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

Disruptive editing by User:Neuromancer

User:Neuromancer has a consistent pattern of disruptive editing and talk page-inappropriate discussion, most problematically at HIV and Talk:HIV, and as another editor has stated, has "violated nearly every behavioral policy this site has". This user has repeatedly demonstrated an agenda of disrupting HIV-related articles with fringe viewpoints with no substantiation in RS. Despite extensive policy explanations and warnings from other editors, Neuromancer continues to pursue this course, including creating POV forks (HIV dissent, later re-directed, and Alternative HIV viewpoints, currently at AfD) containing synthesis, BLP violations and other problems. The user has been blocked previously for WP:3RR and given multiple warnings at the user talk page and on article talk pages by a large number of editors.

Neuromancer has also contributed several copyright violations, cutting and pasting from copyrighted sources without quoting or citing. This edit contains nine paragraphs copied verbatim from avert.org and a sentence and references copied from another website without citation. Warnings and explanations (Talk:HIV#Copyright_violations_by_Neuromancer, [1]) were ignored, with the user later performing another unreferenced copy and paste from a copyrighted website.

Neuromancer, after threatening to wikistalk ("However, I will be sure to peruse EVERY edit to EVERY article you have contributed to, just on the off chance you have somehow detracted from those articles as well"), has begun to make good on this threat by becoming engaged at Magnetic water treatment (an article on my watchlist), Cancell (an article contributed to by User:MastCell, [[2]) and Medical uses of silver, following talk page interactions, including an accusation of censorship, with a regular silver editor, User:Hipocrite. Each of these editors has warned Neuromancer about a variety of behaviours in the past, with invariably hostile response. The diversity and scope of Neuromancer's disruptions suggests that intervention could be appropriate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my voice, as an involved editor/admin, to the request for some outside eyes here. Neuromancer (talk · contribs) has been active in pressing an AIDS-denialist agenda across numerous articles (representative edit). Issues include:

• Persistent edit-warring (block log)
• Canvassing potentially sympathetic editors ([3]), [4], [5], [6]).
• Most of his non-HIV-related edits seem to be based on Wikihounding; as Keepcalm points out, they're drawn from the contrib histories of editors with whom Neuromancer has been in conflict (followed Hipocrite (talk · contribs) to Dennis Ketcham ([7]), etc).
• Creation of numerous POV forks, including Alternative HIV viewpoints and HIV dissent.
• This sort of thing - not that I'm fussed about having my IQ questioned - it's probably barely above room temperature anyway - but it's a bit grating coming from someone who's constantly accusing others of personal attacks and failure to assume good faith.
• Constant references to a "WP:HIV cabal", by which Neuromancer presumably means editors who hold the "POV" that HIV causes AIDS.
• Very basic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - despite extensive forum-shopping, and hearing a universal rejection of his proposed edits, Neuromancer keeps repeating the same arguments (see the last 5 or 6 threads at Talk:HIV for examples). He's indicated that he's "not going to stop" just because a "cabal" opposes his edits.
• He's cut-and-pasted a long section from an AIDS-denialist website, and then complained of having "hours of research" erased when this was reverted (will find diffs).

I would like some outside eyes on the situation, if anyone's willing. I don't want to be melodramatic, but these are the sorts of challenges that Wikipedia needs to handle effectively if it ever hopes to achieve its goal of becoming a serious, respectable reference work. MastCell ^Talk 21:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the diffs, talk pages, and assorted miscellany included here, this looks like a case of POV-pushing, with some intransigent statements by Neuromancer. I fear that this is just a continuation of a problem we've seen several times here over the last few weeks (and probably longer) where people with a strong, but minority or fringe POV feel like they are backed into a corner by consensus against them. While I'm not sure that their behaviour is indicative of a block, is there someone who would be willing (and more knowledgeable than I in these particular subjects) to work with Neuromancer to help them understand why their view is fringe and that this isn't personal, its just community consensus that happens to disagree with what they believe? I would also appreciate hearing from both Neuromancer, MastCell, and Hipocrite about their opinions.

On a semi-related note, how do we allow users such as Neuromancer to feel like they have been given an adequate opportunity to have their point of view heard and discussed and not simply swatted out of the air (not that this has happened here...but can happen very easily). While their points of view may be fringe, and not follow community consensus, how do we continue to honour their contributions while maintaining the integrity of WP, and without driving them away?

I'll return to this conversation a little later...its supper time! Frmatt (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that Neuromancer has been resistant to guidance, and has been very confrontational at times. The exchanges on Talk:HIV have been lengthy, but I do think some have been constructive - they've dealt with substantive issues, and resulted in edits that improved the article (only incrementally, though). I have not followed the activity outside Talk:HIV, but those diffs are disheartening. The WP culture takes some getting used to, and plunging into HIV was probably a mistake for a new editor. I'd like to see Neuromancer get some guidance, to understand the difference between disagreement and conspiracy. It's tiring and disruptive when an editor insists that others formally prove numerous well-established concepts that are already supported by reliable sources. -- Scray (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• As someone who's interacted extensively with Neuromancer on Talk:HIV, I agree most with Scray's characterization. Emw (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• As someone who has interacted, discussed, argued, and usually reached something of a consensus with both Scray and Emw (both of whom I have come to admire for their ability to semi effectively deal with me), and whom I have had much more interaction than anyone else involved in this discussion, I would like to to put out there than I am more than open to discourse of policy, disagreement and conspiracy.
• Additionally, I would like to point out that I do not believe there is a conspiracy to get rid of me, or I would already be gone. My references to the HIV cabal are due to this post on my talk page, and is mostly an attempt at humor, not an impassioned belief that "you are all after me..." Thank you for your patience, and I agree, perhaps HIV was not the place to jump into the Wikipedia as I have. But I am here, and trying to make the best of it. Neuromancer (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As the guy who posted that, it was really in response to Mister Hospodar who happened to post some paranoid kind of stuff on Neuro's user talk. It is supposed to be a smidge humorous; it's actually a rather long-standing joke turned wisdom on wiki. However, I chose that link of all the essays on non-existent cabals to highlight that there is no cabal conspiring against you unless you created it. I guess it didn't take the desired effect as Neuro began referring to cabals afterward, rats.

I full well admit that I took and ran, more as humorous jab back at you, and a few others, than anything serious. I don't think there is a cabal, HOWEVER, there are a group of you who very adamantly defend and revert edits on a number of similar pages. After reading your posted words of wisdom, I thought it humorously appropriate to throw it back at you in kind. My references to a cabal have never been more than half-hearted humor in an attempt to lighten the situation. Seeing as how you are the only one who got the joke... Well, crap! Neuromancer (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, well, good to know now then! Thanks for clarifying. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, here are my words on the subject. Neuro isn't the only fellow who's made himself heard towards AIDS denialism on talk pages over the years. In particular though, there has been a lot of passion from him that is very accusatory, and this more than anything began sparking contention.

I really tried to steer the conversation as much as possible to specific constructive discourse about articles in question [8], but largely this opportunity was not taken advantage of. Instead, in response to his broad debates, there have been several clear, spelled out arguments highlighting the faults in the particular angle he takes on AIDS denialism ([9], [10] to name a couple i did). The AfD for the content fork of AIDS denialism alone should be a pretty clear wake up call.

I think he hears and sees them but is still trying to game policy/guidelines in his favor, such as omitting "although content may be shortened or moved if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view, as explained below." to the WP:YESPOV quote in his response below, etc. There has probably been a bit a wikistalking, and cries of censorship/this must be heard/you can't erase history kind of brew-ha-ha, but I like keeping editors more than loosing them so I would love to see mentoring or fostering of better habits than blocks. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears in regards to his below YESPOV quote with relevant (e.g. oppositional to his motives) info omitted, his response is this: [11]. A fairly by-the-book WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It could be that mentoring/fostering isn't an option after all. JoeSmack ^Talk 09:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, Special:Contributions/24.251.114.169 and probably Special:Contributions/174.17.102.170 are Neuro, but he denies the latter here. Sockpuppety. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Loudly claims the 24; the 174 geolocates to Phoenix, AZ, where the Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company is located. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Is an WP:SPI warranted, perchance? Crafty (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuro emailed me a protest. If it puts one of these many issues to rest (either way), I think it would be worth it. However, this is right on the line of CheckUser criteria. Up to you. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I doubt CU would be informative. Neuromancer just posted on their talk page pointing out another IP in another region. CheckUser uses the wrong sort of magic pixie dust to determine whether this is IP spoofing, gaming by ideological opponents, off-wiki canvassing, or just one of those things. RBI any account unwilling to discuss and let the AfD run its course would be my advice. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Offtopic part, my bad. - JoeSmack

Oh, and I'd like to respond to Frmatt above because I think it is a step we need to discuss too. For one, I would say that there has been so much effort by AIDS denialists over the years to bend NPOV of HIV/AIDS articles that it has left a somewhat bitter taste in the mouth. I've been patrolling for about four years now, and the last conflict that was this big was Special:Contributions/Sci_guy. Every effort since has felt like a rehash that gets a little tired, thus this tends to be my first kind of question towards the reprise - [12]. So, somewhat WP:BITEY, I would say so, at least for me. Can someone not previously involved in this incident maybe provide how they'd deal with it better? JoeSmack ^Talk 03:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Oooh..."Specious" and "Spurious"...I'm impressed by your vocabulary! lol

In all seriousness, though, I will admit that after four years of that type of thing, my response would probably be very similar. In response to your question, I think that you were surprisingly civil, not overly bitey and all in all gave an appropriate response. I wonder if there might be a solution in creating a subpage that is permanently linked to the talk page...something like Talk:HIV/Other Claims with the notation that this page would contain discussion of other claims about HIV that have previously been discussed, and been excluded as a result of consensus...including the appropriate sources that were considered. This would allow users to see the arguments that have already been made, what the consensus was, and how the consensus was achieved. This would also allow users the option of adding new information and sources that may have come to light recently and provide a talking area that wouldn't necessarily clog up the main talk page. I know that as a (relatively) new user, I would appreciate that, especially in some of the articles that I edit which contain some controversial topics. It may also give new users (at least to that page) the knowledge that there is a place for them to express their points of view and to see what the consensus about them is. Frmatt (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert on AN/I, but my sense is that we should be focused on the concerns raised here about Neuromancer's editing, rather than a side discussion of how to make it easier for new editors of HIV (even though this is very constructive and well-intentioned). -- Scray (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Very true, and I've added it elsewhere.

Brought this offtopic, my bad. Frmatt, that is one idea but i'm wary of having subpages as they tend to get abandoned, and subtalk pages do even more so. I'll look at the username project link you provided, thanks for the feedback. Ok, i'm gonna whisk this into a collapsebox. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Knowing that ANI is not necessarily the place to propose any type of restrictions, I would like to ask Neuromancer if they would be amenable to having an uninvolved editor work with them to help them understand the policies? Specifically, that when Neuromancer finds themselves in an edit/content conflict, that they would invite their mentor/coach into the conversation as someone who is relatively impartial and working to ensure that they understand the policies about WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:POV, especially when they find themselves in conflict. Frmatt (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Email response by Neuromancer posted by 2over0:

I would be most amenable to having an uninvolved editor work with me. I am certainly not trying to cause a disruption to WP. Perhaps an experienced editor/admin, who has not previously been involved in the topics of this debate, would be willing to work with me to fix what appears to be flawed logic. Or at the very least be able to show me a more constructive manner in which to present information that won't be as disruptive as it has been. Who knows... Maybe I'll bring em around to my side? Haha, joking.

end of response by Neuromancer. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If an appropriate mentor steps forward, this would be possibly the best solution, and could be implemented in tandem with or in lieu of the sanctions I propose below. Neuromancer is a bit forceful and currently frustrated, but I think could be an asset to the project if given a little time and help to come to grips with the peculiar sourcing and neutrality requirements here. Any takers? - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Response by Neuromancer

I assume that I can weigh in on this conversation?

• First and foremost, I have edited in good faith, with the intent to better the Wikipedia in general.
• Secondly, I am not trying to push a fringe POV. This is my understanding, please correct me if I am mistaken...

• Wikipolicy requires at WP:NPOV that “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” It further requires at WP:YESPOV that “Article content should not be deleted solely on the grounds that it is "POV"" and that "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints.”

That being said, I have also reviewed WP Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which states:

• Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

I fully understand that there are those who think that questioning the science behind HIV is ridiculous and worthy of censoring, however, there are those in the scientific community, who have published peer reviewed papers, questioned many aspects of HIV, AIDS, and the connection between the two. While the cabal[13] currently editing the HIV and AIDS denialism articles claims a NPOV, and that they do not have to give equal eight to fringe POV, a simple review of their resistance to the inclusion of balanced information, whether it be in those articles, or in separate articles, seems very clear that they are not willing to be neutral on the subject.

As far as "Wikistalking" as Hipocrite has accused me of, I cannot even begin to express how petulant that statement is. While I will admit that I have reviewed other editors contributions, and even weighed in on a couple of the articles that they have been involved in, I am not now, nor have I ever, edited an article simply to "frustrate" another editor. This accusation was posted to my talk page by Hipocrite just this morning. While I do tend to have an interest in alternative health treatments, such as HIV, cancer, etc, I have also edited such articles as the Fort hood shooting. I think it is an unfair characterization to say that I am stalking anyone.

When it comes to canvassing... I fail to see how mentioning to another editor that a discussion is taking place that they may be interested in, is somehow a bad thing. I in fact copied this practice from such editors as Verbal and Hipocrite, who routinely post messages on one another's talk pages requesting input regarding a particular topic of debate throughout the Wiki. I have not requested that they take a particular viewpoint, merely that they have expressed interest in the topic in the past, and may be interested in the current conversation. Here is the most recent example I can readily find [14], or Nunh-huh, JoeSmack, TechBear.

I have not cut and pasted long sections from denialist web sites. I did take a list of factors known to cause false positive HIV antibody tests, which had 64 references, and use it in the site, and the original compiler was given credit. The references did not have any DOI or PMID information, let alone being suitable for Wiki formatting. Each and every one of those references was researched, updated, verified to be on point, and formated by me. I would call that hours of research.

As far as the "creation of numerous POV forks... I cannot agree with that. I have created 3 articles here. 2 on the topic of HIV. Initially, I un-forwarded HIV dissent and created article content there. That was nominated for deletion, and reverted back to a forward, the next day, prior to a discussion or consensus being reached. So I then created a new namespace, Alternative HIV viewpoints, where I published relatively the same article, which has also been nominated for deletion. Again, prior to the AfD discussion closing, the article was wiped and forwarded, and for trying to prevent this, I received a 24 hour ban. How is consensus and discussion supposed to take place when there is no article to discuss?

So, salient points:

• Always in good faith...
• Been Bold
• Ignored all rules, except for personal attacks. (Never have I personally attacked an editor)
• Modified behavior as users have brought potential violations to my attention.

Neuromancer (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope someone realizes that it is highly coincidental that a user who has edited what - 5 mainspace articles has somehow overlapped and edit-warred against people he has disagreements with on 4 of them - and those 4 are in totally disparate subjects, with the note that he has expressed an interest in a 5th, totally disparate subject here. How far does AGF go? Hipocrite (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I became involved with Dennis the Menace because I was following AfD, not you. When you nominate an article for delete or merge, it is common courtesy to allow the discussion to take place for the requisite 7 days. Blanking and forwarding is just rude, and makes any discussion difficult. Neuromancer (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Colloidal Silver has been used in Alternative HIV and Cancer treatments. It is not, as you say, "disparate." I have not intentionally edit warred with anyone. After it was brought to my attention, I changed my behavior. I have been involved in edit controversy in HIV and Alternative HIV Viewpoints. If there is another article you think is relevant, please list it. Neuromancer (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of Neuromancer's edits: article coincidences

Neuromancer has to date edited 59 unique articles. Comparing edits with the people notified of this discussion by Keepcalmandcarryon indicates that 54 of those have also been edited by at least one person on the list (I am making comparison using different tools and a little inclusion/exclusion counting, so bear with me as they may measure unique article in different ways; also note that I am involved in several places). Subtracting the AIDS-related articles, usertalk, and a few obviously benign cases gives: Aspartame was edited by Keepcalmandcarryon two days before Neuromancer's first edit; Cancell was not edited by anyone on the list in the days preceding Neuromancer's first edit; Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company was created by Neuromancer; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination) is clear, though Denialism itself was edited by Verbal the day before; Kristian Ayre and AfD are clear - Nm probably got there from ARS; Talk:Dennis Ketcham was edited by Hipocrite earlier that day; Talk:Medical uses of silver was recently edited by Hipocrite and MastCell; Talk:Magnetic water treatment was recently edited by Keepcalmandcarryon, Someguy1221, and me; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catbus had been recently edited by me, but had also been tagged for ARS; Fort Hood shooting and talk had been recently edited by JoeSmack, though that article is highly active right now.

Assuming good faith with respect to the AfDs tagged by the Article Rescue Squadron (none of the contributions were particularly combative except at Denialism which is a mess all around), this leaves: Aspartame, Medical uses of silver, Magnetic water treatment, Dennis Ketcham, and Fort Hood shooting. The last I think can be ignored, as everyone else is editing that article too at the moment, and Nm's edits were not obviously antagonistic; although I do think that there is some confusion regarding wikt:duplicitous and wikt:duplicative. The Ketcham very much looks like an attempt to engage with Hipocrite. For the other three, I do not find the assertion that they were selected without reference to editor to be credible, though I am willing to believe that they find such things interesting. This is again based on X!'s namespace counter, which shows an edit to Talk:Fascism as the clear outlier. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sanctions

Based on the behaviors outlined by Keepcalmandcarryon, MastCell, and myself, I propose that Neuromancer be indefinitely topic banned from all HIV and AIDS related articles, broadly construed, and their talkpages; I further propose that they be admonished to avoid extending conflict to unrelated articles and to not seek out or harass any of the above mentioned editors. These remedies to be subject to review at AN/I or ArbCom, preferably less frequently than every three months. I would explicitly leave my talkpage open for any discussion, as we have open threads there and I am still willing to discuss with Neuromancer.

Alternatively, given the failure to follow obvious community norms such as engaging productively with other editors and not seeking out confrontation, multiple attempts to add content in an end-run around consensus, and multiple instances of copying without attribution, including from patently unreliable sources including virusmyth.com and IMDB, a full community ban may be in order. Please discuss these proposals below. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As Neuromancer has been blocked 48 hours for edit warring, I have volunteered to relay their concerns here if necessary. As always, please refrain from piling on while Nm cannot edit here. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Email response by Neuromancer posted by 2over0:

I am repeatedly requested to find consensus before edits, which I have done on HIV, AIDS denialism, Fort Hood shooting, etc, etc.

The only real issue regarding disruptive editing has been in regard to Alternative HIV viewpoints. I understand that I do not own the article. I understand that it may very well be deleted in the near future. However, here are the salient issues that I have:

• [15], [16], [17], [18] In these edits, the exact same information has been removed each time. Please review the diffs. The entire chapter is properly referenced to scientific publication such as "Applied Environmental Microbiology," "Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences," US patent #4520113, etc. In this edit, there was no regard for the information. There was no consensus reached, or even discussed on the talk page. There is no synthesis. This is not an article that falls within the purview of Medicine. This is an article entitled "Alternative HIV Viewpoints." As it was created, it is not a POV Fork. The idea was to present the claims of scientists who disagree with the current HIV community. There are films being made about these topics. There are papers being published in peer reviewed journals, such as this one in 2008, which dissent on the currently accepted HIV hypothesis.

• • No consensus was reached before wholesale deleting MASSIVE amounts of information. No attempt was made to clean up language accused of being POV. Rather, it was just deleted. Not one person who has attempted to keep this information off of WP has been able to provide a SINGLE citation discrediting the information in this article. Yes, there is a reference to virusmyth.com. It is to source the quote of what certain dissenters believe was wrong with the current information. It's not synth. It's not there to support a medical claim. The reference is there to show where the idea came from. It is one of MANY ideas.

• Rather than editing the article, it is deleted, forwarded, called synth and POV fork, and unsourced. This is not the case. I have spent hours reading medical journals verifying each of the actual medical claims on this article. Granted, I did start with Christine Johnson's list, which she was credited for. But that is a list. Journal references that were no longer valid, or since debunked, were removed. Each citation was verified and wikified so that others could simply click on the ref and be taken to the article.

• I am being accused of doing EXACTLY what my accusers are doing. Except that if you actually read the article, and the references, you will see that this is not synth, or a POV fork. Compare it to HIV denialism and try to find more that two duplicate references. HIV denialism focuses on a POV that HIV denialists have caused harm, have been debunked, disproved, etc. Yet there are no references to where they have been disproved. I have looked for these references, and have been unable to locate any. I have found NON scientific articles, written by journalists, and judges, but not anything from the scientific community. Yet when I present actual scientific published works, I am POV pushing. This is not the case.

• As far as the mad props I have received for being Superman, please review my talk page.

end of response by Neuromancer. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuromancer indicates above a willingness to work with a mentor to help them contribute within the project's policies. I think that this could be productive, but am myself both too involved and too unskilled in the area. If anyone is interested in the role, please step forward. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Neuromancer's willingness to accept mentorship is encouraging. However, Neuromancer has yet to recognise their problems with straightforward policies such as copyright violation and sockpuppetry; their insistence that the "other" Arizona IP is not a sock or meatpuppet is, quite frankly, ridiculous. These aren't subtle matters in which a mentor's guidance could help, but I would be pleased to find out otherwise. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING violations by User:Sir Floyd

Resolved

 – Anyone who participates in deliberate outing in the future will be immediately banned. Spellcast (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

---

Frankly I'm tired of some users and their banned IP buddies revealing my personal information, threatening me, and stupidly "mocking" me about my age (I say "stupidly" because if I really am a "kid", then they all think they got banned by a "kid" :). With his edit of 4 November 2009, User:Pantaleone, the latest sock of User:PIO, posted the following on Talk:Republic of Ragusa (addressing me, of course):

• "PIO, Luigi, Bruno, Giovanni, MacLot, Miranovic, Babic, Sir Floyd and.. they can organize a syndacate for you and your compliance admins! Goodbye troll" [19]

He then proceeded to have a chat with User:Sir Floyd, during which they both "mocked" me calling me "Junior" (LoL :) and revealing my identity. I honestly did not want to raise a fuss out of it all, since I'm supposed to be busy with my studies, so I just warned User:Sir Floyd, pointed out that he is in serious violation of WP:HARASS, and advised him to read that policy [20] (even though I was/am absolutely positive he knew about it full well). I assumed he'd stop. He however seems to feel my warning was "insulting" and has decided he shall continue to to patronize me and reveal my name/personal information on his talkpage [21], and I'm not willing to overlook that no matter how busy I may be. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have left Sir Floyd a courtesy note informing him of this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Off2riorob. I would've done it myself if he didn't feel so passionately about me editing his talkpage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I was expecting this. If I have offended the Direktor, then I apologise. He himself is no angel and has been giving me grief for a very long time. Please take this into account. Concerning the block editors who frequently visit my talk page, I have no control over them or their comments. Please do an " Ip user check on me". I am from Australia and my IP user number should confirm that. I sincerely hope this is not turning into a witch hunt. Regards Sir Floyd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Floyd (talk • contribs) 02:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sorry too, but since I am actually receiving threats against my person, since this is by no means your first such attack, and since I did actually warn you as politely as I could, only an idiot would take your apology seriously. Lets just stay focused on this issue, none of your standard sidetracking of the discussion pls. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"He himself is no angel" is not a motive for your behaviour, Direktor Sir Floyd. You are the master of your own keyboeard. -DePiep (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Direktor you have been very abusive towards me over and over again. What do you expect is going to happen? Does one just lay down and take it. At one stage you threatened to delete everything I wrote. You write in a condescending language and keep coming up with accusations that are way over the top. Maybe we should just agree to a cool off period. Sir Floyd (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Corrected angel behavour (see stroke above). Sir Floyd, if there is a problem, please start your own thread. Behaviour X does not allow behaviour Y. -DePiep (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not my nature to go around doing Incidents Reports. I really don't see what I have done is so wrong and why I should be punished. Sir Floyd (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Case in point, Direktor wrote "Goodbye troll". Now where I come from, that's a huge inslut. You don't go around saying to people "troll" without expecting a reaction. Troll is something used when you really want to hurt someone. So how does one react? Those samples of coverstion that Director provided look innocent to me, compared to troll. I really hope that this is not a witch hunt and that there is good will here. (Editors have been debating over articles on Wikipedia since day one)

What is outing anyway? This is the first time I have seen this on Wikipedia, I guess I will have to research it. Also, I'm thinking that I will just put up a sign for the Block Editors to leave me alone. Sir Floyd (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Your attempts at sidetracking this discussion are not gonna work. I obviously never called you a "troll". The transparent "innocent newb" act is also something only an idiot would buy. Not only were you completely aware that it is against policy to reveal personal information, I also warned you and showed you the policy. So please, I know you're clever, but you're not kidding anyone. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

............and your compliance admins! Goodbye troll" please that was about me! I do not know anything about the above. When did you tell me that, please show me? If you did I'll admit that I was wrong, because I have no memory of it "What is outing anyway?". Furthermore your agressiveness towards me is unwarrented. There are a lot worse things to worry about. Time could be spent on more constructive things. Is it because we don't see eye to eye on things. One could be more respectful of other people's differences. Please stop insulting me and I would appreciate you not writiing in a condescending tone. Sir Floyd (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop talking about the edit made by User:Pantaleone on Talk:Republic of Ragusa [22], and start talking about your repeated violations of WP:HARASS. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok! Firstly I appreciate the last interaction on Talk:Josip Broz Tito, I'd much rather debate sources & references than what is happening here. I say lets bury the hatchet. Concerning the violations, I apologise (but what did I do?), if you are not happy with my apology could you please present your concerns in point form and I shall address them tomorrow in an orderly academic fashion. This old dog can still learn.Sir Floyd (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A few things are clear just from looking at this thread (which now appears to be another forum for you two to argue so I'm not really sure it's getting anywhere. Basically:

• Sir Floyd, you asked 'does one just lay down and take it' and the answer is yes, absolutely an abusive editor thrives on your rising to their insults, if you don't rise to them they'll stop doing it. Anyone can continue an argument by acting immaturely in response to immature actions but a good editor deals with it correctly, warnings, reports etc. If it's not in your nature to raise reports and deal with issues properly then maybe your nature is incompatible with what is expected on WP and you should consider addressing that?
• From what I can see here neither of you are what I would consider particularly good editors. Even after you requested admin assistance, Direktor, you continue to engage in petty arguments and Sir Floyd you continue to do so even when somebody has raised concerns about your behaviour. Both of these are, in my opinion, signs of editors that are not acting in a way that the WP community expects and therefore maybe you both need admin attention to correct this.
• Finally, the case of posting personal information. Sir Floyd, this is totally unacceptable and I agree with it being raised on this noticeboard (though you can probbably tell not how it has transpired from there) you have absolutely no right to post any personal information about any user on WP, regardless of whether they're the most respected editor or the worst vandal. There's a reason we have strict policies in place governing this and I strongly recommend you stop doing it.

