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

User:Wikifan12345's personal attacks on Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2009

There has been a ongoing discussion on this talk page between myself, Wikifan12345, O Fenian, GeorgeWilliamHerbert, SeanHoyland and Seb az86556 about whether classifying incidents as terrorist without a supporting source is orginal research or not. I'll be honest -- I proposed significant changes that have been met with criticism (and some support); however I have continued to discuss the matter civilly and refrained from editing the article while discussions continue.

Wikifan12345, on the other hand, is disruptively repeating personal attacks against me. He keeps bringing up "Jews", arguing that I am a "manic" anti-Semite. I don't thnk my character or mental health is really relevant to the discussion.

Here are some excerpts: "Whether you believe blowing up Jews is somehow consistent with legal conflict and not terrorism is your POV "... "everything to do with his vendetta against Jews and Israel" ... "Or whether killing Jews in the Jewistan is justified under the ambiguous"..."Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews."

Nobody else on the talk page seems to agree with his attacks and he has been repeatedly warned by GeorgeWilliamHerbert to stop the personal attacks. I am tempted to just erase the personal attacks myself, but I know he would just edit war against me. I did remove some Israeli incidents from the article in ONE revert, but to interpret that as a vendetta against Jews is nonsensical. Factsontheground (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This unfortunately came to my attention after the HRW ordeal. I think Wikifan12345 is being extremely belligerent in the RfC on that talk page. But in some cases I don't think your behavior has been much better. I would suggest that both of you take a break for a little while as the "terrorist incidents" RfC looks completely useless for its designed purpose and more like a war zone. I am not an admin so I can take no action, but for the moment it seems that tempers are way too heated to be productive. Awickert (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not angry but I have no interest in edit-warring if that is what you are suggesting. I just hope FOTG won't follow me to the next article I edit. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Suggest speedy close. Moving legitimate content dispute to an ANI is dubious. FOTG has been following me around since last week, to BBC and HRW. I accused him of being "manically obsessed" with Jews and Israel because he edit-warred out almost all of the incidents in Israel without a single post in talk. 1 2, 3, 4, 5, and that is just a sample. History of edits at 2009.

• The summaries were lacking, with rationales like "Source does not categorize incident as a terrorist attack." In fact, more than half of the sources explicitly referred to the acts as terrorist incidents. I mean, he removed a incident that involved an Al-Qaeda cell. Can we all agree Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization? :D

• Then when I reverted the page back to a non-dispute state and ask that he explain his edits more thoroughly in discussion, he edit-warred again and accused me of original research.

• Even after I posted the source and copied/pasted direct text, he still denies the sources referred to the incidents as acts of terrorism. Then he whipped out the civility card when I called him on it.

Real mature. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The content dispute is a separate issue. This is about a behavioral dispute. Anger or no, comments like "real mature" are vindictive, and likely to score you negative brownie points here. Now if you are suggesting that FOTG is being very WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and is wikistalking to push your buttons, that's another matter. The content dispute can stay on the RfC on the page, but I don't think I'll have any argument when I say it's going nowhere, so this is to handle the behavioral issues and get things back on track. Hopefully. Awickert (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As a number of people have agreed on the talk page and elsewhere, the article should only list incidents that are described as terrorism by a reliable source. Although it may appear obvious to you that an incident is terrrorism, that is not how Wikipedia works. Addition need to be supported by a source or justified on the discussion page. And I can't believe you are still complaining about edits I made a week ago! They have long since been reverted (by you and others) and the discusssion has moved on.

You seem to think that instead of participating in the discussion you can derail everything by continually attacking me.

Factsontheground (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Also the so-called "Al Qaeda" cell was actually belonging to the Janud Ansar Allah organization as the reference [states http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1244371116416]. Factsontheground (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

They updated the posting, it originally referred to the group as belonging to a Al-Qaeda cell. Either way, it is still a terrorist attack as confirmed by the article. But when "Al-Qaeda" was painted all over the article last month, you still removed it. You simply did not read the article and deleted everything remotely Jewish.

Also, The Jerusalem Post is a reliable source. Most of the edits you removed described the incident as acts of terrorism, and yet you continue to deny this. A couple hours ago I restored only some of the edits that were 100% confirmed and obvious, but there are a couple others but should be debated - not viciously warred out. It is rather odd for you to suddenly feel a sense of emotional distress when you've routinely cast me as a troll, pro-Israel warrior, POV-commander, etc...etc...Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to continue the content dispute here. It's not the place for it. All I want is for your personal attacks on the talk page to stop.

So far you haven't even admitted that your behaviour has been wrong in any way. I don't think you have any insight into why people find it offensive when you continually accuse them of being "obsessed with Jews". Factsontheground (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you for real? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place for this issue. AN/I is not a part of the DR process. IronDuke 14:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

From looking at the RFC on the article talk page it seems that FOTG's complaints about personal attacks have some basis (though some of the quotes would need diffs to substantiate them); and Wikifan's response seems to be aggression, not regret or discussion or understanding. Besides those FOTG mentioned, Wikifan repeatedly calls him a vandal and claims he "manically removed" sources, even bolding "manically". And his general attitude on the page is confrontational, rather than seeking a resolution. Rd232 ^talk 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, in case there was any doubt about what Wikifan meant by those comments about FOTG in relation to Jews and Israel, a week ago in relation to the same dispute he wrote "It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda." (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#Factsontheground removing terrorist attacks aimed at Jews and Israeli soldiers - List of terrorist incidents, 2009). Which WP:ANI let slide, despite the blatant violation of WP:NPA. Rd232 ^talk 19:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing new apparently

I don't know anything about this particular dispute but this is not the first time Wikifan12345 has engaged in unacceptable behavior as part of such a dispute. Not long ago I was having a hard time dealing with this editor myself and tried getting help on another board. See Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive67#User:Wikifan12345. Perhaps both editors need warnings but Wikifan12345 may need mentorship or something similar.PelleSmith (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

AN/I and similar are littered with reports about this user, as any regular viewer of these boards can attest. Perhaps it is about time to consider larger sanctions, as polite warnings do not seem to be getting through. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Pelle smith, like most of the users here, had a major content dispute and what warring CAIR beyond belief. He removed every single one of my edits, and then he accused me of being a troll for question his massive deletion of material with dubious summaries (OR, undue). I have since left the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment—Whether Wikifan was out of line or not, it is important not to give immunity to the editor who started this ANI, who has also been engaged in highly disruptive behavior, and has also tried to bring a content dispute into this ANI post (inappropriate). I suggest giving a more thorough examination of both users' editing patterns, instead of focusing on a single editor. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the content dispute - I wandered over there as an uninvolved admin and at this point, we have multiple uninvolved admins reviewing, pushing back on both sides and looking for a best policy / best content solution.

I will leave to other admins a review of both primary parties' behavior here and there (and recommend both be reviewed). I prefer to either deal with a content / policy problem or a user / policy problem, but not both aspects of the same incident, to avoid COI on either side. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its appropriate for a comparison to be made between these two users. Wikifan has a block log that is quite shockingly long for such a short time editing here and the use of personal attacks constitutes his primary mode of communication. Every time he is brought to the board, there are editors who try to deflect attention from his behaviour by calling for a more thorough examination of the complainant. Not right. Not right at all. Tiamut^talk 20:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Almost all the blocks are from edit-warring, and mostly came to be as a result of involved parties reporting me. It really cannot be applied here IMO. ChriO has his sysops removed because he had a major COI and was blocking several editors at Israel and the apartheid analogy with little warning. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are the one who steps over the line, it doesn't matter who reported you; you were at fault for violating editing guidelines. And I believe ChrisO resigned the admin the bit in the wake of the Macedonia2 ArbCom case. It had nothing to do with the article on Israeli apartheid. Tarc (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I would support trying to do something about Wikifan. His editing and use of sources is poor, he reverts constantly, and filibusters on talk pages, making normal editing close to impossible on whatever page he's working on. When thwarted, he reverts to insults. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been suggested more than once that there should be an WP:RFC/U on Wikifan's conduct (including here, less than two weeks ago - Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive67#User:Wikifan12345). Based on the history at ANI, and his block log, and my personal interaction with him in a couple of places, I think that's certainly warranted. Rd232 ^talk 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

They don't have grounds when FOTG mercilessly edit-wars out everything remotely Jewish/Israel exclusively with dubious summaries, then call me a POV warrior when I point out his summaries did not match the content of the source. FOTG has a serious issue with Jews and Israel and it is very very offensive. He's call me a troll, POV-warrior, and even implied I was member of the Israel lobby. Also, he is following me around to articles I've been editing and warring those additions too. Rd, I know you mean well but this is a COI because me and you have had serious content disputes before. Has anyone considered perhaps this is an an attempt to steamroll an unpopular user out of the List of terrorist incidents, 2009. The article has boiled down to me and FOTG, so if I'm gone he can once again remove all my edits at-will. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

So, you think that: "if I'm gone he can once again remove all my edits at-will". But then, if he isn't the sole editor left if you are gone, how come not a single other editor will defend your edits? Count Iblis (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Uh?

• A) All the editors here have been involved in past disputes both content and personal.

• B) None of these users except for FOTG are involved in the List of terrorist incidents, 2009 except for R2 who came much later.

• C) You just dismissed everything else I wrote above.

• D) FOTG reported me for edit-warring without even notifying me, and that went no where here I just discovered that today..

• I also submitted an ANI on FOTG with similar complaints regarding his approach to the article. To say this ANI is genuinely about behavior is naive at best and dishonest at worst.

I suggest a speedy close and returning back to the content dispute at the original article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So all the editors commenting on your behavior here are just doing so in bad faith because they have been on the other side of a content dispute with you? Likewise any notion that the specific issue reported first above has anything to do with behavior is unfounded because really this is just a content dispute? If you truly believe that version I strongly suggest mentorship at the very least because you really don't seem to get what about your behavior is inappropriate.PelleSmith (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith? No, but this is not unique for ANI Pelle. And considering I lodged an edit-warring report against you (one of my first ever), then you posted an etiquette notice (after you called me a troll), and now you are here endorsing sanctions against a user you've had considerable differences with....certainly does not resonate faith-wise. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I may have come into this too late to see the build-up. I consider this genuinely about behavior. Wikifan may think that this is naive, that I am somehow furthering a conspiracy against him. I do not see it that way. Right now, the amount of non-content-related material on the talk page at "terrorist incidents" is unproductive and therefore intolerable. In spite of not being an admin, I would be in favor of, for fairness sake, week-long topic bans for both Wikifan and FOTG on Israel-related content so that real work can actually be done. As I see it there is waste-of-time drama unfolding there and here. (As for previous contact, I have only been involved in mediating HRW recently, so I can say I am pretty uninvolved overall.) Awickert (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Did I say conspiracy? No, I did not. I don't understand why you would be personally comfortable with a week-long topic ban when you admit being "pretty uninvolved overall." This is my impression: "Yeah, I don't know these two users and can't say I've been very involved but clearly something's up so let's just ban em' both." :D I would never call for such a punishing act if I didn't have at least a general experience beyond "uninvolved." Maybe it's just me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, one of the main problems in the ANI has been that so many involved editors made comments about who should be blocked. We definitely need more uninvolved editors to comment, and whether or not you approve of Awickert's suggestion, it is a welcome step towards resolving this. Hopefully more uninvolved administrators comment here and give their opinions. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

True that. I interpreted Awicket's "uninvolved" description as unaware. As if he simply skimmed through the complaints and applied natural deductive reasoning that unfortunately was not consistent with objectivity. Or perhaps I'm downright guilty and this is a zealous game of mental gymnastics - an argument that is easily made and difficult to refute. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Formal mentorship

I have talked to Wikifan12345 about this ANI and it appears that he supports, in principle, formal mentorship. I therefore recommend that, whatever decision is taken on this particular ANI, an uninvolved user/administrator takes it up to mentor Wikifan. Any volunteers? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

To be explicit, I strongly support mentorship as an alternative to sanctions or if need be, accompanying whatever potential "punishment" is applied. This, of course, assuming the punishment is not a totally unconditional topic-ban which would likely void the need for a mentor in the Israel/Palestine subject matter. Unless, of course, the mentor is simply for behavioral-improvements and not party to a specific genre of knowledge. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

A 1RR restriction for a few months could also work. If you can revert only once, you have to argue more on the talk page to find support for your edits. Making other editors angry on the talk page would be counterproductive. Also, when editing in the article, your best strategy to get your edits stick shifts toward editing in texts that are likely to be acceptable to people with other POVs. Count Iblis (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how well that'll work, but at least it's easy and doesn't involve finding a mentor and taking up their time (and Wikifan is hardly a weekend editor). Rd232 ^talk 16:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support mentorship if one is willing to take their time. My suggestion above was preventative, not punative, as such bans are supposed to be. I actually spent quite a bit of time reading (not skimming) in detail the various back-and-forths. I suggested the short topic ban for both parties because I saw next to 0 productivity in what seemed to be dominated by a giant brawl, and I thought one way to increase the signal/noise would be to take a break. My only feeling is that the talk pages should return to effectiveness. If mentorship is a more acceptable way to do so, then that should work well too. 1RR may also work, though I'm not sure that it will end the talk page mess. I think that what is needed is a commitment from Wikifan (and others) to WP:NPA and to not respond to personal attacks but rather to continue forging ahead on the content. (As a side note, Wikifan above disqualifies all editors from commenting; those involved are too involved, and those uninvolved are too unaware; someone has to do something!) Awickert (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively FOTG and Wikifan could collaborate to rewrite the lede for Julia Set so that it's less hopeless. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

1RR without other remedies will only worsen what SlimVirgin aptly called "filibustering" on talk pages. In my brief and recent experience with Wikifan this is the worst part. Repetitive arguments which usually amount to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If one doesn't respond on the talk page it seems like an unaware onlooker might think one is mindlessly reverting. Complete disruption and a total time drain.PelleSmith (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In my (limited) experience of Wikifan12345, he has come across more as an aggressive, tendentious crank rather than a useful editor. We've seen this editor being brought to AN/I repeatedly; the same kind of issues come up again and again. He seems to have learned nothing from these repeated AN/I discussions. His unwillingness or inability to change his approach makes me think that mentorship is unlikely to be effective. I would suggest blocking him and moving on - he's taken up far too much of other people's time already. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly constructive. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh? -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan's thoughts here read like a buy-out: apologise so as not to get a punishment. Great. -DePiep (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean, more correct: here -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The thought of users who have a strong bias (outside of the one that is not "involved), users whom I have lodged complaints against and vice-versa, users who have taken part in bitter disputes involving teams of editors, and users who have demanded banishment before would no doubt express glee at the thought of removing an editor who they rountinly disagree with out of the equitation. Lest we forget, the fact that I submitted a similar ANI against FOTG not-so-long-ago about his wholesale removal of almost every Israel/Jewish incident at List of terrorist incidents, 2009 should raise suspicions over a counter-ANI. I have no problem with mentorship and collaborative process, but in my opinion this is nothing less than a bandwagon. Take me away I guess. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan wrote: Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews.". Why do ëven admins faal back to the "you-too" talk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DePiep (talk • contribs) 22:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, FOTG is manically obsessed with Israel and Jews. He unilaterally warred out almost every incident about Israel and Jews, even those that were clearly of terrorist-nature. And when I restored what I perceived to be vandalism or premature deletion, and ask that he provide a thorough reasoning for his wholesale deletion, he accused me of being troll, pov warrior, etc...etc...etc. This is consistent with his behavior in other articles. So fishing for diffs that users might interpret the wrong way if they aren't fully aware of the discussion is suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan: no one is to be accused of anti-Semitism freely. You wrote the offensife line. Go away. (To be clear: why do editors and even admins here always end up: second chance? After ten?) -DePiep (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Manically obsessed with Jews/Israel does not = antisemitism. Call a spade a spade. Viciously deleting everything Jewish/Israel with bogus summaries, then edit-warring to ensure that the content remains deleted, while continuing to deny wrong-doing in talk strikes me as a manic obsession that is not consistent with policy or reality. I'm sorry if that's "out of line." Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You wrote "manically obsessed" (with whatever). That's a disqualification beforehand. Then do not start reasoning afterwards. -DePiep (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think if Wikifan wants/is willing to accept formal mentorship, the piling-on, especially by editors who have diametrically opposed POVs to Wikifan's, should stop now. IronDuke 22:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No offense IronDuke but this does not in any way sound like someone who "wants/is willing to accept formal mentorship." And then there is the fact that a fair amount of the commentators above also don't believe mentorship is going to solve the problem. Wikifan's own attitude only makes one wonder if they aren't correct.PelleSmith (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently wrong with that post. I don't see how users who are active in on-going disputes (such as Pelle and R2), some of the disputes which have ended up pouring into noticeboards (OR noticeboard, edit-warring noticeboard, etiquette, etc...submitted by both Pelle and myself) should be allowed such a strong voice. I am very open to some kind of mentorship, but from my POV I'd say users like FOTG are in much dire need of assistance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"nothing inherently wrong" with your post??? You still don't get it. Your posts are wrong. Just stop insulting editors, and from there you may talk. Maybe other too -- but stop it yourself. Not a "strong voice", insulting is what I say. Stop it. -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticizing an editors edits is not insulting. It is certainly that users can have a manic obsession with Israel and Jews, and unfortunately FOTG is one of those users. You aren't recognizing or even remotely addressing the actions of FOTG, for good reason perhaps.

No, criticizing is not insulting. Stating "manic obsession" is insulting, and personal only, and not relevant to the article at all. Drop it. -DePiep (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Coming from someone who believes that the Israel-Palestinian articles on wikipedia are dominated by a cabal of "organised, agendised Hasbara." FOTG has a manic obsession and whether or not you misconstrue that as "insulting" is of no importance. He has major issues and it is seen in his mindless reverting of everything remotely Israel. He follows me to articles I work on and reverts my edits, and then harasses me on those articles. So please, who is the victim here? I'm trying to be as cordial as I can be but FOTG has been given a free pass for far to long. And then posting an ANI to save face, well...that's not unique for wiipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No one can speak from experience about your behavior unless they have witnessed it. Isn't it odd that while many such editors think this behavior is a problem no one has come here to say that they are wrong and that you have been behaving as a reasonable Wikipedian? The closest thing to support from a third party here has been "be fair and look at the other guy's behavior too," or "OK already Wikifan says he's willing to accept mentorship." Despite this you continually act like the real problem is with the supposed "cabal" of editors whose are only related to each other because of their negative interactions with you. Meanwhile people become less and less inclined to believe you will be able to change your ways at all. Keep it up.PelleSmith (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Pelle, I lodged an edit-war report against you when you started owning CAIR (and ownership that has been confirmed by other users). I also posted a noticeboard incident requesting a fact-check on how you continually edited-out all my additions with "original research" when the content was thoroughly cited. I don't see why I should have to sit here and be lectured by editors who have a compromising history. I'm open to mentorship, but dismiss all of this bandwagoning as pure harassment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And your numerous disruptive reports at various noticeboards resulted in what exactly? Must be a cabal at work.PelleSmith (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

OR inquire was never responded because you hijacked it, and the edit-warring ANI should have succeeded but as several users confirmed, its lack of response can be sourced from the personal feelings of the over-seeing admin. This ANI is the poster child for disruption. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, can I ask you, just for the next few posts, not to focus at all on other editors, but only on yourself? Is there anything you feel you have done inappropriately in the course of editing Wikipedia, either in terms of the way you handle content, or the way you interact with others? Where do you feel you could have done better? Which issues do you feel a mentor could usefully help you with? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, like every user on Wikipedia. A mentor could help me navigate through Wikipedia bureaucracy, as many editors are very skilled at doing. Avoiding blocks, relying on civil POV-pushing, moving content disputes to ANIs, etc..etc. SlimVirgin, remember when you edit-warred at 1948 Palestinian exodus, removed all my additions, and threatened to send me to ArbComb if I don't heed to your demands? Then I was blocked for a week after I unknowingly reversed your reverts when you submitted an edit-war report. That was a carefully crafted strategy and I've watched many users do it to each other, and it's rather depressing. But to answer your question with all sincerity, I would hope a mentor could help me cite policy in-talk more competently. Maybe carve a slightly better tactful approach to discussion, even in the midst of heated and hostile debate. Normal stuff I guess. It's difficult to assess myself under the current circumstances and what I consider to be an extremely bad faith ANI. If this were closed, I would feel a lot more comfortable discussion mentorship. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship won't work if you won't take responsibility for anything. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this thread increasingly illustrates why 1RR probably won't work, and why a WP:RFC/U is needed (that structure would discussion room to breathe, without Wikifan responding to every comment by attacking somebody (generally the author)). Rd232 ^talk 08:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you haven't noticed this ANI has nothing to do with edit-warring, so hats to ya. Second, this bandwagon, a bandwagon started by a certified-troll as demonstrated in his approach @ the pertinent article and wikihounding - started the ANI. I'm more than open to mentorship etc. but you are asking for blood in a bad-faith and unfair circumstances. If you dismiss my assessments of this forum as "attacking" well okay. Also, for accuracies sake, the title should be changed to, "Reasons why Wikifan needs to go." Otherwise, the current charter is, for the most part, largely false.

Cliffnotes: FOTG made a dubious claim of personal attacks, but sifting through the discussion you will find just the opposite. Anyways, commence banishment! :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If y'all need a totally uninvolved, experienced user for a mentorship, I'd be happy to help out. I only stumbled upon this conversation because I can't sleep and have no prior dealings with Israel related articles or any of the editors involved here. I do have experience dealing with conflict in my own areas of interest. Cheers, Gimme danger (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been on WP long enough to act as a mentor. However, if Wikifan needs an open ear he should know that he can call on me to provide a comment at any time and I will do my best to be as helpful as possible.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

More Uninvolved Admins

While I'm not sure it is necessary it might be nice to hear from an additional admin or two who have not had any run-ins with Wikifan yet.PelleSmith (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see this ANI be led by users who haven't expressed a personal dislike or have been the subject of ANIS/reports etc. submitted by myself. Pelle has taken an unusually strong interesting in keeping this alive, perhaps because of our on-going dispute at Council on American-Islamic Relations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is truly odd. I'm asking for your sake, because you keep on claiming that everyone commenting here has a vendetta against you.PelleSmith (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not claiming that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Pelle, I think it would be useful if you stopped antagonizing Wikifan here. You may not intend to, but it is obviously having that effect. You've had your say, more gasoline does not need to be poured on. IronDuke 03:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A general comment

At the risk of straying from the immediate problem, I would like to point out that the kind of vicious conflicts we see here are inherent in the way the Wikipedia is edited and the way the Five Pillars are interpreted in conflict areas. This is a clear case of narrative war, with each side incapable of seeing neutrality as defined by the other side. In the Middle East, there is no neutral point of view.

What is more, the word "terrorism" is editorial wherever it appears. That a reliable source refers to an incident as terrorism does not make it so. Reliable sources have POVs just like everyone else.

Because of the way NPOV and RS are applied in Middle East articles, conflict of this type is inevitable. The warring parties are not to blame. The system is to blame.

To avoid these conflicts, then, requires a radical rethinking of how to apply the five pillars in conflict situations. I suggested such an approach in User:Ravpapa/The Politicization of Wikipedia, and would love to see a serious attempt to experiment with the ideas proposed there. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

All due respect Ravpapa, when the same user is having the same problems over and over it no longer is just "the system". Now Wikifan will likely say I am only here because of content disputes with him, but I do not plan on arguing for his banning. But a bit of history should be made clear. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive534#User:Wikifan12345, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive33#User:Wikifan12345_and_User:Brewcrewer, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive532#User:Wikifan12345, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive515#Some_wikihounding_going_on. Above he pretty much says he would like a mentor to teach him how to wikilaywer more effectively, I think that would be a disaster. What he needs is to keep from writing anything about others motives or beliefs. It really is that simple, if he does not keep trying to call others "manically obsessed with Jews" or "antisemites" or other such insults he would not be here over and over. I have no idea about FOTG, I didnt look at the talkpage in question. But WF needs to do one of 2 things at this point. Either stop making such allegations to other users, or provide some actual evidence of racist editing. One of the two editors should be blocked, either for editing in an antisemitic manner or for making repeated false accusations of antisemitism. But wikifan cannot be allowed to continue saying these things without proving them. nableezy - 15:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

All due respect Nableezy, it is pretty obvious that most if not all the editors speaking up against Wikifan are very active pro-Palestinian editors. Ravpapa has a very good point about the system not working well when you have a content/narrative war like in IP. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I have content/narrative disagreements/wars with a lot of people, but it doesn't lead to ANI. There is a pattern of consistent personal attacks and bad faith assumptions peppering most of Wikifan's talk page commentary, and an inability to acknowledge its problematic. People shouldn't be asked to overlook that because there's a raging ethnic conflict in the background. Tiamut^talk 21:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Without talking about Wikifan specifically, it's pretty obvious that in this kind of dispute most of the people pushing for sanctions are those on the other side of the content/narrative war. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually what's pretty obvious is that even those who share Wikifan's views can't defend his behaviour; and can only defend him by attacking the motives of others and generally deflect away from the issue of Wikifan's behaviour. Rd232 ^talk 04:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But this thread is "about Wikifan specifically" and not about some general IP narrative war (which I take no part in personally btw). So why are people incapable of speaking specifically in defense of Wikifan's behavior as opposed to simply trying to deflect the discussion? To reiterate Tiamut's point, major disagreements, some of which are very deep and very old, are an everyday reality here at Wikipedia but they usually don't end up at AN/I. When they do there is almost always a behavior problem that goes beyond content disputes -- whether the problem is with the person being grilled or conversely with the person abusing the noticeboards (or both). Either way, a discussion here signals something beyond a content dispute.PelleSmith (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't take part in IP but you didn't arrive here clean of prejudice, did you? Anyway, Ravpapa made a general comment (see section header) and I was addressing that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, this ANI was posted by a textbook troll who warred out every incident he didn't like and when I called him on it, he went on and on and on about how I'm an agent of Zion. Seriously? Now FOTG has been hounding me at BBC and Human Rights Watch, and a couple other articles warring out all my edits with little reasoning. And now an ANI? No editor has recognized this. I said FOTG was manically obsessed with Jews and Israel several times - I meant it and it wasn't an attack but simply an accurate assessment of his editing approach. He removed 9+ incidents exclusively about Jews, reverted anyone who dared touch his edits, and then started a nice long dispute about how we should re-define what is a terrorist incident to exclude Israel. Yes I'm obviously partial here but he came off extremely combative and very, very offensive. I posted an ANI but it was assessed as a content dispute and not a behavioral problem. It's not like FOTG has been the nicest editor to ever exist. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, you don't get to decide what is or isn't attack. Calling someone manically possessed is a comment on the editor, not the editing. If they have a problem with it, you have offended them. Of course, "textbook troll" is much more clean-cut. Like before, I'm not saying that FOTG's hands are clean either, but you are certainly digging yourself into a pit. If you can leave diffs below (I made a space), perhaps this can go ahead with more sanity, and we can stop being "unaware" and start dealing with the full issue. Awickert (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay? Have you read through the talk discussion and looked the page history? He raided the article, maliciously axed out almost everything Jewish/Israel, warred any further attempts to add similar incidents, created long disputes that had little to no relevance, and accused me of being a member of the pro-Israel lobby, POV-pusher, troll, etc. He has a major issue with Jews and it is very, very offensive. If I were to go into Islam and remove every mention of "Mohamed," I'd expect a similar, or perhaps even violent reaction. So I sincerely apologize if I was out of line and will make an effort to be more tactful. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my comments were not meant as a defense or excuse for Wikifan. People need to take responsibility for their actions. I was only pointing out that where there is a leaky pipe, there is wood rot. You can cut out and replace the wood, but if you want to really stop the rot, you need to fix the pipe. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think Wikipedia should recognize that regular sources are not so reliable when it comes to this conflict. So, one can impose a restriction on the type of sources that can be admitted. E.g. one could decide that only peer reviewed academic articles written by historians can be used as a source. Count Iblis (talk) 13:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admins please comment

Uninvolved admins please comment on what sanctions may be appropriate.

OK, I've had enough. It's not enough that no-one is willing to defend Wikifan's behaviour, which encompasses comments such as "It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda." (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#Factsontheground removing terrorist attacks aimed at Jews and Israeli soldiers - List of terrorist incidents, 2009). Now Wikifan's continuing attempt to derail this ANI discussion by attacking others and doing everything except discussing his own behaviour (eg insisting that this discussion I hatted is constructive) demonstrates such a WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behaviour that it makes me believe that a substantial sanction is required. I find it hard to believe that mentoring will be successful. I find it hard to believe that 1RR (which somebody proposed) will achieve anything either. Frankly, I'm rapidly reaching the view that Wikipedia - certainly on topics where Wikifan cannot play well with others - is simply better off without this particular 14-year old (User:Wikifan12345/About). Disclosure: I've had previous run-ins with Wikifan and we also have opposing views. Rd232 ^talk 15:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

We have to try mentorship or 1RR (or a combination) first. If that fails then we can raise that here again. If a 1RR or 0RR is imposed, then Wikifan will know that the only way he can edit wikipedia is by cooporating with other editors. If Wikifan insults someone, then he'll only hurt himself. So, there is no need to make a lot of fuss about that. Count Iblis (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive criticism. So I guess that settles it? This certainly isn't an attempt to remove an editor you are currently in a content dispute with at not 1, but 2 articles. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, I only reverted one edit to the BBC article by you a few days ago. I checked your recents edits to get an idea of the nature of the dispute and I saw an edit to the BBC article which had been vanadalized by an anon (not you). I also saw that your edit was problematic and I reverted that too because it gave far too much weight to a minor argument about Hamas.

