTN was placed under editing restrictions for six months, and then when TTN stopped editing Wikipedia altogether.

But being wrong occasionally and admitting it is not a conduct issue. --Pixelface (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm disheartened that we seem to come to the conclusion that PF's hostility toward JM is okay because JM socked before. This isn't just accusations at Someguy's RfA (which can poison the well like all get out). almost every thread w/ the two of them includes the same tired litany of JM's former socks and PF's insistence that JM's contributions are null and void because of it. Taken by itself, an accusation of socking isn't actionable, and it shouldn't be. Presuming that some reasonable grounds fos suspicion might exist (and you could argue they did), we should not generate a chilling effect for accusers. But this wasn't isolated. PF seems incapable of engaging w/ "deletionists" without trotting out JM's past misbehavior and incapable of dealing w/ JM without having things descend into a slugfest. JM isn't blameless here, I've contemplating blocking or waring him for goading PF a few times, but this needs to stop. Also. STOP CONFLATING THIS WITH CONTENT. Stop stop stop stop. This isn't a content issue. This is a conduct issue between editors who happen to stand across a content divide. The content issue is an impetus, not the crux. This isn't a potential E&C 3 and I'm good and tired of hearing that all conduct issues between deletionists and inclusionists be resolved as content issues or dismissed as based hopelessly in wiki-philosophies. Protonk (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn straight. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Eloquent. Durova^Charge! 02:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, Protonk is a smart guy. This isn't E&C3, and it isn't a hopeless content dispute. But how many times does a good point get undermined by other peoples' petty bickering? How are we going to actually stop this? Randomran (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That's easy. Everyone stops baiting and being incivil to each other and when someone is incivil to us just ignore them and not feed into it. If we start ANI threads and all, then we're just letting people get to us and in turn we're spending oodles of time on something other than rescuing articles or bringing them to DYK, GA, or FA status. The wisest course of action is to not even humor comments made in bad faith and to absolutely not make any ourselves. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Pixelface doesn't stop making incivil comments, and often one or two "comments made in bad faith" are used as an excuse for him to lash out indiscriminately. At what point are we going to draw a clear line and say it cannot be crossed? At what point do you say to Pixelface "next time someone makes a negative comment, you need to learn to take it to WP:DR instead of storming across the line of good behavior?" Because as far as I can tell, it looks like you've chosen to make excuses for Pixelface no matter how many times he crosses the line. Are you saying he should learn, or are you saying he doesn't have to? Randomran (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Pixelface should maintain civility, but so should everyone else who discusses with him. What I have found is that those who have reached out to him rather than starting ANI and RfCs against him actually are able to work constructively with him. Taking people to admin boards tends to make the person brought to the boards resent those doing the bringing. And when it seems like those of different stances are ganging up in those threads and excusing the behavior of those of similar leanings, but anyway, in most istances I think we should take the "not even dignify with a reply" approach when people make unhelpful comments. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that Pixelface has recognized that he's been incivil, and I'm glad you think he should stop doing that. I also agree with you that everyone should be civil. And while I recognize that Pixelface resents these AN/Is, nobody has the right to be incivil to anyone who participates in an AN/I against them. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and someone's past bad behavior to you is not licence to behave badly towards other people. If he really resents these AN/Is and RFCs, he should stop being incivil -- provoked or not. Learn to disengage, or take it to WP:DR. Don't shift the discussion to peoples' character, and don't insult other people. We can agree to make that clear to everyone, especially repeat offenders like Pixelface... can't we? Randomran (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Typically, I only say something uncivil if someone else says something uncivil first. If nothing happens to the first editor, why punish the second? --Pixelface (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Mostly I've been biting my tongue here; I find myself doing this a fair bit. My history is well known and does not need Pixelface and The Team continually dredging it up. The AC has unbanned me and Pixelface et al need to accept that. That they do not puts them in violation of the unban motion re myself. I have made a few 'humourous' comments re Pixelface in reply to provocation; some have cast these as 'mocking' — but I've been quite tame, really. Now it is true that I don't much like Pixelface and view him as highly disruptive, but I'm not after his balls here; I want him to cut it out — 'it' being well discussed above and in the various threads and issues covered.

See these two diffs;

• In spite of not agreeing with much of what you said, I was impressed with with it. It has changed how I see you. Cheers (and goodnight), Jack Merridew ^diff
• My reply may have changed how you see me, but my opinion of you hasn't changed one bit. Cheers, --Pixelface ^diff
• @ User talk:Pixelface#Kiellor and Prufrock
• + Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 44#No 'trousers rolled' for me, thank you
• & Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)/Archive 44#I'll bite

I have tried turning the other cheek and have been slapped again for the effort.

Also, he's commented about the sock motif of my user page, offended at the lulz, it would seem. It is humour. A similar message box graced my user page for 8 months and I got used to it. It is about being straight about my past, something A Somebody Else is not doing. Has anyone noticed this image at the top of my user page? And the alt-text assigned to it? Motif of harmful sensation. Pixelface & Co. can not abide my presence on this site and are going all-out to thwart my return.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack, why is it okay to mention Pixelfaces Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface, but yet editors cannot mention your much more disruptive edit and ban history?

Can't Pixelface write this:

Mostly I've been biting my tongue here; I find myself doing this a fair bit. My history is well known and does not need Jack Merridew and The Team continually dredging it up. The RfC did not proceed and Jack Merridew et al need to accept that.

On wikipedia edit conflict it is important to make yourself sound like the victim.

Regarding this not being about content, recently there were three editors who regularly deleted articles and were talking about another editor. These three editors said they must seperate out the behavior from the content, and if it became a content issue then the chances of punishing this editor (i.e. shutting him up) had no chance.

So who has successfully portrayed themselves as a victim here?

Have the editors who tend to delete sucessfully seperated Pixelface's behavior from his ideology and contributions, which these same editors strongly oppose? Ikip (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean Ikip, but the last time Pixelface directed an apology my way it went "I apologize if anyone was offended by my comment, but [...] I would not want any of the fucking readers of the Genderfuck article to be fucking offended by my fucking comments. Fucking thank you for your fucking time." [27]. He !voted to delete, FWIW, and I !voted keep. I see the issue with his behaviour there as one thing, and the substance of his views as a second. Are you suggesting that the fact that I consider his behaviour to have remained fundamentally unchanged is somehow tangled up with my disagreement with his views about notability? Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Pete, did you read what I wrote to you at my user RFC? And that was the first of two times in total that I have used the word "fuck" on Wikipedia. You were the first editor to ever start an ANI thread about me, and you didn't contact me about that thread either. And people in that ANI thread thought that comment was funny, as it was intended. Clearly your opinion about it has remained unchanged. --Pixelface (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your fellow Australian didn't seem to know about your history before he started this thread. And the history between me and you is actually not well-known. I accepted that Arbcom unbanned you months ago. And I'll let the editors on the receiving end of your "humourous" comments determine how "tame" they've been.

I want you to leave me the hell alone. You and Sceptre. I don't want you following me to any more AFDs. I don't want you talking about me to other editors. And what I said was true: My opinion of you hasn't changed one bit. If the sock motif on your userpage is "humour", WHO thinks it's funny? Do you suppose White Cat think it's funny Jack? I can "abide your presence" just fine. And I'm not out to "thwart" your return. I am just sick and tired of you harassing me, like you've harassed other users.

I had reason to believe that Someguy1221 might be you. You contacted Jayvdb before I had gathered all my evidence together. Next time, I'll go to SPI rather than leaving a comment at RFA (which was only there for forty minutes). Please do not edit my user talkpage any more. --Pixelface (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Enough of this bickering. It's not going anywhere. Jack, Reyk, or whoever still has a beef with Pixelface, file a RFAR if you want to proceed on the issue. If not, then this thread should be closed. No impartial observer can make heads or tails of it with people sniping at each other, and nothing concrete is going to come of it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, I never got to go into detail at my user RFC about Jack Merridew's interactions with me because it was archived while I was busy doing better things with my time. Do you think it's unreasonable to think that an editor who has lied about socking in the past may be socking now? And I have NEVER said that Jack Merridew's contributions are "null and void" because of his history. His article edits are fine. But his interactions with certain users are not fine.

He's already been ordered to stay away from one editor. His incivility towards me started during E&C1 while he was banned. And his hounding of me started in March 2008 during E&C2, when he followed me to several AFDs. Then "cute" messages about a "work assignment committee." After he was banned, he continued to monitor what I was doing and saying on Wikipedia, sometimes commenting on it to other users (like after Sceptre photoshopped a "badger ring" to mock me and showed it to Seraphim) While Jack Merridew was petitioning to be unbanned, he even looked through my contributions and referenced an article about a newscaster that was up for deletion that I commented at. When Jack Merridew petitioned to be unbanned, I said Arbcom might as well open E&C3. After Jack Merridew was unbanned, he gave Gavin.collins a "D&D Barnstar for great justice and epic lulz." Three days after he was unbanned, he told another user "A lot of WikiProject will morph into WikiaProjects. That's what Pixel's so afreaid of." After he was unbanned, I contacted him about Wikia, and he started at thread at WP:FICT called Articles for Wikia to bother me. He also referred to one of my comments as an "inclusionist manifesto" and contacted Jimbo Wales to scare me. And Jack Merridew did instigate my user RFC after he was unbanned. Plus "trout slapping", twice. Then "jeers" and "sneers." And that's just off the top of my head.

I can engage with "deletionists" just fine thank you. Most of their ideology is built around treating notability guidelines as if they were policy (or a legal document), and they're not. But I think this particular ANI thread is more related to nationalism than some people think. --Pixelface (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(<--) Okay, I am an unaffected observer, and I see people arguing over something that has nothing to do with the original subject. I'm sort of confused about this. I believe that the best way to resolve this situation is to have Pixelface be mentored by an admin. That's it. No block, no fustration. The end of story. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 01:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Has Pixelface expressed any interest in mentorship? Has a willing mentor been found? Durova^Charge! 16:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember reading that an editor can be forced to attend mentoring  rdunnPLIB  09:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

this may be going of the point a bit but why has [28] been mentions so much. If you lo0k at the date it was done surely it would be obvious that peeps have grown up since then.  rdunnPLIB  09:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Elisabeth Hasselbeck marriage date & DOBs

redpen keeps reverting. I have made the concession of the bio section being named early life. Having DOBs & marriage dates doesnt make her more likely to have her identity stolen. Mariage dates & DOBs are all throughout wikipedia. So please you alll intercede as redpen keeps reverting. Thanks. 70.108.79.147 (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see the above thread as well as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/70.108.110.22. MuZemike 16:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As I had to explain on my talk page here, user is demonstrating a patent unwillingness to work with others. IPs keep adding back in falsified material (violation of BLP) and repeatedly breaking 3RR for it (this is clearly laid out, diff by diff, at SPI). This has also caused Elisabeth Hasselbeck to be protected. IPs are also causing a bit of disruption by placing {{HELPME}} and {{adminhelp}} templates all over the place. I think a rangeblock is necessary here. MuZemike 17:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been informed that a rangeblock would case a bit of collateral damage. I would then request that Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth, Carson Daly, and Girlfriends all be protected (note I am requesting it here since we are already here, or I can go to WP:RFPP if not appropriate). MuZemike 17:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to work with others. I havent added false info. EH page is locked bc redpen successfully manipulated you all. I have not abused helpme or adminhelp tags. Y do u want to lock these pages but not tell redpen to stop editing the pages? 70.108.102.252 (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Martinphi requesting unblock

Resolved

 – The consensus of the community is to retain the ban at this time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

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

---

User talk:Martinphi - Don't know the backstory on this in full but I do know it's a long, drawn out, and unpleasant one, so I send the unblock request to the only place suited to dramafests of this nature for community review. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

For convenience here is the ANI thread in which the ban was imposed. Looie496 (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

For further convenience; the ArbCom to which Martinphi alludes and which made a decision upon his actions specifically can be found here; it should be noted that the Arbs decided to return to the community any decision of what restrictions might be applied should the indef block be lifted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to unblock him, I would ONLY support doing so if we he is placed under editing restrictions such that he is banned from editing any articles and talk pages related to "Fringe Science" topics (homeopathy, chiropractic, astrology, witch doctory, and snake oil sales, etc. etc.) as broadly contrued as possible. Seriously, I (and I think many others) are well tired of all of the bullshit that has gone on around this topic, and I think if we let Martinphi back into the fold, he should prove that he can be a contructive editor in some other topic than this one. As long as he doesn't edit the articles, talk pages, or attempts to discuss or in any way reference these topics I would support an unblock. However, any unblock which does not place strict restrictions on him against editing in this field will only lead to more of the same crap we just got rid of. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Unblock From what I could see MartinPhi managed collaborate well with OrangeMarlin who is not the most fringe friendly editor around. MartinPhi seems to be genuinely contrite regarding the 'outings'. From what I have seen MartinPhi has been a valuable and sane contributor to wikipedia as a whole before becoming embroiled in the SA drama. See this for an example. I honestly do not see any problem with him being involved with fringe or pseudoscience articles, I think the underlying problem is that some other editors think that there should be flashing lights, loud sirens and 2 layers of 'are you sure you want to read about non-mainstream topics yes/no ' along with disclaimers declaring that reading such material may rot your brain. There is nothing keeping us from blocking him again should he prove to be genuinely disruptive in the future. Unomi (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Dispute that veered off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As a relatively new user with far more knowledge about the inner workings than a new user should have (hence previous RfCU on you), you can be partially excused based on lack of knowledge of the history, but you share Martin's fringe POV and tendencies to edit war, and that waters down your input here. Even Martin knows better than to make statements like yours. They say alot about your tendencies, which have been apparent in your persistent and slow edit warring. It's simply exhausting. SPA accounts should be prohibited. -- Fyslee (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC) To the best of my knowledge I have not had an RfCU raised against me I have however had an ANI here and a SPI here. The recurrent allegations of 'fringe POV' are unfortunate and I thought we had discussed that sufficiently here. I also don't think that eidt warring is an appropriate way to characterize my actions. If anything I was the victim of disruptive editing, not the instigator of it. As for 'knowing too much' I think the blame has to fall on having to constantly counter those that 'know too little'. The allusions to 'slow edit warring' are baseless, slanderous and I would recommend that you back them up or strike the comment. Unomi (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC) You were User_talk:Unomi#Indefinitely_blocked_-_apparent_sockpuppet_of_User:Immortale and a CU was indeed performed, which you did slip through. See case again. Your SPA editwarring style and vast knowledge for a supposed "newbie" was the reason why the charges were filed against you. Those problems are still very much an issue. You're a classic tendentious edit warrior. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC) @Fyslee, it appears that you are very nearly a SPA and one that has been cautioned about your questionable use of sources in health related articles. Finally, admins, please have a good thorough read of all of Blocking policy. Consider that this is not a vote, but a forum for establishing consensus regarding policy interpretations. Unomi (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC) You apparently don't know what SPA means. You have been a classic SPA on the Aspartame controversy issue, even refusing to follow the advice of several editors and admins to edit other articles for awhile. I edit many different articles and therefore have well over three thousand articles (excluding talk pages), on my watchlist. I just happen to edit primarily on alternative medicine subjects, which is a huge area. As to the "caution" (to do exactly what I had been doing, since no evidence to the contrary was provided), that case has been amended and I have been vindicated. It's not everyday that an ArbCom case gets modified. Quackwatch is no longer deprecated (it was never forbidden as a source), and I was absolved of a false accusation, so using that old ArbCom against me isn't proper. Keep in mind that my accuser was banned by the ArbCom (for a year) and indef banned by the community. You're choosing the wrong side on the issue of my ArbCom, as well as on this issue (birds of a feather do flock together and sometimes get banned together). Keep in mind the expression "look who's talking". Participants here do take into account the source, and when an SPA and defender of fringe POV like yourself defends Martinphi, you weaken his case and alert admins to start looking at you as well. Since this matter is getting good coverage, I'm out of here. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Interesting interpretation. Arbcom agreed that they wouldn't rule on content; a quick search on RS/N shows that quackwatch is considered an RS, but only for the opinions of the authors. The caution to you regarding proper sourcing and complying to NPOV still stood but seeing as how you are able to parlay their subsequent amendment into a 'vindication' I fear it is for naught. This is not the place for it but hit me up on my talk page if you want to discuss further. Unomi (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Hi, please keep discussion focused. The Barrett v. Rosenthal arbitration closed two years ago and Martinphi played no role in it. As ScienceApologist's mentor, I recuse from comment on the proposal to restore Martinphi's editing privileges. DurovaCharge! 17:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Fyslee's attacks against Unomi amount to a character assassination and cannot remain here uncontradicted. An SPI against Unomi was opened on very flimsy evidence (he was told he was "approaching tendentious editing", which prompted him to quote an old Arbcom case that is linked from WP:TEND#Characteristics of problem editors) and came out with a strong negative result. Fyslee: If you retract your attacks, please remove this comment as well, to reduce the noise. Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep him banned. The trouble he caused far outweighs his useful contributions. Raul654 (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep banned or at least a topic ban from anything fringe It will only end in tears if we don't. And if we topic ban him that should include related policy and guideline pages. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• @Raul654, @Dougweller, For those that have not followed the entire drama, could you point to what 'trouble he caused'? From what I understand the arbcom rulings already point to him being restricted from editing policy pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unomi (talk • contribs) 06:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• The vast majority of Martinphi's edits are to pseudoscience topics, especially to paranormal topics (he's very nearly a single-purpose account). His edits are biased, and he frequently edit wars with other contributors in this area. The other people who have to clean up these articles are tired of dealing with him. In short, he's a crank, and he shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. After his bad editing got him hauled before the arbcom - I admit here that my understanding is less than perfect - he started "outing" others who edit on paranormal topics. Raul654 (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep banned or topic banned. Not worth it if there isn't some form of control. Who wants to be part of a 24-hr babysitter posse who won't be able to do anything else constructive? Any volunteers? -- Fyslee (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• We are all babysitters anyway, that is the result if not the point of community editing. Doesn't matter if it is MartinPhi or any other editor, we are free to bring them here should trouble arise. Unomi (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep banned: Unless the issues that lead to the indefing have magically gone away, then it's only a matter of time before another indef is applied. Does the Community want this? Shot info (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep banned, Martinphi has wasted enough editors' time, and has made enough of their wikipedia experience unpleasant. Bishonen | talk 08:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC).