In summary I think you both need to take a long hard look at your actions on WP and the way you relate with other editors, your argument on this board alone should set alarm bells ringing as to your ability to adhere to the norms of this community. Please don't have a go at me, these are just my observations. RaseaC (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

RaseaC, pardon me all over the place for not being 100% flowery polite - but I'm getting genuine threats of violence here. And not for the first time, either. How's a guy supposed to behave Wiki-like when these guys get together and chat about how I should be "got rid of". Not that that's some indicator of quality in and of itself, but I have well over 20,000 edits on enWiki, I'm fully committed to this place, and I at all times strive to improve WP, its sources, and its neutrality. I frankly resent being talked down to when I report a person who has twice infringed on Wikimedia privacy policy (in spite of warnings), and that person getting away completely clean in the end because I failed to be 100% polite with threats and mockery being directed against me. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Direktor, any inaapropriate response by any editor (new or established) is unacceptable. You are an established user, I know that, and therefore was even more surprised that you rose to the bait, if you like. I will happily leave a note on Sir Floyd's talk explaining what the problem is and suggest that further discussion isn't really necessary on account of it just seems to spiral into argument. Off2riorob made a good point in a previous discussion between you two when he said that you both seem to work together when you don't cross tracks so maybe, assuming Sir Floyd understands his mistake, you take Off2riorob's advice and try and avoid eachother? The next time you get a threat of violence get a block request in and remove the text, if you give up acknowledging them they'll give up annoying you. RaseaC (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi RaseaC. I'm losing the thread of conversation here. I agree with you RaseaC, almost in total. I can be a bit of a hot head, but I am prepared to learn. Sir Floyd (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this thread is getting anywhere. I think my post on your talk covers the major issues raised by all parties so maybe we're done with discussing it here. How about everyone goes off and does some good work on wiki? The amount of time wasted on this argument is really starting to mount up. RaseaC (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I Sir Floyd agree as an act of good faith, to not contact Direktor and not edit any article that Direktor is actively editing for one month. Sir Floyd (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User Sir Floyd is posting this (I have moved it from his talkpage) in an attempt to placate this situation. Would this be acceptable to User Direktor? Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I Sir Floyd agree as an act of good faith, to not contact Direktor and not edit any article that Direktor is actively editing for one month. User:Sir Floyd|Sir Floyd 15:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand what the OUTING has to do with the talkpage dispute? They're not even in the same place. This is not about User:Sir Floyd's constant "witch hunt" (as he put it) and his disruptive behavior which led him to post some dozen reports over the past months trying to get me banned whichever way he can.

Guys, I've reported a lot of sockpuppeteers, and I often did my best to make sure they don't resurface. I still think my efforts there were something that helped this website. These socks got together in forums such as the blog of banned User:Brunodam (Google "Brunodam blog"), and in itWiki "cafés" [23]. Every now and again my personal information is posted and I receive various threats. User:Sir Floyd appeared and began fighting tooth-and-nail to get me blocked one way or the other, with the socks and IPs of these banned users frequenting his talkpage. Now I've received another threat, and the IP (of User:PIO) and User:Sir Floyd proceeded to chat about my personal information. I did not report the person immediately, but warned him and pointed the policy out. He then continued his behavior.

User:Sir Floyd is an account that's been trying his absolute best to get me banned in every way conceivable. I can imagine his response if the situation was reversed - I'd probably already be blocked. Again if this thread was about the talkpage dispute I could understand why he's proposing this, but what does all this have to do with him staying away? He seemed perfectly capable of OUTING without even addressing me. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The staying away approach was suggested because both of you seem unable to 'meet' on WP without it quickly becoming an argument. SirFloyd has agreed to this which I think is very noble of him and I must say, despite your experience, established editor status etc. etc. you seem to be carrying this discussion on just for the sake of it. If he is a sockpuppet request a checkuser if he has attempted to out you report him. We all know what he's done, we've all read your posts so far. I suggest that you either take the appropriate action on this matter or you leave it, discussing it on here obviously gets nowhere because if SirFloyd gets involved you guys just argue and if another user gets involved they will just suggest what's already been suggested and you evidently will not pay any attention. I assume you raised a thread on here to get the problem solved, and apparently that's happened because the user has agreed to take action to address your concerns so why keep pushing it? Like I said, if you want further action then raise the relveant investigations, that's your decision, no one elses. RaseaC (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing thread

We have a situation where a long-time banned POV-pushing user, User:PIO (or possibly User:Brunodam), tried to troll and harass Direktor by addressing his identity on User:Sir Floyd's talk page using 66.21.1.75 (talk · contribs). After I emailed Direktor about the IP, he confirmed he would like those edits deleted, so I made an WP:OVERSIGHT request. PIO and his socks have previously disputed with Direktor, so when PIO saw another user (Sir Floyd) in a content dispute with Direktor, PIO posted Direktor's identity on Sir Floyd's talk page. Sir Floyd obviously has no control over what people post on his talk page, so when he responded to PIO's edit, Floyd's edit naturally got oversighted as well since it contained info that PIO posted. Floyd, you said you didn't know what outing was at the start of this thread. Well, I'm sure you know what it is now and that anyone who does it will be immediately banned, so please keep this in mind in the future. As for the talk page issue on Talk:Josip Broz Tito, this is a different matter. Unless anyone has anything constructive to add, I'll be closing this discussion within a day. Spellcast (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record prior to closing this, 66.21.1.75 (talk · contribs) is most definitely Brunodam, not PIO. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

96.36.28.60

Resolved

 – IP Editor blocked for 1 week by User:MuZemike

96.36.28.60

Persistent incivility and edit-warring by the above user on Twinking, its talk page and edit summaries. He was taken to task about this some time ago at Wikiquette alerts but the discussion was inconclusive. That discussion details the original instances of incivility and edit warring and itself contains extensive incivility against the uninvolved editors who took up the discussion. While that discussion was taking place, he continued to post uncivil, inflammatory comments towards uninvolved editors on the Twinking talk page: e.g. here. He has again begun edit warring on the Twinking page, reverting with spurious reasons e.g. [24] and trolling the talk page [25]. He also seems to have used a sockpuppet, Stormrider99 in the Wikiquette alerts discussion. Propose a block. bridies (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be an uncivil editor who reacts negatively when someone tries to inform him of the policies in a polite and civil manner. Endorse a block. Frmatt (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This edit [26] would seem to indicate the IP does not understand our WP:OR,WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:RS policies. Exxolon (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

IP Blocked 1 week for edit-warring, blatant incivility, and sock puppetry. MuZemike 04:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you suppose this [27] is an unblock request? Can't see it working myself. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I try and do my best to make sure nobody is trying to take advantage of the system in place here. I'm open to a review of my block by an uninvolved administrator (given that I just recently messed up on one earlier today). Jeez, already. MuZemike 22:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Not criticizing you here Mike - nothing wrong with the block here. I just happened to notice it - wasn't sure if it would constitute ranting, talkpage abuse or a request for an unblock (if the last, I wouldn't think it has a snowball's - editor very apparently Hasn,tGotIt) Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, wasn't directed at you. MuZemike 00:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing this case, it appears that 96.36.28.60 was in fact the victim of false accusations and the block was in fact unjust. It appears that Bridies holds some kind of personal grudge and is looking for any excuse to eliminate someone who has different views than he does. Bridies's definition of incivility seems to be different than the definition I acquired from www.dictionary.com and I see no proof of sock puppetry in this particular case.

If this matter had not already been resolved, I would have proposed a permanent ban on Bridies for obvious trolling. Not trying to step on your toes, MuZemike, but I would recommend a little deeper research on matters instead of being so quick to act upon a 1-sided story. 205.242.88.119 (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

MoonHoaxBat

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moonbatssuck/Archive

MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Although he possibly should have been blocked, the stated reasons are bogus:

1. He shouldn't be blocked as a sock puppet, as he admitted the previous names, which had been blocked for user name violation. He claims to have checked the name with User:Jehochman.
2. Unless there were some deleted contributions, he didn't misuse his talk page. I can't tell if he misused E-mail, but he should certainly be allowed to E-mail ArbCom to appeal.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at his specific contributions yet, but his previous names were a built-in editorial, and this one also hints at it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a single-purpose account, that purpose being to demean 350.org. That fact is reinforced by some of his comments on User talk:Jehochman where the current user ID calls opponents of his viewpoint "Moonbats". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, I still think he should be given an opportunity to select a proper name. The block reasons given are still only a user name violation, which usually results in a request to select a proper user name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a very new account indeed, and he HAS tried in good faith to change names. I'll have more to say in a moment, but Baseball_Bugs, are you sure about the comments? I don't see him using the phrase "moonbat" in that way, but if you have a diff that would help. He has modified his name to suggest a link to the moonbats of the Great Moon Hoax of 1835, and has disavowed an association with "liberals". If you have dif that shows otherwise, I'll certainly reconsider! —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This edit [28] tells me everything I need to know about this guy's approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In all sincerity, I do not understand your reaction to that edit. It actually looks very constructive to me. He is saying that his use of "moonbat" was not intended about liberals, and should only be offense to the moonbats of the Great Moon Hoax. That's why he uses MoonHoax-Bat, and had been doing so for a week before that edit. He suggests trying to find compromise. A number of other edits suggests he is completely sincere about the compromise. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

He says anyone who found his previous usernames offensive must be a Moonbat themselves. Hardly a constructive comment. Meanwhile, if he is actually a sock of an indef'd user, he can't be allowed to continue the same stuff, no matter what his ID is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Um ... he said that only moonbats of the great moon hoax should be offended. He said this because he has explicitly made his name MoonHoaxBat, not MoonBat, and this is in line with previous comments on his choice of names. I think you have plenty of room to assume good faith here with that edit. I absolutely agree with your point about being a sock of a banned user, but I have so far seen no indication that this is actually the case. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Moonbatssuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to be a sock for a banned user based on his initial edits. My guess is RJII. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That editor last edited under that name in summer of 2006, but had recent sockpuppets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

RJII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJII/Archive

The user MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs) has been changing their user name on the explicit advice and direction of other administrators. The final name chosen appears to have satisfied Admins working with this user. See the following exchange:

(An extract from this revision of User_talk:MoonHoaxBat at 16:28, 29 October 2009, before blanking:) Tried! User:Loonymonkey beat me to it. Once again, my two previous usernames were banned for being offensive to liberals. There was no way for me to edit again without creating a third name. The admins who blocked my previous name know about this. I could have sockpuppeted and been anonymous, but I took responsibility and was open about my previous names. --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC) That's an accurate representation, though the issue is not "offensive to liberals" as much as "likely to cause disruption and breach collegiality". It's best not to label editors at all. We're here to write neutral articles. We should all try to check our personal opinions at the door, and pick them up when we leave. Jehochman Talk 03:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This user was previously advised, in an earlier incarnation, that they are abusing multiple accounts: WP:POINT, and they were told to pick an appropriate username, and stop WP:BAITing and WP:BATTLEing. See the block message on User:Idetestlunarbats. They then picked the third and current name, and have been using now for a week. The extract above suggests it was acceptable to Jehochman, who was the one who advised getting a new name. The users edit history is as follows:

1. As Moonbatssuck (talk · contribs), 34 live edits from 20:31, 27 Oct to 20:42, 28 Oct.
2. As Idetestlunarbats (talk · contribs), 11 live edits from 21:03, 28 Oct to 21:42, 28 Oct.
3. As MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs), 115 live edits from 00:21, 29 Oct to 01:34, 8 Nov.

It seems to me that we have a new user who is in a catch-22 situation. They got off to a bad start, but they did want to start over. They did attempt to pick a new user name when directed. The attempt to start over is going to run into trouble with sock puppet investigations, but it is clear from the dates above that there was no attempt at sockpuppetry here... only an attempt to move to a new user name when directed. I've looked over the history a bit, and the name problem seems to be blown up out of all proportion. (I might be wrong, but that's my current impression.) However, it is always a bad idea to pick a user name that might be perceived by others as trying to make a point. Every edit then becomes also an implicit message about this point, and I think that is disruptive, and in violation of the spirit of WP:POINT. I suggest we try a new username yet again; one that can't be offensive or confused with the epithet moonbat.

1. Try using something that is plainly just a name. "Fred" is available.
2. Try using "Man-Bat". If it makes people think of anything, they'll think Batman; and furthermore the term man-bat was indeed used in the hoax of 1835. See this extract: Further observation of these curious creatures, [...] dubbed the “Vespertilio-homo, or man-bat,” followed., taken from Great Moon Hoax of 1835

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. He's using "MoonBats" as a metaphor for liberals. I could use "Nazis" as a metaphor for conservatives, except they might not like that, except maybe the banned user Axmann8 who called himself a conservative but actually was a neo-Nazi and proud of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I still haven't seen any diff to indicate that he intended to use moonbats in that way. Again; if there is a dif for this, then I shall reconsider in a heartbeat, but I would like to see evidence. He seems to have been pretty consistent in all incarnations that the moonbats of his username are the man-bats of the Great Moon Hoax of 1835, and not a reference to liberals at all. I have never seen him use "moonbat" in any other way. I'll keep looking, but if you have an actual dif, it would help. Otherwise I still see no reason not to assume good faith in this. I can be persuaded on this, but I do need evidence. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In all three cases when the administrators refused to unblock they indicated disruptive editing as well as the account name for reasons not to unblock. Editors should not set up new accounts when they are blocked for disruptive editing. Moonbatssuck's first edits show evidence that he is not a "new user". His first edit was creating a new section with internal links and external references that show a level of experience.[29] His second edit was to revert back to his text[30] and his conversation shows an awareness of WP policies. His editing style seems very similar to RJII and his suspected socks. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussion is here. Jehochman did approve the name, with some reservations. The stuff about the moon hoax of 1835 is a ridiculous stretch. Moonhoaxbat ("Moonbat hoax") is an expression of global warming denial, insinuating GW as a hoax put over by moonbats.. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Broad agreement with the filing statement here: it is true that Jehochman OK'd this username after blocking the other accounts, and that no misuse of talk page privilleges appear to have occurred. At minimum, this suggests talk page access should be unblocked. Even if The Four Deuces suspicions are correct, nothing suggests RJII should be disallowed from on-wiki appeal to ArbCom if preferred. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have come round on this issue. I've been looking over his edit history, in all three incarnations, and I believe he is disingenuous. The first reference to the Great Moon Hoax of 1835 that I can see was as "Idetestlunarbats" in this edit where he requests the unblock of that second name choice. He says: "I picked this one to clarify that I dislike the fictional lunar bats of the Great Moon Hoax, not liberals." That fails a basic sanity test; how can you dislike fictions man-bats of a 1835 hoax? This is a clear attempt at plausible deniability, and I withdraw my earlier comments about the name. The current name "MoonHoaxBat" is a better attempt at getting plausible deniability, but not enough. If he is allowed back at all, it should be with a completely new name with absolutely no relation to any variety of moon-bat.

Some of the comments he had made in some places, including WP:WQA where I first got sucked into this, looked very positive at first, such as his offer to withdraw from the page on 350, in this edit. I suspect now this too may have been disingenuous, and made mainly to try and force Ratel into a position of withdrawing as well, which was not appropriate.

His "apology" to Ratel was also insincere. It appears in this edit, as "Idetestlunarbats", in which he claims to be sincere in thinking Ratel would join him in a campaign to deal with "unofficial literature", and then this edit where he objects to be called on it and labeled disingenuous by Tanthalas39.

All told, there is enough circumstantial evidence for me to withdraw any support for the guy. Whether he is a sockpuppet or not, the edit history suggests letting him back will only lead to trouble.

As I said before, the three user names were attempts to change name, not sockpuppetry. I have no view on the suggestion of a link to earlier sockpuppets. Precisely what is appropriate in terms of strict justice, I do not know... but I'm withdrawing since pragmatically I suspect he's better not part of the project and I'm glad you guys are here to deal with this kind of stuff, so I can leave it in your hands. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Duae Quartunciae - we'd simply be asking for trouble by letting this user edit. Apart from that, it looks like moonbat is attempting forum shopping and trying to make threats. Recommend revoking talk page access and email access. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that I have ever made any threats. If I did (since this was your basis for disabling my Talk page), please provide a diff.--FredUnavailable (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This was what I saw going on in the SPI case. I saw a user, Moonbatssuck, rightly softblocked to change username. The person then tries to change the username to Idetestlunarbats and later to MoonHoaxBat. Including what was amounting to disruption on the 350.org pages, which as indicated above WP:POINT and WP:BAIT, I had to hardblock all three accounts. IMO, we can split hairs over whether this is considered sock puppetry (besides the fact that it popped up at SPI), but I felt the blocks I made were appropriate. I don't think the user was interested very much at all in being constructive. There's likely another sockmaster here (I don't know of whom), as Moonbatssuck's very first edit [31] indicates some good wiki-knowledge, including adding references, wikilinks, etc. MuZemike 17:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Now if the community wants to give the user a good faith attempt to come back (which I will honor if that is achieved, then the user can request unblock with the {{unblock-un}} and request a username change before considering unblocking him. MuZemike 18:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Since my talk page was blocked (for nothing), this is the only way I can communicate. I am willing to go with this name instead of anything having to do with the man-bats of the 1835 hoax, which apparently have a very strong lobby here. As a registered Democrat, I find all these insinuations about hating liberals to be laughable. I must be a real lib-hater, having voted for Carter/Mondale! There are no diffs to back any of it up. And then you're accusing me of being someone who last edited in 2006? Seems rather paranoid. It is possible that in the course of three years someone else came a long with a similar editing style. I agreed not to edit the 350.org page and did not do so again. Again, any diffs to the contrary? Then I was blocked. Blocking my user talk page is equivalent to telling a defendant that he can't defend himself. I wasn't even allowed to submit defending comments on the noticeboard in the minutes between the case being opened and closed. I have been constructive under the previous name and edited several articles, not just the 350 one. I was not DISRUPTIVE, anymore than Ratel (a massive POV purveyor)was disruptive. All I am asking is to be allowed to edit again. And before you bite my head off for being a "sockpuppet," ask yourself, how else can I appeal something if you've gagged my other name? I AM in a catch-22. I have offered many attempts at finding compromise at the 350 page, as you can see by my edits. I was the one told that I have Asperger's, was a Jihadist, Mujaheddin, etc. by RATEL. No discipline there? Isn't that kind of comment both more disruptive and offensive to our actual colleagues with Asperger's or of Islamic faith? Doesn't that created a hostile environment for certain users, by describing Muslims as stubborn nihilists and people with Asperger's as "unable to play nice?" I HAVE NEVER insulted liberals, environmentalists, global warming supporters, or any other group. Those are all projections based on a mistaken interpretation of my username. You have no evidence to support your prejudices, but you block me. You have pursued and bitten a newbie who has tried to make right off his earlier mistakes. I want to appeal this to ArbCom. How do I do that? Out of respect for the spirit of the sockpuppet rule, I will not be making edits unrelated to my appeal. I suppose you will all block me again, because there can be no appeals allowed for this Wikipedian. Banishment forever seems to be the preferred method of correction here.--FredUnavailable (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, only MoonHoaxBat had talk page access revoked (which I didn't do). Creating new accounts to state your appeal is not the right way to go here, I'm afraid. MuZemike 18:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Then forgive me, what IS the right way to state my appeal when my (MoonHoaxBat) user talk page was blocked? That's all I am trying to figure out.--FredUnavailable (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you seemed to have been able to create a username that does not indicate disruption, so I don't think that is a problem. As far as the other issues I saw, I have to defer to what everyone else thinks should happen. MuZemike 18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. But I'm still unclear about how I should contact ArbCom. There is something on their page about sending an email, which I did. But I don't know what to send, etc. Is there a form or something that I fill out? I both want to appeal my block and ask for them to remove Ratel's prejudicial and hostile comments about people with Asperger's and Muslims. I am not looking for any discipline on that matter. Thank you,--FredUnavailable (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you should voluntarily refrain from any edits in any wikipedia articles except your own user space, and this discussion, until this discussion is complete. If you do make other edits, I would recommend a new soft block on your new account; not as punishment, but just as a way of avoiding disruption to the project until this is sorted, as provided in WP:CLEANSTART. You should not edit the encyclopedia while there is a block in place, and your block does legitimately restrict you on the basis of disruption, all consideration of identity aside. I'll comment some more shortly. I think we may be able to get this sorted and help you get a new and more constructive start. But you should be patient. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Understood. As I put earlier on my user page, I won't edit outside here or my user/talk page. I'll participate here (if permitted) and wait for the outcome. Thanks,--FredUnavailable (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) This group of accounts shows a lot of similarites with RJII and suspected socks. The following is a summary of behavior that is usually shown by these accounts within the first 100 edits. (Compare for example with recently blocked account Default013). I am able to provide examples of this if required.

• Edit political articles about American liberal/conservative topics.
• Enter highly controversial material likely to draw immediate reaction.
• Edit war including violation of 3RR despite warnings
• Use dispute resolution, e.g., RfA, WQA, 3RR, involving maximum number of outside users.
• Extremely argumentative on talk pages.
• Pointy edits.
• Defend actions with ideosyncratic interpretations of WP policy.
• Defend errors as due to inexperience.
• Numerous appeals of blocks.
• Failure to use "Preview" button resulting in numerous consecutive edits.
• Lobbying of administrators.
• Statements that actions are intended to "avoid edit wars".
• Obvious mistakes rare even for new editors sometimes cited as evidence of inexperience.
• Highly persistent.
• Sometimes creates controversial usernames.

Since these accounts were clearly created by an experienced user and have been disruptive, I think we should determine whether they were created by a banned user. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we get a clear set of events here.

• This user had two names blocked because of the name, then hit on Moonhoaxbats, which Jehochman did indeed say was acceptable. So "abusing multiple accounts is not accurate as a block reason".
• Inappropriate username is not accurate either.
• The user then did do a lot of commenting on Talk:360.org. Was any of this blockable? I can't see any diffs suggesting it was, but maybe there are some and, if so, they should be provided.
• The user does not appear to have edited the 360.org article, as they agreed not to
• The user's talk page at Moonhoaxbats was then locked, for abuse which appears to be attempting to explain this [32]

Unless someone has some more information, this is a terrible block. If any user name containing the words "moon" and "bat" are really that unacceptable, then I would argue that Fred should be allowed to go on editing from the current username.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both the above comments. If this is a return of a banned user, then the ban should stay. The evidence seems a bit circumstantial to me, but the fact that the user is clearly familar with wikipedia should be explained. It is conceivably possible that the user has become familiar by using an IP, although it seems unlikely. A formal checkuser might be appropriate; I do not know the procedures. Can you simply ask the user how he knows so much? Can his answer be trusted? I note that he has been disingenuous under the most recent names so I am not inclined to give much leeway here.

On the other hand I also agree that the most recent ban was dubious. It isn't sockpuppetry with the three accounts actually named. There was a clear declaration of intent to change name, and it was done at the direction and awareness of an administrator. It is definitely not appropriate to block for sockpuppetry simply on the basis of "Moonbatssuck" and "Idetestmoonbats", and the case for a link to earlier accounts is so far rather a bit thin. A short block for disruption might have been legitimate, but this is not how it was recorded.

