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

Ed, Edd, n' Eddy's Big Picture Show

Resolved

 – Ed, Edd, n' Eddy's overly enthusiastic fans have been blocked and the movie title redirected to the article section where that topic is covered.ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but I want another pair of eyes on it. User:Tdinoahfan completed the above article, after Ed, Edd, n Eddy's Big Picture Show was deleted following an AFD vote. Because he provided no sourcing, I tagged it for speedy as a possible hoax; he's reverted it, and continued to do so every time I retagged it. I've hit 3RR now, so I'll go no further. I left a note on his talk page, which has gone unanswered: is there anything further that needs to be done? I'm willing to stop speedying for good if this can be proven to exist.

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd, n Eddy's Big Picture Show --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It exists...not sure how close it comes to WP:N, but it definitely exists...I'd suggest you do a quick Google Search next time before bringing it here. I got 71,000 google hits when I searched it. I won't speak to the AfD because I can't seem to find it. Frmatt (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would. In this case, precedent existed for a deletion, and it was recent (couple of days ago). I figured there was probably something else going on here that I didn't know about. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Now deleted. It was protected (inexplicably). Further attempts at restoration should go to deletion review. Protonk (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think User:Tdinoahfan's most recent edit illustrates that he isn't here to participate in collaborative editing. Soxwon (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It could illustrate many things. No harm, no foul. Protonk (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It was protected, and the speedy should have been declined, as the AFD for previous discussion was because it was deemed a hoax. It never went to full discussion etcetera, and now apparently exists (or at least someone went to great lengths to pretend it does, complete with youtube video links of it). I am asking Black Kite to undelete it long enough to determine if it truly exists (there appears to be YouTube of it, etcetera).. (oh, and addendum: FRICKIN EDIT CONFLICTS) SirFozzie (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me a few minutes on this, please? I have quite a strong suspicion this might well be a G5 as well as a G4. Also, I'm pretty sure that's not the only AfD there's ever been on that article - there's a lot of ways of punctuating it. Black Kite 22:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, there is no deadline, after all :). I was just looking at it from a procedural standpoint, that the AFD wasn't a valid speedy reason, and that the reason for the speedy last time does not appear to be true now. I have no opinion on the notability or appropriateness of an article on it. SirFozzie (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Found it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show. Now, as for the G5 aspect... Black Kite 22:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's 1st Movie! Black Kite 22:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) The last one really doesn't apply here again, it was deleted because of WP:CRYSTAL, which again, no longer applies (note that it said that it was fine to recreate after it was released), but this one [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show probably is a good deletion and it should go to DRV. (although I would support replacing the article with a redirect to the main Ed-article). Good work, BK :) SirFozzie (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One of the AfDs that Black Kite is referring to is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's 1st Movie. That was easily findable through the most recent AfD. While I've been assuming good faith with Tdinoahfan's creation of this article, the alleged EE&E movie has been the subject of repeated recreation. I agree with Protonk that, at this point, the correct venue for restoration is DRV. —C.Fred (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If the speedy had been declined, I'd be fine with it - as I say, I have no opinion one way or another. My reasons for bringing the whole thing to ANI in the first place have to do with the way in which the creator handled the article, reverting my changes and making no attempt to handle my concerns properly. Also, I would note that it seems to have been raised at DRV already, if I understand comments on the creator's talk page correctly. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been EC'd so many times now many of my original points are moot now but I've been involved with this article for some time and there is a huge history here of bad article writing regarding this specifically so whilst it does exist it doesn't mean it's notable and the most recent AfD shows that, the create-protect for most variants of the title is because the fans are a little overzealous. treelo _radda 22:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Note User:Tdinoahfan has been blocked for incivility and edit warring. Martin451 (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have indeffed the editor since they wouldn't stop edit warring on WP:DRV. I did try to explain the process to them. If they request unblock showing they can edit properly then fine, but they've already been blocked for disruption once, and their account's only 2 days old. And I'm pretty sure they're a recreation of a blocked user anyway. Creating an AfD with their 3rd edit? Um. Black Kite 22:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Tdinoahfan's specific style of grammar and spelling and speaking as if people hate the show seems familiar, xe is most likely a sock of someone but I'm unsure who, I'll dig around. treelo _radda 22:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I came up with nothing (though think it could be someone who was banned recently) but if anyone wants to tell me who created Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show most recently it might help me make a case. treelo _radda 23:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just a friendly reminder to admins. Don't ratchet up blocks due to post-block ranting (though it is hard to ratchet up 'indef') Protonk (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is fairly normal for the fans, you'd be best not letting them go this far with their arguing, you'll be there all week. treelo _radda 23:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Same guy as CNGLITCHINFO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thatcher 23:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone provide a link to the DRV? At the very least the deleted article titles should be redirected to the main article (Ed, Edd n Eddy?) and whatever cited content exists included there. The response to the articles repeated recreation looks reactionary and inappropriate to me. Why not try to solve the problem? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is easily solved. That's for the article to be written with sources showing notability, as opposed to re-creating the version that was deleted at AfD because it had neither. Black Kite 00:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Even easier would be to redirect it to the main article, perhaps with a small section all its own, indicating that it was selectively released but hasn't been widely covered as is noted in the consensus of this AfD discussion [1]. Redirects can be protected you know. That would solve the problem once and for all. (It turns out the section already existed. So all that's needed is a redirect. See below) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin assistance needed

Could an Admin please redirect Ed, Edd, n Eddy's Big Picture Show (which has been protected) to Ed, Edd n Eddy#Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show where this content is included. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)  Done

Thanks Protonk. I think this thread is resolved and exhausted. Unless of course we can work in something about Ottava? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

CoM, a friendly word - please do not try to antagonise other editors. Mjroots (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

As one who is beginning to understand Ottava's side of these controversies that he seems to find himself in frequently, I might have made the same satirical comment if I had thought of it first. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Good advice. I'm not sure which bit you're referring to though as my comment just above was meant as a harmless joke. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Back anew...

As Lewbertswart45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with the same obstinate attitude over including showcruft and user-sourced info on Brainsurge. Immediately reported to AIV. Nate • (chatter) 07:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

...and has been blocked. But this probably isn't over. Nate • (chatter) 11:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Block review: university wants notified of vandalism, not blocked

The students at Lancaster University have been busy on Wikipedia. While some edits are without doubt constructive, others are far from it. Today's vandalism from 194.80.32.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) includes some really creative stuff. However the IP's talk page also has seven notations indicating that vandalism should be reported to the school rather than on the talk page, and that the university would prefer to deal with it, rather than have us block the IP.

This issue was brought to my attention when I processed a block request for the IP at WP:AIV. While I would normally be inclined to let the university administration deal with the issue, the 13 previous blocks combined with the steady and continuous stream of vandalism (which shows no end in sight) leads me to the conclusion that enough is enough. As such, I have applied a {{schoolblock}} with a one year duration.

Any admin who feels I have been too hasty should feel free to reduce or remove the block as they see fit. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Completely support this block. Tan | 39 01:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I saw where the one user claimed that this will block 20000 people. I don't see the problem with that. If they want to edit, they can register an account from elsewhere, and not be inconvenienced. While it is good that they are reacting to it, it does not change the fact that each of those 20000 could potentially make 4+ bad edits, and that quite a few seem to have taken that chance. Sodam Yat (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

steveb: and I have to say, we have received no notifications via email. Not one. Apparently the tools that WikiAdmins use (Huggle?) simply revert and write to the page (seems like a bit of a fault to me), so my efforts have been spitting in the wind. Steveb (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

steveb: as things stand at the moment, unless someone here camps on WP all day, vandalism reports will go unnoticed. As the last week has shown, even responding to complaints is not enough. Steveb (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

←I have notified Steveb (talk · contribs) of this discussion after seeing that they have responded to most of the warnings on the IP's talk page in an official manner indicating that they are an official of the university. (Could this be a shared account? I say that because of the almost constant usage of we in their replies) -MBK₀₀₄ 01:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

steveb: I use the term "we" because I work as part of a team. Steveb is a thinly veiled disguise, my real name is Steve Bennett, I work in ISS (the University IT department). Steveb (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've allowed account creation. If a vandal registers, it'll be easier to narrow them down for the administration, I'm thinking. Also: they're students. May as well... Xavexgoem (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

steveb: Thanks for that, most of our users are away from home so the "register from home" thing is pretty inconvenient. Steveb (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Makes it harder for us to track, plus they will still get autoblocked... Prodego ^talk 02:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's just IMO. <shrug> Xavexgoem (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The school may be trying to prevent autoblock from causing massive disruption. One student could cause much of the university of lose Wikipedia editing access. For that student, it's fun. For others, it's hell. For that student, just cause a block and other computers get blocked. Just one visit to the computing center and another to the library could disrupt a lot of users. Ipromise (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• one year is excessive. The students change from year to year, and this year's sins should not be visited on the incoming class also. The block should run at most till the end of the school year this spring. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a British university, so they're only a month into their new academic year. Black Kite 08:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, DGG - if you want a block to run until the end of the academic year, it would need to be a 9 month block (end of the school year is officially 31st August) -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Has the individual (Steveb) that claims to have jurisdiction over this IP verified their identify with OTRS? Just a thought. Netalarmtrick or treat! 06:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

steveb: If I had ever heard of OTRS I might have used it. Steveb (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Steveb, you can read about it here -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

steveb: I don't really see that proving my identity makes any difference if WP admins will never read a response to a complaint, and it's moot now anyway - my institution has what amounts to a permanent ban on anonymous contributions, so it really doesn't require any further input from me.
It would be great if account creation can be left in place so that those that wish to make a positive contribution can do so with a minimum of fuss. Steveb (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

We see here another edu institution trying to do the right thing - allowing students to edit and taking action against those who are making bad faith edits. It seems to me that WP should welcome this editor, and try and link them with others in similar situaions, and create some policies / guidelines to help them do their jobs and help keep wp clean. Misuse of computers in english unis is taken pretty seriously. Remember Civility (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that obvious sock puppets shouldn't comment on administrative pages. But look, they do anyway. Auntie E. 17:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not a sock, it's an alternate account. Please assume good faith. An apology for you assumption of bad faith and accusation of damaging the project would be nice, but is not expected. Thanks for your contribution, which completely failed to address the problem of edu institutions wanting to help prevent damage from their users on WP, and getting no help to do so. I say, again, we want people like that on WP. Template warnings from NPP get ignored. A letter from your IT security warning you that you may lose your place at uni (which has considerable finanial implications in the UK) would be more effective, no? Remember Civility (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Rude sock

A blocked user confirmed that they created a sockpuppet account to continue editing while blocked. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock of who? I warned him to cut the personal attacks.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This guy, apparently. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh. this guy. Looks like a WP:DUCK to me.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Nuked the account. Syrthiss (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I knew I was pushing it with my reverts; I've been warned not to edit war, so I will not, and I will come here instead if the user resumes this behavior. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I blocked him solely for the personal attacks and the block evasion. I'm not taking a position on the edit war (tho with his socking to the account, he did violate 3rr I believe). I can think of many other productive things to do than to edit war over a comic book character. Syrthiss (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, technically, if he starts up again, take it to WP:SPI.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And yeah, that was kind of a trivial edit to war over too...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's time for SPI. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Toddst1 ANI resolve abuse and User:Dbachmann semi-protection abuse

Resolved

 – This is non-issue. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is the discussion of the previous ANI, that I filed exclusively against Dbachmann: discussion

Toddst1 resolved the issue with quote "no abuse found"

WP:SEMI states: Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view). Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users.

I challenge the decision made by Toddst1 and want to know a detailed explanation of his action in light of wikipedia semi-protection policies and the previous mentioned discussion. I still request sufficient action against Dbachmann, who accused me in the discussion of edit warring, lawyering etc. --91.130.188.8 (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Speak with them individually. This is not the place to discuss this.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And you were edit warring, and you are wikilawyaring...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the big deal? If you're right, you'll be able to discuss it on the article talk page, get consensus, and the change will still get made. You ought to do that anyway, before repeatedly reverting to changes when you can see that others disagree with you. I'm an administrator, but I don't know anything about Telegu, so I don't know who's right in this content disagreement. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The big deal is, that I already made my point in a summary and Dbachmann ignored it and semi-protected the article.--91.130.188.8 (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Going after your logic, every admin can protect a site whenever they want (also in case, they were part of it).--91.130.188.8 (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I checked your contribution history, and I can't see any posts from you at Talk:Telugu language at all. If your goal is to get your desired changes made, that's the place to discuss why they are correct and get consensus for them. I don't think that a conversation about semiprotection rules at WP:ANI will help you get your desired changes into Telegu language as effectively. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been accused of a lot of shit, but abusing {{resolved}} tags - that takes the cake. Toddst1 (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Especially from somebody who claims not to be wikilawyering...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 14:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be abusing a {{resolved}} tag here in just a minute. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Any more of this, and I am not going to agree this is "resolved" unless measures are taken to impress basic wikiquette on 91.130.188.8 (talk · contribs), if necessary using blunt instruments. --dab (𒁳) 14:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It just gets better. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And forum shopping at RFPP. Syrthiss (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• (E/C) FWIW, the IP address, in classic forum-shopping mode, asked for unprotection at RFPP. I declined it, and suspect that a block may become necessary, since two AN/I threads and a thread at Talk:Jimbo Wales is not enough drama. Horologium (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think you mean User talk:Jimbo Wales :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • <facepalm> Yes, that was what I meant. (This is what happens when one is attempting to do several things at once; none of them turn out very well.) Horologium (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• I held off commenting on the original thread until DBachman had had a chance to respond. I must now say that I feel that a group of admins seem not to be willing to pay attention to what the OP was complaining about. Yes, plonking a level 3 warning on DB's talk page was not a good idea, nor was the "forum shopping". However, please bear in mind that this is an inexperienced editor (their account has existed for about 3 weeks, with just over 70 edits). Looking at the page in question, I feel that if someone had come to RFPP asking for it to be protected, any of the admins here would have declined, saying that there was insufficient vandalism/edit-warring at this time. Does WP:BITE not apply to editors after their first couple of days? I would count this editor as a newcomer. Just my 0.02 -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Although not an admin, I looked carefully at the contribs and situation. I'm a firm believer in the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. An IP editor was bold - inserting information that clearly did not match the sources being used (yes, he did some other edits too). Those edits were harmful to the overall article. Those edits were reverted (which may have reverted some ok edits too as collateral). Without any discussion, the IP reverted that reversion as vandalism - the BRD cycle broken, and no attempts to discuss. At this point (incorrect material, no discussion, calling valid revert "vandalism"), 1+1+1=3 ... time to protect from an editor who clearly was not participating in the cycle. I would highly doubt that the admin was protecting a favoured version, they were protecting from the insertion of bad data that was promoting a specific language. Now, if this were me, and I semi'd an article that I was involved in, I likely would have brought it up here myself to explain and achieve validation of my action. The admin prevented disruption to an article - unfortunately, it was an article they had some involvement in. For the IP to say that they discussed in an edit summary is BS; we discuss on the article talkpage. The additional disruption actions by the IP (opening a new ANI notice against the closer and running to Jimbo because community consensus was against him) merely emphasizes the non-understanding of policy, process, and makes me think we have a WP:SPA who is trying to promote a certain language (as per the article edits), no matter what. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your response, Bwilkins. I agree that the protection was to prevent 'bad data' being entered into the article rather than any other motive, and I understand what you are saying - but I still feel that if this had gone to RFPP, the request for protection would have been declined - and I still feel that a newcomer has been harshly treated. I personally wouldn't have semi'd the page (yes, I know I'm not an admin, but I'm talking theoretically!) - I would have given the IP editor a 3RR warning - if they reverted again, then the IP could be blocked for a day (or however long), rather than semi-protecting the page. Just my take on the situation. YMMV -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"van" or "Van"?