• Keep banned or topic banned. He has wasted many people's time (even during the Fringe science ArbCom) and there is no indication that this will change. Mathsci (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sustain ban. Even a cursory examination of Martinphi's history shows he uses Wikipedia as a platform to further his fringe beliefs. Wikipedia can roll downhill on its own; it doesn't need any help on that path. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep banned Per all the above. He's had his chances. --Folantin (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any unblock. Mr. Phi edit warred, repeatedly attempted to change policy to support him in these edit wars, claimed Arbcom decisions vindicated him when they clearly did not, and affected an obnoxious martyr complex in order to paint himself as the innocent victim after being restricted by Arbcom. He sockpuppeted during an arbitration in order to character assassinate his opponents while evading scrutiny. Finally, he outed several editors on his talk page post-ban, which required oversight and page protection. Really, Jayron, if you're tired of the bullshit, do not allow this editor back. Skinwalker (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting [link] regarding what he used the 'sockpuppet' for. The link also shows the extent of community patience that is normally extended to errant editors. Unomi (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep banned: Drew up far too much drama. The pseudoscience articles are actually manageable, for the most part, because we aren't playing tit-for-tat games anymore. seicer | talk | contribs 13:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned - I think Skinwalker says all that I'd want to say about it. Maybe after rather longer, with a topic ban to start, but it's too soon. Frankly, I think the only reason he wasn't banned long ago is that he "retired" any time anything looked to be going against him, then unretired once things had blown over - for instance, he said he was retired all through the events that led up to his ban. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned for now - a ban commuted to two months? That's not enough time. Maybe, at some point in the future it could be considered, but from his statement on his talk page, he doesn't seem to think he did anything wrong. I'd consider (and probably endorse) unbanning after a year provided that there is a willingness to admit that he was wrong and to change, but two months is not enough. --B (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks to Skinwalker for notifying me of this discussion, and a finger wag at the rest of you lot for not informing me. As the blocking admin, I'll note that I blocked Martinphi essentially because he was treating Wikipedia as a battleground - and will be disinclined to unblock him myself unless I am convinced he will actively create a productive, collegiate and safe editing environment. I would be inclined to unblock if he has a proven track record of such collaboration on another wiki.--Tznkai (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support unblock. He was blocked for disruption stemming from the view that he was treating Wikipedia as a battleground in a personal dispute with ScienceApologist and showing a battlefield mindset with opposing editors. I am satisfied with Martin’s statements, his recognition of what the issues were that led to his block, and his positive affirmation that he will be seeking true consensus in a very civil and non-battlefield way. Dreadstar † 16:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm missing something, but I've read his statement on his talk page and it sounds like a defense, not an apology. So long as he is interested in defending his behavior, I don't know how he could be said to have demonstrated recognition of the issues that led to his block. --B (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I think where you see defense, I see explanation. He said he's going to be doing things differently from here on out - which I think is clear indication that he sees his former pattern of behavior was wrong and he is going to change. He also explains how he's going to change; and I don't see any belligerence or statements along the lines of “I’m right and all of you are wrong”, I see a genuinely contrite statement and a willingness to change to become more of a consensus-building editor, and instead of engaging in “long winded” disputes, making more use of the appropriate processes. I say we extend him a little good faith and give him another chance. If he pursues a course that is the same that led to his banning, then we can just simply ban him again. Dreadstar † 00:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned too much drama in the past with the guy, so how could we convince a similar degree of dramas not happen in future.--Caspian blue 16:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Wait another month or two and bring it up again. Keep banned, didn't know about the outings. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned -- his edits were extraordinarily disruptive, and he has a long, long history of uch behavior he was also a party to an arbitration case that kind of punted on him once the community ban came down, so unbanning him would mean he dodged the potential consequences of the arbitration. He's never shown any remorse for this agenda-advancing edits and coordinated WP:Civil POV pushing. He's gamed the system for years, and this looks like another attempt to do so. If he does come back he will need to be under some severe editing restrictions. DreamGuy (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Unblock. This edit seems genuinely remorseful for the actions which lead to his/her block and has pledged not to do such actions again. I'd say that the indef block has worked to correct behavior. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Unban A truly collaborative community of editors is meant to guide and help other editors. A knowledgeable, experienced editor who acknowledges the concerns that led to his ban, and makes a strong comment and commitment to correct those concerns as MartinPhi has done should be given a chance to become part of the community again, to contribute. As per WP:AGF, we don't assume future behaviours. To unban and allow an editor to have another chance is in the spirit of Wikipedia. To not unban runs counter to that spirit.(olive (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC))
• Keep banned. People with such a clear agenda, and who have caused this amount of disruption, should not be editing, no matter whether they make promises to try and be nice or not. If you perceive of Wikipedia as a battlefield, it makes little difference whether you promise to be fair in battle or not, it's the battling that matters. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Nyet. Old Russian saying, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned and this disruptive, unrepentant POV pusher from causing more trouble.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned - why are we wasting our time? He was permanently banned and people think he has magically changed in two months? Come back in a year. And as SBHB was saying: fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool us several dozen times and use a sockpuppet while doing so? Shame on everyone. //roux   22:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• CommentUnban - whatever the outcome of this, it ought to be shared equally by MartinPhi and ScienceApologist. MP was not worse than SA in this war (in many ways he was more civilized about it, IMO), but as it stands he's getting a dramatically worse punishment. What I would personally like to see is both SA and MP come back under appropriate restrictions, with a very clear impression that neither of them won. if SA comes back to edit while MP gets banned (or if the tables were turned, and MP came back while SA got banned), it would send the message that this is a useful and effective way of ridding wikipedia of opposing points-of-view, and we'd set a precedent for editors taking kamikaze runs at each other. not good, that. --Ludwigs2 02:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please reread the findings of the recent Fringe Science arbcom, which apply here, like it or not. It was MΦ, not SA, who was attempting to create a place for unencyclopedic content on WP, not SA. SA was subsequently blocked for violating the terms of the arbcom findings; that was not the case for MΦ, who, during the arbcom case, was blocked by Tznkai for long-term disruption. Mathsci (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and SA has demonstrated a loooong history of sockpuppetry and markedly uncivil, aggressive tactics to push his own POV (tactics he used on MΦ in excess, which is a big part of the foundation of this debacle). we're not talking about an old-style western here, Mathsci, where there's a guy in a white hat who you know is noble, good, and kind. This is more like a 70's western, where everyone's hat is dusty gray, and both sides are obsessively, arrogantly bent on violence. MΦ's biggest problem here is not that he's pushing a POV (at least not more than SA is), but rather that he's pushing the wrong POV (where SA is pushing the right POV).

I mean, let me be frank about my concern here (I'll provide diffs for all this if you like). a good while ago (when I was just starting out editing here), SA and I had been having a really mindless content dispute over something. He decided to log out and log in as an IP in order to make some very contentious edits and some rude comments towards me (I'm guessing to try to bait me into a 3rr violation). when Elonka left a note on my talk page pointing out that the IP was SA, he laid into her at ANI for 'outing' him. so here's a guy who thinks that he can break the rules about sockpuppetry because it's an effective way to break the rules about baiting, and feels so entitled about it that he bitchslaps the admin who catches him at it. now I'm more than willing to give SA his due - he's apparently done enough good stuff on wikipedia to generate some loyal supporters - but it would be just plain stupid to encourage him in this kind of behavior. If you treat him like the white hat in this conflict, that's what you're doing, and wikipedia is going to suffer for it. --Ludwigs2 19:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

More off-topic stuff
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here's a radical idea: consider MartinPhi's case on its own, according to its merits, and consider SA's case on its own, according to its merits. If you want to start a separate thread on SA's current status by all means go ahead but the present topic is whether to unban MartinPhi. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC) here's a better idea: see this as a dispute between two editors - each of whom has his own problematic issues - and reach for a fair and balanced resolution. I commend your loyalty to SA, but I respectfully suggest you look at the bigger picture here. --Ludwigs2 21:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC) P.s. before the other members of the ScienceApologist fan club chime in here (and we all know who you are...), please note that I've made my comment, and I think it's reasonable, and I'm not inclined to be swayed by partisan logic. I mean, I'm more than happy to keep addressing the same point as different editors bring it up, but that's going to get boring for everyone else, very fast. so... --Ludwigs2 21:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Two things - 1. Who are these "ScienceApologist fan club"? 2. Who are the "we" in "we all know who you are"? Shot info (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC) I knew you couldn't resist that. consider it an early April Fools'. --Ludwigs2 22:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC) And I knew you couldn't answer a straight question. So care to have another crack at evading it? Shot info (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC) sure! --Ludwigs2 01:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Coming from a completely disinterested spectator to this morass but I tend to agree with the above observation by User:Ludwigs2. Both protagonists seem to have used Wikipedia as a battlefield and have caused more distress than it's worth. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC).
• Maintain Ban or, at minimum, ban from all fringe topics and all policy pages. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Sustain ban per SheffieldSteel. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep banned as we should for most long-term nettlesome editors who have been community banned. Protonk (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Unban and sysop - as Ludwig above alludes, MartinPhi has behaved much more in line with what an encyclopedia is all about (an encyclopedia being a place where people go to make friends and feel welcomed) than the unapologetic tyrant of the scientific method with whom he locked horns. To put it most bluntly, MartinPhi has been unjustly attacked by those who would bludgeon our delicate whimsy with oppressive fact and appeals to the scientific method - in a nutshell, "verifiable and objective truth" (in an encyclopedia, of all the fucking places!). He should be commended, not lambasted, for his noble actions in furthering the goals of this project, and his detractors should be strong admonished - make that speedy admonished and salted - for their aura-damaging mean-spiritedness. Badger Drink (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, and they call me sarcastic. Let's just appoint him King while we're at it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Maintain Ban Too much wikilawyering, too much drama. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• only with topic ban covering policy pages and anything to do with fringe/paranormal. As an opportunity to show that he is not here just to argue endlessly about fringe stuff. Last thing we need in those pages is another editor arguing that mainstream is wrong and that it's unfair to call fringe stuff for its name. (sorry, Martin, but I'm just tired of circular arguments over SPOV, I want to get some real work done at those pages. If I wanted to argue to argue endlessly over interpretations and not get anything done then I would go the Spanish and Catalans wikipedias to edit History of Catalonia articles) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Seems we are blaming one editor for all of the "cares" on the fringe articles. Is that an accurate view? How many does it take to Tango? I wonder what would happen if Martinphi was given a probationary period of time to edit a fringe article with one or two very neutral admins to oversee the article and looking on. Science Apologist was given one last opportunity to redeem himself. Why not this editor? Why would we not extend the same the same good faith to Martinphi. I can understand the frustration that comes up with long discussion but that's Wikipedia, and is hardly the fault of one editor. If you have an knowledgeable editor who would like to try again, why is WP:AGF being ignored. There is no WP:SPOV as far as I know.(olive (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

• Maintain full ban - I am not aware of any undertaking by Martinphi to change the underlying behavior that necessitated the ban. All the usual pro-fringe accounts are lining up to support unbanning. Nothing to see here other than garden variety disruptive editing. Everyone, go edit an article. Jehochman ^Talk 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • and all the regular skeptic-cruft accounts are lined up to support the ban. let's not belabor the obvious, Jehochman; this is an entirely partisan dispute, with few people displaying anything remotely like common sense. that's the main reason I support unbanning - it's just a disgusting and obnoxious double-standard, otherwise. --Ludwigs2 21:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

ROFL - the irony! Shot info (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Maintain ban not a benifit to the project. Edits with an agenda that is contrary to our aims, causes drama, and repeatedly outs other editors. Should be made a permanent block. I endorse Jehochman's analysis (with the exception of BD). Verbal chat 16:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep banned -- Sorry, but I see no reason to undo the ban. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

One thing that I suppose is part amusing and part distressing in equal measure is the fantasy world that lies behind much of the nonsense stated above. This is most clearly demonstrated in Jehochman's post where he says "all the usual pro-fringe accounts are lining up to support unbanning". What? All three of them! And yet this 'stout lone science candle in the dark editor stands against marauding horde of rabid fringe lunatics' fiction seems actually to be believed by many above as in some way representative of wiki, when a cursory glance at what is written above reveals a very different reality. What the above actually shows is a large group whose shrill and sniping posts betray a hatred for anyone who does not share a fanatical anti-fringe view that goes well beyond a simple desire to have articles fairly cover fringe topics. This is hardly suprising when the high priests of the fanatical scientism that many above appear to subscribe to openly espouse bizarre conspiracy theories where watching a few episodes of Buffy can lead to the collapse of civilization as we know it. When the leadership of the movement embraces such nonsense openly it is hardly suprising when the followers follow suit. However, given that the actual situation is so badly misjudged by those opposing the unban, and that their arguments rest on an obvious bogeyman style fiction, it is clear that martin should probably be welcomed back on this basis alone.Landed little marsdon (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Who exactly are you calling shrill? Skinwalker (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder who the "All three of them" exactly are? Shot info (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably best to remain focused on whether or not the ban stays or doesn't. Shot info (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• I propose that this thread be closed. There's strong support for continuing the ban, and keeping this open isn't going to generate useful discussion. Skinwalker (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Could an administrator kindly notify MartinPhi of the disposition of this discussion?--Tznkai (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've sent him an e-mail informing him of the decision and providing a link to the discussion. I tend to think that he'll probably get that first, but I will also leave a message on his talk page regarding this discussion. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Agenda/POV pushing re: User:Ejnogarb

I think it's time an admin or 20 look into Ejnogarb (talk · contribs)'s edit history and have a word with him/her about ownership and such. I think a topic ban is in order. The user appears to be agenda driven in removing valid, sourced content dealing with gay rights issues or adding POV content against the subjects. The latest edits to American Family Association where the editor is trying to strip the article of valid, sourced content that points out how the AFA is against all things "gay" is the last straw so to speak. His/her edits to that article alone have been reverted by several users but he/she continues to edit war. We don't whitewash articles on Wikipedia and this should be stopped across the full medium of topics this editor is doing this to. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The article in question had a source from Southern Poverty Law Center, which first of all isn't appropriate for a controversy section given its bias. Second, the primary sentence in question asserted that the AFA was implicated in hate crimes against gays. Given that this is such a licentious assertion, and that the article doesn't mention any such action by the AFA, I repeatedly tried to delete. A content-ban is entirely out of order, considering that I've never even been temporarily blocked. I see this move as an attempt to prevent neutrality in Wikipedia. Ejnogarb (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because you haven't yet been blocked doesn't mean your work is above reproach. In general people post here because a user is persistently disruptive in some way and therefore using up the community resources which are generally better saved for improving articles. -- Banjeboi 07:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Every article I would have interacted with this user the edits have already been reverted by a number of editors but all their work is apparently for naught and very little of it hasn't been quickly reverted which does seem to add credibility of concerns about draining the resources of the project. ASE, for a valid ANI report you, or someone will need to do a bit of legwork to provide diffs on at least a few salient points. POV edit-warring examples, BLP violations, etc. and a pattern of disruption on a set of articles to show any bans or blocks are warranted. They have less than 500 edits so far but IMHO there is a pattern more aligned with social conservatism culture warring than just anti-LGBT rights per se. To me, a more appropriate route might be an editing watch as there have been at least some constructive edits in the past but also some extremely POV-pushy ones. I suggest a concise overview of diffs to move this forward. -- Banjeboi 07:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • @Benjiboi: I don't know if you realized you even did this, but how appropriate is it to acknowledge the user is a social conservative, possible anti-LGBT, and then you slap File:Drawing-Gay flag.png on his talk page in your "welcome" message? Seems subtly inflammatory, extremely rude or just plain insensitive to me. Not commenting on the topic at hand, but please remember to be considerate of other user's personal beliefs, especially if you are trying to quell a possible conflict. --64.85.214.246 (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Did you forget to log in Ejnogarb? It's a template he uses on everyone's page when welcoming them to Wikipedia so it certainly wasn't done on purpose, at least not to antagonize anyone. Of course Ejnogarb continues his own provocation with posts like this on Benji's talk page. If I didn't know any better, I'd think Ejnogarb and Axmann8 were brothers, if not the same person. The tendentious editing of all things "anti-conservatism" by both make it hard to believe otherwise. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 15:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't know if Ejnogarb forgot to log in or not, but implying that my IP (64.85.xxx.xxx) is Ejnogarb is overly presumptuous. So if it is a template he uses on everyone's page, then it is just plain insensitive. Please remember that all sorts of editors use WP and one should not make assumptions of other's views when leaving welcome templates. That assumption can put a new user in an awkward situation. Not commenting on the issue at hand, only inquiring as to the nature of the template on the editor-in-question's talk page. --64.85.215.213 (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I've never used a different account or IP address, and I'm always automatically logged on. This whole process is nothing but a personal attack, which is additionally evident in the snarky templates and insults on various talkpages. Ejnogarb (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Here you removed POV and Refs needed tags from Men who have sex with men with the edit summary No section contains more citations (and there are no "citations needed"), and there are no positive health side affects for homosexulaity (but if there are, please add them). This is unhelpful and antagonistic. The whole section needs clean-up and several editors are working to sort out what needs to be done. -- Banjeboi 19:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't say about past versions, but the current version of Benji's "welcome" is the usual stuff, just decorated a bit (I'll leave out the obvious stereotype joke there) and the flag in question is very small, in the upper left corner. If a new user gets upset about something like that, then they must be coming here looking for a fight - hence the tendency to compare the new user with someone like Axmann8, who came in with guns blazing and went out hanging by his socks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I should quickly add that any comparison between Axmann8 and Ejnogarb should not be intended to suggest they're actually the same user, as it's obvious they're NOT. Also, the IP in question is obviously not a new user, so it probably has a floating IP address. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the only version of my own welcome template I have ever used. And yes the flag is as small as imaginably could be so I see this rather as a red herring. Ejnogarb has brought the concern to my talkpage and I have now apologized twice for welcoming them. Can't say I've ever even heard of someone being upset for being welcomed but I hope we can back to the more substantiative issues of edit-warring and POV-pushing that brought this thread into existence. -- Banjeboi 19:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand why someone would find it offensive to be greeted with an image of a rainbow, in which all the colours peacefully co-exist despite the fact that they're different. The appropriateness of that image to an online community such as Wikipedia ought to be self-evident. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think Bugs has already provided the answer - he came here looking for a fight. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that what that tiny little thing is -- a flag? Sheesh, if I hadn't gone looking to see what all the drahmaz was about, had I otherwise seen Benjiboi's welcome template, I'm not sure I would have even noticed the thing. -- llywrch (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I was simply stunned myself but others can judge for themselves User:Benjiboi/welcome. -- Banjeboi 20:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This whole allegation is obviously frivolous if the only thing that is being discussed is a flag that I never complained about. Ejnogarb (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Other than calling it a "snark": [29] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I called the whole template a snark when I deleted it from my talk page. I found it mildly insulting considering that a user with whom I had already spoken a few times was sending me a "welcome" template as if I was confused about what Wikipedia is. Ejnogarb (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Given thier editing interaction, the template was obviously subtle baiting. CENSEI (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You been on vacation? Axmann8 could have used your help the other day. He stood up for you before. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this thread? I have something called a "job" ... requires a bit of my time now and then. CENSEI (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This thread may have been a tad premature but all that would change is more pointy edits and disruption, IMHO. At least in this way it was brought to wider attention whether any sock activity is going on or not. If Ejnogarb simply avoids overtly POV edits and on culture war related articles works to find consensus then I think we can all move on. The alternative is digging through their 200+ mainspace edits to build a walk of shame which no one has stepped up to do. And likely would just waste more community energy. Shall we close this and move on? -- Banjeboi 03:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not pointless, in fact the very point of it seems to be to harass an editor that has been deemed less “LGBT friendly” than some editors think he should be and that’s not only a real shame but should also be the focus of this thread. CENSEI (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Weighing in as someone who has only recently become aware of Ejnogarb and the concerns that have been raised about his editing patterns, I want to add my two cents. I have Promiscuity on my watchlist (as it is a vandalism-prone article), and so have seen his recent edits there. He first editwarred for the inclusion of a 30+ year old study on promiscuity in homosexual men, and is now editwarring to remove a far more recent study on the same subject. While on principle I don't like to assume motivation, it's rather telling that the seriously outdated study supports his personal beliefs, while the recent research does not, and that he only started to care about "balance" when the outdated study was replaced with the modern one and not before when only the outdated one was being presented. Taken along with his overall editing history, this is indicative of a POV-pushing agenda and editwarring modus operandi. I certainly hope that Ejnogarb will choose to edit in a productive manner to provide genuine balance to articles, but I must endorse the claim that his current editing patterns are highly problematic. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 16:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your statements are incorrect. I added the statistics from another Wikipedia page, which were deleted because one of the studies was from the 70s. I agreed that the study was out of date, but the other editor deleted two other sources from <10 years (which I restored). When the same editor insisted that all the statistics that negatively portrayed LGBT groups be deleted, but those that were positive remain, I deleted all of the added statistics because the editor obviously wasn't interested in neutrality. Since then, that editor has been blocked for edit-warring and not me, because I stopped making reverts. I think it's quite telling of this whole attempt to block me that the person who originally tried, Allstarecho, is the one ended up being blocked. I appreciate your attempts to police that particular article, but my edits have been entirely in line with Wikipedia guidelines.  EJNOGARB  01:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you hadn't ended with "entirely in line with Wikipedia guidelines", i would have been silent. But that was over the top. Do you really want the Walk Of Shame to spew out here? Shall i get it started by pointing to your edit summary when you deleted the 2007 statistics? You said, "It is incredibly POV to disallow statistics which are unfavorable to LGBT groups, but insist that positive statistics be included." Just what do you mean by "favorable" or "unfavorable"? Do you not see how you just thrust your POV (favor/disfavor toward gays, toward promiscuity) out for all of us-- so POINTy, it's poking some eyes!-- and yet you claim "in line with Wikipedia guidelines"?! Just what exactly are you trying to achieve for the benefit of the readers of those articles about promiscuity, gay sex, and your other recent fascinations therein? Because all i see for an achievement is a placement of your Pointy POV into the Article spaces, when it would be best confined to the Talk Page spaces. That's what i've been told is in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Please, oh please, do not give me a project today, because Shame Walking just feels spiteful and hurtful and nobody wants to go there. Can you please give us some respect according to the Golden Rule? You wouldn't want some promiscuous queer editor to become religiously devoted to the-- ahem-- insertion of his queer viewPoint into your favorite articles about churches by insisting upon favoring a secular viewpoint at the expense of a neutral article, for example? Wouldn't that bother you? Do you see the analogy? Mutual respect, i give it to you, please let us ask it in return. Thanks ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 01:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If the <10 year old sources you refer to are the ones relating to blood donation, they weren't deleted for being "unfavorable" to any particular viewpoint. They were deleted for being so tangentially and tenuously related as to be off-topic. Specific discussion as to whether or not they are indeed off-topic belongs on the article's talk page, not here, but suffice to say, your allegations that they were removed for POV reasons is not supported by the actual edit history. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems at DreamHost with an SPA

This is so minor, I am almost embarrassed to bring it up here; however, I would like to request administrator review at DreamHost, where I have been variously accused of WP:OWN and WP:COI issues. This relatively low-trafficked article has few editors, with only 19 edits in 2009 (this far). The accusations have come from a disgruntled SPA: Judas278 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He/she keeps disruptively tagging the article with unwarranted COI and SELFPUB tags, and this "slow motion" dispute has continued for several months. I have tried to improve the article, but I find my efforts thwarted by this individual. The claims of a conflict of interest stem from the fact that I am a customer of DreamHost (I have some websites hosted there), but I fail to see how this would disqualify me as an editor. My suspicion is that the SPA is a former, disgruntled customer of DreamHost - other such people have vandalized/abused the article in the past. I would appreciate any advice on how to solve this "dispute". -- Scjessey (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously an SPA, first created about 3 weeks ago and went straight to this subject; and near as I can tell, he has not made one iota of suggestion on how to actually improve the article, so it does indeed look like either trolling or agenda-pushing of some kind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The editor made this reasonable edit, which Scjessey reverted. The editor tried to discuss, got nowhere, and offerred to go to mediation, which Scjessey ignored. I don't see why a possible disgruntled former customer has less right to edit than a current happy customer. In short, this is a one-vs-one content dispute, and this is the wrong place to bring it. Looie496 (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The SPA on his first edit took out language that does indeed look like editorializing, except that the cited source supports that viewpoint. My guess would be that the SPA had some sort of bad experience with them, and is thus also guilty of conflict of interest. If the SPA were a little more up front about his agenda, maybe things would be going better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is the "wrong place to bring it," could you tell me where? Bear in mind that this is not a content dispute, but rather it concerns editor conduct. The SPA has not made any effort to improve the article, but has instead made accusations about conflicts of interest and engaged in what I call "drive-by tagging". You claim I "ignored" mediation, but this is incorrect - I do not know anything about the mediation process, and I assumed that if an editor "accepted" the role of a mediator the parties involved would be informed and mediation would proceed. Is this not correct? Also, does it not look like a bad faith call for mediation, given that no attempt at talk page discourse has occurred? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