The user declares that they wish to raise formal complaints about user Ratel. I think the user should be instructed to do no such thing and to leave Ratel severely alone. No complaints, to anyone. Just drop it. Joining up just to pursue disputes is a terrible idea, and thr prior history with Ratel pretty much disqualifies the user from being a person who should make such complaints. Forget it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I will not file a formal complaint in this case. I have faith that other Wikipedians will take up the issue of getting the offensive comments removed. As I've stated all along, I have no interest in "reporting" Ratel for the purpose of him being punished. I just think it is deeply disruptive to the project to have anti-Asperger's and anti-Muslim slurs left up on a Talk page. But I leave that up to others. I have no interest in engaging Ratel, and since I've withdrawn from the 350 page, I don't anticipate that happening.--FredUnavailable (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless somebody else comes up with something else that I'm currently unaware of, I'm fine with it. Please accept my apologies, Fred. MuZemike 22:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I am lurking on this thread. Could somebody with knowledge of RJII ask a checkuser if FredUnavailable == Moonhoaxbat == Default013 == RJII ? Jehochman ^Talk 22:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If checkuser is run it should be between the recent four accounts and the three most recent suspected socks Introman (blocked Sept. 28), Dupledreux (blocked Oct. 14) and Default013 (blocked Oct. 22). The Four Deuces (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with any sort of Checkuser. I just read up on the process and I'm not really sure what it does beyond comparing IP addresses. I don't know if the user in question has a say in whether a Checkuser is done, but if so, I'm all for it. The only RJ11 I know is the old phone line kind. I just checked out the RJII pages and I'll admit that my Talk style is uncannily similar. The main difference, of course, being that I don't have any plans to start pages on "Jewish conspiracies." Sheesh. This places does attract some crazies. I don't want to be associated with any such user. Now I realize why you are all so concerned about me being him.--FredUnavailable (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin actually commented on RJII four years ago.[33] And here is a lengthy discussion where Arthur Rubin opposed RJII in a lengthy dispute about a template that RJII had created. [34] The Four Deuces (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made a checkuser request at SPI.[35] The Four Deuces (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The block log of MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs) will need to be amended - talk page access will need to be granted back either way, while whether the block reason needs to be changed to username block (as opposed to sockpuppetry block) will depend on the results of that SPI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The RJII pages claim that he and his pals are from Philadelphia. I have never been to Philadelphia, so I'm confident that a basic IP comparison will back me up.--FredUnavailable (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If the CU results are inconclusive (and they very well might be), my suggestion is to give Fred enough rope to hang himself, and see if he actually does. If he doesn't, no harm done. Even if the initial username choices were done in an attempt to be deliberately provocative (which might be the case), he seems to have given that up and absent any other actual disruption I don't see how a further block is justified. -- Atama頭 21:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

How long does it take to do checkuser? This has been left hanging now for quite a while, and that is unfair on FredUnavailable (talk · contribs). Effectively he has a longer block than really warranted by the original disruption. Can this either be wrapped up, or the block removed in the time being? I am sure several people will be watching and that a recurrence of problem will get picked up in short order. But in thre meantime, I agree with Atama (talk · contribs) that the ongoing block is no longer justified. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

CU concluded. FredUnavailable has a clean block log. However, the errors on MoonHoaxBat's account, in the meantime, should be fixed so that this can be marked resolved - the block log rationale (socking) is not justified in light of the facts raised in this thread, CU has confirmed Fred Unavailable is not related to RJII, and user talk page access should no longer be disabled. Can an admin sort that out please? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no official role in this, but I have taken a fairly active unofficial role. I propose to leave a friendly "welcome back" on Fred's talk page and let him know that he can use the account freely again. I will still advise him to forget entirely the disputes he got involved with while using his earlier accounts, and to make a clean start. I'll do this in an hour or two; unless there is a reason given here for not doing this. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I have posted a message for FredUnavailable. this edit. I have said that I think there is no longer any problem with him using this account, and that it would be a good idea to start with a clean slate, and not worry about old disputes he had under previous accounts. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy Scott Harris

Resolved. No administrator intervention is necessary. User is new and needs protocol explained. Karanacs (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy Scott Harris is an autobiography or a biography created by the subject's mother, SPA Dharris1844. It was properly tagged with the COI template, which the Dharris1844 removed. Dharris1844 then voted twice in AfD to keep the article. I suspect that Dharris1844 does not understand Wikipedia's rules, but her conduct is very disruptive. Please help. Racepacket (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure admin intervention is needed at this point. — Jake Wartenberg 00:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Archduke Christoph Franz of Austria-Este AFD and related articles

Hi. I'd appreciate if someone could take a look at the Archduke Christoph Franz of Austria-Este AFD and the edit histories of the nominated articles, Archduke Christoph Franz of Austria-Este. Archduke Fulvio Marco of Austria-Este and Princess Maria Louise of Brunswick-Lüneburg with particular attention to the edits of the IP editor 68.36.205.151 (talk · contribs). I also think that the edits of that IP editor on articles on Hapsburg-related articles, other than those mentioned, would need attention. Putting my head over the parapet here, but the edits are either unsourced or dubiously sourced and (in full realization of what I am saying here) generally dubious.

I have already made my views known on the sources used, in a forthright manner for lack of a better description, and I think that my involvement at the AFD would preclude me from taking any other course of action. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, this is a clear case of hoaxing to build a fake royal genealogy for someone. It's also obvious sockpuppetry. I am creating an SPI report so that any additional sockpuppets are identified and we have proper records in case the user tries it again in the future. Hans Adler 19:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Bali ultimate has cleaned up most of the affected articles. I just found one or two more, but now the hoax should have been removed except for the three main articles that are currently subject to AfD. Hans Adler 22:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser has confirmed that Chrisco123 is a sockpuppet of Knyphausen56. I don't know why neither account is blocked yet. DoriSmith found out that the related IPs have made suspicious edits related to the topic as early as April 2007. (See AfD or SPI case.) Hans Adler 09:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for invasive hoaxing

By "invasive" I mean that information at other articles was forged to suit the hoax. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Knyphausen56 for the details. IMO the user needs to be banned, but I guess blocking him can wait until a checkuser has replied. Hans Adler 20:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Support it looks to be a student at a very prestigious american boarding school just embarking on an ambitious hoax project. (unforunately prestigious doesn't equal smart and productive). Let's just nip all this in the bud.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Support; deliberate hoax or breaching experiment, our volunteers don't need the hassle and shouldn't have to waste their time fixing this nonsense. EyeSerene^talk 23:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Support a ban as this limp wristed effort falls waaay below the standard I've come to expect in a Wikipedia hoax. Where are the pictures? Where are the ironic hints? Crafty (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the lack of pictures is aggravating. As to ironic hints, at least Knyphausen was a funny choice of username by this student from near the battle site, and the added 56 (as if Wikipedia already had a user of this name) was a nice touch too. Hans Adler 23:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Anti-Nationalist, accusations of anti-Semitism

Resolved

 – Anti-Nationalist did not accuse Vecrumba of being an antisemite, and Vecrumba is now blocked for 72 hours. There's no point in continuing this here. Jayjg 01:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

---

Here, Anti-Nationalist, formerly PasswordUsername attacks me as an nationalist anti-Semite:

1. "When you start caring about content and stop claiming that "unless you were Jewish, the Soviets were the worse of the two evils in Eastern Europe"";
2. "that "Jewish Bolshevism" is not a standard anti-semitic slur but "an objective observation of the role played by numerous Jews""; and in particular
3. "or insisting that Jewish scholars shouldn't naturally be seen as objective on the Holocaust because they're Jews"

Briefly:

1. The Soviets mass deported and murdered Baltic citizens. Hitler brought the Holocaust to the Baltics and Eastern Europe. Jews suffered far more under Hitler, but most others suffered more under Stalin. This is not an opinion, it is simple numbers. I should also mention that Jews suffered more under Stalin's deportations, proportionally, than any other ethnic group.
2. "Jewish Bolshevism" has its roots in historical events. (Latvians, I should add, were also prominent in the early days of Bolshevism.) In Poland between the wars, Jews (not practicing, of course) were the proselytizers of communism in jails (this per western scholarship, not in any way associated with nationalist sources). To contend it is only a slur with no basis for existing other than to be an anti-Semitic slur is not responsible editing.
3. I regret Anti-Nationalist has seen to paint me as a rabid anti-Semite, citing a conversation on my user talk page as proof. I invite you to read the entire thread. You will note that most of the thread consists of Boodlesthecat insisting I am making anti-Semitic contentions and putting words into my mouth to that effect. (This was the offshoot of an arbitration going on at the time.)

Now Anti-Nationalist is making the same grossly libelous mischaracterizations of my past statements. I find this disturbingly similar to my interchange with Boodlesthecat here where he associates me with "anti-semitic nationalist bigots."

My best friends starting in kindergarten were Jewish (that is, as soon as I started speaking English). I participated in Seder. I held the chuppah at my best friend's wedding. I will not tolerate being smeared as an anti-Semite. PasswordUsername's new attack-moniker was already an open, taunting affront, but I was willing to let that pass. This, however, is way over the line.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 

I didn't call you an anti-semite (that's a conclusion people can draw for themselves if that's how they interpret your pattern of activities). Nothing like that was said, and you have fabricated this whole case based on your false claims. I simply said that you were a nationalist in response to a relentless pattern of WP:HOUNDING me, now being investigated by the Arbs looking over WP:EEML. Point 1. Ask any number of Poles, Belarusians, Czechs, or Gypsies, about the Third Reich, which you see as the better of two evils in the Baltics, if you really believe that "unless you were Jewish, the Soviets were the worse of the two evils in Eastern Europe." Point 2. It is now sourced that "Jewish Bolshevism" is an anti-semitic slur. Point 3. Better stop. Already addressed. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You went out of your way to find diffs and to mischaracterize my position and statements in exactly the same manner Boodlesthecat did. You most certainly called me an anti-Semite except for not using the word. Don't split hairs. It was your choice to introduce your complaints on a talk page with accusations, it was your choice to then introduce diffs as to my anti-Semitism in response to my comment to you.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  02:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Anti-Nationalist looks like a possible username violation. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been brought up several times before. What is the proper venue to address this?radek (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Username policy. GiantSnowman 00:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Seriously? What about usernames like User:Nationalist 555–and what's the whole deal with the anti-nationalist / nationalist / communist / socialist userboxes? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• You realize that example you cited is indef blocked, right? — Jake Wartenberg 00:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Of course: for his sockpuppetry, not the username. I've seen tons of usernames far worse than "Anti-Nationalist", frankly. But if being anti-nationalist is morally horrible, just what's the real deal with userboxes like these? The userbox section for fascism under Userboxes/Politics offers a grey user box with message "this user identifies as a Fascist" (see it right over here and over here, folks)–but I guess the priority is on paying attention to anti-nationalists. (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment And my Jewish grandmother would probably spin in her grave if she only saw what "Anti-Nationalist" has to say about me on wikipedia: as a content editor, Termer is an ally of a bunch of hardcore Eastern European nationalists, currently being investigated for their harrassment...--Termer (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Very nice story, brosif. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, what's the point of linking to the definition of "brosif" here, except as a form of taunting? Am I missing something?radek (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Termer is from a foreign country, mightn't know the meaning, and doesn't assume good faith. That's an explosive mix, Radeksz. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Termer is from a foreign country? That was another interesting thing to know about myself. Please keep it coming, in the end I might find out a lot about myself from you, something that I had no glue about before. So for now I've seen from you that Termer is "from a foreign country and is an ally of a bunch of hardcore Eastern European nationalists, currently being investigated..". have you ever heard of comment on content, not on the contributor? FYI, I'm not investigated by anybody, I don't think I'm from a "foreign country" and I'm an ally of anybody who edits Wikipedia according to WP:RS.--Termer (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"Termer is from a foreign country" - foreign to who exactly? Surely everyone is from a foreign country when compared with everyone else...? GiantSnowman 01:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks GiantSnowman for spelling out the self-explanatory. how however anybody being from a "foreign country" is related to editing Wikipedia was what I was talking about.--Termer (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I want to note that this isn't the first time that PasswordUsername/Anti-Nationalist has tried to smear his content opponents, and people he doesn't like in such a way. Here he accuses an anon ip of

1. Being a sockpuppet of User:Jacurek
2. and accuses Jacurek of using the anon IP in order to engage in "Holocaust denial", "Holocaust revisionism" and sock puppeting with the ip in order to avoid being "associated with a Polish ultranationalist POV"

He also tried to "associate" me with the anon ip and the supposed "Holocaust revisionism" as well (as can be seen on Jehochman's talk page link above). He continued to insist on this even after denials by Jacurek.

Well, a few days later the anon ip registered as User:Sourcelat0r and explained to PasswordUsername/Anti-Nationalist why his/her edits were not "Holocaust revisionism" or anything of the kind, but just the opposite. PasswordUsername/Anti-Nationalist then apologized to the anon ip/Sourcelat0r but has steadfastly refused to apologize to Jacurek for either 1) accusing him of sock puppetry or for 2) accusing him of engaging in "Holocaust revisionism". This shows that:

1. PU/A-N is very quick to use this tactic to smear people with (when he thought it was Jacurek he jumped to (wrong) conclusions, when he realized it was someone else, he took it back)
2. PU/A-N doesn't see anything wrong with the tactic, as long as it's directed at someone he doesn't like (no apology for Jacurek).radek (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

My congratulations to Radeksz for showing up so quickly. This is another member of the nationalist WP:EEML list being investigated for coordinated attacks on content opponents. Interesting how soon before the whole WP:TEAM shows up to oh-so tendentiously support Vecrumba in his false accusation that I called him an "anti-semite"–which I've never done even once. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that I have AN/I on my watchlist is beside the point. I thought the whole incident with Jacurek, where you tried to smear somebody in a very similar way, then refused to apologize, was relevant. Do you think it isn't? If so, please explain. Or do you deny doing any of the above? Starting with the ad-hominem's against myself doesn't "magically" change the way you've acted, as the diffs show.radek (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this look more like a smearing campaign against Anti-Nationalist... He never called Vecrumba any name, he just pointed out some of his positions that would be characterised as fringe my mainstream Western scholarship, and which Vecrumba himself saw as indicative of anti-Semitism (strangely, only when someone quoted them, not when he first wrote them). If Anti-Nationalist feels that those comments (some of them in mainspace) are adequate to demonstrate to an uninvolved party the less obvious editing POV of Vecrumba, he should be free to do it. After all, he didn't misrepresent Vecrumba opinions, he just quoted him, and Anti-Nationalist can't be blamed if Vecrumba and maybe other editors find those quotes as characteristic to anti-Semites.Anonimu (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Way to turn this upside and make it do push ups while standing on its head Anonimu. So apparently smearing people with offensive labels isn't *smearing*, it's when someone complains that they have been smeared that they're doing the smearing. Right, Newspeak much? Wacky wacky world of what Wikipedia has become.radek (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What offensive labels? The only thing close to a label in Vecrumba's diff is "nationalist", which, according to his views, actually is "a term denoting patriotism or love and interest in one's heritage and history" (from his user page). Anti-Nationalist didn't request Vecrumba to consider his own words as conveying anti-Semitism, Vecrumba did it on his own (I'm not saying he was wrong). And yes, requesting administrative action for your personal interpretation of you words, which you attribute to another user, is certainly a form of smearing.Anonimu (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You well know that my definition of "nationalist" is not how it is used on Wikipedia. On WP it is purely a term of derision. Anti-Nationalist did not "quote" me, he misrepresented me. Period.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  02:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

But still, you complained here about a non-existent accusation of "anti-Semitism", trying to denigrate Anti-Nationalist. Aren't all the blue fragments part of your edits on WP? Did Anti-Nationalist somehow succeed in hacking the Wikimedia servers and inserting incriminating edits under your name?Anonimu (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

How did I "misrepresent" you? All I did was quote your words (and link to WP:EEML at the page of someone you complained to about my supposed POV) in order to get across the point that your comments about me should be considered as part of a long-running nationalist vendetta. (Since you'd attacked me as a POV pusher, following me to a talk page I'd visited for the first time.) In response to that, you came to AN/I just now, Vecrumba, falsely accusing me of calling you an "anti-semite." Aren't you (and your buddies from WP:EEML) really just pursuing the same old battleground mentality against other editors. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a sad statement on affairs here that when I first started reading this thread, my reaction was not "hmm, who has a convincing argument" nor even "ho hum, more drama at ANI" but "I wonder which side of WP:EEML is represented by which of the participants in this thread". —David Eppstein (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, people are going to line up in the way you expect them to. But that's because there's a reason for it. And the reason (PasswordUsername smearing people) stands, regardless of who comments on it.radek (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the more ridiculous ANI complaints that I have seen. Most well-formed ANI complaints start with diffs that show that the editor complained about has done something wrong. This complaint against Anti-Nationalist starts with an easily missed single diff showing that Anti-Nationalist has drawn attention to three problematic edits by the complainant Vecrumba, followed by commented diffs of the problematic edits. The diffs prove anti-semitic tendencies by the complainant Vecrumba, which would make it plausible that Anti-Nationalist called Vecrumba anti-semitic. But it appears he didn't. (He did use the word "racist", but without a Jewish connection.) Yet Vecrumba seems to be complaining that that's what Anti-Nationalist meant.

Unless there is a longterm pattern of anti-semitic tendentious editing by the complainant that needs examining, it appears that this thread is resolved. Hans Adler 08:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If i might add my two cents, and without having any further opinion on the case : any defense agains accusations of anti-semitism with the argument "some of my best friends are Jewish" (or, in User:Vecrumba's own words: "My best friends starting in kindergarten were Jewish") is bloody akward, to say the least.--RCS (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, all of my best friends were Jewish all through my school years and now well beyond. Exactly what is "awkward" about that unless you believe the accusations of "anti-semitic tendentious editing", in which case feel free to open an AN/I on myself so I can defend myself properly. As for not very problematic below, did you read the entire thread referred to (the last diff), which Anti-Nationalist completely misrepresents regarding what I stated? I am not being combative, I am simply tired of accusations and innuendo to make accusations and having that tolerated. If others don't find this offensive, so be it.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am simply tired of accusations and innuendo to make accusations and having that tolerated too, Vecrumba. So when time after time after time, you come to join your friends with the same POV in some talk page smear campaign against me as some kind of POV pusher who should be shut up, don't be at all surprised when your own history of harrassment and POV-pushing edits are presented as part of my argument to the contrary. As I've already made clear, there is an ArbCom case in which all of this is already being investigated. I and others have long petitioned you to put an end to your attempts at harrassing, stalking, and gaming, in spite of which you have only popped up repeatedly with more of the same attacks. If you don't want to interact with me, leave me alone or at least discuss the content I am working on, doing so in a manner that conveys at least a little bit of good faith. If you want to constantly engage in the same old tricks, like engaging in harrassment through a secret mailing list (now not-so secret) and relentlessly throw out ad hominems and related attempts to poison the well wherever I go, as you've done over and over and over again, don't expect me to hold back from discussing such behavior or to simply ignore the context in which said behavior occurs. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Without going into the larger dispute, I agree with Hans that this diff is not very problematic, and that diff in itself does not warrant an ANI. --Soman (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree it'd be different if PasswordUsername/Anti-Nationalist didn't have a history of trying to pull these kind of false smears of people he doesn't like in the past. Please see my comment about what happened with Jacurek above. This is just par for the course for PU/AN.radek (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

At no point did Anti-nationalist call Vecrumba anti-semitic. By the way, I would avoid the expression "Some of my best friends are Jewish" which is a cliche. Here's a link to an article about it:[36]. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked into either "Anti-Nationalist" called Vecrumba anti-semitic, "Anti-nationalist" however calls other editors "nationalists" for sure: [37], [38].--Termer (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Vecrumba said that "all of his best friends in school were Jewish" does not imply that he is in point of fact anti-Semitic. When I was a teen living in Los Angeles my best friend was indeed Jewish, now does that make me anti-Semitic as well? Had Vecrumba added that after making overt anti-Semitic comments, then I would question his statement; however his declaration that his school friends were Jewish should not be used against him.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Nationalist was accused of having called someone anti-semitic when he didn't actually do so. We seem to have trouble deciding whether the person in question is anti-semitic or not, but I don't think that's something we can legitimately do at ANI anyway, and it's clearly not relevant. I suggest closing this thread as resolved. Hans Adler 11:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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

User:IronAngelAlice and Abortion first sentence

IronAngelAlice has participated in the long, detailed consensus on the Abortion first paragraph. IronAngelAlice has consciously gone against that because Halfdome recklessly altered it. It has been a long time since I've used Rollback on the abortion article, now I've used it twice recently. The user was warned for being a possible sock. I don't know what happened with that. - RoyBoy 01:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 04:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

My first impression is that you misused rollback. AniMate 04:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have used rollback, but I would have reverted it. The change IAA is making destroys the accuracy of the sentence as well as the long standing compromise.--Tznkai (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

IronAngelAlice (talk · contribs) is also reverting changes across multiple Abortion related articles, with no edit summary or explanation, or discussion on the talk pages. This is disruptive. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand, though I had no doubt on the reversions, so I used rollback after a normal reversion. IAA did not add anything to Talk, despite the edit summary saying otherwise. - RoyBoy 03:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Pattern of disruptive editing by Pedant17

Pedant17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persisted in edits degrading the quality of a WP:GA article - despite a completed WP:RfC that did not support his "copyediting" changes. His most recent edit summary acknowledges the archived RfC: copyedit; especially in the light of archived talk-page discussions.

Would appreciate another administrator looking into Pedant17's actions at this particular article - and also this pattern of behavior of slow edit-warring in general, and take action here. Cirt (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Archived RfC

Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal/Archive_1#RfC:_Recent_wording_edits_to_article

At the RfC, Pedant17 continued to comment, seemingly ad infinitum, despite unanimous consensus against him that his changes were not productive and degraded the article's quality.

Prior edits by Pedant17 on the article

Here are prior edits on the same article by Pedant17 that are not supported by the RfC (compare with above edit):

• 08:24, 4 June 2009
• 01:40, 24 April 2009
• 04:07, 12 March 2009

These edits show a pattern of slow edit-warring by Pedant17.

Pattern of behavior

• Bogging down talk page discussion at Talk:Alien (film), [39]
• PelleSmith (talk · contribs) described Pedant17's actions as disruptive POV pushing at the article Mind control. In a previous comment, PelleSmith pointed out that Pedant17's edits degraded the quality of the article under the guise of "style" edits.
• PelleSmith agreed that edits by Pedant17 to the article List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents were not constructive; these "style" edits were of same nature as above. [40], [41]
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pedant17

---

Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem seems to be Pedant17's fundamental misunderstanding of WP:SILENCE, which he appears to interpret as "if a disagreement falls silent, the last editor to have spoken has consensus" - I can see how this confusion might seem like a fair rationale for slow-edit-warring, and an incentive to keep posting disagreements at the end of a thread. The reason he rejected the RfC comments on Outrageous Betrayal was that the editors who'd commented hadn't responded to his rebuttals and "evolving consensus there appears (per WP:SILENCE) to support my case". He also tells another editor that "if you do not respond to my arguments, I assume that they have convinced you".

A similar slow-edit war has been going on at Talk:Dell#Lead_sentence_structure, where Pedant17 recently edited the article to his preferred E-Prime version on the basis that the talk page disagreement over E-Prime tailed off with - despite three editors vocally disagreeing with him - nobody responding to his final rebuttal, and that "silence denotes consent". --McGeddon (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem exists -- part from fellow-Wikipedians mistaking the shrill repetition of (often unfounded) claims for measured and logical discussion of the merits of a case. That said, an elaboration of WP:SILENCE might help clarify matters. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting an article into E-Prime, having it reverted by multiple editors who feel this degrades the quality of the writing, debating it at great length on the talk page until the editors who disagree with you stop responding, and finally copyediting into E-Prime again because "silence denotes content" - this is a problem. You've been doing this on at least three articles - Alien (film), Dell and Outrageous Betrayal - over an extended period, and other editors are finding it disruptive.

The simple first sentence of WP:SILENCE is key here: "Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident". You are presuming consensus through silence, even after several other editors have voiced specific disagreement. --McGeddon (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if my edits consisted solely (they don't) of introducing E-Prime formulations (standard, good English writing), any opposition to that would need justification on grounds of policy and good style in each sentence. What other editors merely "feel" or "find" without explanation counts for little in the face of reasoned argument over individual cases. Repeated bulk-reversion of all my edits on an article on the spurious grounds that some of them may look like E-Prime -- that could well count as disruptive. -- Thank you for pointing to some detail in WP:SILENCE -- a point I made myself on the talk-page. Evidently this doctrine can work both ways. The oversimplified interpretation given to that first sentence implies that we can never reach any WP:CONSENSUS once any person has made or expressed an objection on any side in a discussion: such objections stand for all time. In practice, I observe that detailed support for a stance gets ignored and repeated shrill (yet often groundless and unjustified) objections get touted as "consensus" -- contrary to the policy of WP:CONSENSUS, which states: "Discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons". -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No disruptive editing has taken place -- apart from the repeated bulk reversal of any improvements I put forward for (for example) Outrageous Betrayal, despite my reasoned approach and repeated appeal to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The talk-page archive demonstrates that I have consistently welcomed and incorporated debate: I've returned to bold editing only after a fellow-Wikipedian declared further discussion unproductive and debate ceased. I don't regard WP:GA articles as sacrosanct, nor the WP:RfC on Outrageous Betrayal as necessarily closed -- even though no-one has replied to my points made therein. The archiving of talk-page discussions indicates others' lack of interest in debating rather than endorsement of any viewpoint. -- Objections to alleged "slow edit-warring" and to "bogging down talk-page discussion" have no validity: the measured pattern of many of my edits spread over weeks and months simply allows fellow-editors plenty of time to comment. -- Accusations against me of "disruptive POV pushing" and of non-constructive editing remain unproven and unsubstantiated -- just another meaningless polemical barrage in the the process of building a better encyclopedia. Any perceived resemblance between my recent edits to List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents (mainly improving the citations) and my edits to Outrageous Betrayal (mainly tweaking the style without altering the content) needs explanation and justification.-- I suggest returning to the respective talk-pages and addressing any outstanding issues there. -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: The debate at Talk:Outrageous Betrayal was closed (post dispute resolution) after I had pointed out that further attempts by Pedant17 to change the style would be seen as disruptive, and would result in action [42]. Cirt (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Further clarification: the only dispute resolution process I know of with reference to the Outrageous Betrayal article consisted of a vague and inaccurately presented call for an RfC, which RfC petered out after I accepted some of the comments, countered others and failed to receive the explanations I asked for on the remainder. The referenced foreshadowing of an appeal to WP:ANI made no reference to anything as vague or undefined as "style" or "disruption", but specifically mentioned only continuation of "large scale edits that reduce the quality of the article's text".The declaration of closure happened only after I pointed out that the stated conditions did not apply, commenting: 'I have never made "large scale edits that reduce the quality of the article's text". You have not succeeded in proving that or explaining how I have done what you accuse me of. Rather than appeal for administrator intervention, why not discuss the issues in a grounded manner and work through your objections to my improvements?'. When no response to my appeals for explanation and detail and discussion came, I interpreted the following archival (with the edit-comment "discussion no longer productive = archived. done") as a green light to return to editing the article. I waited for several weeks for further comment from any other interested parties, then proceeded to make improvements to the article in the light of previous discussions. Now instead of productive edits and reasonably focused talk-page discussions we have this frivolous WP:ANI incident-report... -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pedant, once an article has reached GA or FA status, any copy editing really has to be an improvement. I've not looked through every edit you've made, but replacing "is a biography of" with "is a book providing a biography of" is a little odd, and there are a few other changes like it, where it's not clear that the writing is being improved. Perhaps you could suggest the changes separately on the talk page instead of restoring them wholesale. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin. I quite agree: any copyediting should improve things, and this I consistently try to do. -- Your contrast of "is a biography of" with "is a book providing a biography of" may seem "a little odd", but Outrageous Betrayal does not fall entirely into any one genre/category. Hence my attempt to provide more NPOV balance by writing: "Outrageous Betrayal [...], a book written by legal journalist Steven Pressman, presents a biography of Werner Erhard and an account of the practices and organizations associated with Erhard." (Looking at it again, that sentence could do with dates -- the book covers the period to about 1992. No doubt you could offer further stylistic improvments.) -- You'll see from the relevant talk-page -- see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal/Archive_1#Style_edits -- that both User:Cirt and myself repeatedly called for individual/separate discussions on matters of contention (if any) -- but that seldom happened. Many of the edits appear trivial in themselves: see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal&diff=295304842&oldid=294349636. As for those identified as contentious, whenever I succeeded (in the course of intensive/extensive talk-page discussion) in making my case for improvement, then discussion tended to shift back to objections in terms of vague generalities and hectoring. (To this day I do not know what real objection (if any) User:Cirt has to many of my edits.) So boldly re-presenting and enhancing my recent set of contributions (rather than wholesale restoration) seemed appropriate. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious editing?