According to Tussenvoegsel, when a Dutch person whose surname includes a tussenvoegsel is referred to by their surname, the tussenvoegsel should be capitalised (e.g. Van Nistelrooy, Van Persie or Van der Sar). However, User:84.91.100.2 is ignoring this rule at 2009–10 UEFA Champions League group stage and continues to write "van Persie" despite my messages on his talk page asking them not to. Could an admin please have a word with this user? – PeeJay 19:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've warned the IP with a van-3. Hopefully that will be an end to the matter. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If the person in question was registered as "van Persie", then the correct way to write the name is "van Persie". This is not uncommon in Dutch. By the way, the word "van" is not a "tussenvoegsel". It is a "voorzetsel". What is needed here, is a wp:source for the specific name. There is no general rule for this. DVdm (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• I did not know this - but then, I ain't Dutch. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither am I. I'm Belgian, but we have the same phenomenon. By the way, have a look at van Persie's article and look at the consistency in the spelling :-)

Cheers, DVdm (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd never heard of a "voorzetsel", but that's only because I was introduced to the concept via the tussenvoegsel article. Anyway, the article seems to suggest that, in the Netherlands, when the surname alone is used to refer to the subject, the "van" should be capitalised. I'm fairly sure that the names are capitalised in Belgian conventions too, but IIRC, aren't most Belgian names capitalised anyway (e.g. Anthony Vanden Borre and Daniel Van Buyten)? – PeeJay 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

A voorzetsel is a preposition. "Van" translates to "from".

In Dutch (the common official language of the Dutch in the Netherlands and the Flemish in Flanders, the northern half of Belgium) most names are indeed fully capitalized, but by no means all. Mine is not (type: "Van de m...", with capital V only), and apparently van Persie's is not. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In Natalee Holloway, which contains many Dutch names, we learned that you only capitalize "van" when a first name or title is not used.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User: StephenPaternoster

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

The above editor has been inserting unsourced material of low quality across Anglo-Viking and Anglo-Saxon articles, much of it reading as OR and fairly useless (possibly it was this. Or possibly that). He refuses to engage in any discussion over his edits on talk pages, even deleting other users' comments on article talk pages that pertain to his edits. He has also been reverting grammar and spelling fixes, declaring it to be 'fine as it is'. Following the latest reverts, he came up with this offensive edit comment. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever else comes of this, he earned a block for the edit comment. You aren't coming off too sterling yourself (calling his edits dross in edit summaries), btw. Syrthiss (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Only 31 hours? For that inexcusable summary, I would have blocked him for at least a month, and brought it here for a review of an indef. Horologium (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Implied threat of violence in the edit summary. Paternoster needs to become Our Father Who Art Indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I support a longer block for that edit summary, a month would be fair. Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Our Father needs to have a month added to that proposed indef, for butchering the English language. I'm sorely tempted to revert everything he's done that's at least the most recent change to an article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Syrthiss, his edits were dross (worthless) in my view, I was commenting on them and not the editor (who I'm sure has much to offer when he realises he is not a lone crusader). He refused to enter into any discourse over why his work was being removed/edited, so bluntness was all that was left. If people won't talk, there are few options available. Apologies if that seems overly harsh. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that a comment like that doesn't really explain the problem. My edit summary for the first reversion was simply "editorializing", since it reads like a little original research essay. And the second one I reverted (so far) I labeled "editorializing, speculation, and poor English", the latter referring to that guy's tendency to write like a 3rd grader would talk, in run-on sentences. Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think of it, he writes the way Casey Stengel used to talk. However, when Casey wrote his autobiography, he worked with a professional writer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted a few items from his most recent updates, thus putting several articles about Vikings and such on my watch list due to the pillaging of those articles by the user in question. I feel as if I ought to post something on his talk page, but he'll just zap it like he did the block notice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Usually I'm worried that I'm being too harsh. My first inclination was for indef, but figured I'd give him a small benefit of the doubt. If someone wants to block our father the antisemite for longer, I'm fine with that. Syrthiss (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I support a block extension for this awful anti Semitic comment. Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Support block extension - there's no way that comment can be acceptable Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The block has been extended for a very long time (indefinitely), which serves him right for saying such an awful thing and the extension will also save Bugs from having to correct his spelling. Off2riorob (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have him reblocked to indef. I wanted to make sure that he was unable to edit (the original block would have ended soon) pending any further discussion here, as so far it seems the consensus is my original block was too lenient). Syrthiss (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That the startling and offensive edit comment justifies a ban is indisputable. However, a lot of what is said above is irrelevant and a summary indef. is disproportionate for an editor with no apparent track record. Leaky Caldron 14:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above. I do believe 31 hours might be too short as a preventative measure (there needs to be some break so he can re-think his approach or the same behaviour will occur), but I do feel the motivation behind his edits was initially good, if misguided. Ideally we would find an editor willing to mentor him when he emerges from the block and we will have a constructure editor out of it all. Obviously this will only work if Stephen starts communicating with other editors, but if he doesn't then he will likely earn another block anyway. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Mentoring is one thing. But who's going to teach him how to write English? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

One would assume it was more a lack of attention to his language rather than lack of knowledge, considering his location. I've often seen mentors copyedit propose edits as well. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If his userpage is to be believed, he is a 15 year-old who was born and reared in England. It's disturbing that a teenager would use such a vile and disgusting metaphor to indicate displeasure with another editor, particularly because of the photos on Narson's userpage. Horologium (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, he has communicated on his talk. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

He is sorry and won't do it again...well I suppose everyone deserves a chance, I could support a block of at least a week to show him how serious the community takes that kind of comment, it would be illegal in some countries, and then keep an eye on him. Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I cannot support an immediate unblock, but I may have a bit of a personal antagonism towards that edit summary. My partner's mother was one of the lucky Jews in Bialystok; she was exiled to Siberia rather than murdered (including those sent to Auschwitz). Horologium (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that the general consensus is slightly veering towards leniency. My personal opinion is that any editor who can make such a callous, heartless, unfeeling and vicious edit as that edit summary (burning in Auschwitz) is, should never, ever be allowed to edit here. But I have been to Auschwitz, and perhaps he has not. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Totally reprehensible though the comment was, and deserving of decisive action, the purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. The duration of a block has to be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. He needs to get himself over here and provide apologies and assurances.Leaky Caldron 17:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

? The user cannot edit here due to the indef, though I did make the offer to cut and paste any defense he cared to raise on his talk page to here. His unblock message does apologize and does say that he won't do it again. If I've misunderstood your comment, my apologies. Since I'm the one currently holding the block, I'm not going to respond to the unblock request myself. Syrthiss (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I had not read it when I posted above, but his talk page says: "I am sorry for what i done and i will not do it again i won't attack personal people it is not right and i will not do it again". You could have copied that over. It looks like an apology and an assurance he will not do it again. Leaky Caldron 17:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, then my apology for not doing that. I considered that part of his unblock, and it was paraphrased by Off2riorob above. Syrthiss (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't unblock him yet - I gather he's only young and it's poor form to encourage the young to believe that just apologising will make everything all right instantly. Give him a week, and discuss some of his worse edits on his talk page in that time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree that a longer block is needed. This is not being punitive, it's being preventative: absolute racism in that format has a ripple effect on the project. If a whole slew of people who were affected by the comment see that the editor received a very minor tap on the wrist, then you'll get a collective howl, AND set a precedent for future situations. I know this isn't a crystal ball, but the action/lack of correct action will have longstanding ramifications. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines on not coming back until he’s shown an appreciation of proper behaviours. If, as suspected, he’s a school student, ask him to produce an essay based on the 5 pillars or some suitable civility topic. If it passes in a week (or longer) fine, if he cannot be bothered let the block remain. We are allowed to be creative aren’t we? Leaky Caldron 18:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am about to scram for the day. My thoughts on the above essay idea - really, I suspect he wouldn't want to write one and I myself really don't want to read it. Wikipedia is not a 12 step program, or therapy. My thoughts are this: if we accept that he is sorry, then a week away isn't going to make him sorry-er. If we accept his apology, we should unblock him now. If we think that his comment is just an indication of future disruption to come then we should recognize that the block is not punishment (to address Leaky Cauldron's concern) and is to prevent further disruption. If that is the case, the indef should stand and his unblock should be denied.

His current status is that Beeblebrox was placing the unblock on hold, assumedly to come discuss with me, and then rescinded his offer based on the edit summary. Before I log off, I'm going to go restore the unblock to the state it was before Beeblebrox placed it on hold as that is my last read on what the user wanted. Syrthiss (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not acting as an apologist for this editor. WP:Block lead is clear the purpose of blocks and repeats 2 further times (wp:Blocking_policy#Purpose_and_goal, Wp:Blocking_policy#Duration_of_blocks) that they are not for punishment. An indef. Block cannot stand without justification and there appears to have been no attempt at education either as per, Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Education_and_warnings. He’s entitled to be treated per policy even if he does not have the competence to check out and understand the policy. My suggestion was merely to test his desire to join the community in view of the grave and wholly unacceptble error he made today. Leaky Caldron 20:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

He has again blanked his talk page and the editor that was looking at his unblock dropped out as he said he couldn't continue to be neutral after reading the edit summary, don't forget that we are allowed to add our own common sense to the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Wdford

Background (I): It is now almost three years since I've made the first of my altogether 5000+ edits at Wikipedia, and I've learned at lot during these 3 years. So, at the upcoming Friday, at 10 a.m. local time, I will be giving a 30 minute presentation on Wikipedia at my University, for about 20-30 undergraduate students who are studying to become grammar school teachers and are having a session on web 2.0 teaching materials. One part of my presentation will be concerned with editing experience at Wikipedia, any I will give an honest account of my experience. Currently I am considering telling the students this story:

Background (II): Some articles at Wikipedia are about highly controversial topics. One of them is the article "Ancient Egyptian race controversy". The controversy is about the question which skin colour the ancient Egyptians had. Why is this topic so controversial? In short: Because some white people think that every person of African heritage who is interested in the topic is promoting [a fringe pseudo-historic 'theory'] Because some black people think that everyone who denies that the ancient Egyptians had a darker skin then people from Europe is a white racist who tries to deny them their heritage. Probably not unsurprisingly, it is almost impossible to write an article on the topic at Wikipedia. After during one of these discussion quite a lot of material was removed from the article, I though: Why not recycle some material - and I added this to the article Great Sphinx of Giza.

First Incident: Yes, there actually is a small debate about the question whether the the Sphinx depicts a black person or not, and why shouldn't this be discussed in the appropriate Wikipedia article? At least until somehow there is an acceptable general article on the topic. Of course, there was some discussion, but considering how controversial the topic is, everything went nicely. Until an editor called Wdford from South Africa joined the debate on the article. I won't bother with recalling the details, however, this resulted in me giving up on the article.

Second Incident: Wdford then did some work at the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy, which I have mentioned previously. As could be expected, they didn't actually managed to work it out in the discussion there, so at some point, Wdford and more then one other editor were banned from the article. I thought that this was my big chance. I previously had identified four good books on the topic, two by white authors and two by black authors, and I thought that I now had the opportunity to fix the issue. Initially, everything went well, and I was able to get the support of all other involved editors. And then, the ban, that kept Wdford away from the article, was lifted. Wdford almost immediately gave me an confrontation at the article, and after I had notified the adminstrator noticeboards two times and no one had intervened on my behalf, I gave up on that article, too

Third Incident: I mean, there are many other articles at Wikipedia that could use a good editor. Last month, for example, I noticed an article "colloidal silver". That stuff was used until the 1940s as internal medicine, resulting in an unknown number of cases in which people's skin turned grey as a side-effect; currently that stuff is marketed again as an alternative medicine, with the same side-effects and unsubstantiated claims of effectiveness. There was a discussion of the article at the noticeboard, and I took part at this discussion. This discussion was rather long and ugly, and after it was over, Apparently everyone was so tired of the flame war, that no one wished to continue the controversy at the article - well except from one unacceptable edit by whom? Wdford, who had not participated at all in the discussion. I asked myself, what he possible might want to to do there. Harass me? But despite my instincts, I started to work on the article. But to my surprise, it went quite well. I turned out that it even was possible to have a constrcutive discussion with one of the editors, with whom at had a very confrontational discussion at the noticeboard previously. But this ended, when Wdford decided that he wanted to rewrite the lead and to restructure the article.

His edits were, honestly, bad. Again, I will not go into the details (you can read the discussion online at Talk:Medical uses of silver yourself, if you want), but there was no way I could agree to his edits. I tried to explain this to him, but after one day of discussion I noticed that it was still impossible to have a discussion with him.

The End? How does this story end? I don't know yet. But I think it wouldn't be fair if the first people I told this story to were some students who have never edited Wikipedia. So, I am giving the Wikipedia community, and especially its administrators, a chance to deal with the issue now. I am feeling harassed, as in "wp:harassment", by Wdford. Probably he is not actually trying to harass me, but he is trying to prove that he can write a better article than me, and honestly, he simply can't. He is lacking basic skills necessary for that, like the ability to evaluate sources. But he is also unable to accept criticism in any way, and every time I criticise him, he responds by accusing me of "acting like I own the article" or that like. Under these circumstances, there is no way I'll be able to recall the positive experiences I've had editing Wikipedia on Friday, so I decided to post this thread now, which at least gives this story a (small) chance of a good ending before then. Zara1709 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think presenting the problem concisely with diffs would have been more helpful than writing a detailed story. In any case, this is clearly a content dispute, as you seem to acknowledge, "Probably he is not actually trying to harass me, but he is trying to prove that he can write a better article than me, and honestly, he simply can't." Dispute resolution is the appropriate way to get this matter resolved, I don't see how an administrator is necessary or could help any more than any other uninvolved editor could. -- Atama頭 21:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't describe this issue with full diffs, it was already depressing enough to write it this way. And probably he is not actually trying to harass me, but the effect is the same. He is making it impossible for me to edit the article, and he is effectively driving me off Wikipedia. Why would I spent about 6-8 hours fixing the structure of a controversial article when he can come along and simply wreck it up again? And since this is already the third article where there is a problem, this is certainly not a contend issue, but a problem with the editor. An administrator could have fixed the issue a few months ago, if he simply had restored the topic ban against Wdford. An administrator, or any other motivated editor, needs to get down to it, read Wdfords comments and the discussions on the article I've mentioned, and then, if he comes to the same conclusions as I, needs to explain to Wdford that I mustn't continue what effectively is harassment. But if no one is willing to support me here, I am going to take a break from Wikipedia for 6 months, advise a group of 20-30 students not contribute to Wikipedia (writing articles is fun, but the discussions about them often aren't) and this article, medical uses of silver, will likely be again the topic of a few threads at the noticeboards, since Wdfords edit restored similar ambiguities and misquotations like the ones that made the article an ANI case in the first place. Zara1709 (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Any admin who was thinking of sanctioning Wdford would probably wish to read the talk page of Medical uses of silver before doing so. You'd make a better case there if you would write brief comments instead of great walls of text. It is hard to rule in your favor when your case is so vague, and needs thousands of words to explain. WP:DR is your best option. Coming to ANI frequently is not a good use of your time, or ours. It's nice that you are willing to work on difficult articles, but to then complain when you find opposition is paradoxical. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I did expect some difficulties at the article, and I was prepared to deal with these difficulties. But I did not expect THIS! Honestly, if some editor with whom you had previously difficulties shows up at another issue, on which you have already spent some time, wouldn't you suspect that he his harassing you? An the reason I am writing such great blocks of text is simply. Wdford is avoiding a discussion of the actual content issue, so I have to repeat and explain my view on that again and again. (Just like you have to continue to repeat the mainstream view when you are dealing with a fringe editor.) I received some support from another editor, so probably we can solve the issue at the article - but probably not. If you want to know what problem I have with Wdfords edits, just check out my last post on the article talk page. If Wdford isn't able to identify a fringe source when he sees it, then isn't a good editor, but that alone wouldn't be a problem. But if he is unable to admit that he made a mistake and takes the revert of his edits as a a reason to start a confrontation, (and not as a reason to discuss those edits) then someone needs to get involved and explain him that this attitude is unacceptable. Zara1709 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Harassment by ChildofMidnight

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

Resolved

 – This page is not for feuding. Go start an RfC if you like. Don't try to run an uncertified RfC here. Jehochman ^Talk 02:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel that with this series of aggressive accusatory postings to my talk page: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) has stepped well over the line into block-worthy harassment. CoM doesn't agree with an administrative decision I took in blocking another user (Jacurek (talk · contribs)) the other day; I myself brought this block for review at WP:AE; this review was closed as fully endorsed today. Of course, CoM is free to express his disagreement with my decision, but he has been expressing it with repeated, totally bizarre and fabricated defamatory claims about there having allegedly been an outside admin consensus that my actions were "out of line", "abusive", "disruptive" and whatnot. (As everybody can see when reading that block review, there was no such thing: there were some mild questions about whether the block could be shortened, but – apart from the usual partisans – nobody seriously arguing that the block as a whole was inappropriate, and not the slightest hint from anybody but CoM himself of anything like misconduct on my part.)