In Sept. '08 JaverMC concluded "Neutrality is in question on this article." and "...having read the discussion under this section of the talk, leads me to believe there is a possible WP:COI and an even more unsettling WP:OWN tendency." The two cited reference problems remain, including the blog mentioned above; however, his tags were removed on Feb. 26. Please judge whether the COI and OWN tendency exist in the article edit history and talk. --Judas278 (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What's your personal interest in this subject? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Though the most recent complaint was brought by an SPA, there are issues lingering from last fall, where neutrality of the article was questioned in this discussion: Talk:DreamHost#Neutral third party view. If agreement to mediation cannot be found, I suggest a Talk discussion or an RFC on exactly how the quality of DreamHost's customer service should be described in the article. If that issue were settled, there might be no need for tags to remain on the article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has evolved since last fall, with better sourcing. With the exception of the SPA, the only other person to engage in talk page discussion agreed that the article "seems fine", which is why the COI/NPOV/SELFPUB tags were removed and replaced with a request for better referencing. My requests on the article talk page for thoughts on how to improve the article have, thus far, fallen on deaf ears. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the COI/NPOV/SELFPUB tags, but it could still use better referencing. And yes, I'm a Dreamhost customer too.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I was a customer. They were not transparent. I left. I didn't want to remain silent here when I saw appropriate tags being deleted from this article. It is not neutral. Editors have COI. Readers should be warned. The biggest changes since last fall are deleting 3 self-published references and one reference on being an (unsuccessful) .LA registrar. I acknowledge this is something, but 5 of 13 references are still self-published, by the company. --Judas278 (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So essentially what you are saying is that your personal bias has led you to engage in agenda-driven editing. You have made claims about conflicts of interest and self-publishing, although you have no evidence to support either. You claim a lack of neutrality because of an over reliance on primary sources, and yet that is exactly what I said on the talk page (and tagged the article for). You are here to right some great wrong - to exact revenge. Your actions, therefore, are clearly not in the best interests of Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a content dispute, and COI, neutrality and OWN dispute. As Looie496 said above, I made a reasonable edit, which was reverted. Then I restored previous tags, which was reverted. I tried to discuss, but motives were questioned and bad faith was assumed, so I requested mediation. Evidence of COI and non-neutrality? The many reasons given on the talk page. BTW, How many dollars per month in referral income do you receive from DreamHost?! Were you administrator of DreamHost's wiki? Do you have a closer relationship than most people? Are you patrolling to protect the article from all "wrong" opinions?! --Judas278 (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You "tried to discuss" what, exactly? You have only posted on the article talk page twice (diff1, [30]) before today, and neither was an attempt to discuss anything. My reason for patrolling the article is that as a customer, I have knowledge of the company and how its system works. This is no different from a user of Windows patrolling and contributing to the article on Microsoft Windows. I have made a small amount of referral money over the years (along with thousands of other customers), but that in no way disqualifies me from contributing. In fact, most of my edits to the article have been to remove "referral spam". I am not an administrator of DreamHost's Wiki, although I was granted sysop privileges to police vandalism, but I have no special relationship with the company. I've been a customer since 2004, and that's pretty much the whole story. Again, none of these facts should prevent me from working on this article. You, on the other hand, have confirmed that you are a former customer with a beef. You have deliberately setup a Wikipedia account to edit the DreamHost article to denigrate the company you are unhappy with. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I "tried to discuss" the COI tagging, but you bit the newcomer. How many dollars per month do you stand to lose if the company failed? --Judas278 (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't made more than a handful of dollars per year for ages, and I donated most of it to charity (Susan B. Komen) because DreamHost matches donations. Anyway, you aren't a "newcomer" - you are just an SPA. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Montanabw allegedly bites Buttermilk1950

On Talk:Rodeo I have twice asked Montanabw (talk · contribs) to stop making ad hominem remarks.[31][32] However, she has continued, making ad hominem remarks to me[33][34] and to Buttermilk1950 (talk · contribs)[35] that I feel are disruptive. Would an admin please look at this? --Una Smith (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a huge issue in the rodeo articles over a POV fork created by the user Buttermilk1950, which has already resulted in her being blocked once, in part because she is being mentored and encouraged by User:Una Smith. See Rodeo in the United States and Animal treatment in rodeo. To the extent my frustration boiled over, I apologize. (And have apologized on the relevant article talk page where I made the "go play" comment.) However, before anyone takes further action, please also note that this editor who has filed this AN/I and I have a long and contentious history. She has previously filed an AN/I on me here, resolved in my favor, a WQA here, resolved in my favor, and, completely unrelated to me, herself has been the subject of at least three previous AN/I reports herself that basically died because of the total exhaustion of all involved: here and here and a related incident here, plus earlier a set of related incidents here and here

In short, this is a long game of "gotcha," and I for one am sick of it. To close, my real life is extraordinarily busy at the moment, which has prevented me from accessing wiki on a daily basis. If there is a need for me to respond within 24 hours, please send me email. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 04:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Una has got this rather the wrong way around, I'm afraid. Montanabw is not the issue here, and her description of the background is accurate. Apparently new editor starts POV forking, and is being egged on by Una. Characterizing Montanabw's comments in this matter as ad hominem attacks is very wide of the mark. ++Lar: t/c 06:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has interacted with both parties I would like to note that Montanabw does display a maked tendancy towards "ownership" of articles and often unilaterally reverts to the revision which she approves while telling the other editor/s that edits need to be approved by the lead editors of the article , usually Montanabw. It was noted already by a different user here that Montanabw is showing ownership. Heres areseveral other instances of users noting the propencity toward ownership. [36], [37] [38] and [39] -- Kevmin (talk 01:37, 30 March 2009

Without disagreeing, Una is still wide of the mark, which I think is the more important issue. ++Lar: t/c 07:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the larger issue is that Montanabw does exhibit ownership but Una is the only one who actually brings this ti AN/I. But once here the underlying problems may people have with Una serve to sidetrack the issue and there ends up being no actual discussion regarding Montanabws actions rather the problem is dismissed each time. Thus the cycle starts again. I commented here in hope the Una/Montanabw issue would be skipped and the ownership issue be addressed --Kevmin (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I think the wider issue here is Una, not Montanabw or any ownership charges. Una has a record of difficulty working with others, across many projects, not just the equine one, (ask the medical or botany folks, for example) and a record of bringing things to various venues, such as AN/I or WQA or wherever, when she doesn't get her way. Usually these are rebutted, but only after some time is wasted. ++Lar: t/c 15:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

IF this is only an Una issue how do you account for the number of OTHER incidences which myself and others have brought up. I'm sorry Lar, but looking through the links I don't think you are unbiased in this, having a clear dislike of Una and thus siding against her in almost every situation.--Kevmin (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't "like" or "dislike" Una. I merely dislike disruptive behavior. What you need to internalize here is that when I "side against her" I'm siding with many other people. And it's "almost every situation" because, as many other people point out, she's wrong about stuff in many different situations. Review this thread's participants and do some research on the many voices you see here saying there's a problem with Una's behavior. I think you and Peter have a narrower view of this matter than I (or many others) do, as these voices come from all over the wiki, not just equine, and certainly not just articles that Montanabw has made major contributions to. You need to broaden your perspective. ++Lar: t/c 04:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Another instance of ownership. Please see the talk page especially here and edit history starting on 00:13, January 22, 2009 for Template:Equine--Kevmin (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this, and I don't want to be, but I'll post a little because Una left a message on my talk page asking me to.

Because of the message on my talk page, I looked into this a little earlier, and I felt that this AfD is of concern to me because it apparently shows a new user in an emotional state as a result of interactions with this user. I would tend to suggest that the ownership issues Una alleges are real, as shown by this diff.

This AN/I entry appears to show that there's more substance to the ownership issues than can be explained by a dispute between Montanabw and Una/Buttermilk.

On the more positive side, this request for mediation appears to show an ability to compromise on both sides when under scrutiny.

All in all, I think both sides genuinely believe that the other is acting unreasonably, and because both sides are active in horse-related articles, there will be regular, repeated drama between these users. It's a long-standing pattern and needs outside intervention.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been involved with Montana and I've tried to bring up what I feel are ownership tendencies on Montana's in various articles.[40][41][42][43] The problem as I see it is that Montana places far too strict demands on information that she disagrees with. Usually this leads to a rather unnerving revert-first-ask-later-policty. I've even seen her remove thoroughly referenced information only to motivate her actions with personal suspicion, or simply plain ignorance (most obviously in horses in warfare).

In my experience Montana's often restrictive and defensive behavior towards users new or unknown to her generally results in active or passive support from her colleagues. Most or all attempts to raise complaints about this tend to be branded as personal attacks, or just plain mean to the otherwise hard-working Montana. I'd this is more an issue with WP:EQUINE than just Montana personally.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the Rodeo article, but from my contacts with Montanabw at Cowboy, I would not use 'ownership' in describing his approach. He is passionate about the subjects he works with, shows a great deal of knowledge on them, and prefers history over legend. I have had no problem from him when I have added well sourced material to Cowboy. -- Donald Albury 10:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The wider issue happens to those who do not seek her permission to edit an article she owns. The common response is many times wholesale revert to her last edit and generally rather snippy comments either in the edit summery or on the persons talk pages.--Kevmin (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on my recent (and brief) involvement in this article, Montanabw doesn't try to 'own' articles she edits, but rather, takes active interest in the edits other make to the article. I would also say that just because you warn someone for something, Una, does not mean they actually did anything wrong. One of those 'warnings' you gave happens to contain a comment by Montanabw explaining why she didn't believe she was making attacks. To that response you simply repeated the original warning! Una needs to deal with other active editors on pages he/she edits. I encourage everyone to discuss before editing. Prodego ^talk 21:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply I have had a long history of Una accusing me of article ownership and any number of other thngs when I challenge her for advocacy of fringe theories. Any issues here must be examined in light of the general disruption Una causes all across wikipedia, not just in the articles where I edit. I am one of the few people to consistently challenge her, and at this point I am convinced that she is trying to run me off of wikipedia. Una has repeatedly engaged in the same pattern with many users and articles: She makes significant edits to an article, often advocating fringe theories, often disturbing a long-stable article, then reacts with hostility and aggression when these changes are challenged. The AN/I above on Tumbleweeds (The WP POINT link), which I was not involved in at all, is particularly illustrative of this. The result is that even when she occasionally makes a useful edit, and she does, her contributions are viewed with distrust. I must point out only a few days ago, I encouraged her to continue editing an article here. I have made repeated efforts to negotiate, to work out a truce, to have a meeting of the minds, all of which have been rebuffed, often rudely. I can provide diffs if requested.

As for myself, my position is that quality control and respect for past consensus is not ownership. Yes, I am quick to question new edits, but I have ALWAYS been willing to engage in good faith negotiations with anyone who can explain the reasons for their views with good, solid info, and is willing to engage in mutual listening and cooperation. I have changed my own viewpoints on many occasions and all I ask is that people explain what they are doing and why, backing it up sources that are not fringe theories or otherwise poor. On the other hand, trying to bully me or dismiss my concerns is generally counterproductive. Montanabw^(talk) 23:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've looked into this and I urge them to seek WP:DR, either RFC or mediation, in the hopes it helps avoid a deeper look by arbtration. Something deeper is going on here. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that this is not really an issue that is bilateral... if you have a contentious editor who repeatedly causes issues, and each time you send that editor to mediation, and they get 1/2 their way, you're enabling that contentiousness as a way to get one's way. Which is bad for the project. Despite those folk here who are perhaps grinding their own axes to make whatever points, the real problem here is Una and her approach. Not Montanabw. Una has mastered the technique of chipping away at folk until they give up. ++Lar: t/c 15:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

With respect, Lar, I've already shown that there's more to this than a dispute between Montanabw and Una. I don't disagree that there is a dispute there, but I think it's a mistake to imply that Una is entirely at fault and Montanabw is entirely blameless, because I've provided diffs that show otherwise.

I'm with Rlevse: there's something deeper going on here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I've not been clear enough, apologies. We are none of us perfect and I am not going to say Montanabw is "entirely blameless". Should she work on not immediately reacting when an article she put a lot of effort into gets messed up? Sure... no argument there. But this isn't bilateral. It isn't really about Montanabw. That's just a side issue. Not the main issue. When I look at Una's contributions, I see a pattern. And it's not good. Montanabw is not her only adversary and equine is not the only project she's stirred up. I think if you look long and hard you'll see it too. Mediation between M and U doesn't fit the problem which is why I said what I said just above. But... yes... maybe an RfC on Una is in order... but those tend to be high drama. I think I'd rather just see this thread shut down with an admonishment to Una to stop being disruptive, and hope for the best. Because really, that's what she does... it's low grade and it's within the envelope, technically, but it is disruptive. ++Lar: t/c 20:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed "something deeper going on here", and it will not be resolved by any dispute resolution or mediation between Montanabw and Una. Una is a disruptive editor, and has been involved in numerous incidents and disputes in other areas of WP. I am no wikistalker, and have no intention to spend time trawling throuigh her contributions, but I can direct you to a current dispute at suspension bridge where Una's page moves and neologisms have resulted in serious disruption (even down to an afd to raise awareness of her poor page choices) - not all one sided, of course: Una's actions have a tendency to raise ire and rash responses from otherwise mild editors. See also Talk:Tumbleweed where UNa caused strife by a move to another neologism. Anyone with time can find plenty of disruption at GA where Una has derailed noms, or provided inappropriate reviews. I am sure Una is well-meaning, but she has a tendency to carry out actions which make sense only to her, and to argue bitterly with anyone who stands up to her.
As far as Montanabw is concerned, there is continual strife between the pair because Montanabw recognises Una's tactics and will not put up with them, where many others just avoid her and clear up the mess later. Montanabw is the first to admit she is not blameless, and has responded sharply at times; she has also very generously sought to reach compromise with Una through mediation and dispute resolution, and to discuss things on talk pages. Cries of "ownership" abound mainly because Monatanabw is a diligent editor, who feels strongly about maintaining neutrality (and reacts strongly to PETA-type propaganda, for example) and WP:RS, and , above all, maintaining a reputable and creditable Wikipedia. We need more editors like her, and should not try and drive her off with finger-pointing and name-calling. She recognises her faults (which is more than I can say for some) and works hard to maintain good relations with all editors - even those with differing views. I first encountered Montanabw when I challenged content on one of "her" pages. She showed concern, not "ownership" and we worked out the issue on the talk page, and in the end constructed a whole new article incorporating my research and hers. I found her generous with her time, and vigorous in her efforts to establish fact and accurate, reliable reporting. I could, of course, have thrown a tantrum, drumming my heels until I got my own way, but neither of us, or WP would have been any better for it. As Lar says, lets close this tantrum, and get on with building an encyclopaedia. Gwinva (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is NOT an una\montana issue. Please actually look through the links posted by myself, S Marshall, and Peter, which encompass a number of separate unrelated incidences all of which have involved montana displaying overt ownership. What seems to happen is the same small group of editors come to montanas defense and turn the discussion into a problem with the person bringing up the matter and ending the matter with "don't pick on montana she does so much". Yes I agree she does contribute a lot but she also has shown a tendency to be very harsh with any editors who disagree with her or make edits without her permission and does not take kindly to others editing her articles, tolerating them when they are persistent. I am not meaning to offend anyone with this but it annoys me when editors try claim "una/montana history so just forget it or better yet penalize Una". The provided link clearlyu show a longer wider history of incidences then that.--Kevmin (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to just let this ANI die a natural death, again, but Kevmin distorts the record. First off, no one can prove a negative and hence how can I prove that there are thousands of article changes I have reviewed and simply left as it because they are suitable? If one does not wish to accept Gwinva's summary of my edit history, which is pretty accurate,then I welcome any admins (hello? Is there an admin on this?? S Marshall, are you the admin assigned here?) to review my work at Banker horse, where a high school student brought an article up to FA standard while I mostly remained on the sidelines, particularly as the project advanced and the user's skills dramatically increased. This is far from "tolerance," it was support, encouragement, and mentorship. I would also point out that on the Banker horse article, Una did not appear until very late in the game, at which point she attempted to disrupt the whole article and interrupt its push for GA and FA status. I could rest my case on that example alone. However, I would also like to refer reviewers to Thoroughbred, where I worked collaboratively with three other editors, again with a smaller and smaller role as the project progressed, to help guide that article to FA status. Finally, I helped get Horse to GA status, again with significant collaboration with others, in spite of a concerted effort by Una to actively derail the nomination, as noted here. There are other examples of successful collaboration I can provide, but frankly I am reluctant to even mention other articles I care about for fear Una will go in and try to ruin them. I mention these only because I know they are already GA or FA and also routinely patrolled by other dedicated users who will prevent serious disruptive attacks. Kevmin points out that I can be snappish, and I agree, I even admit it on my own talk page and state I am open to trout-slapping. However, I try to be patient with most edits to articles I watchlist. However, when a situation involves either Una or the PETA crowd (or in the case of the rodeo articles, both), my patience is, admittedly close to zero; I'm quite sick of dealing with Una. I also don't care for bullies in general. Montanabw^(talk) 01:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have distorted nothing I have stated my opinion given the information provided and based on my interactions/observations of you. We can safely assume all respondents in the AN/I have large edit counts, and we all watch numerous pages without interacting as people make changes, thus commenting on pages where you have not had much interaction really doesn't address the situation. What is being discussed here, and what I think is the larger issue, are those time you do step in. You yourself just stated you tend to be "snappish" and "open to trout slapping". THESE are the cases that I think are the major concern, as they are the times when the mass reverts, short language, and tendency to tell other editors to buzz off come out. The links provided by myself([44], [45], [46], [47], [48] (Also brought up by Peter), [49]); by S Marshall ([50], [51], [52]); and Peter Isotalo ([53], [54], [55], [56]) Most of these incidences do NOT invlove Una Smith. I also do not like the implication the that I have distorted anything or that myself, S Marshall, and Peter_Isotalo are bullies for bringing up what we see are valid concerns with your actions.--Kevmin (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Montana, trout-slapping is something that many experienced editors are reluctant to do, especially against someone they don't know. It's generally advised against in guidelines since it can easily start fights, and usually you only do it to close friends or highly disruptive users. Claiming that you need to be yelled at occasionally to deal with your behavior implies that other user are responsible for your shortcomings.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'd resolved not to edit this AN/I again but Montanabw asked me a direct question. No, Montanabw, I'm not an admin. I'm a perfectly ordinary editor with no history in this prior to this AN/I, posting here simply because Una asked me to. She said on my talk page that input from a previously uninvolved party would be a good idea, so I went over the diffs in some detail.

I won't criticise you for feeling attached to articles you've worked hard on. I'm exactly the same; I watch every article I ever started like a hawk. Creating new material is a lot of hard work, and if someone went in and radically cut one, I wouldn't be thrilled either. But I think I would strive to assume good faith, and if necessary take a break for a few hours before addressing the issue.

I think that there's an entrenched pattern here, and I think that both you and Una are in a place with this now where neither of you are prepared to assume good faith. And I'm disturbed to see how many people in this AN/I thread are assuming bad faith on the part of one side or the other. Because what it means is that there can't be change. In other words, the assumption that Una's in bad faith with this AN/I is effectively forcing her into a particular behaviour pattern, and I think that's taking both of you along the road to arbitration.