Could someone please review the recent edits and talk page comments of User:Som123. I am concerned we have an excessively passionate campaigner for The Truth!!! and they have been removing referenced material from articles they don't agree with, [43] and leaving threatening messages on talk pages [44] and [45]. I honestly know nothing about the topic at hand, but had noticed some section blanking while on Recent Changes Patrol, and browsing through this users editing history raised some red flags. He may have valid points, or he may be completely wrong, but either way his behavior is interfering with anyone from working collaboratively on the articles he has been frequenting, and I fear that the articles will suffer from this sort of tendentious editing if it continues. --Jayron32 06:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

proof this user has been notified of this discussion --Jayron32 06:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Excessively passionate campaigner for The Truth has been page blanking for some time (2 dozen times approx.) in the Nair article. He is actually removing sourced data which he suspects is against his own political orientation (Communist Party). If you cross check the references, you can see that they are unbiased and truthful as per the Wiki policy. Also, please look in to some of his other edits, like this one. I have no idea how an exit poll by a well known and respected news source such as The Hindu (Don't care about the name, the daily is actually a very left-leaning one politically) can be biased as per the Wiki policy. I think we should stick to writing the truth rather than bending it for political correctness. However I am willing to remove any content if it offends anyone. I purposefully left out controversial issues like the forceful circumcission of Nairs by the Muslims in 1789-1791 period just because of this. And finally, the user has been using his IP as a sock with 164.100.1.17. Axxn (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course a communist raised red flags, what other flags would he raise? In any case, this editor wrote, "Anything which is printed and published as a book is not to be considered the truth. The accepted writings which are authenticated by university-approved research only can be considered as refernces." Making up your own rules in violation of WP:RS is a big no-no. I don't see a bright and happy future for this editor on Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 22:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for intervention/ block/ protection

This is a formal complaint against Hullabaloo Wolfowitz and a a request to have him blocked from the page "Amy Grant" (reasons below). Wolfowitz is a user who has exhibited a longtime pattern of destructive work clearly in violation of the purpose and mission of wikipedia. Specifically, he has recently repeatedly made erratic, destructive changes to my work on a wiki page, "Amy Grant".

His User Discussion page has over 140 sections of complaints against him and his/her work on wikipedia. Yes- over 140. This is a clear, obvious pattern. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz

The complaints are too numerous to mention. The user even admits that he has had trouble following wikipedia policy and has been hounded by editors for his erratic and destructive edits to pages. A quote from his User page: "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is back after a long absence. And after a longer period of silence. I do not know how long I will stay this time. The last time I did what I could to follow policy. But I was regularly hounded by aggressive editors because they did not want to. Perhaps things will go better this time. I have watched discussions and arguments for months."

I request that H. Wolfowitz be blocked from editing the Amy Grant page.

Here is the Amy Grant History page with the latest of the attacks on my work: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amy_Grant&action=history

I am a professional journalist, and this User is running me away from wikipedia. I feel his work is damaging and destructive to wikipedia, to the fine editors and volunteers who create wikipedia, and to its purpose and mission. He is vandalizing pages and apparently is not even willing to discuss these things. I have asked repeatedly to discuss edits with him to no avail.

Thank you for your assistance. I also edit under the name Relax777 (and if that is a problem, I am glad to delete that account and stick with this account.) Dougmac7 (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, so I'll address the Wolfowitz situation shortly, but so you don't get yourself into any other trouble, go read WP:SOCK and get your accounts in order. Frmatt (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Having taken a look at the accounts and edits in question, I have two comments...First, when I made the comment above, I thought that you had pretty much retired the Relax777 account...but you haven't. Therefore, I would recommend at this point that you be blocked for socking until you figure out which account you want to use and go through the appropriate process to do that. Secondly, I would suggest that you take the content dispute back to the article talk page and sort it out there. If you have concerns about a specific user, you could consider starting a Request for Comment/User (RfC/U). Oh...and I'll notify Wolfowitz for you. Frmatt (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And because you continue to edit under both accounts at the same time, I'm on my way to WP:SPI to report you as you obviously didn't read WP:SOCK or else you don't understand it. Frmatt (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to utilise crazy stuff here, like common sense, but is there any evidence Dougmac has actually seen your posts here? His last contributions were before you started posting. Perhaps it would be good to say, give a new user more than twenty minutes to see and become familiar with the socking policy before you start asking for blocks? Honestly, this is WP:BITE to the extreme. Ironholds (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And additional, he hasn't "continued" to edit under both at the same time. His last edit on this one was before your posts, his last edit as Relax was yesterday. Are you seeing something here I'm not? Ironholds (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the sockpuppet accusation here. Frmatt, are you suggesting that simply using more than one account is sockpuppetry? The user has admitted that they control both accounts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've dropped some advice on User talk:Dougmac7#Multiple_accounts. As both his accounts had edited the same talkpage I think an explanation of our sockpuppetry policy was in order. ϢereSpielChequers 15:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me add a few points. This is not a new user; the Relax777 account has been active for more than two years, and has some unusual editing habits, including creating pages, then nominating them for deletion shortly thereafter; it also maintained an unsourced attack page on a named person in userspace (which was speedied earlier today on my nomination). The Dougmac7 account was created just a few days ago, and has been used as a "bad hand" account (for example, vandalizing my user page) and as a means of exaggerating support for his/her side in an editing dispute at Amy Grant. The use of multiple accounts was not admitted until after other socking issues related to the Dougmac7 account were raised on the Amy Grant talk page.
The edits involved in the Amy Grant dispute generally involve the insertion of unsourced/unreliably sourced promotional claims, sometimes borderline copyvios, into the article. For example, this edit [46] added this sentence to the article's lede: "She is the first Christian artist to have a platinum record, the first to have a #1 pop song and the first to perform at the Grammys. It is sourced only to the artist's promotional bio page, which includes this sentence: "She surely did that, achieving such breakthroughs as being the first Contemporary Christian artist to have a platinum record, the first to hit #1 pop and the first to perform at the Grammys." In fact, one of the earliest edits out of the Relax777 account [47] added unsourced promotional/peacock text to that article: "Grant is considered one of the true pioneers of Gospel and Contemporary Christian music. Her influence on Gospel music and the Christian culture in the United States and beyond is sweeping and pervasive. She is widely considered one of the most important, influential public figures in the Christian world today." If the user is going to make promotionally toned edits like this, he/she should expect to have his edits reverted or heavily revised, as he/she is editing a BLP in violation, if not defiance, of core policies like BLP, NPOV, RS and V. As the little note underneath the "Save page" button says, "f you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here" -- a point that's particularly important when the submitted writing ignores key content policies.
The new Dougmac7 should be permanently blocked as a sock. Relax777 should be strongly warned, if not sanctioned/restricted, for both sockpuppetry and for harassing an editor (myself) who was doing no more than implementing mandatory content policies on articles where his/her accounts had violated them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at this again in the morning, I did not read the edit summary properly, and misread the times. That was my fault, and I will freely admit to that. That doesn't excuse the fact that this user is using two accounts to edit the same articles, talk pages, and violating WP:SOCK by using one account to support the other as evidenced here and here. Dougmac7/Rleax777's socking violates three of the first five points about inappropriate sock puppetry. Since this user has been around for two years, and the first accusation of sockpuppetry did not come from me, but from a user on the article talk page two days ago, then I believe they have had more than adequate time to respond to the accusations. Frmatt (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And for the record...thanks to SpielChequer for explaining the socking policy to the user, I was probably a little overzealous in filing the SPI last night...and in my earlier comments this morning. I stand by the content, but not necessarily the tone. If the user can show that they have read and understood the socking policy, then I'll withdraw the SPI. Frmatt (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I support the comments of Hullaballoo in this matter. The user Relax777/Dougmac7 has made a frivolous complaint, and does not understand normal wikipedia editing conventions. Their edit comments and discussion at Amy Grant indicate problems with WP:OWN and possibly also WP:COI (see comment with this edit), inappropriately demand all changes (by other people, I presume!) have to be discussed before being enacted (this edit), and inappropriately demand credentials from Hullaballoo to justify his editing of the article at all (this edit). They have artificially inflated their numbers by using the two accounts AND by importing with copy-edit material from another editor out of Hullaballoo's page (from here) and into the Amy Grant page (this edit). Hullaballoo has been working well in the normal WP:BRD cycle, and his edits have helped maintain the quality of the biography as encyclopedic rather than as a puff-piece. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 18:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to those who have responded with constructive input and advice. To those who have an agenda of their own (and not wikipedia's) and those who randomly join in to attack my stance and try to "win", you are spinning your wheels, my friends. Wow, we finally hear from Wolfowitz. The guy who acts like he owns Wikipedia- and runs off people like me (and the numerous other editors he has hounded in violation of the spirit of wikipedia, I might add, which is just as important as the letter.) I will be the first to humble myself. I apologize for my mistakes. I honestly do not spend much time editing on wiki and therefore do not know all the policies. I certainly want the best for wikipedia and all those involved. I have read the sock policy. I have retired the relax777 account. I have invited Wolfowitz to discuss things with me on the Amy Grant talk page. As I hope you can see, I always try to have the right intentions. When someone deliberately hounds my work in a mysterious, erratic fashion (about one week ago, he immediately undid and flagged the only two posts I have done in several weeks- very odd indeed!), and when I see that there are 140 sections of complaints against that volunteer, I defend myself and my work. That reminds me. In all the responses above, no one has addressed the 140 sections of complaints against Wolfowitz (on his user discussion page) and his longtime pattern of erratic actions. IMHO his actions and style are profoundly destructive to wikipedia and the spirit, letter and intent of this outstanding project and movement. Come to think of it, I do not think I will be spending much time on wiki in the future. Life is too short to waste it dealing with the Wolfowitz's of the world. Dougmac7 (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

To let everyone know, after looking at this case on SPI, I have indefinitely blocked Relax777 and blocked Dougmac7 for 3 days. Both accounts were used in tandem for disruptive purposes. MuZemike 05:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

After having read the entire thread above and the actions taken, I don't think I made a very good block at all and has decided to unblock Dougmac7 in good faith that he won't do this again. I'm going to keep Relax777 blocked, however, just to make sure. MuZemike 06:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sal the Stockbroker (again)

To add to this i have made a complaint against user Wolfowitz and his constant redirecting of articles he claims that are BLP violations. When he does this he will not talk about it at all and takes it upon him slef to revert things that have been fixes as in Sal the Stockbroker so i also 2nd any action done against him 98.117.34.180 (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I agree. This redirect by Hullaballoo without discussion of a long standing article was completely inappropriate. The redirect goes to a tiny subsection within a completely different article for the Howard Stern show. That's way over the line.

By the way, 98.117.34.180; are you already a party to this discussion under a registered name? If so could you identify yourself so we don't get confused? If not, then welcome to the bun fight and thanks for the input in either case. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have now looked at this a bit more thoroughly, and made this a subsection for Sal the Stockbroker (again). The account given by 98.117.34.180 (talk) omits some relevant information. He has twice previously brought up this same issue. The archived discussions can be found at:

• WP:BLP/Noticeboard/Archive73 section Sal the Stockbroker; issue raised at 17:13, 23 Oct by 98.117.34.180 (talk)
• WP:AN/IncidentArchive572 section Sal the Stockbroker; issue raised at 17:34, 23 Oct by 98.117.34.180 (talk)

Both discussions show only support for the redirect, and the actions of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs); with the proviso that edit warring is never appropriate. There was a specific admonishment for future reference given to 98.117.34.180 which I copy here also:

(Copied from this edit by Nil Einne (talk) at WP:BLP/N, 06:19, 25 Oct) In future, please DO NOT post the same issue in multiple places unless you have waited sufficient time. If you do have to post it in multiple areas make sure you link between both discussions or better keep one place as the primary place for discussion and simply ask people to visit there

I still think that when a long established page is entirely replaced with a redirect to a different page, and then the redirect is reverted, no-one should revert back again to redirect without explicitly discussing the reasons in the talk page. Edit summaries are not sufficient. 98.117.34.180 (talk) had asked for reasons in the talk page as appropriate, and no-one involved ever responded there. That was poorly done, however sensible the redirect.

I have now added a comment at the talk page pointing to these two archive discussions, and would request people to actually use the talk page if this continues at all. Hullaballoo seems to be doing good work, but it would be better he was a bit better at working with people he disagrees with and explaining his actions at a talk page if they have been reverted, in line with WP:BRD. However, this is not a venue for dispute resolution. I don't see any need for administrator intervention here. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

One quick response; I'll try to get back here later, and I apologize in advance for any curtness resulting from my haste. Despite what 98.117.34.180 claims, I did replay to his question, and he never responded. The exchange is on my talk page [48], where I responded to him about fifteen minutes after he posted. He didn't participate in any further dialogue with me. I didn't, and still don't, see any need to crosspost everywhere he posted the same question. The editor is posting out of at least two different IPs, making it difficult to keep track of his posts, so it's not easy for anyone who "came in late" tocatch everything that was going on. I'd also suggest taking a look at the history of this article, Vomiting, which ended up protected for a while because of the 98.-anon's edit warring to insert edits which the protecting admin characterized as vandalism, and which multiple users strongly objected to. Given several other of his typical requests, eg asking for explicit illustrations for Diarrhea[49] and Menstrual cycle [50], I'd say he's got more interest in the scatalogical/cloacal than in improving the encyclopedic aspects of Wikipedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, after looking over this I think you are doing good work at wikipedia. In line with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I think that you should make a brief comment on the talk page of an article if an edit you make has been reverted and you want to continue to work on the problem. For example, at Sal the Stockbroker:

1. Your initial redirect was this edit at 04:17, 17 Oct (bold, by HW)
2. The first revert was this edit at 16:48, 23 Oct (revert, by 98.117.40.154)
3. A revert to redirect was this edit at 16:58, 23 October 2009 (the start of edit warring, by HW, rather than discuss)
4. A discussion at talk page with this edit at 16:59, 23 Oct (by 98.117.40.154, this is what HW should have done himself rather than re-revert)

There IS an issue here with proper wikiquette. The usual procedure, in line with WP:BRD, would have been for you to start the discussion at the talk page yourself, rather than simply make the re-revert at 16:48, 23 Oct. Note that by this time, no alerts had been raised and no discussion joined. AFTER this we had the reverse problem of trying to discuss too much in too many places. Here are the multiple venues at which the issue was raised in rapid succession by 98.117.40.154:

1. at 16:59, 23 Oct, article talk page. (appropriate)
2. at 17:13, 23 Oct, BLP noticeboard. (premature?)
3. at 17:16, 23 Oct, talk page of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (appropriate)
4. at 17:34, 23 October 2009, Administrators' noticeboard (highly premature!)

The notice given at Hullaballoo's talk page is a cordial and very appropriate request for Hullaballoo to give his reasons for the redirect at the article talkpage, and he should have complied. Hullaballoo, I echo that request, for future reference. I note you have done that now; thanks! But for future reference, when someone reverts changes you have made to an article, and you restore them again, can you please also make it your normal procedure to put a brief comment at the article talk page, rather than rely on edit summaries alone. This is good practice per WP:BRD, and it will also help with dispute resolution if people complain about your edits in future. Give the nature of BLP issues, it is pretty much inevitable you are going to get objections to your work. So please do use the article talk pages when reverts are starting to occur. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There are too many complaints against this user for the matter to be swept under the carpet. I do not believe that a collaborative approach entails one person undoing other people's work and not doing very much else. This is more dictatorial than working with people (I have pointed this out on his discussion page, but it may be that he sees complaints against him as marks of achievement). At the very least this user's edits should be watched and analyzed. Michaelbarreto (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing sanction

There is a clear case of votestacking set out here. I notified the editor responsible, Dalejenkins (talk · contribs), of the canvassing guideline, assuming he wasn't aware of it. As someone pointed out to me that assumption was incorrect. I remedied the votestacking in the current AFD by contacting all the participants in the previous AFD that had not yet been contacted. So the only issue that remains is behavioral: whether a sanction is appropriate, and if so, what. I request that an admin that has not been involved in fiction-related AFD discussions make this call. Thank you.--chaser (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick look at this indicates that there should be a more serious look taken. It seems like a clear attempt to game the process.--Crossmr (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If this happened regularly with any user, I'd be pretty concerned; didn't take an exhaustive look, but this doesn't seem to be a habit for Dale. Absent repeat incidents, I'd probably chalk it up more to misunderstanding than maliciousness. With other users notified, and with Dale engaged in conversation about the objections, I think things can probably move ahead smoothly. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What engagement? He has blanked his talk page [51] when concern was raised on the 8th & the 9th. Nor has he turned up here. The implication that a user has employ off-wiki canvassing methods more than once and admits to what appears to be a clear infraction of an important guideline is serious. I have both collaborated with and disputed content with DJ in the past so will say no more, other than he did once pull me up about a technical canvassing infraction when I approached a single involved user involved in an article. What goes around comes around! Leaky Caldron 09:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is probably not the decision I would have made, but the reason I brought it to ANI was to get another administrator's view and decision on the issue, so thank you, Luna. To others in this thread, this comment from Luna Santin helps clarify.--chaser (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Because I was unable to find a notification that this was posted in his talk page history I notified Dale [here] Jamesofur (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

@Luna, I definitely do not think this is a misunderstanding by Dave, he clearly knows it's against the rules (as he himself said). And shows no sign of planning to stop his canvassing. I very much got the feeling that Dave sees AfD as some kind of a competition, and is more bothered about "winning", then actually make sure we delete and keep the right articles. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that Kingpin13 identified an earlier incident at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#Offsite_canvassing_at_the_Afd_of_Search_for_Alan_Goulden, which was removed from the talk page. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There were issues with DaleJenkins here as well [52] (relating to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother 2009 housemates (UK)) DJ came to AN/I to attempt to get people stopped from !voting Keep, and followed both User:Jeni and myself to our talkpages to argue that our keep !votes should be changed. I thought he'd learned his lesson after that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This evidence does color Dale's actions in a different color. I've left this note on their talk page, again requesting their response here, and notifying them that continued canvassing problems may lead to a block. I would appreciate being informed if this continues to be a problem at any point in the future. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Another issue in same AfD

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Everyme.--chaser (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

sig

Resolved

 – Signature shortened per WP:SIG. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

On my talk page, someone told me to shorten my signature. Why is it necessary? The signature has to be 255 characters at the greatest. Does that include spaces?  Btilm  22:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That "someone" being 69.210.140.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 22:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct.  Btilm  22:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made the IP user aware of this thread. GiantSnowman 22:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting that that is the IP's first ever edit...GiantSnowman 22:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It could be an anonymous editor with a dynamic ip.  Btilm  22:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you please answer my above questions if you didn't see them.  Btilm  22:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're transcluding or substituting a page with your sig on it right now, correct? I was also informed of this issue recently. Please see this: WP:SIG#NT. The only good thing to do is try to shorten the syntax.-- fetchcomms☛ 22:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Btilm - your signature is 379 characters (excluding date & time) - read Wikipedia:Signatures#Length for reasons why there is a length limit. Regards. GiantSnowman 22:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• (e/c)The IP is correct; it should be shorter than 255 characters, per Wikipedia:Signatures#Length. As an example, take a look at this thread in edit mode; is difficult to decipher due to your signature formatting. I'm not too thrilled when people try to force conformance on this issue, but it would be a sign of consideration for others if you shortened it/made it less distracting in edit mode. If it can't be done in 255 characters, it probably doesn't need to be done. Btilm is substing User:Btilm/signature, not transcluding it; I note for some reason the sig is fully protected? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I worked on a sig that is 255 characters long. 260 including spaces. Is that good enough?  Btilm  22:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned to you Btilm, excluding the browser specific styles from your signature cuts it down to just below 255 characters. As I also mentioned to you, substituting your signature is discouraged, which I believe is your current method of utilizing your signature. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 Btilm 

How does that look? It's considerably shorter now. I've pruned most of the extraneous code; you can re-add the padding code, though the difference looks minute to me. Master of Puppets 23:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have protected User:Btilm/signature per your request, but it is still 260 characters long. Please reduce it to 255 or below. The code of your signature should be able to fit in the box provided for it in your preferences. I suggest you use the one given by Master of Puppets. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I made a few changes to shorten Master of Puppets' revision further. 140 chars:

 Btilm 

Use it if/as you wish. • Anakin ^(talk) 04:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would suggest moving your sig page to User:Btilm/signature.css, and substing that. This would make it so that only you, and administrators can edit your page, eliminating the need for protection of any kind. I use this personally for my signature. Until It Sleeps ^{Happy Thanksgiving} 07:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Good grief. Maybe he should attach an illustration to it. A picture of an elephant would be fitting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) I'm renaming this page Wikipedia:Helpdesk/Signatures. In the meantime, I feel like I keep saying this but it goes nowhere, so I'll say it again... Is there some reason for the browser specific code? It's showing up fine for me without the WebKit and Mozilla bits:  Btilm  That also happens to fit within the allotted character limit, with two to spare. user:J aka justen (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I take that back. Without the Mozilla code, it actually does fail to round the corners of the rectangle in Firefox. Chrome does manage to correctly draw it, although Safari does not (which I suspect will be corrected). All that said, nevermind my suggestion. Unless maybe you want to have the acid test signature... user:J aka justen (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

According to this edit, the user has no intent of shortening their signature further (they shortened it once near the top of this discussion, but it's still ~250 characters). Master of Puppets 10:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said I wouldn't make another shorter signature. I made one that looks exactly the same, and only 167 characters. If anyone wants me to redo their sig, I will be happy to. Btilm 23:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, new sig is 167 characters and perfectly ok. Thank you. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Suicide threat

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

---

Resolved

 – per PeterSymonds. On obvious stuff like this, WP:RBI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just seen this pop up on PSs page - he hasn't edited for 90 minutes so may not be around to report it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PeterSymonds#Going_to_kill_myself_now.2C_happy_you_irc_douche.3F Leaky Caldron 22:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just posting here to add the permanent link, and save everyone a few extra clicks. Permanent link -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please dismiss this as trolling resulting from a ban in two of the IRC channels. I can assure you that he's not serious. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SUICIDE - "Wikipedians are not as a rule properly trained to determine if such a claim or threat is an immediate harm to someone's well being, and should assume the worst and act accordingly. Treat such claims seriously and as an emergency." GiantSnowman 22:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Understand that, but if this is an editor Peter has just banned for trolling, I think we can take it as a variant of "I'm going down the garden to eat worms." Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, WP:SUICIDE couldn't be clearer on the matter. RaseaC (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SUICIDE is an essay. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

...? RaseaC (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It was proposed as policy but rejected. For good reasons. Hans Adler 00:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting it was policy, policy is irrelevant when discussing a matter as serious as this (some things are more important than WP) I was reiterating the extract that GiantSnowman left us which effectively says that however awesome we may be on WP we are not, by and large, psychologists and when faced with a potentially serious situation (regardless of our own interpretation of that siuation) we should sit down, shut up and listen to the experts. RaseaC (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Eh. Policy is (or should be) there to remind people that we are not the first to encounter a situation like this. We aren't experts, but we can also make reasoned judgments about when a threat (suicide or otherwise) is worth investigating. You are welcome to email checkusers about this and suggest that IP info be forwarded to authorities, but be aware that most of these 'threats' are attempts at trolling. Protonk (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I know this is resolved, but for those still watching- there are legal ramifications should someone write "I'm going to commit suicide now" and actually does it and no one did anything. Of course the law is vague, we can claim that there was no could know he/she was serious, etc like we've argued here. But as the essay says, it should be treated seriously. I have attempted suicide in the past (reason not related to Wikipedia), and I am lucky that the person who heard me mention it took it serious and the police came to my door. If Wikipedia ever got so bad for me I declared I was going to commit suicide then I hope someone takes me serious and saves me. As bad as life is, and how much I would want to, in the end I know I would be happier that someone took it serious and saved me instead of letting me die. Sometimes all you need is to know someone cared enough to say "please dont leave" and got ahold of the authorities to know that suicide is not the answer.Camelbinky (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I fear that when it comes to Wikipedia in situations such as suicide threats a major drawback could be the bystander effect. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Look I understand you. No one is saying "ignore all suicide threats" or "lol policy>suicide". All I'm saying is that people have permission to use their heads. Protonk (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could always look at a suicide note (sincere or otherwise) as having this potential:

Authorities say that Jones, 17 posted on a popular online encyclopedia site, Wikipedia, that he intended to kill himself, but that his pleas for help went ignored by administrators on the site.