I told CoM in no unclear terms and more than once that accusatory and harassing postings in this style were unwelcome on my talk page [7], [8], [9], and he was told clearly by a neutral outside administrator to heed this request [10]; nevertheless he continued in the same style.

At this point, I feel seriously harassed by this and want C.o.M blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Harassment of good faith editors by Future Perfect at Sunrise

This is a vicious and abusive attack on me by an administrator who objects to my questioning their month long block of a good faith contributor. It's chilling.

I haven't harassed him but I have expressed my concerns over a month-long block doled out without any discussion or mediation. I find it exceptionally abusive and am uninvolved in the dispute itself. Numerous editors and admins have commented that both disputants made mistakes, but that a month-long block is exceptionally punitive.

It is most certainly appropriate to post concerns about an admin's actions on their user talk page. He's free to remove anything he doesn't care for. That said, I find Future Perfect's unwillingness to discuss the issue unbecoming of an admin.

At this point I feel seriously harassed by this aggressive and atagonistic ANI posting. Admins should not be encouraged to intimidate good faith contributors in this way. I stand by my statement that admins who engage in abusive behavior and block good faith editors are a real problem. I have no interest in picking fights, but it's important to speak out when the project and our collegial editing environment are being damaged by abusive unilateral action.

Lots of uninvolved admins and editors have suggested that Future Perfect's actions were inappropriate and over-the-top. He hasn't been any more responsive to them than he has been with me. Numerous admins, who usually back each other up, have noted that he was has acted punitively and suggested that he fix this problem so the damage and disruption can be stopped. I don't have any involvement in the dispute, but civility and collegiality require that admins repects their fellow editors. The failure by Future Perfect to do so is very damaging to our project and that he's come after me now with this aggressively titled thread is more evidence of his lack of fitness for administrative duties. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

In my view ChildofMidnight only expressed his disagreement with Future Perfect's erroneous decision in a wider discussion on his talk page (wider in the sense that many people participated). I don't see any harassment. Since Future Perfect also based his block of Jacurek on a not correct asumption that Jacurek was harassing Varsovian it seems to me that Future Perfect has some trouble understanding the concept of harassment. As such there are no grounds for blocking CoM but rather FP should be advised to stop making bogus accusation of "serious harassment". Loosmark (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• This seems to be becoming a bit of a trend. An editor disagrees with some action or another of an administrator and tells that administrator so, attempting to open a dialogue with that administrator. The editor is then accused of harassment, and threatened with a block. Future Perfect ought to be looking into his own behaviour, not the behaviour of others. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If CoM had "disagreed" in a reasonable manner, it wouldn't be a problem. Those diffs linked by FPaS aren't "attempting to open a dialogue", they're just slinging accusations without any evidence. This [11] diff on its own contains allegations that FPaS is "abusive", "disruptive", "uncivil", "aggressive", "arrogant" and "drama-mongering", all without a shred of evidence. That's not how you conduct a dialogue in any situation. Black Kite 21:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Presumably your idea of "dialogue" would be more like "an earnest and humble supplication to a superior". --Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• FPaS, you're an admin. Deal with it. Getting abused is part of the job. Just erase the content from your talk page if it is uncivil. CoM, stop drama mongering, baiting, stirring the pot, and feeding the flames. Loosmark, EE battles should not be imported to this page. Nothing good will happen by continuing this discussion. You all should go edit an article. Jehochman ^Talk 22:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Getting abused is part of the job" is perhaps a bit extreme, though de facto it does seem to be that way. Still, that doesn't mean repeated abuse should be tolerated. I can't see being ready to block CoM unless he edit wars to keep adding his comments to FutPerf's talk, which hasn't happened yet, so I don't think there's much to do here now, but I do think GWH below is right that something ought to be done if this continues. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have unarchived and wanted to add 2 things:

1. There is a pattern of behavior here: see User talk:Georgewilliamherbert#Civility warning, where CoM did the same thing to me recently.

2. Admins should expect, and be prepared for, a certain amount of upset user complaint activity, and a sufficiently thick skin should be considered a job requirement. That said:

2.a. Being an admin does not mean you are required to put up with unreasonable abuse and attacks.

I didn't bring the incident on my talk page to ANI because I have a thick enough skin and he walked away from the confrontation after two posts, presumably off to editing articles again.

However - if this is to become CoM's standard response to admins doing things he does not like, then this is a problem, and is going to have to be dealt with. The emerging pattern exceeds reasonable limits.

I agree that everyone going off to edit an article is an appropriate response. But IMHO, if CoM does this to a third admin, he should be warned, and a fourth offense would rise to blockable. If other admins severely disagree with this opinion you should probably say so now... I am all for encouraging dissent and constructive criticism, but there's a limit. One being a dissenter or critic does not entitle one to violate WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. The most effective critics are extremely polite, and more persuasive for it. Merely attacking people when you feel they've done you wrong is not acceptable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that if you clearly ask an editor to stop posting on your talk page that the request is final and after being asked not to post on a users talk page you should not post there again without permission. Off2riorob (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree and was very frustrated when my own requests for an end to pernicious harassment were ignored repeatedly for months with no assistance from these same admins.(I am happy to report that while the worst offenders were finally stopped after many months of abuse, though the trolling and baiting by Tarc and others continues.) As far as communicating with an admin about their tool use is concened, however, editors must be able to express their objections and questions. It's simply not appropriate for an admin to block someone for a month and say: "I don't want to discuss it." ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

GWH, don't you think you're being disruptive reopening this thread to rehash some kind of grudge over having your one-sided and uncivil admin enforcement pointed out to you? If you want to discuss why you shouldn't be going after good faith contributors and defending an admin who was refactoring other editor's comments on their talk page then by all means let's discuss it. As far as I can tell the policies are quite clear that refactoring another editor's comments to change their meaning is unacceptable. And that's exactly what was done repeatedly. Do you have a different take on our policies? And where are you and your admin brotherhood when Tarc and an editor who is banned from interacting me are trolling my article contributions and trying to pick fights? I'm sorry that Future Perfect at Sunrise objects to having his admin actions questioned and that he doesn't care to discuss or explain himself. Perhaps he will think twice next time before abusing his tools to issue a punitive month-long block where there is no ongoing disruption and where he has made no effort at mediation. One can only hope. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It was one-sided at the time, because I felt that after the first most glaring offense there were a bunch of people who equally deserved lesser warnings, but I didn't have time to spend another couple or three hours doing properly written up polite warnings to the next dozen or so people. The next day when it came up on ANI I did make another comment about another involved party, which Ottava even came to my talk page to note and thank me for. One-sided enforcement at a particular instant does not mean that one has concluded that only one side was involved in causing a problem. Admins are required to be impartial, but we're not required to spend all night responding to every aspect of a problem just because we responded to the first most glaring (in our opinion) aspect of it.

You (still) have not explained how it was uncivil. If you did think it was really uncivil, you should have reported me to ANI - I certainly hope and expect to be held to the same civility standards I am promoting for everyone else.

It appears that you decided to do a variation on "Template the regulars" - in this case, civility-warn an admin - in a situation where even if you disagreed with underlying aspects of the uninvolved admin enforcement action there was no civility issue and no abuse issue.

I have no problem with you or anyone else asking about my admin actions or challenging them. The format of the challenges in this case (and with FPaS) were abnormal, improper, and abusive. You could have made your point perfectly politely and civily - Ottava and I had a very polite conversation about it on my talk page. He could have taken it to ANI for further review and it would have been fine with me as well. What you did was different, and not ok.

As I said - being a critic, and being concerned about admin actions, are fine. But they're not a license to go abusing admins. Usually you don't behave in an abusive way towards admins. But the last couple of days you're doing so. It's not ok. You have to stop that aspect of it.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Further this - you just described my comments here as "Disruptive drama mongering" on my talk page - accused me of bullying, harrassment, and intimidation, and claimed I was pursuing a vendetta against you - [12]

This is exactly the behavior that you're doing right now which is not OK, and is going to get you into trouble. You can express concern and pursue discussions on issues which concern you about admins (and editors) without using such personal attacks. If you keep doing it, it's not ok. Please stop now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Your notion of what is civil seems very distorted to me. When I have a question or a problem with an editor or an admin I try to discuss it with them on their talk page. I do not immediately run to ANI or issue antagonistic and uncivil warnings the way you do. That you object so strenuously to having your incivilities pointed out to you on your own talk page is beyond ironic. Do unto others GWH, did no one ever teach you that? Please try to practice what you preach in the future. That it required such a long explanation to justify why you acted the way you did indicates there was a lot that needed justification. Here again you've taken my comments out of context in order to attack me. That's very uncivil and you should be warned for it by your own standards. Here's my comment in full "Could you please explain why you're reopening a closed ANI thread to pursue some grudge you have against me because I object to your bullying, harassment and intimidation of good faith editors? If you'd like to discuss why your behavior was inappropriate in going after an editor whose comments were being refactored inappropriately by one of our admins I am happy to do so. But your pursuing of vendettas against me is very problematic GWH. Your recent behavior is very concerning." ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You still have not explained how I did anything uncivil with the warning I left initially. You're repeating the charge without explaining or linking to any evidence, and I am frankly mystified. What, specifically, did I say, in what edit, that you believe was uncivil?

Your last on my talk page, which you quoted above, exceeds reasonable commentary and at least approaches blockable personal attacks. Again - you are welcome to criticize me. You've done so before, as have a lot of people. But what you've started saying in the last 2 days to myself and to FPaS is of a different character and tone, violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and is not helping the situation. That - specifically - is not OK. Again - please stop that. Continue the conversation in a friendly (or at least, normal ANI standards) manner if you want, and we'll have no problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss your civility issues I am happy to do so on your talk page or mine. This thread, which you pointily and disruptively reopened after it was closed by an admin who doesn't even agree with me on the underlying block made by FuturePerfect, has absolutely nothing to do with that issue. So it's acts like that that are abusive and disruptive in prolonging the drama. Other examples of your problematic behavior include your one-sided interventions you tried to explain in the lengthy section above and your use of antagonistic warnings rather than engagement and mediation to deal with frustrated editors in content disputes. These behaviors uncivil and do not promote collegial and collaborative editing. If you'd like to discuss it respectfully I am happy to do so at the appropriate venue and do not require any continuation of the drama mongering and hounding that you've engaged in here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me why here on Wikipedia CoM is treated with so much respect given his editing history, while Prof. R. Brews was more or less booted out? Was RickK right after all? Count Iblis (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Who are those people and what do they have to do with this discussion? I would hope that I'm treated with respect by many editors and admins because I am here to collegially and collaboratively improve the encyclopedia. How is your comment helping in that effort? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be a certain class of people (CoM, Maleus, and Giano) who are allowed to run rough-shod over Wikipedia for some unknown reason, and whom admins are afraid to touch. Is there some policy that says that these abusive drama-mongers get a pass with every thing they do? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that they are untouchable, as CoM has been blocked in the past. As far as this incident goes, CoM did not put it right at times, for sure, and may have not responded/commented in the best tone. However, I see no attacks; if his honest opinion is that an admin is abusing his power, then there is no other way to state this than "you are abusing your power". There is nothing block-worthy here, but I would stress that CoM stop commenting on this admin's page, since he seems clearly bothered. If this happens, then there should be no more problems for anyone. Just back off each other. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

So I'm an "abusive drama-monger" eh? I honestly don't know what you people use for brains. Can you not see any discrepancy in your abuse of another editor on the grounds that you believe them to be abusive? If they're wrong, then equally so are you. You can't pick and choose who you allow to be abusive. Presumably you will be receiving a civility warning in the very near future. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not engage in personal attaks like "I honestly don't know what you people use for brains", it is unacceptable and certainly does not help your case. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have some difficulty in understanding the meaning of the word "attack". I was merely making a general observation about my own ignorance of the difficulties that those with shit for brains must face on a daily basis. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Malleus -- is that necessary? Shouldn't Wikipedia have professional standards of interaction similar to those of a modern workplace, where you treat other human beings with basic respect and decency, even if you disagree with them? Wouldn't that make it easier to engage in a collaborative enterprise? I honestly don't understand your need to be casually abusive. Sorry, just shaking my head. WHY? Antandrus (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else think it's ridiculously ironic and funny when admins attack Malleus while Who then was a gentleman's?'s comment just above it is a clear personal attack on three good faith editors (one of them not even involved in this discussion). How long before one of our illustrious admins or a badge wielding member of the civility police (perhaps Chariman Emeritus GeorgeWilliamHerbert?) reminds Gentleman that we're expected to refrain from calling each other names. I wonder what would have happened if I had called another editor an abusive drama monger instead of keeping my focus on their abusive actions. Oh the irony. I think we can reclose this discussion unless GeorgeWilliamHerbert has something more to add? (and now I see Malleus has been blocked. Ridiculous) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Not ironic at all. While WWAG (I like how that looks as an acronym) should have assumed good faith certainly, he was criticizing your behavior, the same way you criticize his. While he should assume good faith, his infraction is nothing compared to telling people they have shit for brains. Once again, simply unacceptable and immature in every way. Let's STOP making new conflicts here and act adult. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

On the original topic

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildOfMidnight might be a good link to turn blue if we want to make progress on this matter. I find CoM's constant frivolous cries of admin abuse annoying and disruptive, but it's hard to pinpoint a single act as particularly so. Just a thought. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a note Heimstern is FP's buddy who 100% supported FP's questionable block of Jacurek. At the end of the discussion FP told Heimstern something like "you were the voice of reason in the discussion". Seems that now CoM has to be taught a lesson for daring to question FP's bad block - simple tactic - next time nobody will dare to question any block. Loosmark (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith; I doubt these admins get a kick out of blocking people because they feel like it/don't like them/disagree with them. Once again, the admin feels harassed,and while I do not agree that he was, CoM should cease communication with him on the issue. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Scapler, the thing is that CoM did cease the communication with them however somebody had the bright idea to re-open this thread just to raise more drama with some old grugde or sth they had with CoM. And then Heimstern produced the red link above. Loosmark (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, I challenge you to find a single diff where I've supported his block. I've supported FutPerf's behaviour in getting community review at AE and supported ending you and CoM distorting facts on his talk page. Now you're distorting the facts again here, as in fact I have no opinion whatsoever on his block of Jarucek and have expressed no such opinion. Now you're trying to tar me with a guilt by association campaign. Stop it, for the love of Pete. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What we're talking about here is a pattern of disruptive behavior that so far has been left to run largely unchecked. Quite frankly, this user has been a stain on the Wikipedia ever since Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles came down against him. It is difficult to even find a starting point, as the editing is so dense (in the sense of volume, not intelligence). Example, CoM vs. SarekofVulcan: began with a block here and continues down through the next few sections...make sure to note the "Statement on censorship and abuse" part, where those two "censored!" blocks used to be Nazi imagery that this user resisted removing for a time (details of that here). What happens after this is that CoM will harass the administrator in later, unrelated issues, such as with Otterathome, [13].