I'm perplexed that the one person who this AN/I is not focusing on is Buttermilk1950. It's become "about" Una and Montanabw. But Buttermilk1950 is displaying behaviour patterns that indicate distress, and I suggest we think more about that part of the matter before this AN/I is closed.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In a dispute a few weeks ago, I have started a draft of a RFC on Una, because of her disruptive attitudes on wikipedia. I let it slip because the topics I encountered her most frequent were left alone, but the same issues have been popping up again. I invoite everybody who wants to contribute to the draft to go over here : User:KimvdLinde/RFC and help me out. I agree that it is time for more action, and maybe we can avoid a Arbitration case in this way, because it is heading fast that way. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In the December Issue of ANI, Una was advised to file this as an RFC should they believe future issues arose. Although many believe this "incident" is indicative of the atmosphere surrounding the Equine section of WP, there is certainly a root of it between Una and Montanabw. Una: file your RFC - but be advised that your actions will be under the exact same microscope. It's time to "clear the air" once and for, and stop the petty run-to-the-parents style of passive-aggressive interaction. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Indef block of User:Alastair Haines

User:Alastair Haines was indefinitely blocked by me last week for violating WP:NLT (this was mentioned on WP:ANI as well). Now, Alastair Haines thinks it is time to lift the block: User talk:Alastair Haines#Time to lift the block. I'll not unblock him myself, I've not seen an unequivocal withdrawal of the legal threats, but I have no objections to another, uninvolved admin going over his talk page and doing whatever he or she thinks is the right course of action. Fram (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I told him to ask formally for it. Frankly, his attitude is not the type I'd like to see and would suggest converting it to an indefinite block and moving on. Arguments that "A legal threat may exist, but it is no longer being made" are just asking for trouble and against the spirit of NLT, in my opinion. As User:LisaLiel noted, this doesn't look like a withdrawal of threats, but a declaration that they exist but he won't announce them. We don't need inferences like that here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

His language is difficult to decipher at times. LisaLiel is not helping. I interpret it as maybe a bit of obfuscation perhaps, an unwillingness to make any promises as to future possibilities, and a withdrawal of any immediate intent to take legal action. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Alastair is not helping himself very much at the moment. If he can make a clear and short statement (one unequivocal sentence?) of his positive intentions towards wikipedia, then I hope the block can be lifted. I agree with Doug that there is no current threat of legal action, just rhetoric that is sometimes not so easy to decipher. The only thing that I take seriously on his talk page is his intention of attending one of the next Ozzie WP meetups. Mathsci (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Block of Alastair

To keep things from getting messy, as discussions usually do, I'm putting this here. In my opinion, due to this editor's recent behavior on the talk page(demanding apologies, idea that he did nothing wrong), I

• Support - That his block remain.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. "I observe that one week has now elapsed. The original block should now be lifted. There are now 51 weeks remaining for the grounds of that block to be admitted to have been erroneous, and a notice be published to that effect. On the matter of whether I would take action to secure such a public retraction and apology, as requested, I withhold comment.
• In regard to alleged legal threats I also, as requested, withhold comment. It is quite true that I am under no obligation to signal legal intentions in advance in the forum of a talk page. But it is also true that I cannot deny the fact that, among the uncertain possibilities of the future, such professional courts of appeal are deliberately made available, to allow suitably qualified persons to balance the vital necessities of both permitting responsible and fair criticism and preventing irresponsible unfounded criticism." taken from his talkpage. He hasn't retracted any threats, he's basically gone "Alright, so I won't sue you now. I'm not saying I'll sue you in the future, just that there are ways in which I could." He doesn't say what would happen in 51 weeks, but it is fairly obvious. This goes right against the grain of the spirit of WP:NLT, if not against the letter. He obviously hasn't learnt anything, and still doesn't see what he has done wrong. Let him maybe or maybe-not sue WMF in the future; I'd like to see him use Australian law against a company registered in Florida and with no Australian presence. Ironholds (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Suppport block - Legal threats of any kind must not be tolerated. There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support block. If he hasn't withdrawn the legal threat (and, as far as I can see, he hasn't), then the block should stay in place. Obfuscation is not helpful here, and the fact that time has passed, as it inevitably does, is not relevant. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support block per FisherQueen. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support block what semantic rabbit-hole is this? He says he won't promise not to make legal threats in future. He says he won't comment on the "alleged" legal threat made in the past. And then he blabbers about an uncertain future that might include "courts of appeal" and then "there are now 51 weeks remaining for the grounds of that block to be admitted to have been erroneous, and a notice be published to that effect." This all sounds like an implied threat to sue if he doesn't get an apology in writing. And he's being weasely and evasive. ("Are you threatening to sue, yes or no?" A: "I can not say. I am keeping my options open as to how i will handle these false and likely libelous claims made against me. YOU still have 51 weeks to do as I demand, which will make my decision easier...") Throw away the key after this display is my advice.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support block. We don't care whether a person actually pursues legal action, as long as they don't threaten it onsite. It's simple enough to withdraw the threat and promise not to repeat it. Alistair, if you are reading this and wish to be unblocked, please copy and paste the following: "I withdraw any threat of legal action and promise to make no onsite threat of legal action in the future." Clear direct prose is best in this situation. If Alistair does copy/paste the suggested text, then count this statement as a support for his unblock. Durova^Charge! 20:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with Durova. I just suggested a similar sentence on Alastair's talk page. Now it's up to him. Mathsci (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• support block per Durova. I'd prefer a slightly stronger statement of the form ""I withdraw any threat of legal action. I have no intended or ongoing legal actions against the Wikimedia Foundation or any Wikipedia editors." JoshuaZ (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block - Legal threats need not be tolerated, and the nonsense on his talk is really just disruptive. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block - I see a lot of tap dancing around that he never made any legal threat, when clearly he did. I also see no recanting of any previous statements, misinterpreted or not. In fact, it's almost the exact opposite with a dash of attitude and contempt on his part. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• support block  rdunnPLIB  09:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block The reason for WP:NLT is to diminish the chilling effect that such threats have to the editing environment; nothing that has been quoted from Alistair Haines has the effect of reducing the chill potential, but rather increases it when noting that the block should be apologised for. This editor does not appear to get it, and should remain blocked until there is some indication that they do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support/Endorse block - No legal threats allowed on Wikipedia. Although he says he won't threat anyone, his behavior shows otherwise. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 01:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion

Guys the problem here is not whether we can or should unblock Alastiar, the question is does he or does he not understand what the ArbCom ruling was. This is not just a WP:NLT issue, this is also directly related to the ArbCom ruling and problematically to Alastiar's repudiation of that ruling (see relevant diffs, logs and sectionshere, here, here and here). I have the feeling from his comments and his series of blocks since then that he does not accept the restrictions placed on his account by the ruling - I believe that he maintains his actions prior to, during and currently are 'above reproach' even though there is a clear issue regarding his use of the revert function. Basically the current issue is merely a symptom of the underlying problem. We need to address that one way or the other--Cailil ^talk 12:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll just reproduce what I said at the AE discussion.

Alastair Haines...continued to violate his own sanctions. I previously left an "additional comment" (see here) for John (and Casliber) noting that if (1) Alastair did not understand what the problems are, and (2) did not have the willingness/ability to deal with those problems, he would find himself prevented from editing. It seems that it has come to the point where my words have come into effect (again); Alastair failed to give enough regard to the remedy that was imposed wrt Abtract (for Alastair's own benefit), but Alastair also apparently still has issues he needs to deal with when it comes to legal threats - one of the original reasons Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alastair_Haines was opened. The block, and block extension, were needed.

In other words, there are 2 ways to address the underlying problem - by someone getting through to him, or by blocks that escalate in duration (or by keeping him blocked until he does). I doubt that there is any other choice or option in the matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Point taken Ncmvocalist. I don't know if Alastair realizes why the RfAr found against his actions. If he did - if he is willing to see why we do not accept this behaviour - then we should unblock. But I've seen no movement towards this situation since the RfAr closed. Alastair's current block is bound-up with the RfAr's rulings. We can't resolve these matters for him - these are the site's core policies - it's up to Alastair to work through the ruling and sanctions. However, unfortunately attempting to reach resolution here feels like a test of the paradox: What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?--Cailil ^talk 13:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is a legal threat on the table, and his comments (as reproduced above by Ironholds) indicate that the threat is unlikely to be withdrawn, then his failure to understand the ArbCom ruling is irrelevant. Those comments point up several misunderstandings, both of his actions, Wikipedia policies, the nature of Wikipedia and its parent organization and his rights under any law. Unblocking him, or endeavouring to further exlpain, seems pretty pointless. Avruch ^T 19:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. If he is to be unblocked, I shamelessly plug this proposed remedy as a possible restriction that could be imposed by the community. Daniel (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually my point is this: if we unblock again without examining this - the real problem will continue to fester. But I understand your point Avruch and agree with you about the misunderstandings--Cailil ^talk 13:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

He should not be unblocked unless he makes a commitment to renounce anything that looks anything remotely like a legal threat. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - this was an issue I raised last year at the ArbCom but was never properly or explicitly address by their findings--Cailil ^talk 19:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how arbcom figures into the equation. They make a legal threat, they're gone. End of story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING (?) by User:Husond at Talk:Greece

Husond (talk · contribs) recently set-up a poll in Talk:Greece. In order to prove his point he decided to out all voters' nationalities (whether they're real or false is irrelevant)[57]. I consider this is as WP:OUTING since Husond did not ask permission for this nor this information was readily available in user pages. He did it only to promote his point, which was to virtually disqualify the votes opposing his POV due to ethnic background (which might be another punishable offense in the grounds of WP:NPA since he is attacking implicitly a whole ethnic group).--Avg (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Avg's loss of sense of reality really approaches danger levels here. Somebody seriously needs to topic-ban Avg for his endless disruptive filibustering on that talk page. Seriously, the level of nonsense from this person is unberable. (But whatever, I've removed that list for now. It's not needed; anybody can see the facts even without that simple visualisation.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is incorrect that the information was not readily available in user pages: in many cases, the identification is specifically tagged as being from the user page. In other cases, it's inferred, but I don't see anyplace where OUTING would apply. FP, please skip the personal attacks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry but I won't. We are dealing with blockable levels of disruption here; we need to be able to talk about the fact of this disruption, and there's simply no polite way of naming this particular kind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"endless disruptive filibustering" is not a personal attack. "loss of sense of reality" is. Don't defend it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. I'm sorry to say that the primary person who causes disruption to the article is you. The sheer amount of revert wars you're involved in the last days and of personal atttacks to a plethora of users and to Greeks in general ("obsessed", "trolling") is sufficient proof. --Avg (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Come off it, Avg. When you have a phalanx of editors from a particular community all taking the same line in a nationalist dispute, it's plainly obvious that the agenda being pushed is a nationalist one, in defiance of NPOV. Let's not forget that NPOV is non-negotiable; Fut. Perf. is quite right to point out what's going on here and to object to it. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is one thing to object, and another thing to insult.--Avg (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my comments at Talk:Greece. These accusations are ludicrous, clear retaliation for exposing some pretty obvious facts on that talk page. There's no outing whatsoever, just the exposition of facts everybody knows at the talk page; facts that the users themselves disclosed. I just compiled and added some visual effects. Húsönd 19:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a rather straightforward case of racial profiling. Truly emetic. I must also note FP's own attacks on Greeks in recent days.[58][59] ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Visual effects or not, I object to my personal information being used to dissect my contributions here and therefore cast aspersions on my motives and character. The talk page of an article is for improving the article and not to investigate the motives of users based on their personal information. As an eponymous user I find this to be covered under WP:HARASS. Dr.K. logos 19:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal information? Was it, like, confidential information that you accidentally posted on your userpage for everyone to see and edit?! Húsönd 20:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No. It's the way you used it. I object to you analysing my motives based on my personal information, draw your own arbitary conclusions and then publish them on Wikipedia. This is simply not done. I am an eponymous editor and I object to this treatment of my personal information. Dr.K. logos 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I object to you objecting me, so we're even. Húsönd 20:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not funny. Dr.K. logos 20:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I would put it more simply: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. It's silly to object to someone pointing out the duckness of the duck. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately what you are saying applies equally well to English, American, Portuguese, French etc. ducks. Let's ban all ducks from editing Wikipedia. Dr.K. logos 20:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If a duck does not want to reveal her duckness, you have no right whatsoever to expose her duckness, especially when you just assume he / she is a duck, without being 100% sure (if he / she is a goose?).--Yannismarou (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

unless you ask for a CU as per the Wikipedia Duck  rdunnPLIB  14:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The background to this is the interminable Macedonia naming dispute yet again. I can well understand the frustration that this is producing; unfortunately Talk:Greece has been swamped by a wave of bad-faith, disruptive nationalist point-scoring and POV-pushing over the past few days, in which every single Greek editor who has commented has lined up in favour of an approach which turns that article into a little island of Greek nationalist POV, divorced from Wikipedia's policies or, indeed, common sense. It's not "racial profiling" to point out that every single editor from a particular group - be it religious, political or ethnic - is lining up in the same way; it's just a statement of fact. It's sad to see that the previous arbitration case on this issue has been completely ignored. I suspect a fresh arbitration, and probably some topic bans, will be required. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Chris, if anything, probably someone should ensure users are not subjected to continuous insults, racial or other.--Avg (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering that you and others apparently consider that it's a grave insult to even use the word "Macedonia" for anything other than a part of Greece, I don't think I can take that complaint very seriously. Honestly, from all the fuss that's made about it you would think that saying "Macedonia" chops an inch off every Greek's manhood each time. It's like the Monty Python "Jehovah" sketch or something. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's all one big joke to you. Why would you take a nation of "crackpots" seriously? We know how you feel. We don't care. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 20:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I never know you were a fan of Millwall F.C... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So what if "every single editor from a particular group is lining up in the same way"? A voter's ethnic background bears no relation to the value of their vote or the outcome of the straw poll any more than, say, what his or her favorite food is. I find it objectionable that some users are using the ethnicity of those who participated in the straw poll in an attempt to invalidate the outcome. Let me remind everyone that the poll was comissioned by Husond, who, when it became apparent that his side would lose the poll, proceeded to publish the list with every voter's ethnicity. Now what could be the purpose of such a move other than to imply "the oucome is invalid because all Greek users voted "oppose"? --Athenean (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Now he's created a subpage for this ([60]). I can't help but wonder how he/she got to be an admin. This is very immature. The Cool Kat (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be immediately deleted. It's unencyclopedic WP:OR and serves no other purpose than to malign a group of editors based on their ethnicity. Dr.K. logos 21:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it should be deleted, this might be over-reacting, but maybe block would be appropriate, although i'm not sure that would work with an admin. The Cool Kat (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, userspace doesn't have to be encyclopedic, and WP:OR is very much welcome in that space. Block? No wonder you wonder how I got to be an admin. Húsönd 21:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

But he did not fail three times on something.--Caspian blue 23:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That's how we weed out the unfit. The third one was lost for a good cause though. And at least it's a blue link, not a red one. Húsönd 18:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User space can't be used for ethnic profiling. WP:OR or not. Dr.K. logos 21:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's just plain nastiness. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 21:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So, we've established that Greeks overwhelmingly want to refer to the republic as the former yugoslavian republic, in order to distinguish it from the region. Why the drama? I thought we already knew that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, indeed. But right now it's the added question of how to deal with the effects of this polarisation in a Wikipedia decision process. How do you evaluate a straw poll where it's a 100% one nation against the rest of the wiki community? This is really an issue of project-wide governance. How much power can we afford to grant to closely-knit determined POV teams of this kind, which have all the wiki-resources to outlast any opposition by force of sheer numbers and sheer obstinacy? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is interesting to mention that the straw poll started against WP policy which states we should not change a controversial name with another controversial name (WP:NAME: "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain."). Out of nowhere a group of editors (FP included) started to edit war in order to change the status quo that existed for years in the Greece page. Every invocation of WP policy, guideline or MoS to them (which sometimes they have written themselves!) was met with ridicule and insults. When it became apparent that the poll was turning against their favour, they filed Arbitration Enforcement cases, posting anonymous reminders about banning and blocking and started threating users with topic bans. This is a very unhealthy environment indeed. For anyone interested of the story of this (and with a lot of time in their hands) please read from Talk:Greece#FYROM onwards.--Avg (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. No need for straw polls and ethnic-based lists. Dr.K. logos 21:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Husond Touche, but maybe it's not such a smart idea to make a personal attack on a page full of viewing admins? The Cool Kat (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If you put information on your userpage, don't be surprised if people use it. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, it is well within what Husond is permitted to do to have this page, and a far better use of userspace (analyzing something in the mainspace) than, for example, a userbox. Prodego ^talk 21:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So you approve of ethnic profiling. Dr.K. logos 21:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I approve of any analysis anyone would care to make, with publicly available information. I may not find it helpful, but I still see no reason to discourage it. Prodego ^talk 23:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You're evading the main point.--Caspian blue 23:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And what would that be? Prodego ^talk 03:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't find it helpful, but have no reason to to discourage the unhelpful analysis. Your answer circumvents "I approve of ethnic profiling".--Caspian blue 03:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Husond did wrong in this case. Administrators are elected to help resolve disputes, not to inflate them with inflammatory behaviors, especially on highly sensitive matters. I'm quite disappointed at anyone who supports this racial profiling. The subpage should be deleted as soon as possible or WP:MfDed.--Caspian blue 22:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Admins are users before being admins. There is no rule stipulating that admins cannot be involved in disputes, just rules preventing them from using their admin powers in those disputes they're involved in. Besides, this dispute has never been anything less than inflammatory, I just made it a bit more visual. WP:MfD? You can't be serious. For someone who's just accused me of inflating disputes, you seem to be looking forward to have yet another discussion with plenty of drama amid another Greek mass voting. Húsönd 22:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec2) Admins are users with the admin tools and are required to have and behave "high standards" on any aspect. If you do not find any differentiation, then why do you hold the title? Besides, the visualization makes you land here with the various accusation, so I'm not kidding with the MfD thing. There is no wonder for anyone here to request MfD on your page that has caused nothing but troubles. Since the racial profiling has caused anger, I don't see why it is not due.--Caspian blue 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Being an administrator means you have access to technical tools to maintain Wikipedia, because you are trusted not to misuse them. You are expected to behave in accordance with good practice, as is everyone else, nothing more, nothing less. Prodego ^talk 23:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Then, this thread is a clear evidence of "distrust" against the admin in question. Good to know.--Caspian blue 23:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Has Husond misused the admin tools in any way? No. So then I see no reason to believe he will do so. Prodego ^talk 03:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to get my point at once. My comment is very clearly stating that his behaviors regarding the poll is not a way that trusted admins generally do. Why do you think we're talking on this thread now? To praise his conduct?--Caspian blue 03:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would say that the first step in resolving a dispute is to identify its scope. Husond's subpage may be controversial but it does demonstrate graphically what Fut. Perf. has pointed out - "it's 100% one nation against the rest of the wiki community." The substantive question before us is how we can deal with that, since it's completely obvious that we're faced with politically-motivated POV-pushing. The fact that it involves Greeks is extraneous; it could just as easily be Iranians, Scientologists, Republicans or any number of other groups. The outcome is the same. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So I gather that: a) Greeks mass vote everywhere, even at MfDs. b) Greeks are politically motivated POV-pushers. Conclusion: It's open season on Greek Wikipedians. Dr.K. logos 22:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be silly. Some Greeks oppose this FYROMization, and they will not be affected; some don't care, and will not be affected. It's the other way around; those who mass-vote for this POV are (overwhelmingly, if not entirely) Greeks. Open season on nationalists of all flags is long overdue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. But I don't appreciate the incivil remarks at the beginning. Please be more civil. Thank you. Dr.K. logos 22:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I dislike nationalists as well. Perhaps I may ask why do you label certain Greeks nationalists just because they have a certain opinion on a certain matter?--Avg (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Husond observed the obvious: that one strand of opinion on this matter is confined to Greeks and those of Greek descent, and to international organizations where the (present) insistence of the Greek Government has swayed the organization (chiefly the EU).
• Observation suggests, in fact, that some Greeks and persons of Greek descent do in fact hold the other PoV - it is, for example, a political issue within Greece - but they are less strident about it.
• Husond was relatively moderate in observing nationality; there are several users whom he counts as indeterminate who, for example, use we and our of Greece. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Egad, this might be the first discussion where you and I won't have to butt heads, apparently. The Greeks must be VERY wrong, for the BOTH of us to disapprove what they are doing. Húsönd 23:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that Husond published his "list" after it started to become apparent that his side was going to lose the straw poll which he initiated. --Athenean (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it was actually after it started to look too much like fraud. Húsönd 22:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of fraud, or else this is another one of a series of false accusations of yours against an ethnic group.--Avg (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I said started to look like fraud. Obviously if I had evidence that it was fraud then the poll wouldn't be open now, would it? But lack of evidence doesn't mean that someone here was born yesterday. Húsönd 23:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So you do not have evidence but you do suspect fraud. What kind of fraud? By whom? Care to be any more specific?--Avg (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, I have created Special:AbuseFilter/119 (log page) which is intended to provide a log of when non-admins change "Republic of Macedonia" to "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or vice versa. It will have some false positives and it is only a log. What people choose to do with that information is up to them, but constantly going back and forth is no good and this should help identify the conflict points and edit warring. Dragons flight (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Husond/Straw Poll‎. I MfDed.--Caspian blue 00:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Caspian, let the voting begin. The Cool Kat (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

MfD is not a vote. Prodego ^talk 03:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to remove my name from User:Husond's ethnic blacklist, but he has reverted me and accused me of vandalism. Per WP:Wikihounding and WP:OUTING, I consider this a form of harassment and request the immediate intervention of other admins. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And two admins, myself and Future Perfect at Sunrise, have intervened, but not in the way you requested. You have now made the same edit three times, and have been reverted by three different editors, so I hope that you'll stop now. The page will probably be deleted after a normal discussion anyway, but until then, the inclusion of you there is not harassment or outing, but a logical inclusion in a list where you belong, and with only the info that it blatantly obvious for everyone. Fram (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I just happened to come across this conversation. I'm curious, what exactly does Husond intend to do with this information? Is he trying to prove that many Greeks have a certain POV (shocker) and then attempt to dismiss their opinions? If so, then we should let all of wikipedia know that any opinions or straw poll votes concerning their own country will be dismissed as irrelevant. That would be me finished with the Scotland article. As for the British Isles article, there would be a distinct lack of editors. PS, if anyone is wondering what my opinion is on the subject? I don't have one, but to have a list of nationalities voting on this subject is just plain wrong and should in my opinion be deleted as soon as possible. Jack forbes (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It can lead to anti(insert-nationality-here) vandlisim on thier talk pages.  rdunnPLIB  10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the greatest fan of how this was handled; everyone and their cat can generally intuit this kind of information in any case. Husond after all launched the poll to get numbers on his side, so shouldn't be surprised or indignant that this didn't happen. Nevertheless, with that said, I find it difficult to understand how this information is not relevant to anyone evaluating WP:Consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and if one set of views are in general marginal they should not be allowed to dominate one individual articles just because editors with that marginal view are concentrated there. We have WP:NPOV for good reasons concerning the health of this encyclopedia, and in this case one can forgive certain users if they are forced to come up with novel ways to maintain the encyclopedic standards we aspire to. It may be though that the editors in question will eventually have to seek arbitration if force of numbers rather than broadly-based consensus continues to dominate. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