It's not just about possible legal issues; it's also about bad press and bad publicity, and a very negative situation in general. As a suicide survivor (I was stupid, and I'm sorry I tried it) I can only say that if someone says something like that, treat it as serious. Check his ip, verify what city it's in, and notify the police there, giving them the ip address. Whether or not you think he'll do it, this is the right thing to do. If he was sincere, you may just save his life. if he wasn't, it could teach him a lesson about posting crap like that. And ultimately, Wiki doesn't end up looking bad if he does do it. Just my $0.02. YMMV. Deejaye6 (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mention the "possible legal issues", mostly because such broadly worded warnings are normally waved at by non-lawyers and the minute you dismiss them someone comes back and suggest that "we shouldn't only worry about whether or not we are forced to report threats". Lets keep a sense of perspective here. What we are talking about is this comment. Again, if you want to treat that as a real suicide threat, be my guest. But I think wasting time on something like that isn't worth the bother and increases incentive to troll. I also note that the publicity issue is a red herring. I have no faith in the ability of the average news organization (certainly not the news organization most likely to report on wikipedia, The Guardian) to determine whether or not due diligence was undertaken, especially considering that CU actions are normally private and attempts at communication w/ local authorities are often unverifiable. Again, my point isn't that threats be dismissed. My point is that editors should use their heads when assessing threats. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The WP:SUICIDE essay is not policy - however, it's considered best practice by admins and users. It's not a policy because there are all sorts of repurcussions of trying to force people to respond in a particular manner, and the community is largely unhappy with having their responses in a real life matter dictated to them. The possible consequences include legal and PR implications ("You mean, you ignored written policy that said you were supposed to report this?"...).

If you see a suicide threat or other threat of violence and believe it is credible or can't dismiss it, we encourage you to follow the process documented in WP:SUICIDE. It's a good idea. We can't make you do it and will not hold you responsible for doing it - but you may save a life, and it's the responsible and ethical thing to do. If you find it and think it's possibly real, report it here, report it to authorities. It may be nothing, but the police don't mind being called out to find out if it's real or not. That's their job.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Since when has this sort of recurring joke "suicide" message on Wikipedia become a "plea for help". Surely they should be like any other dubious claim made on Wikipedia, i.e., delete them (unless they come with a proper citation such as a medical opinion about the state of mind of the poster, or a death certificate). Meowy 20:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a great attitude to have. What will it take for you to pay a bit of attention, someone actually killing themselves?!?! GiantSnowman 20:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I can safely say Meowy is tha absolute worse editor I have every come across on WP. Screw content and not contributor, that's downright screwed up right there. RaseaC (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OMG, thank you RaseaC, I've just realised I'm so screwed up i hate my life why dont i just fucking end it all? This is my last go.... if i get banned from this site too it all ends. Meowy 15:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What it comes down to - Meowy is free to ignore such threats. You are free to ignore them, if you think it's purely a joke (and I do not personally respond to every one that I see, some just don't raise to the level of credible IMHO). However - as the essay points out - if you think one IS credible, or can't be sure, we encourage and will support you to report it. The essay gives you a procedure for doing so which is felt to be good practice. Other people ignoring or making fun of the situation is not relevant - if you are concerned, do what you think is right. The essay establishes a support structure and process for doing what's right if you want to do that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

William S. Saturn

I was wondering if a level-headed administrator might look into the contributions of William S. Saturn (talk · contribs). William has been relentless in his assertions that the Fort Hood shootings were a terrorist attack and the individual suspected, Nidal Malik Hasan a terrorist. He has been repeatedly warned about WP:BLP and WP:NPOV but has not altered his behavior and has edit-warred to push this opinion. I just ask that somebody look into this and respond accordingly. Grsz¹¹ 23:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

For context, William S. Saturn is the same as this guy. I believe (though I stand open to correction) that he started a new account, and after some period of productive editing (six months?) outed himself, and in view of his good editing nobody re-blocked. He generates a lot of good content, but in light of his past socking he should be on a short leash. Steve Smith (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff of the "outing"? --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Here's the thread in which his sock drawer was uncovered. Here's the thread where he outed himself. His story is that the "sockpuppets" were actually another member of his household. I'll leave it to others to evaluate its believability. Steve Smith (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That is not true. There was an AN post on that issue from a few months ago. That was not my account(s). --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you please provide a diff of the AN thread? I ask this, and the above, so that it can be documented as a non-issue. WP:SOCKing is a bad thing, and you shouldn't have to be concerned with such an accusation considering it is, as you state, resolved as not an issue. --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Note that WSS has also been relentless at trying to add the Fort Hood shooting, and Mr. Hasan, to List of terrorist incidents, 2009, which is now protected due to his relentlessness. PhGustaf (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, he's not so bad. I've seen POV-pushers here that could run rings around that guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And edit-warring, which should have earned a block already. Grsz¹¹ 02:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of this tread, other than giving an outlet for a few editors to vent? --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

To explore whether you should be blocked for edit-warring and general disruption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not venting, I'm trying to help remove the accusation of WP:SOCKing that's on the table. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The old "a member of my household" story[53] as noted by Steve Smith above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I find this of great concern. WP:My little brother did it is not an excuse for WP:SOCK. Notwithstanding the user's behavior brought forward by this discussion (which is a separate concern), should not the issue raised by brought to WP:SPI? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There it is. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There what is? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done with this thread. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As a note, I can't see that he has edited Nidal Malik Hasan. Protonk (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a new(er) article. Relevant pages here include:

• List of terrorist incidents, 2009, where William edit-warred to include the event and suspect, forcing full protection.
• Fort Hood shooting, where he has added and readded (most certainly breaking WP:3RR) to include categories labeling the event and suspect as terrorism/terrorist.
• Talk:Political positions of Barack Obama, where he initiated a WP:POINTy discussion basing his position to add something to the article on an OpEd that labeled the event as terrorism.
• Fort Hood terrorist attack, a POV redirect.

Consensus at all of this pages has been against the POV that William has expressed. He is using opinion pieces as the basis of his argument and refuses to comply to or accept the importance of relevant policy such as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. As far as the socking issue goes, if it is true (I haven't looked into it) then escalating blocks are appropriate. Grsz¹¹ 04:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave the sock issues to the side as I have not looked into that. I'm involved in the Fort Hood shootings article and debates so cannot act here as an uninvolved administrator, however I think William is editing in an extremely tendentious fashion with respect to this "it was terrorism" idea. There is simply no consensus among involved editors to refer to this shooting as a terrorist incident at this time, and William does not seem to be able to respect that. ANI is not for content disputes, but it would be nice if an admin could talk to William on his talk page and ask him to let go of this issue for awhile since continually pressing it is arguably becoming disruptive at this point. I've previously discussed some problematic editing patterns with William on his talk page (several months ago, on a basically unrelated matter) and he was receptive to the advice, so perhaps a neutral admin could step in here if they are in agreement with the editors above who are seeing a problem. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just taken a gander through his recent contributions, and he appears to have ceased (or at least dramatically slowed) making reversions to the articles in question. Without speaking to the sock issues, I think his present behavior has become more productive. I'm not going to go through each talk page post, but he appears to be discussing, rather than edit warring, at the moment. Do we still need admin action here? Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

William has decreased activity. However, other users (Bachcell (talk · contribs)) have been more active and may need warnings of WP:BLP. Grsz¹¹ 17:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What about the sock issues? Are they actionable? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pankration (Holiday)

Resolved

 – AFD closed.--chaser (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate additional eyes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pankration (Holiday). A number of SPAs/new users are showing up, and some of them are directing comments against me personally at the deletion discussion's talk page, the deletion discussion itself, and my user talk page (which, although the last one doesn't seem directly related, I am including here as part of the pattern since that was the account's only edit, and occured when all the other SPAs started showing up). Frankly, the personal commentary is starting to get frustrating. Singularity42 (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And another one... Maybe I should just send this off to WP:SPI at some point? Singularity42 (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I find most of the comments at the AFD pretty mild. I temporarily s-protected, but have since found a different and hopefully more effective way of dealing with it.--chaser (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. As I said, the comments were coming at me from a few places, but seemed to do with the ongoing deletion discussion. I also agree that your revised approach is the fairest way to deal with it - I wouldn't want to drive away new users from the discussion just because of a few bad apples. Singularity42 (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Throw out the SPAs and this is more or less heading for a snowball or speedy..--Crossmr (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and Half man half rancor isn't doing himself or his side any favors with his demeanor. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And Half man half rancor is still at it with the personal remarks about me. The comments are stupid, I know, but I believe he has been warned about it already, both individually and to all participants generally. Singularity42 (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a block of half man for at least 24 hours for disruptive editing with all the repeated insults.--Crossmr (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Repeated adding of speedy tag

WiZeNgAmOtX (talk · contribs · logs) feels very strongly that William A. Dembski should be deleted so he has nominated it for speedy deletion as an attack page. I declined the speedy (twice) but he has now restored the tag (twice). It may be that there are NPOV issues on the article but it certainly doesn't look like speedy material. Could someone else take a look please? --John (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This clearly doesn't meet speedy deletion criteria. If the issue is neutrality, that can be addressed. But anything negative about the individual has been properly sourced, so this is not an attack page. Singularity42 (talk) 07:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

3rr warning given.--chaser (talk) 07:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Beaten to declining the speedy again; posted a comment on Wizen's user talk. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why has my comment been deleted and removed from history? WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What comment? Singularity42 (talk) 07:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you ran into an edit conflict and the comment was never taken by the system. I gave up trying to comment here a little while ago because I was getting bogged down in edit conficts and the slow loading of a very large page. LadyofShalott 07:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTPERFECT WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Some interesting comments a couple of days ago: [54] [55]. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed those. I will follow this editor's career with interest. Thanks for the help. --John (talk) 08:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

... and just added a link to a book review [56] of Cavalli-Szorza's 1994 book The History and Geography of Human Genes, which is entirely a reasonable source, but which is hosted here: http://www.prometheism.net/, who are... in the least, not vaguely mainstream or up to RS standards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope that you are not suggesting the source invalid? There are also cited materials, a large list--all "mainstream". This is science. Controversy comes with science. Do not conspire to watch me with prejudice that I am some how a dangerous contributor, based upon allegations of mine that are controversial to your philosophies and opinions. If you do not follow WP, then I will have you banned from the wikipedia. I bid you good day. WiZeNgAmOtX (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably best not to come to an admin board and make vacuous threats against an admin, WiZeNgAmOtX. Just a tip. ➜ Redvers^{❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 10:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is more than reasonably well sourced, neutral and stable. WiZeNgAmOtX seems to have some unclear issue with William A. Dembski - he is now added dated prod twice (which was once removed by me and once by Redvers). There is no way this article will pass AfD as anything but speedy keep. So what exactly is the issue? The claim that Dembski is ID proponent? Well sourced. That ID is pseudoscience? Extensively sourced. --Sander Säde 10:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is now listed for deletion by WiZeNgAmOtX. --Sander Säde 11:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Closed it as speedy keep. No need to open this up at another venue. Regards SoWhy 16:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WiZeNgAmOtX's obstinate WP:COPYVIO on Shawnigan Lake School may also bear attention. (dif of warning) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked WiZeNgAmOtX for 24h over the edit warring re the repeated insertion of the copyvio into the Shawnigan Lake School article. Mjroots (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Good block. I was considering doing it myself, but having removed the 2nd or 3rd placement of the prod on the Dembski article, I think I'd oddly be counted as "involved". ➜ Redvers^{❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 12:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And they've appealed, on the basis that it isn't a copyvio. Thus does the point of a block for edit warring go whizzing over someone's head. Alas. ➜ Redvers^{❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 12:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the legal threat in the unblock request [57] Voceditenore (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeffed for making a legal threat. Mjroots (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

He's still going at it on his talk page. Could a CheckUser, if they have a minute, also make a check here, because I smell something sock-y. I have a hard time believing that this person knows all this WP stuff in short order like this. MuZemike 16:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I had his talk page watchlisted out of interest and reading the exchanges between this user threatening to take every admin on and citing various Wikipedia policies. I am in agreement with MuZemike and also smell something socky as well. --([[::User talk:Sb617|Sb617's talk]] - [[::Special:Contributions/Sb617|contribs]] ) 16:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, someones left the drawer open.--SKATER ^Speak. 04:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Update Indef block lifted as legal threat was withdrawn. 24h block reinstated, expires 12:21 UTC. We'll need to keep an eye on WiZeNgAmOtX's editing to see if the copyvio gets reinserted. Suggest an indef if it does. Mjroots (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Rotational volating his editing restriction.

The above user was placed on an edit restriction on one of his previous visits to the noticeboard, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive539#Rotational and User talk:Rotational#Editing restriction. Notably "Do not revert-war to make any article formatting change that is against the guidelines in the Manual of Style; in particular, you must not revert another revert in order to change the level of a heading or the position of an image.".

He has recently returned from an absence and immediately started edit warring at [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] amongst others, not to mention the incivilities found on his talk page and User talk:Euryalus#Header preferences. I feel that its about time that this user is finally blocked, his edits are nothing short of disruptive and he has pushed the boundaries far too long. Jeni ^(talk) 13:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

After several years of this, and a range of sanctions achieving nothing whatsoever, I think it is abundantly clear that Rotational is not going to stop edit warring. This is forever. Therefore, either we must cede to Rotational ownership of any and all articles that he chooses to edit, and permit him to maintain them in accordance with his unusual stylistic tastes, regardless of convention and consensus; or we must show him the door. Hesperian 13:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

After a quick look these editing restrictions were laid out 6 months ago and he can't seem to follow them with all that time to study them and learn them. I'd support a couple of weeks with nothing to do but study those restrictions for him.--Crossmr (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. I'm willing to consider that this might not be the correct length, so let me know if you have a problem with it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems fair enough, we'll find out if it has been effective when he returns! Jeni ^(talk) 15:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeni is wrong. You are the one who deliberately baited the editor, by disrupting carefully crafted articles, where a stylistic choice had been made to use a lower than standard level of heading. In a small article, where the only header is References, the line across the page is an eyesore. This is a waste of time in a troubled world. You are the weakest link - goodbye. FairFare (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Rotational was not blocked for preferring "a lower than standard level of heading". He was blocked for edit-warring over his preference for "lower than standard levels of heading" for nearly three years. You endorse that? Hesperian 13:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

personal attacks

Please help. User Ceha has been doing personal attacks on me lately. Example, [69] He has been harasing me very much because I am persuing action to delete a frauduelent map that he has posted on wikipedia. The discussion about his map had a pause, then I restarted it again lately. I suspect that this is the reason for his attacks on me. Please help. (LAz17 (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)).

I have notified the user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 18:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have also notified the user of this thread, at the exact same time as BoP. Great minds think alike! GiantSnowman 18:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I do apologize if user Laz thinks I've offended him in any way. I did not mean to insult him in any way. In this particular case that user have reverted my change without prior discussing it on the talk pages. We are having this discusion for a long time and during that time user Laz showed uncivil and rude behavior (I think that this report unfortunately part of his tactics). Time after time he is calling me a fascist. Last time was 1.November.2009. [70] He was previously reported and warned about insolting persons and calling them names [71].--Čeha (razgovor) 22:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If we can ignore the he said she said, the apology may take us a long way. Can the two of you resolve not to insult each other, regardless of who insulted whom in the past? Also, if you all could speak English on the English wikipedia, it would be helpful, and not just for situations like this.--chaser (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. I had no intentions of insulting anybody. However I would like that the guy stops calling me a fascist. Unfortunately, I think that is a pretty serious insult. :/ A little bit of civil behavior and we should solve a great deal of our worries. After all this is an encyclopedia :) --Čeha (razgovor) 22:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Much of this, like the comments preceding this for example, looks to be in Serbo-Croatian, in which case I guess you'll need to find a neutral translator to help us out. Or an admin that speaks Serbo-Croatian.--chaser (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that line has not nothing with user Laz. As mentioned before, that user is very rude and uncivil from time to time, and is known for using a lot of swear words (if you find a good translator you can read what kind of stuff that guy wrote).--Čeha (razgovor) 22:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

LAz is not the only one C has targeted, I happened to stumble across a clearly racial remark that C made about me in the same discussion. [72] PRODUCER (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is clearly overdoing. Did I in any way called you some name, or insulted you? I even apologized if you felt insulted. On the other way you threatened to block my account. And user Laz, which is complaing about personal attacks is insulting me, calling me a fascist even if he was previously warned about that. My behaviour is civil, and I do not have nothing to hide. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ceha is a person who becomes very rude to whomever disagrees with him in any way. He then goes about making a discussion as pointless as it can possibly be. A case in point - once a source was agreed upon on a map, he goes back as if the other person did not agree, and starts the discussion all from the beginning. So, he firstly does not want to move forth in discussions, and secondly, he starts insulting. This is what is the case here. Further, he goes about insulting and bringing up false acusations. I never called him a fascist. However, his map is contributing to fascist propaganda. The man has made a very controversial map of a region that is very very ethnically mixed. He went about doing this by on purpose excluding countless settlements. The map was a disaster, an ethnically motivated POV propaganda map. This was not my conclusion, but a conclusion of someone else. The bottom line is that he is very angry at me for questioning his work of art. Now that the discussion has moved forth and a consensus has been reached that his map is not good, he has resulted to regularly insulting me and claiming that his map is fine, yet countless mistakes have been pointed out to him. We are dealing with someone who edit wars and who is very uncooperative. I think that a ban would be a very just thing to do in this case. Please contact the user Direktor for more information. (LAz17 (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)).

Please do.

User Laz: a) repeated accusations about "fascistit propaganda" [73] Fascistic nationalistic propaganda is where it all lies

b)previous warnings by adminstrators [74]

c) blocked indeffinetilly on croatian wiki because of swearing. [75]

If anyone has any suggestion what to do with this user, I'm willing to listen. If need be, I will again apologize, but unfortunately I do not see that would solve anything. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly what I am talking about. I could not have said it better myself. A)Fascistit- notice the use of words. The real word is fascist propaganda, about his map. He is on purpose wrongly interpreting this to mean that he is a fascist- no his map only contributes to that propaganda - if it is intentional or not is the question. Admin warnings? Sure, but look into what they are about. You and I were edit warring. Interesting how you do not mention certain info. I was unblocked on the croatian wikipedia. The user Kubara put on purpose "wrong information". I beat him on the english wiki... it all starts with the source, apparently even he can not make up stuff without a source - though you do that regularly. Lastly, the word "zajebavas" is not messing. In english "nemoj da me zajebavas" means "don't mess around with me". That is what I told him, and with reason - and this is supposed to be swearing? His information was wrong, and if you do not beleive it look at the talk page of the croatian hockey league. (LAz17 (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)).

I would honestly like that someone sees this because it's like living in a paralel universes. What is a person who spreads fascist propaganda? What do the word fascist has to do with Balkans in the end of 20th century?

The guy was almost blocked by an administrator because of his uncivil behavior, but it just edit warring??

And the translation of "zajebavaš" is wrong. It means to fuck around. That is the language which Laz uzes.

As for croatian wikipedia, Laz can you provide link for us to see your behavior? I'm very interested what they sad to you.--Čeha (razgovor) 22:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, user Laz started attacking another user (Polargeo) [76].--Čeha (razgovor) 22:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

1) fascist has to do with the ustashe movement. The movement never died with the end of world war two. It came back in the 1990s. It is at the core of croatian nationalism, especially claims that croatia should gobble up all of bosnia. Your map which shows the croats as overrepresented only fosters that. Granted that your map is not as outrageous as it was when I first started complaining, it is still outrageous. Direktor coming in to mediate the discussion gave you no choice than to fix some of the major mistakes, but there are still dozens of mistakes left. Several people have said that your map is not acceptable. For this you hate me.

2) I have never used or heard the word "zajebavas" as go fuck around. Serbocroatian is a very dirty language. We have words like "jebiga". Jebiga means "oh well". But it can also mean "fuck him". Almost always it is used as "oh well". So, I think you should stop trying to trick our people here in translation.

3) For croatian wikipedia, just go to the ice hockey page. You can see that there is still very much un-sourced fraud information. Kubara has backed down from the fraud on the english wikipedia. Neither of us were completely right, so we came to a comprise halfway inbetween. You on the other hand want all or nothing.

4)Polargeo was not attacked at all. He might have been intimidated with some sources that I posted on his talk page. How can one interpret information as an attack. He made a particular rape in a war article, and I told him why I felt that it was biased, and I gave him some more sources that might help improve the article to a less biased tone. (LAz17 (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)).

Khanate of Erevan

Please see page above, it has been the site of edit warring by user Grandmaster, who is apparently on probation from topic editing/reverting on Armenia-Azerbaijan articles per arbitration. Has aggressively reverted and removed cited and justifiable information for POV purposes. Has failed to justify his edits on the topic, and soon after he reverts, anonymous IPS revert to his version or other meatpuppeting Azerbaijani editors. Please look at this page carefully, and recitify. Preferably against user's right to approach topic and protection from anons, as a result of negative language in his edit summaries and essentially vandalism of pages. Fazeri (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Grandmaster (talk · contribs) of this thread. GiantSnowman 19:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The background to this is a far wider conflict caused by uncertainty over the use of alternative names, a conflict and uncertainty made worse by the lack of guidelines about what that section of an article should contain. The arguments are often not really about whether content is valid or not, but whether it is valid to place the content in the "alternative names" section. I would welcome some intelligent administrator advice about how to initiate discussion towards hammering out some guidelines and rules that could be applied to all wikipedia articles, and about what sort of forum that discussion should take place in. Also see this discussion on Grandmaster's talk page: [77] Meowy 20:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that Fazeri (talk · contribs) is just another sock of User:Hetoum I, who has been involved in massive disruption in arbitration covered area for years. As one can see from the history of Khanate of Erevan, Fazeri reverted the article to the version of Brunotheborat, the known sock of Hetoum, and then reported me here, to mislead people about what is going on. It is funny that he accuses me of using anon IPs to edit war, while all the IPs were in fact socks of Hetoum and reverted the article for him. An admin action is necessary to prevent further disruption by this person. The above report is apparently a retaliation for my report here: [78] As one can see, yesterday Hetoum's ban was extended to 1 year, but since he evaded it again with yet another sock, Fazeri, I think it is time to consider the indefinite ban, since this user is going to defy the arbitration enforcement. Grandmaster 07:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it does seem quite suspicious that Fazeri (the suspected sock) reverted to the same version as the confirmed sock. Recommend that a CU check into this case. GlassCobra 02:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The CU confirmed that Fazeri was the banned user Hetoum evading his ban, the sock account is blocked. [79] Grandmaster 05:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Valeska Suratt

There's a disagreement between User:Wildhartlivie and myself over the admittance of an External Link in the Valeska Suratt article. The link is from a site Forgetthetalkies.com which is supposed to be a site that is on a 'spamlist'. I have no idea of what the previous site to Forgetthetalkies is, or whether the site was a spam site as Wildhartlivie claims. Wildhartlivie says the owner of the site was called Maggiedane and changed his/her name to LalaPickford. Wildhartlivie does not explain how he knows this. The present site , Forgetthetalkies, offers accurate information on subject of Valeska Suratt. The present site appears as a responsible & researched page and offers useful and helpful information to the film researcher. So I can't figure as to why Wildhartlivie reverts this link which appears as a different site from any previous site full of erroneous info or spam. Wildhartlivie, from what I've observed, picks and chooses 'what he thinks' is permissible or appropriate. That's not acceptable in editing Wikipedia is it not? Personal opinions and grievances must be left off editing Wikipedia. A previous example of Wildhartlivie clashing with information I submitted, was information concerning Jean Harlow and her involvement with Howard Hughes and that she had had an abortion of Hughes's baby. The Harlow info came from a published work but Wildhartlivie declared the published author as unreliable. Who is he to say? Is this 'personal choice' thing by users and editors a new trend in Wikipedia? I couldn't find any reason why the 'new' Forgetthetalkies website link couldn't be added to the Valeska Suratt External Links section regardless of the goings on or irresponsibility of any previous website. Well thank you, Ill appreciate any input to settle matter once and for all. Koplimek (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the past discussions or looked at the website yet. But for reference for others, here are links to the past discussions that I could find. Additional uses of the link can be found here.

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 30#Forget the Talkies
• Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 7#Hollywood Babylon/FTT

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the material Barek supplied, & considering that this is about whether to add one external link to an article, I'd say (1) this is not linkspam, & (2) because it is to a list of movies that this actress is believed to have appeared in (all of which no longer exist & which is identical to the list at IMDB), I'm not too concerned whether the intent of WP:NOR is being violated here. Moreover, this is a content dispute which really does not belong here; at the most, someone could inform Wildhartlive that she/he is misusing the term "linkspam", & tell you that Wildhartlive should use the reason "duplicate information" for removing this link. You can pursue a resolution for this thru the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but frankly if I were you I'd drop this matter & move on to another article. Life is short & there's a lot of work on Wikipedia in need of being done. -- llywrch (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It would be, at the least, common courtesy if an editor is notified when something is posted here about them. It would also be extremely helpful if someone would stop italicizing my username as if it were something disdainful. I tried to explain clearly that this website, which is a blog, was added to the spamlist after it was repeatedly spammed into multiple articles by the site owner, who uses two different usernames here, User:Maggiedane and User:Thegingerone, and who admitted in the WP:NOR/N and WP:RS/N posts above to being the owner. I also noted that on the blog in question, the same person goes by the username HalaPickford and offered to give him the links that confirm this. Maggiedane also confirmed her ownership of the site which was spammed into dozens of articles on Koplimek's talk page, along with an incivil personal attack to me. I'm really sorry that the site owner finds this personal, but whatever. She was denied both MedCab and ArbCom filings for much the same issue regarding spamming of the website, during which one Arbcom member commented that "From what I can see here, the request for comment should be made on Maggiedane and her edits." Personally published self-researched sites don't fall under WP:RS guidelines, and they specifically fall under WP:ELNO. Calling me a bully and telling me to bite her [80] does not change that. Forgetthetalkies is not a new website, nor did I ever state that, however it is a self-published, non-vetted opinion blog. I also told Koplimek that the identical content, the filmography for Surratt, is available from a reliable source at Moviefone. In short, there is no valid reason to retain a link to a blogspot page that duplicates content available on a site considered a reliable source. That's it in a nutshell. As for the Harlow content, Koplimek made one post to the article, here, which contained controversial content, and did not add a citation to the article, but only in an edit summary, which I reverted here, specifically noting "this sort of content absolutely MUST be sourced *in the article* and not just in an edit summary." Similar uncited content was posted to Marlene Dietrich, Rita Hayworth and Howard Hughes. I also posted to his talk page, including links to learn how to properly cite content, which resulted in a protracted discussion [81] [82] in which he basically dismissed the idea that content about a notable actress having an abortion is controversial because it was published in a source, without citing the source. There was never a discussion about whether a source was reliable, that is simply misrepresentation of the discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I took the liberty of notifying Wildhartlivie after reading this post here. I'm not involved in the dispute on the Valeska Suratt, but I'd like to comment on the Forgetthetalkies link as I have removed it from several different articles myself. As Wildhartlivie has stated above, the link has been the subject of discussions on several different occasions because of its inclusion on various articles here. User:Maggiedane first attempted to use it as a source while also adding it as an external link. Aside from that, Maggiedane has freely admitted that she not a published authority on the topic(s) and has a clear COI regarding the link(s). These actions are what led to the finally being blacklisted. Wildhartlivie certainly is not the only editor to remove the link because it simply does not belong here, she's just the one catching heat for it. Further, the only user making this "personal" is Maggiedane and that is evident from the various personal attacks she has made against Wildhartlivie. Since she comments here so infrequently, I suppose she assumes she can get away with it and has been correct in that assumption so far. That said, I fully agree that this issue doesn't belong on AN/I and proper dispute resolution steps should have been taken first before bringing the matter here. Pinkadelica^♣ 23:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Constant unsourced information

Resolved

EddieRox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - following his last block here this user has shown himself unable to enter into dialogue about his edits, which are entirely and remorselessly adding unsourced information to articles. I've just spent ten minutes clearing up his latest mess; block of at least a fortnight requested, plus a strongly-worded note from an admin. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 21:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How weird. This user has never made any edit to any talk space or user space content. It looks minor at first glance, but I can see this must be frustrating. Have a look at the edit count via Soxred93's edit counter tool. There are 111 live edits, with a few in 2007 and al the rest just recently; and all edits are in article space. The edits don't look like vandalism, but they get reverted and he never discusses. Never seen anything like it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

So... can an administrator respond to this, perhaps? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 06:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please? ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 17:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm, since he has been previously blocked for inserting silly unsourced content into articles, has not reacted to this in any way, and now continues to insert silly unsourced content into articles, I've blocked him for a week. Please report to AIV, with reference to this section, or to me should he carry on after his block.  Sandstein  19:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I initially did report to AIV, but was told to bring it here :P ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 19:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian, Ikip, and Dream Focus

An issue has come to my attention, Collectonian is stalking Dream focus. It all started when Collectonian proded and Dream Focus unprodded an article.