Now, I don't care much about the wiki articles on Israel/Palestine anymore (I was involved there until 2 years ago), because they are not reliable anyway. So, I was not going to revert other edits by you that I found problematic. But I found to be BBC case to be different because I think the wiki article on BBC has more value than the Israeli/Palestinian articles. I stuck to one revert which more or less reverted to the consensus reached on the talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

CountIblis: The WP:NPA policy clearly states that nobody should have to put up with being insulted and vilified on Wikipedia. Wikifan12345's continual attacks against me have not only derailed discussions that I've been involved with, they have soured my whole experience of Wikipedia. So, no, Wikifan12345 _is_ hurting other people than himself as he continues his campaign of harassment. And, no, 1RR or mentorship is not nearly enough, particularly as he fails to admit he has done anything wrong and seems to think that being mentored is just an opportunity to improve his wikilawyering skills. Factsontheground (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Diffs

I would like to invite Wikifan and FOTG to place various annotated diffs that they find problematic in an orderly manner below. Having the two involved editors line up their complaints seems like the most straightforward way to comprehensively deal with the issue. Having the diffs lined up will also make it easier for uninvolved editors to comment comprehensively. Awickert (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, so we are supposed to sift through the bloated talk discussion and post questionable diffs like this is a courtroom? This is must be a trap. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, this is a way for us to actually come to a decision instead of being "unaware" or not seeing the big picture. This is me giving you the benefit of the doubt that there are things that FOTG did that were out of line before, that caused your uncivil reaction. Or, we can go the RfC route where the posting of diffs is formalized. Your choice. But for now, if the involved editors are not willing to put the work in to present their case, I don't see why anyone else should waste their time here. Awickert (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Okay I've just seen this before and competing editors end up enumerating every diff to demonstrate cause of action. Diff's themselves can take issues out of context. I'm not on trial here Awickert, and as I've said the motivations for this ANI were bad and the context was abhorrent. I won't be on wikipedia for the next 3-5 days for travel-reasons but I'll try to sneak in intermittently. thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks on User:Factsontheground by User:Wikifan12345 -- can an uninvolved admin please comment on this or take action

• [1] "all of his reverts revolved around Israel and Jews."..."The fact the FOTG edits were blatant vandalism and now he gets to dictate the rubric of terrorism is truly disturbing."

• [2] FOTG's wild deletion of every Jew/Israel incident under false summaries, and then refusing to concede after I copied and pasted the references that explicitly refer to the incidents as acts of terrorism. It was a gross abuse of editing privileges and to target all things Jewish is doubly offensive.

• [3] This is all totally irrelevant is avoiding the true fact that FOTG viciously and obsessively edited out ALL incidents on Israel and Jews with the same basic summary, 5 of which have proven to be false. The fact that he totally wiped out incidents because a source was dead instead of simply finding a new one proves this has little to do with terrorism and everything to do with his vendetta against Jews and Israel.

• [4] It is offensive that you targeted strictly Jewish-related incidents.

• [5] Whether you believe blowing up Jews is somehow consistent with legal conflict and not terrorism is your POV

• [6] Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews.

• [7] FOTG aim was to remove everything Israel and Jewish, he doesn't give less of a #$#$@ about the terrorist rubric. Don't be an apologist for such a hateful user.

• [8] What FOTG has does defies logic

• [9] The discussion began because an obvious vandal decided to remove cited information and force a dispute.

• [10] So edit-warring out everything Jewish and Israel is totally cool and does not warrant administrator intervention. I guess antisemitism is protected then, sweet.

• [11] It is certainly that users can have a manic obsession with Israel and Jews, and unfortunately FOTG is one of those users.

• [12] Manically obsessed with Jews/Israel does not = antisemitism. Call a spade a spade. Viciously deleting everything Jewish/Israel with bogus summaries, then edit-warring to ensure that the content remains deleted, while continuing to deny wrong-doing in talk strikes me as a manic obsession that is not consistent with policy or reality

• [13] It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda.

another one on this noticeboard - "certified troll" [14] untwirl(talk) 23:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• [15] He has a major issue with Jews and it is very, very offensive.

Both blocked for a week

I invite uninvolved admin review, but I have just blocked both Wikifan12345 and Factsontheground for 1 week. The specific issues are:

• Mutual stalking and harrassment on multiple wiki pages
• Disruption on ANI
• Both accounts are single purpose accounts
• Miscellaneous incivility

I do not propose to include diffs; the thread above and the article talk pages referenced stand full of examples.

I would like to request independent review on 2 separate points:

1. Is the current block of each party appropriate.
2. Is the indefinite block penalty for disruptive SPAs appropriate, i.e. should we community ban these two at this point.

Thanks for any comments. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Factsontheground is asking for a block review. Uninvolved admin should take a look at this and his request... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why parity was applied to the sanctions here. I don't see parity in the community's complaints and levels of frustration with these two users. I also believe that someone other than Georgewilliamherbert should have done the blocking. George forshadowed FOTG's COI complaint himself during this very discussion. Don't get me wrong sanctions should have been applied to both of them (perhaps not blocks of equal lengths of time), but they should have been applied by someone else.PelleSmith (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Admins are not supposed to gain advantage in a content dispute by admin actions - I am opposed to one of Factsontheground's policy positions on the one article this is focused around, but I have left multiple behavioral warnings for Wikifan12345. I commented on the policy dispute as an uninvolved admin and have not taken any admin or content actions on the article, and won't now.

Having been tangled up in trying to unwrap a multiparty dispute does not disqualify one from blocking party or parties to that dispute... Often, admins have to get somewhat involved to try and untangle incidents. That doesn't mean that we can't issue warnings or block once we start to get involved. If it is a content issue, or someone we have a personal disagreement with, we should stand aside for more uninvolved admins, but neither of those is in play here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Following up PelleSmith's note about my comment above ( [16] ) more specifically - yes, I stood back from the behavioral issues over the weekend, because I had been involved in a content issue on a page with these two users. But there's a difference between "attempting to find a policy resolution for a content issue" and "trying to change content / edit a page with content specific point of view". Admins involved in the first don't have to recuse from admin enforcement - admins involved in the second have at least the apparent conflict of interest between neutrality and their content issues. I have not ever edited the article in question or related articles, and in the underlying issue (Israeli - Palestinean on-wiki conflicts) I remain an equal opportunity policy enforcer.

It's fair to ask about this - And I'm open to input if other admins strongly object - but I do not believe that I violated policy. Wikifan12345 is behaviorally a worse offender here and at least marginally worse on the article page. Both sides are clearly harrassing each other way in excess of policy, now. Factsontheground has been better at staying lower profile and more civil but has also poked in and provoked some responses; we have a more active interpretation of baiting behavior than we used to, and I believe that some of his actions fall under that.

Perhaps there's less than perfect symmetry to the provocations; if anyone wants to discuss reductions from the equal blocks, and believes that one side is significantly less at fault, feel free to propose it here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear I am not saying you violated policy. I simply think after making the comment I linked to above you should have stepped back. It also looks like your block only accounts for their incivility towards one another on the talk page of the entry you involved yourself in and not the volumes of text about Wikifan produced once discussion started. You could have blocked them both prior to this discussion for been incivil to one another on the talk page and spared us all this discussion. But now that we've spent days discussing Wikifan's history of problems, and several editors are calling for much harsher remedies this doesn't seem like a very appropriate solution anymore. That's just my opinion.PelleSmith (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As another user who has had problems with Wikifan, I would note that a fair number of administrators who have problems with him were once 'uninvolved administrators'. For example, Rd232 replied on Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei as an uninvolved admin and another uninvolved mediator was chased off by Wikifan. As with most of Wikifan's editing, the article went through an RfC, noticeboards, a third opinion, and an informal mediation. The result was a deadlock with Wikifan dissenting. How many uninvolved administrators does it take, and what happens when there simply aren't any left? Why does he have a problem with so many editors, let alone administrators?

In the interest of disclosure, I have interacted with Wikifan before, so my opinion may be completely tarnished.--76.214.144.81 (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• My one interaction with Wikifan [17] indicated that he had problems at working collegially. I'd say that his block should be longer than FOTGs here purely for the volume and quantity of incivility, but others may disagree (and no doubt will). I would suggest unblocking FOTG at this point; however I am not going to do it myself as I am going on holiday now and it wouldn't be the best idea to reverse another admin's block and then run away. Black Kite 09:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

i have avoided adding my two cents here, but seeing the repeated personal attacks by wikifan on this noticeboard (with no provocation or response in kind by fotg) forced my hand. when i saw that he called fotg a "certified troll" and no one batted an eye, i looked at the article talk page in question. not only did i not see more incivility by wikifan, i noted that fotg backed out of that conversation early on. unless the blocking admin provides diffs of fotg's offenses, i agree that he should be unblocked.
as for wikifan, his baiting, personal attacks, and tendentious wikilawyering were unacceptable. as a shining example, view this diff posted while this ani was in progress,where he responds to seanhoyland with drama-inducing hyperbole: "Whether you think the standard for terrorism is pioneer UAVs blowin up Taliban hideouts in West Pakistan or Jew Nazis blowin up Palestinians fetus's is of little relevance." sean wisely ignored it, but this editor should probably be topic banned at least if he cant keep his emotions under control. untwirl(talk) 18:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Wikifan12345 at or near the threshold for a community ban at this point? Does anyone feel that he or she would be productive in other areas with a topic ban on Israeli / Palestinean topics? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

At or near? Well beyond, IMHO. However, a topicban from I/P issues would, given Wikifan's ...narrow... focus, essentially be a community ban anyway. That being said, it would give him a chance to redeem himself. I think we'd be on a hiding to nothing there, and the community would best be served by giving him a permanent invitation to the world, but people around here tend to prefer endless last chances. I guess basically a topicban would show whether this is a problem with Wikifan, or a problem with Wikifan+I/P. → ROUX ₪ 19:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support a 6 month topic ban from Israel/Palestine related articles. I think Wikifan might be more amenable to collaboration on articles not so close to heart. Kevin (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at some of the diffs presented in this dispute, it's clear this was a conflict over a well-known point (for the fun of it, I typed in WP:TERRORIST, & guess what I found!) that spiraled out of control. I can understand why FOTG was removing the word, & why Wikifan was insisting on restoring it -- but "terrorist" is one of those words that should only be used in very clear situations: as part of a quotation, or only where all parties concerned have agreed on a clear definition of the word. But to do this all parties have to talk to each other, not at each other or past each other. If you can't talk to someone you disagree with (& is otherwise an editor in good standing) about an issue, then walk away from that issue for a while; if you can't walk away either, then you're taking those first steps towards getting banned from Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Although I agree with much of the foregoing, the policing and sanctions for breach of WP:CIVIL by individuals is inconsistent at best and unenforceable at worst. You sysops' inability to arrive at the same conclusion on two very similar cases (see below) perpetuates the perceived problems in the system. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban for User:Wikifan12345

I propose that we enact the following, note on Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions and enforce as a community ban:

User:Wikifan12345 is prohibited from editing any article or article talk page related to Israel, the Palestinean territories, or nearby Arab countries, broadly construed, for the remainder of the 2009 calendar year. If violations occur any administrator may block immediately for a month, with escalating blocks for repeat offenses.

• Proposed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Community sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support, per my comments above and with a caveat. Namely that this will amount to a de facto community ban given his specific focus, but hopefully this will give him a chance to change. The caveat being if the same behaviour continues at non-I/P articles, this topicban be immediately changed to a permanent community ban that can be revisited in one year by appeal to ArbCom or its designate (if the Appeal Committee thing takes off). → ROUX ₪ 03:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Question Would it be possible to amend the language to say something like "related to Israeli political interests broadly construed" or something else of that nature. I ask this because my own run-ins with this editor were at two entries related to the Council for American-Islamic Relations which I am not sure are directly covered by the above language. To Wikifan these entries do relate to the problem area of editing since he (and others) consider CAIR to be part of the "Anti-Israel lobby of the United States". If people think the existing language would cover entries such as these then that works for me. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Anything related to Israel, includes Israeli political interests (and if they existed, Anti-Israeli articles). Ncmvocalist (talk)`
    • Thanks for the answer and for inserting "broadly construed". This seems like a fair remedy at this point.PelleSmith (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Kevin (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support This proposal, unfortunately, does not surprise me at all. Wikifan seems quite prone to make inappropriate slights about Arabs and accuse others of anti-semitism to support his points (e.g. [18], [19],[20]). Add the information from his recent Wikiquette alert and it's quite clear this area of Wikipedia would be better off without Wikifan's involvement. -- tariqabjotu 06:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Wikifan12345 has sometimes behaved clumsily, no doubt. However, note that there are editors with an anti-Israel agenda who try to insert the most outrageous tendentious things into articles. They are very careful to stay clear of the bounds of WP's silly civility rules but beaver away tirelessly with apparently limitless time on their hands. Then when an editor blows up at them they immediately run to an admin asking for sanctions to be imposed. Please keep this in mind also. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I know there are people who edit in this area with an agenda, but that's really not the issue at hand here. Wikifan is, regardless, responsible for his actions, but in basically all of the situations mentioned here, he wasn't even provoked. -- tariqabjotu 08:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Wikifan has much to learn about following the spirit and letter of WP policy, which he is much more likely to on less difficult subjects less close to his heart. If nothing else, it'll give him a chance to live up to his username. Rd232 ^talk 08:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support I've held my tongue (actually finger I guess) for too long. It's not really his edits that I'm particularly worried about, but the very uncivil talk page interactions he undertakes and his general behavior on Wikipedia, despite numerous warnings. I think only a topic ban could finally settle this issue which is constantly(and annoyingly) surfacing on this noticeboard. Maybe after its expiration, he will change his attitude here. However, I prefer the topic ban to be limited to I-P issues versus anything that has to do with Israel (he might be able to contribute positively there). --Al Ameer son (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  I don't think that would be helpful, shifting focus from I/P to Israel. In fact it would probably be better if he stayed away from political topics altogether, at least for a while, but that's up to him. Rd232 ^talk 10:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Alternative. I have read over the debate. Wikifan blew up pretty quickly. IMO editing Wikipedia is a privilege that anyone should be able to have, but if one can't treat others with respect and instead causes drama, granting that privilege is counterproductive to the primary task of creating an encyclopedia. I would support a topic ban, not of a year, but indefinitely, until Wikifan decides to behave civilly. I would then support any re-ban if after declaring he will behave civilly, Wikifan behaves in an obviously uncivil way. Awickert (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  If Wikifan shows that he can't play well with others on other topics, the topic ban should just become a general indef ban. The topic ban is his chance to learn and if it seems that he's learned, then it's fair he gets another chance. A simple declaration under duress is worth little. Rd232 ^talk 10:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  If you're saying that if he plays well with others, his year-long topic ban may be reviewed and removed, then it is close enough to what I'm thinking that I will support. As for the "simple declaration": yes, I am the optimist, but I understand. Awickert (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - battleground mentality. PhilKnight (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - prying yet another warrior from the battlefield of the I-P topic area can only be a good thing. Let's see if he can find an area of interest to devote legitimate editing to. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - everybody does realize that any uninvolved admin can impose this sanction, per WP:ARBPIA, right? This straw poll really is not needed. As somebody who has had heated arguments with Wikifan I wont comment on the proposal, but this (the poll) seems like a waste of time. nableezy - 13:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Nableezy, there's a possibility the scope of this ban is slightly wider than a WP:ARBPIA topic ban, however I think you're probably right. Regardless, the result is essentially the same. After this ban is enacted, I'll put a note in the WP:ARBPIA log . PhilKnight (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Having decided that his behavior so far was unacceptable, we need to give Wikifan a chance to collaborate in an acceptable way. If you impose a topic ban right away for the rest of the year, then when it has expired, he won't have learned how to behave correctly (keep in mind that Wikifan is just 14 years old...). I think it would be far better to appoint a mentor who will watch over Wikifan's edits. Every time he violates, even in a very mild way, basic decency rules, he'll get strong warning. If the mentor concluced that Wikifan is not learning from these warnings, then a topic ban would be appropriate. Count Iblis (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

All we know is that he claims to be 14, but age should not be a factor here regardless. He was blocked for personal attacks and harassment soon after joining the project and once again about half a year later. I'm sure he's had numerous warnings along the road as well. He either knows the rules and is defying them, knows the rules and can't help himself, or sincerely has no idea he's doing anything wrong, in which case there is little hope. People who sincerely believe he can be reformed should work with him during his ban as informal mentors. That way, if they are right, he wont take his second chance for granted.PelleSmith (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, would you like to be his mentor? :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to AGF about the claimed age? If not, then the fact that he is so young is grounds for more optimism about him than some of the martyrs such as Malcolm Shosha and Jayjg he has recorded on his page. They were adults and should have known better. He is still at an age where people are learning about how to behave in society. Of course, one fo the first actions of a mentor will need to be to try to get him to understand why they, (let alone Tundrabuggy,) were not hard done by. If there is a mentor found then I think that the issue of a topic ban should be left in their hands. I would see learnign how to post to IP articles in a constructive way as part of what his being in mentorship would be about. Selective supervised posting to a small number of pages might be part of that.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support, with disclaimer – I've been in a conflict dispute with this user; specifically, over the article 2009 Hamas political violence in Gaza. He seemed to adopt a battleground mentality in discussion, and was fiercely defensive of the content he was trying to insert. He had an obvious intention to push a view, and the article has been problematic ever since. This behavior is apparently part of a pattern. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Ban sounds reasonable. For those saying "no, wait, let's mentor", this suggestion doesn't make much sense. If someone wants to mentor, sure, they can go right ahead, but this needs to be done concurrent with a topic ban, not instead of a topic ban. We're primarily a project to write an encyclopedia, not a project to teach children to write an encyclopedia. Teaching is nice but content comes first. Friday (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

DanaUllman

• Courtesy link to recent discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#User:DanaUllman

DanaUllman (talk · contribs) is behaving exactly as he did before the arbcom ban. (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy)

I think that one set of edits will suffice: it demonstrates his WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behaviour very well, where he'll accept something one moment, then bring it up as if evidence hadn't been provided to refute it shortly thereafter.

On the 30th, another user - not Mr. Ullman - asked about whether a study was withdrawn. The withdrawal had been linked a couple times in the thread, but you had to scroll down a bit, so I thought it worth pointing out the relevant sections:

From http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001957/pdf_fs.html [Edited slightly to restore lost formatting; Emphasis mine.]

“ Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes

Andrew Vickers1, Claire Smith2

1Integrative Medicine Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2Weston Education Centre, King’s College, London, UK

Contact address: Andrew Vickers, Integrative Medicine Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10021, USA. vickersa@mskcc.org. (Editorial group: Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group.)

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3, 2009 (Status in this issue: Withdrawn)

Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001957.pub4

This version first published online: 8 July 2009 in Issue 3, 2009.

Last assessed as up-to-date: 19 May 2006. (Help document - Dates and Statuses explained)

This record should be cited as: Vickers A, Smith C. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001957. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001957.pub4.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL
This review was withdrawn from The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2009 as the authors are currently unable to update it.

”

It's withdrawn. It says as much, three times. Sure, it's a little odd of a reason for withdrawing it, but it still makes it pretty impossible to include it here, when other, non-withdrawn papers exist. That people agreed with its inclusion before it was withdrawn three weeks ago is irrelevant now. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 183 FCs served} 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

On the 31st, DanaUllman responds to this, and a few intermittent comments:

We all seem to be a tad confused on the meaning of this "withdrawal," though the review is still listed at their website Ultimately, the homeopathy article states that there are no replications to homeopathic research, and this is now clearly inaccurate. We can cite the Cochrane Report from 2006 or 2009 or reference the Lancet's News and Notes that mentioned that the results of the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology were clinically relevant. Whig suggested a good compromise on wording, and although I'd prefer saying something else, I can live with his suggestion. DanaUllman^Talk 00:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And then today he posts:

In due respect, the Oscillo research is still very much alive on the Cochrane site: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/homepages/106568753/CD001957_standard.pdf -- It seems to be the same body of information as in the 2006 article. I cannot find evidence at their website that it has been withdrawn. Can someone else? Further, if, by chance, someone finds such a reference, we need to understand what "withdrawn" means because there has not been any new research to disprove what their previous analysis provided. Unless someone provides this information, reversion to the original reference and description is in order. DanaUllman^Talk 17:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The withdrawal - with the link to the Cochrane website - was posted, he responded to this posting, and then - in the same thread where the withdrawal is posted, he claims no evidence of the withdrawal exists.

DanaUllman was banned for a year for his tendentious editing and WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Further examples, perhaps requiring more quoting, can be found on Talk:Homeopathy, of him refusing to get a point, or trying to twist words into a concession that he can do whatever he wants.

Furthermore, this is exactly the same as behaviour that came up in the arbitration case, only worse: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#1c:_Part_i is a discussion of Ullman insisting that the findings of a study weren't retracted, even though the authors wrote of said study in 1999:

"The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis [7]. Since we completed our literature search in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials have been published. The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials (e.g. [14,15]) have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy [16]), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis [7] at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments."

Ullman claimed this wasn't a retraction as that word didn't appear. In this new situation, Ullman is claiming that the statement on the Cochrane site saying the paper is withdrawn three times doesn't mean that it's withdrawn by the Cochrane Collaboration.

Furthermore, in the middle of the Arbitration case, Ullman was topicbanned by Vassyana for insisting that Scientizzle agreed with him, despite Scientizzle telling Ullman he did not: [21].

Dana Ullman caused massive disruption for months with his tendentious editing last time. He has promptly returned to his past behaviour.

I would ask that he be community indef banned. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 19:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but I've checked his contribtutions and I endorse an indef community ban. Behavior like this is totally unacceptable. --Tenant23 (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse indef ban as one of the editors that has to untangle all the misrepresentations of sources, and who helped in getting the first ban. At least topic ban him from anything homepathy-related, because of his huge COI as a full-time homeopath who writes books and articles saying that homeopathy is scientifically proven. Notice that all Homeopathy-related articles are under probation, so please some uninvolved admin review Talk:Homeopathy and issue a topic ban so at least we can work in peace. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Temporary action and note. Under the discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom, I am imposing a two-week ban from the homeopathy topic area across all namespaces, broadly construed, including userspace and user talk pages. This should not be construed to prohibit Dana Ullman from responding to conduct reports and complaints regarding him. Additionally, I have advised Shoemaker's Holiday about short-term repeated complaints about the same issue (the last ANI closed barely a week ago) and about his failure to inform Dana Ullman of either thread. The apparent battlefield mentality on both sides is highly disruptive to the project. The topic ban is meant to be a temporary measure, thus its short duration. If Dana Ullman cannot accept the problematic nature of his approach and/or is unwilling to focus on other areas where he does not get carried away, I regretfully endorse a community ban. I would consider this his last chance to reconsider and reflect on his conduct. I do not expect endless last chances to be extended, as we have seen so many other times (including for this editor). If necessary, I will utilize the discretionary sanctions to impose the maximum one year block in order to prevent further disruption to the wiki. --Vassyana (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• As far as my current understanding goes, this is a substantially different situation from the previous one involving the word "retraction". Take the following with a grain of salt because I am simply repeating what came out in the discussion on the homeopathy talk page and have not tried to confirm it independently (I'm a bit handicapped by traveling): The old case was about the authors of a study later saying that the study was probably wrong. Whether they used the word "retract" or not, that's clearly a valid reason not to use the study. The present case is about a study that appeared in the "Cochrane library". Apparently this is a repository for up-to-date, high-quality medical studies. If the authors are unable to publish a new version of their study every X years, then it is removed from the library. This is what happened here. The authors "withdrew" the study because they cannot keep up with the literature. This is something that would not have happened if the study had simply been published in a prestigious journal of the normal kind. Note the wording "Status in this issue: Withdrawn" etc.

The lead of Homeopathy currently claims that (not: almost all of) the few positive findings of effects beyond placebo have not been replicated. If I understand things correctly that's not technically true because the study from 2006 that was removed from the Cochrane libraryin 2009 for a purely technical reason indicates that one of the positive findings is replicable. In my opinion the relevant language in the lead is still OK. That's because I am generally fine with little white lies in the lead, so long as they are explained further down. But here Dana's opponents insist on both leaving the lead as it is and not even mentioning the caveat in the body. That's at least borderline disingenuous, and it seems odd to take Dana's ineffective attempts to get the situation changed as a reason for a ban.

If you want to ban Dana because he is an undiplomatic, ineffective advocate of homeopathy who, instead of causing the changes to the article that he desires, merely brings out the worst in his opponents, then by all means do so. But don't pretend it's for a different reason that makes no sense. Hans Adler 05:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)To be explicit, my imposition of the ban is simply based on recurring patterns. It is not based on any particular argument about content violations or related concerns. The plain fact of the matter is that DanaUllman's current mode of interaction, including misrepresentation and statements ignoring ignoring valid discussion points (popularly referred to as "IDIDNTHEARTHAT"), is the same scheme of conduct that lead to previous sanctions. I am saddened that he is returning to these old patterns, as his expertise and topic knowledge could be valuable. However, in order for that value to be realized, he needs to accept the impact of his conduct and make a serious course correction. --Vassyana (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe Vassyana could be more specific. Please tell us what we should avoid in the discussion - exactly. Which behavior is disruptive so we can avoid it. Give us 2 diffs. There is a content dispute in Homeopathy -Thanks.--JeanandJane (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• This appears to be straightforward advocacy which is discouraged by our basic conflict of interest and discussion rules. The following sections are similarly informative, with DanaUllman being obtuse (requiring another editor to puzzle out what exactly he was referring to) and appearing to represent his concerns misleadingly as a new point (the Cochrane Collaboration material has been discussed ad naseum and indeed prior to his ban DanaUlmman was involved in those discussions including about the very points he recently raised again). I know from observation that he is capable is expressing his points directly in a forthright fashion without such vague references and maquillage. Another sign that time has not changed the situation is his continual misuse of the phrase "NPOV" (such as referring to "NPOV sources"). If my point is unclear, there is no such thing as a "NPOV source". NPOV is an article measure based on the predominance of information in reliable sources, not some subjective/personal measure of objectivity or neutrality. With DanaUllman returning after such a harsh arbitration sanction, I would expect that he would take special care to familiarize himself with the expectations of our principles and practices, and especially to avoid the same patterns of conduct that lead to a ban from Wikipedia. Instead, he immediately soapboxed and engaged in tendentious debate. I hope this helps clarify why I have imposed the temporary topic ban while the community discusses how to move forward. --Vassyana (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Replying a bit more directly to the subject of your concern, it is not that difficult to avoid problematic behavior. Do not engage in general (forum-like) discussion and advocacy on Wikipedia. Do not misrepresent the content of reliable sources or the statements of other editors. Do not beat dead horses or mislead editors regarding the nature of discussions (such as whether they are novel or revisited). Be forthright in discussions and do not belabor discussion with vague points coupled with strong assertions of specific evidence. Follow these simple points and you will avoid the pitfalls that DanaUllman has experienced at this project. --Vassyana (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana: 1. The diff you gave shows that Dana referred to his point of view on BBC Horizon but very soon he moved to another subject and did not edit the article. Nothing else.I saw nothing else which could be problematic. Instead Ullman offered many reliable sources to discuss. 2. Lets give to Ullman some tiny credit.[[22]]

"The Cochrane Collaboration material has been discussed ad naseum" is incorrect. Just few days ago or so when Dana Ullman he was proposing to add a comment from the Lancet supporting the efficasy of OSCILL., the editors -they want him now banned, they were saying that the Cochrane review on OSC was a better source . Few hours later they discovered that it was withdrawn. That created confusion since it is still appearing in the Cochrane Library website.

You imposed the ban when we were discussing another issue : whether or not several papers and info from exceptional reliable sources (which express different views on the Homeopathy effectiveness and meta analyses) should be included in the article as you already have seen in the talk page.

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. It does not say to exclude the minority view especially in an article on the specific minority view (which according to the policy must be described in detail).4 editors dispute the neutrality of the article and you chose to ban Ullman ban upon request. The editors asked they same question : Is appropriate to exclude minority views on Homeopathy since they are published in many decent RS? Some editors say yes. You agree with this ? Is it appropriate to take a side in a content dispute and ban an editor? --JeanandJane (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we will have the agree to disagree on the impact and nature of DanaUllman's talk page contributions, as we obviously have very distinct perceptions of the circumstances. Moving on, if you review the history of talk page discussions in the homeopathy topic area, you will find that the Cochrane Collaboration material (including the findings in particular that DanaUllman is asserting) has been discussed on many occasions. Part of my concern is this is the same material DanaUllman was discussing (in the same tone and fashion) in the weeks leading up to the arbitration case where a full ban was imposed on him for homeopathy advocacy. Regardless, the topic ban of DanaUllman is short-term and considered a temporary measure. Discussion may lead to other uninvolved editors supporting stronger restrictions, a set of alternate editing restrictions, a full ban, or even no sanctions at all. Let us give a chance for other uninvolved admins to review the situation and comment. I'll gladly follow whatever consensus emerges. --Vassyana (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I rightfully have said and still assert (and Shoemaker’s quote helps to verify!) that the findings of Linde 1997 study were NOT retracted. Shoemaker even quotes directly in Linde’s 1999 article that the new evidence “weakens” his previous findings, but he clearly doesn’t “retract” his results…he simply found that they were less strong. The quote that Shoemaker provides is: “The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis.” The fact that Shoemaker asserts that this quote proves the Linde “retracted” his previous findings is evidence of poor scholarship or purposeful antagonism to the subject that clouds his normally rational mind.

Further evidence of Linde’s viewpoint on this subject was his strong critique of the Shang review of research.

Shoemaker is also upset that I did not see the link that he provided that “proved” that this article was withdrawn. http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001957/pdf_fs.html -- However (!), to me, this article is not available without subscription. I could NOT make certain that this article was “withdrawn” with certainty, and further, I provided solid evidence that the 2006 article was still posted at the Cochrane site…and further, that this article was also posted in 2009, issue #2.

Since my return to wikipedia, I have not done a single “edit” of an article. I have only participated in Talk pages…and obviously, my bringing up studies in major medical journals and other RS sources is disconcerting to him. Although I know that we can all sympathize with him and his POV, we all need to make an effort toward NPOV.

The other people here who are recommending sanctions against me are the usual suspects…people who are extremely active on the homeopathy article who have a long history of blocking many even mildly positive facts or information on homeopathy. Then, there are some wiki editors who are claimly to be “uninvolved” but it just so happens that they are seemingly “new” wiki editors, despite many obvious editing contributions to complex wikipedia issues (is someone a sock here?): [[23]]

I have been shown to be a civilized editor. I have been shown to provide important contributions to this discussion; however, just because I seem to provide RS references and facts that differ from Shoemaker, he makes the above complaint.