All of this is really a bit silly when it should be expected that Greek peeps will edit articles about them or this all could be a very strange coincidence.  rdunnPLIB  10:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we are too sensitive with all this stuff in Greece, because of our past, but I also feel outraged and disappointed, because this list looks like "filing" ("φακέλωμα" is the Greek word, which I cannot accurately translate). And I really cannot understand why an adm, namely a revered member of our Community, should include comments like "but speaks Greek", "username hints at Greek". This is unbelievable! Assuptions?! About something a user did not want to reveal for himself. I am a self-declared Greek; this is my right. The X user does not want to reveal his nationality, his religion etc. This is also his / her right. Why are we tresspassing so brutally a field of his / her personality the X user wants to keep private?! Just in order to prove our point, because that is all about. Husond did exactly what he had accused other users of doing (asking, at the same time, for their topic ban). This is outarageous, and insulting for me as a member of this Community. I do not accept to see users to be characterized "x" or "z" based on assumptions, just because the "a" user wants to make his point. Then he should find another way! Most of these "parenthetical statements" are a disgrace for Wikipedia.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

destroy block the hypocrite!!!! "φακέλωμα" seems to be about correct. not ideal but correct.  rdunnPLIB  14:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm Greek, hooved and horned. Yet, I bite not human, but food and sip not blood, but wine. Just wanted to share that with you. Bye, I'll rid you of my sordid presence now; and I suggest that others of Greek descent depart as well, for a cleaner Wikipedia. Yannisk (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the worse thing you can do. if you want a "better" (I don't like "cleaner" as a term) Wikipedia, stay in, and fight for it. Don't let abominable list (sorry but I cannot fing a "gentler" word to characterize this thing) disappoint you.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is growing tedious. Frankly, I am used to seeing other nationalist groups canvass and vote en masse. POV editing - and make no mistake, when you bring your nationalist feelings to an article, you ARE pov editing, my friends - is antithetical and corrosive to the values we aspire to in Wikipedia. Every single time someone uses Wikipedia to push an ethnic or nationalist agenda, we should take a metal baseball bat to them (metaphorically-speaking, of course). Husond was none too graceful and less than perfect in pointing out the clearly displayed ego-icons of nationality, but he abso-frakkin-lutely did not out anyone. He is likely expressing a frustration most of us feel when a group of folk try to use Wikipedia for a use not intended. I feel it, too. If you are going to edit and vote your nationality, ethnicity, religioun, etc., be prepared to be bitch-slapped as hard as we can possibly muster. Thank His Noodly Appendage that we have a noticeboard for this sort of crap. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Husond is an adm, and he knows rules, provisions and procedures. If he thought what you say he thought, he could and he can follow them. If you believe that his choice was the right one, and that this list is not a disgrace, than ok, we obviously believe in different Wikipedias.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that injecting one's nationality, ethnicity, etc into the editing process to promote aforementioned ethnicity. etc. is acceptable in Wikipedia, then you are indeed thinking of some other online encyclopedia. I didn't say that his method of pointing out the pov-editing (aka, DUCK) was graceful, but it wasn't wrong. Since he didn't OUT anyone, what "rules, provisions and procedures" are you of the opinion that he violated? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Read DGG's rationale in the MfD, and you'll understand exactly what I mean. And I did not say he "violated" them, but that he chose another path agaisnt the spirit of Wikipedia, and this is even worse.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember reading that if an admin is suspected of wrong doing then thier powers are temorarily removed whilst they are investigated.  rdunnPLIB  14:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Husond has been kindly advised to voluntarily withdraw the list now. This would end the drama immediately, and I also think that it would be an action greatly appreciated by everybody here.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No. If there is serious concern that an admin account is compromised, or is there is evidence of extreme behaviour by an admin (going on a deletion or unblocking spree against all commonly accepted standards or something similar), then an emergency desysopping may be done. A temporary desysopping may also be done if e.g. ArbCom believes that there is sufficient evidence to indicate e.g. sokcpuppeteering by the admin. But complaints by a number of editors, no matter if they are correct, incorrect, or something inbetween, by itself never have lead to a temporary suspension of admin powers, certainly not when the actual complaint has little or nothing to do with the editor being an admin. Fram (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Various editors seem to have put unfortunate interpretations on this. No one is saying (or should be saying) that Greeks are wrong or bad in any way, nor is using the term FYROM. All that Husond has demonstrated is that the straw poll is non-representative of the wider Wikipedia community (which is not 50% of Greek descent). Given its location, that's not surprising. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

But it is offencive in that its singling out people unfairly in that Husond hasnt asked the users if he can reveal thier nationality.  rdunnPLIB  14:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't even know the nationality of many of them. He just "assumes".--Yannismarou (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If he knew nationalities not officialy disclosed, and he had revealed them without previously asking, then WP:OUT would have been more than self-evident.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What else can be done? We can't advertise to the wider community as that would be deemed forum shopping. In my opinion, if you lose a poll take it on the chin and then perhaps a lot later try and convince others to come over to your point of view. Jack forbes (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And IMO what Husond did is more in violation of WP:POINT than WP:OUTING. Personally, I don't feel like "going after him" (let's punish the bastard etc. etc.), but I do expect some gesture of good will. The voluntary withdrawal of the page would be the best one, and personally it would earn me.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

agreed  rdunnPLIB  14:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Try also WP:HARASSing the users by parading them with flags attached to their names as some better remain unnamed progroms in some countries of the recent past where people had to carry signs of their ethnicity on their clothes. This is just the updated wiki equivalent. Dr.K. logos 15:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And I do feel the need to stress once more (knowing the danger to become boring, and irrelevant!) that one of the reasons this list (still abominable IMO) caused this wave of reactions (excessive for some of you, not for me; both opinions respectable) is that it touched sensitive aspects of the collective sub-conscious. "Φακέλωμα" was a plague for the Greek society for decades. People with such memories, experiences, stories from their families etc. etc. feel that they suffer the same things in Wikipedia by just facing this list. "Disgust" is the first thing I felt looking at it. The visual effect was extremely strong for me as well. Excessive? Maybe! But couldn't it be avoided? Did we need it? No! Husond had already made his point eloquently and clearly!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, and respected. Yet, I'm afraid whoever is called upon to call a "result" on that poll will have to do even more fakeloma: how many of the !voters are actually productive contributors, which are single-purpose accounts, which are continual drama llamas and which are notorious nationalist warriors. That, too, will have to be taken into account (and it is possibly even more pertinent than the mere nationality issue). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Fut, please don't start another discusson about who is "productive", "revered" etc. Because this was an argument used in ChrisO's motion against Kekrops (how can we question the arguments of the "revered adm" against the "nationalist" Kekrops?!). Seeing some choices, actions, suggestions and arguments of both Husond's and ChrisO's, as well as your totally inacceptable initial comment against Avg, I really think that we should be very very careful when trying to categorize users into small boxes. Finally, I also feel that it was a huge mistake of yours to ask for the topic-ban of both Avg and Kekrops, and I am happy both these requests were wisely rejected.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(Just a note: "revered" is probably not quite the word you want here. Try "respected" :-) -- As for Avg, I stand by my opinion. He should have been banned long ago. And there is unfortunately no polite way of describing why. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Any more insults and threats on the menu today?--Avg (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, here is the problem as I see it. If we start going down the road of naming voters nationalities the next step may be their religious affiliations. Shall we then be asking if they are Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc? I don't think that would go down too well in some circles, why should this be any different? Jack forbes (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If there ever were a political decision that were equally transparently divided between factionalised groups, then yes, evidently, we should talk about it. Just like when dozens of Muslim users came to demand we should not use pictures of Mohammed. Of course we named the obvious fact that those people were all Muslims. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the saving grace of Wikipedia is that because it is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, the articles borne out of that effort are neutral in that a mélange of viewpoints are represented, thus finding the objective neutral ground. When nationalist/ethnic/religious groupies band together to push a specific viewpoint, it skews away from objective neutrality. And, since it has been repeatedly (and incorrectly) suggested that Husond named these editors' nationalities, it needs to be reiterated that the users themselves have self-identified as being of the nationality/ethnicity noted. Husond only saw a patten and pointed it out. If you don't want your nationality/gender/ethnicity/sexual preference used in arguments that utilize those viewpoints (and shame on you for bringing your personal beliefs into articles to begin with), keep those identifying parts to yourself. It isn't rocket science. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Do not forget that there were also others listed who did not make this information readily available in their userpages, but they were inferred to be Greek by Husond... NikoSilver 15:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And quite rightly they were. Get real man, don't pretend you are not yourself categorising your fellow editors in that way. Everybody who edits regularly in these domains does. Everybody knows who the "Skopians" are, who the Bulgarians are and who the Turks are in this game. Are you going to make me dig out links where you yourself and your friends talk about each other in precisely these terms? Aren't you the person who had an ethnic editor blacklist in his own userspace until quite recently? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am also the one who agreed to delete it immediately because it was forgotten from a distant (and btw terrifying) past of mutual mud-slinging form both sides. Your point? NikoSilver 16:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Does the WP community know that Husond had accused all Greek users of being a "fiercely opposing" and "unnecessarily politicizing" faction in the very background section of the poll he initiated? He didn't even have the decency to use it in his own "support position", but he had to slap it in the (supposed-to-be-NPOV) background section, for all to read! Is it moral and correct to discourage future visitors of the page from voting "oppose" because they will be characterized as joining this ...faction? Doesn't this render the poll stained, biased and nullified? And, btw, where is the sense of fair-play, where's the chivalry? How shameful... NikoSilver 16:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• (Isolated) comment: Merely noting that the page is definitely not racial or ethnic profiling, harassment or posting personal information ("outing"). People claiming that Húsönd's straightforward observations on the straw poll constitute any of the former either don't understand those concepts or deliberatedly exaggerate the situation to distract from the actual issues at hand & score wiki-points (which is blockable disruptive behaviour & flaming). — The real question is how should Wikipedia handle such clearly defined groups of editors determined to impose their bias on certain areas of the project. - Ev (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The name of a certain lovely country in Southeast Europe certainly does seem to raise an excess of drama every time it is named, and this frustrates everyone involved, but the way to resolve these disputes is not to lump all editors from an adjoining lovely nation as "those people" and assume none of them are amenable to reason. It only makes it more difficult for reason and reasonableness to prevail in the discussion. Jonathunder (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Jonathunder, of course. But lumping toghether "all editors from X nation" is not what is happening here. Instead, we're dealing with a specific group of Greek users active in this long drawn-out naming issue, who happen to reflect the attitudes of a certain sector of Greek society. Closing our eyes and pretending that this is not the case only makes it even more difficult to reach a solution, as we would not be addressing the real problem. - Best, Ev (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course. How could I be missed amidst all these over-generalisations? What specific group am I supposed to be a member of? This is the absolutely first time I entered in such a poll. But since I am Greek I must automatically belong in whichever group "these people" belong to. This discussion is unreal. Dr.K. logos 18:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The only way to make reasonableness prevail in that case is if the decision is finally taken out of the hands of those who have their own nations' political interests at stake in it. So, please, please, everybody, instead of wondering why people get so heated over this, come and decide this for us. Enter your judgment on that poll. Make the national factions a minority in the process. I don't care if you decide it this way or the other. You can vote at random, for all I care. I just want this decided by somebody other than them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone asked for a Wikipedia:Request for comment? Jack forbes (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a formal straw poll that has been advertised at a number of outside places, though as far as I know not formally through the RFC mechanism. Usually, RFCs in such issues have drawn negligible amounts of response, so I can understand that nobody bothered this time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be a good idea nevertheless. Well, I shall take my time and read through the discussions, arguments and different points of view and will make a decision on that as to where my vote will go. Don't expect a quick vote. Oh, if someone insists on including my nationality after my vote please call me Scottish. That's my particular POV. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Now this is just being smug. He's gloating about how the MFD is petty and how he's gonna keep his page. Please help vote, i'm still wondering how he got to be an admin. The Cool Kat (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a question. How would people feel if an admin compiled a list of Jews editing Israel and slapped a big Star of David next to each of their names? Or a list of African Americans editing Barack Obama? Or a list of homosexuals editing same-sex marriage, pink triangles and all? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I made a similar point further up. Where will it stop? Jack forbes (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You could hardly name an article that is better monitored for WP:NPOV and WP:MOS#Internal_consistency than Israel, Barack Obama and same-sex marriage. Is there any comparison between these articles and what's happening with Greece? No. So why producing far-fetched arguments that are nothing but plain reduction to the absurd of the issue here? Húsönd 18:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's an idea Husond. You are an admin and expected to help play down any controversy that gets out of hand. Why don't you delete the list you compiled and do just that? Or do you want this to go on and on? You are not doing your cause any good when everyone is concentrating on your controversial list (which doesn't seem to be getting much support) and not on the debate which brought on the straw poll in the first place. Either you act like an admin or you don't. Jack forbes (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure his pay grade requires him to listen to rude demands to obey. I know I'm not paid enough for that. I suggest you try to be civil, forbes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And I'm not sure you even read my post Chihuahua. I demanded nothing, I suggested it. Please be more civil yourself, it's not hard you know. Jack forbes (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack, you noted that admins are supposed to play down controversy that gets out of hand. Part of that is true; admins are supposed to step in when things get wacky and set a more appropriate tone. However, when they pick up the mop, they don't put blinders on. When they see clear pov nationalism going on, they - as anyone else - have a responsibility to point it out. Husond did so and proved it. One of the major points you are missing here is the idea that nationalism, ethnicity and religious background cannot are not a defense in editing. You are supposed to leave those at the sign-in page. If you cannot do so, you do not belong here. There are literally millions of forums where one can go to spew whatever little rant/tirade/bs you wish. Wikipedia is not a forum, and not a soapbox. When we see it, we are going to beat it like a rented mule. Every time. As we should. Whether Husond went about it in a ham-fisted way is secondary. Are you complaining that he should have had more grace in pointing out the clearly-identified pov? If so, I'd probably agree with you. If you are saying he was wrong for doing so, we are going to have to agree to disagree. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's all too well, but Husond had built his "case" way before that. He actually initiated the poll blaming Greek users [61]. He even accused Greek users of "fraud" in this very topic we're discussing now, without of course substantiating his claims although I challenged him twice. It is very very clear Husond is preoccupied against Greeks and would do anything to invalidate Greek opinion. --Avg (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not intend to return to this subject but will do so in order to reply to your post. I have been looking at the Greece talk page to discover the reason for Husond's suspicions concerning pov nationalism. Basically it concerns the naming of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or as others would call it the Republic of Macedonia. There are editors over there who claim the Republic of Macedonia is the most common English language name of the country. I beg to differ, I have always heard it referred to as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, whether that be in the news or football circles. Now, I'm just a wee Scottish guy with not a drop of Greek blood in me or even a visit to Greece on my cv who happens to agree with many of the points those so called Greek nationalists put forward. They also appear to have plenty of references to back up their POV, so why don't people who jump on the nationalist bandwagon have a look at the discussions that are ongoing and look at the evidence before they start listing peoples nationalities. I would be the first person to say it was nationalist pov if they had nothing to back up their opinions. Honestly, have a look at the discussion and evidence from both parties. Jack forbes (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If I could add one more thing. Arcayne, if you do have a look at the Greece talk page try and forget their nationalities and concentrate on the debate and references provided. You may conclude that you don't agree with them (or maybe you will) but I don't think you can say they don't make a good point. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything someone posts on their user page is fair game for scrutiny and evaluation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

hasnt that been what has happened?  rdunnPLIB  09:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they just don't like it. But when they make a fact about themselves known, it's not "outing" to report that fact elsewhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Do not forget that there were also others listed who did not make this information readily available in their userpages, but they were inferred to be Greek by Husond... NikoSilver 11:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

He stated that they know Greek. If a user is writing in Greek (or any foreign language) on their user page, or revealing anything about themselves in any way, that info is fair game. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Kirlikovali

Resolved

Someone might want to take a look at the massive WP:BLP violation on User talk:Kirlikovali. Taner Akcam is a Turkish scholar who recognizes the Armenian Genocide and is a frequent target of ultra-nationalist Turks. Few years back he was arrested by Canadian border patrol who used a printout from a vandalized wikipedia article as evidence that he was a terrorist. VartanM (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Pretty clear case of disruptive tendentious editing. Talk page blanked, short block (48h), warned of possible topic ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Support topic ban, if there's any further BLP violation. I'd already warned that user about their edits to the article. I honestly don't know why I failed to do anything about what was on their Talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I warned the user too, and I probably should have blanked their talk page, since it contained BLP violations up the wazoo, with POV violations and an unambiguous legal threat to boot. I think the account is probably a throwaway, but if the user returns and makes similar edits, I think I would just go for an indef block (although I suppose with tendentious editors such as this, a topic ban is effectively an indef block anyway). --Akhilleus (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

As a further preventative, I have deleted the problematic versions and restored only the version with the block announcement. I think this is resolved, now, so marking it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Francesco Carotta

Would an uninvolved Admin please take a look at this page? I've removed some comments [62] but they keep being made (and I missed some). I've warned Populares (talk · contribs) twice, but that's had no effect, and another editor has warned 92.225.57.158 (talk · contribs). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit-Warring by Edokter

I originally posted a similar topic on AN regarding some bad behavior by Edokter, and have decided that the situation has grown more urgent and in need of immediate attention (by definition, AN is differentiated from this one in that this one is for more emergent problems). Thus, I am posting here.

To recap, in Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica), Edokter kept adding/reverting back into the article two different subsections of material entirely devoid of citations. When this was pointed out a number of times, Edokter refused to discuss the matter towards a consensus. When he saw he wasn't getting his way, Edokter nominated the entire article for deletion, an action that was seen by everyone, including Tony Fox, Sheffield Steel, JulesH and LinguistAtLarge, as utterly POINTY and own-y; even Edokter admitted that he had done so out of frustration to make a point. Tony speedily-closed the AfD.

However, Edokter is still edit-warring his preferred, uncited sections into the article, and is completely dismissive of using the article discussion to build a consensus. As this user is an admin, I think that Pointy, Ownerish, edit-warring behavior needs some addressing by his fellow admins.

In the interest of full disclosure, Edokter inappropriately blocked me back in July of last year, a block that he reversed after being lambasted for it at AN. As noted by that prior complaint, if a patten were to display itself, the behavior of Edokter would have to be treated more seriously. We cannot have admins openly edit-warring, gaming the system and generally using the mop to roger articles. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet, two editors have reverted you. Obviously, you have a problem with consensus. I also see full well what your intention is. You keep hammering on RS policy, even thought the information is verifiable. It is clear you do NOT do this to improve the article, but to butt heads just for the fun of it, as is a clear pattern in your behaviour. It is VERY clear this is not a content dispute, but a pure disruption on your part. I have managed not to block you myself this time, but you are none-the-less hoping for it. It won't work...

This game he playes is based on an argument *I* held with another editor over the inclusion of unreferenced information about a ficitonal ship. Now Arcayne is doing the *exact* same thing to me... with the difference that the information I added back referes to real-world items and literary works, making it inherently verifiable. It is also clear that Arcayne's plea to discuss is futile, as he keeps warring to remove the information and pays no attention to arguments brought forth by other editors. I have lost every grain of good faith in Arcayne, and my only recourse is to ask that Arcayne be blocked indefenitely. — Edokter • Talk • 15:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Edokter's pointy AFD was disappointing, especially for an admin, and I highly suggest he not do it again. I don't see a need for an indefinite block of Arcayne; if you feel there's a behavioural problem there, I'd suggest starting an RfC. (That suggestion might go both ways, if there are further issues with Edokter's admin actions, as well.) I've dropped some potential cites for the information that Edokter wants to include in the article onto its talk page, so hopefully that helps to reduce the emerging drama; I usually hate to get involved with the mighty wars of the television episodes arena, but I'll keep an eye on the ongoing discussion there and encourage others to do the same. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This does indeed looks a lot like an edit war. I'm not going to take sides in it, or sanction only one involved party. I will say that both parties need to stop reverting. Whether you want to discuss on the Talk page or not is up to you, but either way, this isn't a good way to pursue dispute resolution. Having said that, I support Tony Fox's position. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that Tony added some sources for the uncited material, but this wasn't a content dispute, nor an edit-war. I am a little frustrated that the same behavior is coming from Edokter again, and that I was told when this last occurred to give it a pass unless it happens again. Edokter is not even bothering to use the discussion page, and his threats to block me are pretty much telling of an admin who has not picked up the jumbo-sized clue to not use the admin tools on other editors you are involved in a dispute with.

I am not convinced that giving Edokter a pass here is the best course of action. He hasn't apologized for his Pointy, own-y behavior/tantrum (and it bears pointing out that he has never apologized when he's screwed up before) when he didn't get his way. Granted, I am not anything close to perfect, but I am not in the wrong here in the slightest. I kept out uncited info that another editor - and admin - refused to cite, and I did not even approach 3RR when doing so. Additionally, I took the time to discuss the matter, and Edokter has pointedly said that he will not discuss his edits.

When I complain about it, the admin calls for my indef block? Now, I have heard that the best defense is a good offense, but Edokter is clearly trying to save his ass by attempting to deflect attention away from his own established pattern of bad behavior and abuse. I am not calling for Edokter to be de-sysopped, or blocked (even though I feel that one or both options should be seriously considered, given his history of bad faith behavior) but I do feel that he needs to clean up his act and pronto; admins are not supposed to act like this. Being an admin is a position of trust, and when we have admins who act as poorly as this, it reflects poorly on all admins.