Salad Days (manga):

• 19:55, 10 November 2009 Collectonian (2,754 bytes) (Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD. using TW)[83]
• 20:08, 10 November 2009 Dream Focus (1,957 bytes) (deproded. Spend years in a magazine read by millions, so its common sense notable)[84]

Collectonian's stalking

FIRST Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abattoir (comics)

Collectonian commented. 20:41, 10 November 2009.[85]

After Dream Focus commented. 16:15, 10 November 2009. [86]

SECOND Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company

Collectonian commented. 20:40, 10 November 2009.[87]

After Dream Focus commented. 16:20, 10 November 2009.[88]

THIRD Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography

Collectonian brings up Rape in the United States of America that Dream recently created and was working on, at 20:45, 10 November 2009. [89]

When Dream focus accuses Collectonian of stalking, Collection states:

"Says thee who immediately deprodded an article that I had just prodded?"[90] This sounds like retribution to Dream Focus for deprodding the article Salad Days (manga).

When I show the history of this stalking, Collectonian unapologetically accuses me of personal attacks, irrelevantly bringing up her gender:

"Take the personal attacks elsewhere please and allow neutral people to answer my actual legitimate question because god forbid a woman actually have some interest in the topic of rape, and questions the creation of a new article for just the US when no other country has an individual article that I could see."[91]

Ironically, Collectonian herself has been a victim of stalking her first ANI her for this now indefenitely blocked editor had complaints at the same level of stalking.

Comparison of Collectonian accusation of stalking in 2008 and Collectonians stalking today
Collectonian initially accused User:Abtract of stalking her on three pages. Collectonion also stalked Dream Focus today on three.
User:Abtract	User:Collectionian
List of Harry Potter related topics 20:42, 30 May 2008 [92]	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abattoir (comics) [93]
Aladdin (disambiguation) 23:43, 1 June 2008 [94]	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company[95]
Meerkat Manor 23:49, 1 June 2008 [96] (twice)	Rape in the United States of America [97]

I have no faith that the community will do a damn thing against an admin, but hope dies last. Ikip (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

One: Collectonian isn't an admin.

Two: It appears that this is also now at WP:WQA. I don't suppose there's any chance that this could be dealt with in one forum, instead of three?

Three: I don't really think this is stalking. Editor A isn't forbidden from looking at Editor B's contributions if they feel that Editor B is doing something wrong in multiple places. And commenting in AFD's or pointing out what you see as questionable articles on a relevant Wikiproject talk page isn't harassment.

Four: There is no four. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Stalking is a general persistence of opposing an editor's actions across multiple issues over a relatively extended time period, rather than on several edits related to a single issue. Equazcion (talk) 22:07, 10 Nov 2009 (UTC)

thank you for the correction.Ikip (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• This seems to be at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Personal_Attacks as well now. Is there any possible way she could've found her way to the two other AFD without stalking me? And since she found my new article and commented on it somewhere just minutes later, seems a bit suspicious as well. Based on her past events, I think she is just out to get even with someone. Her comments do sound like that. Dream Focus 22:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There are half a dozen ways to any article. In the WQA you claim that you learned of the prod by seeing it posted to the deletion sort, but apparently you are the only one allowed to monitor any deletion discussions? Of the two AfDs you note, one is in comics (sister project to AfD), and the other was clearly listed in Category:Relisted AfD debates along with several others I've been commenting on over the last hour or two between dealing with the personal attacks and new Bambifan101 socks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) As a note, Ikip did NOT notify me of his report here. I learned of it after he posted about it in the WQA I filed about his and Dream Focus' remarks in the project talk page. It should also be noted that he filed this AFTER receiving the notification that I had filed a WQA about him and DF. I posted my notification at 15:44[98], while posted this and removed that notice at 15:55[99][100]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

They were filed a few seconds apart weren't they? By the time he finished getting his links and writing it, you had started an article elsewhere. And he did mention this to you over there, knowing you'd see them, so it wasn't like he was hiding anything. Dream Focus 22:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

10 MINUTES equal to seconds? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Point of order: unless someone objects within 5 minutes, I'm going to move this thread to Wikipedia:WQA#Personal Attacks. Somebody has to decide where to do it, might as well be me? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  This is a stalking issue, not a personal attack issue. Lets wait and get links for the long history of her off and on again attacks on various edits, and discuss the case here. Dream Focus 22:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  Unfortunately it seems neither will allow a venue change, and Ikip is determined to very wrongly and falsely claim that I am stalking it and his daring to compare it to the months of stalking from Abstract is taking this beyond just a civility issue. Anyone who follow that long drama would know that his attempts to compare about are beyond disgusting. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Either way there isn't going to be any admin intervention in this matter, and as such, the discussion should probably take place at WQA, in my opinion. Equazcion (talk) 22:20, 10 Nov 2009 (UTC)

As per Collectonian's own ANI in 2008, against Abstract, the initial complaint is VERY similar, three complaints of stalking, Collectonian's stalking took place the same day, Abstract's stalking took place over three days. It appears like nothing initially was done in that ANI, but, like the Abstract case, now Collectonian and the community is on notice.

You can't have it both ways Collectian, you can't complain of being a victim of stalking, then clearly stalk other editors. This is a stalking issue, which belongs here.

Equazcion, respectfully, I would hope other admins have a chance to see this post also, they may have other opinions. Ikip (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blocks aren't punitive, so that doesn't seem likely. And respectfully, can we please dispense with the circular arguments? Saying someone shouldn't accuse others of stalking when they're doing it themselves isn't constructive, because it is the very allegation of stalking that is being discussed. Let's stick to arguments that instead back up the claim of stalking. Equazcion (talk) 22:30, 10 Nov 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Again, BS. You are pointing to a specific single ANI in a very long issue and trying to claim any similarity. There is none at all. There is no stalking here at all, only you two taking a chance to try to stir up drama for no other reason that to try to get rid of someone you consider an enemy. Both of you have repeatedly made personal attacks against myself and anyone else you consider a "deletionist" and those veiled and unveiled attacks are well documented and easily locatable, starting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Dream Focus. He himself started a seemingly personal vendetta because his Gantz equipment list was deleted, by consensus, in January[101], including making both on and offwiki remarks directed at myself and others. His entire user page is a lengthy attack page against "deletionists". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Notice the obvious slander? I had participated in AFD discussions before the Gantz equipment page thing, we going through this several times already. And the nonsense linked to was a group of people who argued with me in various manga AFD who were in fact going after me for that reason. Nothing came of it, because they clearly had no case. Lets stay on the topic please, and not distract people with unrelated nonsense. Looking at the timeline of the articles that she followed me into, and her words, does it not seem like she was stalking me to get even with someone she thought had wronged her? Dream Focus 22:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Stalking is stalking Collectonian. Dream didn't stalk your edits, you stalked his. When we call you on it, you call that a personal attack.

We wouldn't be here if:

1. you wouldn't have stalked him, or
2. if you would have apologized for stalking instead of lashing out at those who question your behavior.

Equazcion has asked me to stop bringing up unrelated incidents, and I will, on your part, I would strongly suggest you stop bringing up counter motives, and focus on the core stalking that happened today. Lets all, including myself, try to stay at the top of the triangle, File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg

Dream, please ignore the personal critiques, and off topic comments. Sigh.

Collect, I apologize for not contacting you within 6 to 15 minutes after I finished creating this ANI.[102][103][104] It was my intention too, so that there would be no complaints about not being notified. After I finished this section, I recieved a message on my talk page, and when I went to look at, I saw you opened up a grievance on another page. Ikip (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

So that everyone is perfectly clear. You are denouncing retaliatory reports and arguing that pointing out problems with conduct do not constitute personal attacks? Protonk (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I do have a bias in this issue and would, if it is ok, to state why, in a way being a character witness against Collectonian, all I am saying is fact and cant be considered a personal attack as it is stating what happened. In a discussion on the Village Pump (policy) Collectonian went off-topic and accused me of not having a valid point based on having created an article "completely unreferenced", this was a personal attack, though not very vicious I believe it was used with the purpose of "discrediting" me. The article was the very first one I ever created from scratch, and it was referenced if you check the talk page it was all referenced from one source and I put it on the talk page, as I was relatively new and was still learning (policy is clear that this is not a violation of the referencing and ignorance of our way of doing things is not a "crime" nor does it illegitimize contributions). She failed to mention the many superior articles I have created, including a GA that I created from scratch and was pretty much the sole author of and implied that others in the discussion had created multiple GAs and FAs and I havent (actually she probably got that one article from the list on my user page, which many of those at the top of my list could be GAs easily if I cared one cent about that title, I intentionally no longer put articles I work on for GA/FA/FL). This actually is relevant towards her character though no stalking occured in my case as it does show what kind of "debater" she is and I do feel it should be taken into consideration regarding her credibility and actions.Camelbinky (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, anyone reading these remarks should look at the heated Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#SPOILER_ALERT_disclaimers discussion and make their own opinions on what is and is not a personal attack and on the purpose of this remark. For those feeling tl;dr about it, Camelbinky while arguing that plots should be removed from all artilces unless sourced to a secondary source, he stated specifically "You want me to be "transparent" and consistent then? Ok, no exception, if the plot summary isnt covered anywhere then you cant have one, if no secondary source covers an aspect of your book, movie, etc then it isnt notable and you cant have it; remove it, and that goes for the entire article as well...I cant get away with this crap on the history and geography articles I love to work on". In response, I specifically pointed out an article that he created that had no secondary sources, noting "you claim you don't "get away with it" on articles, yet I see you have created wholly unsourced articles, while several defending fictional articles here have crafted FA and GA level articles on those topics, with a proper plot summary in each". It was not a personal attack, but a refute of his claim that unsourced content was not allowed in article he edits on. He later posted a diatribe claiming he was "gang attacked" and had been attacked.[105] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Copy/Pasting content from WP:WQA thread

Boldly moving WQA text to ANI; Collectonian was kind enough to defer to others, Dream Focus wasn't willing to move from ANI, so easier to do it his way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
start of content copied from WQA User:Dream Focus and User:Ikip are tag-teaming and making personal attacks against me aand false accusations of stalking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography#Split from Rape because I dared to response to some AfD four HOURS after DF, while commenting on various other AfDs, and because I questioned the creation of a new article on Rape by DF that he himself advertised on Rape[106], an article I happened to be paying attention to after the whole fiasco over a certain extremely long AfD on the high school homecoming dance rape. He claims I am stalking him, yet somehow magically found my neutrally worded question on a project talk page that he himself states he had was unaware of before. Ask that someone intervene in their highly inappropriate and unsupported accusations. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• PLEASE, read everything that was said there, and take it in context. She is highly skilled at distorting things. Dream Focus 21:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• 20:45, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography ‎ (→Split from Rape: new section)
• 20:41, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abattoir (comics) ‎ (delete)
• 20:40, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company ‎ (delete) (top) [rollback]
• 20:33, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga ‎ (→Anime and manga: add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad Days (manga)) (top) [rollback]
• 20:33, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad Days (manga) ‎ (tweak)
• 20:32, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad Days (manga) ‎ (tagged as a Anime and manga-related XfD discussion (script-assisted).)
• 20:31, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 10 ‎ (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad Days (manga). using TW)
• 20:31, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad Days (manga) ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Salad Days (manga). using TW)
• 20:31, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:202.51.230.181 ‎ (AfD nomination of Salad Days (manga). using TW) (top) [rollback]
• 20:31, 10 November 2009 (hist | diff) Salad Days (manga) ‎ (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad Days (manga). using TW) (top) [rollback]

• This timeline shows the affected articles. I have the anime and manga deletion list on my watchlist. I have participated in AFD there for about a year now. I was online at the time, and noticed something added, so had a look at it, and deproded it. She then claims I'm out to get her. She goes to two AFD articles I recently said Keep in, and says Delete, she having no interest in those things before, and no possible way of finding them. I noticed her commenting in both of them, find it odd, so check her recent contributions and find that after she did that, she went to the Wikiproject for crime and mentioned a recent article I had created. Dream Focus 21:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

since this is an issue of stalking, it is better addressed at WP:ANI, which I created before I was alerted to this page.

As I wrote on the wikiproject page, STOP STALKING DREAM and we will stop accusing you of stalking. Accusing another editor of stalking when they clearly are, is not a personal attack.

you can't have it both ways collectonian, you can't complain about editors stalking you, as you have historically done, and yet stalk other editors with impunity. Ikip (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest closing either this or the ANI discussion, rather than carrying on this same discussion simultaneously in two venues. Equazcion (talk) 22:03, 10 Nov 2009 (UTC)

This report came first, with Ikip apparently filing an ANI (without notification to me, as an FYI) after he was given appropriate notice of the thread. He removed my notice and filed his ANI in the same minute. Will leave to others to decide which venue it should now be continued in -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends; there's a 10% chance that this can be handled sans drama here, and a 5% chance that could happen at ANI. Since I don't foresee any admin tools being used at the moment, I suggest here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

end content copied from WQA

Talk:Alex Jones (radio host) and BLP

Could someone explain what's wrong with this redacted version of an edit removed by User:Gwen Gale. I don't want to bring a 3RR violation against Gwen, without understanding his reasoning, but it does seem appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont see any problem with this at all. talk page comments are considered sacred on wikipedia (too bad the same can't be said about articles) Ikip (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Unsourced negative content about living persons anywhere on en.Wikipedia is a violation of WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, did you notice Arthur redacted the part that could be taken for a BLP violation in his last edit? I have a hard time seeing why the last edit of his was reverted, except that it wasn't immediately clear that he'd redacted the snide comment, and you though he had just reverted you. I assume it isn't this simple to solve... --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

He did not redact the BLP violation. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, he redacted the borderline part; I don't think what was left is a BLP violation. Once the "and he sort of is" was removed, the original poster isn't saying Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist (and worse), he's saying that's what our article is saying at the moment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec x3) It's not "contentious" with respect to Alex, it's not negative (which is actually not relevant to WP:BLP), and there are sources. For example [107] (stating that others refer to him as a nutty conspiracy theorist). I'm sure that we can find a reliable source stating that he states that others refer to him as a nutty conspiracy theorist. In fact, it's likely that one of the 7 5 sources in the article lede for "conspiracy theorist" states that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• "I'm not saying their necessarily needs to be controversial or negative comments about Alex or his program, i'm simply saying that there should be more info on the general topics he discusses on his program as to give readers more examples of what kind of things they can expect to find on his show. And yeah sure get some direct quotes from Alex himself too. Perhaps some info on his criticism of Obama, or the 9/11 truth movement, or the NWO. Because in a whole the wikipedia page for Alex just pretty much states he has a show, makes films, and people regard him as a (which in a way he IS) but I think the page could certainly use some expansion, thats all. And a little more biographical info would be good too. " Point to the BLP violation. Protonk (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced negative commentary (moreover original research) about living persons isn't allowed. Without a source, it's a violation of WP:BLP. If someone can source such a comment to a reliable publicatation and post it on their own, it won't be a violation. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've redacted the BLP vio from the above, I'll not be drawn into posting it. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's still not contentious, which is the wording used in WP:BLP. Does anyone doubt that people refer to him as a "nutty conspiracy theorist". Does anyone consider the assertion that people refer to him as a "nutty conspiracy theorist" as potentially libelous? (That's not a requirement for it to be a BLP violation, either, but it's closer to being a requirement than being "negative".) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Protonk was trying to trick you into a BLP violation, Gwen, I really don't. I disagree with this interpretation of BLP, and am a little surprised you won't explain yourself more fully than you are. What you removed is a description of the current state of the article. I'm a firm believer in WP:BLP, but removing entire talk page comments when only a portion was borderline, and making people pull teeth to get an explanation, actually hurts the cause; it makes BLP'er look too extreme, and others are less likely to take it seriously. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, anyone is welcome to add their own reliably sourced post with negative commentary to the talk page (or the article). Gwen Gale (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If there is a BLP violation on a talk page then the better solution would be to delete only the violation, not the entire posting. Also, If there's a dispute over what part is in violation then the editors should try to communicate off-Wiki. We shouldn't put editors in a situation where we delete their text and then refuse to say what was offensive about it. Personally, the only thing that appears to me to be a potential BLP violation would be the word "nutty". It would have been sufficient to redact that word.   Will Beback  talk  23:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it was offensive. Unsourced negative commentary about living persons isn't allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, but all you had to do was redact that one word, not get into an aedit war over deleting the entire post.   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting a repeated BLP violation is not edit warring. Redacting a single word may or may not be enough. Talk pages are not forums for individual outlooks on living persons. If someone wants to bring up something negative about a living person, they must cite a reliable source. Start citing sources or drop it. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The comment you removed was a description of the state of the article. Please read it again. People have to be able to describe the state of the article on a talk page, or there's no point in having a talk page. If you disagree, could you please, as a favor to me, address this specific point? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The BLP violation was not "a description of the state of the article," it was unsourced negative commentary on a living person, which as I've said many times now, isn't allowed anywhere on en.Wikipedia. One can't use a talk page (or ANI) as a WP:Coatrack or otherwise WP:Wikilawyer for unsourced negative commentary about a living person. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing that point. Quote: "Because in a whole the wikipedia page for Alex just pretty much states he has a show, makes films, and people regard him as a...". IMHO, that is a description of the state of the article. I have no desire to be accused of wikilawyering, so I guess I'll move on, but I think you're misinterpreting things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There are five sources in the article that describe the subject as a "conspiracy theorist". The idea that editors would also need a citation every time they use the phrase "conspiracy theorist" on the talk page is pushing BLP to an absurd conclusion. Do editors posting to talk:Richard Ramirez need to attach a citation every time they call him a murderer? No, and deleting every uncited comment to that effect would be disruptive without helping the encyclopeia or the biography subjects.   Will Beback  talk  23:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This thread is not about a convicted serial killer. Making the comparison is in itself a borderline BLP violation. Calling a convicted serial killer a murderer on a talk page is most likely not a violation of BLP. This is my last warning: Editors who make unsourced negative commentary about living persons, or restore them, will be blocked from editing. Reliably cited negative commentary is ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the exact phrase that was unsourced? Obviously it wasn't "conspiracy theorist".   Will Beback  talk  00:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The specific phrase in question was not necessary in a discussion on improving the article. Alex Jones a living person, and the article talk page is not a forum. Simply redacting the questionable content might have been more efficient, but the actual burden was on User:Iscream22 to bring his post in line with policy. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "conspiracy theorist" is sourced, and using it does not violate policy.   Will Beback  talk  00:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Since when? Hitting "undo" to wipe out a user's entire post over one term is just plain laziness, IMO. There is nothing POV or negative about calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" if that is how said person is referred to by reliable sources. This term is used in the lead of the article and is also the name of a category that the article is in. The only quibble here should have been over the n-word (no, not that n-word) qualifier, which could have easily been redacted by anyone, not just an admin, saving us a pile of drama. Tarc (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(reply to both Will and Tarc) The "conspiracy theorist" part wasn't the entirety of the problem; the term that referred to the person's mental state was the issue. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If so then the best solution would have been to redact the word "n___y". Overzealous enforcement of any policy leads to unhelpful consequences, such as this thread.   Will Beback  talk  00:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidently the phrase in question is "people regard him as a nutty conspiracy theorist (which in a way he IS)". I'll thank Gwen not to refactor my comments any more. I'm still left wondering how this is such an egregious violation of BLP that it required scrubbing not only from a talk page describing the subject but also from a policy board discussing the phrase itself. I think that discussion of Alex Jones is effectively neutered if we are unable to even talk about allegations that he's a conspiracy nut without having comments redacted by admins. Permission granted to apply common sense to the BLP policy. Rather than wiping out a comment, then refusing to justify it, then edit warring over it then redacting it from a discussion about the edit all while refusing to explain its import, couldn't you just have asked the editor to change the phrasing or god forbid, let it slide? Protonk (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm pretty much a BLP hawk, but I don't think the terms of that policy have been properly applied here. As specifically applied to talk pages, the pertinent text reads: "Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ('oversighted') if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc). New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources." [my italics] This less stringent restriction makes a great deal of sense as applied to talk pages; it encourages discussion and analysis of potentially questionable material, in order to, as BLP says, "get the article right. In terms of BLP's goals, it's much better to air things fully on a talk page than to embed dueling variations on a sensitive topic in the article itself. In this case, the language setting off the dispute isn't any more derisive than can be found in many sources, and is a good faith, reasonably accurate presentation of the subject's reputation in some non-fringe quarters. Here, for example, an opinion piece published recently by a major American newspaper includes the subject in its catalog of "loonies." [108]

Was the comment that set this off poorly phrased? Of course it was, but it was also clearly part of a good faith attempt to determine what the article content should be. The response would have been more effective if the immediate reply was on the order of "Whether he is or not comes down to personal opinion; rather than giving us your opinion on that, because the only content suitable for out article would concern his reputation in the outside world, let's have some examples of published comments that treat him that way." If the editor couldn't back up his/her assessment of the subject's reputation, then it would be time to redact his/her comments and move on.

And of course much of this drama could have been avoided if the comment had originally been presented as, or refactored to, "a proponent of nutty [or perhaps wacky] conspiracy theories," which sidesteps the "mental state" problems. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. As strict as I am on BLPs, I really don't see the violation here. Calling someone "nutty" in a Talk page is common and not a statement of fact. It's not meant to imply an actual mental health issue. Even then, such a discussion would be better off closed as off-topic, rather than removed as a BLP violation (see Talk:Time Cube). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Only the infringing part should have been removed. Unfortunatly the overuse of BLP on this article is a frequent and problomatic concern. No matter how well sourced something that can be construed as negative is on this particular article.. it somehow finds away to be removed due to BLP. the article as it stands is not really an accurate representation of the controversies surrounding this individual. How can you have an article about santa clause without mentioning christmas-Tracer9999 (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Roman Polanski interpreter or referee needed

• Roman Polanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Proofreader77 (talk · contribs)
• Tombaker321 (talk · contribs)

Apologies for posting here but I'm afraid the talkpage on Roman Polanski is rather spiraling well out of any semblance of collegial cooperation. I've personally been accused of many things but being thick (stupid) is pretty low on the list, yet two editors Proofreader77 and Tombaker321, seem to be locked horns with otherwise other well-intended editors seem to be trying to untangle a mass volume of verbiology - IMHO from Proofreader77 - to try to step through any solution. I think there actually is some NPOV dispute on this BLP but after many days of trying to get a clear/concise "I think this sentence should state XYZ instead of XXX" we still seems to out of balance on the signal to noise measures.

I've first experienced what I feel are some WP:Own-ership issues with Proofreader77 when trying to remove {{BLP sources}} from the article, something that apparently happened many times before. The article seems well sourced but they cited WP:Original Research concerns but were unswayed that we had a more appropriate tag for that. I found that annoying but the talkpage on adding or removing content. Whatever subject along with many others was archived away as the volume on the talkpage can be measured in truckloads, mostly from this editor and those trying to sort out what's going on with them. (Note: struck example that was clearly a different editor)

They may be making good points but it seems veiled in layers of discussion including mark-up and redirects and frankly is all a bit WP:TLDR thus repelling away those who may actually be able to assist. Lately they have been admonishing, both publicly and on their talkpage, Tombaker321 fro removing the NPOV tag from the section, Roman Polanski#Sexual assault case. This is a 32-year old case that remains open and has been headline news for this film director as he was arrested in Switzerland in an effort by the US to extradite and try him for the charges. The content ballooned out of control and luckily a subpage for needless details has staved off much of the drama. There remains some outstanding issues but they, and other relevant issues to improve the article all seem lost in this barrage of words which I remain hopeful are well-intended. Some other eyes on this would be welcome as every time I take a break and then return to it, there seems more ratcheted-up heat than closer to well-spoken disputes emerging. -- Banjeboi 23:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader77

NOTE ADDED AFTER REACTION: re markup at ANI
A submission to Signpost "opinion" request. Read the one on the left:
User:Proofreader77/Two Wikipedia opinion sonnets linked by "civility"

• Quick acknowledgement that I am aware of this ANI topic. Agree it is certainly time for broader scrutiny. NOTE: The underlying issue may better be addressed at WP:BLPN (a NPOV clarification in the context of a BLP), but the path of how this is progressing amidst some admittedly extraordinary measures (arising from the highly culturally contentious current-events inflamed matter of the Roman Polanski case) certainly has aspects which can well, and perhaps should, be addressed here.