I'm sure others can fill in details of CoM vs. WMC, vs. Sandstein, vs. Bigtimepeace, etc... Even Georgewilliamhebert has been on the receiving end of some of CoM's vulgarity, if I recall. There's a line between questioning admin actions and outright harassment/hounding. Tarc (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight frequently adds noise to our discussions on ANI. I think it would be help prevent a descending spiral if we asked CoM to refrain from commenting on ANI matters that did not directly involve them. Jehochman ^Talk 02:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one who reopened this discussion Jehochman. Please don't blame me for the disruption caused by GeorgeWilliamHerbert and Tarc whose disruptive vendetta against me has been allowed to go on for far too long. Close this abusive thread and let us all get back to editing. Hopefully an admin with good sense will unblock Malleus promptly and apologize to him. It's upsetting but not surprising that not one of you cared to note Who then was a gentleman?'s personal attack. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

CoM, I rather like you because you have spirit and personality, though we often disagree. Your wikicareer will improve if you back away from this cesspool noticeboard. I agree that unarchiving this thread has not been helpful. It's just wasting electrons and bandwidth the longer it stays open. No administrative action will be forthcoming. I think we should be much stricter about preventing ANI threads from turning into free-form mudfests, or uncertified RfC's. Jehochman ^Talk 02:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Noting that I am with you on this request for comment, the block of Malleus was justified. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

And a new Dodona sock

Resolved

 – Blocked

Oh, and another thing: can somebody please block Artemisa ne adenice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who with this posting openly admitted he is banned user Dodona (talk · contribs) (as was indeed not difficult to guess before.) Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm just out of curiosity how come he isn't in the WP:List of banned users?--SKATER ^Speak. 21:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know. I've frankly never paid much attention to that page. This was a case of a blocking and sockpuppeting history escalating through multiple sanctions, "last chances", renewed socking and renewed blocks over the course of well over a year, and then after somebody had upped it to indef so much more persistent sockpuppetry that people have been assuming "no admin would ever be willing to unblock" as a matter of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I don't think Dodona's actually banned, just indefblocked. In this case, it's indistinguishable. Sock blocked, anyway. Black Kite 22:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring, disruptive SPA, possibly COI

User: Xeugene has repeatedly made disruptive edits to the page Pacifica Forum, including dissing Elie Wiesel at least once (using the term "Wiesel Words") as well as repeatedly insisting that David Irving is not a Holocaust Denier contrary to consensus. In addition, Xeugene has not edited any other articles besides Pacifica Forum, which leads me to believe that there may be a possible SPA case here; the person's username seems to suggest that they may have some close connection to the Forum, possibly a COI.

This appears to be a long-running violation of multiple Wikipedia policies including 3RR, edit warring, repeated insertion of unsourced material and/or links to inappropriate sources, removal of properly sourced material, insertion of irrelevant material, and removing categorizations. This has gone on for several months and I really don't know what to do; since there are so many issues at play I'm not sure which noticeboard is best. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Xeugene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pacifica Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Have you attempted to discuss this matter with the user? Have you notified them of this discussion by placing {{ANI-notice}} on their talk page? Jehochman ^Talk 13:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I did place the ANI-notice on their talk page, and they haven't responded to it yet. I haven't attempted to discuss the matter with the user, though, because I wasn't quite sure what the appropriate thing to say would be. I didn't want to get into a fight or accidentally say something I'd regret later. That's why I asked for help. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User Softvision on talk pages

User Softvision (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is abusing talk pages with unsourced original research of the the-article-and-relativity-is-wrong type. He has been warned about this repeatedly by myself and by others ( [14], [15], [16] ). He then goes away, and after a while, returns. Today, after someone else removed his talk page sections, I left some 3rd and 4th level warnings on his talk page, which he promptly removed, toghether with similar warnings by others. A bit later I got this 10-edits string on my talk page. Assuming good faith, I have no other option than to assume wp:NOCLUE. Can someone effectively take some kind of administrative action? DVdm (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked him to back off on the original research and flooding your talk page. Not sure what good it will do, but... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks already, but I just got another one. This seems to be a copy of his reply on his talk page. You got another copy on yours, so it seems. DVdm (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was a bit more clear about the likelihood of blocking this time, and reminded him that we both told him to stay off your page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

abusefilter-view-private

What is the user rights group abusefilter-view-private and what are the requirements to be assigned to it?  Btilm  23:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The only AF-related userright is edit filter manager, which includes the ability to see private abuse filters (due to the userright also conferring the ability to edit filters). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 23:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And see the top of the page: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators." I'm not entirely sure that your question fits that instruction... Bencherlite^Talk 23:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Where would I post it then? Take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#An_alternative, please.  Btilm  23:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless the rules have changed recently, abuse filters can only be seen by admins that have the authority to edit abuse filters. If you have a question about a specific abuse filter, I expect a friendly admin would be willing to discuss it with you (though he might not give you the specifics). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No, read the link provided. Such a userright is mentioned there, but if it exists it's only on the test wiki, since it isn't in the user rights lists on the management page. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 23:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It exists as a permission, but isn't assigned to any user group (see bugzilla:19362, apparently resolved, for its creation, and bugzilla:20721, currently marked as a "new" bug, for the request to enable it on en.wikipedia). snigbrook (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(although that request is only for it to be made available to administrators, not as a separate group). snigbrook (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

attacked by webhamster

Resolved

 – Go to WP:SPI and then we'll deal with it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

---

Today I was verbally attacked by User:WebHamster via two of his socks one of which is still active. I have tried to open an enquiry at (IPsock|WebHamster) in respect of his sock known asUser:Fred_the_Oyster but I am not sure of the correct procedure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackieupstairs (talk • contribs) 23:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The way this is generally done is to open up a sockpuppet case at WP:SPI. However, when you do so, be sure to have evidence ready that shows why this editor should be considered the same person as WebHamster. Reviewing their behavior, I see nothing to indicate that except for an edit war at Affinity (band) between yourself (as an IP) and him which ended with a semiprotection of the article. I also can't find any "verbal harrassment" of you from this editor or any other editor. -- Atama頭 00:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Jackieupstairs appears to be a single purpose account for attacking WebHamster, also at least one of the accounts claimed to be a sockpuppet was an impersonator, and was blocked as a sockpuppet of another user. snigbrook (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Fred_the_Oyster does look suspicious, though. Started editing after an 18 months break a couple of days after WebHamster was indeffed, and shares many of his interests. Yes - WP:SPI is the way to go. Black Kite 00:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not a single purpose account please refer to my contributions to for example the comedians both before and after I upgraded my IP number (a fact mentioned on my talk page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackieupstairs (talk • contribs) 15:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It is public knowledge that webhamster is "Kurt Adkins" as shown for example in the authors name of [[17]]. I just removed a link from this page The_Goon_Show inserted a while back by webhamster. [18] It’s a site selling copies of BBC owned works. Whois records or the "Click on the email" confirm that site is operated by Kurt Adkins. Kurt Adkins incidentally is the registered domain owner of many more sites which either directly link from Wikipedia or are a link from a one of the other sites e.g. www.kinkybrits.co.uk. I could go on to show other socks of his such as those with mysteriously the same aspergers syndrome based in Manchester) however to focus on this particular sock one simply types "Fred the oyster"+"Kurt Adkins" into Google and see the results highlighted. The reason he has attacked you dear Jackie is you stumbled upon one of his other money making links from the Affinity article. "....tree diagram designed by Mo Foster and Kurt Adkins" That link (disguised in Japanese) is a redirect to airmailrecordings.com which earns him 12000 yen from poor suckers drawn into buying a copy of music which by all rights should belong to Affinity. So Jackie please do not take these attacks personally as Kurt Adkins does have a history from when 11 users have been suspended Incidentally he was accused then of running many aliases [[19]]or [[20]] Kurt describes himself as "an IT consultant" therefore multiple IP address cloning or dynamic ip address switching with proxies will be of no problem to him. I am not sure how much evidence admins need before they realise that Kurt Adkins = webhamster = fred the oyster86.176.164.80 (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm with snigbrook, both the Jackieupstairs account and 86.176.164.80 accounts look like they are out to attack WebHamster who has given up on Wikipedia because of these kinds of attacks. Block both the account and the IP now before they cause more damage. Nev1 (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC) PS. Note the similarity in the above IP address and the one that registered Hamster of doom (talk · contribs), an account impersonating WebHamster [21]. Nev1 (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought the allegations i made were of more importance than who i am, although i can see why you are reluctant to answer or deal with those allegations. I am not causing any damage to Wikipedia other than exposing the truth. For somebody to directly link out of Wikipedia to their email address used to take payments and then subsquently try and allege that e-mail address (identity) was stolen is real comedy, particulary when they use the same IP range of numbers as 20,000 other editors in order to try and add weight to their childish and deceptive claim their ID was stolen. Please do not insult the intelligence of either the good admins or other good editors and please refrain from making vicious attacks on a female editor. Its becoming a little too predictable that when Kurt loses the plot there to his rescue are the same names all from the same area.86.176.164.80 (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there an admin in the house that can block this IP and the main account? Auntie E. 18:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to deal with Kurts Nev1's point on Webhamster leaving - he did not leave - his account was blocked!! that is why Kurt is using his Fred the Oyster account.86.176.164.80 (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin have a look at this ip there are some what look like outing comments on his take page [22] Off2riorob (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi and thank for all your help. I now realise that it is all about money and selling dodgy pirate music/tv. I really do not wish to get embroiled in his nasty ring of deceit although I did wonder why would anyone get so defensive and abusive over minor edits —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackieupstairs (talk • contribs) 19:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've warned User talk:86.176.164.80 to use WP:SPI and do something productive or I will block. I'm out for a bit so feel free to message me if he continues. -- Ricky81682 (talk)

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

WP:AIV

Resolved

There are somewhere between 15 and 20 open items at the AIV site. The admins are apparently at the World Series or something. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Go Phillies! List cleared. TNXMan 00:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User:C4GSH

Resolved

 – dealt with already.

C4GSH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone stuff a cork in him, please? He's multi-posting articles that are both spam and copyvio, and when they get deleted he simply reposts them. I've reported him literally two hours ago and he's still spamming away. HalfShadow (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you post it to WP:AIV? I don't see it on the list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

He gawn, at 00:06. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack by Who then was a gentleman?

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

Resolved

 – Please take such complaints to WP:WQA for sorting. I see no reason for a block to be placed at this time. This thread appears to be just one more in a pattern of that have broken out between these same parties. Jehochman ^Talk 02:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Who then was a gentleman referred to three good faith editors who are major content contributors as "abusive drama-mongers". This is clearly not a comment on content, edits, or even behavior, but a clearly abusive and over-the-top personal attack. I trust he will be sorted out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right. But let's not descend to the level of the thin-skinned drama whores who initiate these childish civility cases here. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Intolerable. You give us some diffs, and appropriate action will follow. This may range from a *yawn* to, er, something else, but we are not psychic. Rodhullandemu 01:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, on Wikipedia it is possible to be both a "major content contributor" and an "abusive drama-monger". The ability to write articles and the ability to interact constructively with others appear to be nearly orthogonal skills. Unfortunately, there are those on Wikipedia who believe that the latter is excused by the former. It is unfortunate that we are not better at dealing with that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A rather ironic complaint, given that you used similar wording against myself and Future Perfect at Sunrise not 2 hours ago. Tarc (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly I said "their efforts" were problematic. That's a description of actions. The diff clearly shows that I did not accuse you of being a disruptive troll who pursues me constantly while adding very little to the encyclopedia. I think you'll agree that if I had, that would be a clear personal attack. Gentleman, on the other hand, called other editors names. But if we're getting clarification that comments of that sort are acceptable then I support revising policy accordingly. After all GWH and other civility police have caused an awful lot of disruption chasing down comments they can object to. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think swimming through "fog soup" is going to happen here. If you want some action, provide the diffs, otherwise, with the best will in the world, this thread is going to be closed without further notice. A more impolite way of putting it might be "put up or shut up", but I resile from such coarseness. Rodhullandemu 01:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought you had already indicated that Who then was a gentleman? specifically calling three of his fellow editors "abusive drama-mongers" would be met with a yawn. So what good would providing a diff do other than to rehash his vile attack that you've already indicated is acceptable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You were mistaken; a *yawn* was but one option, but without diffs, we have no way of knowing whether there are other options without engaging in fishing expeditions. Let's be clear here; if you're asking for admin action, you should be prepared to substantiate at least a prima facie case worthy of investigation, and if you aren't prepared to do that, it should be no surprise if your complaint is rejected out of hand for lack of support. And where have I indicated anything in relation to this complaint? Again, evidence or, er, "go away". Rodhullandemu 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the diff referred to - the complaint here seems to accurately represent what was said. [23]

I am not happy about the comment. But I'm not happy about a lot of comments in the thread. I don't know if this specific example rises above the general tone enough to act on, though a warning wouldn't be out of place (and CoM and others already did that). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet you support blocking an editor who responded to being called an abusive drama monger? This is absolutely ridiculous. The action that was clear and obvious abusive drama mongering was your reopening of the thread. That is what has caused all this fuss, disruption and incivility. And yet here you are defending your fellow admin who engages in unprovoked personal attacks while sat the very same time you support a block of a good faith editor who was personally attacked viciously by your admin buddy. There's no other word to describe your behavior than to call it disgusting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe you're attributing more "taking sides" to me than I am doing. I do not support an editor, who is an administrator, calling you or others abusive drama mongers. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Having seen that diff, I am in two minds. My experience is that there are some editors who get a "free ride" again, and again, and again, because they have records of providing "good content". OK; they provide good content. They are not unique in having the capacity to provide that content. However, our policies and processes predicate not only that provision of good content is worthy, but also that it should be done with goodwill and commonality. Whereas I fully understand the impact of the ignorant, to my mind, a measured response should include a mature reaction to that impact, particularly since this is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Ignoring that fundamental principle, and its consequences, is futile, but seems to be a symptom of some editors who ignore the reality of the situation. I don't see these "good content" contributors fighting vandalism on a daily basis, but if they did, I feel they'd have a clearer idea of what we are up against. They have it easy, because their disputes tent to be academic, until they step outside editing content and the process of negotiating and conciliating content, and start assuming that their view is the only correct view. Personally, I'm neither so clever nor arrogant. Would that these people would seek a third opinion or a wider discussion once in a while. Bit, er, they seem not so to do. Rodhullandemu 02:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm reverting Jehochman's closure because this clear personal attack on three good faith editors including Giano who has yet to be informed is what instigated Malleus response which he's been blocked for below. This doublestandard of behavior is totally unacceptable. Either unblock Malleus or block Who then was a gentleman for his unprovoked personal attack. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This is an administrative close. No administrative action is required here. Please don't continue feeding the flames of a disruption. Wikipedia is for writing articles, not for engaging in personal feuds and retaliations. Jehochman ^Talk 02:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Concerning images uploaded by User:Robkelii today

User:Robkelii has uploaded a lot of images today (see contribs) without adding the required source and licensing information for such images; a lot of these images have since been given speedy delete tags. The user has already been given a bunch of warnings (including a final warning) to stop uploading images without specifying appropriate source and licensing data. After the final warning, the user continued to upload additional images without adding the required source and licensing information. As of right now, the user still does not appear to have made any effort to add source and licensing information to images that he/she uploaded today. The process of having to put speedy delete tags on each of these images has become very tedious and annoying due to the large number of images that need to be tagged. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick look tells me (from the EXIF data) that the uploader more than likely took these photographs themself, and needs education as regards Commons uploading and licensing rather than criticism; I see nobody has engaged this editor, but on the other hand, neither has he asked for advice. Let's see his response here, but I don't think it helpful to drive away a good-faith contributor without taking a little effort to discuss. Rodhullandemu 01:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The user has received several notices and warnings (see this for example). The uploads still continue unabated. I'm blocking to give us time to catch up. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Block of Malleus Fatuorum

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

Resolved

 – My reading of the dicussion here is that there is no consensus about either the block or about unblocking. I'd suggest this means that the block was questionable, and that admins should think twice about blocking in similar situations. Equally, the fact that there's no consensus about an unblock indicates that there are a significant number of admins who are unhappy about the kind of conduct for which the block was issued. Neither of these conclusions is a great surprise. I don't see that further discussion in this forum will resolve anything any further. There may be a case for a more thorough review elsewhere about what is achieved by blocking in such cases. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Evening all,