I am willing to give this a pass again, but I think we need to be clear that this sort of behavior by an admin will not be tolerated in the future. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not advocating "giving it a pass;" I've expressed my disappointment in his actions, and would encourage other admins to review how he's been acting. Let's let some other admins into the conversation and see how it goes here for a while. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Tony. I think it also bears mentioning that Edokter's further attempts to game the system included seeking to lock the uncited info into the article via RfPP. I mean, what the heck ever happened to just discussing the dispute, rather than edit-warring or seeking to end-run our policies/guidelines? I don't get his behavior. I don't oppose the info being used eventually - I just think we need to have citations for the statements. I am unsure why Edokter is so reticent to provide what the wiki requires for inclusion. The bad faith being directed at me by him was expected (which is what prompted my call for assistance in AN) but not hoped for.

That said, I will also wait to see what other admins say about the situation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Your behaviour is pissing people off, it's that simple. You should not have reverted a second time per WP:BRD. Every time you do, you will piss someone off. An edit war takes two. Your problem is that you hold policy way too tight. There are circumstances where an immediate cite is simply not necessary, yet you continue to demand that RS be followed to the letter. You are not helping improving any articles that way. You pissed me off, and I am not going to apologize for that. Until you see the errors of your way, there will be nothing to discuss. It is your time to apologize this time. — Edokter • Talk • 17:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've not looked into this specific dispute, but as someone who knows both editors well, I have to say that Edokter has been unfailingly well-mannered and polite, with good working knowledge and use of IAR, for the several years we've been involved on the Doctor Who WikiProject. Arcayne can also be, and at times has been, a very good editor; however, he has been disruptive, has engaged in edit-warring (which does require two, and though it's always easy to blame the adversary, both must share the responsibility, really), and has been repeatedly incivil. I picked him up on one instance last week, though this sadly didn't seem to have any effect.

Obviously none of this gives anyone carte-blanche to revert war, and an indef block of Arcayne does seem excessive (though yes, Edokter, I can see that he's pissed you off, and do recommend him to apologise - even if the pissing off wasn't intentional, it's still happened, and he should just make a civil apology about it) - however, I suggest that an uninvolved admin watches Arcayne's civility and editing-habits particularly closely, they've caused me concern for some while now. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

As requested, i am awaiting other input by admins, but I would like to point out that TT isn't a "neutral view" here, having been on the losing side of a discussion in a Doctor Who article months ago. TT was quite...vociferous in his lack of neutrality towards me, my edits, etc. and came within a monkey's eyebrow of being blocked for their behavior. I am not going to go on about TT's prior conduct (the comments in the second failing RfA's supply most of the more-informed commentary about that), but I thought it should be made clear that (s)he isn't the neutral party they are playing at. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You can wait until you weigh an ounce... No admin is going to come here and take action when the instigator is just as wrong. Anyone can see what went wrong, and who is the diruptive party here. You do what you do best, dredge up every nasty detail on anyone who dares to comment on you. Content is not an issue here, behaviour is. And I do hope that this time something will be done about it. I am resolved to see this to the end. — Edokter • Talk • 21:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Until we get some further discussion in here, I'd appreciate both of you backing away from each other and going to neutral corners. The back-and-forth sniping does nothing for either of you, so kindly leave it and let uninvolved parties look over the situation for the moment. Please. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

...anyone? Bueller? Bueller? C'mon, folks, I'm on multiple deadlines, I don't have the time for a full mediation case myself... =P Tony Fox (arf!) 15:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the disputed edits, all I can say is... "What a stupid waste of time." I didn't really look at either Edokter's conduct or Arcayne's, but the "disputed" material is exactly the sort of obvious stuff that should be cited to the primary sources--the fact that a line matches up with a particular song lyric should be V'ed by citing both primary sources and allowing readers to use their own brains, and I commented to that effect at the article talk page. Thus, I'd say the root cause for the dispute was an overly-restrictive view of WP:V that defies common sense. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ashley Kennedy's recent edits

Recently the user Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs) created an article that was a clear WP:POVFORK, and promptly AfD'd and deleted. At the time, I considered it a regular content dispute (very common in this field) and ignored it, but it appears that Ashley is now making a series of improper WP:DRIVEBY page moves and taggings:

• Violence in 2000—notice the incorrect capitalization
• Violence in 2001
• Violence in 2003
• Violence in 2004
• Violence in 2006
• Violence in 2007

After I reverted these inappropriate moves, as all those lists included Palestinian deaths at the hands of Israelis as well, Ashley saw fit to revert (with the incorrect capitalization) and remove the Palestinian deaths from one of the articles, which I believe is a clear violation of WP:POINT (not using edit summaries is not helpful either). If any administrator is unsure of how to proceed here, please take the time to read the AfD and what most editors said there, as well as the relevant WP:ARBPIA. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Here's another two edits, which are clearly incorrect because the articles have in these versions numerous cases of Palestinian casualties, including deaths. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Note to administrators: After trying to explain to Ashley why exactly I filed an ANI report, I was answered with personal attacks and insults. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The titles were inappropriate..the whole string of articles needs dePOVing....It is not drive by it is putting the articles in the correct category of factually inaccurate...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment:

I randomly clicked one of the articles and found the following text pretty close to the start:

moved to Violence against Israelis in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2007 - Ashley kennedy3, 14:36, 31 March 2009:

February 26 - 1 Palestinian civilian, Anan al-Tibi (41), is killed by shots fired by from a passing Israeli army jeep while attempting to escape a surrounded house. Dozens of Palestinians are injured as they clashed with troops.[9]
IDF bombs two houses, including the home of a senior al-Aqsa commander.
February 28
* Residents of Nablus are confined to their homes as Israeli troops move house to house in search of wanted militants.[10]
* Ten people are wounded as youths throwing stones clash with troops. Fifty people were detained, although most were released, and troops surrounded hospitals to check people going in and out.
* Israeli army arrests five wanter militants suspects and uncovers three explosives labs.
* Undercover troops in a black car shoot and kill 3 militants in a Jenin parking lot, including the chief spokesman for the Islamic Jihad.[11]
* A total of 26 Palestinians are arrested during the operation.[12]

There's clearly content about Palestinian casualties so title changes seem to be a bad move.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but only writing up Israelis killed and alleged Palestinian terrorists killed when Betselem is available is making wiki somewhat of a Israeli mouthpiece. In your random wandering did it never occur to you to place POV tags or inaccurate facts tags on said articles??? compounding POV by displaying inaccurate details purporting itself as reliable...But you are correct I should have moved 1 them to Israeli version of History with a note warning of extremist propaganda...or alternatively gone for delete article as they are to far gone for recovery...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

All those pages are a disgrace to the project. Extreme selective editing to produce a one-sided account of violent incidents to the advantage of one party. Ashley is right, and wrong. He should have just posted a request for deletion. Perhaps this is an incident, but is he up on charges for snipping at wiki trash? Illustration, in just the first, which AK renamed Violence against Israelis in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2000, check September. Israeli soldiers being shot at, 2 of them, and a few Palestinian casualties on the temple Mount. In that late September week, in 5 days, 47 Palestinians were killed and roughly 1,850 shot and wounded. You'd never guess it. Sergeant Biri's murder gets a mention, but nothing about the slaughter as the IDF ran amok. Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, let us please discuss the merits of the content of these pages elsewhere; this is not the forum for it. I see these page moves as disruption of Wikipedia to make a point, and am of a mind to impose sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. Could anyone tell me whether Ashley kennedy3 has already been warned as provided for by Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions?  Sandstein  21:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, according to Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Log of notifications, he has been. I would appreciate input by other uninvolved administrators. A topic ban of moderate duration might be appropriate, given the level of emotion displayed in Ashley kennedy3's comment above, so as to allow him to cool down for a while.  Sandstein  21:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have looked this over and Ashley Kennedy3 seems to me as well to be editing disruptively. Their response on Ynhockey's talkpage is upsetting and doesn't help make a collegial editing environment. I support a topic ban if Sandstein wants to implement it. I have to admit that I voted delete on the AfD which may have sparked this though. DVD 23:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A months vacation for Ashley? PhilKnight (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the two articles to their original names, and removed the obviously false "Note" inserted by Ashley. If people want to edit them, NPOV them, whatever, that's fine, but putting false statements into articles is completely inappropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ashley has overstretched himself covering quite a few number of articles and finding(and rightfully so) the state of most of those articles unacceptable. Ashley perhaps thinks that the articles are going somewhere and that attention should be poured upon them. Just a simple warning that there is sufficient time to work on these matters will suffice. If these articles(which are his concern) have stood up for quite some time at their current state, surely they could last some more time. It was a case of WP:BOLD on his part and perhaps emotions from a academic head that he is. A month ban might prevent him from coming back and let us use him and his knowledge. Thank you board. Cryptonio (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Could someone perhaps describe the process Ashley should have followed ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The procedure should have been AfD and userfy the article until appropriate action could lead to the articles being reinstated at a standard that was useable...but as the wiki project has left those articles on line for some time, I would not know who the article could reasonably be userfied to...

an alternative is to remove them completely....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Ashley, there are two possible motions. One for deletion of the article, another for the temporary (?) deletion of AK. Now, you're a military man, dislike going AWOL, preferring to make a public infraction or two when square-bashing's boredom gets the better of you and you start dreaming of a term in solitary. But the scenario reminds me of Mishima Yukio, wonderful writer, who decided to go out in a flaming act of self-immolation, by recourse to traditional suicide. In the art of seppuku, the technical problem is how to cark it efficiently by disembowelment, which otherwise is quite slow. A short deep thrust just left of the left-side of the six-pack musculature of the abdomen, then a twist in the bodkin as you draw it through the thews and sinews down to the visceral peritoneum, so the gut pokes out (the early maestri clutched the bowels in their hands and threw it at their enemies), then a quick vertical cut up to the appendix. Being somewhat groupish and empathetic, the Japanese technicians thought it would be a good idea to get some of your mates in on the job, so they developed the 'kaishakunin', the office of decapitator. A chosen friend would stand by, wait for you to operate self-surgically, and then with a rapid snip, slice your head off.

There are very efficient kaishaku services available for the suicidal editor in wiki. So it's unlikely you'll have people like Masakatsu Morita rolling up for the final thwack. (Masakatsu was inept: Mishima, perfectly self-disembowelled had to keep holding his neck at an angle while the joker hacked away, hitting bone instead of slicing between the vertebrae). The problem is, you don't really disembowel yourself efficiently: you dither with a penknife, jabbing at yourself (making noisy minor infractions that are bound to tickle the ear of the many kaishaku in the neighbourhood), and it's death by a thousand blows. So chum, if you really do want out, do it with elegance, in harmony with the ready help. No frigging around with minor dabs: go for the huge infraction, something like the famous Elelandic commendation, and admin will put you out of your misery with a neat guillotining. I will of course, weep at the tumbril, and write the epitaph. But surely the smart things just to take a break, or challenge Phil Knight's suggested sentence as too light, and ask for 6 weeks sentence. I know it's intensely arduous, painful, trying to insist on intelligent editing and sensible articles in the I/P area, but, son, a minor tragedy, multiplied in the aftermath, risks becoming a soapoperatic series of major farces, what Signalman Freud called a 'repetitive compulsion' and while the game is enjoyed by those happy to assist you in your tormented exists, repeated complicity does look somewhat masochistic. After all, what you or I think is trivial: what you or I may do, to stay on and get articles fair and balanced, with a steady eye on the silent Palestinians, isn't. (Or of course, you could apologize, and promise to pull your finger out, which is rather difficult for seppuku aficionados, since a preliminary requires the moriturus to stuff his rectum with a ball of cottonwool in order not to soil the scene) Regards to a fine, studious, and dedicated, but fucking irresponsibly irascible fellow editor.Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Nishidani one week for making the above post. Jehochman ^Talk 13:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• I am blocking Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one year for disruptive editing as an enforcement action under WP:ARBPIA. The account was previously blocked one week for arbitration enforcement, and then one month for sock puppetry in the same locus of dispute. A one year block is the next logical step in escalation. Should the editor wish to edit again, they can first explain how things will be different. Do not unblock without my approval, or following the appeal process described at WP:ARBPIA. Jehochman ^Talk 13:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict with Jehochman:) In view of the discussion above, I have made Ashley kennedy3 subject to a one month topic ban with respect to Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles.  Sandstein  13:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• There were two previous topic bans. The most recent was 60 days, placed by Shell Kinney in January 2009. Topic bans have not been effective deterrence. I am sticking with the one year block. Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• No objection to your block, but my topic ban will remain technically in force and may become relevant if your block is lifted for any reason.  Sandstein  13:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Perfect. Jehochman ^Talk 14:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don´t think anyone will call me an "uninvolved" user here, but I hope I can still give my 2 cents: Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is one of the more knowledgeable users in the Israel/Palestine area; one of the relatively few who actually read and use academic sources. Unfortunately, he has a very low tolerance for rubbish. And he express this lack of tolerance in no uncertain, and often, in rather undiplomatic ways. (In a conflict between A and B: if A has 90% of the fatalities, what do say about an article on WP which makes it look as if B had 90% of the fatalities, and A 10%?). User:Sandstein has placed a one month topic ban on Ashley. I agree with this. (Yes, Ashley: if you read this: you need cooling-off time). It might even be extended to double that. However, to deprive WP off one of its more knowledgeable editors for one whole year seems to me draconian, compared to "crime" committed. Would someone please reconsider this block? Thank you. Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to reconsider the block, but I'd like to discuss it with the user directly, rather than with agents third parties. They can reach me by email. In particular I'd like to understand why a topic ban would work this time, when the last two topic bans were followed by an immediate return to disruptive behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 22:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What means agents ? Is this some irony as the one you considered that is deserved 1 week block to Nishidani ? Maybe a 12h holiday will help you to read back wp:civil and wp:agf ? I suggest you take some distance with this topic.

Basis of conflict resolution is to discuss with some intermediaries to conciliate points of views and explain with some neutrality the issues.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Just for the record: I am nobodys agent, and nobody has asked me to come here and ask for a shortening of Ashley´s block. Also; Ashley has had some 2500-3000 edits in the Palestine/Israel area since he came back from his last block, and that includes writing, basically on his own, the much needed 1834 Arab revolt in Palestine. Just for the record. Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As I will only be online briefly over the next few days, any uninvolved administrator is welcome to handle unblock discussions with Ashley kennedy3. My advice is to determine whether they will return to disruption, or not, if the block is lifted but the topic ban remains in place. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 22:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm an uninvolved editor as far as this incident goes, but I have worked with Ashley numerous times (sometimes we collaborate and other times we argue, but my discussions with her are always cordial). I've noticed plenty of times, however, that Ashley, like many if not most of the core editors in the I-P subject area, tends to get combative and forgets the rules (pillars, guidelines, rules of thumb) of Wikipedia such as NPOV and civility when a conflict of some sort erupts. His behavior is unacceptable here and he must understand to keep cool or suffer the consequences, like this block for instance. However, Ashley is by far, one of the only editors in the subject area, that contributes tons of quality info backed with reliable sources. His recent edits at Palestinian nationalism and the 1834 Arab revolt in Palestine are particularly impressive. He's also been useful in adding coordinates to hundreds of WP Palestine articles and is responsible for starting hundreds or articles on Palestinian localities. All in all, Ashley kennedy3 is a very valuable editor to the project who, unfortunately, has indeed violated topic bans and previous blocks by continuing inflammatory edits and/or becoming uncivil in discussions with fellow users. Another topic ban is an obvious choice, but I think the year-long block is too harsh. I will not unblock him myself because of our generally friendly relationship here on Wikipedia. Instead, I'll explain to him (as I've seen Huldra do) the strict rules of NPOV and civility among other guidelines. Hopefully, he will get the picture and how things work on Wikipedia, and another administrator will unblock him after a definite assurance from him that he will not return to disruption. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. The key phrase is "not return to disruption". No matter what the length of the block, a return to disruption will only result in another block. I would prefer to remove the block as soon as possible, but I do not want to return here tomorrow, next week, or next month. With that goal in mind, a long block may convince the editor of a need to change, rather than allowing them to sit it out and go right back to what they were doing before (as has happened with multiple previous blocks up to 30 days and bans up to 60 days). Ashley kennedy3 needs to provide a reason why things will be different if they are to resume editing. Jehochman ^Talk 06:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

AshleyKennedy is a good contributor concerning content matters in the articles related to the I-P conflict. But his behaviour vis-à-vis other contributors who do not share his standards or his views is not acceptable. And he has already been warned several times for that. Nishidani wants him to apologize. I personally did the same by emails and warned him about the consequences.
I would personnally suggest an undefinite block until he admits he was wrong, gives his point of view, and agrees he will take the highest care not attack so harshly other contributors anymore, for any reason. That is a suggestion to be discussed. I don't measure all the positive and negative consequences yet. Ceedjee (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I second Ceedjee's suggestion. He disagrees with both Ashley and myself on overall interpretation (but that's not, as we all recoghnize, our job) but we three and a few others have had a very productive working rapport ('across borders'). Admins judge first by the behavioural record (in AK's case, two suspensions were cases of stupidly allowing himself to be gamed), not by the editing record for substantive work. AK has always replied with speed and precision for any request, from whoever, on things like coordinates (where he has strong talents) to details (he has accumulated at his own expense a large library on the area. He is, like Ceedjee, basically an article builder from academic sources in an area where most seem to edit, from page to page, just on words, or phrasing, or a sentence or source, in terms of their pereceptions of POV, and without much regard to the whole subject of the page. He's clearly to blame for allowing a good record to be stained by infractions: he should learn to ignore provocation, be more patient even if antipathy closes in, not personalize his conflicts, etc.

Perhaps he should take a month's break, and figure out while reading whether he's committed enough to wiki, as opposed to understanding the history of the area, to curb his views (which I happen to share) and just stick to the technical labour of ensuring good material gets on page. If he decides 'yes', he should then ask for a reconsideration of a reduction from one year. If I recall, Sandstein's 1 month was too lenient. Phil Knight's 2 months fair, but, as Jehochman noted, he'd already copped (I think unjustly) a two month suspension, and therefore, within the wiki system (which we must accept however weird it works out instance from instance), you should be looking at something from 2 to 3 months. As any lawyer will tell you, law has nothing to do with justice. It's just how the paper evidence lines up, within a system of rules. Personally, I don't think Ynhockey should ever have even troubled to note the so-called Drive-by edit infraction, which occasioned his suspension, and his improper outburst against Ynhockey. Those pages are a POV disaster, and rightly elicit contempt. A good many in the I/P area should learn to use reporting technical infractions only as a last recourse, when there is a real stalemate on a page.Nishidani (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Bambifan101 is back again

Resolved

All accounts blocked J.delanoy :  Chat  00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

He's up to his usual crap, vandalizing various Disney articles, then appears to have deliberately checking my contribs to vandalize an anime talk page just to get my attention.[63][64] Can we get some new range blocks as I'm guessing the last set expired?

Some recent IPs and user names used (within just the last week on Lilo and Stitch; didn't check other pages):

• 68.220.174.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 68.220.180.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Bambifan102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bambifan103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bambifan104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bambifan105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (has implied these are now autoblocked[65])
• Disneyhater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bambifan101 history there for those unfamiliar with it. (from his comments above, it appears his school blocked Wikipedia...can't imagine why) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of these were already blocked, and I blocked the remaining one. J.delanoy :  Chat  00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

He changes IPs daily, though, which is why I wondered if a range block could be reimplemented? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've suggested at Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter‎ that it may be possible to block edits from Bambifan's IP ranges that attempt to edit articles on Disney/Teletubbies related topics. -- The Anome (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be great, especially since semi-protecting his favourite targets is not working out so well for us (what with the gazillions of Disney-related articles). — Kralizec! (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed...he just changes targets when they are locked and there are just way too many to catch them all. Here's hoping on those filters :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Long Term Abuse by the User:Anwar_saadat

I feel that this User: Anwar saadat has been a nuisance to Wikipedia and his civil behaviour, edits and conduct is very inappropriate.

You may check his recent edit history, where he has altered GAs and long-term stable articles causing edit wars involving several users. Furthermore what comes as a shock, is that he is going against Wikiproject:Indian cinema and deleting whole sections of GA articles, claiming they "are unneccessary to him".[66] More recently, he has been stalking my edits and has been trying to frame me out in every single way possible through images.(check my user talk page - all that I've removed within the last 24 hours) I find it shocking, how this can continue!

In a personal claim, I find it quite shocking to see why he is still editing, looking at his edit history - he has been blocked twenty one times and has been allowed to continue to stay on and edit inconstructively. [67]

Moreover in his time, he has been blocked for : disruption, stalking, WP:3RR, gross violations, racist abuse, trolling, anti-Hindu remarks in extremist favour of Islam, [68] straight reverting and sockpuppetry. I cannot believe, why he is still editing.' I'm sure that racism alone is enough to get one permanently blocked, and with over 20 blocks, I'm very shocked.

Moreover, I think this edit sums this character up. Here, try not to laugh!!!

His behaviour has to be halted. Thanks, a permanant ban must be issued. Universal Hero (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, not to comment on the rest of your post, but the edit above where you say "try not to laugh" was from 2005...The Seeker 4 Talk 21:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In the two recent diffs you provide, I can't see any prima facie blockable disruption. If you don't back up all these accusations with convincing diffs, this section will be closed as not actionable.  Sandstein  21:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh, isn't twenty counts of being blocked and then returning and causing similiar trouble bad enough? Universal Hero (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It is, if you can provide convincing diffs of such trouble, which to date you have not.  Sandstein  22:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh sure, I just didn't understand what diffs meant. Sorry. Well here.