  NOTE: I must deal with some real world matters for a several hours, but will return to give my perspective.

  FORMAL REQUEST: If acceptible, I would ask that complex discussion of the matter be delayed until I provide my more complete initial response. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• NOTE: Banjeboi: paragraph 2

“ I first experienced some WP:Own-erish issues with Proofreader77 when trying to remove {{BLP sources}} from the article, something that apparently happened many times before. The article seems well sourced but they cited WP:Original Research concerns but were unswayed that we had a more appropriate tag for that. ”

Mistaken (wasn't me)

• Probable intended editor 18 October 2009 Sinneed EDIT SUMMARY: (The refimprove was lost repeatedly in the edit warring over the arrest. Restoring it, with its comment.)
• See: Archived discussion: Talk:Roman_Polanski/Archive_5#Refimprove restored - lost in the edit warring after the arrest

(Response status update: I am currently preparing response with diffs/data etc. A complex matter.) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• ABOUT / WIKIBACKGROUND: Proofreader77 (me) sometimes does current events wrangling. EXAMPLE: The weekend of the Koss rumor about Sarah Palin (on Monday she would reveal her daughter was pregnant to the press, partly because of "the rumor" of something else), I was working the talk page, keeping rumor from being discussed on the talk page (and out of the article) for BLP reasons.

  re Roman Polanski - Very contentious edit-warring/personal attacks ... full lock from Oct 1-8. I began doing what I sometimes do on Oct 3. Lots of energy arrived determined to make the BLP as negative as possible. Lots of aspersions on the character of anyone appearing not in agreement with villification. STORY: I noticed one new editor was so upset by the atmosphere, they erased their user and talk page and began undoing all their Roman Polanski talk page edits that could be undone. I had not witnessed something like that before, and it hurt to watch. So I left them a note, put a picture back on their (erased) user page ... and they came back. Probably first and last time I'll do that. Extraordinary circumstances.

  Extraordinary measures: Banjeboi doesn't understand what I'm doing. I'm not at all surprised. What I do is a complex response to the situation (no, not the cause of it). Although it may not seem like it, I am a sort of practical expert at rhetorical interaction. The BLP NPOV issues of Roman Polanski are very complex, and affected by the set of editors who arrive, given the givens.

  I would like for you to pause now and imagine that I know what I'm doing. That there is a hard BLP NPOV issue to solve ... which has to be solved more complexly than usual. That complexity involves, of course, the editors at hand.

  And what all that text on Talk:Roman Polanski is ... is documenting the issue so it can be resolved.

  The arrival of this at ANI followed the final steps of documentation—including my warning[s] of Tombaker321 for disruption.
  (1st)
  (add documentation +3RR)
  (2nd)

  On that note I pause, save this here, and go to gather the next part of this response. Less words,:) more diffs and data. (to be continued in the next few hours) Proofreader77 (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• What came before:

Stages - how we got to here

(Stage 1) 75K "discussion" of a block quote (lots of logic) Tombaker321 v Proofreader77's blockquote (Primary) probation officer's report (temp?) blockquote (& NPOV)] (Archive/locked unresolved) “ Unresolved Current discussion is locked in repetitive unproductive loop filling up the talk page. Broader issue of NPOV balance probably to be continued in NPOVN in due time. ” (Stage 2.a) TomBaker321 begins to reword and expand (summary) section of Sexual assault case (note: case has own article Roman Polanski sexual abuse case—detail of summary version should be appropriately limited) Proofreader77 documents changes/expansion with topic: :Recent rewording of sexual abuse case (claim: "more NPOV"/disagree) (Stage 2.b) Proofreader77 adds {{POV-section}} - Impetus: Tombaker321 had so-far expanded the summary section ~25% ... and Proofreader77 had experienced what kind of "discussion" would ensue to balance (given that there is no clarification yet of the NPOV interpretation differences which would make discussion something other than futile). (EVENT - Stage 3.a) Banjeboi (as doppelganger: Benjiboi) condenses summary to ~400 words—an acceptible consensus size for summary (which has a main article) (Comment: Tombaker321 believes this to be part of NPOV dispute. But Banjeboi/Benjiboi has no horse in that race. Tombaker321 is outraged.) (3.b) Tombaker321 edit wars to undo Banjeboi/Benjiboi condensing (with another editor - not Proofreader77) 08:48, 6 November 2009 NOTE: characterizes exp. editors condensing of overgrown summary as "weed whacking" 21:41, 6 November 2009 NOTE: Mistakenly believes condensing is part of NPOV process 02:27, 7 November 2009 (ditto) (3.c) Tombaker321 edit wars to remove POV tag (with Proofreader77) 12:20, 8 November 2009 01:41, 9 November 2009 04:46, 9 November 2009 (Stage 4) ANI - Banjeboi goes to ANI to cast aspersions on Proofreader77 :) [stop Proofreader77 from confusing Tombaker321 with all those words?] [for the good of the community!] ... but that is exactly what needed to be done next. The universe works. :)

• What now?

1. Tombaker321 is an articulate new Wikipedia editor who, I would say based on our many hours of interaction, believes strongly in his powers of judgment—and that his interpretation is actionable, and if his interpretation is not being followed by others (at least on some matters), drama will ensue. (NOTE: He has been encouraged rather than restrained by a more experienced editor—who will not be named at present.)

   Guidance: Adjustment of perspective re enforceability of one's judgement. Admonished not to edit war over a tag which says "don't remove until the dispute has been resolved." Do not assume you may make those you disagree with comply with precise specifications defined by yourself. Do not assume everything is such a rush.

   And specifically be informed that a section of an article which has its own article should not be expected to keep growing.

2. With disruptive patterns calmed, we can move to the getting on the same page with respect to what NPOV in a BLP means—as the specific selection of facts are balanced (in the sentences of the summary). At this moment, we are not. Perhaps incommensurable. :) Perhaps WP:BLPN? Or something.

   [CODA] It has repeatedly been said (misleadingly) that I have not provided any specifics. Of course it depends on what the meaning of "specifics" is. The demand has been repeated (as a rhetorical hammer) that "specifics" are completed rewrites of precisely what one wants to see with final refs. Let's be very clear. There would be no POV tag if that was the requirement before one placed it.

   The specifics I have provided are sufficient to convey, most surely to those who have seen the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (as Tombaker321 has) the information that should alter specific sentences I've enumerated (based on information provided in spoken interviews with prosecutor Roger Gunson and defense attorney Douglas Dalton). I have also specifically mentioned that if the summary of the grand jury testimony in sentence 2 is included, then a similar condensed summary of the probation report should be included providing the rationale for why not prison. Or, as alternative, remove it altogether.

   Those are specifics. But the specific that determines all is the meaning of NPOV in a BLP of Roman Polanski in the culturally contentious matter of the Sexual assault case.

BOTTOM LINE: An experienced editor posted a (primi facie ridiculous) "drive-by tagging" response when I first opened the NPOVD. Tombake321 has kept up the chant as a rhetorical hammer. Demanding "specifics" by his definition. That's really the issue. Tombaker321 appears to believe that he has perfect discernment of what the "NPOV" facts are. We disagree.

“ Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are.

It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. (FROM: WP:NPOVD)

”

That's my POV. Proofreader77 (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Tombaker321

• I am researching Polanski, and editing the topic. I believe a certain base level of information needs to be within the main Polanski reference, that it have quick encyclopedic information regarding what is in the news now, about the events 30 years ago. The content was about 4 paragraphs, which had be hammered out over the course of weeks in discussion. The 4 was reduced to 3 paragraphs, for economy of words only. These deletions were never reviewed, however they instantly became incorporated into a NPOVD which used the 3 paragraph version as the base line. I do not believe this was the intent of the editor who compacted the entry, by deleting specifics. The original NPOVD then suddenly starts with this 3 version as its baseline. I tried repeatedly to restore the 4 paragraph version, as the version for whatever this NPOVD process would be, but could not. I then attempted to gain clarification of what the NPOVD was asking for. I looked at the information about NPOVD and asked for specifics. Bear in mind the NPOVD was raised by the formation of Sonnet couplets.
• After not being able to get specifics, and my requests wholly ignored and the substance not replied to...I removed the NPOVD tag, and gave long details to as to why it was removed. I would spell out my concerns and they simple were not responded to in substance. There was nothing being asked to be done to remedy the NPOVD. However, there was an attempt to cap the amount of words able to be used to 500.
• Proofreader77 started a new NPOVD, to which I tried to show was new, and for the dispute to go forward without the anchorage of the past. Lets start over and move forward, is my logic. I created a new section for the new dispute to go forward. Fresh slate was my thinking. It seems like this olive branch is not being accepted. As it stand now, without clarification of what the NPOVD dispute is....I think the Tag is not serving any purpose....yet the implications of some amorphous dispute, hangs over all. I simply want to know what is the NPOVD? What specifically needs revising, inclusion or deletion? I do not see the 500 word rule as being mandatory. In sum, I want the normal talk and discussion process to work, as it did when we were able to provide 4 concise paragraphs with exceptional review and citations. Much of this sea-saw is simply if we can include, about 5 lines of information that is from reliable sources and well cited. As to the NPOVD dispute, 1rst or 2nd or same, I just want the specifics of what is desired or disputed to be raised clearly, so we can address them.
• I think Benjiboi's raising of his concerns here to be earnest, and well stated. Beyond saying what I have said, and then the history of the talk page, I don't expect to have anything else to offer. I have said what I needed to. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaker321 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we have someone here who is familiar with Proofreader77's native tongue and can translate what this editor is trying to say? Thank you. Hans Adler 15:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for the note on my talk page reminding me the formatting is unusual. See this submission to Signpost "opinion" request. (Read the one on the left:) User:Proofreader77/Two Wikipedia opinion sonnets linked by "civility". Proofreader77 (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That one also lacks translation. This is a collaborative project. Please try to communicate rather than show off your superb obfuscation skills. Hans Adler 15:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I take your response seriously, but also suggest that, as a collaborative project, allowing for the variations of speech of different people is perhaps worth considering. Proofreader77 (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hans, have a look at the edit history & discussion concerning Boke -- which includes this discussion. A few minutes of your time will suffice. -- llywrch (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That was very helpful indeed. Hans Adler 21:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion (1) Advise Tombaker321 not to edit war over POV tags. (2) Admonish me for my excessive markup and verbosity. (3) Admonish Banjeboi for casting an aspersion on Proofreader77 by forgetting it was someone else they were thinking of (paragraph 2). (4) Mark it resolved. (I believe this trip to ANI probably set the stage for resolving the BLP NPOV issue—or if not, WP:BLPN is the place for that matter. And surely you don't want to read all that, do you.) Proofreader77 (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  (Must now sleep a good while. Excuse delayed responses.) Proofreader77 (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I congratulate all those who have interacted with Proofreader77 so far on their extreme patience. Is this editor currently under any editing restrictions? I am thinking of something like the following:

• Proofreader77 is not allowed to use any markup other than the most basic things such as italics, bold, lists and tables. In particular, Proofreader77 is not allowed to use colour, all caps, small caps or underlining on any wiki page outside their own user space.
• Proofreader77 is not allowed to make any talk page contributions longer than 1000 bytes and is not allowed to make more than 10 contributions per day to any one talk page.
• These restrictions can be relaxed on a case-by-case basis by a consensus of involved editors.

Would that have a chance to work? Hans Adler 21:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would. First off my apologies for misplacing the odd ref tag issue at Proofreader77 when it was clearly someone else. I was using that as an example of WP:OWNership which I believe is still a core issue at least in this case. I would support a restriction on mark-ups, that seems disruptive in and of itself. I also see lengthy posts and excessive posting as violation WP:Talk which nicely states - When writing on a talk page, certain approaches are counter-productive, while others facilitate good editing. The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration. It may not be their intention but I feel like Proofreader77 is simply overwhelming "opposition" to anything they believe is the right way to go. This seems to be suppressing good communication and driving away people who care enough to use the talkpage. As far as I can tell everyone is frustrated and getting Proofreader77 to simply conform more to community standards for talkpage behaviours has to be addressed before anyone can really understand what the content issues are. -- Banjeboi 00:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with your assessment, based on what I have seen so far and my own reactions to this editor's output. This seems to be headed to a siteban, but preceded by a lot of drama due to obvious good faith. In my opinion, if Proofreader77 is unwilling or unable to change their communication style, they will have to be excluded per WP:COMPETENCE. This editor appears to be a personified denial of service attack on Wikipedia's consensus building mechanism. Hans Adler 07:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The WP:TLDR aspect alone may be thwarting more eyes on this. The example cited here which was only 6-7 months ago suggests a real bad fit if nothing else. If someone is simply playing editors here for fools that is indeed dreadful as we all have better things to do. If not I think there is a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Either way it seems deliberate and disruptive. Maybe asking for a few of those previously entwined would help make a better informed path forward? -- Banjeboi 11:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe WP:HEAR has been a factor, and will continue to be. Proofreader77 said:

"I.E., "looking 16 to 18" is not of secondary importance, but primary—something you need to know the moment you see "13"—because the sexual offense was not performed on an abstract number that Polanski knew, but a person appearing older. The medical report read: "Adult female." No she wasn't. But neither was she "Child."

He wants to mitigate in the readers mind, an impression of a child of 13, by inserting in the text of subjective POV appraisals of the girl's appearance. I spent huge time refuting this with pictures of the girl, who really looks 13, and objecting on the concept. The consensus was drawn that appearance of the victim would not be appropriate.

Proofreader77 then asserted that Polanski stated that she looked older, and advocated that the Polanski POV Defense needs to be maintained for NPOV. Problem: Polanski never said this, and actually under oath said he was aware she was 13. Proofreader77 just ignored this (5) or so times I asked him to back up this claim. Again WP:HEAR Proofreader77 refused to acknowledge his own error.

Now we have a general banner of NPOVD, with Proofreader77 saying its all about the "general issue of the POV of Polanski's Defense." What I believe will happen is these already rejected items will be inserted as a defense to balance out POV. Further than a defense position will be crafted out of thin air. Polanski plead guilty, he did not defend the charge of his conviction, the rest are procedural disputes post conviction. The urban myth that Polanski had a plea bargain regarding his sentencing, is 100% refuted by court documents, the entirety of the plea bargain was to drop 5 of the 6 charges. Full stop. Speaking of consensus so few want to get engage in this muddy froth, voting is rendered meaningless.

I believe that the flag waving banner of NPOV dispute without specifics, will be used to Trojan Horse enter back in, items that were already rejected by consensus. WP:HEAR Proofreader77 is making himself to be the orchestrator WP:OWN of NPOV Dispute and process. I am told to "cease X" (I have seen others told to cease Y, which I imagine generated the same flinch as I had). I don't get direct responses to questions, repeatedly, but I see plenty of "Let the record reflect" and "in Due Course" to build a case for summation to some body. Simply said, Proofreader77 is going to use the NPOV Dispute to interject items failed by WP:HEAR. Do I believe that the ambiguous NPOVD Banner is a foot in the door technique, YES. Finally, yes, I do feel played with, I am pretty sure I am on the wrong side of some bad rolls of a (20) sided dice. --Tombaker321 (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring anon at MigrationWatch UK

There's currently an edit-warring anon consistently removing sourced material at MigrationWatch UK, seemingly to try to "whitewash" the reputation of this group. It's been using the following IPs over the last week or two:

• 87.114.129.140
• 87.115.106.155
• 87.112.16.229
• 87.114.171.211

Myself and a few others have tried to reason with him, to explain to him that legitimate sourced content cannot be removed just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but the anon persists. Could someone else please intervene? Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. The article was protected in the state I found it in without preference as to who is right or wrong. Both sides should discuss the matter and arrive at a consensus version of the article at the talk page. --Jayron32 03:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:206.124.6.222

User talk:206.124.6.222 has been making personal attacks (see User talk:206.124.6.222#November 2009) and inflammatory comments on talk pages completely off-topic from improving the article (see [109]). He has been warned and should be blocked. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 02:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I gave a specific warning about the no personal attacks policy.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 03:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Robert K S

Resolved

 – TenPoundHammer has now filed a case at WP:WQA, which is the more appropriate forum. Discussion can continue there - Alison ^❤ 05:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

---

Robert K S (talk · contribs) has blatantly reverted my edits with no logical explanation, calling my edits "controversial." All I did was remove a great deal of unsourced coatrack info and add a {{tooshort}} tag, clearly explaining in my edit summaries why I was removing. This editor has a history of simply plowing through and reverting edits that he doesn't like, including far too many of mine — especially pertaining to Jeopardy! and other game shows. I have no idea why he would think my removal of blatant coatrackery and otherwise unsourced information would be "controversial," and judging from my history with him, a simple discussion will get me nowhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#Disputed removal of rollback - Alison ^❤ 04:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, and I thought I was stubborn. Clearly this editor has a long history of edit-warring, and shows no signs of change. That could very well be blockworthy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Now [he] is putting words in my mouth. In an AFD, he said "TenPoundHammer's here because she was on Jeopardy! once, and TenPoundHammer has made it his mission to pare any Jeopardy!-related content from the encyclopedia. His edit record is becoming more and more littered with this nonsense." This false accusation is only more telling that Robert K S has some sort of vendetta against me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the "no logical explanation", there is an extensive record of explanation on the talk page for that article (see, especially, my remark of September 29). With regards to my history of "plowing through and reverting edits", it's a simple matter of BRD, which TenPoundHammer doesn't follow [110]. TenPoundHammer has myself and others spending extensive time keeping track of his mischief. This mischief has recently included speedying articles and IM'ing administrator buddies of his to deleting the articles within minutes and removing a holdon tag and a talk page notification to a user, then systematically wiping all other links and mentions to the articles from the encyclopedia (see his November 3, 2009 edits) and even going so far as to ask me to remove external links to the speedied articles. And it regularly includes wiping valid content related to Jeopardy! from the encyclopedia, without explanation, or submitting for deletion articles that are tangentially Jeopardy!-related. For example, just today he removed a valid category from John McCain, despite the explanatory code note [111], and nominated for deletion an article on a TV writer whose appearance on the show is a tangential part of her article. His recent participation in the official Jeopardy! message boards has had the effect of annoying the other participants with his complaints about his unfamiliarity with topics that appear on the show and his mentions of his cognitive-behavioral disorder. Obviously, I have no interest in making this personal, but TenPoundHammer's editing activities need to be reigned in. If he doesn't agree with some content, he ought to follow BRD; he should be barred, however, from going on purging sprees. Robert K S (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. TL;DR much? You love to rant. Would it bother you to discuss a reverted edit? You're the one who got your rollback rights removed for editwarring, not me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I got my rollback rights removed because I used them to revert an editor who had an agenda (someone intent on using Wikipedia for ethnic boosterism), and ran up against an administrator disinterested in seeing such reversions as the fighting of vandalism. The record and the timing also show that it wasn't for my edits that she revoked the credential, but rather for my challenging her. Nobody else seemed interested in the case, so I dropped it. It's not relevant here. Robert K S (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The link above says otherwise, but whatev ... - Alison ^❤ 05:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• TPH, what admin action are you looking for? Open an RFC if you like, but all I see here is a bunch of edit warring over game show articles. I see no attempt to discuss the edits you are here complaining about. Bold Revert Discuss. You boldly removed a lot of text; Robert K S reverted you; and instead of discussing at the article talk page, you reverted again. I advise both of you to disengage from the game show articles if you find yourself getting a bit too excited. This is not Dispute Resolution, or the place to carry on bickering about article content. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• My concern is that Robert K S has a history of edit warring instead of discussing, and past attempts to discuss with him have gotten me absolutely nowhere. He continues to edit war without explaining his changes, and he needs to be stopped. He already had his rollback removed a while back for a reason; if I try to discuss, I just know he'll say something to the effect of "no, keep keep keep it, it's good information" without anything else. He's a vicious editor. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And you want him blocked, is that it? Crafty (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Not unless it escalates. If he continues to edit-war with me even after my discussion of the matter on the talk page (I always stop at three), and if he continues to edit-war on every article he touches (as has been the case in the past), and if he continues to make blatantly false accusations about me and/or other editors, then maybe. It's not just about his edit-warring with me, but about his edit-warring with others in general. He has a history of edit-warring dating back at least a couple years, and all I really want him is to understand that his constant snippy demeanor, blatantly false accusations and blind reversion of content are detrimental. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Bobby, my edits aren't blind reversion of content. I provide edit summaries and extensive explanations where appropriate. You need to cool down on the Jeopardy! topic. You're just making a lot of destructive edits. Robert K S (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well outside of blocking him (which I'm not suggesting should happen or should not happen) what admin action does 10lb want in this case? Crafty (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I need someone to explain in a tactful manner that his edits are detrimental, maybe give him a warning. Tact is not something I do well. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have filed a WP:WQA on this guy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Likebox again

In a recent discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#User:Likebox and tendentious_re-insertion of original research) User:Likebox was placed under permanent sanctions (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#Results. Specifically,

If User:Likebox makes any edits deemed to be tendentious, point of view pushing, addition of original research, or disruptive by an uninvolved administrator, Likebox may be blocked. After three incidents the block length may increase to one year.

Since then he has continued to act disruptively in exactly the same manner, on the same topics. He has pushed the failed WP:ESCA guideline, hoping to permit via the back-door the exact kind of OR that got him sanctioned in the first place. In addition, he insists that the failed ESCA guideline/essay contain wording that directly contradicts policy, and edit-wars to keep that material in. As an example, note the following paragraph:

When editing or creating an article of any type, editors are expected to abide by Wikipedia's core content policies. Original research is not allowed, anything challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and all articles must be written from a neutral point of view.

One would think that this is a simple and uncontroversial statement of basic policy, but User:Likebox cannot abide it, since it contradicts his own preference to be allowed to introduce OR. Thus he has reverted it out of the failed guideline/essay 3 times[112][113][114] in just over four hours. I noted on his talk page that I considered his behavior in violation of his restriction, and requested he revert himself or I would request administrative action. He rejected my statements, removed my post from his talk page, and told me not to post messages to him any more (as far as I know that was my first and only post on his User talk: page). I'd appreciate it if uninvolved admins could discuss this issue. I'd also appreciate it if his fellow ESCA creators User:Count Iblis, User:Michael C Price, and recently blocked User:Brews ohare could stay out of the discussion, since I'm looking specifically for the views of outside admins, rather than entirely predictable support from like-minded collaborators. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I was one of Likebox's principal opponents in the discussion that resulted in his sanction, and I inveighed against the OR-enabling aspects of the now-rejected ESCA guideline proposal on the ESCA talkpage and elsewhere, so I'm certainly not a like-minded collaborator of Likebox. So I hope Jayjg doesn't mind if I weigh in.

As I see it, Likebox's sanction was intended to stop him from disrupting articles and from wearing out article editors on article talkpages. While edit warring anywhere is never good, I don't think this incident with the ESCA page rises to the type of disruption he was sanctioned for, now that ESCA is an essay.

WP:ESSAYS states "[e]ssays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval." The ESCA essay in particular sets forth the opinion of Likebox and its other authors (Michael C. Price and so forth). While "[e]ssays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to outright contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace", editors fundamentally disagreeing with the opinions in an essay usually shouldn't change the essay to substitute their own opinion. They should instead write a contrasting essay, or discuss the issue on the essay's talk page; or if they think that the essay contradicts policy so much that its existence in project space is problematic, they should propose deletion or userfication at MFD.

People participating in a revert battle about the contents of an opinion page basically get WP:TROUT from me (and more TROUT for making drama bringing it here to ANI). Likebox is entitled to his opinion even if it's an unwise opinion that contradicts policy. As long as he's not disrupting article editing, if he wants to write essays til hell freezes over, I don't have a problem with that. We don't POV-fork articles, but POV-forking essays (or ignoring them) is a longstanding practice, so warring over essays and bringing down heavy sanctions over them is not that helpful. Less drama please!

I do agree with Jayjg that Likebox's version of the essay is better suited for user space than project space, so maybe the next step is to propose userfication. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a lot of drama over an essay; essays are specifically designed to represent minority viewpoints. I suggest that Jayjg just calm down and allow the essay to evolve. The essay is not Likebox's essay (and neither am I the essay's creator), it represents the views of a number of editors. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've blocked Likebox for one week - given the sanctions detailed above, and their previous history of edit-warring, I don't regard the fact that this isn't occurring in mainspace (ie on an article) as any mitigation. Likebox's edits have been resisted by other editors, yet they have kept reverting; a clear breach of both their sanctions and the collaborative, collegiate spirit that we are expected to adhere to. Edit-warring isn't a natural, or acceptable, part of the development of policies/guidelines/essays, any more than it would be for an article. Review welcome, as always. EyeSerene^talk 11:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg was clearly behaving in a similar way as Likebox as far as reverting is concerned. If we say that Jayjg's behavior is ok. then surely we cannot sanction Likebox. I think the one week block encourages more edit warring by Jayjg. As Michael said, we need to calm down here. On my talk page I proposed to SlimVirgin that I would be ok, if she would edit the essay in such a way so that in her opinion it could be an essay.