Before this turns into a wheel war, can we please get a consensus about whether the block of Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was correct? He was blocked by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for this comment ("You seem to have some difficulty in understanding the meaning of the word "attack". I was merely making a general observation about my own ignorance of the difficulties that those with shit for brains must face on a daily basis. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)"). I'd have warned first personally, but I can understand the logic behind the block. What does everone else think? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No Wikipedian deserves to be told they have "shit for brains", not even one who has the audacity to disagree with Malleus Fatuorum. People leave Wikipedia for websites not so abusive when they encounter such things. The block was based in existing policy which enjoys consensus and was in the best interests of producing an encyclopedia. Chillum 01:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course that's not what he said and Chillum has a long history of disruptive interactions with Malleus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think he asserted that any specific Wikipedian has "shit for brains". It was a very crude idiom, but this does not look like an NPA violation to me. — Jake Wartenberg 02:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a lovely loophole. Chillum 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There was no personal attack except from Who then was a gentleman? calling three good faith content contributors "abusive drama-mongers". Unblock pronto there Ryan. We can't have this sort of abusive double standard that is continuing to hurt our community. As soon as admins start treating editors with respect, they will get respect in return. This block is disgusting. And the use of it for grudges by Chillum is just another in a long line of his abusive behavior. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• NO INDIVIDUAL was told they had "shit for brains" in the post that is linked to. The truth is that there are a lot of editors who are less than educated here ... was it an optimal post? ... no ... was it a blockable post ... NO! Unless there's something else here - this block is not justified. Period. Show me something block-worthy, and I'll support it ... but that post is NOT it. — Ched :  ?  02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• I should think the block was a bit of an overreaction, personally.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I believe that the "oh, it wasn't referring to any specific individual" interpretation is, unfortunately, not supportable. There's no evidence in the thread that he was or could be referring to any object of that claim other than the person he was responding to. AGF and grammar variations can explain a lot... but not this much, no. Sorry. You're all stretching for an excuse. As I said on my talk page to a couple of people, this was grossly inappropriate, and I'd have blocked Jimbo or a sitting arbcom member for making the same comment. WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL draw lines in the sand. The lines are much argued over, but they're lines. This was across the line and then some. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• No, there was a clear personal attack in "I don't know what you people use for brains", closely followed up by the not-so-veiled implication that he did have some fairly clear ideas on the subject. Good block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't too often agreed with Chillum on civility enforcement matters, but I have to completely concur that this "no individual was targeted" excuse is pretty flimsy. The implication, especially coupled with the phrase "I honestly don't know what you people use for brains" (emphasis mine), was pretty clearly that the people to whom Malleus was speaking were the people with SFB. Not a comment on the block itself, but the excuse that no one was targeted does not hold any water in my mind. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Look ... there's a TON of folks that have said a lot of unkind things in the last few months. There's been more drama than we can weigh. Admins. are not supposed to be some sort of military police here. We are a website dedicated to building an encyclopedia. When there's a problem, we need to discuss the problems - not act in some "I'm the boss" sort of way. Blocking people just drive up the drama level .. discussion is what's needed here .. not some sort of police state. — Ched :  ?  02:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• With that much I tend to agree. This is why I won't block for incivility and advocate ignoring it instead: Civility blocks almost invariably increase drama rather than bringing it down. Certainly that seems borne out here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think there's a risk in admin A blocking user B for something user B said to user C, unless it's either horribly over the top (like a user earlier this evening who said something about burning another user at Auschwitz) or unless user C himself feels personally attacked, i.e. intimidated. The reason I say that is in part because short-term civility blocks don't seem to do any good, as the both of you are saying; and because, frankly, there is no standard of civility. You get these characters like Badly Overweight who throw obscenities around and then say, "I hope you didn't take it personally!" But similar behavior by others, including admins, goes virtually unchallenged, while still others get indef'd for it. Something's wrong with this picture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

We've seen a lot of bad behavior by a lot of people over the last few days. Some of them were admins. I have responded to two specific worst cases I saw - and been blamed for selective enforcement in both cases.

In some sense this is correct - I selectively enforced against the worst violators, when I didn't have the time or energy to issue a dozen civility warnings to other participants.

I am open to suggestions on what to do about this sort of problem. If we stop enforcing civility in threads where it gets bad in general, then the entire point of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL - to try and maintain a minimum level of constructive discourse and avoid people turning this project into a verbal brawl - is missed. If we enforce it selectively, on the worst cases, this happens. If I try to enforce it for all instances of incivilty I'm not going to get any sleep tonight for all the warnings I'll have to issue.

The end effect is suboptimal any way we cut it. More opinions on better approaches or more help would be appreciated. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a very different issue than "Was this block within policy and precedent" - if you would like to change block policy and / or WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, then the policy change procedure is ... somewhere over there. I disagree that blocking is inappropriate for personal attacks - they're disruptive to the community, they lower the level of conversation all around, they make it harder for others to participate in the conversation. However, those issues are subject to a new community policy consensus, if you want to seek such a change. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• At some point, someone has to say, "You guys have to act like adults; we're building an encyclopedia here, and we have to at least be able to spend time in the same (metaphorical) room together without spitting at each other." It turns out that allowing free-for-all 'discussions' (where 'discussion' seems to have devolved to mean 'endless petty bickering' or possibly 'pissing match') hasn't seemed to achieve our goal. It's pretty apparent that Malleus has been deliberately inflammatory and insulting in an awful lot of posts for an awfully long time. This time, he drew a block for it. Hopefully, that will be the end of it. Both he and any other editors inclined to mistaking rudeness for frankness will hopefully take the hint. This is an encyclopedia, not a brawl. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please, everyone here actually look at the conversation he was engaged in. WTWAG called him a "drama-monger" (not appropriate in itself, but that is not the issue here), to which Malleus responded "So I'm an 'abusive drama-monger' eh? I honestly don't know what you people use for brains", in this instance, it seems obvious that "You People" would include WTWAG, since he was responding with the you people thing to the drama-monger comment. He then went on to refer to the same group as "those with shit for brains". It seems remarkably, slap-me-in-the-face obvious that this was an attack on WTWAG, as well as a larger group, but definitely referring to the commenter as well. After the block, he also said to the blocking admin: "I've lived long enough to know a great many things GWH, one of which is that the greater fool is the one who argues with a fool. So I will not argue with you". So, he continued his personal attacks by calling someone a fool. I'm not sure what he is so angry about, but this 24 hours hopefully will see a cool-down (I know this is not a reason to block, and the block was rightly based on PAs). Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone who has been blocked five times for incivility should have learned a lesson. Wikipedia is a collegial, consensus-based project. Folks who try to bully their way by insulting other editors are not helpful to the project and tend to drive away other users. I don't see how anyone could think that saying folks have "shit for brains" isn't uncivil.   Will Beback  talk  02:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it has to do with upbringing or socialization. There are folks out there who literally think that saying F.U. to somebody is no big deal; and stretching AGF about as far as I can, I suspect M.F. is one of those folks. He honestly doesn't think that throwing obscenities around is objectionable behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • There are people who come to the project thinking that it's OK to use blogs as sources too. But it isn't OK to use poor sources, or to repeatedly insult other editors. If Malleus didn't know it when he came here, after five blocks over a year he should have learned.   Will Beback  talk  04:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps one who views his purpose as the hammering of fools is more likely than most to treat such fools (as he sees them) with contempt? Deor (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

To those who think that personal attacks should not result in blocking I implore you to propose a change in policy at WT:NPA instead of constantly complaining about the enforcement of that policy. It seems that despite constant complaining by those who disagree with blocking for personal attacks nobody every tries to change the policy's stance on the matter, my guess is that they know that the community supports a prohibition on personal attacks and would roundly reject any proposal to eliminate blocking as a response to them. If you can't get consensus to change the policy then please do not cry foul when an administrator enforces it. Chillum 02:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Great, another civility argument. Let's all agree that everyone has a different civility threshold and shall never agree. Nice, glad that's settled. As for Chillum and Malleus, I frankly think each of them should be user-banned from each other. We have topic bans, so why not user bans? -- avoid each other at all costs. If Malleus gets blocked, Chillum should be the absolute last person to participate in a related discussion. Chillum should not be involved in any process that judges Malleus' behavior. There are plenty of admins around that can handle this, and that won't serve to inflame the situation further by virtue of their mere presence. The same should go the other way around; Malleus needs to stay away from Chillum. I say this with absolutely no personal history that I'm aware of with either editor. Equazcion (talk) 03:00, 5 Nov 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to? My interaction with Mal has been limited to a few civility warnings I have given him in the past and calmly defending myself against his counter-accusations. If I have done anything inappropriate please point it out to me without being vague and I will seek to improve myself, but as it stands I can not gain much from your criticism. Chillum 03:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't criticizing you, I was making a suggestion for the future. You and Malleus have a heated history. I have no idea who did what to whom, and don't care much. When I see Malleus' name, generally in a discussion of behavioral problems, I invariably see yours, and vice-versa -- he complains about you a lot, and when you're involved in discussions about him, he tends to pick you out of the crowd to address directly and bring up past instances. As an observer I get the feeling it would be best for the both of you to keep a good distance from each other. Like I said, other admins can handle it. Equazcion (talk) 03:12, 5 Nov 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that anyone who attempts to enforce the NPA policy on Malleus very suddenly finds themselves with a heated history. He makes sure of it. I am not taking admin actions because he has attacked me for various things in the past month or two, but that is for the sake of appearance not because I have done anything wrong towards him. I will still have my say when his behavior comes under scrutiny. The fact that you don't care much who did what to whom is a shame, because it is crucial information when deciding if someone should not be involved in a debate. Chillum 03:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Do what you like. I'm just stating my observations. Equazcion (talk) 03:18, 5 Nov 2009 (UTC)

That is fair enough. You are welcome on my talk page if you wish to go into more detail, or this can be left as it is. Either way is amicable with me. Chillum 03:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Bugs makes a damn good point - the fact of the matter is that we are a VERY diverse culture. But I couldn't find where Mal said to anyone "FU". There are young editors here that have been sheltered all their lives, there are editors here that have suffered the terrors of war. It makes for a difficult situation in that there are times that communication is difficult. Work on it folks. Talk. Shutting people out by blocking them from being able to communicate is never going to be the answer. I don't see any overwhelming consensus here to continue a block for Malleus - therefore I am going to unblock. Does Malleus rub folks the wrong way? ... Hell yea. Then TALK to him. We have user talk pages for a reason. I read the the thread. Malleus showed his obvious discontent for the situation. There's no "personal attack" here .. there's a disgruntled editor expressing his discontent. I'm sorry folks .. that's simply not a blockable situation. I'll wait a few minutes to give anyone the chance to produce some "egregious" violation that I haven't seen ... but reading through the thread at hand... sorry ... not something that justifies a block. — Ched :  ?  03:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus for that here. Prodego ^talk 03:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Enough already. There is no consensus to change the status quo. Don't unblock. Instead, let the user serve out their 24 hour block, or let the user request unblock through the usual channels. This thread has become a surrogate for the usual debates about enforcing our civility pillar. Could we please take that discussion to the appropriate policy page and let ANI get on with other business? Jehochman ^Talk 03:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the blocked user has not posted an unblock request, and has decided to not argue with the block this whole discussion seems to be putting the wagon in front of the horse. Is this about what Malleus wants or is it about people's opinion on this type of block? If it is the latter then the proper venue is WT:NPA not here. Chillum 03:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

At the most pleasant cocktail parties, or working lunches, when someone says something offensive, it is either ignored, or perhaps gently chided. The offender generally thereafter refrains, aware of social convention. Those who don't, and repeatedly engage in such conduct are perhaps ultimately dealt with by over time being uninvited, but I've never been at a pleasant cocktail party or working lunch where security guards hover over at the ready to forcibly eject those guilty of a social faux pas. That sort of regime only seems to exist at the seedy joint in the bad part of town populated by dangerous folks who react to certain words by stabbing or shooting people. Nothing good ever really goes on there, unlike WP, where no one will ever get shot or stabbed, but nevertheless we treat words with the same heavy handed approach. Steveozone (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes exactly, I wonder how people respond to this? Really I wonder if it isn't even more futile, considering the durations: this seems almost more like making someone go stand in the corner (where they can still yell insults if they choose) for about five minutes before they're allowed to return to the table. I think it's a question with the way blocking practice has evolved generally, actually, where some now see it as as a convenient first line defense against disruption of any sort, so much so that it comes to substitute for any less forceful options. At least in my view the social pressures would be significantly more effective if they were allowed to work. Mackan79 (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• People who know Malleus are having fun on his talk page. I think that is the appropriate response. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ya. Support what I'll henceforth refer to as "block parties" for all stupid civility blocks. Lara 04:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to throw my support behind "no blocking for uncivil (and funny) remarks that arent directed at anyone personally". As long as your honest and being straightforward I wish we'd have more people use the words "shit for brains" on Wikipedia, I'm still giggling. I want to throw up everytime I see someone bend over backwards to be "civil" to morons who obviously dont have a point (like me), I'd rather you call me out on it, I'll laugh and ignore you and give you just as good as you gave. It sure beats those that edit wars and those that quote policy at you. I'd rather be insulted personally and called an idiot for what I believe in a discussion, than to listen to someone quote policy as to why they have the "correct" belief.Camelbinky (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well then propose a change in policy at WT:NPA. I have even created a placeholder for such a proposal if anyone thinks the community will support it. Chillum 04:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The community, specifically the admin corp, cannot distinguish between incivility and personal attacks. Furthermore, en.wiki is too large for any proposals for change to policy or procedure to result in anything but failure in no consensus. Lara 04:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposals that have the support of the community pass all of the time. If your argument is that you cannot get consensus for your argument because Wikipedia is too big then I ask you to look at the policy and talk page histories and see the daily changes that are decided upon. People don't change the NPA policy because they agree with it, those that disagree to it are often those unable to follow it. Chillum 05:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

So, are you saying that if I call myself a crude asshole, I should be blocked as well? Maleaus, if I understand correctly called himself shit-for-brains. Wikipedia is not censored. If the problem is language (ie-swearing), when did we become prudes? Wikipedia has always been had a free spirit regarding expression. Yes, some of us grow up in an environment where swearing is acceptable, and others not; live with it. "Swear" words arent inherently "bad", they are the Anglo-Saxon words for "acceptable" Norman-French terms (shit for feces, fuck for sex, and so on) they arent "bad" or unacceptable if you consider proper English terms to in fact be what the Anglo-Saxon term is and the Norman terms are not proper English. In fact saying the F-word is equivalent to saying "deer" instead of "venison", which is "correct"? Neither, because deer is Anglo, venison is French (almost all prepared meat uses the Norman-French while the animal it comes from is Anglo-Saxon; Beef-Cow, Pork-Pig, etc, because commoners raising the food were Anglo while the nobility eating it was Norman-French). Maybe understand the history of our words will take out the sting? But back to the point- he didnt insult anyone but himself,Camelbinky (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much the specific words, it's the extreme aggression they convey - along with their self-demeaning nature, i.e. impression they leave that the one using them is a low-life. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is just what I have posted, not what you infered from it. Malleus's comment was clearly directed at the person he was responding to. If Malleus has said that he himself has shit for brains then I probably would not have said a word. Chillum 05:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

One amusing thing is that the Admin who issued the block the same one who caused the mess in the first place by re-opening an already archived thread which predictably started the drama. Typical Wikipedia. Loosmark (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a good block. Block him for 48 hours if he repeats the behavior. Everyking (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's a massive over-reaction and a rather poor block indeed. Malleus, IMO, was making a comment to the generality and it clearly wasn;t aimed at one person in particular. In these cases, I would have issued a warning and/or revert (as I did here where an editor clearly called someone else a cunt). But no all-out blocks without a warning at least - Alison ^❤ 05:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• My bad folks. I thought that the "status quo" was anyone can edit. but I guess it's now - you need to get consensus to be "unblocked". I'll try to understand this concept in the future. Yea.. I can see a great future for the project. — Ched :  ?  05:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please Ched, you know very well what the administrative policy says about blocks and unblocks. I know you know because I have recently reminded you. It has been that way for years, propose a change on the policy talk page if you don't like it. The administrative policy was written by the community, the same people who selected you to enforce that policy. If you think that blocks should require consensus first, or that reversing a block should not require a consensus then propose it and let the community decide. Chillum 05:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the block itself, but personal attacks don't need to be directed at only one person, as opposed to many, in order to qualify. He was referring to his opponents in the argument as a group. Equazcion (talk) 05:50, 5 Nov 2009 (UTC)