• Changing an article established as a GA, by introducing his own ways: [69]
• Blatant Abusive Vandalism declaring his support for his fav. actor Ajith Kumar over the opposition actor Vijay: [70]
• Removal of Image licenses [71]
• Goes against the Wikiproject by introducing dollar signs: [72]
• Adds money details to filmography details, despite being warned not to: [73]
• Edit warring and subsequent block: [74]
• Adds his own opinions: [75]
• Threatening chants in Tamil: [76] and [77] and here when he means you should shut your mouth (informal) [78]
• Bad enough to get blocked: racism [79]
• Personal attack on an Admin: [80]
• Hundred of his edits, defend Islam and criticise Hinduism: Two here [81] and [82]

A not so extensive list! =D

Deal with it please, Cheers Universal Hero (talk)

It should be noted these two are involved in an ongoing SPI, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Universal Hero. KnightLago (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll review this later.  Sandstein  13:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

User:DawnisuponUS

DawnisuponUS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor has been borderline disruptive at Talk:September 11 attacks for a little while. They've been warned of the arbcom sanctions by several editors. Recently they decided to argue the toss with myself and User:Tom harrison about whether they'de been edit-warring on the article itself. I decided I'd had enough and gave them a final warning against any form of disruption or personal attack. Their response has been to accuse us of "Defamation", "slander" etc etc. This is all very well, and I'm quite enjoying the chance to run amok in a berserk manner and feel the wind in my hair, but I'm wondering when it will end.

Review and considered action by uninvolved admins would be appreciated at this point. Most of the history is plainly viewable at User Talk:DawnisuponUS - I don't think there's been any blanking. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate this call for action by uninvolved admins, I've already made a call for informal mediation, and if it yields no result, I will pursue other venues.

SheffieldSteel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) cannot hold his restraint. He has a history of such conduct and he is trigger happy when it comes to blocks and ban's. I'm not sure if he is suited to carry the "badge" of administrator. I would kindly ask the administrators to take their time and review case closely and thoroughly as well as history of the party which brought this forward. My page was blanked once, I've removed welcoming message. DawnisuponUS (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I concur with the assessment that DawnisuponUS has been edit-warring and is, to put it mildly, unapologetic about it. It's a new account, and the actual disruption is too old to be blockable now, but if he continues, a block at WP:AIV with reference to this thread should be forthcoming, if you don't want to block him yourself.  Sandstein  22:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that this recent edit is point-of-view pushing and also ungrammatical, introducing both anti-Israel bias and a run-on sentence into the article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm certain it would had been far better if this ANI didn't come to play. DawnisuponUS (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"Would have been" is correct, for what it's worth. Better would be to say "Well, I'm certain it would have been far better if ANI hadn't come into play." As far as trying to deal with English grammar, you have my sympathy. For the conspiracy theories I have no sympathy at all. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is this important, Tom? Grammar? Explain yourself. I wonder what's on your mind. DawnisuponUS (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You brought it up [83]. If you aren't interested, don't let me detain you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No, FisherQueen brought it up, and I want to know why. Must admit, extremely amusing summary too. DawnisuponUS (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My primary objection was not to the grammar error, but to the pushing of a specific point of view, which, I think, is the subject of this discussion. I brought it up as an example of a recent edit that I thought showed you pushing a specific point of view. The other subject of this discussion, your aggressively unhelpful reaction to correction, I do not think I need to find examples of, as you have helpfully added several examples to this discussion already. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say you've made your point too, as for my mood, or aggressiveness, if you prefer. I'm really not in the good mood and you parachuting in and throwing judgment which you've based on single edit, in spite the fact I've kindly asked adminship for more careful review, well, it surly didn't improve it – the mood. DawnisuponUS (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, what is the purpose of this exam? Is it over now? If it is, here's a remark. So far we have one uninvolved editor here. I remember you FisherQueen, one look at your talkpage was enough. I'll invite you to stand in front of the ArbCom. This is the stage in which you always come to play. DawnisuponUS (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not certain what you saw on my talk page that made you think I'm in violation of any rules, but, like any Wikipedia editor, I am subject to the will of the community and perfectly willing to submit to the decisions of ArbCom. Remember to be specific about the rule I've broken, and include links and diffs, when you submit your complaint about me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Put up or shut up. Provide evidence of FisherQueen having violated any rule or guideline which would cause her to be brought up before the ArbCom, or retract your accusation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you be less uncivil? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can, but I see no point in this case. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It is kind of scary when a admin tries to justify a ban because a person added a fact about Israel that doesn't show the Israelis in a good light. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Also, the admins picking on the person for his grammar demonstrates the lack of professionalism here. It is bad enough for a person to be reported, but with admins mocking the person's editing, well that is just bullying. Excuse the bad grammar, I am not writing a paper.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The subject of this discussion is the question of whether User:DawnisuponUS has been pushing a specific point of view and interacting uncivilly with other editors; do you have an opinion about that subject? If you'd like to start a thread about User:FisherQueen and the specific rule she has broken, you should create a new subject header, so the two discussions don't become tangled with each other and difficult to follow. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you broke a rule and I don't have an opinion on DawnisuponUS. But I have an opinion on the lack of professionalism by administrators like the unnecessary nitpicking on grammar. I just wanted to say something on the peanut gallery, that's all. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

DawnisuponUS is certainly not a new user. I have not interacted with DawnisuponUS, having been mostly on a wikibreak for the past 1-2 months. Yet, DawnisuponUS is following my talk page and trolling. [84] It's very clear to me that DawnisuponUS is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Previously, we had User:Tachyonbursts (~May 2008) and User:Quantumentanglement (~December 2007), who were both banned. There are striking similarities in the behaviour of all three of these users. And, I'm 99.9% sure Quantumentanglement and Tachyonbursts were not new accounts either. I suspect that these users are User:Lovelight, who was banned in May 2007 and has continued to edit off and on with sock accounts and as an IP editor. Of course, the accounts are too old for checkuser to help, but take a look at the behaviour and language used by these accounts to see the similarities.

DawnisuponUS is simply wasting people's time. Please stop allowing this. Someone, please block the account. --Aude (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Lovely, see how they surface? This is one of the editors I've named in my request for mediation, wonder who will surface next? Mongo? DawnisuponUS (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This proved the point I'm making today long, long time ago, so you had to delete it? Gone, is it? Where can I find these ol' pieces, I'll need those. What's the word? It is cover up. DawnisuponUS (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think this recent edit should be excluded from this discussion as being irrelevant. It's a fairly typical edit made in IP articles by new contributors. It's neither point-of-view pushing nor does it introduce an anti-Israel bias into the article because it's consistent with the BRD workflow, was reverted and is now being discussed. It raised an important issue that perhaps isn't being given due weight in the article. New contributers often start like this but move on to discussing changes on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Aude that DawnisuponUS is almost certain to be somebody's sockpuppet as well as trolling this discussion, and have blocked it indefinitely. Review welcome.  Sandstein  05:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Bravo. Thank you once again. --Tarage (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You're a sensible admin, why would you block a user simply because someone is suspicious that he is a sockpuppet? Doesn't a checkuser have to be performed first? Trolling is not an issue here. I hope this is some sort of an April Fool's joke, even the skinhead axmann received more leniency than this. Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A checkuser isn't required when the duck test applies. Dayewalker (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I will not pretend that I understand half of things you folks said here, but I know a foul play when I see it. I’ve been watching discussions of editors and DawnisuponUS with interest and I have to say that this sort of manhunt is disturbing and in line with what that person was saying at 9/11 attacks page. I’m not sure what is going on behind curtains here, but I’m sure that after following all this I will never be able to read wikipedia with ease. Shame on you folks. Thingsrelatedornot (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, isn't it curious that Thingsrelatedornot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) found this noticeboard with its fourth edit, and spent its other three edits agreeing with DawnisuponUS on the 9/11 talk page?  Sandstein  07:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

wouldn't it be better just to do a checkuser and then take the appropriate action otherwise it's just speculation. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Thingsrelatedornot, I don't think there's a problem. Existing sanctions should be sufficient to ban or block them in their own right (i.e. without any need for a sock check), if they are disruptive, and currently they just aren't that big of a problem.

Regarding DawnisuponUS, this is hardly a "foul play". Those who have voiced an opinion on the subject have said that DawnisuponUS is disruptive, aggressive, or tendentious, has engaged in edit-warring, continues to argue that they have done no wrong in the face of policy and diffs, or some combination thereof. The edit warring at 9/11 was sufficient for a block, and it could be argued that the soapboaxing on the Talk page was sufficient for a ban. The fact that I issued neither, I can only put down to a lack of trigger-happiness on my part (I can't speak for Tom harrison, but I think he engages problematic editors with commendable patience). Initial approaches to this editor were polite and informative. As for exactly why and how that went downhill so markedly - that is something that we can all reflect upon, but none of us should be under the impression that this was a productive, collaborative, respectful, polite editor who was here to help build the encyclopaedia but who just somehow slipped through the cracks and is now lost to us - nor indeed a lone voice of sanity in the Kafkaesque wilderness, speaking up for those who have no voice, challenging the Orwellian thought police and... uh... something about Nazis and Godwin. Sorry, lost my train of thought ;-( SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not wikipedia editor, I’m simply an editor. So have you done the checking? There is no way to misinterpret what happened here. Shame on you. Thingsrelatedornot (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You are making edits on wikipedia, so by definition you are a wikipedia editor. So how is that you, a supposedly brand new user, and whose grammar mistakes match those of the now-blocked user, happened to zoom in on all of this? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I ran into an edit conflict before I could raise the same issue. An SPA suddenly appearing here, clearly now a new user... a thing related, quite possibly. Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Acts like a sock, but aside from incivility on ANI and here ([85]), it hasn't really done anything yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it must be conspiracy. Oops, look! One of your editors just made a mistake, it’s very suspicious, hitting now instead of not. Did you know that you can reach this place via 911 talkpage in just three clicks? Incivility? Thingsrelatedornot (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, User:Thingsrelatedornot is an obvious sockpuppet of User:DawnisuponUS. Does anyone object to my blocking her? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought you'd never ask. :) Gopher it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Obvious, what is obvious?! Thingsrelatedornot (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Her?! Thingsrelatedornot (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Instances of circumventing semi-protection

I've been seeing this more and more often lately. A new account is created. The new editor subsequently makes 10 minor edits to somebody's talk pages, inserting and then deleting a single character. At that point, the editor can edit semi-protected articles — and invariably the purpose is for vandalism.

See the contributions of contributions, for example, whose first act after circumventing semi-protection was to vandalize the Virgin Killer article.

I've seen this on other semi-protected articles too. Perhaps the semi-protection rules should be changed, enforcing a waiting period rather than just a minimum number of edits.

I suggest that these editors do not come to Wikipedia with good-faith intent, and should be blocked on sight. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - obviously these editors know exactly what they're doing and should be treated as a 100% vandalism account. Rklawton (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I see this editor just got indef-blocked. Thanks! ~Amatulić (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi protection does require a time delay - the account must be more than four days old. Daniel (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In this case, the account was actually created on the 24th [86] and was not used until today, hence he could edit semi-protected articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

His 10 test edits were to a similarly straight-laced used named Quintessent. Could be a sockpuppet or someone pretending to be. "Quint" = "V", right? I don't know what "kau" means, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

His user name style is also similar to the username of a previous vandal who committed an identical pattern on the Virgin Killer article. I think we have a case of somebody creating a bunch of throwaway sockpuppet accounts, to save them up for vandalism when needed. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly German? The German verb "to eat" is "essen", the German verb "to chew" is "kauen". Tonywalton ^Talk 15:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you've got a Tile join infestation: same semi-protection circumvention technique, same short meaningless usernames, same habit of repeating the same action ad nauseum. Persistent type who has not grown bored or felt a sense of futility in over two years of attacking Evolution, Northwich Victoria F.C., Witton Albion F.C., and Winshill. J. Spencer (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for an abuse filter concerning this behavior.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It has been requested, please see here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Georgeperez

Resolved

 – Blocked 24h. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 19:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Georgeperez (talk · contribs) either doesn't get it or is celebrating today's holiday. He has repeatedly created Magnet Renewable Energy (which advertizes a perpetual motion device), even renaming it other things when it got speedy deleted (multiple times, resulting in salting). He also repeatedly copy pasted the same text to the talk pages of several articles, only to repeat the same text and SPAM links when asked for an RS[87]. My favorite part is "Oh, and if you connect it to a photonic lazer thruster in space and let magnet renewable energy continue to power it you can reach a lovely speed." Well beyond final warning on his talk page for tendentionsly repasting the "information". Can he have a "vacation" until April 2 so we can see if this guy is actually unable to follow WP policy, or just faking it? NJGW (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) It looks like he made a replied to his 24 hour edit ban on his talk page.

He said this,

"This is not vandalism, sir. I posted this information on pages that are relevant and in pages that are the different names of this technology. There are new sources available on each page. Can you not delete this page? This is real information" - Quote by Georgeperez RandomGuy666 (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)RandomGuy666

|}:Blocked 24 hours. Kimchi.sg (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Extensive tagging of images

72.88.33.234 (talk · contribs) has been tagging several images with the no-permission tag [88] for four days now. I find the pattern suspicious since in each session, the time between each tagging is 1 - 3 minutes, hardly enough time to determine whether there is permission or not. Please review. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked a half dozen or so of his edits, and every one of them was correct. That IP is doing very useful work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

He must be a bot because justifiably tagging more than 40 images in an hour is just not humanly possible. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's easily possible if you know what you are doing and what you are looking at and looking for, especially with the right tools at your disposal. Mfield (Oi!) 06:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about the patience one must have to repeat a tedious action for 2 hours straight at a rate of every 2 minutes. That is crazy --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That is of course another issue entirely. Sorting lots of images can be quite cathartic though, but only in the same way as washing the dishes can be. Mfield (Oi!) 06:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Circumvention is trivial with this setup, and it was only a matter of time until deliberate vandals learned to game it. Durova^Charge! 18:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been blocked for 3 months for posting on a Talk page on how to cure ingrown toenail.

Resolved

 – IP evading block of User:Ericg33 blocked.  Sandstein  20:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I only posted exactly how everyone else was doing and some moderator picked my comments as the one he wanted deleted. I undid the deletions thinking they were just 'TALK' edits and he wouldn't mind because it WASN'T an ARTICLE edit. It was discussion on remedies. Ericg33 is my account name.

Banned for 3 months by some intolerant moderator. Not fair at all. There was ZERO vandalism.

Need some help from someone to remove the block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.164.240 (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion does not a convincing plea for unblocking make. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I wouldn't call this "block evasion", this is someone who doesn't want or know how to use the {{unblock}} thingie in their talk page, so they simply request unblock as an IP at an appropiate place (well, what he thinks that is an inappropiate place). If he has only made this edit as an IP, then calling "block evasion" is just blind application of rules. Just tell him that he needs to log in and request unblock on his talk page, and mark this as resolved. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The user has been blocked from editing their talk page for a personal attack (this edit), so this isn't currently an option for them. - Bilby (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I think someone is having some fun. MuZemike being orange^{Or is Orangemike being MuZe?} 06:52, 1 April 2009

(UTC)

Strangely - especially today - maybe not... EyeSerene^talk 08:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew I'd seen something silly to do with toenails. All the editor has to do is promise to stop the talk page spam. Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see User_talk:Ericg33#March_2009. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick question, even though this is marked as resolved - while I'm not desperate to argue for this editor, given that the editor was blocked from posting to his talk page, it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable for him to use an IP for a single edit to request consideration here. And yes, I know that normal and proper process is to use email, but I'd lean towards Eric Naval's comments that this doesn't seem like a significant case of block evasion. Just an editor trying to work out how to request unblocking when the normal channel (the unblock template) is closed. - Bilby (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

IP user 12.110.131.82 adding same content to article after block

12.110.131.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked less than 48 hours ago for edit warring on the DeKalb High School (Illinois) page (block log). These are the edits for which he/she was blocked: [89], [90], [91], [92], [93]. I reverted two of these edits myself and the second time advised him or her to use a blog ([94]). After the block the user came up with this ridicuous explanation: [95].

Now that the block has expired the anon has made the same edit to the page: [96]. Please place a longer block and/or semi-protect the page. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, posting phone numbers of other people on their talk page and continuing to edit war. I'm not sure whether the talk page history needs Oversight or not, so not marking resolved (and another Admin might want to adjust the block, I will not dispute any change in the block). This is a company address, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Jennavecia indef blocked?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
April Fool's? Or is this real? D.M.N. (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC) "User account "Jennaciva" is not registered. If you wish to use "Jennaciva" as your username, please make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username." -- Avi (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC) That'll teach me: Jennavecia (talk · contribs) D.M.N. (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Read the edit summary :) -- Avi (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC) You've gotta be kidding me. Anyone want to block me as a sockpuppet of Majorly? It's about as likely. Iridescent :  Chat  15:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC) @Avi: 41? D.M.N. (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC) @Iridescent: The only reason I'm asking is because the block description doesn't even look funny... nothing at all to suggest its an April Fool (although I'm guessing it is...) D.M.N. (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Hush Iridescent! :)  – Majorly 15:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Quick, someone block User:Jimbo Wales as a sock of User:Larry Sanger, he was just fooling us so he could have two encyclopedias at the same time and simulate fights with himself about who founded wikipedia just to throw us off :D --Enric Naval (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC) @DMN (4=Month, 1=Day). -- Avi (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Linking an account with an individual whose actions were considered so bad he lost his job with HM Government is simply not funny GTD 16:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC) I would ask administrators to please avoid using blocking as part of any April Fools related festivities. In addition, although presumably not really apropos here, any genuine information concerning suspicion of any further Poetlister-related activity should be forwarded to the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AOfbnGkuGc HalfShadow 16:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC) In Tiptoety's defense -- Jenna was literally asking to be blocked. (She did it last night in the -en-admins IRC channel. She even specified she wanted to be blocked at a Poetlistener sock). Making the block wasn't Tiptoety's best decision, but Jenna deserves at least as much of the blame for causing drama. Raul654 (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC) I had assumed as much, actually, regarding this being largely Jennavecia's idea. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Since when do we ever block people just because they want it? Even as time-wasting AFD pranks go, this block was both a poor use of the tools and in exceptionally poor taste. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC) At least since June 1st, 2007 at 13:58. WilyD 16:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Jesus Christ, you people are such unfunny stiffs. And Raul, stfu. Hypocrite. My block caused no disruption. Your stupid Ceiling Cat account is disruptive... and unfunny, by the way. You people need to learn the point of April Fools' Day. Unfunny, obviously false crap, like today's main page, is not foolery. The point is to make people think something is true when it's not. The hilarity caused by my friends freaking out because they thought I was blocked as a PoetSock... that's the point of this day. Take a damn day's break from the project if you're too unfunny to enjoy the day, particularly if your bitching will accentuate your shameful lack of self-awareness. Disruption and drama is caused by you guys, not the people enjoying the joke. Now everyone get back to ignoring the BLP problem. There's work not to be done. لennavecia 16:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Yeah, you all ought to be blocked for not finding this funny! Or, like.. something. --Conti|✉ 17:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Conti, it's even worse than that. Not only is she here whining that no one laughed at her dramawhoring, but she's actually has the temerity to say that she's not disruptive. This is coming from a self-admitted white-prider who has previously (a) argued on-wiki in defense of white pride, and (b) picked fights with others over it. (Her old username, "LaraHate", takes on a whole new meaning once you know where it comes from.) But of course, she's not here to cause drama. No sir. She's just here to make productive edits like this and this. Raul654 (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC) "Self-admitted white-prider"? Is it not time to remove this thread before even more editors say anything else inappropriate? Jesus. Black Kite 19:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC) In before ID cabal --NE2 20:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, uh uh. See, that's just wrong. I cleared this up almost a year ago. Way to pull a SWATjester, screaming stuff you don't understand, Raul. Funny you bring up the RFAR that you prematurely initiated against a user that you then blocked "per Arbcom", despite not being an arb AND the whole COI in that you initiated the request. Then you protect his talk page for no reason, even by your own admission later. The white pride issue isn't even something I need to address again. Geographical difference in meaning of the term, not conflicting belief systems. And you want to talk about picking fights?! Haha. Raul, self-awareness. You lack it completely. You are such a hypocrite, it's staggering. What would you call what you just did here? That's you picking a fight. And it's another glorious example of why you should not have the power you do. LaraHate was created after I forgot my password to WR. I picked it for one reasons: Hate being the opposite of love. It had nothing to do with anything, and for you to attempt to make it appear as though I chose that name as an expression of hate towards people for their race... you, sir, have no shame. Or honor. But just like SWAT got away with it, you will, too. That's the beauty of this project. Those in power get away with the harshest of crimes while those without are banned and silenced. So shut me up, Raul. Do what you do. COI block me of your own volition. Or fast-track this to RFAR, for I dared to call you out on your own drama-mongering and dared to call your unfunny sock account out as an unfunny sock account. You're disruptive, much more than you apparently realize. And trust, plenty of people appreciated this prank, which was one of few actual acts of foolery to take place today. لennavecia 21:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, it's on... and true. "MOAR KATZ" is somewhere between watching paint dry and posting on AN/I. --NE2 17:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Jenna and I discussed this in IRC. I apologized to her for my white pride comment, which was uncallled for and out of line, and we agreed to bury the hatchet. Raul654 (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop this bickering right now, or I will ... write another poem! Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Good god, Brad, have you been possessed by the ghost of Moulton? Iridescent :  Chat  17:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Watch your mouth. Brad has talent. لennavecia 17:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

NO NO, anything but another poem by Brad!??!?!