I believe strongly that my recent “topic ban” has been unfairly bestowed upon me, and instead, I urge Admins to evaluate those editors in the homeopathy article who are showing clear antagonism and bias to the subject and are blocking NPOV information in it. DanaUllman^Talk 05:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse ban of any length, re-applied as needed. My recent experiences with him give me no confidence at all that he can be neutral about his pet subject. He'll go on indefinitely, wasting the time of other editors, if he's allowed to do so. Friday (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban from Homeopathy and related pages. Homeopathy had stabilised and was improving, but Dana has turned it into a battlefield, promoting his own work, or trying to get wikipedia articles to agree with his published work. Doesn't seem to have learned anything from his block. Verbal chat 16:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• endorse ban Clearly doesn't understand WP:BATTLE. Having him edit these pahes is detrimental to the construction of an encyclopedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, all of this antimosity against me despite the fact that I have not edited a single article, have a history of being a civil editor, and have a history of referencing high-impact medical and scientific journals. I have no intent to have wikipedia repeat anything that I've written elsewhere, even various peer-review articles and book chapters. I only have a desire to submit information that seems accurate, reliable, and up-to-date. It seems that most of the above people who want me banned have content issues with me or are friends of those who do... It is not my intention to battle (at all). My intent is to collaborate...I hope that some admins look at my recent short contributions to the Talk pages and see for yourself (and please see context too). Humbly... DanaUllman^Talk 22:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please do something. After a year's ban, Mr. Ullman started right back up with the identical issues (the efficacy of oscillococcinum and the 20/20 episode) that he left off with in 2008. He is unequivocally engaging in advocacy, for which he was blocked for a year by arbcom. It is clear by his statement directly above that he sees nothing at all wrong with this. Sources that he presents invariably have to be double and triple checked to be sure they say what he says they do, which they usually don't. Furthermore, dormant user (User:JeanandJane) and a new user (User:Dbrisinda), both pro-homeopathy SPAs, jumped in immediately to support Mr. Ullman and make his suggested edits to the main article. Edit warring, gross source misrepresentation, talk page filibustering, and IDIDNTHEARTHAT have ensued. The situation before his re-arrival was one of incremental and agreeable collaboration. The final straw, for me, is continuing to argue for the inclusion of a withdrawn paper, after it has been made clear that a withdrawn journal article is unusable. Topic ban him, indef him, whatever, just keep him far away from anything related to homeopathy, please. Skinwalker (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  Oppose ban. He should be given another chance to stop has disrption, because he doesn't seem to be editing in total bad faith. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 13:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse ban - this user has long since passed his use-by date. His pattern of disruptive and tendentious editing is well established. He's here to further a particular agenda, not the encyclopedia. It's time for the community to flush him once and for all. Crafty (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse ban We are not here to give people chances, we are here to write an encyclopedia. Someone does not need to act in "total" bad faith to be disruptive. We don't need people who turn this place into a battleground. Chillum 13:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose indef community ban, in case it wasn't clear from my TLDR post above. This seems way out of proportion. Arguing with Dana is frustrating and his presence at the homeopathy talk page seems unlikely to improve the article. But as in the case of Dr.Jhingaadey (just look at the groundless agitation at User talk:Avathaar) some people are going nuclear because of a perceived danger from Dana that I simply can't see. I believe any perceived disruption comes from the reactions to Dana at least as much as from what he says. It's not unreasonable to ban such an editor per putting the encylopedia above everything else. I believe the German Wikipedia might do it like this. But here? I am not currently aware of any other topic than homeopathy where a community ban would even be considered for this behaviour. Hans Adler 07:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think the problem here is limited to the subject of homoeopathy, and probably results from Dana's advocacy and his frequent COI issues there. His failure to acknowledge COI issues may also contribute to the problem. For example here, where I had drawn attention to the fact that advocating insertion of references to "Oscillococcinum" on homeopathy so that it supported an article he has written (and which had recently been republished in several places on the web) about swine flu gave him a clear COI. He responded "why does it matter what I've written off-wikipedia, and have I ever mentioned any such writings here or linked to them?" He just doesn't seem to understand the issue here. Note also that in the diff I've linked to he also implies that he hasn't cited or linked to his own articles ("have I ever mentioned any such writings here or linked to them?") despite having done so (albeit having acknowledged that it was his own website) only a week before on the same talk page; in the past he has at least once pasted material from his own site directly into an article (see this diff and this article - incidentally the reference cited in that diff appeared to mention neither William Court Gully nor George Woodyatt Hastings, despite having been cited to support a passage about their alleged antagonism). A topic ban may be appropriate. There's probably no reason for a Wikipedia-wide ban (I assume that's what is meant by "community ban"); however, since all (or almost all) of his edits have been in some way connected to homoeopathy a topic ban may amount to the same thing. Brunton (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, a topic ban on homeopathy would serve the same purpose of stopping the disruption (mind you, only under the same conditions as Vassayana's two-week topic ban above). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Brunton writes about my “frequent” COI, where he correctly sited the ONE time I referenced my own site AND where he referenced my acknowledgement of this and my assertion that it is not RS, along with my note that this link was to a personal email from Professor Ennis that provided some direct insight into the veracity of a discussion at hand. Brunton also expressed concern that my Talk contributions sometimes included some of the same references to research in which I provided in articles that I have written. In due respect, I did not reference or link my articles. Is he actually suggesting that a wiki editor who writes about a subject in a non-wiki source creates a COI if he or she writes about this subject on wiki, even when he doesn’t reference his own work? It seems that someone is either extending the definition of COI or simply selectively enforcing it.

By the way, I originally chose to edit under my real name because I seek to maintain high ethics in my life and being transparent seems to be one important way to maintain this standard. While I could have easily used a fake name and thereby allowing myself a lot more ability to refer to my work, this is neither my style nor ethics. If I were really trying to be an “advocate,” I would have done this. Instead, I want to be a resource to people who are working on this article.

User:Verbal asserts that my references and discussions the Cochrane Report and to a Lancet “News and Notes” article are “advocacy.”[[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHomeopathy&diff=304190582&oldid=304189352]]. User:Brunton then chose to question if the Lancet’s News and Notes was “peer-reviewed” [[24]], as though something written by their editors or editorial staff of this prestigious journal was suddenly not reliable because it had something positive to say about homeopathy.

What is remarkable is how offensive some editors can be to me personally and to my references to high quality research (as determined by reliable sources), and yet, no wiki editors or admins do any degree of admonishment of them. I can only imagine what would happen if I referred to an editor here as “delusional” as User:NRen2k5 did here [[25]] or what User:Friday did when he created a section entitled [[26]].

Because so many antagonists to homeopathy edit the article on wikipedia, it is not surprising when normally recognized reliable sources of meta-analyses are ignored when these sources report positive results from homeopathic treatment. There are many examples to give, but the Cochrane Report on the homeopathic treatment of adverse effects from conventional cancer treatment is ignored in the article My apologies for providing a “content” issue here, but my point here is that wikipedia needs more balance in many of its articles because they are dominated by just one side of the issue, while there needs to be a better effort at balance.

It is surprising how many editors who have sought to reference good research meta-analyses that have positive results for homeopathy have been sanctioned, banned, harassed, or simply overwhelmed by the larger number of antagonists to the field. I would hope that wikipedia would seek to protect some “experts” in order to create a real encyclopedia. DanaUllman^Talk 22:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to revoke sanction

Because of an edit war between me and User:William Allen Simpson , User:Aervanath imposed a certain sanction upon both of us. I think this sanction is unfair to me. User:Aervanath seems to be unavailable. At the end of that Wikipedia:AN3 discussion it says that this is the place to appeal. I have outlaid all my arguments there a week ago. (I was offline this last week because I moved.) Debresser (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That does seem like a little extreme of a restriction. Have you tried discussing it with William Allen Simpson to see if the two of you can come up with a mutual agreement? I think it should probably be reduced to "no reverts of each other's edits, widely construed". In other words, mandating that you review each other's contributions to make sure that the other hasn't edited a page within the last month is a bit extreme. But I don't see a reason to remove the restriction completely unless/until the two of you have an agreement that the disruption will not happen again. --B (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, although the idea of discussion with William Allen Simpson sounds unlikely, as it is not his way... On the other hand, it ignores my arguments in Wikipedia:AN3 that I have behaved a lot better than William Allen Simpson, and don't think I deserve to be treated the same way as he. Please note that other editors there have stated their agreement with this assessment of mine. In short, I feel that the sanction is an unjustice and should be lifted from me regardless. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please notice that the admin imposing the sanction seems to be on a wikibreak ever since, and is not available to explain herself or change her mind. Debresser (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that. I notified Aervanath of the thread and he hasn't responded, so we can take that to mean that he isn't monitoring his talk page or doesn't care. I have notified User:William Allen Simpson of this thread as anything done here needs to be mutual. I suggest modifying the sanction as follows: For an indefinite period, William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs) and Debresser (talk · contribs) are on a mutual editing restriction. They are not permitted to revert each other's edits (widely construed) or take any action that would reasonably be inferred as "stalking" the other's contributions. (Do not look at special:contributions/the other party.) This sanction will only be lifted at the mutual agreement of William Allen Simpson and Debresser. --B (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds better. I accept this proposal. But in the end it will not be enough. User:William Allen Simpson is a disruptive editor: he violated the 3-revert-rule in this last conflict (as linked in the Wikipedia:AN3 discussion), engages in tendentious editing, reverts any of my actions without any explanations in editsummaries/article talkpages/my talkpage, disregards the fact that others disagree with him (which happens often because of his tendentious and pointy editing), and has been warned numerous times for trying to own pages and uncivil conduct (including a recent block). When he does engage in discussions (one of these instances was after an admin protected the page and insisted he should partake in discussion) it is invariably with a lot of ad hominem remarks and wikilawyering. I'd prefer a solution that would try and address these problems, because an editing restriction on me is only surpressing the symptom, but not curing the sick. Debresser (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've returned from an involuntary wikibreak (my internet connection was cut off for a week, and I was too busy with other real-life considerations to get it fixed until now), so I apologize to all concerned that it's taken so long for me to get back and comment on this situation. I would first like to address Debresser's concerns that he and William Allen Simpson were subjected to identical restrictions. The primary reason is that it takes two to tango. While my impression is that overall, in his on-wiki behavior, Debresser has been the more cooperative and consensus-seeking of the two editors, I believe that he has developed somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction where William Allen Simpson is concerned. I agree with B (talk · contribs)'s suggestion that William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs) and Debresser (talk · contribs) be restricted from reverting each other's edits for an indefinite period, and I now concede that my initial restriction was overly harsh. I recommend that both of them be encouraged to engage in some sort of dialogue to reach an understanding on how to deal with each other. I thank B (talk · contribs) for his cogent and well-thought-out comments on this situation.--Aervanath (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back Aervanath. I mean that. As I said before, I will agree with this second sanction.

I deny having any reaction to User:William Allen Simpson, be it knee-jerk or allergic. I just have come to the conclusion that he is a pointy and tendentious editor, and furthermore likely to show problems of ownership and incivility. My personal opinion about him, which you have on occasion supposed to be one of dislike, is clearly defined, but just as clearly of no consequence. What is important, is that User:William Allen Simpson is, in my opinion, detrimental to the Wikipedia community.

Please do not think that I am wagging a war against User:William Allen Simpson. I have tried to bring him onto the right track, posting on his talkpage and on occasion on wp:wqa, wp:AN3 or here, but he has shown himself unreceptive to my posts, as well as those of many, many others. I am just trying to fix those edits which I consider "wrong", that is, not reflecting the opinion of the Wikipedia community as I understand it to be. And, of course, I am prone to lean to the side of what I would like this community to think. But that does not diminish the sincerity of my efforts. I find an important indication that I am doing the right thing, in the fact that several editors, including you, have expressed worries along the lines of my own misfeelings. Sometimes they have actively supported me, in repeating my edits and on Wikipedia:AN3. Without me even dreaming of asking for their support! Recent edits of User:William Allen Simpson on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, brought to my attention by another editor, together with what I already had seen myself, indicate an unhealthy pattern of involvement with Wikipedia.

I wish User:William Allen Simpson would stop being a problem, but I have come to the conclusion that this will not happen. One way or the other, this will not end nice. And that is the way it should be, for the benefit of the community. I would like to appeal to you to consider carefully wether there is no way to influence User:William Allen Simpson to better his ways, or, if none can be found, to solve this problem otherwise. Debresser (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Huw4beynon

From its edit history, User:Huw4beynon appears to be essentially a vandalism-only account, with the possible (but unhelpful) exception of creating an article “Huw Beynon”. Additionally, the edit history of User:Chaliepenn looks rather like that of a sock-puppet of the same editor. —SlamDiego_←T 03:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: [27]. The edit history of this IP number suggests that it is used by the very same editor. —SlamDiego_←T 09:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Further Update: Chaliepenn has now vandalized my user page with a personal attack. —SlamDiego_←T 01:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Chaliepenn is making something of a habit of vandalizing my userpage. Further such: [28][29][30][31]. —SlamDiego_←T 22:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[32] —SlamDiego_←T 01:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

[33][34] —SlamDiego_←T 09:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The Chaliepenn account is now indefinitely blocked. (We'll see whether another sock-puppet appears in its place.) I still hope to see some discussion and perhaps action concerning the Huw4beynon account. —SlamDiego_←T 09:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

modifying AfDs after closure

Having an issue with an AfD and Dems on the move editing the closing template to point to the DRV he brought (AfD edit history). I've always been under the impression that, outside of perhaps needing to remove personal attacks or a courtesy blanking for BLP concerns, that the "Please do not modify it" tag means just that; no alterations, period. My last edit has a less-than-stellar tone, and I'd strike if I could. So, otherwise, input appreciated on if editing an AfD closure template to point to a specific DRV is acceptable. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the editor in question for 24 hours for violating 3RR. There is a long and unwarranted history of edit warring here.--agr (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As an outsider, perhaps not having a full background, it looks like DOTM's edits were a helpful navigation aid. I'm not sure why it required being reverted in the first place. Was there a reason besides "the rules must be followed".--Cube lurker (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This user was one of the main contributors to the deleted article, a persistent voice opposing deletion during the AfD, and the initiator of the deletion review. The template that closes an AfD points to the main DRV page, I've never seen the template altered to point to a specific entry, and saw it as a somewhat disruptive method of calling attention to what he believes to be a wrongly decided deletion. For the record, I wasn't angling for a block, just a clarification on if this was proper or not. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Delrevafd}} was created for just this sort of situation. Where an AfD is currently under appeal, I don't see how linking to that appeal could ever be considered a malicious move. Why didn't anyone look for a compromise, here? If it's really that bad to edit the template, just pop a notice in above it. Seriously, who cares? Why are we blocking users for linking to ongoing discussion? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree the link in itself wasn't problematic, but the edit-warring over it was. In reviewing their first unblock request I spent some time going over their history; they have quite a record of tendentious editing and gaming 3RR, so I guess if it hadn't been this it would have been something else in the near future. However, with their unblock request declined twice, they've now apparently retired. EyeSerene^talk 19:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

[EC]I'm with Luna Santin. This is innane. The changes were a bit out of the norm, but not the least bit harmful. Reverting with "go be a vandal somewhere else, pls? Thanks." was out of line, Tarc...and came on Tarc's 4th revert. — Scientizzle 19:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think Tarc was perhaps fortunate to avoid a block; the edits to the template were not obvious vandalism. EyeSerene^talk 19:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I indicated that that last edit msg was out of line in the initial report here, but unlike normal edits that can be reverted or stricken on 2nd thought, what's done is done. And I didn't even consider blocking on anyone's part here, as this was spread out over 2 days. The 3 hrs should be long expired by now though. Tarc (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I've dialed back the block to 3 hours. My concern was the revert warring. At least Tarc eventually brought the matter here instead of continuing.--agr (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Three hours from when? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the complaining editor said he wasn't seeking a block and others expressed support for the disputed edit, I felt a shorter block would suffice as a message to change behavior, without overly discouraging an editor who seems to be trying to contribute. I went to the change block page and selected the lowest option from the drop down list, which was 3 hours. I thought that selection meant change from 24 to 3 hours. Sorry for the confusion, but I don't use these tools very often. --agr (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess the answer should have been yes, it is perfectly legitimate to add navigation to the closed AfD, but the proper way to do it is by adding {{Delrevafd}}. This block was completely unjustified. Dems on the move (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Compromised account

And now the user is indefinately blocked with talk page protection[35], because of a "compromised account", by User:Steve Smith, what is that about? --Reinoutr (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see nothing in the user contribs that would indicate a compromised account; Dems on the move's only post since the unblock is the one just above, and there's nothing in their deleted edits either. Steve Smith hasn't posted anything, so unless there's been off-wiki contact I'm at a loss to account for this block. Hopefully Steve can enlighten us, but on the current evidence I believe an unblock is in order. EyeSerene^talk 08:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest another admin at least lifts the preventing of Dems editing his own talk page, to allow the user to speak his mind in the absence of the blocking admin. In the absence of any additional evidence, this action by User:Steve Smith seems severely out of line. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Here here. He should be unblocked immediately. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 09:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've unlocked Dems's talk-page, though perhaps we should wait to hear from Steve Smith before jumping to conclusions. EyeSerene^talk 09:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't wait too long. The goal here is to convince Dem's to change behavior and I think extending the block without an explanation is counterproductive.--agr (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. As a few editors have commented now and there seems to be consensus for it, I've unblocked Dems on the move. Note that this is purely in the interests of fairness to Dems based on current evidence, and not in any way prejudging the suitability of Steve's original block; until he's commented we can't know why he acted as he did. EyeSerene^talk 10:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the appropriate thing to do. Indefinitely blocking a user without explanation and then going offline is unacceptable under under most circumstances. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry for joining the discussion late; I didn't realize that this block would be contentious. He posted his (correct) account password on his user page. In my books, that's a compromised account, and we indef-block compromised accounts. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ya, I would say if someone posts their correct password that the account is compromised regardless of who is using it. Good block. Chillum 15:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've re-blocked, since I assume that with the explanation this is now non-contentious. As for the talk page, talk page posts from a compromised account don't do us much good, since we have no idea who's making them. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 15:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable explanation for the block. (I'm assuming the edit was deleted because I don't see it.) Was there a reason though for not leaving some sort of block message? Both on the first block and the reblock?--Cube lurker (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

OK Steve, thanks for the explanation and no arguments with your reblock. I saw an oversighted edit in the page history but all I recalled seeing prior to that was his 'retired' banner, so couldn't imagine what it might have been that would lead to the action you took. Makes sense now. A block note or something would be helpful next time though ;) Best, EyeSerene^talk 16:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a block notice was necessary, given the circumstances (his edit summary is still visible to administrators; have a look and see if you think he'd have needed an explanation for why he was blocked). In hindsight, I obviously wish I'd been more thorough in my explanation in the block log, or posted a note on ANI, but you know what they say about hindsight. Cheers, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is probably an unusual step, but I've taken control of the account, and will be more than willing to return control of it to Dems, should they be able to demonstrate to me that they are who they claim to be (bear in mind: checkuser). If I'm able to do so to my own satisfaction, would anyone mind if I released the block? Or, if my taking control of the account is deemed unwise, I can set the password back to its prior (compromised) state. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thought it might be helpful to have a subsection for this, as things certainly took an odd tangent while I was off for a few days. Tarc (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't think the password should go back to its previous compromised state; your actions seem perfectly reasonable to me, Luna. EyeSerene^talk 13:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dispute between User:Alansohn and User:AdjustShift

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

---

Resolved

 – This is mostly a content dispute but there is/has been some low level edit warring, editors should be very wary of making any further reverts until some kind of consensus has been reached on the article talk page. Please keep in mind, there is nothing untowards about putting quotes in footnotes if they indeed support the text and help give the reader quick means for WP:V. However, this can be overdone and moreover, quotes can be mistakenly cite spanned towards an unecyclopedic, original outcome in the text or, when carried out of context, can easily mislead even an alert reader. Either way, this belongs on the article talk page for now. Edit warring (even if below the threshold of 3rr) should be reported to WP:AN3 or to a neutral admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

An edit war has been brewing at the article Thomas Henry Barry, where a group of editors have decided that quotations must be removed from footnotes. After a lengthy discussion at Talk:Thomas Henry Barry, there is no consensus for their removal, yet User:AdjustShift has been repeatedly making blind reverts to push his position. I have left repeated pleas to all involved to explain why this is unnecessary and to encourage an end to the edit war on the article's talk page. I had left a user talk page message on July 31 for both AdjustShift (see here) and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (here). RAN has respected this request and has refrained from editing the article since the request was left on his talk page. Despite multiple pleas to end his pointless edit war, User:AdjustShift has jumped back in, making another blind revert to the article here), insisting that he and another editor WP:OWN the article (here), while acknowledging here that he has been involved in an edit war (and helpfully listing all of his blind reverts) but blaming the other party for being the problem. As an administrator, we need to expect the highest standards in dealing with such disputes, but AdjustShift appears to insist on perpetuating a needless edit war. Restoring the content before the blind revert, locking the article for a few weeks and imposing a brief block on User:AdjustShift, will help ensure that this violation of policy will not be perpetuated. 17:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talk • contribs)

This thread is not proper. Admin should review the talkpage discussion here. I've not engaged in any edit warring. This is a false accusation. AdjustShift (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never suggested that I own any article. The block log of Alansohn strongly indicates that he has a problem assuming good faith and he has a history of falesly accusing people. I'll bring more evidence. AdjustShift (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Below are my points:
• A quick look at Alansohn's block log will indicate that he is a disruptive editor.[36] Now let me explain how this all started.
• The bio of Thomas Henry Barry was created by Rlevse.[37] I expanded the bio and it qualified for DYK. The problem started when Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) started inserting quotes on the biography. Three people, Rlevse, JGHowes, and I opposed inserting the quotes. But, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) continued edit warring. From 26 July 2009 to 31 July 2009 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has reverted five times.[38][39][40][41][42] From 28 July 2009 to 3 August 2009, I have reverted only three times.[43][44][45] So who is edit warring? I've never claimed that I own the bio; I'm willing to discuss with fellow editors. If there is a clear consensus to insert quotes, they can be inserted. Alansohn, because he supports Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s position, is accusing me of edit warring. This is nothing but an attempt to gain an upper hand in a content dispute.
• Before Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) started inserting quotes, Alansohn did nothing to the biography, but after Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) started inserting quotes, Alansohn has been busy defending Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). In fact, Alansohn didn't even know that the bio of Thomas Henry Barry was started by Rlevse. Please read this comment of Alansohn. He wrote I thank you [me, AdjustShift] for creating the article, but I will remind you that when ...". He thought that the bio was created by me!
• This is not the first time that Alansohn and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) supported each other in content disputes. Alansohn and Richard Arthur Norton often work as a team for each other, one appearing at an article to do tag-team reverts when the other is in an edit conflict. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Evidence#User:Alansohn_and_User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29_supporting_each_other_in_content_disputes.
• I think Alansohn should be blocked for a short time to prevent disruption.
• I also believe that the heading "Edit Warring and WP:OWN problems with User:AdjustShift" is misleading; it should be changed. AdjustShift (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Admins should also analyze past problematic behavior of Alansohn. He has used misleading edit summaries, twisted the words of others, and needlessly accused multiple admins. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Evidence#User:Alansohn_has_a_long_history_of_problematic_editing_and_ignoring_concerns_of_other_users. AdjustShift (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I do admire the effort to shift attention away from AdjustShift and his edit warring, first blaming User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) for adding sources and now blaming me for causing his problems. I have a strong opinion on the issue of using quotations in footnotes and have added them in a few thousand edits to several hundred articles. Despite efforts to argue the issue, Arbcom has refused to take on the issue of "footnoted quotes" and it is a built-in design feature of our citation templates. Just as I will not force any editor to add quotations to sources, I have expressed my opinion in discussion on the article and user talk pages asking for an end to a rather needless (and pathetically WP:LAME) edit war and asked that other editors not impose their arbitrary preference on the subject by blindly reverting such quotations. While User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has complied with the request to refrain from edit warring, User:AdjustShift has persisted in a string of retaliatory blind reverts, which he brazenly acknowledges. While I'm sure that any editor can find something to take issue with among my 220,000 edits, I have played no role in AdjustShift's edit war and have not taken his bait to jump in and exacerbate the disruption he has caused here. It is disappointing that, as an administrator, AdjustShit has refused to respect the opportunity for other editors to participate in a article he claims to WP:OWN by perpetuating a rather needless edit war. Alansohn (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Are you saying that AdjustShift lied when he said that he has made only three reverts on that article in the past week? Yes or no, please. And if the answer is yes, I think we all expect diffs as proof. In fact, diffs proving he has been edit warring are basically required at this point. → ROUX ₪ 19:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Roux, you can check the history of that article. I've made only three reverts on that article in the past week. AdjustShift (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not long ago, on 30 July 2009, Alansohn accused User:Rlevse and User:JGHowes of "meatpuppetry" and "edit warring".[46] It should be noted that both Rlevse and JGHowes are good-faith editors, and respect members of the community. This was JGHowes' response to Alansohn's outrageous accusation. After analyzing Alansohn's behavior, it is absolutely clear that he makes outrageous accusations to good-faith editors to gain an upper hand in content disputes. Alansohn makes good edits, and tries to ameliorate the encyclopedia, but this sort of behavior is unacceptable. Alansohn also has a history of pursuing vendetta against editors he doesn't like. He has repeatedly targeted Rlevse. He opposed both Rlevse's RFB [47] and ArbCom candidacy.[48] During Rlevse's RFB, Animum even warned Alansohn.[49] Wikipedia is a collaborative project; here we have to respect other editors and view-points we don't necessarily agree with. If one is +10 as an editor, but he/she demoralizes 5 other editors, he/she is a net negative to the project. Making outrageous accusations to gain an upper hand in a content dispute is unacceptable. Pursuing vendetta against fellow editors is also unacceptable. I think Alansohn should be blocked for sometime, and he should be warned that such behavior will lead to an indef block.

The heading "Edit Warring and WP:OWN problems with User:AdjustShift" should be changed because it is misleading. I've not engaged in any edit war, and I don't believe that I "own" any article here on en.wikipedia. AdjustShift (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where I've stated that User:AdjustShift lied, he's simply refused to respect other editors and repeatedly edit warred to remove material without a policy or consensus argument to perpetuate an edit war. My original report of AdjustShift's edit warring included his own link to a list of his blind revert edits, but I will include all of them here for reference:

  10:30, 28 July 2009 "erase needless quotes"

  09:46, 31 July 2009 "There still is no consensus on the talk page to insert the quotes"

  11:47, 3 August 2009 "please don't insert quotes without any strong reason"

• Contrary to AdjustShift's repeated assertion, there is no policy that requires other editors to ask permission to edit articles, even ones AdjustShift appears to believe he owns. Nor is there any policy that permission must be obtained on the article's talk page to edit an article. There is a rather simple solution here: Editors either use or don't use the built-in quotation feature, while other editors respect that choice. In addition to discussing the reason why they make perfect sense here given that the sources are not publicly available, I have made that suggestion on the article's talk page offering this rather simple solution on the article's talk page on July 29, on July 31, again on July 31 after a blind revert by AdjustShift and on August 1. This was in addition to requests to cease from edit warring left on July 31 on the respective user talk pages for both AdjustShift (see here) and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (here). RAN respected this request and refrained from editing the article since the request was left on his talk page. AdjustShift has brazenly tried to impose his arbitrary position despite these rather clear requests to cease from edit warring. In the lack of policy requring their removal or consensus that they cannot be used here under any circumstances, we are left with admin AdjustShift abusing process to impose his arbitrary view and perpetuate one of Wikipedia's lamest edit wars ever. As User talk:JGHowes aptly pointed out in response to efforts by AdjustShift to canvass and drum up support, "Repeated reversions will not resolve the dispute over footnoted quotes, nor has Talk page discussion helped. Consensus of the wider community is needed, one way or the other." (see here). Continued edit warring by an admin is not going to help AdjustShift "resolve the dispute", nor should the community condone these tactics. Alansohn (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Three reverts over seven days is not edit-warring. Can you please provide evidence that an editwar has been occurring? → ROUX ₪ 21:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the first two paragraphs of Wikipedia:Edit war, which state that "An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion... Policy forbids edit warring generally, and editors may be blocked if they edit war, with or without breaching 3RR." While I agree that there is no WP:3RR violation by User:AdjustShift, repeated blind reverts of content to impose an arbitrary position is the textbook definition edit warring, certainly not the example we want our admins to set for the community. Alansohn (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My reverts are not "blind reverts". I was one of the editors who contributed to the article. I was not forced by anyone to revert. I reverted because I felt that inserting the quotes will not benefit the article. Three reverted in seven days is not edit warring. I've never indicated that I "own" the article. I've never abused the process to impose any "arbitrary view"; multiple editors have opposed the idea of inserting quotes in that article. AdjustShift (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I object to bringing up an editor's block log and using it as a cudgel. Editor's who work on contentious material are often blocked and some of our best contributors are rather frequently blocked (which is probably good cause for concern). This is a dispute over quotes in footnotes. Perhaps a discussion at the Article content noticeboard would be the best place to to try to get broader input? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

An editor's block log is quite a valid point to make in any discussion of transgressions, as it can show a pattern of behavior that has crossed the line. A "good editor" with a long block log is a contradiction in terms. It would be nice to have a better visual indicator of blocks that are reduced or overturned, tough. Tarc (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There are many ways someone can get mistakenly or improperly blocked. Just last week, an administrator blocked someone for canvassing because they sent the admin an email with a link to an AN or ANI thread. The block log is nothing more than a log of when an editor was blocked; it is not to be used as an indication in any way of how good an editor is. --NE2 21:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I would hope that when someone drops "look at User X's" block log" into a discussion, other users will actually look at it and note what the individual entries are about. Not do a "OMG it scrolls the page == TEH GUILTY!" shtick. Tarc (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, all it says in the log is "canvassing", so there's no way to know it was a bad block. Either way, it's poisoning the well. --NE2 22:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that some editors have been unjustly blocked, an editor's block log may indicate the problematic behavior of the editor. In Alansohn's case, he was blocked three times in 2009. Below are the three blocks:

22:12, 29 April 2009 Good Olfactory (talk | contribs | block) blocked Alansohn (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 55 hours ‎ (persistent assumptions of bad faith; incivility; personal attacks in violation of editing restrictions) (unblock | change block)

01:04, 15 April 2009 Good Olfactory (talk | contribs | block) blocked Alansohn (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (incivility; violation of editing restrictions at several recent CfDs) (unblock | change block)

21:46, 22 January 2009 Postdlf (talk | contribs | block) blocked Alansohn (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (incivility, violation of editing restrictions) (unblock | change block)