• Administrators are selected for having a record of being exceptional volunteers... not volunteers above exception. It's probably worth noting at this point that there are worries that Wikipedia is run by administrators who are "above the fray", allowing them control of the site. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• The excuse that the "shit for brains" wasn't directed at anyone in particular is bogus. Of course it was. It was clearly meant as a paraphrase of his immediately preceding posting, where he said "I honestly don't know what you people use for brains". In this, "you people" clearly refers to the person he was addressing, i.e. User:Who then was a gentleman?, and unspecified others. The phrase "those with shit for brains" clearly refers back to "you people". This is as clear and specific a personal attack as you could get. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• well, since Malleus realizes how foolish some folks can be, and doesn't seem to be intent on pursuing the matter, it would be childish and foolish for me to continue in any focused direction. There are some downright ridiculous comments above that I'll not even bother addressing. The block was bad; period - but since the "blockee" chooses to rise above it, I'll not continue any course of action. My best to all. — Ched :  ?  07:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about these kinds of blocks, but I’m wondering at the moment when it was first decided that admins should consider themselves to have the discretion to block a good-faith editor for being a little uncivil. Am I wrong that originally the idea for admins was that they would issue blocks, but avoid deciding unilaterally that someone should be blocked? I am entirely sympathetic to the need for a courteous editing environment; I’m simply unsure that blocks as a first response foster this. I wonder what would happen if instead George had struck the offending comment, informed Malleus that he considered it to violate WP:NPA, and asked him to be more courteous in the future. One possibility is that Malleus would scoff, George would take it to ANI, and there would not be consensus to act. But if that is the case, should Malleus be blocked? My theory is that at some point with any editor there will be consensus regarding incivility, or there won't be, but if anything the consensus may actually arrive quicker without these recurring blocks and debates on whether they were warranted. Mackan79 (talk) 08:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Totally uncalled for block. I sometimes wonder if certain Arbs do not do these things just to keep their own names in lights. I suggest he is unblocked at once; as for Chillum being part of this thread, I really don't think it needs me to point out the obvious - does it? All this block will create is furthering festering and fostering of bad feeling - or is that the intention? I suspect that may well be the case. Giano (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Interesting. I think most people complaining here would rather the comment have been redacted first, author contacted, etc. Others look ahead to say that knowing Malleus, he would certainly tell the admin to fuck off in that case, and we'd end up here; besides which he's been told before, no reason to inform him again, he knew exactly what he was doing, etc. Which makes the complaints really about the skipped steps; except of course for those people who see absolutely nothing wrong with what Malleus said, that it wasn't worthy of redacting or of blocking, even if he's been warned before. What an interesting range of views expressed in this discussion. Forgetting the result, I'm curious to know if those who see no problem with the original comment would be in favor of demoting civility and NPA. I guess that's not a discussion for ANI though. Ignore me, I'm ranting. Equazcion (talk) 08:51, 5 Nov 2009 (UTC)

There’s no such thing as being “a little uncivil”. This example wasn’t even thinly disguised, it was written in a snide way with the second part reinforcing the first by means of linguistic artifice. If he said it to someone’s face where I come from, he’d likely get flattened.

The world doesn’t stop because one notable editor is blocked for a day. He’ll be back, no doubt emboldened by his many supporters’ comments. And Wikipedia takes another quarter turn in it’s decent into irrecoverable chaos as witnessed on these boards the last few weeks. Those who believe this was acceptable or use a skewed interpretation of what he said to claim he was being self-deprecating should get a grip.Leaky Caldron 09:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to have a civility policy, surely it precludes editors from calling one another "shit for brains". This was not an innocent, casual use of colorful language by a new editor so fresh out of the boonies that the phrase is just part of their cultural vocabulary. Nor was it a hypothetical or generalized comment. It's a featured article writer, here for three years, with an account name based on Latin wordplay, who called a specific editor "shit for brains", who has engaged in these kinds of insults again and again, and been blocked for it repeatedly. MF knows that others object to that kind of taunting, he just chooses to proceed despite the objections and blocks. As a direct response to Scalper's warning MF not to further insult Gentleman, MF offered a ridiculous logircal argument that he had not in fact insulted Gentleman, then called Gentleman "shit for brains". It was a deliberate provocation. It's pretty simple. If an administrator warns an editor not to engage in behavior the administrator deems "unacceptable", and the editor in question responds by amping up the behavior, it's fair for one administrator or another to issue a block to stop the escalation. These blocks do work, and they should not require so much hand-wringing here. MF can be uncivil as much as he wants, and he should face swift and escalating blocks for that. Sooner or later somebody will back down, and the outcome cannot be that the community backs down on its demand for a civil editing environment. If MF truly enjoys creating featured articles more than he enjoys insulting people, he'll take the very easy, basic, step all of us are expected to take, and just drop the hostility in favor of productive editing. Let's face it, some people simply think they should be free to be uncivil, and others look at every block as some kind of conspiracy. Those opinions don't really count. They're not relevant to the discussion. We have a policy and it should be enforced quickly, forcefully, and without interference. Anyone who wants to change the policy is free to propose it, but that won't happen. Don't gauge consensus by the !votes of the drama addicts on this page - out there in the more productive namespaces, the requirement to work together and treat each other decently is pretty fundamental to the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's acceptable, based on my own background (the comment on U.S. radio would elicit a fine, for instance). The problem is I'm unclear that a 24 hour block from a single administrator has any real effect on whether it's acceptable or not. That he'll be back and equally emboldened is probably true, but isn't it foreseeable? See Einstein on the definition of insanity. Perhaps counter intuitively, I think the better response may not be to block as a first response, instead to seek consensus, and then to implement the consensus. If the consensus isn't there, then work for it, or accept it. Try again next time. Where the blocks are repeated I'm not especially concerned, but I'm left agreeing with Ncmvocalist that it's kind of a sorry way to try to create community norms. Mackan79 (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• This block is a sign that the patience of many in the community is running thin for users who (1) make inflammatory and insulting posts, and (2) don't do enough in terms of voluntarily remedying the issue with their approach in interacting with others. Who then was a gentleman? (talk · contribs) and Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) were clearly frustrated. The response Malleus provided would have been fine, despite the frustration, had he not inserted the "I honestly don't know what you people use for brains" bit - there was no need to further that negative perception. The concern would have been resoved if he had struck that quoted sentence; not even an apology was needed. Instead of doing so, he further escalated the situation by making another uncivil comment which was even more inflammatory (and no amount of wikilawyering can change that fact). Some users believe that ANI (as a system) is a problem due to precisely this sort of discourse, when in reality, the issue rests with the users who make those comments - such needs to be removed from the situation in order to move disputes (and any accompanying drama) towards resolution. As for the comments, until the community approves a system where these sorts of comments can be removed or the inappropiate parts modified, there is little to help remedy the issue. As for the user, unless there is a probation that sets out those terms, admins cannot impose temporary page bans unilaterally, which leaves blocks as the only option for users who have been warned and blocked an ample number of times. It is a sad situation, and dilemma, that this puts us all in. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• People are offended by 'shit for brains'? Good God. If this is the threshold for standing on chairs and holding our skirts while screaming for help, why has nobody warned or blocked for "abusive drama-mongers"? Parrot of Doom 09:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone was warned for "abusive drama-mongerers" - which after reviewing the situation, I agreed with, and have said several times in several places. There were clearly provocations from both camps in the leadup to this. The problem when responding to a mess with this much abuse is where to start. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to respond to the person who made the last and worst response and not those who escalated it leading there. I have said several times in these threads, and before that elsewhere, that such responses are not fair or optimal. But sometimes "doing the total right thing" would require hours and hours of work, time which I (and Wikipedians in general) usually do not have to dedicate to incidents. It would be constructive for the community (admins and editors) to try and work out ways to address each of these issues. I believe that I, and admins in general, cannot be paralyzed into inaction by understanding and admitting that the process is not entirely balanced and fair when it comes to escalating conflicts. We have to be able to act to enforce reasonable behavior standards and avoid Wikipedia becoming a brawl. But we should be open to and strive for doing better.

It's a hard problem, though. Ideas welcome. Volunteer effort appreciated. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Good block, per Will Beback above, but it should have been substantially longer.  Sandstein  09:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Request wider view at the Matthew Shepard article (RE: Edit Warring)

The Policefact (talk · contribs) is currently edit warring and adding information against consensus on the Matthew Shepard article and appears to be a Single Purpose account for this designated purpose, the most recent incidents relates to a rape allegation/issue, although looking further back into the article history more examples of the edit warring can be located.

Examples of the edit warring: (1) (2) (3) (4)

The issue has been raised and debated on the article's talk page located at Talk:Matthew_Shepard#Yellowstone_rape_allegation, I'm requestin wider community consensus on the appropriate course(/s) of action, which of presently a Article Ban for the mentioned used seems most appropriate. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page · Contribs)} 06:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin (just an opinion from someone uninvolved), but I don't see how an article ban makes much sense.

There seem to be two separate issues here:

1. Whether or not to include the incident in the article.
2. Policefact's edit-warring.

It seems to me that you should probably file for an RFC on whether or not to include the incident. Being vaguely controversial seems a poor reason to not include something in an article to which BLP doesn't apply. But, I'll leave that up to you.

The edit-warring is a problem irrespective of whether or not he's right in wanting to include it. However, there's no reason to assume that he's capable of entirely behaving everywhere but in that article, so I don't see the point in a ban. I assume he's currently blocked, right? I mean, 6RR? If he isn't blocked yet, he likely will be very soon. And that's good. If an RFC is filed, hopefully he'll (eventually) participate in a constructive fashion. If not, meh, he'll just be blocked again.

Either way, it seems (to me) the two places you should be looking are at 3RR (if he isn't already blocked) and RFC, rather than AN/I. 209.90.133.214 (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Smartbook09

Resolved

User indeffed. Mjroots (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Time for a talk page block? [24], [25], [26] --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Trulexicon

Trulexicon (talk · contribs · logs)

This user has spent almost the entirety of their time on wikipedia reverting references to Larry Sanger being the co-founder. That issue is long resolved to everyone's satisfaction (except her and Squeakbox's, both of which come back and revert to the founder version time and time again), consensus favours the co-founder description, something that is ably supported by sources from the time, including Jimmy himself and the WMF (anyone interested might like to look up the archives of Jimmy Wales). I ask that someone uninvolved step in here. I realise this is a content dispute, but there are underlying behavioural issues, like completely disregarding the consensus that has been formed and the almost-an-SPA status of their account. Viridae^Talk 09:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ani medjool

I'm bringing this here because I feel I'm out of my depth with this. The editing of Ani medjool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been raised with me by two separate editors on two separate occasions. Deborahjay raised an issue with Ani medjool's editing with me on 17 October (further details). The editor was nominating Commons files for speedy deletion. I issued a uw-generic4, which was later removed by Ani medjool as delete lies.

Today, Hertz1888 raised an issue on my talk page about Ani medjool's editing (see most recent contribs of Ani medjool). I do know that Ani medjool is subject to the WP:ARBPIA case and has been notified of this. Therefore I'd like to leave this in the capable hands of more experienced admins than myself to take any action that is felt necessary. I will notify Ani medjool that the issue has been raised here. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Notified Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have only taken a quick look at Ani medjools editing today at Golan mountains, and as far as I can see, there is nothing wrong with his edits. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• [ NPA redacted ]

I think the crux of the recent editing issue is whether or not the Golan Heights are considered by the Wikipedia community to be a part of Israel or a part of Syria. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

An article on a winery is definitely not the place to discuss an area's political or legal status. The whole purpose of wikilinks is to make it possible to find more information on a linked subject, such as Golan Heights. Tomas e (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at some of the edits in question. While some of the changes made by Ani medjool may be debatable, I do not see them as disruptive. While it is perhaps incorrect to change the category at Petroleum Road, for example, to read simply Category: Roads in Syria, it is perhaps equally incorrect for it read as it did before Ani medjool's changes as simply Category:Roads in Israel. The Golan Heights is considered to be Syrian territory that is Israeli-occupied by most of the world. Israel's annexation of it is not recognized as legal anywhere except Israel. All of these articles need to be reviewed. As a quick neutral fix, I might suggest they be categorized simply as being in the Golan Heights, without designating them as either Syrian or Israeli to avoid taking sides in this territorial dispute. Alternatively, they might be categorized as being in "Israeli-occupied territories" to reflect the majority worldwide POV on the matter. Tiamut^talk 14:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I do nothing but correct false information propigate by misinform editors. Golan is Syria not israel. If United State build winery or ski resort or military base in israel or other country we not say it located in United State, we say it located in country it build in. The same be truth in this situation. If jew or israel state choose build winery in SYRIAN territory it do not make it part of israel! I also think the ADMINISTRATOR who instigate personal attack on Supreme Deliciousness should be admonish by wikipedia. I question neutralness of admin because of his personal attack against editor who not share same view has him, and there fore this admin do not belong making decision in this case. Ani medjool (talk)

User:Koavf and renaming of categories

On the 3 November a rather large group of categories were nominated for speedy renaming. In spite of a reasonable objection which should trigger a full blown discussion and which instantly nullifies the speedy request, User:Koavf made the changes to a vast number of categories. I am attempting dialogue with the user at present, but no explanation for the actions have been forthcoming. Hiding T 09:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• He is under probation - see WP:RESTRICT. You are welcome to enforce it accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

**What are the terms of the probation? Hiding T 10:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Explanation As posted on the above user's talk:

I am aware of the speedy CfD process and have even moved a category from it due to objections. In this case, I suppose I misread the exchange between the two editors; I figured this was a case that had resolved itself due to discussion (e.g. this), but I was clearly mistaken. This is a matter of oversight rather than disregard for process and I consequently have no problem assisting you in reverting my changes.

So, let me reiterate here that I am happy and willing to do my part to undo these edits, but I cannot do so immediately. Since it is entirely possible that this will be resolved by the time that I come back to Wikipedia, I apologize to those who put forth the effort, but I simply cannot do all of this right now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban

Under the terms of the probation, I have topic banned User:Koavf from adding or removing categories from any page. Am prepared to discuss this with other administrators. Hiding T 10:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this to be permanent, or do you forsee that it would be possible to lift this at some point in the future? The original complaint was about moving cats, not the addition or removal. As far as I can see, you haven't banned Koavf from moving cats, which would be in line with the complaint raised. Mjroots (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you move categories without adding or removing? I see it as being as permanent as it needs to be, am perfectly willing to discuss a suitable time period, but right now I want to resolve the changes that have been made. Hiding T 10:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Appropriate response in the circumstances. Where a sanction does not provide an explicit duration, it is considered indefinite. A slight amendment to say "adding, moving or removing" may give less grounds for differing interpreations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Does this clarify: [27]? Hiding T 10:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Perfect. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting

Resolved

 – in the sense that all out of process actions have been reverted. Hiding T 14:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a bot to revert the changes made? I started re-adding Category:PlayStation 3 games to the affected articles manually but it was a much bigger job than I first thought. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 10:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I could likely set up an automated awb account I have if there is consensus that it is okay, since the remit for the account would not cover the changes. Hiding T 11:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• The edits that User:Koavf made to remove Category:PlayStation 3 games from articles do not fall under the rubicon of out of process speedy renamings, so I am unsure they should be reverted. Hiding T 11:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It is outside of speedy renamngs, but his changes (removing Category:PlayStation 3 games from games already in [[Category:PlayStation 3-only games (and same for Xbox 360 and Wii games) goes against longstanding acknowledgement of WP:DUPCAT and guidelines/discussion at WP:VG (that is, CONSOLE-only games should also be in CONSOLE games even if the -only category is a subcat of the general CONSOLE one). At least something at that scale (100s of articles) should have been discussed somewhere before being done. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockfarm of edit warriors!