Once upon a day of joking, Dramaboards were nearly choking

under the weight of many jokes which charitably could be called bad

While these posts I was perusing, a sudden halt came to my musing

There was a threat, a grievous threat by that one we know as Brad

A threat of monumental proportions by the one called NewYorkBrad

Another poem, what a cad.

From my chair I rose a-trembling, hoping, praying he was dissembling

In a terror from the image his previous posts were not a fad

for surcease all are yearning, poetic muses in their graves turning

all who witness mute with shock, dismayed, lugubrious, and just sad

At the thought of yet another poem from the man called Brad

Why, oh why, another poem from the one called NewYorkBrad

I think that I am going mad.

And the posts they keep arriving, barely do I stay surviving

the verbal onslaught that just marches on and on from that young lad

diluvian in its proportion, perpetual in its own motion

waves and waves of prosing torture from the one we call our Brad

copious volumes of poetic torture from the one called NewYorkBrad

Forevermore, I have naught to add.

-- Avi (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The pranks come

on lolcat feet.

They sit laughing

At admin and wiki

On dubious punchlines

And then move on.

-- alanyst ^/talk/ 17:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC), with apologies to Carl Sandburg

˙ʎɹɐɹqıʃ ǝɥʇ uı sʞooq ǝɯos oʇ ǝɹıɟ ʇǝs oʇ pǝpuǝʇǝɹd I ǝɯıʇ ʇɐɥʇ ǝɔuıs ɹoɯnɥ ɟo ʞɔɐʃ ɐ ɥɔns uǝǝs ʇ,uǝʌɐɥ I 'ʍoM HalfShadow 17:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, the wonders of UTF-8 :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

¿spɹɐʍʞɔɐq puɐ uʍop-ǝpısdn ƃuıʞʃɐʇ ǝʃdoǝd noʎ ǝɹɐ ʎɥM HalfShadow 18:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's easier for some than others, I guess. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Many hoaxes come

springtime Wikipedia

delete block ignore

Tonii Warotonu talk 18:54, 1 April 2009 (BST)

User:BotKung

Resolved

 – Bot blocked pending fix. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 19:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Can an administrator look at possibly blocking this bot. It is apparently malfunctioning, reverting articles to weeks, even months old versions while adding the th interwiki links.[97][98][99][100] Its owner, User:Jutiphan is rarely online here, so not sure the report on his talk page will be addressed in a timely fashion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. Looking at its contribution history, it's clearly malfunctioning.Iridescent :  Chat  18:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Block review, sockpuppet?

Resolved

 – Blocked indef. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just blocked User: EchoofReason for 24 hours for repeated incivility. He now appears to be admitting to sockpuppetry, but as a sock of whom, I have no idea. Could someone else please take a look at this, review my block, and see what, if anything, else should be done at this point. The threads he has started off-wiki (with links on his talk page) seem rather threatening to me and another administrator. Aleta ^Sing 19:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Endorse, suggest extend to indef - I am removing attack/outing links, too. Suggest deletion of revisions. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 19:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd appreciate someone else perhaps taking the lead on those suggestions if folks agree with them. Aleta ^Sing 19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is almost certainly Don Murphy back again, from the looks of those links. Be advised, anyone taking action will likely get the same treatment. You'd think he'd be too busy making movies to do this kind of thing. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice guy. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to repeat myself or anything, but I would still suggest an indef based on the user's behaviour. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. His methods (as well as those who apparently jump when he says "jump") are disturbing, to say the least. Aleta ^Sing 20:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Aaaaand indef. No point spending any longer dealing with that account. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment, agree with SheffieldSteel's indef block of EchoofReason. Should the talk page be deleted/protected? R. Baley (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the user from editing it. That should do for now. No objection if anyone wants to tag it as {{indef}} or just delete it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Tagging. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Make sure its the right tag! Some editors get them confused. :) Synergy 21:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearly Don Murphy. His MO is to use a swarm of sockpuppets; I'd strongly recommend doing a checkuser on User: EchoofReason to root out any more that might be lurking. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(slight return) After an email communication from a checkuser, I've also indefinitely blocked User:LivieInIndiana. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Block review - Nishidani - AshleyKennedy

Resolved

 – Unblocked.

User Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by Jehochman for 1 week, for [this] edit. I don't want this to turn into a contentious extension of ARBPIA drama, or anything more complicated than a simple review of whether a block was warranted in this instance. Jehochman has indicated that he believes the block is justified, and that it should be brought here. Reproduced inside the box below is the discussion on the users talkpage. Avruch ^T 19:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Block message.

• 1 week is certainly unwarranted and far too harsh given that the last block far too back in 2007. Even if it's similar conduct, people aren't expected to permanently remember ancient history whenever making an edit. Even 72 hours would've been too harsh. Can someone please downgrade this to 24 or 48 hours as a priority? A straight unblock ("time served") would've been okay if an unblock request was made. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• See here for further discussion and Nishidani's thoughts on requesting an unblock. Avruch ^T 19:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is less the 1 week block of Nishidani than the 1 year block of AshleyKennedy3. Jehochman has arrived like the cavalry, rapidly checked the problem and pronounced the sentence without having any background of the issue, as proven by Nishidani's block. For Nishidani, no block can be justified (he tried to solve a real problem with AshleyKennedy) and for AshleyKennedy, another sentence than a brutal and agressive 1 year block should have found. Ceedjee (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A few more comments addressed to AshleyKennedy3. Ceedjee (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Let's keep this coherent. The issue of Ashley kennedy3 should be discussed in its own section above. I think the block of Nishidani was ill-considered and should be undone. The comment for which Nishidani was blocked, although flowery and in an idiosyncratic style, was clearly intended as friendly advice, and I can't find anything objectively objectionable in it. (Or did I miss something?)  Sandstein  20:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• I was giving an overly sensitive interpretation of the final sentence: "Regards to a fine, studious, and dedicated, but fucking irresponsibly irascible fellow editor". But yeah, I came to the same view originally. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• I'd love to know what Jehochman was thinking. The meaning behind Nishidani's post was blindingly obvious: you can choose to commit wikicide with or without help, but why not just--as he said--pull your finger out? Anyway, I would absolutely move for an immediate unblock and an apology from Jehochman. //roux   20:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I could be called involved, so feel free to discount this if you wish. But I've dealt with Nishidani before, and he's the only editor I know who not irregularly quotes literature in his comments. I can't see him being blocked for having a definitely unique style, even if once in a while it is hard to see it as just a matter of style. I too would support an unblock. Ashley kennedy3 I agree is a different matter to be discussed elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Nothing really to argue about here - the block is an obvious misunderstanding (a genuine mistake, I hope), and should be undone ASAP. NSH001 (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• I will not apologize becvause the edit in question was most unhelpful and disruptive. We do not need editors (even well meaning editors) to fan the flames of hot disputes. If Nishidani would agree to refrain from dispute intensification behavior in relation to WP:ARBPIA, I would agree to an unblock. Otherwise, I feel this arbitration enforcement block is valid (notwithstanding my failure to distinguish between hostility, and a friend disrupting a thread with excessively strident rhetoric). Went do not need gratuitious violations of decorum on this board. Jehochman ^Talk 21:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Jehochman, why did your block log fail to indicate "arbitration enforcement" in the reason field? Notwithstanding, the duration for your block was excessively harsh. Any user in your position should've contemplated that giving a 1 week block over this would just end up being deemed as "bad" in this venue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting Jehochman (from inside the archive box): "All Nishidani needs to do is back down and request unblock."... "I'd unblock Nishidani myself if they posted an unblock request that said something to the effect of, "yeah, my comment at ANI was over the top and I now understand that it was unhelpful and won't do it again." No, we don't set such conditions, Jehochman, because the purpose of blocks is not to humiliate the user. I'm unblocking Nishidani, as there is obviously consensus for such an action. Bishonen | talk 21:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC).

• Support Bishonen's unblocking. While I appreciate civility, I think that a 1-week block for incivility was particularly harsh for someone who has no prior history. 12 hours would have been appropriate, if at all. Bastique ^demandez 21:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Please re-read WP:ARBPIA, Bastique. This is not a typical situation. Unfortunately, it has been dealt with in typical WP:ANI manner. You'll notice that the block was promptly logged on that arbitration case. Bishonen, the purpose was not to humiliate the user. The purpose was to stop them from posting obscene, gratuitous and inflammatory comments to WP:ANI during a discussion of another editor's behavior centering around one of the most intractable disputes on Wikipedia. (I am generally opposed to incivility blocks, but at some point talking about stuffing cotton balls up ones arse to prevent a mess after committing seppuku crosses the line) I regret that none of the editors here, other than Bastique, seem to have recognized the incorrectness of Nishidani's behavior. If somebody had said, "yeah, the behavior was really bad, but the block should be shortened," that would have been a good basis for consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 22:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone else saw any incivility or disruption there, or any "inflammatory comments", and plenty of people have tried to explain why to you. I certainly didn't see anything of that sort, and I'm still at a loss as to how anyone who'd spent more than two minutes reading it and taking on board the history there could have done. I just saw a (lengthy) piece of advice to a friendly editor, written up in a jokey (and yes, mildly obscene, but I've seen far worse) style. You just made a very bad call. Admit that, and stop continuing to complain that everyone else is wrong and that you alone are right, but are merely being generous. --Nickhh (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Question Was Nishidani warned of a potential ARBPIA block, preferably specifically?--Tznkai (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, see WP:ARBPIA. They were put on notice some time ago. Jehochman ^Talk 22:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Also support unblock. I can see how Nishidani's soliloquy could have been misinterpreted, but the proper response is a request for clarification on the user's talk page, not a week-long punitive block out of the blue. (If I am incorrect in thinking that there is not a deeper recent history of incivility here, please correct me with diffs to the warnings required by ARBPIA.) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "List of Exalted comics"

Resolved

I created this article yesterday evening, initially as only a single sentence. At that time, I had not yet added content to the article. Pontificalibus spotted this and correctly tagged it as a speedy deletion candidate under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion. I added some content, placed a "hangon" tag, and requested more time on the article's talk page. Despite this, Nihonjoe speedy deleted the article. I discussed the matter with Nihonjoe. I was expecting him to realise that he made a mistake; the article did indeed have content and should not have been speedily deleted. However Nihonjoe did not realise this. He offered to userfy the article so that I could work on it privately. I remained concerned that Nihonjoe had inappropriately speedily deleted the article so I sought deletion review to gain a consensus view on the validity of the speedy deletion. Deletion review is supposed to be open for five days, to allow a consensus to form. However Nihonjoe closed the deletion review, justifying it on the basis that he userfied the deleted article.

I am not unduly concerned by the deletion of this article. It is easy enough for me to re-create it. However I am concerned that Nihonjoe has not applied speedy deletion correctly, and subsequently closed a deletion review without waiting for consensus. In particular, he may continue to speedily delete new stub articles without realising his mistake. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is beginning to become stupid. I userfied the article and then closed the DRV as no longer necessary. As it stood, the article in question didn't meet any requirements for remaining on Wikipedia. As I've already told you, once you have the article ready to be a real article, move it to the mainspace from your userspace. This isn't a difficult concept. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As Nihonjoe said, you can avoid this problem by preparing the article in your userspace before you publish it. There is no policy stating that articles can be left in mainspace to give people time to edit them up to inclusion standard. If everyone did that, we would never be able to delete unsuitable articles. Pontificalibus (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I should also point out that if you spent as much time working on the article in question as you have complaining about this perceived unfairness, you might already have the article ready to be unveiled. I recommend focusing your energies on productivity. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

With the article in userspace, the DRV closed, time to close this drama as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hold up. Axl is quite right to object, as Nihonjoe is violating process. If there's a hangon tag, you hangon. It exists for a reason, not to be brushed aside because someone thinks they know better. Jtrainor (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting process. As {{hangon}} says: 'Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria'. Algebraist 00:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I just checked the page as it was at the time it was deleted, and it was a completely appropriate deletion, even under A3 (it would also easily be deletable under A7). In the future, with articles even remotely like this, I suggest writing them in userspace before moving them to mainspace. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This version had content beyond WP:CSD#A3, and was work in progress. Certainly not an A7 since it's a list of comics, which is neither a real person nor web content nor an organization.
I also don't find it really appropriate to close a DRV about ones own deletion, even if the article was userfied. --Amalthea 10:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy tag edit warring at Emotop

Resolved

 – Deleted, sockmaster blocked 1wk. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The above-linked article appears to me to be a decent candidate for either an A7, G3 or a G10 speedy deletion. It's been tagged as one or the other at least five separate times, and an enormous amount of edit-warring by brand new user accounts keep removing the tag over the past few hours [101], with many users re-adding it. I have suspicions that these new users are simply the article creator; but either way I'd appreciate it if an admin would make a decision on this and possibly deal with the article creator. Thanks! ~ mazca ^t|c 20:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree IMO they are all socks of the creator. BigDunc^Talk 20:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted under G10 by Sandstein. Thanks. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Processing the socks.  Sandstein  20:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Socks blocked indef, sockmaster Verbinsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 1 week.  Sandstein  21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick resolution. ~ mazca ^t|c 21:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes good work Sandstein. BigDunc^Talk 21:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks by User:Populares

Could someone please have at least a word with Populares (talk · contribs) about his behaviour on Talk:Francesco Carotta? I removed some [102] and warned him, but he continues to be abusive. As I've been involved in the article and talk page (and had abuse thrown at me), I can't do anything. Thanks. I'll notify him of this. Dougweller (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This probably would've been better at WQA....but then again, that is a lot in just one talk page. As I'm short on time, I'll abstain for now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April showers

Last week I manually archived one thread from this board, and three more today, per WP:BEANS. Mainly that was because last year's fun turned sour when several people went overboard. Received one complaint at user talk about one of the archivings.[103] It's mostly been a smooth holiday, thank goodness, so posting here proactively to gauge whether the community sees merit to the complaint. If so, please state so and I will restore the thread. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 22:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I read the thread in question. I honestly cannot see how anyone ever thought it deserved to be on this page in the first place. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Kate Murray - article history and uncaught vandalism + massive number of attack edits by IPs

Just came across Kate Murray, and it was in a horrendously vandalised state. I think I've reverted back far enough, but could someone check the history and find out what happened here? Lots of IP vandalism, but also people only partially reverting vandalism and obviously not reading what they are saving. This led to BLP violations being saved by editors and admins. Any ideas on how to get through to people that they need to check they have reverted far back enough, instead of just blindly reverting, would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have semi protected the article due to the excessive number of BLP violations and blocked the most recent IP for 24 hours. There's not much that can be done to stop people from messing up on reversion when a lot of edits happen except for someone such as yourself to occasionally come along and revert to a known stable edit. Mfield (Oi!) 05:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

She certainly seems to be the target of a huge amount of attacks from multiple IPs in the last 24 hours, the most recent 3 IPs 69.123.211.145 (talk · contribs), 69.113.90.18 (talk · contribs) and 69.117.104.191 (talk · contribs) are all the same person. I suspect from looking through the history that is is something to do with the Lighthouse as evidenced by [this edit] and [this contribution by another IP]. It seems that the Lighthouse may have a bunch of supporters out to get her. Not sure what course of action could or should be taken beyond protection at this point. Mfield (Oi!) 05:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

disruption via mass unsourced categories in BLP

could someone look into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/OmegaXmutantX? He's been adding 'People of Basque descent' and 'Basque People' categories to random people without any sourcing or explanation as to how he came to the conclusion that they are of Basque descent. He refuses discussion and I count at least 7 warnings, and multiple final warnings on his talk page from various editors asking him to stop adding unsourced categories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OmegaXmutantX . here are some of his unsourced additions: [[104]] [[105]] [[106]] [[107]] [[108]]. There are literally hundreds more. Some of the random people he's adding might actually be Basque, but without evidence and refusing to discuss it, it's just disruption. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, taking his multiple prior warnings/requests to stop into account, I have blocked him for 24 hours. Hopefully this will alert him to the fact that he's doing something wrong. I notice that he's been doing the same sort of thing with vocal ranges for singers too (there seems to be an abundance of WP editors who appear to thrive on this sort of thing and never, ever stop to discuss their edits - no idea why). We definitely need to review this user's previous edits and remove anything that's not adequately sourced. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Georgeringojohnpaul

Resolved

 – Report to WP:AIV if another disruptive edit is made beyond the "final warning". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

New editor Georgeringojohnpaul has made repeated nonsense edits to George Harrison. They have been warned once, but repeated the nonsense edit after the warning. I suggest a short block to show him/her we're serious.... — John Cardinal (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If the user vandalizes again after the level-4 warning, report it to WP:AIV. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Jarmancooper blocked as sock, back as Jarmancooper2

Resolved

 – Go back to buying Kryptonite. It's just as ineffective. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 07:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Jarmancooper (talk · contribs) was blocked as a sockpuppet of Manhattan Samurai (talk · contribs) by User:Gwen Gale, and is now back as Jarmancooper2 (talk · contribs) here [109]. I think Gwen is off line and I'm involved in the discussion on that page, so could someone else please handle this? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I reported this to WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And he's geeked. On a side note, would a CU be useful in determining if they are his socks or not? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 07:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

anonymous disruption on Johan Bäckman

On the article of Johan Bäckman, the anonymous editor User:91.152.84.165 is doing strange stuff that makes me question whether he is here to improve the encyclopædia. Characterising a reputable weekly newspaper as "nationalist" (diff), using edit summaries such as "Wikipedia is not the place for Estonian fascists to spread their shit" (diff), writing on talkpage "Hah this is typical fascist nonsense from Estonian nationalist idiots" (diff) are not exactly harbingers of passion for collegiality.

The user's contribution list shows interest for only two articles, both on closely related topics. His talkpage shows a stack of warnings, but the user does not appear to have taken them to heart. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a block for this IP, which appears to be fixed, has been reported to the COI board and warned repeatedly for edit warring, incivility and personal attacks [110],[111],[112],[113],[114],[115],[116]

The latest round of edit warring has involved personal attacks:

00:43, 2 April 2009 Eesti Ekspress is not reliable source to say anything

00:49, 2 April 2009 Edit comment: "Wikipedia is not the place for Estonian fascists to spread their shit"

01:44, 2 April 2009 [117]

With this spray on the talk page: "Hah this is typical fascist nonsense from Estonian nationalist idiots. I hope you can read your own language. Your press is fully corrupted and it publishes any nonsense from the Estonian Kapo Kaitsepolitsei, such as the opinions of person called Andres Kahar. His task is to spread insane ideas about Finnish nationals, because they do not support your apartheid policies. Interesting that Kapo aids are stupid enough to write to Wikipedia" --Martintg (talk) 09:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Side dispute

I also think that a reminder to other editors that attribution is required on articles is also in order. Additionally, is referring to other editors as pigs acceptable, or is it uncivil and a personal attack? That editor has only recently been warned against such things. I would note that admins may want to put this article on their watchlist, as there is a desire to use this article as a forum to discredit the article subject (i.e. engage in WP:BLP violations), as I noticed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Bäckman (2nd nomination). I've also alterted the IP editor here to this discussion. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren, you have been reminded on many occasions not to remove or refactor other people's comments. The IP editor is clearly not the only person who is delving into personal attacks in relation to this article, and this should be made clear to admins. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If Russavia has an issue with another user, he ought to create a new section rather than piggy back on to this section. There really is no relationship between these allegations by Russavia and the issue of this disruptive IP. Martintg (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is just fine. Edit summaries such as this and this are not discussing article content. It should be noted when referring to "pigs" in relations to others started. Perhaps these editors can explain exactly what pigs and pigcams have to with creating content on WP? Apart from being veiled personal attacks on other editors? --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the issue with this IP, the two diffs you provided are in a different article and are talk page comments by Digwuren three days ago. I also received a "pig cam" message on my talk page here, so what? Are you suggesting you are this IP, hence your involvement in this section? If not, then I suggest you start another section with your complaints. Martintg (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's recent attitude

I though first reporting this in the edit-warring noticebard, but I then felt that this is the best place, since edit-warring is not the only thing I wanted to present, and ask for your opinions and feedback. First let me say that I feel really badly, because this is the first time I come here as a "reporter", and especially reporting the behavior of another user.

Edit-warring is the first thing. Fut has, only for today, reverted the Greece article 3 times [118], [119],[120]. You can check his contributions for further edit-warring, e.g. in 2008 civil unrest in Greece we have 3 reverts during two days (I also reverted there twice in two days, which I regret). Some days, he was edit-warring in the Greece article for two issues simultaneously, the naming dispute, and the motto (just an example of his reverts on March 25: [121], [122]!

But edit-warring is of minor importance for me, when we have to deal with "attitude" issues! Let's explain myself: Fut is insulting towards all the users who do not agree with him. He is impolite, non-civil, and tries to label them in any possible negative way. This remark of his against User:Avg is on the verge of being considered as a personal attack.

But the worse came today, and it is this statement of his:

"The situation is clear: there is an overwhelming project-wide consensus of uninvolved users, versus an equally overwhelming consensus of a small local faction armed only with undefeatable tenacity. There is not the tiniest chance that one side will ever convince the other. So, the solution is not to have more talk. The solution, I'm very much afraid, is to fight it out, until one side wins. And that, unfortunately, will mean: until one side is banned."

Read again: "... fight it out ... until one side is banned". As a member of "a local faction armed only with undefeatable tenacity" I feel really offended.

How can these words be written by an administrator, and, especially, by the user who initiated the WP:ARBMAC? Is this the spirit of Wikipedia? Is this how we work and express ourselves here? I think the least Fut could do is to declare that he did not mean what his words say.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)