Please analyze the rationale behind each of the three blocks. In some cases, editors are blocked unjustly by a single admin. But, in Alansohn's case, he was blocked twice by Good Olfactory and once by Postdlf. None of those three blocks were reversed. The block log of Alansohn strongly indicates that he has been uncivil towards other editors, and he has a habit of assuming bad-faith. AdjustShift (talk) 02:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• In addition to edit warring, User:AdjustShift has been actively violating WP:CANVASS, inviting several other editors he presumes would be supportive of his actions to participate in these proceedings here, here, here and here. While none have taken the bait so far, it is unfortunate that an admin would be working so actively to poison the well here. Even after multiple pleas to AdjustShift to refrain from edit warring, he still appears unable to recognize that his actions are a textbook violation of Wikipedia:Edit war policy, while blaming others for the issues he has created. AdjustShift appears now to have convinced himself that his edit warring here is somehow related to my edit history from months and years in the past. As I've said before, there has been a very simple solution all along: Do nothing. If editors would respect editing preferences of other editors, without imposing their arbitrary preferences, there would be no issue here. An admin who understands how to resolve these issues, rather than escalate them, could have solved this problem over a week ago by simply refraining from doing anything. The choice is still here if AdjustShift is willing to finally accept it and learn a rather simple lesson. Alansohn (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Three reverts in seven days is not "edit warring" or "ownership of article". If anyone thinks that three reverts in seven days is "edit warring" and "ownership of article", he/she is assuming bad-faith. Alansohn, your past behavior, your behavior in this thread, and three blocks in 2009 strongly indicates that you've a habit of assuming bad-faith. If you would respect editing preferences of other editors, without imposing your arbitrary preferences, there would be no issue here. It would be better if you learn a simple lesson, and starting assuming good-faith with fellow editors. AdjustShift (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Isn't this dispute really about quotations in footnotes? I've indicated my opinion, but I think the topic is worth a good faith discussion at the article content noticeboard. As far as civility goes, there's probably room for improvement on both sides. I still think rehashing prior blocks is often an inappropriate way to win a dispute by tarring a fellow editor and making them out to be the "bad guy". I will concede that in this case there have been prior disputes involving this editor, so maybe you have a point, but Alansohn also does an enormous amount of excellent article work so it would be good to try to work with him despite whatever challenges there may be personality wise. It looks to me like an editing dispute, there are other ways to work it out. Would a third opinion help? Is there an editor you both respect whose opinion you could solicit? I suspect the opinions on this particular issue may vary, so you could also try to work out a compromise on which quotes are essential and which aren't really needed. And again, the content noticeboard is a good venue for getting some experienced opinion on the core issue. Anyway, good luck and happy editing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you getting yourself into this edit warring ChildofMidnight ([50])? How does that help resolve anything? There was no consensus to add the quotes in the first place. How about following your own advice and discuss it first. Quantpole (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Here on Wikipedia we don't need consensus to add material to articles. The more accurate question is that there was no consensus to remove the quotes in the first place. Even better is to ask why an admin would perpetuate an edit war over "footnoted quotes", when two out of the three who had initially removed the material decided not to continue edit warring over the lofty principle of keeping an article free of additional information about what is being referenced. No one is under any obligation to use the quotation feature built in to the citation templates. Some editors use them and some don't. That's ok. I've used them on several thousand occasions in several hundred articles, but I don't force other editors adding other references to add quotations. It's up to them to take advantage, or not. The article in question is the perfect place to use footnoted quotes, where the sources are nearly 100 years old and are all unavailable to the public behind the subscription wall of The New York Times. All of this wikidrama would have been -- and could still be -- eliminated if editors learn to respect the fact that it's an optional feature that they are not required to use, even if their arbitrary choice is not to use the function. The best action to take here, and to have taken in the first place, is to do absolutely nothing. Alansohn (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion either way on the quotes in question. I just found it odd that someone who was stating on here to discuss the isue then goes straight to the article and carries on the edit war. No you don't need consensus to add something to an article, but once that addition is reverted, the correct course is to discuss the issue. Quantpole (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Alansohn, if you want to discuss this in a civilized manner, please drop your accusation of "edit warring" and "ownership of article". Three reverts in seven days is not "edit warring" or "ownership of article". I was involved in the development of the article, so I became involved in reverting the quotes. I was not told by anyone to revert. The heading of this thread "Edit Warring and WP:OWN problems with User:AdjustShift " is inappropriate – please change the heading. AdjustShift (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it really shocking that an admin thinks that "three reverts in seven days is not edit warring". Even 2 reverts in 10 days can be edit warring, it's attitude that matters. I've analysed the page and the talk page carefully and it seems that AdjustShift's behaviour was a classical case of edit-warring. Instead of engaging in constructive discussion with the other guy he just deleted stuff with a grotesque comment that there was "no consensus" for it. And this comment: Bio of Thomas Henry Barry was developed by Rlevse and me. You were not involved in the article before Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) inserted the quotes. There is no consensus to insert the quotes, so I erased them. It is Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) who is engaging in an edit war. is downright comical, with whom was Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) involved in an edit war? with himself perhaps? It takes 2 to tango. Loosmark (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, were you involved with this issue before? We had some disagreements over Polish-German issue, but that doesn't mean you should jump here and make comment on an issue that has nothing to do with you. Rlevse and JGHowes also reverted the edits of Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) reverted five times, I've only reverted three times. AdjustShift (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, you can read the discussion here. AdjustShift (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

AdjustShift i can comment on whatever issue i want, so i think your telling me what should i do or not do is out of place. Also your understanding of the editwarring concept is simply appalling. If he reverted five times and you three times it simply means you two guys were involved in an edit war. Loosmark (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• ANI is not the place to sort out whether quotes are okay to include in footnotes. I suggest this discussion be archived and the discussion be continued instead on the WP:content noticeboard where it can be discussed civilly and in good faith. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've to oppose the archiving of this discussion. AdjustShift seems to think that if the other editor reverted 5 times and he reverted 3 times then the other guy is edit-warring but he is not. I think this needs to be addressed. Loosmark (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Three reverts is editwarring just as much as five reverts is. I have received a warning for this myself on this noticeboard.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not make a report at WP:3RR? The core issue remains a difference in opinion over using quotations in footnotes and I don't see what admins can be expected to do to resolve it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In this case, no one has broken WP:3RR. The report to that page will not make any sense. AdjustShift (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Below are the three reverts I've performed:
• 28 July (Edit summary: erase needless quotes)
• 31 July (Edit summary: There still is no consensus on the talk page to insert the quotes.)
• 3 August (Edit summary: See the talk page; please don't insert quotes without any strong reason.)
• Those three reverts were performed in seven days. Before the second revert and the third revert, I waited for two days; there was no consensus to insert the quotes, so I made one more revert. I wasn't edit warring. AdjustShift (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is completely irrelevant whether your edits were made in 5, 7 or 10 days. Your behavior was textbook edit-warring and your denial is starting to be disturbing. Loosmark (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I looked at the "quotes" and find they add no actual information at all pertinent to the article. For example, the article states "Barry died of uremic poisoning at Walter Reed Army Medical Center on December 30, 1919.[1] He had been ill for three weeks.[4]" and the quote sought is "Major Gen. Thomas Henry Barry, U.S.A., retired, died early this morning from uraemic poisoning at the Walter Reed General Army Hospital, near Washington, where he had been ill three weeks, a sufferer from Bright's disease. Mrs. Barry and their son, Major Thomas B. Barry, were with General Barry when he died." which adds the nicely useless information about his illness and who was with him at his death. Another example has the article saying (under Legacy) "Army transport Thomas H. Barry.[5] " with the totally non-essential and trivial quote "The Army transport Thomas H. Barry arrived here yesterday and docked at Pier 11, Staten Island, with 474 passengers after a stormy fourteen-day voyage from ..." which manages to tell us the size of the transport, and no other useful information at all. IMHO, quotes should be used to convey context of information for a claim, and useful additional information. [51] Rlevse was correct, and this complaint from Alansohn, such as it is, applies to him as well, to be sure. Collect (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Allstarecho

Resolved

 – There is no consensus to community ban Allstarecho but there is clear consensus that a total ban on interacting with Bluemarine/Matt Sanchez is necessary. The exact wording being "Allstarecho is banned from commenting on or to Bluemarine anywhere on Wikipedia." Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Extended content

Allstarecho was indefinitely blocked in June when Moonriddengirl found long term copyright violation problems in his contributions.[52] The next week Allstarecho requested an unblock and Akhilleus unblocked without discussion.[53] Additional issues have emerged since that time. Akhilleus has not edited since July 23 and has not replied to a query I left at his user talk page on July 28.[54] Also see above at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Matt_Sanchez (tangentially related). Submitting to the community: WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:EDITWAR, WP:RS, WP:COPYRIGHT problems Steve Porter (producer) July 30: sources a BLP to an open Web forum.[55] Chip Pickering: U.S. Republican congressman from Mississippi. July 30-August 2: Allstarecho edit wars against three people to keep an image in the article[56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68] until the image gets speedy deleted as G10: File that serve no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject.[69][70] Two administrators also agree it has a possible copyright problem and would need additional sourcing to demonstrate public domain status.[71][72] Allstarecho responds by calling the opinions of four experienced people "utter ridiculousness" and tries argue that the image's appearance at a .gov site is demonstration of public domain status.[73] (Allstarecho's public domain rationale is not sufficient). Prior to that image edit war, Allstarecho had also added a BLP violation to the article on July 16.[74] Thio Li-ann:Singaporean law professor. July 11: Allstarecho adds a long quote from abovethelaw.com,[75] which describes itself as a gossip site.[76] Mike Duke: CEO of Wal-Mart; one paragraph substub biography. May 5 - July 28: Allstarecho creates a 'controversies' section to state that Mike Duke signed a petition[77] and restores the section after another editor removes it per BLP.[78] The result of Allstarecho's addition is a long discussion at the article talk[79] and then a longer discussion at the BLP noticeboard.[80] Consensus agrees to remove Allstarecho's addition. This amounts to pattern behavior of BLP violation, most of which aligns with a political agenda. Also edit warring, bad sourcing, IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and possible return of his copyvio problem. Seeking independent review and appropriate action. Durova292 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC) This is nothing more than retaliation for me having started Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Matt_Sanchez and I won't even bother addressing it any further after this post. No copyright has been violated and no BLP has been violated, everything validly and reliably sourced and nothing even paraphrasing. Regarding Steve Porter (producer). No BLP vio or copyvio here. I sourced to the actual video being described in the article. Yes, it's TMZ but it's for the video, not any kind of BLP content. Chip Pickering - Free image was repeatedly removed without any of the removers addressing the BLP vio caption. I removed that caption. The image itself, there was no reason to remove it except, as I later saw, the actual name of it was disparaging (Chickpickering.jpg but looking at it quickly it looked like CHIPpickering) and when I noticed that, I left the matter as it was. I also did not add a BLP violation to the article, as Durova says about this It's sourced to a newspaper for pete's sake. Thio Li-ann - regardless of the type of site, it reported word for word the press statement. Mike Duke - No issue here. The source is an official government document signed by the subject proving his age and that he signed the document. That's all I have to say on the matter and won't say anything else. It's obvious this is pure retaliation based on Durova's own comments here and here days ago where she all but threatened to bring up my own past transgressions if I didn't stop insisting on Matt Sanchez being held to the same standards that I was held to. Cheers. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 05:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I want to ask two questions to Durova, don't want to start a "thing" over this, just want to ask. First, how is a potential copyvio problem related to the Matt Sanchez situation? Second, since you are involved in the Matt Sanchez conversation, should you be the one to bring this matter to ANI? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Well, Matt Sanchez is another BLP subject and Allstarecho's interest carries some of the same political overtones across all five BLPs. Durova292 05:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC) That answers (barely) my first question, how about the second? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Matters of content policies--especially BLP--are weighed upon their merits. Please focus on the evidence, not personalities. Durova292 05:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC) My questions have been swapped over to Durova's talk page. Carry on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Comment. Hmmmm, I have a hard time interpreting these as a return to prior bad behaviours which I think were seen in hindsight as only some attributed to ASE. In a brief looking through these the sourcing could be better. The Chip Pickering "BLP violation" actually looks to be reliably sourced and presented NPOV. The Thio Li-ann quote was sourced to a wobby source when it should have been attributed to where that source got it, My preference would be both on purely a quick look so we have the primary source as well as how it was seen. To me this does seem to be tied only to ongoing tension caused by Bluemarine (talk · contribs)'s connection; with Allstar generally trying to keep that user (and apparently some socks) in check while Durova bravely attempted mentoring the same who sadly seems rather unrepentant and unable to reform. As a bit of advice to both that user really seems unable to reform their ways so you can step away and let them dig their own hole. Durova is an image specialist IMHO, and ASE tends to get a bit heated and means well but errs on some image usage. In any case the image has been deleted so we can move on from there, ASE should chill a bit and each should likely step away from the whole drama of the former editor who now seems to have earned another block. You're both valuable to the project so ... please don't let some man come between you ;) -- Banjeboi 05:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC) No comment on the BLP issue, I'm not going to comment on ASE for i don't want to look like I have any sort of vendetta against him, but the 'and apparently some socks' comment deserves a response. The CU was negative, as was the previous run of IP's believed to be Bluemarine. Sanchez has attracted a lot of media attention that makes him a high profile target, and I firmly believe that these anonymous users are trying to get Sanchez into hot water here, as well as provoke him into rather unsavory behavior. Sanchez has, so far, been rather quick and blunt to respond to those he feels have wronged him, I believe partly out of frustration with this whole things. The editing restrictions and mentorship settled upon in the Matt Sanchez thread are an attempt to address that. If Sanchez/Bluemarine proves unable to hold himself in check, we can of course address it, but your comment about socking, making it seem like some sort of ongoing, current problem does not accurately reflect the current situation. --Mask? 07:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I was going by this and this. Sadly I am quite familiar with Bluemarine's record here. They likely have been harassed but they also have incredibly antagonistic, tenditious and combative. I had hoped they would have amended their approach but that seems less likely than ever. They have basically attacked even those who were trying to help repelling those editors away as well. -- Banjeboi 08:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC) The block message on the ip was made before the CU was run and found unrelated. This (the ip) is actually a prime example of the things Sanchez has to deal with. I understand how you came to the conclusion, I'm just pointing out the assumption is erroneous (for now, we'll see how Bluemarine comes out of this). --Mask? 08:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Ahh, but look at all of these socks that are Bluemarine's. Don't put socking past him. Just recently he was caught socking on other projects as well. It's perfectly acceptable for anyone to assume a new and sudden IP editing things only he edits, is him. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 09:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I take the counter-socking claim to heart as sneaky vandals - as we seem to have on both sides of the Bluemarine related dramas have both advocated for him and against him - it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were subterfuging to misrepresent and malign their "opponents". Agreed it was an assumption and likely all the socks could be also categorized as socks associated with the ongoing disputes than with one user until proven conclusively. -- Banjeboi 18:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I was going to bring ASE's behaviour to this board for review for slightly different reasons. He seems to be unable to stop provoking/attempting to provoke Bluemarine - unable to step away from the issue, despite being told that his conduct is unhelpful. Indeed, this quote"I'm so over dick suckers who suddenly find jesus in a pool of cum." attributed to himself, which was until recently displayed on his userpage (until he redirected that to his talk page), is a comment about Bluemarine, and referred to him by his real name until I told him it was a BLP violation and had to be removed. Apart from the inability to disengage from Bluemarine (who from what I have seen, while not behaving brilliantly himself, has repeatedly asked ASE to leave him alone and is not instituting the contact), his general conduct is frequently quite combative. ViridaeTalk 07:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I'm not attempting to provoke him or anyone else. The guy is community banned from Wikipedia. He has stated he is confused about the ban. I challenge anyone to look at my edits to his talk page and you will see they are nothing but explanations of his community ban... no sarcasm, no smartassnes, no trolling, no harassing, no goading and no baiting and I dare anyone to find such. Yes, I can be combative, but that's certainly not my "general conduct". In fact, my "general conduct" is quite pleasant and jolly. Ask the people that actually get it. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 09:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Personally I think ASE should just step away and avoid Bluemarine as Bluemarine will undue themselves with no outside involvement thus keep the two apart from each other moot. ASE was among the many editors at the receiving end of the others' less-than-civil conduct, this doesn't condone reciprocation but it does explain the rather low threshold for the nonsense that seems to go on two years and counting. Part of the issue with Bluemarine was that precious little was done for a very long time. Knowing what I know now I would have rolled out warnings in real time and let ANI sort things out as they escalated. He didn't get the luxury of escalating blocks but quickly went to community banned coinciding with Arbcom intervention. IMHO, he will get re-banned and if the parade of socks and advocates on his article doesn't end it may need to be deleted as more trouble than it's worth, it's certainly POV bias as is but that's for others to watch over. Bluemarine can work on the other wikicites including the French and Spanish versions of the page and it looks like he's been edit-warring on wikiquote as well. Let's not place undue blame on ASE for dealing with a vexatious editor who has caused years of drama on multiple projects. -- Banjeboi 08:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC) sigh* I suppose I do have to comment now. ASE, after announcing he needed time to compose himself after this thread, then some time later changed his status to offline and signed off with this edit summary, a reference and taunt. It follows his favorite line of goading- compare it to the "I'm so over dick suckers who suddenly find jesus in a pool of cum." quote he displayed aimed by name at Sanchez. --Mask? 09:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC) This coming from someone who has a blatant BLP vio on their own userpage?? Despite being a total geek, I am of the opinion that Richard M. Stallman is a dick. Clean your own house first please. My edit summary had nothing whatsoever to do with Bluemarine. I'm glad you did your best to assume faith, good or bad, with this one. It was more along the lines of when people ask god to give them strength and again, had not one single letter to do with Bluemarine. But thanks for playing. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 09:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I recently made the first edit to my userpage in over a year, that comment dates to a time before there *was* a BLP policy, before Office Actions, a CoI policy, before the BADSITES fights, and is, as wikipedia goes, a stone age relic. In addition, we link WP:DICK quite frequently, and do not believe it is stating anything offensive in terms of community norms, nor outside the appropriate range for an expressed personal opinion. Should others think it so, I would be more the happy to remove it, but I dont think it rises to any sort of violation, nor have i used it to taunt, harass, and berate a fellow contributor as you have done so lately. That, my friend, is a vast stretch of difference between them for any sort of comparison you feel the need to apply. --Mask? 09:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Ah well, I first made the "jesus cum" edit to my userpage well over a year ago so I guess by your standards, I'm safe as well. Good to know. Thanks for clarifying. Either way, it's still a BLP vio. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 10:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC) The edit that introduced it was on 18 march 2006, over three years ago, not one. Also, you failed to address the other points. --Mask? 10:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Durova is trying to rehabilitate User:Bluemarine a most difficult user and, yes she's on a fools errand, but ASE doesn't help things. In fact he goes out of his way to make things worse. Where we should be assisting Durova in taking time to help Blue come back to the fold, we aren't. We're in a tizzy about ASE and his hurt feelings. Frankly Durova was and is right. ASE should butt out and leave this most vexing issue to the community. Crafty (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I was part of the community. My bad for thinking such a thing! ;] - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 09:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Of course you're a member of the community. A greatly valued and highly respected member. But surely you can see how less invested members might resolve this issue in a way that produces a resolution which advances the cause of the encyclopedia, rather than the causes of individual editors. Stepping back might give you and everyone else space to breathe and move forward in a constructive fashion. Crafty (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC) For what it's worth, I have stated in several places that I'm all for the lifting of his community ban (which is still in effect per this I just found), provided the stipulations as mentioned up the page in a different thread are agreed to by him and enforced by the community. I can provide diffs upon request to prove such. Even now, after him having just been blocked for vile personal attacks against me, I still support the lifting of his community ban under the provisions. However, my only involvement has been to ask that while he's under community ban, he remain blocked or at least edit-restricted to his own talk page. Yet others, including AKMask and Pastor Theo, have told him or said that he isn't under a community ban any longer. No wonder the poor guy is confused. Someone has to make sure the false information being presented, and the one-sided stories being presented, are balanced and accurate. And that's what I have done. A ban is a ban, not just in name. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 09:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC) And you've been a vigorous advocate for your cause. But I'm not sure it's getting us anywhere. Yes we all know he called you a pervert, an appalling calumny and it's high time we dealt with his continuing disruptive presence. But your well intentioned efforts aren't resolving this. All they've produced is this thread by Durova which seeks to restrict you. Seriously, take a step back and let less involved types assay the situation. Crafty (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I think the point ASE, and I agree FYIW, is that the issue is becoming more about you which is deflecting away from constructively doing anything about Bluemarine. As Bluemarine burns through one opportunity after the next their behaviours speak for themselves. You are, likely unintentionally, delaying others from being able to see that user's conduct clearly as it deflects attention away from them. If the article degrades? So what, it's already advertorial for him, it will get corrected soon enough even if it takes months. Just avoid the whole mess for now and let that user earn their reputation over yet another group of editors. We did our part in bringing attention to the situation, if the greater community wishes to let it ride then they can deal with them. -- Banjeboi 18:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Back to the issue at hand here - was this meant to be a Matt Sanchez thread? - there is no WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:EDITWAR, WP:RS, WP:COPYRIGHT problems as Durova suggests and in some places, makes up - at least nothing actionable. Yes, there may be problems with one of the sources, but who defines it as reliable is to one's own taste I guess. So unless there's anything else in regards to the complaint of this actual thread, or in regards to the reason it was filed in the first place - that being the blatant retaliation after threatening to do so - might it be closed and we move along? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 10:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Looking at the history of Steve Porter (producer) may offer some insight: On 15 May, Allstarecho adds a new unsourced section about remixes complete with direct YouTube links. On 14 July, he replaces another editor's contribution with another reference to the Slapchop remix, this time with the TMZ source. I doubt TMZ is considered a reliable source for anything except TMZ. On 30 July, he expands his first entry again adding the TMZ link. As far as I can tell, none of the information added is actually mentioned at TMZ, but I may be missing it. The Mike Duke incident seemed like a very clear BLP and sourcing issue to me, but as the ridiculously long discussion at the BLP noticeboard shows, not everyone agreed with that view. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Hi DC. Somehow, I knew you'd find your way here. Weren't you instructed by J.delanoy to stay away from me? To your first entry, the youtube links to the actual videos is the source. Strike one for you. The TMZ source, as I've already said above, was used only to source the actual video. In that case, it's reliable. Strike two for you. As for the Mike Duke article, it's an official government document that I sourced to a quite reliable third-party source. Strike three for you. You're out. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 11:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I think J.delanoy meant that as a suggestion not a command directive which meant I had to ignore editing that goes against WP guidelines and policies. At the risk of making this sound like a content dispute, the Mike Duke edits were sourced to a blog and a piece in The Advocate which referenced the blog post, not "an official government document". Even with reliable sourcing, it was a violation of WP:UNDUE. I suggest people review the Steve Porter edits and decide for themselves if it's properly sourced. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Considering he said Both of you stay away from each other., I'd say that is pretty commanding. The "blog" you refer to has the official government document linked in pdf format here. Also, the "blog", http://knowthyneighbor.org is a reliable source that uses blogging software but it is a reliable and valid organization and web site. Nice try though. As for Steve Porter, where else would one source a video and the video's statistics other than where the video and statistics are located? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 12:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC) This was thoroughly discussed here, although you refused to constructively participate at the time. Again, editors can review what you added to the Steve Porter article themselves and see if it was adequately sourced. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC) comment: Allstarecho asked me to comment on copyright matters here, because of our prior history. I agree that both the photograph and the long quote represent copyright issues. Extended content In re to [81], not everything on a US government site is public domain; it is not pd if it is not explicitly released or "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties."17 U.S.C. § 101 If the photographer who took that image was not a government employee engaged in his official duties, its display on the government site does not automatically make it free. a quotation that lengthy certainly doesn't meet non-free content policy & guideline Barring explicit revocation of copyright, even press releases are non-free content, as many agencies wish to retain control over where and how these are released. We can't take too much in substance related either to the source or the destination under fair use. further, the youtube links in Steve Porter (producer) may be a problem under WP:LINKVIO. The Slap Chop people seem to have embraced the remix (though I don't know this officially), but I see nothing to indicate that the Sham Wow people have done. Similarly, it was certainly notable and worth reporting that somebody bootlegged the Wolverine film before its release, but if we linked to it in reporting on that leak, we are guilty of contributory infringement. However, I've glanced at other contributions, and I didn't see any other issues in my spot check. At the time I first encountered copyright concerns with Allstarecho, some of his issues seemed to me blatant; others seemed plausibly to arise from misunderstandings of copyright. I think these two might fall into that camp. I'd urge Allstarecho to embrace a view of copyright that he might himself think is overly precise to avoid accidentally going in the other direction. There are always other editors willing to give feedback on particular issues. Edit warring is a different issue, however. If multiple editors disagree with an image being in the article, it's time to let the consensus process work. If more input is needed, there are forums to seek that. Perhaps where BLP matters are cited, a tightening of 3RR would be appropriate, to ensure that proper conversation is had before potentially problematic material is restored? (I say this recognizing that BLP can be overused, and I would not want Allstarecho put in the position that any editor could abuse the consensus process by blatantly misusing BLP to thwart him.) With respect to the topic ban proposed below, I think based solely on what I've read here (including Allstarecho's declaration of his willingness to abide by certain restrictions) that it seems reasonable to expect him to stay away from Bluemarine and commenting on Bluemarine, but I don't know that such a ban should extend to all official noticeboards. If Allstarecho should for some reason become disruptive with bringing such matters to noticeboards, that could be dealt with then, but so long as any comments he makes are civil, it seems he should be allowed some forum for expressing legitimate concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Just to be clear here, I didn't upload the Chip Pickering images. As a photo appearing on his official congressional web site, taken by a staff member of the federal government, it's always been my understanding that such images are free and public domain. As for the long quote, as it was placed in a cquote template, I've been under the impression this was acceptable practice as it's something a human said and not an actual published body of work. Apparently I'm wrong there as well. If so, there are thousands of articles in violation of copyright right now. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 22:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I know you didn't upload it; I am referring to your comment about it here. The individuals to whom you were speaking both raised the perfectly valid point that it might not have been taken by a staff member of the federal government. Even if it was, if it was taken by an off-duty staff-member, the government doesn't own it. I'm not sure I understand your second point. Are you saying that you didn't realize that extensive transcription can constitute a copyright infringement? If so, they can. Speech is performance and covered by copyright law. However, I don't see anything to indicate that the statement was not released in print...at which point it was published. Even private letters are copyrighted and cannot be reproduced under United States law without permission of the copyright holder (generally the sender). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC) You know, the common denominator in these many and various dramas is ASE. I think that we're getting to the root and branch stage. Cut out the troublesome users and the trouble will subside. Crafty (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I think once the Bluemarine issues are unwoven the rest is marginal and comes down to an over-agressiveness which can be dealt with more of a warning. Suggesting cutting out editors seems like a terrible idea. -- Banjeboi 18:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Proposed topic ban for Allstarecho In the interest of maximizing the chances Bluemarine's rehabilitation as well as reducing the ongoing drama that is clearly getting to be disruptive at this point, I would like to propose a topic ban for Allstarecho on Bluemarine's talk page and the Matt Sanchez article, as well as community processes relating to the same. He has shown an incapacity to deal with the situation in anything but a disruptive and dramatic way, and the discussion seems to show that both sides agree that Allstarecho seems unable to disengage or proceed rationally. --Mask? 10:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I would endorse such a ban. Clearly wherever there is a dispute about Bluemarine, you find ASE agitating and causing disruption. Something has to give and it isn't the encyclopedia. Bluemarine is under the watchful eye of well-respected editor. ASE clearly won't leave this matter to cooler heads. Frankly I think a community ban against ASE is on the cards.Crafty (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC) So much for getting back on the topic of this thread and thanks for rewarding retaliation. Anyway, this seems rather pointless to ban me from the Matt Sanchez article as I don't edit there much anyway, but if it makes you feel better, and because I don't edit there much, I'll kindly accept that without the need to run it through an online lynching. Additionally, I'll also accept not editing on his talk page anymore. However, I won't accept any ban from bringing up Bluemarine matters here at ANI or at any other official channel such as AN/3RR/SOCK/RFC/AfD/COPYVIO/etc. Feel better? Sleep well now. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 10:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Simpler: "Allstarecho is banned from commenting on or to Bluemarine anywhere on Wikipedia." Let non-disruptive people handle the problem, if there is one. → ROUX ₪ 11:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC) As I said, consider it already done as far as the article and his talk page goes. I won't however agree to any ban of commenting on him at official Wikipedia venues such as, again, here at ANI or at AN/3RR/SOCK/RFC/AfD/COPYVIO/etc. If he does something wrong, I have just as much right to report it and bitch about it at these official channels, as you do to be here bitching about me. ;] - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 11:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Endorse Roux's wording. Allstar's word, frankly, means nothing. This has been going on way too long. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Endorse the topic ban, but given the circumstances listed above... perhaps a moratorium on BLP editing is in order, as well. Nathan T 12:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Endorse I agree with AKMask's and Roux's diagnosis. ASE's overstated interest in Mr. Sanchez, both as an article subject and a member of the Wikipedia community, gives the impression of being borderline obsessional. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Endorse way too much drama. Ronnotel (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Agreed. I'm in favor of giving Durova, and everyone else involved, a little breathing room here. I think it would be best for all involved to simply step away for a bit. Perhaps some time will allow a fresh perspective to be seen. — Ched :  ?  13:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose. Although this user has been causing lots of drama, he is doing that still for good faith purposes. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 13:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Blocked for abusive sockpuppeting. See user talk page. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Endorse The simple "no commenting to or about Bluemarine/Sanchez anywhere on Wikipedia" seems better for all involved. If we're going to give an already difficult enterprise any chance to work, the pressure needs to be ratcheted down. I assume Bluemarine is expected to reciprocate? (from what I understand, he would be happy to do so) --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Endorse Roux's wording. Let there be peace in our time. HiDrNick! 14:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Endorsw Roux's proposal. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Endorse Roux's wording. Less heat, more light. Lets write. Chillum 14:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Sounds good. I'd not object to banning him from pretty much any other topic either. I've never known his comments to be helpful. Friday (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Endorse Roux's wording, simple and effective. Was going to suggest something similar, but go waylaid. ViridaeTalk 14:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Endorse per Roux. ASE can provide no commentary on any AN regarding BlueMarine which isn't readily available by reviewing older AN reports about BM or ASE. His overly sensitive responses to any and all actions by BM while totally ignoring his own failings despite a recently repealed ban is equally problematic, and perhaps, if he's less distracted, he'll be more willing to focus on the faults within his own editing. Likewise, if Bluemarine has one less hawk over his shoulder, and instead can rely on Durova, he might turn into a marginally acceptable editor. Finally, it'll mean less dramadramadramaohmigawd here. ThuranX (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Durova's on a fools errand (happy to be proven wrong, of course, but that's not the way I'm betting) but ASE isn't helping matters. Endorse a topic ban, using Roux's wording of it. ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Unfortunately, I must endorse the proposed topic ban. seicer | talk | contribs 17:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose. I'm happy to dissent here. I think ASE should avoid interacting with that user but this seems to go too far. If others are unwilling to bring Bluemarine issues to community attention it seems like a bad idea to punish the one who is. Bluemarine repeatedly violated their community bans and have actively gamed the system(s) from the start. As the community has been quite slow to actually deal with that user in the first place we should be supporting those editors who are willing to not only try to reform those bad behaviours but those who drudge through unwinding the damage and reporting the issues. The problems Bluemarine have caused for over two years continue and I think we're quickly punishing someone who has shown a vigilance where others have walked away. -- Banjeboi 18:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Comment Others aren't unwilling to bring BlueMarine issues here; but many are sick of AllStarEcho's self-appointed policing, which the rest of us regard as dickish harrassment of an editor under restriction, with the intent of goading him into a fatal mistake. Durova's got plenty of issues, and I don't much care for her drama and antics, but she can steer BlueMarine into a reasonably acceptable track for editing here within community standards; but not with ASE's gotcha-game being played. There's a small contingent of editors here who feel that being police is what comes first, above being editors. Sadly(for them, fortunately, for us), these 'police' are not admins. However, they are like that obnoxious 'block captain' in your neighborhood, using his walkie talkie and safety belt, and his cell phone, to report every one decibel above standards radio, every 1/8" out of compliance lawn, and so on to the real police. ASE needs to get past this deluded behavior or his ,and get back to writing articles. ThuranX (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC) <munching on popcorn and reading intently>Or at the very least, ASE could threaten to retire again and then return in a day or two when things have cooled down and then repeat the drama all over again. This is better than the Hills....--Tom (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Fair enough, I don't watch these pages so don't know the full history of who does what here. The Bluemarine dramas have run its course a few times now with what IMHO, seems an enormous amount of community energy for what boils down to a COI editor promoting themself and playing the community for fools. ASE should back down certainly and although I think their take on the situation is accurate they should leave it for others to suss out. Just as a suggestion we likely should give ASE somewhere to post for the next time they are harassed by that same user or anons who may or may not be socks. -- Banjeboi 19:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC) He can bite his tongue, shut up, and wait. If it's bad, someone else will see it too. Durova's watching BM. Others are watching BM. Yet others are watching the articles BM problematically edits. If BM is doing wrong, it will be seen. ASE can go write articles. Or go out and get sunlight and fresh air, and shut off the computer. Giving ASE an alternate place to go does nothing at all to help, and invalidates Roux' proposal, because it still leaves ASE an outlet for policing, and harassing (yes, it IS harassment) BlueMarine. ZCP is ZCP. ThuranX (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Seems overly harsh but whatever, if others could keep an eye on ASE's pages it might be worth the effort. -- Banjeboi 19:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Fwiw, I've got no problem with Bluemarine getting blocked for calling ASE a 'pervert'. The problem comes when ASE files an SPI report on an IP that can't even spell Matt's name right. Two months ago I hoped ASE and BM could reach a working collaboration. Apparently they can't. BM shouldn't be anywhere near the Matt Sanchez biography. He's an Ivy League graduate who speaks four languages fluently and travels to Europe and the Middle East on a regular basis. BM's got a lot to contribute if he stays away from one hot button, and the best thing ASE could do is stop pressing it. It's not my place to say how this gets resolved. Am just looking to get things reasonably stable and pass the mentorship torch elsewhere. Durova292 20:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Fwiw also, I'm not the one that initiated any contact with the IP subject of the sock case. The IP left a comment on my talk pages as well as edits to the Sanchez article. I noticed another user tagged the IP as a suspected sock of Sanchez. I filed the sock case so we could be sure. Last I checked, that was common procedure.. unless of course your goal is to either protect Sanchez and allow him to sock, or to prove a sock isn't him. Which would you have preferred? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 04:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose. I see nothing that shows that ASE has been wrong in his behavior. Aggressive, yes, but only because there's far too much A'ing of GF where Matt Sanchez is concerned. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Endorse per Roux. If there are obvious problems with BM then ASE does not need to keep on bringing them up, and might be counterproductive in doing so, because someone else will. The evident problems with BM are being dealt with by Durova (or are being attempted by same), and there are sufficient eyes on that matter (witness a few of the above comments) that any serious backsliding will be noted. In short, it should be Bluemarine's actions and comments that drive this dynamic and not those of Allstarecho. Removing ASE's input may allow a clearer review of what progress BM is (not) making. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Endorse topic ban from Matt Sanchez article and ban from his user talk page - which I've already agreed to twice above. But as I've also already said twice, I do not agree to any ban of commenting on him at official Wikipedia venues such as, again, here at ANI or at AN/3RR/SOCK/RFC/AfD/COPYVIO/etc. To take that further, nor will I abide by such a ban from discussing him at official Wikipedia venues. Official Wikipedia venues are open, public areas where issues are to be dealt with and there is simply no justification whatsoever to tell me I can't participate in those areas when problems arise. Further, you all should be ashamed of yourself for letting this thread go from a thread about my editing on 4 specific articles, to turning it into a thread about me and Matt Sanchez. This is exactly what Durova wanted in seeking out her retaliation, which she threatened to do days ago. Thanks for gift wrapping it for her. Pathetic. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 22:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Allstarecho, let's not take that path. You've been around; you know where it leads. This was why I was talking to PastorTheo and contacting Akhilleus: you've got a lot to offer this site. But emotion and ideology can't get ahead of site policies. The Matt Sanchez biography isn't rated for importance by the LGBT studies project but it probably deserves "low". As a demonstration of good faith I've downloaded this image of Noel Coward and will be restoring it. Let's focus on the positive. Durova292 00:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC) And that image, and your restoration work on it, has what to do with me or Sanchez? I'm missing the connection. As for the importance rating of the LGBT Project's tag, if it were me doing the grading, I'd grade it mid importance considering how his notability came about - the whole him getting an award at a conference where a right-wing nut called a presidential candidate a "faggot" only to learn later the award they gave was done so to someone who "acted"/"performed" in over 30 gay pornography films. Regardless, this thread isn't about Sanchez's notability, or lack of. It's about my edits to 4 unrelated articles.. or it was about that anyway before being turned into a "let's ban Allstarecho!" circus. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 00:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC) You do a lot of work for the LGBT project. You've been a prolific editor for years. There are much more significant LGBT issues than Matt. But there is a common political thread to your actions at most of those four BLPs, and that's a problem. Wikipedia isn't a platform for advocacy in that way. You could follow Moni3's example and become one of Wikipedia's most respected editors. The community chose to make this about you and Matt, probably because you chose to. Durova292 00:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC) ASE, agree with it or not, if this topic ban goes through (and it looks like it will), if you comment on Matt Sanchez or Bluemarine, at any venue, you may be blocked. That includes public noticeboards whether you like it or not. ViridaeTalk 01:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Then I guess I'll be blocked. To say I can't bring issues about an editor to any official Wikipedia venue defeats the purpose of those venues in dealing with issues. It's what they are here for and to ban me from making use of them is not only asinine but contrary to what they exist for in the first place. As has already been proven, other people can't be relied upon to do the right thing when it comes to Sanchez. I do not accept any ban from official Wikipedia venues when the need arises to report any personal attack, copyvio or other out of line action by Sanchez. Just when I report such things, I'll also ask that I go on and be blocked too.. but at least the issue was raised. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 02:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC) You don't get it do you? The purpose of the topic ban is to stop you commenting on BM at all because your inability to disengage voluntarily is considered disruptive. Topic bans do not negate the purpose of ANI etc, there are thousands of other users who can bring any problems with BM to the attention of admins. Any wilful flouting of the topic ban will result in blocks of increasing severity. ViridaeTalk 03:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC) You don't get it do you? Others have proven they either don't care about BM's problems or simply don't think they warrant attention. As a result, someone like me is most definitely needed. And thanks again for re-iterating that blocks will be forthcoming. I do believe, however, that I already acknowledged those by saying "Then I guess I'll be blocked" and "when I report such things, I'll also ask that I go on and be blocked too". The fact is, no user - not me, not you, not any single person, should be banned from bringing up any other user's issues at official Wikipedia venues such as ANI/AN/3RR, etc. There is just simply no justifiable excuse that exists for it. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 03:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC) "If he's out of line, I have just as much right to report it to the appropriate official venues, as any other user does." Should this topic ban be enacted, no you don't. ViridaeTalk 03:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Watch. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 04:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Endorse as per Roux. Horologium (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Although I don't think this goes far enough to address the underlying issue, endorse. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Strongest Oppose Possible - There is no need for a ban of any kind on ASE. This whole post was about a BLP issue, how is got turned into a ban discussion I don't know. Either way, ASE is not the problem in the Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine situation, Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine is. ASE is keeping him in check as best as he can. Durova's posting of this entire discussion should have never happened since she is involved in the Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine thread above. It should have been brought up by someone else. No matter what, no ban is needed and this should be closed as unnecessary and completely off topic. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks. But as I said, I've got no problems with a ban from the Matt Sanchez article or even a ban from his user talk page. I don't edit the article much there anyway and really have no desire to interact with him on his talk page. My only problem is with saying I can't mention him at official Wikipedia venues such as here at ANI or at AN/3RR/SOCK/RFC/AfD/COPYVIO/etc. If he's out of line, I have just as much right to report it to the appropriate official venues, as any other user does. For example, if I see him socking again, to say I am not allowed to file a sockpuppet case just because it's about him - well, that is absurd. Additionally, one would think that such venues would be the only place I'd be allowed to do such since such official venues are where admins troll the most and if they had a problem with me, they could deal with it there at that time. But then again, that's why the smart people aren't admins I guess. We'd actually do something constructive like keep threads on topic instead of letting them evolve to something totally unrelated. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 03:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC) I completely agree, you should not be prevented from reporting him to AN/ANI/3RR/SOCK/RFC/AfD/COPYVIO/etc. That would just be silly and I would ask that is be confirmed that will not happen if this talkpage ban goes though. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Endorse. If he voluntarily agrees to not go near the article or the talk page, then that's fine. However, how else can someone comment about a person they aren't going to talk to unless they are just planning on stalking his edits? What are we supposed to do, Allstar, when you come to ANI complaining about him? Tell him that you're allowed to write reports and the like but he shouldn't respond or you won't respond to them? Here's an idea: when you say you aren't going to interact with someone, don't interact with that person. Out of thousands of regular editors here, is one going to make a giant difference? If you decide that you not wanting him here is that important, then don't play the "I'm not going to communicate with him" card. I put it as an all-or-nothing deal: either you can communicate and will do it civilly or you drop it completely. No midpoints; that kind of nonsense just doesn't work. And Neutralhomer, I think it's clear from this discussion that most people don't think Allstar is keeping him in check so much as exacerbating the drama (I'm personally on your side, but if he's going to not talk with him, he needs to not comment on him as well). Some people clearly shouldn't interact with each other, and Allstar, I think you should be adult enough to just say "his existence personally aggravates the hell out of me so instead of wasting time, I'm just going to ignore him." I've done that before and it's a lot less stressful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC) I don't think being able to file, for example, a sockpuppet case on him, really needs me to talk directly to him, does it? I've said I'll avoid his BLP article and I've said I'll avoid his talk page. But should I come across him doing something he shouldn't be doing, I should be able to report it at the necessary official Wikipedia venue. To disallow me that, or any user for that matter, is a disservice to Wikipedia itself and to the reasons the official venues exist in the first place. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 04:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Ask someone else to do it. It's just a matter of sense at this point. You know it's going to cause drama, and besides, do you really think you're going to be the only person out there who sees him doing something he shouldn't be? Or better yet, the only person to report it? If so, and it's egregious, it's probably be like most threads: you report, some comment on what you are saying, some look at the person reporting. Can't you just follow an idea of "I'm not going to deal with him", meaning "I'm actually not going to deal with him", not "I'm not going to talk to him but I should be allowed to talk about him"? Truthfully, do you think he's going to last long without going back to his old self? Do you think you're the only person here who's not excited about him editing here again? Most of this thread consists of people not amused at the idea of him possibly coming back. The smart thing for you is to stop dealing with him, and let him hang himself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC) How do you propose I ask someone else to do it when via this "topic" ban, I'm not allowed to even mention his name???? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 05:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Don't even do that, step right away, don't examine his contributions, don't interact in any way. If you happen to come across any blatant violation of policy,you can pass them onto Durova (BM's current mentor person) and she can post them here if necessary. ViridaeTalk 07:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Actually that would violate the ban's wording: "Allstarecho is banned from commenting on or to Bluemarine anywhere on Wikipedia." ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Meant to say "by email" ViridaeTalk 08:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Endorse per Roux. -- Deville (Talk) 04:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Motion for close With 15 endorsements of Roux' wording, and 4 opposes, and a whole lot more dramuhz generated by ASE, I'd like this section closed with the ban enacted. It is clear that he intends to engage in some insane word-dance about things, demanding we respect his civil rights and other such horseshit, while all the while insisting that he's done nothing wrong ever, with each person who endorses roux' idea and gives any commentary at all, as if there's a chink in their armor that he can exploit. ASE seems to be enjoying the attention and the drama of this way too much, and perpetuating this would be rewarding him. He's already on probation, why are we wasting more time on this? ThuranX (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Horseshit is this thread and the inane babbling by you and others who can't take the blindfold off long enough to stop following the sheep and realize it. I'm not demanding anyone respect a damn thing and sure as hell didn't say anything about "civil rights". I am saying that to ban me from reporting a user to official Wikipedia venues just because of who he is, is absurd. I assure you I'm not enjoying this circus.. one that was started about my edits on 4 articles and turned into a bullshit topic ban discussion about something totally irrelevant to the topic of the thread. The "dramuhz" generated here is by you and others who turned it into the lynch mob circus it is. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 05:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC) I support Roux's wording as well, bringing the total to, I believe, 20 supporting the measure. --Mask? 06:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC) I move this "Motion" be closed, the entire thread archived, the ban not be enacted as it is unnecessary and completely off topic from what this thread started out to be and everyone move on to something else. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