For a recap on the full story: Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations#Help!

And now, although the initial IP block has expired, it looks they have created yet another account just to continue to edit war (although this one has not yet done anything else abusive). 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

From the above linked SPI talk page, it sounds like Luna Santin has done what can be done for now. If socking/personal attacks/edit warring continues, consider an update at that talk page instead of here, just so everyone's on the same page. -kotra (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil Argument over Phillip DeFranco

I recently edited the wikipedia article about Phillip DeFranco to remove a section i believed should not be part of the article, the section in question is taken from an interview with a British youtuber, who expresses her opinions about Phillip DeFranco, however within the article this is presented as fact twice in the article, I deleted these sections as I thought they were mearly the work of vandals however Alizaa2 (talk) reverted my edit with an angry edit message, I placed a message on his talk page asking about his reasons for doing it, and responded in a hostile manner, the argument was carried out between our respective talk pages, I asked a more senior member of Wikipedia than I, Kyle1278, to take a look into the disagreement as he has history with the Phillip DeFranco page as well as past interaction with Alizaa2, and he refereed me too this page. With some looking into past article revisions, it became clear that the section in question was added by Alizaa2 and since then he has stubbornly reverted all edits that have tried to remove the section. I believe that the user is displaying Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles as well as contributing sections that go against Wikipedia:NPOV. 81.86.244.17 (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the content from the article and warned Alizaa2 about WP:BLP and WP:Civil violation. I suggest that interested users discuss on the article talk page to decide if and how Paperlilies' opinion needs to be included in the article text. Abecedare (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Axmann8 returns

Axmann8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here [28] asks for an unblock. He admits to block evasion since his block, and claims his block was "politically motivated". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this sums it up nicely. TNXMan 16:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ja! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Since he admits to evading his block, I wonder if it's time to re-open the SPI on that guy? Maybe I've been falsely blaming PCH for stuff that Axmann has been doing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be worth it just to sort out which edits belong to which editor. I'm also curious to see these "constructive contributions" that Axmann claims to have made. TNXMan 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was in communication with Axmann and attempted to help him adapt to and understand Wikipedia culture back in march before he was indefinitely blocked, I'll chime in with a note here: My efforts to help rehabilitate him were greatly hindered by the constant attention some people decided to give him (I'm definitely looking at you here, Bugs, but you weren't alone). Constant AN/I posts for every potential misstep, especially where admins are already well aware of the situation, are not helpful. I believe he could have been counseled to become a productive editor, but it would require peace and quiet for some time and an understanding that he will make further mistakes during mentorship. henrik•talk 19:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of giving every opportunity and extending good faith. How Axmann was chased off was unseemly. But I think an editor who chooses a Nazi username would be pushing our limits even if the political climate on this site wasn't as partisan and antagonistic to those who don't toe the dominant liberal/leftist world view. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents will be unable to resolve this dispute. Please consider other forms of Wikipedia:dispute resolution, for example WP:WQA.

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

this appears to be a bilateral conflict best served by working out differences in other venues; mediation, WQA, something like that. There's nothing here that I see that requires direct administrator intervention on either side. I'd like things to stay that way, so I am closing this before it desends into a cesspool of acrimony and drama. If it is important to get other editors to review this situation and take sides, try RFC instead. --Jayron32 20:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

---

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

Collect has just commented on all seven open AfDs I have commented on (6 of which I set up) and taken a contrary position, yet not commented on any other AfDs: Conservatism in North America (Oct. 28), National liberalism (Oct. 30), Naïve liberalism (Oct. 30), Small-c conservative (Oct. 31), Small-l liberal (Oct. 31), Small-l libertarianism (Oct. 31), Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (Nov 2). This appears to be Wikihounding: ...the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. I was previously in conflict with Collect at RfC/Collect. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

At face value, this appears to be textbook wikihounding. A statement from Collect would be appreciated. Tan | 39 15:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Alas -- not hounding by a long shot. If you will recall, I was very active on XfD before my break -- I am catching up on the open issues, and you will note that the few overlaps with TFD are minimal in the total context of my posts. TFD seems, moreover, to have been inordinately interested in me per [29] "He's back.[30] The Four Deuces (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)" and [31] "== Collect == Do you really think that Collect is waiting until the 1RR is over? He said he was taking a short trip into the mountains, but I expected him back long ago. I asked Soxwon but no reply. Have you heard anything? The Four Deuces (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC) " which would seem to imply that TFD was following me rather than that I was following him. [32] [33] etc. show his fadscination with me, and the ability to make many and varied charges. As the edits at issue now were all in the precise same category, it is likely indeed that a person commenting on one would comment on the others, and that is precisely what happened, TFD's clear and prolonged distaste for me notwithstanding. I am well over the nine thousand edit mark -- I have no cause to "hound" anyone in 7 edits for sure! Collect (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In summary, you're saying that it's a complete coincidence that the AfDs you !voted on today were all ones that TFD either started or !voted in, and all your !votes are contrary to his/hers? Tan | 39 16:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding: My total overlap on XfD with TFD is eleven articles. My overlap with Ikip is 51. My overlap with Ironholds is 41. If I am hounding TFD, Ikip and Ironholds have the better case, for sure! And with minimal overlap with you, I overlap once on XfD. Sorry -- I am a big user at XfD and that is the simple truth. And I would hasten to point out that I am not a "deletionist" and therefore my 80+ % "keep" record would rather imply that I am more likely to find reasons to keep than to delete. Proposers of deletions tend, for some reason, to seek deletion of articles. Thus that ratio is totally consistent with my record over hundreds of XfDs. And with the XfDs all falling into the same area of reasoning, it is highly unlikely that I would Keep some and Delete others. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I cannot believe this was a simple coincidence given the timing and nature of the !votes, and your past history of tendentious editing and conflict. To me, it's obvious that these were deliberate !votes by going to AfDs in which TFD participated. Your past AfD voting patterns are irrelevant. However, more opinion is needed here. Tan | 39 16:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Deal with facts, please. That you had a conflict with me in the past ought not weigh a microgram. My XfD voting pattern is very consistent, over many hundreds of !votes. These pages all fell within a very narrow category in which I have !voted many times. TFD has hounded me in the past, and kept close tabs on every edit I have made. And since these !votes were in line with all my !votes in the past, make up under 5% of my recent edits, and all fell into the same category, it is an extraordinary stretch to assume anything more than coincidence because that, frankly, is what it is. And since my return from break was not predicated on any reason remotely connected with TFD, whilst he apparently kept daily tabs on me, even contacting other editors, I suggest that you look at his behaviour and not mine here. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a serious issue to me. All members of the community are still welcome to comment on XfDs, are they not? Previous history between editors should not matter. Would TFD be complaining here if Collect had Wikihounded him to his AfDs and voted to delete? I think not. I am sure Collect's arguments and their merits will be judged appropriately by the closing administrator. GlassCobra 17:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, saying this does not appear to be a serious issue is ignoring the Wikihounding portion of the policy WP:HARASS - as TFD posted above, "the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." Of course all editors are welcome to comment on XfDs. Even disregarding past history, I have a hard time believing that commenting on seven AfDs in a row, all ones TFD participated in, taking a contrary stance, without any other AfDs in the mix, is coincidence. Tan | 39 17:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You believe that I would comment on some -- and miss others which he posted in? That my !Votes were somehow deficient in reasoning? That 6 out of 17 !votes represents stalking in any way? I would ask any person who has no preconceptions here to review my posts on those XfDs -- heck review every single !vote I have ever made - and come back with any conclusion other than the simple fact that where I research a topic involved in an XfD and post the multiple links that the !vote is in any way biassed. Meanwhile, did you note his apparent obsession with me -- even posting to other editors as to my break? And note further that every one of the !vote posts dealt with the issues at hand, and did not "confront" TFD in any way. Nor can I conceive that the handful of !votes can be construed as intending to cause any editor any "distress" both of which are needed for "hounding" to exist. And also you should note that no other AfDs in the lists of a few days back were related to these. BTW, I find that I also posted at ArbCom as a result of seeing Vision Thing's page -- and where TFD (and a hundred others) are involved. Unless, of course, you can suggest that my end of break was deliberately timed to harass TFD? Frankly at this point, I feel hounded and harassed by TFD, to be sure. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

@Tan - I believe that editors should be allowed to disagree with each other and not be accused of Wikihounding. Collect's opinions on XfDs are perfectly acceptable; further, one vote at a couple XfDs does not "inhibition" make. If anything, noted by Collect's points above, TFD is the one doing the stalking. GlassCobra 18:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I completely disagree with your assessment of the situation. However, I did note above that more opinions were needed, and I certainly don't plan to take any action without clear consensus. Tan | 39 18:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Five successive posts from TAN:

“At face value, this appears to be textbook wikihounding…”

“In summary, you're saying that it's a complete coincidence that the AfDs you !voted on today were all ones….”

“I cannot believe this was a simple coincidence given the timing and nature of the !votes, and your past history of tendentious editing and conflict…..”

“I have a hard time believing that commenting on seven AfDs in a row,…..”

"Well, I completely disagree with your assessment of the situation."

Responded to with a polite, definitive, plausible explanation. Let’s just forget about WP:AGF eh?. Where's the evidence of intending to create irritation, annoyance or distress? Leaky Caldron 18:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider the explanation to be "plausible", but thanks for the summary of my edits, I'm sure that's helpful to everyone. Tan | 39 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid i'm not seeing this the way you are Tan. They're all AFD's on politics, and Collect has a history of interest in political articles. If he followed TFD from politics to botany to sports to films etc, then the evidence would look a lot different to me. I think there's room to AGF that these edits were not so much coincidental as topical as opposed to malicious.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep reasons are specified, within the bounds of probability and do not constitute an attack on the nominator. Also, Collect has been offering opinions on other AfDs and MfDs. I know nothing of either of these editors, but I cannot see the problem hereElen of the Roads (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think collect has given a polite explanation here. Even if the coincidence seems strong to some editors, it makes sense to AGF and accept it. So far, there is no actionable pattern here. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Collect seems to have missed several open political AfD discussions that I did not contribute to: Dermocracy, Postsocialism, Hunter Liberals, Saddam Hussein – United States relations, Brownism. Collect's vote on the AfD for Naïve liberalism is the hardest to explain. While I nominated it for deletion and five editors have voted to delete, Collect has provided the only dissenting vote.[34] He refers to its being "used for a forum name to discuss the topic" then provides a link to a site that says, "There are no entries in Naïve liberalism forum. Become the first person to post messages in this forum by using the form below!"[35] The Four Deuces (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh? I admit to using the Google precis on a site for "naive liberal" after finding it to be a very common phrase indeed. WRT Dermocracy -- it was just relisted, hence I missed it. It f soumds like an article on skin, however. I will take your word that I should have thought it was on politics. I have no idea what "Brownism" is in any case, and the others are only marginally related to my interests in AfDs. On reflection, Brownism appears to have no use as a phrase, so I have entered my !vote there now -- it appears to have very little claim to notability indeed. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Can 82.15.39.177 be blocked from Legality of cannabis?

contributions is making daily vandal edits to Legality of cannabis, their only contribution. I've just given them a third warning but I believe that a simple page ban may curb the vandalism without blocking a possibly shared IP. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:RFPP. :-) Tan | 39 15:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Will try there... though being one IP vandalizing one article I think a ban from that article makes more sense, but I guess bans can be ignored where-as page protection cannot. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A single IP-ban from an article really isn't possible (or practical). The solutions are either to block the IP or protect the page. Tan | 39 15:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the solution is a block, if it's a single IP (to avoid punishing other anonymous editors). cf WP:SEMI, first bullet point. Rd232 ^talk 20:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war over courtesy blanking