RfAR

Please note that Allstarecho has opened a Request at ArbCom intending to overturn the above. Comments, if any, should go there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a request to "overturn the above", it's an appeal to amend part of the ban regarding use of official Wikipedia noticeboards and reporting. Just wanted to present the whole story... - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 13:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, I'm not trying to be a smartass, but isn't the RfAR actually in violation of Allstarecho's ban? Couldn't this have been done via email channels? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No its not a violation, the request is specifically about the restriction and does not involve discussing bluemarine. It would be unfair to restrict him from appealing the ban on-wiki. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Spartaz puts it well. Durova²⁹³ 18:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• If Allstarecho is banned from reporting comments like [82], which I think we can all be sure Bluemarine will repeat given half a chance, then all you who supported the ban should be ashamed of yourselves. Bluemarine gets 72 hours for that, Allstarecho gets prohibited from complaining about it. DuncanHill (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• If you see comments like that, Duncan, then you report them - and action will be taken (by me, if not previously). What ASE has not taken to heart is that by his appearance of a campaign against BM he has possibly hindered the taking of appropriate actions upon BM's bad faith comments - since the history between the two becomes the focus rather than the complaint. Like I have said twice now; obvious violations by Bluemarine will be reported by other parties. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I certainly shall report such behaviour when I see it - but I still say that to prohibit the subject of such an attack from complaining about it is inherently unjust and has the appearence (at the very least) of condoning the attacker. I'm sorry LH, but my experience of reporting homophobic abuse on Wikipedia is that the reporter gets subject to more of it, and the abuser carries on pretty much regardless for far too long. I do not have any confidence that this will change. DuncanHill (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• DuncanHill, a suggestion has gone up at RFAR for a mentor/contact so that Allstarecho may report problems for screening and appropriate action. Would you like to fill that role? Durova²⁹⁴ 23:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but I am unable to accept such a rôle. I will of course convey any report that ASE should make to me, but I do not have the energy or commitment to Wikipedia to reliably act as mentor to anyone. I do not know from day-to-day if I can bring myself to continue actively editing, so although I would very much like to help Allstarecho, it would be unfair on him to have to rely on me for this. I say again that I think that this sanction is appalling, and it is exactly the sort of thing that makes it harder for me to contribute effectively. DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• I've had a cup of tea and a fag, and reviewed [83] and its previous versions, and even if I was full of the joys of spring and imitating the action of a tiger, I couldn't face exposing myself to the filth peddled by Bluemarine. You're looking for someone to stand in a sewer. DuncanHill (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

David Fuchs' multiple incivilities at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Objection_to_this

Resolved

 – Warnings handed out. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

The incivilities:

• David Fuchs accused SlimVirgin of "bitching" in response to SlimVirgin's doubts about the usefulness of current ideas on the use of alt text. When SlimVirgin complained about this in quite mild terms, David Fuchs' response was "When you're involved, Slimmy, it's basically my stock response".
• Later David Fuchs wrote, "@Slim: If any "brilliant" writer is put off by having to describe an image or two to a disabled viewer, he or she is a lazy moron ... go crawl back to whatever hole you spend your wikidays in, please"
• David Fuchs did not apologise for or redact his remarks despite further complaints from Malleus Fatuorum, Ealdgyth and myself. Ealgdyth and I both objected to the "lazy morons" remark as we both disagreed with including alt text in FA criteria.
• I wrote to David Fuchs that I took his behaviour seriously and expected an apology for his "multiple incivilities". David Fuchs posted at my Talk page ".. I'll apologize when I feel the need, but it won't be because you expect me to "keep a civil tongue in my head ..." and then erased my message from his Talk page.

While David Fuchs's remark were well short of Oedipal epithets or suggestions that someone's brain was in their groin, they were also well short of the level of commonsense, diplomacy and level-headedness expected of admins. Some of his insulting comments were at the expense of named editors. Others were insulting descriptions of unnamed persons who behaved in a way or advocated a position with which he disagreed - we all know of at least one non-admin who was blocked recently for unflattering descriptions of unnamed persons based on their behaviour. If such behaviour leads to blocks for non-admins but no consequences for admins who act in the same way, the widespread suspicion that there's one law for admins and another for the rest will be inflamed - see the recent history of WT:RFA for examples of the consequences. --Philcha (talk)

While I do my darnedest not to use hurtful language, or at least language that will not help situations or people's scarred egos, I agree with David's point that claiming that adding alt text to images is too labor-intensive to be feasible is disingenuous, especially for FAs where alt text is fairly the least work to be done for getting an article promoted. I have no problem with legitimate questions about alt text actually being helpful, and have posed my own questions as to how POV such interpretations should be. I believe there is a difference between editors who claim they do not add alt text for such questions and what appeared to be SlimVirgin's original claim that alt text is another facet of a process-driven...process...that ultimately turns editors away from FAC. If they can't add alt text, then they certainly shouldn't be trying to get an FA. --Moni3 (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I really don't see much point in responding to this. I admit I have a distinct inability to take anything Slim suggests with good faith, and I've recused myself from the discussion to avoid further heat that were caused by my actions. I didn't agree to Philcha's command to apologize. I don't see what the aim of this ANI report is, aside from the whole "ADMIN CABAL" discussions, which are rather dreary... Can you explain what admin attention is needed? And Moni, while I agree with your comments, I think that discussion is suited to WT:FAC and shouldn't be brought here. It's my behavior which is on trial, not the ALT issue :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not an endorsement of comments, just an objective analysis. The word "bitching" is describing actions and not persons. Saying it is a stock response isn't really an insult or anythng negative. The statement "he or she is a lazy moron" is part of an "if/then" clause, which has a hypothetical individual and cannot be claimed as a personal attack as there is no direct object. It is a rhetorical strawman, of course. As a "lazy moron", I am not offended by the possibility that I am associated with people who do not want to put alt text in FACs. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to explain yourself or clarify why you chose to use "lazy morons" but I did not understand that to mean anyone who objected to using alt text is a lazy moron. I understood that to mean whoever claimed it was too much work as a reason not to add it to articles is a lazy moron. Philcha is saying that Malleus, Ealdgyth, and he were offended by the lazy moron remark. I did not think they were agreeing that adding alt text was too much effort. They were not classifying themselves as lazy morons per your criteria. --Moni3 (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Was that a response to me? "You'll have to explain yourself or clarify why you chose to use "lazy morons"" - I quoted the term. I didn't use the term... Ottava Rima (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict. That remark was for David. --Moni3 (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I was somewhat stunned by David's responses, especially that I should crawl back into my hole. The discussion about alt text was otherwise civil, and has been very constructive. I can't understand why there was a sudden need to launch personal attacks, and now apparently a defence of them, especially as I don't recall having interacted with David before. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that any admin action is warranted here. A more appropriate venue would be the WP:WQA. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Regular editors are blocked for much less than this outburst on a regular basis, but administrators simply close ranks when the behaviour being criticised comes from one of their own. Rather an unedifying spectacle, although not entirely unexpected. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I find myself in the astonishing position of agreeing with Malleus. Admins must be held, if not to a higher standard, at the very least to the same standard as other editors. → ROUX ₪ 17:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't block anyone for this, Malleus. I don't care who they are. You've seen me lobby for people to be unblocked for more than this, so I'm not sure what the purpose of your comment is. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I lobbied for Peter Damian to be not banned for doing far, far worse than this. But yeah, no one listens to me. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't asked for him to be blocked, simply that the same treatment is handed out to both administrators and non-administrators. Sadly, in the current climate that means that he ought to be blocked. I didn't make the rules, and it's not my job to enforce them. That's your job. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is definitely uncivil behavior on the part of David Fuchs, these kinds of comments about other editors are unacceptable. I suggest that David refactor his comments to remove the rude remarks he made to SlimVirgin. If David continues making these kinds of remarks, then a block would definitely be warranted in order to prevent further uncivil, hostile behavior. Wikipedia administrators are expected to hold to a much higher standard of conduct than this. Dreadstar † 18:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• There is no administrative action required here. Please see WP:CIVIL. We don't block people for incivility until it rises to the level of personal attacks or harassment. I don't see anything here requiring a block. Please take this matter to WP:WQA if you require further help from uninvolved editors. Block shopping is unseemly, as is demanding apologies. I agree that the comments were rude, and it would be best for them to be refactored. WP:ANI is not the place to request refactoring. If you can't deal with the rude user directly, that's where WP:WQA can help. Jehochman ^Talk 18:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Commenting anyway: this is ridiculous. How can an admin get away with this kind of behaviour without even a reprimand. I agree that blocking is not an option unless there is a risk that Fuchs will repeat the offense but he should definietly be told in bold letters that this is no way to adress fellow editors no matter what your history is with them. You were waaay out of line and no matter how much you disagree with someone this is never the way to express it. I think it would be more than a good idea for you to stand back and apologize for what you said - not so much to save your relationship with SlimVirgin which seems to be damaged beyond repair already, but more to save your own face - in this case as always it is the one being incivil who comes out looking bad, not the other part. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• (ironic e/c) This was way above rude, this was repeat, unjustified, unrepentant, unmodified, totally personalised and derogatory responses to good faith debate. From an admin no less. And yet, it gets archived and shoveled off to WQA, who can do what exaclty? Absolutely nothing that's what. MickMacNee (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• I must agree with both Maunus and MickMacNee above. This sort of behaviour from almost any non-admin would result in at least a severe reprimand, and almost certainly a block. Hell, I got blocked for telling someone to 'stay the fuck away'... and yet an admin gets away with this? If nothing else, it gives me a chance to plug this proposal for desysopping abusive admins. However, since this is very clearly not resolved, I have unarchived the section. → ROUX ₪ 20:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I rarely (in fact, never) agree with Ottava and Malleus about anything, so I find, to my amusement, my total agreement with them here. David Fuchs repeatedly uses incivil language in practically any discussion where someone has the temerity to disagree with him. This goes on all the time, he needs to be reined in. An RfAr might be in order. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggest moving this thread

I request that the drama making, whether unintentional or not, please be minimized. Nobody needs to be blocked. This thread should be moved to WP:WQA#Concern about David Fuchs to continue the discussion there. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 20:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:WQA is widely regarded as useless because toothless - an editor who has behave offensively can ignore WP:WQA with impunity.

I also question your toning down the title of this discussion from "David Fuchs' multiple incivilities" to "Concern about David Fuchs". All the relevant comments at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Objection_to_this criticised David Fuchs' conduct, as did most of this on this page. David Fuchs also received at his Talk page criticisms from uninvolved editors SandyGeorgia and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADavid_Fuchs&diff=306067083&oldid=306062910] - the later fo which DavidFuchs reverted. The revert and David Fuchs' response at my Talk page showed that he does not care at all about his own conduct - which also makes referral to WP:WQA futile. --Philcha (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Concern about SlimVirgin

There is an appearance of head hunting on this thread. I am concerned that User:SlimVirgin and several friends or allies are trying to get an editor blocked for incivility, in violation of WP:CIVIL. These actions are themselves incivil. I request uninvolved administrators scrutinize this matter closely for possible violations of collusion, gaming the rules, and feuding. Thank you. I'm done (administrating) here. Jehochman ^Talk 20:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)This was not helpful, so I am striking it.

That strikes me as a not very good idea which will only escalate something that should be put to bed. Meatpuppetry is hard to prove, and I think it's hard to deny that the complaints about David Fuchs' comments are at least semi-legitimate, particularly since they were made by several people, including before this even came to ANI. If you have something certain in mind in terms of an effort to gang up on David, it's better for you post evidence rather than insinuating and then hoping others pick up the thread. If you don't have evidence then the matter should be dropped. I have no dog in this mini-fight but I think AGF is still very much in effect for all parties concerned barring evidence to the contrary. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The complaints were not frivolous. I agree. However, the time for any possible block has passed, because such a block would be short if any at all. I think David Fuchs has gotten the message here, and given a little time to reflect he'll probably improve his behavior. Continuing the discussion and repeatedly asking for a block is not at all helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 21:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You are quite wrong about that, and I don't think you should try to shine the spotlight on me. People are simply objecting to your attempts to close a thread while editors are still commenting. It serves only to draw more attention to the debate, and is therefore counter-productive from your own perspective. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. Plus, in case you were referring to me, Jehochman: I have about as little time for anything SV has to say as I do for anything you have to say. Making veiled accusations of meatpuppetry and gaming while complaining that wanting an administrator sanctioned for the same behaviour that would get a newbie blocked is, to say the least, suffused with a bitter irony. Because here's the thing: a newbie would get blocked, but an admin who is supposed to know better doesn't. That is a problem. Of course, you're an admin... I leave it as an exercise for the reader how that sentence should be finished. → ROUX ₪ 21:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Roux, I was not referring to you specifically. I apply the same standards to all editors, newbie or admin. If other admins bite the noobs, take it up with them, or show me and I will. Jehochman ^Talk 21:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This board is for requesting administrative action. Once the time for possible administrative action have passed, there is no point in continuing a discussion. No block is possible at this time. This page is not to be used like the stocks to smear an editor's reputation or to harass and harangue them. You've got to stop block shopping. If you have concerns about civility, the proper forum is WP:WQA. I and another editor suggested that path, and I moved the thread there hoping others would try to have a productive conversation about solving the problem. It has become clear that the people asking for a block don't seem to want to resolve the dispute; they merely want to get an adversary blocked, perhaps to settle old scores. That behavior is an abuse of this board. Jehochman ^Talk 21:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt Slim is part of some cabalish action to block me. Others might, I dunno :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's good to hear! David, do you see all the trouble that came from a few rude remarks? Would you please pledge to up you standards going forward, no matter how you feel about the other editor. It would make my job much easier if you did. Jehochman ^Talk 21:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

'Course I did, that's why I disengaged from the discussion. However, I don't believe in refactoring remarks after the fact (for better or worse, that's what I said on the wiki-record) and I don't give meaningless apologies on demand (the person who has justification in asking for an apology is Slim, and she is perfectly capable of messaging or emailing me and doesn't need a chorus to speak her mind.) For the record, I have gotten plenty of tut-tuts on my talk page, from drama-feeders who I disregarded to people whose advice I respect and heed. Roux, you could always follow my recall process if that floats your boat, but that would involve an RfC and somehow tying poor comments with a misuse of admin tools, and I'm sure there's plenty of other drama fires people could be stoking besides this one.) May we please put this one to bed? -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Christ, Jehochman, want to make some more stupid allegations? I have never to my knowledge even so much as talked with Fuchs. And WQA is worse than useless. Here's how WQA works:

"He done wrong."

"Ayup, he shore did."

"What we gonna do about it?"

"Ain't nothin' we can do about it."

...and that's it. WQA has no ability to actually do anything. But thank you for two things: 1) making it clear that any editor may make the comments the Fuchs did without any reprisal, and 2) quite neatly attempting to deflect the issue away from administrator abuse of the position--namely, doing things normal editors wouldn't be allowed to get away with in a month of sundays--quite probably because you have done exactly the same thing here with your vague and scurrilous accusations. Smearing other editors, indeed. Does the word hypocrisy mean much to you? → ROUX ₪ 21:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Roux - please tone it down. This is an over the top and unreasonable response to Jehochman. Please don't increase drama or attack him for being concerned here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. He accused everyone here of meatpuppetry and colluding to try and get Fuchs blocked. And you're saying my response was unreasonable? He's getting away--exactly the same as Fuchs--with behaviour that would have a newbie disinvited from editing. It's depressing how many admins refuse to see this sort of thing as a problem. → ROUX ₪ 21:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop escalating the drama. He had a concern which (yes) assumed bad faith about some of us but which he presented neutrally and fairly and has walked away from as the situation is clarified. You're assuming bad faith about him and escalating into personal attacks. This is not ok. Please stop now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You cannot present accusations of meatpuppetry and collusion 'fairly'. But yet again: the admin gets away with the accusations, but the person pointing them out gets smacked down. It is sad that you don't see a problem with that. → ROUX ₪ 21:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What he was afraid was happening isn't, and he wasn't rude or incivil in suggesting / asking about it; it's a failure of good faith, but in good editor practice he was polite about asking and hasn't abused anyone once it's clear he was wrong.

Pointing out that it was an assumption of bad faith, in a civil manner, and leaving it at that would have been the appropriate response and would not have further escalated. You've been teetering on the edge of NPA since you started to respond to him, however, and have done it multiple times. On a 1 to 10 scale, the provocation was a 3, and your response is a 6. If you respond disproportionately to the provocation, and particularly if you keep it up over and over again after being told that you're going too far, you become the problem.

That's pretty much the textbook definition of drama. This was not about you - you've made part of it about you, in a very negative way. Was this what you wanted? If not... Stop! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You have entirely missed the point. Jehochman made accusations that are de facto uncivil personal attacks when not substantiated. Were a new user to make them, a block or a severe wrist slapping would be in order., But when an admin does so.. ho hum, business as usual. → ROUX ₪ 21:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Roux, as I'd warned David prior to Jehochman's comment, I am equally one of the people Jehochman was pointing at with the initial comment above as you are. Again - In my opinion, it was an assumption or concern about bad faith. It was presented civilly. It was wrong - and he's accepted that and moved off it and not defended it unreasonably.

What he did, while wrong on that particular, was not abusive and did not justify the level of vehemence you're responding with. Please stop. You are making this a drama incident by escalating your own behavior here and it's moving into disruptive and personal attack on him territory. You can argue your points about David's initial behavior without stepping further across the line against Jehochman. Please don't blow up the drama in the discussion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It was, in fact, abusive. And by making those unsubstantiated and unfounded allegations--while ironically complaining about a 'smear campaign'--Jehochman made his behaviour an issue. → ROUX ₪ 22:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman - It really doesn't matter who notified whom, how, or where - there's a widespread agreement that the actions were uncivil and in violation of policy. David removed two comments from his talk page, one by me, both with snarky edit comments, and left the other editor who warned him a not entirely polite message on his talk page too.

I don't think this rises to blockable, but there's not just a little smoke here, there's fire. Attention is entirely appropriate (here, or on WQA - I have no particular preference). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you in part. Some people want to tighten up civility. I want to clean up ANI. We could both get what we want by moving discussions like this one to WP:WQA. You can't really talk to somebody about their civility while your finger is on the block button. If a WP:WQA discussion fails to resolve the matter, the next step is WP:RFC. ANI is not part of dispute resolution. Jehochman ^Talk 21:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WQA is useless. You should also be sanctioned for your unfounded accusations of meatpuppetry etc. You won't be, of course; admins get a free pass for the most part. → ROUX ₪ 21:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're describing an ideal, end point process and topic breakdown between here and WP:WQA. At this time, however, I think others have a concern that there was an attempt being made to sweep this under the rug or cover up the behavior.

I don't subscribe to that opinion personally, but I see several others talking about it. At some point, trying to move a conversation "to the right place" ends up being more disruptive to the community than just letting it do its thing where it is now. As I said, I'm ok with discussion either place, but I think with the pushback on the location leaving it be is probably lowest-drama for now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive and blocking Fuchs serves no purpose unless he were to continue his incivility which doesn't seem to be the case. Furthermore I don't know SlimVirgin, have never interacted with her to my recollection. I am simply someone interested in the general work environment here at wikipedia. And letting editors get away with that kind of behaviour without being told that it is out of line creates leads to a toxic work athmosphere for all editors here. It is simply not in order to talk like that to anybody on wikipedia and everyone should know that. Furthermore I believe that admins should be held to a higher standard regarding cility issues than other users, because they need to have the moral high ground to be able to deal well with problem editors. Therefore it is not productive that Fuchs' behaviour be defended or made out as a minor incident - we need all our administrators to understand and follow the codes of conduct that they are supposed to enforce. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I am one of the administrators who has been more actively involved in the civility policy over the years, and enforcing it. I did warn David over it. A WQA or RFC might be appropriate - I believe that the message has been transmitted and received, however, and I suspect David will not do it again (soon, if at all - he is not known for abusive behavior in general, that I can remember). You're right to be concerned, admins should be setting a good example on these issues. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Try reading his comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development and its Talk page for just a touch of the kind of abusive behavior he doesn't descend into. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion concerning David or SlimVirgin but I see no less than divisive attitudes here. Jehochman and Roux, you got contradictory arguments. Jehochman, you ask to end the drama and then start another (same timing - see signatures above). Roux, you kind of imply that administrators have to get a special treatment but then believe that an admin has to be blocked. I am shaking my head guys :) Anyway, can we please move on now? If there are no sanction then close the whole thread. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, Fayssal. I believe that admins should not get special treatment, but frequently do. → ROUX ₪ 21:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I just read "...complaining that wanting an administrator sanctioned for the same behaviour that would get a newbie blocked is, to say the least" and then "[admin] should also be sanctioned" and got confused. Otherwise, yes... I agree with your assertion I am responding to now. Hoping this issue gets resolved, admins should set an example instead. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree: the thread is the sanction. While there is no need to use administrative tools agains Fuchs this thread goes to show him that his behaviour was wrong and is not tolerated on wikipedia - such a display of collective disapproval might very well lead to the desired outcome: that he refrain from that kind of behaviour in the future. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) The timestamps are confusing, FayssalF. They are the same because I updated the first comment when posting the second. There was actually a 14 minute difference. [84][85] In between those two edits I moved the thread to WP:WQA, hoping that matters would go in a more productive direction. The attempted move was reverted twice, showing my strategy to be a failure. There appeared to be some sort of collusion to get David Fuchs blocked, or at least smeared, rather a good faith attempt to resolve matters. That's what generated the second statement. Jehochman ^Talk 21:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

FayssalF, I did close the thread when it was clear that no sanction was possible. Several editors restarted it. That's what lead to this whole mess! Jehochman ^Talk 21:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And again with the unfounded accusations. Well fine, Jehochman, consider this your final warning--that any user may give--against making unfounded accusations against other editors. Do it again and I will seek an uninvolved admin to block you for repeated personal attacks. There has been no attempt to 'smear' Fuchs here; there has been an attempt--vain though it might be--to have admins held to the same standard of behaviour as other users. → ROUX ₪ 21:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"You can't really talk to somebody about their civility while your finger is on the block button" - appears to apply only to admins. I've seen non-admin users blocked for just one remark like the 3 that DavidFuchs wrote.

Jehochman, your attack on SlimVirgin, starting with the title of this sub-section, was totally unethical. SlimVirgin didn't start this discussion, I did.

As for your "I request uninvolved administrators scrutinize this matter closely for possible violations of collusion, gaming the rules, and feuding":

• Show us all the diffs that support your suspicion of collusion. Without them, mention of collusion is a smear. For exampe IIRC I have never posted on SlimVirgin's Talk page until notifying her as a courtesy that her name was mentioned in this referral to WP:ANI, and IIRC she has never posted to my Talk page. Even if I've forgotten some message in the distant past, we are not in regular communication. --Philcha (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
• The diffs I provided, or of the current version of Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Objection_to_this if you want to assure yourself that nothing has been taken out of context, show a well-contested but amicable discussion of a proposal - until DavidFuchs started throwing insults around. The discussion returned to its previous amicable style after DavidFuchs's last post there at 14:19, 4 August 2009. Where's the evidence of gaming the rules?
• The same evidence rebuts your accusation of WP:DE against SlimVirgin, myself or whoever your intended target was - the discussion happily returned to its previous course and tone after David Fuchs departed.
• As for your using "feuding" as your description for an accusation of WP:DE against whomever, show us the diffs that demonstrate a history of conflict. In this incident the only evidence of feuding, i.e. persistent hostility, was DavidFuchs' remarks to SlimVirgin. --Philcha (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Holy edit conflict! I think Maunus's point above (at 21:31) is probably the only positive thing to take away from this minor dustup, since clearly there is not going to be an administrative action and the discussion will likely just devolve into nonconstructive chatter. There is a wide perception (rightly or wrongly—I think rightly) that admins tend to get a pass on civility and similar issues when non-admin editors would often be sanctioned for the same kind of behavior. Admins should be concerned not only with actually meting out (or not meting out) fair blocks regardless of the status of the user in question, but also with the appearance that they are doing so. Leaving to the side David's comments—which were gratuitous and non-collegial at best—we should be wary of too quickly sweeping away complaints about admin behavior. As mentioned above there is clearly at least some "fire" here, and pretending there is only smoke reinforces the impression that we admins follow different standards for "regular" editors than we do for sysops who get to wear the fancy pants (side note: I propose that from now on we refer to new admins as "putting on the fancy pants" rather than "getting the mop" - except I don't really propose that).

I also can't help but note an excruciatingly constant pattern in these kind of situations. So many of these threads could be avoided if the editor who spoke too sharply simply said, "my bad, I got too heated there and apologize." 95% of us would accept that and move the hell on, but it rarely seems to happen. I wish outbursts of incivility were followed far more often with contrition—not forced contrition (which is bogus - forcing an apology is absurd and not useful), but a genuine stepping back and acknowledgment that one got carried away, as we all can and do from time to time. I'm going to a bar now, and it better be more fun than this or I'm suing someone! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Drama level down, please

This kitten also requires a civility block. ~ mazca talk 22:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Kitten placed in block. Er, box. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This can be discussed in a civil manner, respecting each other. Please elevate the discussion and WP:AGF about all of the participants. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, your "There appeared to be some sort of collusion to get DavidFuchs blocked, or at least smeared, rather a good faith attempt to resolve matters" (21:39, 4 August 2009) and your earlier "You've got to stop block shopping" directed at an unspecified target (21:07, 4 August 2009) are also unsupported by the evidence. I reported this incident to WP:ANI after first trying to get DavidFuchs to apologise for his remarks. He refused, in terms that suggested he felt quite free to throw such remarks around whenever he felt like it. DavidFuchs started the fire and then poured petrol on it.

Under all the other stuff, the major issue is whether at least equal standards of conduct are enforced on admins as on non-admins. --Philcha (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

They're not. Qui custodiet ipsos custodes? Etc. → ROUX ₪ 22:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have left more civility warnings than anyone else engaged in the discussion. I warned David Fuchs prior to the ANI thread developing much past initial notification. In the scale of uncivil behavior, his was low-grade warnable, and unfortunate as administrators need to be setting good examples, but not multiple-warnings-or-blockable.

I encourage people to review Wikipedia:Civility warnings, my essay on this topic. I take this seriously. Please AGF. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I await an explanation as to how unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations of collusion and meatpuppetry can possibly be made in good faith. → ROUX ₪ 22:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies can be offered, but should never be demanded under threat of sanction. Next time you see one user behaving badly to another, you could follow the steps outlined at User:Jehochman/Responding to rudeness. Jehochman ^Talk 22:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You owe me a new irony meter. Or is making unsubstantiated allegations of serious wrongdoing somehow not rude? Feh, forget it, nobody will do anything about your behaviour. → ROUX ₪ 22:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) And after User:Jehochman/Responding to rudeness's "Request the user take corrective action or change their behavior. "Could you please refactor that remark," ..."]] has proved ineffective, what happens next? Oh yes, if the culprit is not an admin, he / she often gets blocked. --Philcha (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with Georgewilliamherbert. This discussion is like a hydra: been reading for ten minutes without getting a handle on the underlying dispute. So without specific comment on anybody's conduct, perhaps this would be a step forward, generally speaking? Respectfully submitted, Durova²⁹² 22:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, let's sweep it under the carpet. The "underlying issue" is as plain as the nose on your face. Just look at David's behaviour both at the FAC discussion and subsequently and tell me that a non-administrator would not now be blocked for similar behaviour. It's not rocket science. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not understanding the underlying issue is different from sweeping anything under the rug. Life is short, and there isn't much to be gained by spending more time at a tangled and bitter discussion. It could help future discussions if people got more in the habit of providing diffs. Better to light one candle than to curse the darkness. Durova²⁹² 23:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A non-administrator would not, right now, be blocked for similar behavior. They might have gotten the equivalent of a second level civility warning for the edit comments removing prior warnings on their talk page, but no more.

As I stated above - please see Wikipedia:Civility warnings. I do this more than most, probably more than anyone else here. David Fuchs got as much warning from me for a first offense (series of edits, but one incident) (that I'm aware of) as anyone would. Drama here is distracting and confusing the situation, but I am taking this seriously. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You are either joking or hopelessly out of touch with the reality on the ground. I suggest the latter. Resign your admin bit and see what the world looks like to the rest of us. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Forget it, Malleus. Admins can do as they please, and the peons are merely left to whine about it. Feudalism is alive and well. I'm just glad they don't actually employ droit de seigneur. Unless and until adminship can be removed by the community when admins abuse their position, this inequality will continue. And guess who makes up much of the most vocal opposition to desysopping. → ROUX ₪ 22:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

An administrator "assuming good faith" with an editor with whom they have disagreed.

Roux, is this what you meant by droit de seigneur? (Apologies to the ex-admin from whom I pinched this) --Philcha (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh jolly. Another thread about a specific incident which may warrant attention that has devolved into "civility standards aren't applied evenly" bitching. Message received loud and clear, Malleus and Roux. There is no need to keep banging the drum. Protonk (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for so neatly encapsulating the entire problem by referring to it as 'bitching'. It would also be a good idea for you to note that complaint only became a serious focus here after multiple admins kept.. oh what was it... oh yeah, applying completely different standards to admins. → ROUX ₪ 23:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I figured the thread needed brevity and clarity. Solve the problem at hand. Resolve the dispute which is at the core of the matter. Don't spend your time fighting endless internecine battles. If you turn a thread about a specific issue into a proxy about a general issue (especially one which is at the core of how the 'pedia sorts itself) don't be surprised when it becomes unproductive and nasty. Just like when a specific AfD turns into a proxy for the notability wars, the situation gets worse not better. So you can throw sarcasm at me all day but it won't change the basics. Complaining in this thread loudly about broad (albeit important) issues won't move anything forward. If it makes you feel better, great. But don't act like it solves any grand problem. Protonk (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing else is solving this problem. What, exactly, are non-admin users to do when admins routinely ignore misbehaviour amongst their own while regularly punishing non-admins for the exact same behaviour? You guys have all the power, and should we make the mistake of stepping an inch over the line--block! We have absolutely no way to redress the situation short of RFAR, which doesn't work except in the most extreme of cases. All this nonsense is precisely why admins should be routinely desysopped to make you lot remember what it's like to have absolutely zero ability to do anything about abuse around here. → ROUX ₪ 23:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"You lot". Classy. Well, keep on keeping on then. Let me know when you've solved this problem through discussion about it on AN/I. Protonk (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying 'you lot'. All admins. Whatever. You're ignoring the point.. but then, you're an admin, so you would, wouldn't you? The mocking, of course, is unbecoming of an admin.. but the idea that you're supposed to set some sort of example is, apparently foreign. It's amazing, I don't even have to say much really. You folks prove my point far better than I ever could. → ROUX ₪ 23:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm human, just like you are. I'm mocking this thread because I feel it is worthy of derision. If I knew that you could declare that behavior 'unbecoming of an admin' and then get upset about it, I might not have mocked it. The point stands. All that fighting this battle will do is leave you hoarse. If you want to push for substantive admin recall procedures, I'll support you, as I have in the past. But I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for this course of action you're on. Protonk (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... could someone direct me to where WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL exclude making sweeping comments about all admins? I can't seem to find that part.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Admins are frequently given a free pass on behaviour that would get a newbie blocked or severely reprimanded. See above for two examples; Fuchs' comments and Jehochman's ridiculous accusations. → ROUX ₪ 23:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Fuchs got an editor warning, then an administrator warning from me, well before anyone here was complaining that much about it. There was no free pass. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman's allegations? Nada. You're still missing the point here, GWH, but it seems futile to try and explain it further than I already have. What is educational, however, is how very neatly this discussion is split. On the one side there are regular editors pointing out the disparity in treatment. On the other are solely admins, sweeping admin misbehaviour right under the rug. This growing divide between admins and regular editors needs to be stopped in its tracks. But whatever, I guess. Admins don't acknowledge there's any problem, so there clearly isn't one, so us silly little peons should shut up and behave like good little kids while the grownups do as they please. → ROUX ₪ 23:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No. There is something of a problem. David shouldn't say the things he said. What is missing is widespread agreement amongst admins that the problem has metastasized into either something meriting a desysoping or something indicative of wiki-wide rot. I don't know what to say. Should I go block David? Would that solve the problem? Short of buying a time machine and blocking him for those remarks prior to him making them, what shall I do? If there were a desysopping procedure, would you still be upset that admins might 'vote' against desysopping, causing the measure to fail? Should he be summarily desysopped? Protonk (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In an ideal world? Yes. Admins are elected to the post specifically because they are supposed to exemplify an ideal standard of behaviour and contribution to the project (whether onstage or backstage). I recognise that will never, ever happen, and I could probably be swayed by arguments that it shouldn't. But given the behvaiour would unquestionably have resulted in a block for a new editor, yes a block should have been applied. Admins are given wider latitude than newbies when in reality it should be narrower as they're supposed to know better. A block should have been issued immediately, as it would have been for a new editor. Oh well. → ROUX ₪ 23:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be best if this just died now. Actual enforcement actions, were someone to begin taking them, would have to start with those displaying stubborn bad faith to the point of incivility and disruption on ANI here. I would rather not to that, as it tends to be perceived as being an attempt to sweep things under the rug.

That said - there is a disparity here. We are letting critics get away with murder in the name of allowing fair and open discussion. The latter is important, but perhaps not this important.

Roux, are you prepared to be judged in a fair and unbiased manner, equally to my earlier judgement and warning to David Fuchs? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

How about you start with the bad faith accusations of meatpuppetry and collusion? Do something about an abusive admin and I'll pay attention to what you have to say to me. Until you do so, you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. → ROUX ₪ 23:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Roux, I think you missed my point. You and Malleus are making sweeping statements indicting all admins, even ones who have never engaged in the behavior you are criticizing. If I said "everyone who isn't an admin is a vandal", you'd be rightly pissed off at me; perhaps you can imagine how an admin who doesn't do this feels when people are given a free pass to make swipes at them. And the thing that cheeses me off the most is that by constantly making these sweeping accusations about all admins and not providing a calm, rational argument with diffs, you are making it more difficult when there's a specific problem with an admin, because everyone will assume you're just looking to cry "admin abuse" again.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not miss your point. Many admins don't play their 'get out of jail free' cards because many admins--yourself included--are decent people. But you would get a free pass that regular editors simply do not. → ROUX ₪ 23:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Which goes to show that you missed my point again. It's not about whether I would get a free pass, because I'm just not going to engage in anything remotely close to blockable behavior. By making sweeping assertions that all admins give all other admins a free pass, you basically accusing me and the many other decent admins of giving other admins a free pass. If an admin creates three pages consisting of nothing but the word "poooooop", I'll block him/her just as fast as any other editor (in part because I rarely remember who is and isn't an admin, just like I rarely remember gender or age). If an editor is being uncivil, I'm almost never going to block, whether admin or not, mainly because blocks almost never improve civility issues.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well here's a simple test Fabrictramp. How many blocks of regular editors have you reversed when they're guilty of no worse behaviour than administrators whose bhaviour you have allowed to pass unremarked? The question is of course rhetorical, as administrators are strongly discouraged from being either honest or courageous in their actions, so the answer is of course "none". --Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to undermine your point, but I can think of at least two that I've unblocked in just such circumstances. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Only two? I can think of more than two bad blocks that happened this week. Is that it? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If nothing changes, shouldn't the drum continue to be beaten until things do change? Or should we just be good little kiddies and go away while all of the important people (Admins and the friends of ArbCom) get to play in their little fiefdoms? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. → ROUX ₪ 23:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This User:David_Fuchs admin has been rude, very rude. Telling someone to clawl back into their hole is very demeaning, he should be a man' apologise, and take it back. When admins do this type of thing and go unpunished it weakens their respect as a body. An admin should be held up as an example of the height that a wikipedian can aspire to.(Off2riorob (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

I don't disagree with your assessment of Fuchs, but this notion that administrators are in some way role models, or chosen as role models, flies in the face of all common sense. Just take a look at any RfA. Most of the supporters will repeat some variation on "will not abuse the tools". Abusing other editors is nothing that anyone gets very excited about, as evidenced by the admins closing ranks here. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not real big on this closing ranks conspiracy. Admins don't get chosen for their role model atributes and RFA is a bit broken , but once they are admins, a little more responsibility is there and role model wikipedian is something for them to aspire to as it is for all of us. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

A warning about his behaviour has been left on User_talk:David_Fuchs page by the admin Georgewilliamherbert and respect to George for that, this time Fuchs says he will leave it there. A warning is good for him, I do still feel that he made the comments in public and he should be a man and apologise in public. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

It might help if David choses to apologize, but I have found in years of leaving civility and personal attacks warnings that insisting on people leaving apologies becomes a form of harrassment and abuse itself, and rarely helps calm down a situation and avoid it from happening again. I won't push people to do so, as a result of experience. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you George. It is up to Fuchs how he moves forward with this now. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

You warned Fuchs and Jehochman but you threatened Roux. I'm no great fan of Roux, as I'm sure he'll confirm, but even I can see that you are being very from even-handed in your dealing here. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It was precisely what I expected, actually. Give some milquetoast 'warning' to someone making blatant accusations of some of the worst behaviour--in Wikipedia terms--possible, and threaten the person who took issue with those accusations. The rule is, of course, you can say what you want. Responding to it is not allowed. Oh well. → ROUX ₪ 01:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I supplied diffs on Roux' talk page for the specific edits he's being warned (final warning) for WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. If you would care to provide specific diffs for either of those two which demonstrate worse conduct I will reconsider, but I reviewed both of their contributions prior to their warnings and what I found wasn't as bad (Jehochman) or was as bad (Fuchs) but stopped much more quickly and has been acknowledged by Fuchs already, so it's not likely to continue.

As I said above, repeatedly, to Roux - he was acting in a manner that is almost the textbook definition of drama - taking a legitimate incident where others misbehaved and making it largely all about himself by the end. This is not behaviour we want to tolerate or encourage. Allowing him to run for a while before a final warning, in the interest of letting this be as open and free a discussion of Fuchs' initial actions as possible, led Roux to run off and commit serious abuse. That has to stop.

That an administrator started an incident does not give all anti-administrator critics free reign to launch personal attacks and disrupt in the ensuing discussion. Roux was handed 12 hours of rope and has fashioned himself quite a good noose with it. Stepping off the stool is up to him. I hope he does not. I have admins emailing me saying thanks for warning the other admins for their actions. I would appreciate it if the anti-admin critics would stop and think, reconsider whether Roux' actions today are something you think were defensible, or constructive.

I think I offered to nom you for adminship before, Malleus, and you said no. I would like to repeat the offer again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Very kind, and also very brave, but I would never agree to be an administrator unless wikipedia's system of governance was reformed, and administrators held properly accountable. Neither am I willing to offer myself up again for the ritual humiliation that is RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

@Off2riorob: I'm not going to "be a man" because of the will of the internets. I will deal with that privately. Asking for an apology onwiki is the equivalent of bringing two quarreling children together and prompting one, "Now what do you say?" There's no genuine sentiment involved, it's meaningless. As stated above I'm not going to refactor comments because that mangles threads and I feel is an ineffective whitewash; I got unreasonably angry, 'nuff said. I'm not trying to hide it. But we should really, really move on beyond the thread, which has turned into far greater drama than my actions have caused (and c'mon, that's just saddening.) There's got to be a better venue for discussing the larger issue of admin behavior than ANI. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't even seem to begin to understand what the problem is here. How many regular editors are indef blocked until they make one of these "meaningless" apologies? How come you're different? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Malleus here, you don't seem to understand David, this is not about the bigger issue of admin behaviour, this is about your behaviour. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

Interesting conversation. The problem as I see it is this. Who would want to ban their friends? I'm sure most admins are pretty close and friendly and have been for quite a while. It's only human to go easy on a friend, even if you try not to. It happens in the real world too. We all know it's not fair and shouldn't happen, but it does. I don't think all the talking in the world will change that. It's a problem that won't be solved because, well, as I said, we are all human. Jack forbes (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not "friends" with a single Wikipedia editor, admin or otherwise. Tan | 39 01:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Many WP:ARBCOM cases are filed by admins, and many of the cases are filed against admins. We tend not to warn and block each other - but the idea that we let each other get away with abuse is not supported by the history. And in this case, I left early and then later, repeated warnings for the two admins, so the tendency wasn't even true right now... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"but the idea that we let each other get away with abuse is not supported by the history" - uh, really? What do you think this thread has been about, then? → ROUX ₪ 01:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The behavior of David Fuchs, who made 4 personal attacks on SV much earlier and then stopped, and who I issued a warning re personal attacks prior to your commenting a second time on the thread here; and then the behavior of Jehochman, who briefly suspected there were malign conspiracies afoot and then backed off that statement; and then the behavior of you, who are still at it. David got my first warning [86] hours and hours and hours ago, within 15 minutes of my becoming aware of the thread and issue. Before Jehochman moved the thread briefly to WQA. The intervening many hours, and many personal attacks and abusive comments you left, seem to be demanding that I do what I had already done. Your insistence on this point is quite perplexing. I did it again [87] prior to warning you, just to make it clear, but I had done it once already (and David, properly within his talk page management rights, deleted it).

So you tell me, what were the last few hours about? Why did you insert yourself into the middle of it? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, let's try some turnabout. I find it amusing that this is being prosecuted by people who have long block logs for civility issues and both have failed RfAs where those issues were brought up. So is this anything more than "I got burned, I wanna make others pay"? If you, Roux, or you, Malleus, were admins, would you be siding with me? No, you would quickly say. Yet you are essentially saying that all admins are corrupt sycophants, so where does that distinction end? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What I find disgusting is that you feel safe in your administrator's cloak of invulnerability, still thowing out your unwarranted insults. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Some admins tend to think along the lines of "if a block is unnecessary, then it doesn't belong here". This is not true. There's no doubt that the language used by David Fuchs was neither professional, nor appropriate. (That is, the person who initiated the thread had a legitimate concern, and raised it appropriately.) Although a WQA would've been issued, it's usually more meaningful when it comes from another admin - and there's no necessity to republish it at WQA, or a need to move it back here either. In essence, the edit war between Jechochman and Roux was inappropriate and unnecessary. In this case, GWH did the needful when the move was being disputed.

• The "concern about SlimVirgin" does not seem to be supported by any evidence. Jehochman, you're right that apologies aren't compulsory - but even if you were unwilling to make one (which is up to you), at least you should have revoked or struck those comments. I would not find a problem if someone else did because you didn't. In any case, this "concern" predictably led to an escalation of drama; a lapse in judgement perhaps. However, Roux's conduct in particular was unreasonably inappropriate on more than one occasion during this discussion. A block should've ordinarily been issued; again, GWH was kind enough to stop short of that with a final warning, but the response to that [88] demonstrated little sign of change. Protonk (above) tried to calmly communicate the issue; again, I don't think the attempt was very successful.

• Overall, nearly all of the substantive issues in the thread could've been covered in a more respectful and less confrontational way. Whether admins or established users, the example being set in this discussion was generally appalling. I hope this is more of a one-off. In any case, this thread has outlived any possible usefulness it had - so, it is now closed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Seeking advice on user that is "profiling" voters in a poll

I'm helping to moderate the Ireland naming project, and based on the project members' desires, they felt that a single-transferable vote poll would be the best way to resolve the issue, accepting to be bound by its results. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names started recently, advertized in relevent places including VPP and CENT, and some users are already trying to compile data, something I've discouraged, but not going to stop. However, one user, User:Sarah777, has decided to create a tally that, based on what she can figure out from the voters' pages, if they are Irish or British. This is due to her believe that one option on the poll is heavily British-nationalistic against Ireland, and believes there to be a systematic bias for that. Whatever she believes is fine, but what is not acceptable, to me and apparently to others, is the post-vote profiling; two users at least, after discovering this poll, have removed their vote as they don't want to be profiled.

This, personally, is a serious matter (it's not quite a personal attack outright, but it walks and talks like one), and I tried to remove her polling results [89] but she has since replaced them [90]. I've warned her to not continue the profiling summary, but she appears to be intent on continuing this.

Is there any action that can be taken on this? The issue itself would fall outside of what the ArbCom case covered, and the timing is a bit more critical if people are scared away by voting. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A tally ethnically or nationally profiling voters is clearly completely inappropriate for the talk page or anywhere else. The fact that it is has been tolerated for this long is just a testament to how far the entire Ireland "collaboration" has strayed from the norms of Wikipedia process and reality in general. Guest9999 (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked you not to remove my table without discussing it (as you did). I did not say you I will keep restoring them if, after discussion you persist in removing them. I said that would be censorship; it would deprive voters of vital information about how "Republic of Ireland" is maintained as the status quo because of the votes of British editors, in the face of opposition from an overwhelming number of editors from the sovereign state. If you still remove my spreadsheet, so be it. But you will have employed censorship and you will de-legitimise the ballot. Sarah777 (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

An editor has claimed that this has been done before without sanctions being imposed and is looking for the diff. He claims it happened on the Macedonia name change. BigDunc 20:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I dont know why it matters if it was done before. It's clearly wrong and represents a fault in the earlier decision, not allowing it now. Also, the mthods for determining nationality are looking at user pages. I could change mine right now to say im whatever and throw off the whole thing. --M^ask? 20:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It matters when editors are calling for a 12 month block. BigDunc 20:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, indeed, I did such a "profiling" tally in the Macedonia case, and I stand by it – in that case, the very root of the problem was indeed a situation of permanent, very obvious entrenched frontlines along national affiliations, and it was an important point to demonstrate why a vote, as a vote, couldn't work (remember that votes are evil). I strongly maintain that in that particular case it was an important and legitimate thing to do. If, of course, the participants in the present issue have already decided that a vote is what they want, then such an analysis may make little sense. In any case, I do not share the moral panic in seeing such an analysis done, in principle. In many domains of ethnically-dominated contentious hotspots, nationally entrenched editing frontlines are a plain reality, and a serious problem, and the affiliation of individual editors with this or that side is usually quite plainly known to every insider. We cannot solve such a problem if we aren't allowed to even speak about it, naming and describing the frontlines. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how anybody can be imtimadated on Wikipedia. Anyways, if the profiling is so distubing, would it be alright if Sarah kept it on her userpage? GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is Future Perfect, Sarah is not just pointing out in a fair way nationalities in a simple list as i seem to recall you did (when reading about that), she is making clear accusations of bias by British editors in an attempt to mislead and impact on the vote. The fact 2 people have withdrawn their vote (especially the first who didnt put the main option Sarah opposes as his first choice) shows its a problem all though i do agree a 12 month ban is way too extreme, banning her from contributing on the ballot/talk page whilst the vote is on going would prevent futher trouble. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What is misleading about what Sarah has done? BigDunc 20:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If several have withdrawn, maybe she's onto something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(to GoodDay)The fact that two people have withdrawn their votes, and I just got a talk page message from a third user who doesn't want to vote until Sarah's tally is stop, implies there are people feeling intimidated by Sarah's spreadsheet. Based on the Macadonia naming issue, this appears to be closer to WP:OUTING (though Sarah does not attempt to identify who are her Irish votes and British votes). That's still a troubling factor. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Would it be alright for her to keep her 'tally' at her userpage? GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(to Fut. Pref)I looked at the poll you had done, Future, and my conclusion from looking at everything was that that poll was just part fuel of the fire that launched the ArbCom case. Here, we've past the ArbCom case, in its resolution, and we should be expecting a higher decorum from those involved. Of course its obvious that there are ethnic ties with how people are voting, but what's important here is that this poll is opened to all wikipedians, not just the select few involved with the Macadonia naming straw poll. As I've tried to identify here, we're coming (as agreed upon by parties involved) to a solution that is voted on by Wikipedians, not Irish, British, nor non-aligned voters, and the need to profile voters on a wiki-wide poll seems troubling as opposed to the case if we were only doing a straw poll among project members. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me just clarify that I haven't actually looked into the present context in any detail, so I can't speak to the merits of the present case. As I said, I might agree that in a situation where a "vote" (not a "!vote") has already been agreed on as the appropriate mechanism, it should probably be understood that everybody's contribution will be counted on the same basis no matter what happens, so analysing the ethnic make-up of the poll may serve little good. Incidentally, I'll also put on the record that in the Macedonia case we found that the ultimate solution, which proved fairly successful, was to have something that was very explicitly not a vote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Two users have withdrawn there votes due to profiling - it shows wikipedia in a poor light. Action is needed. Djegan (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Endorse removal of poll. I see that if that is done Sarah777 says it will "de-legitimise the ballot" - I'm also very unhappy with this sort of pressure being put on to keep the poll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 20:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The difference here is that this is a vote - an exception to WP:DEMOCRACY. Discussion has come and gone. Polling has come and gone. Edit warring has come and gone. ArbCom has come and gone. And after nine months of intense collaboration, we have agreed to have a vote that will be binding for two years. We all understood the seriousness of that. We all agreed that, "Non-trivial sanctions will be imposed for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry or otherwise manipulating the ballot (or attempting to do so)". How else could a vote take place?