In July 2008, Shalom Yechiel (talk · contribs) ran for adminship. It did not go well, owing in large part to his acknowledged history of abusive sockpuppetry and vandalism. Because of the unpleasantness of the whole thing, it was courtesy blanked at its close. It remained so-blanked until yesterday, when Altenmann (talk · contribs) (previously SemBubenny, previously Mikkalai) unblanked it with the edit summary "no courtesy for abusive accounts". This struck me as vindictive and not a little POINTy, so I reverted him; a brief edit war ensued. I raised the matter with Altenmann on his talk page, and it rapidly became clear that we're not going to come to agreement on this, so I'm reluctantly bringing it to the drama boards. Steve Smith (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This user is going to one way or another find themselves in trouble with ArbCom again if they don't allow it to remain courtesy blanked. Any suspicions regarding sockpuppetry are dealt with via SSP and confirmed sock tags; RFA content is not part of that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please write clearly, who is "this user"? - Altenmann >t 16:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My comment is quite clear if you made the effort to read it in full. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is uncivil. Dodging a question is disrespect. - Altenmann >t 17:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of dodging questions when the answer is perfectly obvious to everyone else reading is uncivil. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is obvious, spell it. No, you prefer to have fun of bickering. FUI "Obvious to everyone else" implies that if it is not obvious to me then I am a freaking moron who can be safely beaten on his head without bothering to answer. - Altenmann >t 20:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My position was explained in my talk page and edit summaries. Instead of countering my argument in a civil way in a talk page, mr Smith engaged in a revert war and escalated to ANI. I am wondering whether he has ulterior motives here in protecting an abusive account, whose dubious actions do not limit to sockpuppetting. I am repeating it again: activities of an abusive account must be searchable. People who abuse wikipedia go lengths to cover their tracks. This is a discourtesy to wikipedia to help them with courtesies. Sockpuppetry is not a mewbie mistake or a heated political or personql discussions a person can just say "sorry" afterwards. Sockpuppetry is a premeditated disruption, and I cannot believe such a person can be reformed and rehabilitated without solid proof. - Altenmann >t 16:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I "escalated" to ANI only when it became apparent that, owing to our very differing perspectives on the importance of punishing Enemies of Wikipedia, we were not going to come to agreement ourselves. Your suggestion of "ulterior motives" on my part is bizarre and not worth a response. Steve Smith (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The comment about "ulterior motives" was a logical consequence of your apparent lack of desire to carry out a civilized discussion between two colleague wikipedians. It seems that you base your actions on reading other's mind, rathren than on an open and honest discussion. I am ready to talk to you about guilt and punishment in wikipedia. However it is irrelevant to my clearly stated reason: it was not punishment, it was accountability. More details of my position are in this section. And I don't see anybody really countering my arguments. - Altenmann >t 17:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You talk about Steve Smith's ulterior motives, then accuse him of basing his actions on reading others mind? The only logical conclusion that can be deduced from your responses is that you are making chronic assumptions of bad faith. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not making assumptions: I am making conclusions: the person refused to engage in an exchange of arguments, of kind what is going on here. Are you saying he did it of good faith? It is "apparent" to him that we cannot come to common conclusions, without a single exchange "argument-counterargument". Call it "reading my mind" or "jumping to conclusions", whatever; you seem to know English way better than me. - Altenmann >t 17:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs) courtesy blanked the RFA on 18 July 2009. Over the last 48hrs, you have unilaterally attempted to unblank the RFA without discussing it (or "exchanging arguments") with Bibliomaniac15 or anyone else. In doing so, your edit appeared pointy, and was reverted. Instead of correcting your approach and starting a discussion with Bibliomaniac15, Steve Smith, or a general one on the RFA talk page, you reverted again demanding that Steve Smith ask you what you were attempting to do. Steve Smith once again reverted as it was considered sensitive enough to be blanked when it was. He also formally asked you on your talk page for an explanation. Instead of discussing this with him and coming to a consensus, you provided one reply, and chose to continue reverting - that method of communication is neither appropriate, nor acceptable in Wikipedia, especially for administrators. Steve Smith was left with no alternative but to bring it here when your communication was so exceptionally problematic that no consensus could emerge. It appears that you were making assumptions that Steve Smith would automatically agree with your reply - the fact is he did not, and you exercised poor judgement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your historiography is false. Obviously, you are biased towards Smith and against me, and I see no point to talk to a self-appointed wikilawyer. If Smith wanted to have a logical dispute or a mediation with me, he is welcome. - Altenmann >t 18:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Per policy WP:DP, "Courtesy blanking, history blanking or oversighting should be rare, and it should be performed only after due consideration is given to issues of fairness." I don't think anyone can come up with a very good reason why an acknowledged socker and vandal should have his/her RfA blanked for "fairness". I recommend we just leave it as unblanked, and all walk away from the battle here. Tan | 39 16:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, they are searchable. The entire history of the RfA is available to anyone who clicks on the "history" tab. TNXMan 16:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Searches in histories are extremely tedious, even in a single page, not to say in many. - Altenmann >t 16:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The page in question, in the "oppose" votes gives a clear summary of objections to the behavior of this account from the whole wikipedia community. Did anybody ask any represenative selection of voters whether they want their contributions blanked? - Altenmann >t 16:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If I understand the discussion at User talk:Altenmann correctly; the reason you want to unblank this after so many months is because you believe this user is actively disrupting the encyclopedia right now? Can you give some more details about that? If he is, direct action will probably be more useful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the issue. - Altenmann >t 17:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? I think that the question of whether you're resurrecting the blanked RfA of a long-gone, inactive user who wishes only to disappear, or a currently disruptive user, is kind of important to this issue. Plus, if there is disruption happening now, I think we'd all like to stop it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Really. If I had more to say, I'd have done this in an appropriate place. I stated my reasons several times. - Altenmann >t 17:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, many important arbitration cases are courtesy blanked, despite some of the most problematic users extreme socking. So the argument that "searches in histories are extremely tedious" really isn't going to justify edit-warring to resurrect a courtesy blanked RFA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The last known SY citing was as User:Larry Sanger must be heard at 16:57, 8 April 2009. Hipocrite (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This confirms my suspicions that this "disappeared" user is alive and roaming wikipedia. - Altenmann >t 17:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not sure why you would've expected a user to be dead merely because they thought they were invoking their right to vanish from Wikipedia. The account Hipocrite refers to has not edited Wikipedia for the last 7 months; FisherQueen's question remains unanswered by you despite being relevant. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with expectations. It is about testing a hypothesis, whether the vanished person did it for good or just hiding their tracks. - Altenmann >t 17:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The last edit made by the account associated with the RFA candidate was in April. You have repeatedly unblanked the RFA after so many months because you believe this user is actively disrupting the encyclopedia right now. Can you explain why you think so - that is, what other accounts do you think are associated with the RFA candidate? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the issue. See above. I gave my reasons. In addition to the above, given the amount of wikilawyering, I don't want face accusations of personal attacks if I start venting my suspicions without solid proofs. - Altenmann >t 17:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Good faith concerns are unlikely to be passed off as personal attacks unless no reasonable person would find your suspicions justifiable or understandable. WP:SSP explains that "solid proofs" is not what is required. Answers to my (and FisherQueen's) question remains very relevant to the incident you've created here - your refusal to answer it further highlights problems with the community's ability to communicate with you. If you are unable to answer my question, then you need to self-revert this edit that you made to avoid escalating this further. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My ability to communicate with aggressive and biased wikilawyers is limited. Your behavior further convinces me that posting any suspicions about existing accounts will bring me only more grievance. - Altenmann >t 18:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object to being called an "agressive and biased wikilawyer" for asking what I believe to be a very reasonable question. I object, on a less personal level, to your continuing to refuse to answer the question in any way, or even to give a hint of why you don't want to answer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Care to notice that it was not you who was addressed as wikilawyer. Please also care to notice that the sidetracking activities of this person prevented you from seeing my further answer to your question. - Altenmann >t 20:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't see an answer to the question of which user you think is a sockpuppet of the person in question; the only thing even a little relevant to the question that I see is the information that he was active seven months ago, before the RfA was blanked, but that didn't come from you and doesn't indicate how the person is disrupting now. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone going to give any arguments as to why this particular RfA deserves to be courtesy blanked? I have no reason to be on Altenmann's side here, but it seems like a silly argument - beating around the periphery on searchable pages or past Arbcom cases - when there's really no good reason for this to have happened in the first place. Tan | 39 17:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason is courtesy. It was an acrimonious and unpleasant experience for most involved, and was therefore best blanked. Steve Smith (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

By that reasoning, we would blank ANI on a regular basis. Even the policy itself does not say that we do it solely as a "courtesy"; it needs to be fair. I don't see any reason why it is "unfair" to leave this RfA unblanked. Tan | 39 17:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't overly happy with the results of my RfA, can we courtesy blank it too?  ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, mine too while were at it. --SKATER ^Speak. 19:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some insight from the admin who courtesy blanked the RFA may be of value, here. Was there discussion at the time? Also, I'm still unclear on the purpose served by un-blanking it - is there evidence of current or recent shenanigans that evidence at an old RFA would support? The evidence remains in the history, if it is necessary for some ongoing project (like filing an RFAR, for example), and blanking or unblanking the page does not change that. The candidate's issues are well-documented indeed, it seems unlikely that someone inclined to research them would not find the RFA. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you are wrong. History search is not as easy as it seems. It took me quite some time to find this particular blanked page when I was researching this account. (May be it was because I am that stupid...) - Altenmann >t 19:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Question. Does blanking hide the page in some way or does it just mean that one has to click on the history to see the content? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It does hide the page from web-based search tools, unless one writes a smart bot to search page histories, but this would place a big burden on wikipedia servers. - Altenmann >t 19:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I did not know that. In which case I would support unblanking the page (unless there are other undisclosed reasons for blanking) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

RFA pages are not indexed anyway, so blanking/unblanking doesn't make a difference as far as search engines are concerned. Abecedare (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the same goes for arbitration pages, even though they are routinely courtesy blanked. Perhaps requesting clarification from arbs on why they do so will help clarify the content issue here. In the meantime, there are conduct issues which the user is not acknowledging, and appears unlikely to address them. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest ignoring the conduct issue. Altenmann unblanked the page and was reverted with the summary "I have no idea what you're trying to do here." He/she got miffed, reverted, and suggested asking first. Steve Smith asked and immediately reverted. The entire situation was less than optimal but totally understandable since the two editors were approaching the unblanking with entirely different world views. Best to let it pass. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The conduct issue goes beyond mere edit-warring and it is within this very discussion. It is the admin-corps refusal to consistently enforce civility policy at these noticeboard discussions that has led to the perception that ANI and dispute resolution needs to be restructured, and the other perception that admins are incapable of enforcing much of anything. I guess it would be entirely understandable if someone criticised you for actions you (didn't) take, and you turned around and called them an aggressive and biassed self-appointed wikilawyer - not just once either. And let's just imagine you were admonished by ArbCom "to respond promptly and civilly to questions and comments regarding your actions"; that should be ignored because it doesn't bring the project into disrepute? Nevertheless, I will follow your suggestion - for the record, that means I am washing my hands of this thread completely. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I think the point is that most people are not inclined to do the research so it should be easy for them to see the history of the user. That said, almost anyone who sees a 'courtesy blanked' will know to look at the history (and that blanking ==> messy!). I don't see the big deal in blanking but I can see the point that obviously disruptive editors should not be automatically entitled to 'courtesy'.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Is Shalom Yechiel the editors real name ? If so I am all in favor of courtesy blanking. If not, and especially if the user hasn't truly vanished, why are arguing over this ? Abecedare (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If it were a real name and the concern was privacy, then there are proper procedures for this. Page blanking is not among them. - Altenmann >t 19:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not arguing for blanking or unblanking; I think debating it to such length (either ways) is WP:LAME especially since there don't seem to be any strong arguments for keeping this page blanked or unblanked. For example the three editor reviews for the account, as well as the user page, are all blanked and no one seems to care. Anyway, I'll follow my own advice and step back from this discussion. Abecedare (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

...Don't mean to be blunt, but I would much rather not waste time with this quibbling. Quite frankly it's not my concern whether it stays blanked or if it doesn't, it would be Shalom's concern. As he has not edited in seven months, and there is no evidence so far that he has returned, don't see what the fuss is all about. Everything is still in the history, as long as nothing is deleted there really isn't a difference. Do what you will, but leave me out of this. bibliomaniac15 21:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is rank lameness. I have blanked and protected the RfA. Comments about the propriety of that action may be made here or on my talk page. I would suggest that participants simply disengage, work on content or at the very lest find something marginally less crazy to argue about. Protonk (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion at DRV by CSOWind

• See Spam case and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CSOWind.

• 195.138.71.154 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 212.178.30.243 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

These IP's have identified itself as the sockmaster CSOWind (talk · contribs), one in a handfull caught Using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes for their company, Computer Systems Odessa. Currently, this sockmaster is Block evading and attempting to Game both the system and the deletion process by activly participating, and attempting to undelete companies "ConceptDraw" spam software;

• Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_November_5#ConceptDraw_PRO
• Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_November_5#ConceptDraw_Office
• Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_November_5#ConceptDraw_MINDMAP

--Hu12 (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Richmond High School gang rape

Could someone please have a word with User:Richmondian about this AfD? We have a standard AfD format for a reason. So far, he has;

• edited my nomination statement
• placed "authoritative" notices about how notable the article is right at the top of the AfD - very confusing
• moved his comments above the {{notaballot}} infobox so that they look like they are part of the nomination
• made his comments bright red and bold - again, giving editors a false idea that they are authoritative

I have "fixed" the problems a number of times (removed 3 times, moved to correct place once), but he reverts every time, and seems to believe he has the right to format the discussion as he likes. Black Kite 19:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been told that others CAN NOT mess with my comments but it KEEPS happening, even by the editor that told me not to do it in the first place. WTHeck? Am I in my rights to make comments??? And where are the rules on formatting? Just seems like he doesn't like anyone stealing his thunder. I am trying to BE BOLD why can't the I have a rebuttal to this persons claim that the article should be deleted? It is very biased as is, there is one "authoritative" voice at the top then chattering masses below. Richmondian (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there are rules on how to comment on an AfD. You can find them here. Failure to follow these instructions can be viewed as disruptive editing and can lead to a block. TNXMan 19:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been requested not to disruptively alter the format and other users edits there and also warned not to and yet you have continued in the same disruptive manner. Off2riorob (talk) 7:33 pm, Today (UTC+0)

The guidelines were clearly violated, right at the beginning: "If the article is not already tagged to note a problem, apply a tag, such as notability, hoax, etc. this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it."

No one placed those tags on the page. So maybe the AFD should end, since the policy was violated right at the beginning....

In any case, nothing on there about using colorful language, soooo what's the problem? I edited the nomination to avoid confusion, but after being told that it was inappropriate to edit other's stuff I stopped -- then the exact same person started messing with my edits. And I'd actually request some help getting rid of this "off2rob" character

Richmondian (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(ECs) User:Richmondian appears to be taking this AfD very personally, and xe is being quite disruptive about it. He has tried several variants of putting his own comment at the top of the page ([36] [37] [38]). Xe has also responded to a number of other users' comments, which isn't necessarily against the rules, but the aggressiveness with which it was done and the repetition of the same (valid) arguments makes it hard to follow AfD. User:Richmondian is clearly acting in good faith, and I'm not sure he's done anything sanctionable, but he needs to understand how to behave in an AfD... MirrorLockup (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

S/he may have been acting in good faith, but they have now been advised of the rules and need to follow them. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. TNXMan 19:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, I read the rules Tnxman, I don't really see the issue. You more senior wikipedians would do well to point out what you are talking about in more specific terms than just some link like "#NOTNEWS", as today I've read through many policies and usually the linker is mistaken (intentionally or not). Really a big waste of time the amount of time I put into the article and now a half day on saving it from deletion. Richmondian (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, most specifically: Start your comments or recommendations on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *), and sign them by adding ~~~~ to the end. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple *s). TNXMan 20:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's quite enough, Richmondian. If you cannot remain civil and cordial here (i.e. calling to "get rid of another user" is clearly not), then you will have your editing privileges revoked, plain and simple. MuZemike 21:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

66.90.29.229

Resolved

The IP user 66.90.29.229Talk Keeps adding what amounts to personal attacks and WP:BLP violations to their talk page as they did here [39]. The current target is our own Jimmy Wales but their have been others. They are currently blocked but keep adding this to their talk page. Additionally, in an edit removed by another editor they promised to continue vandalizing once they are unblocked. I think the page needs at least semi-protection. Thank you DSRH |talk 20:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Tnxman307 blocked him and removed his talk page access. Marking resolved. Thanks for the heads up. --Jayron32 20:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of admin powers by Protonk

Protonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reverted my edits with insulting edit comment, rather than discussing the issue. Immediately after that he protected the page. This act is an abuse of admin privileges. I request Protonk reprimanded and his actions undone. - Altenmann >t 22:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• that was fast. Protonk (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, I think it would be best to unprotect so we can all avoid another drama? Or not. Anyway, it doesn't look great that you reverted and then protected. But maybe there is a good explanation? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is clean and simple abuse of admin powers, according to an unambiguous wikipedia policy. Do you want me to cite it or you know where it sits yourself? A "good explanation" in such cases must be imminent threat of disruption of wikipedia, no less. You call it derisively "drama". I call it blatant disregard of a fellow wikipedian. - Altenmann >t 22:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The explanation should be self evident. It is a stupid thing to edit war and argue over, but evidently that fact hasn't been impressed upon the participants of the discussion. I'm just cutting the gordian knot and allowing people who I assume to be otherwise productive and collegial editors getting back to whatever it is they normally do. If the fact that the page itself is blank/non-blank is so distressing to the particular parties that they have to argue about it even after some option is foreclosed, then that is a separate problem. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion what is stupid and what is not, but this gives you no right to violate the rules of admin's actions. Also, in case you failed to notice, the edit war was over for some time, until you contributed to it without adding extra arguments. - Altenmann >t 22:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Who *was* a gentleman?

I haven't followed all the drahmaz here surrounding Malleus's block; can anyone interpret this edit to Malleus's talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No idea, but he left the same thing on ChildofMidnight's page too. Looks real mature. Tex (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure his account's been compromised. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Now I've found the background. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ugh... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Should we block him, Chillum, Sarek of Vulcan, and GeorgeWilliamHerbert indefinitely just to be on the safe side until we can sort this issue out? Prevention of harm to the encyclopedia is paramount, and (compromised or not) those accounts have certainly caused enough drama. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been compromised, just exhausted by being paged all night...

I can't exclude compromise, but it could equally well be Wtwag being highly inappropriately confrontational. I agree that whatever the cause, it's nowhere near ok behavior. I am reviewing to try and see if it's a compromise or not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's just what a compromised account would say. Strong support indefinite block of Georgewilliamherbert until we can be sure of his identity adn motives. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you fucking serious. Protonk (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

COM and Protonk, do you really need to escalate this? GWH said he's looking into it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I just want to know if he's joking, which I assume is the case. If wtwag keeps this bizarre streak up I'm inclined to block the account as a compromised account, but there is no indication that is the case (yet). COMs participation here is nearly inexplicable unless he has just decided now is the perfect time to yuck it up about something. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre streak? What bizarre streak? Oh, I get it. Calling out The Protected Ones for inappropriate behavior is not allowed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I smell the smell of sarcasm in the morning. I am not taking COM seriously on that point - and I don't think anyone else should either. Perhaps inappropriate timing given that we have an actual serious issue with someone else here, but that's not a wiki issue, just a sense of humor issue. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, you have to assume good faith in issues like this. You can just block an acocunt based on what you think. It has to be based on what you know.--Coldplay Expert 22:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

COM, you're not really helping here. This, however, clearly shows it was retaliation, not comprise. Very gentlemanly. Tex (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My account is not compromised. As I explained to Juliancolton, the edits I made were in direct response to the ridiculous comments CoM and Malleus left on my Talk page. They were so ridiculous, that only laughter was the correct response. I also note that not a single person has yet notified me of this discussion, as is required at the top of this page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)