Now, I don't believe that Sarah intended to intimidate anyone or scare anyone off. But her "spreadsheet" clearly did intimidate at least two voters (Nanonic and Andrwsc), who removed their votes explicitly to avoid being "ethnically profiled" or being "added to some POV warriors statistics".

What ever happens, the profilling must stop and voters must be allowed to cast their ballots freely and without intimidation (intentional or

otherwise). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been referred to a previous Arbcom case where Sarah777 is restricted and "may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks." I continue to seek if this is appropriate here (if Sarah doesn't do it, someone else might), but will report this aspect elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that this is disruptive if people are changing votes. I'd say give her one more chance to stop posting the results publically, and if she refuses, long-term block. I'd also suggest oversighting all the revisions where she referred to voters' nationality in anything close to an identifiable way. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"oversight" - you mean delete completely from the DB? I would support that. A warning. Deleting reference to the profiling from the DB (even blanking the section I opened). And serious sanctions if she does it again/barring from the ballot page. That sounds fair to me. A block or anything else would be counter-productive for the entire WP:IECOLL project, I believe. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Instead of repeatedly talking about blocks why doesn't someone (Masem) talk to her again. You never know, this may be over before it's begun. Jack forbes (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that interesting piece of history. I have looked at Sarah's block log and note that a permanent block was lifted last year after she agreed to mentoring. Is the mentor able to report on how her behaviour has improved from before? What I see in her current behaviour is aggressive point of view pushing. There is a clear anti-British agenda in how she is behaving even if remarks are buried in the sub-text.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Add me to the list of people who don't understand how this could be intimidating, and I don't see this as "clearly" or "obviously" wrong. What am I missing? Using information that other users have intentionally added to their own userpages, she's collecting information to see whether there is a possible systematic bias. Maybe it's a valid point, maybe she's full of it, and I don't see how it can be used to invalidate the poll, so why are we forbidding the on-wiki assembly of information? If you're demanding action, it's not enough to claim that people are intimidated, you need to convince people that such intimidation is actually reasonable. Is there any diff you can point to where she is actually trying to intimidate anyone? Otherwise, claiming intimidation is just another way to game to system. It seems silly that this cultural difference in preferences cannot be mentioned; while the word is overused here, forbidding the mention of it seem like censorship. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Is there any diff you can point to where she is actually trying to intimidate anyone?" I don't think she is doing it intentionally, but at least two voters (Nanonic and Andrwsc) removed their votes explicitly to avoid being "ethnically profiled" or being "added to some POV warriors statistics" so it is interfering with the vote (which is a binding vote, not a straw poll). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thought experiment: What if I was clearly identifiable as Irish (I'm not, except on St. Patrick's Day, when my 1/16th Irish blood kicks in), had voted in the poll (I haven't), and then retracted my vote because "it's obvious from what is happening to Sarah777 that there is ongoing harrassment of Irish voters". Would this be legitimate? No. I don't get to alter other people's behavior by just claiming intimidation. So, could someone please move beyond saying 3 users were intimidated, and explain how it's intimidation? Please? I could certainly be wrong about this, but just saying over and over "people were intimidated" isn't going to convince me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly irrelevant whether you, or I, can understand it. What matters is if it affects the vote, which it clearly has done. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And I agree with Floquenbeam can I now remove my vote and claim it was because of the intimidation of Sarah by pro British editors. Will sanctions be brought against Rannpháirtí anaithnid for starting this intimidation or the constant badgering of any one who doesn't agree with the status quo. Also the myth that every editor who took part in the process agreed to this poll is a blatant lie. BigDunc 21:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep calm. The emerging consensus appears to be that profiling should be banned while the vote is in progress. The profiling is based on public information, and collated. Like other editors here, I don't believe the case has been made that this could be seen as "imtimidating". I believe she set out to demonstrate that a majority of primarily British editors vote one way, and a majority of primarily Irish voters vote another, and that since there are more British voters than Irish, getting things changed can be problematic. Now it's a fact that this has resulted in some editors removing their votes, but the primary issue is intent and knowledge. Did Sarah set out to imtimidate voters and could this have been foreseen? I think not. The obvious solution is to simply ban profiling while the vote is in progress, and I believe any sanctions are unnecessary. --HighKing (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Voter were intimidated. But I don't think Sarah set out to do so. Let's just remove the profiling (and any mention of it) - either by blanking it or deleting it from the DB. Let everyone, not only Sarah, be warned that what they write on the talk page can scare voters away - and so to be careful. No running commentaries. No statements about users who vote this way or that. No comment on the options (we have a page for that). Let's just keep the talk on that page to a minimum until September 14th and let the vote run its course all by itself. In fact, let's blank most of it except those posts that are directly related to the operation of the poll, etc.. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I certainly didn't set out to do so - nor do I think I have done so. But there is a clear and obvious attempt to intimidate Irish editors who oppose them by a tiny group of editors, including rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid, Bastun and Djegan. And this is by no means the first time in the case of the latter two. Sarah777 (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

YOU were intimidating others. Djegan (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny, but I'm 100% sure that the editors here are all pretty thick-skinned wrt intimidation. It's WP:OR to associate intent to Sarah's table. Consensus to stop has only recently emerged, and it has been dealt with. Blocks are not handed out as punishments, only to deter a repeat of disruptive behaviour. Sarah has already stated that although she doesn't believe that what she was doing was as bad as being made out or wrong, she has agreed to stop. Seems to me like this is done. Can we move on now? --HighKing (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, considering she added it to her talk page, as noted by Bastun below. Readding something multiple times while it's being explained to be against consensus and affecting the results of a vote that's taking place because nothing short of a binding vote has worked over the past year is highly disruptive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Um, can I try and paraphrase the concern here. There is a vote (something of a unique process on WP) on matters where one user has concerns that a question or questions are skewed in such a way to underscore what they perceive to be a bias, and on the basis of the support/opposition of those wordings has concluded that there is a pro-British (I only take exception that being pro-British is being equated directly into anti Irish Nationalist sentiment; I am both the former and decidedly not the latter) sentiment regarding those who answer in one manner and a pro Irish Nationalist in responding in the other, the user has subsequently created a graph or some depiction indicating the levels of pro/anti British and pro/anti Irish Nationalist editors involved in this vote? What is the fundamental basis for this concern - that an area of political/religious/cultural dispute is being shown as having differing nationalistic backgrounds effect a large percentage of the disputants... or that non aligned editors are being placed within groupings on the basis of their responses. Seems to me that the problem lays still within the questions asked - if people are happy for the wording(s) to remain then I do not see the difficulty in someone making assumptions (and transparently publishing them) on the basis of the responses. Oh, and as for WP:Outing - I can make the same general assumptions on peoples English (or not) speaking nation of birth simply through grammer and spelling habits... to be sure. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove the 'spread sheet' from the Polling page. Jumpers & we're only 2 days into this. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Last night, Sarah accused me of canvassing (despite absolutely no evidence) - aware that that carries strong sanctions, as stated on the poll page. Today, two editors have so far removed their votes because of her profiling and one other has said s/he won't vote till she stops. (Her "profiling" is, in any case, completely inaccurate and invalid, as plenty of Irish editors have expressed some preference for using "Republic of Ireland", even if its not their first preference). Now, I'm being accused by her of intimidating voters - again without any evidence?! Not only is that blatantly untrue, I've tried helping one editor (who didn't support "Republic of Ireland" as any preference!) to fix his vote and pointed out to another (who voted first for "Republic of Ireland") that he may have got his vote wrong, going by Position statement, where he says to vote for another option. Hardly the actions of someone trying to intimidate voters to support my position... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah C'mon Bastun... At this point, what purpose does bringing this up serve? This'll just notch it up again now that it seems it might actually be calming down. Sarah made it very clear on your Talk page last night that she wasn't making any accusations although (as I commented at the time) it could've been phrased better. Trying to infer that Sarah was trying to intimidate *you* would just make most of us laugh at the thought... Let's move past this. --HighKing (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's symptomatic, though - those who oppose her are "imposing British PoV" and must somehow be cheating... For the record though, I'd support oversight of the profiling and a ban on it recurring, but would oppose a block or ban on Sarah at this time. Reintroduction of her mentoring/civility parole may well be in order, though. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Except - Sarah has now added the profiling to her own talkpage... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Bastun. Please refrain from using the phrase "profiling". It is analysis, which throws sharp light on some of the pious pretence that passes for argument on Wiki. Example Chillum below: "We should be basing the results of the poll by the strength of the arguments presented, not the nationalities of those who voted." Exactly my point! I am merely illustrated that this isn't the way Wiki works in real life! A truth that some folk find impossible to accept. Sarah777 (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! Yellow card (or 2 minute penalty, or 5 yard penalty) for using "Wiki(pedia)" and "real life" in the same sentence! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. Would "Surreal Life" be a better expression? Sarah777 (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this has switched to a democratic process, rather than a consensus process, is the obvious answer to follow the principles of the democratic process - ie the ballot is secret and the results are not published until the ballot closes. That would get rid of any risk of intimidation or accusations of same. Surely a system where votes were emailed to a neutral admin or group of admins using a mail redirect, who would independently verify the outcome once the polls closed, would be preferable to the hybrid process ongoing at the moment.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no way we would of got to the voting phase if it was a secret ballot, that would of concerned people from all side and its not hard to imagine they would consider it invalid. One thing that would of been helpful is if people couldnt change their vote at any point in the 42 day voting period. This clearly gives a reason to try and encourage people to change their mind. Sarah is doing that, by assessing peoples nationalities, claiming certain ones are pushing POV and making out that British people should not be allowed to vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We should be basing the results of the poll by the strength of the arguments presented, not the nationalities of those who voted. I would think this would be evident. Chillum 00:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Chillum and all the others who expresed similar ideas above. Editors should be judged by the quality of their rationales not by their identifiers. This is a point I made many times before and during ARBMAC2. Having said that I think that Sarah should not be sanctioned if she does not continue this profiling in project space. Dr.K. logos 01:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

agreed. (I've not spoken on this issue before) We do not decide issues depending on how many of each view are present on Wikipedia, but on the more general question of the consensus of all of us who care about the issue. This can be a fine distinction sometimes, but it's an important one. If 90% of the people here were Irish nationalists , that still would not mean that their view would prevail as against NPOV. To explicitly divide people by nationality is an obvious obstacle to the proper settling of disputes and to the very basis of cooperative work here. But it's enough that it stop. DGG (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The Ireland Collaboration process is and was a joke. We should have be basing the discussion on the strength of the arguments presented, however it was based on numbers. I did try my best to have a source/referenced and policy based discussion, but all some editors were intrested in was a vote. I do agree with Chillum and Tasoskessaris that on this project decisions should be based on the strength of the arguments presented and be judged by the quality of their rationales, but lets be honest, that's not going to happen. All I'd suggest is editors just read the discussion that was had on including references with editors rationales to get the idea. This vote undermines the project, and Sarah just hit at the underlining issue. IMO Masem's report is an insult having had to deal with them on the project and the BS they ignored during the process. Diff's can be provided, editors just need to ask! --Domer48_'fenian' 08:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Once everyone agreed to a vote, the process should have moved to democratic rules - secret ballot, only one vote per individual and no interim results. Otherwise it is a recipe for accusations of intimidation, and for people deliberately setting out to skew or nullify the outcome by informed tactical voting, both of which have happened - with the second option being openly set out on the discussion page and nobody apparently seeing a problem with it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Everyone didn't agree to the poll Domer48, Tfz and myself are some that didn't and were in favour of a policy based approach not force of numbers. BigDunc 09:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That is true. But in the end it still comes down to a vote; thus the imposition of POV names on Ireland-related articles. That is how "RoI" has remained the status quo against both the view of the majority of Irish editors, against WP:NPOV, WP:COMMONNAME and common sense. When it comes down to it what Wiki pompously calls "NPOV" is merely majority rule. As in the case of WP:CIVIL we will spout any old intellectually challenged gobbledygook to avoid a rigorous rules-based approach. And we have hordes of Admins loose some of whom more resemble a lynch mob than a police force. IMHO. Sarah777 (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc: I don't remember anyone else not agreeing to it, apart from the three of ye. Policy-based approach, fine, except as pointed out on the project page, the policies often conflict. So the overwhelming consensus was to use a PRSTV ballot. This was entirely in line with the Arbcom decision. Domer48, you were even insisting on sources to state that the name Ireland was ambiguous in the first place(!) and were admonished for disruptive editing in the lead-up to the poll. Despite your claim above, several of the Position statements that voters are asked to base their preferences on are indeed sourced.[91] Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Position statements/Rannpháirtí anaithnid Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Position statements/ScolaireIreland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names/Position statements/Valenciano (It's interesting that Sarah's one, not containing any sources, get's endorsed by Bigdunc...). All of that aside - we are where we are. The project has decided, per Arbcom's remedy, to use a community-wide, binding, poll. Whether or not it was Sarah's intention, her practice of profiling has resulted in the withdrawal of at least two votes and at least one editor has said they won't vote if profiling is ongoing. That is disruptive to the process. If Sarah will stop adding it to Wikipedia, including the project pages and userspace, grand - we can move on. I'm sure she can keep the figures in Notepad and announce to the world how biased it's all been if "Republic of Ireland" "wins", or quietly say nothing if anything else does, when the whole process is over. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still trying to understand exactly *what* is intimidating about it? Sarah is only using public information. She's not "outing" anybody using off-wiki info. If people don't want to be profiled, then stop sticking flags on your user pages. --HighKing (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And I also don't see the harm in Sarah having it on her own user page, and discussions on it are kept away from more public places like the poll page. I mean, she published a picture of how to construct an atomic bomb on her page last week, and that wasn't censored, yet now there's editors demanding *oversight* on the table she created. I'm starting to look around to try to spot the hidden camera ... am I on TV here? --HighKing (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

While I personally can't see the problem with it, if there is even the slightest suggestion that it's affecting the voting process then it should be removed from the polling page until after the vote has taken place. After that Sarah and anyone else should be free to provide whatever analysis they wish though personally I can't see the point (there's systematic bias on WP? British editors outnumber Irish ones? No shit!) An agreement by Sarah not to post the data until then should be sufficient to close this. Valenciano (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's already gone from the polling page. If, as you say, the table won't "discover" any shockingly new information, there's even less reason for all this fuss... --HighKing (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not simply about effecting the poll. It is about the inappropriateness of sorting users by nationality, which I think is worth a fuss. Chillum 14:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This reached pretty absurd levels during ARBMAC2. Here is an example of nationality declarations during a discussion. Dr.K. logos 16:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That was voluntary, and still fairly contentious if I recall correctly. At least with voluntary declarations no one is mis-categorised. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, no one is miscategorised if done voluntarily, but nationality declarations should not be used in any form, voluntary or not. Plus a "voluntary" activity can easily become coercive. I am being brief here on purpose. I have discussed these points extensively in other pages before and I don't want to open up yet another lengthy debate here. Cheers. Dr.K. logos 18:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not? This is not a secret ballot. And if nationalities are taking sides, it could suggest POV-pushing that needs to be addressed. From what I've seen in past discussions, the ones who oppose it, often oppose it precisely because it reveals information that could bring their POV into the spotlight, which they don't want. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Using ad-hominem, editor-based arguments will not advance your position Bugs and it is precisely the type of argument that I have, unfortunately, seen so many times. Let's call it the evil, underground nationalist POV pusher argument. It presupposes that editors of a given nationality will surreptitiously try to push their POV by not admitting their background or by trying to obscure it. To which I reply: Are people so dense that they have to know the nationality of someone to detect their POV? Can they not just simply read their comments and decide if these comments are POV-driven or not? Do they need to see the passport of the editor to decide if the guy is a POV-pusher? Don't they have analytical skills? Of course your type of argument also presupposes that anonymous, not easily identifiable users automatically tell the truth if they declare they are from an uninvolved nationality. Never mind if this can be verified or not. Like I said before: There is no substitute for WP:AGF and analysing the contributions and not the editors. Ad-hominem-based contribution evaluations must stop. They are anti-intellectual, lazy and contrary to WP:AGF and thus they run counter to the very spirit of Wikipedia. Dr.K. logos 21:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Posting a true fact about someone does not constitute an attack. The only ones who would oppose it, most likely have a guilty conscience or have something to hide. You can put the American flag right next to my name anytime you like. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, would you support profiling along all lines? If more users displayed their race, should we take that into account on disputes over articles on people from minorties or other racial disputes? Should peoples religions be counted for religious debates? Shall we go around counting how many openly gay wikipedians contribute to a dispute relating to homosexuality??

Sarah was not just presenting a friendly little chart on peoples nationalities. She was cleary trying to mislead people into thinking a certain option is "British POV" being imposed on the people of Ireland by British editors. If the same was done for races, would we all be ok with: "15 white people voted for this.. 13 Blacks voted against this.. there for the whites are clearly biased?" because that is what she was doing.

Personally it didnt bother me, i found it rather amusing. However voters can change their vote at any point in the next 38 days, if the vote couldnt be changed it may not be such a big deal. 2 people withdrew their votes, thats enough to justify it being removed from the talk page and avoided until after the results are in. Anyway this all seems to be over now, everyones moved on and the spreadsheet is gone from the talk page which is the main thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been pointed out to you before. Why state that Sarah was clearly trying to mislead people" when you've acknowledged that she wasn't and she also states she wasn't. Please AGF, this is not the first time you've been pulled up for spreading innuendo. --HighKing (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if i was not clear in my comment.. Sarah describes the certain option as the British option, and says its British POV. I consider the claim "Republic of Ireland is British POV" misleading considering its was created by the Irish government as their country's official description, and its used often by the Irish government and parliament. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia (2nd nomination)

Just heads up, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian influence operations in Estonia (2nd nomination) is starting to get nasty. Users are throwing phrases such as [92] "Estonian KGB", thinly veiled personal attacks and so forth. --Sander Säde 19:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, if I had a dollar for everytime that some editors referred to the FSB as the KGB, I'd be a multi-billionaire. 50 times over. KGB was the secret police, and Kapo is the Estonian equivalent of the FSB. Other than that, there is no personal attacks, there is no being nasty, but there is quite a bit of taking to task issues surrounding the article. No need to make a mountain out of a molehill here. --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So, you are comparing a regular government agency with a repressive organ which was responsible for killing millions of innocent people - but it is okay, because some unnamed persons have used old name for an official successor of KGB? Oh, yeah, I see no problems whatsoever. --Sander Säde 05:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Original researcher

Resolved

 – I no longer care. Tan | 39 01:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I get a couple more eyes on these contributions? It seems that they are entirely original research, with no citations whatsoever. Has even created several articles - Barbecue chicken, Rib chop, Loin chop - and moved Chili pepper to Chile pepper despite lots of discussion in the past and a relatively stable consensus. However, I don't want to totally be bitey and I find myself doing that - some help would be appreciated. Tan | 39 00:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the matter needs immediate administrative attention since it is a matter of contents especially food. The user in question appears to be a newbie who needs more time to understand the content policy. So you might try to visit WP:FOOD project for the next time if you face similar matters. After googling news, the article of "meat cuts" seem valid given this ample reliable sources.12,100 for "Barbecue chicken", 797 for "Rib chop", 839 for "Loin chop" In fact somebody asked us (the project members) a couple of days ago to fill in missing information on various meat cut and urged to create article about them. So let's assume good faith since the person is a newbie of less than one month. I have not read all contents of the listed articles, but the label of "original researcher" could be a bit premature.--Caspian blue 01:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to find the value in your comments - I really am - but I'm just not seeing any. A matter of content? A core policy is not being followed, namely, WP:V. I can't see how "original researcher" is in any form premature; there are zero cites and it's patently obvious this guy is adding in stuff off the top of his head. But what else would I expect from you, Caspian. I do my best to stay out of your way; try to return the favor. Marking resolved; if no one cares then I won't either. Tan | 39 01:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil and assume good faith. I tried to help you regardless of the past but you're always same. Sadly many of food articles are in poor status without any single sources for long time, so if the project members find out that some article on a same theme should be fixed, then all tend to try to add sources or others. And as far as I've known, you said so just content issues on similar matters brought up to ANI. If you want to resolve this, that would be several ways for yourself; adding sources and educating the newbie. You only just gave him a warning one time so far and he got no warning before. If it is going to happen chronically, you're an admin with the magic tool that just non-admins are afraid, so what is bothering you? :P--Caspian blue 01:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not need, nor want, your "help" in any imaginable capacity. I seriously make a very solid effort to not comment about you, to you, or about much of anything you are already involved in. I hold opinions of you that I cannot post here. Please, just try to return the favor. Tan | 39 02:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Instead of making the uncivil and pointless comment off the topic, you really need to get along (or at least pretend to get along) with people who have disagreed with you in the past or validly criticized your action. Since the subject is in my usual interest, I don't care who've brought up the issue to ANI since I wanted to help the issue resolved from good faith. Is your feeling something to do with the editor who produced articles of meat cuts? Since you're an admin that should hold higher standard of integrity and civility, please focus on the subject and show me some good one. Or just simply stop adding your comment here.--Caspian blue 02:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you both made some good points. The issues were worth bringing to people's attention, and as Caspian suggests (and as I believe Tan already did?) a note on the food and drink project probably would have been the best place. I think the discussion and concern were legitimate and there's really no harm in posting this kind of issue here. There's certainly no need to argue. We're all friends on Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ChildofMidnight, a note on the WikiProject would have been a good call. Tan is already pushing this discussion to the edges of civility, and its not achieving a damn thing. Jeni ^(talk) 11:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean like this note on the Wikiproject? Do you ever look into situations before you comment, Jeni? All I ever see you do is accuse other people of incivility and telling them to "assume good faith" (the most overused phrase on this project), when you never seem to have the first clue of the actual situation, historical behavior, or any other pertinent information. You like to fan flames, don't you? Tan | 39 14:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And once again the incivilities start to show. You posted that note 9 mins before coming here, hardly a chance for anyone at the WikiProject to look into anything or even reply! Jeni ^(talk) 14:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

strange vandalism

I just discovered some really strange vandalism in the userspace. It happened about two years ago, so it's not a major issue; rather a weird curiosity and a minor annoyance. I discovered it during a google search. Anyway, a user, using the login User:Somecreepyoldguy, copied the contents of my userpage and changed a couple of the userboxes to rather offensive and just simply stupid things. This was back on June 16, 2007. I'm not sure why s/he did this -- I went back into my own contribution history to figure out if I might have said something to tick this person off, but I couldn't find anything. And these are virtually the only edits made by this user (though it's probably more appropriate to just call them a vandal).

I already blanked out the page, but I was wondering if it is possible to just delete this user's account entirely as well as the page and it's entire page history? Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

 DoneI have deleted the page for you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Harassment

Ok, I am seriously tired of this and I think I will stop editing here. One editor, Ratel accused me of being a sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Marbehraglaim, for what I think less than sincere reasons. Bad enough, but now another editor Noloop is now stalking me. He first came to the sockpuppet investigation, strange enough that he found it. But then he also showed up at this deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch_(2nd_nomination). Bad enough that he is following me, but he is also constantly adding a comment that I am an accused sockpuppet to the deletion discussion. Note that none of the other alleged sockpuppets accounts has shown up at this deletion discussion, so there is absolutely no reason to harass me that way. Pantherskin (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, not enough that I have to deal with a stalker, now Ratel has left this nice message on my talk page [93], calling me a sick puppy and accussing me of harassing him. And this message on the talk page Roald Dahl, [94] accusing me to be identical to an alleged mentally disturbed stalker and to be a psychopath. And to be sure, he makes it clear that checkuser cannot prove my innocence, so there is not even a way for me to clear my name from this kind of smearing. Pantherskin (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am going to drop him a note on his talk page about this thread. --Tom (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Funny that this case is now opened. I have just finished writing to an admin (unnamed for now) about the fact that I am being stalked by a user and have been for about a year. Here's some of the text of the email:

The involved editor is User:Collect (see his RfC to learn what sort of person he is). Collect is a clever person, a sophisticated user of wikipedia, who knows how to play all the rules to his advantage. He is expert at creating sockpuppet accounts using different IPs. When not opposing me as himself, which he has done on numerous pages, always following me to the pages in question, he otherwise appears as a new single purpose account to oppose me vehemently and with a sophisticated use of terminology and knowledge of policy that immediately makes it plain that he is not a new user. I'll give just two examples of many:

Pantherskin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) fighting me on the page: Roald Dahl
Scramblecase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who opposed me on the page IC/PBS

Given that checkuser will not work on this sort of IP-morphing, obsessed, mentally-disturbed user, what am I to do? I think this is about as bad as the editing experience in wikipedia can get.

I'm sure this will eventually be brought to an end when some admin finally takes an interest. It's just a pity that I cannot find the time to smack this cockroach the way he deserves. ► RATEL ◄ 03:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Ratel, there is no conceivably way that calling other editors cockroaches will help things. Regardless of the sockpuppet situation, I think it would be reasonable to consider a block to prevent your further violation of NPA--there are at least 5 instances in the material above. DGG (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just following WP:SPADE here, DGG. I have honestly been stalked by this user for a very long time, with almost daily subtle harassment. It's a miracle I'm not using 4-letter words. I don't think wikipedia is set up to handle this sort of situation, frankly. ► RATEL ◄ 04:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that this mysterious stalker exists, how does that gives you the right to attack and accuse uninvolved editors? Attacking Maybe you should consider that not every editor that opposes your edits is identical with this mysterious stalker (again assuming that this stalker exists). I know for myself that I am not, but I guess in your book there is no way to prove that, because as you said he is an "IP-morphing, obsessed, mentally-disturbed user". Pantherskin (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • I'd endorse such a block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

One shouldn't wonder about new previously uninvolved editors showing up if one or someone else posts an RFC on an article. The fact that previously uninvolved editors showed up at the article was taken by Ratel as evidence for them being sockpuppets, and is now taken as evidence that they are identical with this mysterious stalker. For the record, I edited previously as an IP, but then registered. That is NOT sockpuppetry, and as the contributions history clearly shows I never pretended to be a different editor nor did I voted twice, nor did I continue to edit from my IP adress after I registered. Pantherskin (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Ratel has made repeated claims of stalking and sockpuppetry on me. As an example of his civility, I proffer, [95] " I regard this as either insanity or a deliberate attempt to intimidate me. I think mentoring or a slap on the wrists will do little to cure this person of his/her ailments", [96] "Think you're being stalked? Not a nice feeling, is it?" with a comment of "pot / kettle", how he regards admins at [97] "My "gleeful goal" (read: hard work) to balance hagiographies notwithstanding, I shall seek another admin to give oversight. I would appreciate it if you would bow out of this now, since I have assured you I shall not proceed to edit the page without admin input to possibly controversial material" and [98] "Does not apply. I am not "repeatedly" seeking other opinions, simply one other opinion, since I believe you have an animus towards me based on your association with Collect and based on your mistaken understanding of my motives" , attitudes towards others [99] "== Bullying comment: potent Personal Attack by Flowanda == Are you making a personal attack on me here by suggest I may be bullying this user (himself an assertive lawyer, by the way he uses legal language and keep disclosing the contents of court documents)? " ,,, his behaviour at SPI at [100], yet another SPI for him at [101] "The abovementioned suspected socks all chimed in on a RfC at Talk:Roald Dahl and at a related debate at WP:CCN almost simultaneously and in sequence, all with the same arguments, and they have no substantial history outside this issue other than the puppet master, Marbehraglaim" .

[102] has Ratel at WQA -- "The stalking by you continues, Collect. Even Gwen Gale has noted your pursuit of me, so take care. To Bwilkins, the other editor has called me "spiteful", claimed I am defaming the subject with no basis, claimed I threaten people because I posted a NPA warning to his talk page, sneers at perfectly valid edits (such as using [sic]), mentions me pejoratively rather than the edits or how to improve the page in every comment he makes .... yet this is "fine"? So that's the last time I'll come here for help ... totally bloody useless. You people are farking up wikipedia. I hope you are proud." Though Ratel never gave one iota of evidence for his claims, as "Indeed, the removal of a warning template from your own talkpage is tacit acceptance of the warning. None of the diff's appeared to be anywhere close to being contrary to WP:NPA in the least. Posts like "You don't like it, tough" sounds like some WP:OWNership issues, and "you don't have a clue" are indeed contrary to WP:NPA. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)" demonstrates.

For icing on the cake [103] "Despite all the hot air from 2 editors here —both of whom have admitted to being SPAs, one of whom is involved in a content dispute with me (where I am right and he is wrong, as shall soon become obvious), and the other of whom I maintain (despite the predictably unsuccessful checkuser) is a sock of Collect (himself now the subject of an extensive RfC)— no real evidence as to my awfulness has been presented. On the other hand, I can point to the absurdity of accepting that the sock Scramblecase is a new editor (pah-leeeeze! I've seen many new editors arrive on the scene and not one has shown Scramblecase's knowledge of rules, formatting of responses, and aggressiveness), and having been Collect's interlocutor for a few weeks I can recognize the same style and diction a mile away." One more SPI worked on by Ratel -- and he is batting zero for a very good reason <g>. [104] contains such gemns as "fellated" "brown nose" "obsequious lickspittle" "weasely wikilawyer" "I believe he has an anxiety spectrum disorder, in the OCD range, that underlies his constant edit warring, so wikipedia is really just a place for him to act out, a form of therapy. So shame on the editors above who endorsed Collect because he's rightwing like you are, even when you know he's bad for wikipedia, and shame on the admins below who are playing the "hear no evil, see no evil" card. Shame on you. Something MUST be done about deranged editors like Collect, for the good of the project, or eventually the project will be swamped with every obsessive, obstructive, quarrelsome, querulous, no-life nutcase living in his parents' basement." and so on. In short, I think Ratel does commit the sins ascribed to him above. Collect (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

See also [105], [106], [107] "Please note that Scramblecase — see contribs — is an obvious SPA started up specifically to make this attack on me here. I am currently in a tense confrontation with a highly tendentious editor with a long history of obsessive edit warring on the Drudge Report Talk page, and (s)he has decided to expand the attack on me by stalking and starting up this distracting rearguard action. Checkuser probably won't help because this is a sophisticated user who knows how to use proxies and/or the local library's computers to make this attack. Suggestion: ignore or block this SPA. Thanks." [108] "Oh good, then by all means look into it. Collect caused a source document in Britannica to be changed during a dispute. The change was enacted by an editor at Britannica called Canterbury, and I mentioned that on the Talk page while complaining about the lack of ethics involved in changing source documents. I also wrote to Britannica (Canterbury) urging them not to accept Collect's edit and directing them to the relevant talk page. They then wisely reverted. That sums it up. I have not outed Collect, I have not broken any rules, but I'll wager he has." abnd so on. More if needed, but I trust the issues are now quite clear. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Collect, Scramblecase and Pantherskin appear  Unrelated by checkuser; there is no evidence of trickery and they appear to live hundreds of miles apart. Some kind of sophisticated trickery can not be absolutely ruled out but seems unlikely based on the available evidence. Thatcher 01:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Noloop

Someone needs to stop Noloop, so today he called me gnat that needs to be swat here [109]. He also keeps adding his harassment to the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Human Rights Watch (2nd nomination), calling me an accussed sockpuppet. Pantherskin (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, repeatedly deleting an editor's comments from a discussion page is very gnat-like. You've done this so many times it violates 3RR and you've done that in two different articles. Since the page you linked to is an "accused sockpuppet" page, why exactly do you object to saying you are "an accussed sockpuppet"? (Would you like me to accuss you a little?) Noloop (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

How exactly was pointing out that he had been accused of being a sockpuppet relevant to the deletion discussion? --Smashville^talk 15:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Which discussion? On the Anti-americanism article, it is relevant because two of the accused socks were editing the page. On the nom. for deletion, two of the other editors smell very socky. One is an anon IP that hadn't edited in 4 months prior to the nom., and the other is now flagged as having zero edits outside that subject. When there's a bad smell, people should know a likely source. You're free to disagree, but you're not free to delete someone's comments from discussion. Noloop (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone try to explain to Pantherskin about it on his talk page? Not from what I've seen.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Anti-americanism, I have explained this above. That you call registering an account sockpuppeting only shows your bad faith (as if the swat the gnat threat did not show it in abundance...). Regarding the deletion discussion, yes, I am free to delete your harassing comments and you are not free to follow me to pages where I edit and harass me there by smearing my name. If there is a bad smell so it be, but without any evidence you just cannot go around and smear other editors. Pantherskin (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I love Wikipedia. Noloop continues with his attacks on me, calling me a troll [110]. Pantherskin (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

@Noloop. Being accused of something is not the same as being proven of it. But based on your rule system I accuse you of being a sockpuppet. Now that's said I can now smear your name over any page you have made any comments on. That is the way you see it isn't it? --WebHamster 22:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to understand WP:DRAMAOUT. Noloop (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Repeated date format changing by User:TerraHikaru

Resolved

 – Report to WP:AIV after last warning breached. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting block for TerraHikaru (talk · contribs), who has repeatedly changed date formats and regional English spellings unnecessarily on a number of pages despite a full set of warnings to desist. Most recent edit. --DAJF (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You gave a last warning, thus if they do it again report to WP:AIV for a block. Nothing needs done here until the last warning is breached. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User: E Sanchez

Resolved

 – No admin action required.

This is either a user or admin, but Esanchez has made a public accusation on a discussion thread, which needs to be addressed or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewingk (talk • contribs) 05:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be referring to this edit, in which case it was perfectly fine. Noting single-purpose accounts on AfDs is normal. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

FAQ disruptions from one editor in multiple places

Just a heads up. An editor has been making unilateral, usually un-discussed, and often unconstructive changes to several FAQ documents on Wikipedia, as if every FAQ must conform to his opinion of what a FAQ should look like (specifically, all answers must be collapsible and all questions must be yes/no questions). The following users are evidently the same editor, based on substantially identical editing histories:

• contributions
• contributions
• contributions

The FAQs for articles I monitor (e.g. Talk:Evolution/FAQ, Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, Talk:Sarah Palin/FAQ, Talk:Global warming/FAQ, and others) have not benefited from these changes, and have been reverted by me or other editors, only to have this editor come back and restore the unconstructive changes.

The disruptive activity includes the following behaviors:

• Not editing from a consistent location, instead using multiple IP addresses and one established account
• Coming to articles unfamiliar with the history and unilaterally forcing numerous FAQ documents into some fixed mold that fits the editor's personal view of what a FAQ should be
• Modifying meanings of questions in forcing them into yes/no format
• Removing content by merging distinct questions
• Destroying internal anchors to questions
• Changing questions to yes/no format so the answer text no longer make sense
• Failure to justify or explain any of these changes on the talk pages of the associated articles

I and others have given warnings to this editor. I placed some vandal warning templates, although I don't think this good-faith disruption is really vandalism, more like misplaced enthusiasm. I escalated vandalism warnings up to level 4, after which the editor continued to revert back to his preferred version.

The editor hasn't technically violated 3RR, but the reversions combined from all FAQs affected probably do. I haven't checked.

All that said, I do believe this editor is acting in good faith, albeit being disruptive about it. He has created some FAQs from scratch, which is fine. There are other FAQs with which the article community (e.g. Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ) has so far not had a problem with the changes. I think this editor has good intentions, but cannot seem to accept when others disagree with his changes. =Axlq 06:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Overdue AfD

Resolved

This is past its sell-by date: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropocene extinction event Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Closed. Cheers,  Skomorokh  14:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Tyciol Day 3

Sorry to drag this one back out of the archive. Tyciol has posted a huge response [111] just after MiszaBot archived it. I'm not sure how to get the whole thread back, but Black Kite did make the following statement in the thread and on Tyciol's talkpage

I'll be quite clear about this. Some of your redirects are fine, some are debatable (and those can be discussed) - ones like this are utterly useless. Here's a Google search for "Elton Hercules" without his surname - no results at all. It looks like you're unaware how Western-style names and honorifics are used. You are making work for other users who have better things to do, and I would have thought, given the number of users who have expressed similar opinions here and on AN/I, that you would know better than to immediately recreate these. So - if you start re-creating more obviously pointless redirects like Elton Hercules, I will block you for disruption. Black Kite 14:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC) (the other redirects he kept recreating were Sir John, Sir McCartney, Sir Paul)

He has re-created Elton Hercules, and continues to argue [112] that adding a hatnote to Sir Hercules (the horse) directing to Elton John was appropriate, continues to argue about other redirects that were deleted [113], continues to argue that it is not his job to make proper dab pages [114] and has indicated to me that he intends to re-create the redirect Sir John ( to Elton John) despite their being hundreds if not thousands[115] of "Sir John's" on Wikipedia, and the redirect Sir Paul (to Paul McCartney)(ditto with the Sir Pauls[116])

PS - and before anyone else notes it, yes I was rude to Tyciol and made an intemperate accusation[117], and I have apologised unreservedly for same as it was completely unjustified and inappropriate and I should not have said it.[118]

I am reraising this not from any personal feelings, but because I'm not convinced this matter is resolved yet, as I don't think he understands why everyone is up in arms. If an admin wants to close it, then I respect that decision. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If he does not get it, then perhaps he should be blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at the refactoring of Talk:United States that has just been performed. Is there a fast way to stop this misguided behavior, or do we have to debate the pros and cons of messing up talk page histories? Johnuniq (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, wow, I at first did not realize that he added his comment to the archives. This user is clearly not here to contribute constructively at this point, or he is so clueless that he should not be allowed to edit anymore.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And god damn it I just found another whole set of redirects he had made for living people to a list of fictional characters. At this point, we should block him until we can clean up the shit he's made by deleting every single item he's made in the article space.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Dougweller (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If anyone thinks this is the wrong period of time, feel free to change it, the length was a response to the comment about 'until we can clean up the shit he's made'. Dougweller (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

From my experience dealing with Tyciol relating to talkpage reformating, he believes in the absolute rightness of his edits even if they go against consensus. I think he actually believes that WP:IAR also includes ignoring consensus (WT:TALK#Reformatting). This type of behavior is highly disruptive and unproductive. --Farix (Talk) 13:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on some of the stuff I've deleted while working my way through his history (such as redirecting Chris Kimble to Community of practice#References), I wouldn't be surprised if a badly-designed bot was involved. --Carnildo (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, this appears to solely be a man made deal. Someone during this week of respite should compile a list of redirects that are still active and see if they should be deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No, he does it all with his own fair hands. Were you to enquire, he would give you a three paragraph explanation of why that redirect was a good idea.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of his intentions with this edit where he states that everyone complaining about his edits are hounding/harassing him. Seems he has no intentions of stopping after his block expires. Again, this is more evidence that he views that he believe in the ultimate rightness of his edits and can ignore consensus. --Farix (Talk) 00:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It just doesn't feel like he has any understanding of the problem.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Clayton College of Natural Health

A previously uninvolved admin, please, to take a look at Clayton College of Natural Health. Please see its recent history and also the recent history (only visible via the history tab) of User talk:Shannon Rose. My own opinion on this matter is fairly clear, but I also have a rather clear opinion about the value of the kind of stuff that this College is teaching (even when it's taught well), and have made the mistake of expressing this opinion; fearing that I might be taken for an edit warrior myself, I'm not reaching for my own cluebat er sorry I mean my own submit button. -- Hoary (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Note the frivolous and clearly wrong SPI filed by Shannon Rose against three editors in good standing, where no evidence was even presented against one of the editors (me). They have also repeatedly placed inappropriate warnings on talk pages of involved editors, and provided no policy rational for their blanking of large sections of relevant and well sourced text. Editing suggests a connection with the college, giving a WP:COI, and a strong WP:POV. Verbal chat 14:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith

• I would appreciate if an uninvolved admin would have a look at this article, it's talk page, and the edit-warring currently going on there. Please also have a look at this diff, which (perhaps incorrectly) interpret as bullying. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the diff - that's a standard warning template (see {{3rr}}). If you look here, you'll see you've made two reverts today on that page, so the warning was warranted. Secondly, Hrafn (talk · contribs), Verbal (talk · contribs), Colonel Warden (talk · contribs), and dave souza (talk · contribs) have also been revert-warring, and the same warning would apply to them as well; Verbal was being rather presumptive in leaving you a warning when they were engaged in the same problematic behaviour. I've locked the page for now to head off any further trouble, and I strongly encourage all involved to discuss their differences on the article talk-page or, failing that, follow dispute resolution. The same goes for American Scientific Affiliation (the article currently redirected to by Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith). Further edit-warring will lead to blocks. EyeSerene^talk 14:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the protections. The fact that Verbal slammed me with a 3RR warning while engaging in the same behavior (and the general uncivil behavior on the PSCF talk page were indeed exactly what made me upset and feel that it was unwarranted (at least coming from her/him). (I have yet to break 3RR after several years of WP editing). --Crusio (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

By warning you I also warned myself, so don't worry about it. Establishing notability would be a first step to reversing the redirect. Verbal chat 14:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I see no uncivil behaviour by me there, and I would appreciate a notification if I am going to be criticised on ANI. Unsubstantiated accusations of incivility would seem to be themselves highly uncivil. If you come to my talk page with diffs, or provide RS asserting notability, I'll be willing to discuss those - which is also the first step in WP:DR. Verbal chat 14:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, as an experienced editor I'm sure you've already realised that a friendly reminder would probably have been more tactful than a templated warning (per WP:DTTR). However, your willingness to engage in discussion is excellent and demonstrates good faith, and I wish all of you well in resolving this. EyeSerene^talk 14:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ladgy

Resolved

 – Socks indef-blocked and user blocked temporarily.

• Ladgy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been making frivolous and vexatious reports to WP:AIV, including Kww (talk · contribs), Charmed36 (talk · contribs), and TheWoogie (talk · contribs) with no warnings given whatsoever. I strongly suspect that this user is making such reports in retaliation to either reverts on watched articles or for talk page messages received. Can someone help out here, please? MuZemike 02:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If just trying to make them stop reveting the article for their is no need to and im not trying to block myself and it was not if grude or furiosity kk. And the solutuion that came to pass was 24 hr block and pg protcect thats all just to make them stop.Ladgy (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladgy (talk • contribs) 02:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ladgy has been edit-warring over a redirect on Broken-Hearted Girl for some time. It's one of those "rumored but unconfirmed" single articles that fails WP:NSONGS by a wide margin. There isn't any particular reason to even have the redirect, and, since Ladgy won't leave the redirect alone, I've taken it to AFD. At the very least, we'll get a consensus about what to do with it there.—Kww(talk) 03:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ladgy, AIV is not the purpose for that. AIV, quoting the page, is intended to get administrator attention for obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only. Settling content disputes or revert-warring are not the purposes of that page. You are supposed to engage in dispute resolution, which starts at the articles' talk pages involved, and then you work from there if said dispute is not resolved. While I'm at it, don't continue to forum-shop at other places if you don't get your way, such as requests for page protection (see [119]), let alone cite "vandalism" as a reason for protection when it clearly is not. Nobody owns articles here; we discuss actions taken – not write them off as vandalism. Now that the article has been nominated for deletion, I suggest you start discussing there. MuZemike 05:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm resurrecting this report because the disruption continues:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broken-Hearted Girl has been under sock attack, with all the socks sounding suspiciously like Ladgy:

• Collywoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nickiya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Liltissue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Beomama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• YOnceas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Meowbaby2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Additionally, he's made personal attacks against Charmed36 on my talk page.

I think it's time for Ladgy to receive a time-out.—Kww(talk) 13:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've indefblocked all the other accounts per WP:DUCK as obvious socks, and Ladgy for 24 hours for trying to votestack the AfD and otherwise being disruptive. Because Charmed36 self-identifies as gay on their userpage, I don't think Ladgy's comment can really be construed as a personal attack (although the tone of it was less than civil). Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 14:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The return of Sim12

Resolved

Guesws who's back, it's Simulation12's latest sock Simulation21. She/he has been bombarding my talk page with socks for months now ever she was banned and blamed me and Gladys j cortez for it. Can someone please ban this one? The Cool Kat (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Closedmouth beat me to it. ➲ REDVERS ^{Buy war bonds} 14:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I have blocked the underlying IP and Wheeloffortune26 (talk · contribs), who is most likely a good hand account. -- Luk ^talk 16:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Escalate from WQA

Resolved

 – Syrthiss made the user walk the plank. TNXMan 16:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ekspert9123128391 I think that this use of "cunt" is beyond our typical warnings. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope that folks will regard my blocking of alphabetsoup there with no warnings extant on their page in a kindly light. Syrthiss (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I gave them a final warning, but had little faith they would become a proper contributor, so do not object. --John (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Geez, did I really accidentally put my welcomecivil template on his Userpage? My bad ... conference call + editing Wikipedia at same time = feckups :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

For the general record, we should probably establish a guideline like warning first THEN ANI/AIV THEN blocking or something. ;) Syrthiss (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I might disagree with especially bad uncivility like this ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally, at WQA I look to see if they have even been given the standard set of rules in a welcome. It's one of the reasons I designed my {{welcomecivil}} template. However, the way this guy used "cunt" is IMHO an especially bad WP:NPA, and a couple of days block - plus the reminder Welcome - should be a wakeup call to him. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, thats why I IAR'ed (pronounced YAAAARR, like a pirate). Syrthiss (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Gonna put a block notice on his talkpage? Or just keep him strapped to the yardarm? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The 3 of you need to remember the following: the user to whom the comment was directed did not take care in his revert, and admits that his edit-summary was at least partially misleading/incorrect. The blocked user hadn't been warned (and given an opportunity to reform), let alone welcomed. No effort was made to communicate with the user at all prior to the block, which should've been done when it came to WQA, rather than escalate immediately. No block message was put on his talk page either. If the user is capable of being professional in his commentary (both in edit-summaries and user talk contributions), and can be a proper contributor, and moreover, ends up being frustrated because of the block, guess who's head(s) will be served on a platter for not communicating with him and escalating this? ;) I think my point is clear, but that's just a hypothetical, I suppose. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No worse than the sort of language that some admins used to praise JzG for using. How times change. That said, warn first, and always leave a block notice. DuncanHill (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did overlook the block notice. I will go do that now. Syrthiss (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I of course would not be offended by it being a 24hr block as prevention of additional being p'd off at Jimbo Online, and additional tantrums, rather than indef. He then has a full chance of reform based on the wakeup call that Wikipedia is collboarative. That is why I at least welcomed him ... didn't expect an indef. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to move that the block be shortened to ~ 48 hours, for the reason above. That said, I'm not an active sysop, and am treading lightly. -- Pakaran 16:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the block should be a definite length. Indeff is for people who are here only to disrupt/attack/vandalize etc. and/or continue to do so after warnings, usually more than one. 24 hours should be plenty for two personal attacks without prior warnings and when other edits seem to be constructive. While blocking at all is often opposed when there are no warnings, the block in this case is good, however, the length is excessive. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talk page to Ncmvocalist, I'm content if anyone wants to shorten the block or unblock the editor in question. I expect that the user was here solely to pick fights, but maybe I'm just inferring that from the interest in soccer hooliganism and the quick jump to personal attacks. I don't know for sure that is what they intended. So: unblock, shorten, whatever you (the community you, not YOU you) think best. Syrthiss (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, reduce block to something in the range of 24 hours, 48 hours, or 48 less time served. -- Pakaran 18:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Reduced to 24 hours...tho I suspect the block log will start the 24 from now so its more like 31ish total. Syrthiss (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Troublesome Pair

Resolved

 – Kxings has been indef blocked by J.delanoy. AdjustShift (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Kxings (talk · contribs) and Katsumasahiro (talk · contribs). I've already blocked Katsumasahiro for violating the 3RR (which is how I found them). Just kinda take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kira Takenouchi (2nd nomination). We have personal attacks, legal threats, incivility, edit warring...I'm kind of at a loss...I'd provide diffs...but it's pretty much, well...all of them...but here are some of Kxings', shall we say "Greatest Hits": [120][121][122][123] --Smashville^talk 16:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is rich...he just "blocked" me. --Smashville^talk 17:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha, neat. Propaniac (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Kxings has been indef blocked by J.delanoy. [124] AdjustShift (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• This sockpuppet case was started before either one was blocked. I would like to say that the drama is over, but Katsumasahiro's block only lasts for 24 hours. --Farix (Talk) 17:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A very quick request.

Resolved

 – Advice and pointer received. --GoRight (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where else I can make this request so I am asking here. I would simply like some kind administrator to restore some content that was speedily deleted and move it under a user account. See [125]. If that content could please be restored as a subpage under either the original user's account, or alternatively mine, I would appreciate it. I will work with this individual to understand how such controversy pages normally come into being. I would like to review to content they originally had in the deleted page and to assist them in adding it to the main MSNBC page, if appropriate.

If there is a more appropriate place for such requests please let me know for future reference. --GoRight (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:REFUND - if they don't get it done rather quickly, drop me a line and I'll look this evening. — Ched :  ?  18:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at it, and there's nothing really to add to the MSNBC page. It's basically a short unsourced piece that says MSNBC is a left-wing propaganda outlet that hates Bush and Palin. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Correction -- the version that was ultimately deleted had no sources, but the version PokeHomsar (talk · contribs) last edited did have sources, although several of them were blogs (and the others I couldn't determine reliability with just a quick glance.) PokeHomsar's last version might be a candidate for userfication, but WP:DRV would be a better venue than WP:REFUND because it would be just a tad more controversial than our scope at REFUND. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to WP:REFUND. Cute acronym. I shall pursue the matter there. Thank you all for your assistance and you can mark this item as resolved from your perspective. --GoRight (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Scribner 3RR block

I gave a 72 hour block to Scribner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for edit warring on Paul Krugman. (This user has been blocked several times before.) He has emailed me, asking for an unblock so that he could contribute to the RFC on Talk:Paul Krugman. Any opinions? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If he can write on his talkpage still, tell him to write a commitment there first, that he will refrain from making any edits to the article whatsoever during these 72 hours. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll contact him on his talk page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Error when accessing Talk page for First-person shooter engine

It consistently return the message "Override this function.". It's an old article which already had content in its Talk page. I don't know if it's a result of vandalism (though I think it's unlikely), or simply a technical error. I even don't know if here is the right place to report it. Hervegirod (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say go to WP:VPT or bugzilla. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, however, it just returned after approx. 10 mns. Thanks however. I will know how to report next time. Hervegirod (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I have had the same problem as well, when trying to edit a (different) page, BTW. Probably just a technical glitch, not page-specific at all. I tried it and had no problem accessing Talk:First-person shooter engine. Try it again, perhaps? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, you are surely right about this. Now it's OK again. Hervegirod (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll make a bug report. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Known issue, related to a software update. Mentioned earlier on Talk:Main Page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I already reported it. Oh well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I received the same thing while editing my own sandbox. Glad it's not a big deal. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sharma

User:Solyd truth (single-purpose account) persistently added dubious text to Sharma article, reverted by several users. After some time, he created two fork pages with his verison of text, Sharma Family Name and Sharma Name Origins. (I redirected them to "Sharma".) Since he failed to respond to the notice in his talk page, I blocked him for 1 hour with the note to read and respond to the message. Since I am involved in editing this page, please someone admin take from there and keep an eye on the activities of this editor. - Altenmann >t 23:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That username seems like it may fail the username policy... or at least raises red flags. Anything with "truth" in it does for me anyway. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User vandalising pages and has no talk page

Is it me, this ip is strange. He is vandalising pages and has or appears to have no talk page.[[126]] (Off2riorob (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

Works for me... User talk:81.76.4.92 Jeni ^(talk) 23:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That's when you edit the red link and make the talk page yourself.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Strange, it is there now! All I was getting was a white page with the words, 'overide this function' in the top left corner. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

Funnily enough, I got the same white screen with "override this function" an hour or two ago when I tried to look at the RSN history. There is a gremlin in the system. --JN466 23:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I got that error before too. Server hiccup.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Excuse my panic. (Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

I also got an "override this function" when looking at a history. Never seen that before. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I keep getting that too. In fact, I got it just now when I tried to comment here. Hit the back button and clicked edit again and worked normally. I hope they resolve the issue soon, it's kind of annoying. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Polynomial123 unblock request

The following is a request for an unblock from Polynomial123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was found to be a non-totally reformed vandal operating more than a dozen of sockpuppets. The request is full of promises and acknowledgment of wrongdoings. Anyway, I'm leaving this for the community to decide upon it.

User:Friday had suggested that any unblock must be accompagnied by an ANI topic ban. Also, I believe this user needs more to get reformed totally. I suggest that a volunteer mentor takes care of that.

P.S. A full list of all sockpuppets and prior investigations can be found at the user's talk page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

From my experience for the past few months of editing Wikipedia, I have learned some valuable lessons about proper behaviour for editors. I understand my previous behaviour from this account and the sock puppets I’ve created a while back have been inappropriate for Wikipedia. I’ve learned about and experienced the consequences of abusing multiple accounts, which I’ve not understood prior to joining Wikipedia. This is why I no longer intend to use sock puppets disruptively. I also understand that I’ve been disruptive by abusing the ability to create pages on Wikipedia by making nonsense redirects and creating a game on my user page. I was trying to be humourous, but now I’ve learned that these kinds of edits are treated as vandalism or disruption, so I intend to no longer to do these things as well. Now, I also know that vandalism is vandalism no matter how much is made, and that it’s immaterial to compare the amount of vandalism in relation to one’s good faith edits. For this reason, I will make my future edits productively instead of disruptively, and am wishing for this incident to be overlooked. I have proven to still be a useful contributor prior to this block, because rather than creating nonsense, I have created useful pages, such as these: [127] [128][129] [130]

[131]

[132][133] [134] [135][136][137] and I even reverted vandalism several times [138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145], and I’ve warned users most of these times and I’ve also warned users of inappropriate usernames [146][147], and most recently, I’ve helped an editor in an incident [148]. I am willing to continue my ways in making productive editing such as these mentioned above, and I’ll revert vandalism fully, like the examples shown above instead of sneaking in vandalism whilst reverting. And I’ll be more civil with other editors. With all that stated, if I get unblocked I promise I’ll try to be a much more helpful and productive editor than I was before. If it’s appropriate to unblock, but at the same time endorse a ban on a specific topic area, I would gladly agree on it.

I believe this person has the potential to be a great contributor to Wikipedia. I was one of the people involved in getting his 80-some sockpuppets blocked originally (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ScienceGolfFanatic) and sometime afterward discovered that one of them had been unblocked because some of the pages he edits are still on my watchlist. Whether the unblocking admin knew that the user was a sockpuppeteer or not, I can't say ... but after being unblocked, he seemed to realize he wasn't going to be able to get away with vandalism anymore and so he actually started doing some good helpful editing, creating several new articles about golf courses, doing New Page Patrol, and reverting vandalism. Then apparently he slipped back into his old habits briefly the other day and vandalized 2 articles while using an edit summary that made it look like he was reverting vandalism. He was immediately caught and then blocked as though he had just committed the sum of all sins. I think that this was too harsh and would like to see him unblocked so long as he realizes that people are going to be watching his every move and that he won't be able to get away with even the slightest mischiefs. If this happens, I think Wikipedia as a whole will be improved. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Polynomial123 was blocked from April indef for vandalism and etc. On 18 July, some kindly soul unblocks him on promise of reform. Between 18 July and 4 August, Polynomial123 continues disruptive editing and builds a sockfarm, while continuing to make reasonably sensible edits from one account, apparently in the belief that admins won't block an account that makes some level of sensible contribution. On 5 August, Polynomial123 gets indefd again and on 6 August has had a Damascus Road experience and is asking to be unblocked? The phrase 'I don't think so' comes first to mind.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The sockpuppets were used during the April to July period, not after it. Since being unblocked on July 18 he has been almost entirely a productive editor. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Dtotalswung69 was created and used after Poly got unblocked. They claim to have stopped creating socks after being unblocked, which has proven false. I would be disinclined to unblock an obviously insincere user.--Atlan (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the release of the block on Polynomial123 (originally named Pinkgirl34) must have unblocked all the others too. Perhaps it was an IP-based block; I'm not familiar with how Wikipedia's block system works.Note: I see now that he had to be unblocked separately on the 69 account. However, the Dtotalswung69 account was created on July 2, and Polynomial/Pinkgirl was unblocked on July 18, so it still remains that, as far as I know, he has not created any new sockpuppets since being unblocked. Moreover, although he did use the swung69 account to edit, it was only to his own talk page (unless there are deleted edits I can't see), and those edits were wholly legitimate in my eyes. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

One look at Dtotalswung69's talk page history shows you there are indeed deleted edits. I wonder why you haven't bothered. Anyway, I'll let you be the judge of how legitimate they are.--Atlan (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I meant deleted edits from after July 18, because that was the time at which the user was unblocked as Pinkgirl contingent on his promise to not use sockpuppets anymore. I'm well aware that he was a vandal and sockpuppeteer of the highest order before that, and I was instrumental in helping get him blocked originally. I'm defending him now because I believe he has changed and can become a productive editor so long as he realizes that he can't get away with vandalism anymore. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, while the edits were from before the Polynomial account got unblocked, the unblock request came after that. I consider an unblock request an intention to continue editing under that account, which would amount to socking. Fact of the matter is, that on neither account, the use of the other account was divulged.--Atlan (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have declined this user's unblock request as I have no confidence that someone who acted with so much deception can be trusted at their word. If the community comes to a different conclusion than I did regarding this unblock request I have no problem with my decision to decline this unblock being reversed. However I seriously doubt the community is that gullible. Chillum 00:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The list on the talk page is just of socks that have been found. Given evidence to this extent that he has done so before, we have no reason not to believe he may be socking even now. HalfShadow 00:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Croatian language

[149] - Croatian nationalist bigots keep vandalizing the article, removing referenced material. Since they are 3 and I'm one, and I don't want to violate 3RR or some other stupid rule that will get me blocked (to their satisfaction), can some admin with basic linguistic competence please take a look at their changes, and see what I wrote on the talkpage. Basically all the ISO macrolanguages are mentioned in all the Wikipedia language infoboxes, and there is no reason to exclude Serbo-Croatian, which as a genetic clade can be supported by many reliable sources (e.g. I provided a reference of Schenker's tree, and that guy wrote a standard English-language handbook on Slavic studies, so you can get more credible than that, and that reference was removed by Croatian nationalist Imbris as you can see).

It would be advisable to revert the Imbris' change and wait on the talkpage for some of them to provide actual evidence on why exactly SC should not be included in the tree, because there are obviously credible sources that claim otherwise. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dav id Miscavige

These edits are very questionable in terms of application of WP:BLP: [150]. BLP demands an emphasis of a neutral POV and must be very verifiable. These edits in the lead section of the article are not conform with these rules, but it seems to me that the "edit warring" that was common recently and caused the Arbitration Committee to decide in May 2009 "(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding", which has been put on the article's talk page [151]. Please review. Proximodiz (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)