I also urge everyone to take a look at Jayjg's comments on the talk page. He clearly does not understand what the essay is about and he is reverting on the basis of his misunderstanding. E.g. as Likebox tried to explain to him there are no POV issues w.r.t., say, a topic like enthalpy. Jayjg insists of construing everything in terms of the editing disputes on politics pages he is so familar with and refuses to accept that there may exist other kinds of problems on other articles that he is unfamiliar with. The effect of this is that a revert by Jayjg is then seen to be edit warring instead of constructively contributing to the essay. Count Iblis (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The idea that there are no POV issues on articles related to apparently long settled unambiguous scientific fact is unfortunately naive. Some people do not understand the science. Some people are exploring new approaches to the science. Some people believe the "long settled unambiguous scientific fact" is simply wrong, or incomplete, or inappropriate for children under the age of 18. The policies have to apply evenly all around, even in articles where they "should not" be a problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right here. What Likebox and I mean is that the typical problem on such articles is usually of a different nature. Of course, there are also controversial scientific topics, but that is not what the essay addresses. Also you can have problems with cranks etc. But we already have policies to deal with those problems. The essay does not say that other Wiki policies do not apply. I now remember Jayjg saying to me that: "If the essay is not about editing disputes then what problem does this essay address?". And that right after I explained that in detail.

Anyway, when Likebox was put under restriction, I actually argued in favor of a 1RR restriction for Likebox, instead of the vaguely worded probation. Because now if Likebox acts in good faith and Jayjg is edit warring, Jayjg can come here, misrepresent the facts, point to Likbox's probation and bring in other irrelevant arguments so that it looks like Likebox is the bad guy yet again. In theory 1 RR could still mean that you can disruptively revert once per day, but I think in practice a sensible editor would see that this is futile. Count Iblis (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone trying to use Wikipedia as a dating service

NOT YET RESOLVED

Special:Contributions/70.121.37.111. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What a brilliant idea. I wonder if there's a good way to limit it by location, gender, and orientation? It wouldn't help me to succeed in getting a date with a straight guy from Guam. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the all caps, but I thought someone should note that it was Chaser's page that was turned into an attack page by Special:Contributions/70.121.37.111 at 70.'s user page. In the circumstances, might it not be appropriate to oversight the edits of the now-blocked user? Bielle (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Forbidden (palhost)

This user is displaying admin icons on their user and user talk pages. They have blanked my advice to remove the icons. I'm leaving notice of this post on their talk. Thanks Tiderolls 08:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked; obvious vandalism-only account. --Golbez (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Note: it looks like this is the same user as 70.121.37.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of the preceding section. DVdm (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Also blocked (48 hours). Probably the usual 13-year-old boy with too much time on his hands. Shame, because I wouldn't mind the blow-job he's offered twice [115] [116] but I don't want one enough to commit a felony. ➜❝Redvers❞ 10:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not even funny. Consider a refactor, please. Durova³⁶² 22:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Gross. Lara 02:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

...Redvers, that's warped, chummer. Refactor it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 03:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Drip by drip, this place gets less and less enjoyable and more and more politically correct every day. ➜❝Redvers❞ 07:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin help needed

I had just created a stub article about a former Syrian village. Without even asking User:Chesdovi merged it together with another article, about an Israeli settlement that was built on top of it. Can an admin please revert this? If not, how can I go from here with this complaint? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute. We can't help. You could try the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle - so far, Chesdovi is at Bold with no further movements - or you could just wait for Chesdovi to reply as you've not given them very long. ➜❝Redvers❞ 12:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it´s just the sort of thing Chesdovi likes doing ;) ..and you don´t need an admin to revert it; I´ve just done it. Ask Chesdovi to get consensus before he merge again. (He likes "merging" articles...and tagging articles as "non-notable", oh well...) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It may (or may not) help to point Chesdovi over to WP:POTENTIAL. Viriditas (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

People have been building things over other things for about as long as people have been building things. Unless the former village had some particular notability, I don't see any reason for it to have a separate article. Nor do I think this is a content issue or an issue of consensus - if two places occupy the same locations, it is hard to make a legitimate case for having two separate articles. If it were otherwise, there would be multiple articles for every town or village that has ever seen a population change or a name-change. Do you want to open that can of worms, Huldra? Meowy 15:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I´m not sure of what can of worms Meowy is talking about. *We* are talking about villages which have been depopulated from 1948 and after, in some cased villages with centuries of documented history, which Chesdovi does not find notable. For example; two of the Palestinian villages which he recently tagged as non-notable ([117] and [118]).....were later developed into DYKS (see Talk:Dayr_Nakhkhas and Talk:Daliyat_al-Rawha'). Which is why I´m saying, well, what Supreme Deliciousness experienced is just what Chesdovi likes doing... Nothing to worry too much about. ;) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about this insular little region - I'm talking about general principles. I normally edit articles related to Turkey and Armenia, often encountering articles on towns or villages that were 100% Armenian before 1915, which were abandoned for decades after the Genocide, and which are now 100% Kurdish or Turkish and have been given new names. I have never once come across anyone proposing that there should be two articles - one for the pre-1915 village and one for the present-day village. Meowy 16:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you are talking about *another* insular little region ;) Anyway, when it comes to villages depopulated due to the Arab-Israeli-conflict; this has been discussed ad nauseum. Since there in general is not a one to one relationship (the land of one Arab/Palestinian village is now often used by, say, 2-3-4 different new Israeli settlements) ..the long fought-for consensus is that each depopulated village should/can have its own article, *as long as* there are RS sources for it. A consensus Chesdovi has had some trouble with, it seems. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You make my case. You claim to have a little insular consensus for "Arab-Israeli-conflict" articles (though there is no such thing as a consensus, only a lull in conflict) and refuse take lessons from the wider world encompassing all Wikipedia articles that could help to resolve the issues permanently. Meowy 17:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Potential suicide threat

Resolved

 – User has made these threats before, and been posted here RBI--SKATER ^Speak. 04:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been reported at WP:SPI that Eggbaguette (talk · contribs) has made a potential suicide threat in the Sandbox. See this diff. Other editors have expressed concern on the user's talk page. I am reporting this here per WP:SUICIDE. Tckma (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Since when has these recurring joke "suicide" messages on Wikipedia become "plea for help" messages? They should be like any other dubious claim made on Wikipedia: delete them unless they come with a proper citation such as a medical opinion about the state of mind of the poster, or a death certificate (and even with proper citations, delete them as non-notable). Meowy 15:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is the same user who made a potential suicide threat in the sandbox on 8 Nov (see WP:ANI#Suicide threat (first)). The exact same wording was used - I would not count it as credible. Suitable advice was given on the user's talk page. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Marking as closed, he's made these threats before and I seriously doubt he's gonna do it.--SKATER ^Speak. 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears as if he/she's playing a prank; however suicide threats should never be given the cavalier treatment as the person who is threatening to kill him/herself is somebody's child, sibling, parent, or friend, and they could be serious.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it's the same wording because it's the same diff/revision ID. (I searched ANI for "suicide" to make sure I wasn't making a duplicate report, guess I fat-fingered it or Firefox is being wonky with text searches.) Tckma (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Even though at the end of the day the threat is most likely a prank, etc., I see absolutely nothing wrong with a standard practice of running a Checkuser inquiry and contacting the local authorities. It is perfectly consistent with Checkuser policy, which allows an inquiry to be made "where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public" - in this case, the safety of the person making the threat. And local authorities have repeatedly said they do not consider it a waste of time if we contact them regarding a threat. Either the threat turned out to be something real (either a an actual threat or a cry for help) - in which case contacting the authorities is the right thing to do. Or it turns out to be a prank, in which case the local authorities would still be interested, as they take these type of pranks seriously - in which case contacting the authorities is still the right thing to do (and will hopefully prevent that user who is making the prank from doing it again).

At the end of the day, as per WP:SUICIDE, we should take ALL threats seriously, and leave it for local authorities to make a final judgement call, not us - no matter whether we think the threat is real or an obvious prank. Singularity42 (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The content of all these so-called "suicide threat" messages should be ignored, and they should be removed as off-topic as soon as they are noticed. Meowy 19:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed? Yes. Ignored? No. GiantSnowman 19:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And like I said on the other thread, the essay WP:SUICIDE implores you to take such threats seriously. It does not describe a standard practice to use checkuser tools nor does it require editors to respond in a particular way. If you feel that any threat is a credible threat, then you may respond accordingly. Obviously you need to find an equally credulous checkuser to report IP information to what we presume are local authorities, but you are allowed to do that. Protonk (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for more eyes on a volatile situation regarding The Troubles

Recently, User:Elonka placed User:Domer48 on probation with regards to the Troubles Arbitration Case. Domer has stated that he will not accept Elonka's actions (aided and abetted by at least one other user in the area, Vintagekits) and intends to continue editing like nothing happened. I urged him to bring this to ANI or AE rather then do this, but it's his decision, and thus forces my bringing this here myself.

Now the reason that I bring this here, instead of an ArbCom clarification, is two reasons, time wise. A) The sanction is only for 90 days, and by the time ArbCom can clarify if Elonka can place Domer under the probation, a good chunk of the probation will have already expired, and B) This has the chance to devolve very quickly. If Domer edits outside the terms of the probation and gets blocked, well, we have excessive drama.. and if Domer edits outside the terms of the probation and doesn't get blocked.. well we have excessive drama from the other side.

My personal opinion is that Elonka fits the definition of the ArbCom remedy as an uninvolved administrator. any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. (per the terms of the Troubles ArbCom). I do consider it valid (and note that Elonka did apply it to one of the other frequent targets in this area, from the other PoV, so it looks like she's not favoring one side or another), but again, this is my opinion, and Domer has decided to ignore my note as well..

Pre-emptive edit: For VK's continued hostility in the same discussion User talk:Domer48#Probation, I have blocked him 48 hours. I leave it open to review, but VK's taking a volatile situation and trying to see if he can light it on fire. SirFozzie (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

VK is getting blocked so often these days he hardly has time to update his little counter! [119]. MickMacNee (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely its about time an indef block was considered for VK? His incivilities are too frequent, despite being warned/blocked about it so many times. He is obviously never going to learn. Jeni ^(talk) 18:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

His user page states he is retired, & he's been blocked three times since he claims it took effect. As an uninvolved Admin (his name is familiar, but I don't remember having any interaction with him), I second Jeni's suggestion. -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd note that both Domer and Mooretwin, aware of the 1RR on the article, simply made sure their reverts were spaced at least 24 hours apart, and continued to edit war with each other [120]. Which is exactly what the ArbCom remedies were supposed to prevent. If editors game the system to evade general restrictions, there is little option but to add specific restrictions. When you consider how many fronts this same sort of problem editing is occurring on from some of the same editors, I can't really see any other option. Elonka fits the definition of the ArbCom remedy as an uninvolved administrator, therefore I see no basis to discount her probationary measure. I'd also note that this pattern is depressingly familiar. Every single time an uninvolved admin makes a sanction on one of them, the same invested group of editors claim bias and insist that admin is involved. It happened to me (Rockpocket (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)), to Tyrenius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), to Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)... Either the entire admin corps is involved in a grand Anti-Irish conspiracy or else we have to begin to see this tactic for what it is. Rockpocket 17:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Simple answer to persistent edit-warring in this area: Troubles topic bans. It has worked in other areas, I am already considering proposing this for the endless British Isles naming dispute edit-warring, and I see no reason why it would not work here either. Black Kite 18:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Black Kite. Note that I am not uninvolved as have previously blocked Domer and have been accused of harrassing these partisans per RockPocket. Toddst1 (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with SirFozzie, Rockpocket and Black Kite. Elonka is perfectly neutral in this and has made a good-faith effort to enforce our norms. In a scenario that has become depressingly familiar, she has been greeted with abuse and accusations of bias. I'm afraid 'partisans' is the right term per Toddst. Sad. --John (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I, too, agree. I've not looked at the specific case, but a general topic ban would seem to be a reasonable approach to the problems indicated by the block logs of Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and some other regular participants in these disputes. Such a ban would need to be community-imposed, though, as the case remedies do not allow for it.  Sandstein  21:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Agree that it's high time action was taken against a number of editors who've learned to get around the current restrictions. Elonka's 90-day 1RR per week probation on Domer is a start. Rd232 ^talk 02:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for Troubles topic bans, starting here and now with Domer48 and Mooretwin, and hopefully ending there too. Not only are they perennial edit-warriors, they often seem to bring out the worst in other editors. The Socratic method may be fine for teaching face-to-face, but it really doesn't work so well on Wikipedia talk pages and especially not when Socrates is selectively deaf. Both of these editors have not hearing things down to a fine art.

The only concern I'd have with a broad topic ban is that the boundaries of the Troubles could conceivably be stretched to cover most Irish topics in the last two centuries or so along with no end of foreign ones. Dedicated edit-warriors could even find things in the realms of myth, pre-history and archaeology that need the Truth adding to them, just as they can in EE or A-A topics. I'm not sure what the answer would be here except that it would not be defining the topic narrowly. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind backing up your allegations against me, specifically that I do not hear? Domer48 is a problem editor who is unwilling to collaborate with other editors. I have often been the only editor to have the patience to confront him. Yet because I am the only one doing this, I get punished - but if several editors confront him, then that is OK. There are several articles on Wikipedia where I have been faced with the choice either of leaving an article under Domer's ownership or reverting him. The former choice is not in the interests of the encyclopaedia. It seems to me that it is convenient to tar me with the same brush as Domer so that admins can say they are "treating both sides equally". I resent the implication that I am on anyone's "side". I am merely opposed to articles being written from a particular POV. The elephant in the room here is that there is a group of Irish-nationalist-inclined editors who have, over time, succeeded in inserting nationalist POV into Ireland-related articles. It is a logical fallacy to argue that someone seeking to redress this must be pushing the opposite POV. Mooretwin (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a bit unfair on Mooretwin. I have problems with his editing as he is aware, specifically the slow edit warring. But in talk page discussions Mooretwin is civil despite provocation, contributes constructively and is willing to compromise. Domer, as noted by several other editors in the past, is almost impossible to work with. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note, Vintagekits has asked for an unblock, would a completely uninvolved administrator (if there's any left) review his edits on Domer's page and review his unblock request? SirFozzie (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not just ban him, per this edit summary. This user celebrates his disruption and we are feeding him. I am tired of the abuse the AGF receives here. We try to be nice, form a community, and provide for dispute resolution and then we let users like this abuse the system and our good will. I propose a community pan on Vintagekits and then we can move on with our live.--Adam in MO Talk 22:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've reviewed his unblock request, and declined it. Since he referred to the blocking admin's logic as "retarded" I think it's safe to say unblocking would be a mistake. I've never come across this user before, but I'm astounded that they have been blocked 31 times. It may indeed be time for a indef block/ban, but for now I am simply declining to undo the current block. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: He is now simultaneously saying he is once again retired, and asking to be unblocked again, based on some hair-splitting about what exactly is a personal attack. He's also refactoring the conversation on his page to remove references to this thread and explanations of why he was blocked. I'm done, good luck finding another uninvolved admin to look at this. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't as done as I said I was because I still had his page watchlisted. After yet another declined unblock, I have revoked his talk page access for the remainder of the current block. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Block Vintagekits indefinitely

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

Enough is enough, this user is never going to behave civilly. Usually at any hint of an indef block, he goes into retirement, then comes back as soon as the coast is clear, so lets have this discussion regardless. Someone above (as well as myself) proposed an indefinite block, so lets gauge peoples opinions.

• Support block this has gone on long enough. Jeni ^(talk) 01:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support - That block log is ridiculous. How did he survive this long? Wknight94 ^talk 01:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

He was indeffed a couple times in the past, and it was tried to keep him in areas where he can edit productively. Also, a few folks decided that any indef block would be quickly socked around, as he did previously (look at the Troubles ArbCom for details of the 15-20 socks he ran through when indeffed last time).. so at least they could keep an eye on him under the VK account. SirFozzie (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, how do you know he isn't socking even now? HalfShadow (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

SirFozzie, I did not know about the 15-20 socks, now I am sure I don't want him around. Chillum 01:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

VK, In response to the e-mail you just sent me I am not supporting your indef block because you used 15-20 socks in the past. I am supporting it because you are still abusing our trust even after all of this time. You will note I supported your block before I even knew about your past sock puppetry. This is not about your past, it is about an ongoing pattern of disruption that has no end in sight. Chillum 02:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

VK Please stop sending me emails. I don't need to hear about how much I disgust you. Chillum 02:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Fear of socking is not a reason to keep unblocked. Otherwise, let's unblock User:General Tojo. Wknight94 ^talk 01:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course he is socking now! I'd be very surprised if he wasn't! Jeni ^(talk) 01:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

To Halfshadow: If the Checkuser policy allowed preemptive checkusers, he would be one that I would request to be periodically monitored (especially since his socks multi-voted in an ArbCom election, for example).. unfortunately (or fortunately), the policy prohibits that type of activity, and I haven't seen anything in my return to the area that would make me think he was, so I have to assume that he's not, per AGF. And to the folks wondering how VK's lasted this long, I say this. He's been Houdini in his abilities to come back time and time again. By the way, I ask whatever administrator who will be lucky (unlucky?) enough to handle this.. please do not rush to judgement or close it early/snow, etcetera. Let's do this by the book, and not give any loopholes for folks to claim a rush to judgment or settling of scores, for example. If we're going to do it, do it properly. SirFozzie (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree this should be allowed to run its course. We should do this right and not stop the discussion before the Earth has even spun once. Chillum 02:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support - enough is enough. Rockpocket 01:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Not a net benefit to the project. --John (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support 'Useful' to Wikipedia or not, when it gets to the point that he's literally taunting people about his block log, he's had far too much leeway. HalfShadow (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support He's long since used up any leeway his constructive editing gave him. Time for him to take an extended break from the project. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 01:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Patience exhausted, how long has this been going on? Chillum 01:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support His block log is massive and the numerous unblocks per ANI discussions shows the community has tried numerous times to give him a second chance and he's failed miserably.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support This editor's inability to play nicely and get along with others has been a frequently recurring theme here - he is most certainly not a net benefit to the project. 31 blocks clearly exhausts any inclination to give benefit of the doubt. Icing on the cake is the clear pride he seems to have in his block log, as demonstrated on his user page. Clearly has not learned from the past (other than how to game the system), ban long overdue. --Xdamr^talk 01:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Like most here, I have had my share of run ins with Vintagekits in the past, but when it was discussed 18 months ago whether or not to remove his permanent ban he sent me a very polite email faithfully promising to change his behaviour and only edit sporting articles in a calm manner. On the strength of this I supported his return to editing. As the saying goes, fool me once . . --Jackyd101 (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support with regrets. 15 or more socks and a history of indefinite blocks, as indicated above, is sufficient grounds, unfortunately. (They were at least matching socks, weren't they? I'm hoping it was an even number of socks too.) John Carter (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Vintagekits and Domer48 have both had multiple "last" chances. Time to end this waste of effort. Support indef'ing both. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per this diff. Anyone who can say that after 30-odd blocks has no interest in staying around.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  Make that strong support, as I just received email informing me he was not at all surprised to see me "join the sharks".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  This is why I only use my email address for identification purposes. HalfShadow 03:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support ensuring his "retirement" is permanent. Rd232 ^talk 02:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose reopen While I understand the sentiment, I oppose the close, it's more wasted time. See my talk page for more. Block is already done. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to close this period. Just let it fade away with the countless other ANI threads. Chillum 02:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm absolutely torn on this one. My logical brain wants to support a ban, but I also know that when VK is good and puts his head down and works on boxing articles diligently, he can do well and is a great benefit to the project. I've known him for years and years on here now & on a personal note, don't want him to reach the end of the road. He's got a foul mouth and a wicked temper betimes and I've blocked him myself enough times (once leading to one of the biggest ArbCom cases evar!) but I know I don't want to see him go. *sigh* - this is a worthless non-ban rationale, I'm sure, but I really need to say it. As it is, the ban is pretty-much unanimous :( - Alison ^❤ 02:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Alison, in all due respect, come on. Just how many last chances does he get? He's been given more than one. Time to stop wasting everyone's time. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I know. I'm just making a last stand here because I like the guy and because we've all been through the mill for years on here. I used to be his mentor at one time. I've been shouted and cursed at and accused of all sorts of bias, etc, but I'm still sorry to see him go. He's got a really good side when he keeps away from his hot-button articles (all Troubles ones, for example). He's not getting out of this one - I know this - but I just want to put in my word so he doesn't go down in flames as an unmitigated bad-lad, because he's not, y'know? - Alison ^❤ 02:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And I'm another former-mentor of his. We don't particularly dislike him as a person, per se ... just not as an editor of Wikipedia. (Considering the fact that he's sending emails to at least three people blaming all and sundry for his block at the time frame it is across the pond, I would believe that VK is once again editing under the influence).. *sighs*. It's a necessary action, however. SirFozzie (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

When two of his mentors admit he's finally done himself in, it should be obvious to all that he's bit the hand once too many times. Admit it folks, it's over for VK. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(←)Wouldn't re-establish some sort of edit limitation for articles discussing The Troubles be more sensitive? I'm not familiar with his work or behavior in those articles, but when it comes to boxing his work has been first-class. Without him, the boxing project will lose one of a handful full-time users. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That's been tried and failed, several times. Take a look at his block log and other edits. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support indef of Vintagekits, who is an obvious detriment to Wikipedia; enough of nasty edits like this. I also support Elonka's topic ban of Domer48, if not a full indef of Domer48. Dreadstar ☥ 03:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support Enough was enough 25 blocks ago.--Adam in MO Talk 04:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support since there are apparently calls for more nails in this coffin. He's sent me several emails loudly proclaiming his innocence in all this and blaming everything on "British sympathizing editors" which is something I don't believe I've ever been accused of before, being half Irish myself. Honestly, after 31 blocks what are the chances he'll suddenly stop being disruptive when he denies he's ever been disruptive in the first place? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose ban I oppose the indefinite ban. reading this it seems that a lot of people are putting personal feelings of dislike in to this. VK is a good editor with a long record on the site. people will get into heading arguements about stuff they are passion it about. A lot of editors are overly sensitive and power hungry imoMbr1983 (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• A similar section to this should be opened up for Domer48 - I could've/would've done it myself, but I'd rather someone else (who's more familiar with the troubles on "the Troubles") decide on exactly how they want to frame the sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose ban I oppose the indefinite ban. I get the feeling there is a bit of a witch hunt going on by people VK has rubbed up the wrong way with a number of bad faith comments. As for the socking I wonder how many of them are actually him as I have been accused of being a sock of his before. The main area where I come into contact with VK is on boxing articles in which he is both a knowledgable and useful editor. As a Brit of Irish extraction I understand that issues relating to the troubles can be highly emmotive and I think issues arising from such topics should be dealt with by topic restrictions rather than outright bans. --LiamE (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not bad faith comments, its persistent and unrepentent personal attacks, both on and off wikipedia. I don't know about you, but I don't appreciate getting foul-mouthed, abusive, threatening emails. Would you like me to forward some of Vk's correspondance to you? How would a topic ban address this? As for the socking, there is no need to wonder, they were all confirmed by checkuser. Finally, why don't you check how many of his last 5 blocks would have been prevented by such a topic restriction? So do you have another solution that would actually address the issue? If not, why oppose a solution that clearly will. Rockpocket 06:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think many of the comments above particularly with regards to people being sure he is currently socking look like expressions of bad faith to me. --LiamE (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor here with a question of procedure as well as a couple of opinions worth a twopence. My apologies if I'm intruding.

Is this case an example of WP:BAN, section 2, bullet points 2 and/or 3? If so it would seem that VK's user and talk pages ought to have the template of ((banned)) instead of just ((indefblocked)), plus a listing on WP:list_of_banned_users. It's my opinion that an official ban would most succinctly summarize the near unanimous consensus here.

Additionally, IMHO, such a long history of misconduct and sockpuppetry would warrant action per WP:ABUSE. Has anyone considered this? WP:ABUSE would seem to be an effective way of dealing with this, particularly after what appears to be rampant usage of sockpuppetry to evade blocks. Also, ditto on the above paragraph wrt. the sockpuppet template.

Anyway, there's my two cents on the matter, just from watching the debris. Again, apologies if my response here is considered intrusive. I just saw the whole thing blow up and got curious.Shentino (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support ban as thoroughly uninvolved. Fellows behavior on my review is borderline sociopathic over a period of years, exactly the sort of person that drives editors away from the project who are more willing to play be the rules. Don't need to see any emails, long history of appaling behavior here was quite enough.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support from uninvolved. The latest outburst a few days ago, their laundry-list of blocks, and having a 'retired' note up on their page while continuing to edit all seem to point to a seriously dysfunctional personality. The 'uhh they might sock if we ban them' point is a nonissue: thats like saying 'well we better not fire Bob because he has a gun and might come shoot the place up'. Regardless of positive contributions in the past / ongoing, if a brand new editor walked in the door and displayed the fits of temper that Vintagekits have displayed over trivial trivial trivial things (a boxer's nickname?) we'd have shown them the door long before. Syrthiss (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose shenanigans. I don't personally have much of a concept of the Troubles conflicts, but I must protest at the timing and the impatience here. Just over an hour after a ban was proposed, Rlevse banned Vintagekits indefinitely. [121] Seven hours later, a ban template went up on Vintagekits' talkpage. [122] Editors in most timezones had no chance to weigh in on the ban at all. Come on, do we need to have a formal ANI rule that a minimum of 24 hours have to pass before a ban or block discussion is closed and implemented? Or can we go by common sense here, please? Bishonen | talk 13:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC).

I am going to stick my head over the parapet now and say what I strongly suspect. Looking at the voting patern I suspect canvassing has been going on. Far too many votes in a short period and all of a like mind, and I hazard a guess all with prior with VK. After that point voting appears to be what one would normally expect in such a discussion. Now dont get me wrong those editors are entitled to their opinions on VK but canvassing on a ban discussion and trying to rush it through in the early hours is just not on. I propose that all votes made up to the point of Rlevse premature attempt at discussion closure be discounted and those editors take a step back from this for 24 hours whether or not they were themselves involved in canvassing. Now I know VK does himself no favours with continued breaches of WP:Civil but it seems to me that some people are now actually trying to read WP:Civil breaches as personal attacks in some cases an an attempt to make a minor incident taht could be difused with good humour into a bannable offense. Now I know this is going to go down like a lead balloon and tehre will be claims that no canvassing went on and proof will be asked for which i obviously cant provide but as it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck I will call it a duck, proof or not. --LiamE (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No canvassing here -- I have Domer's talk page watchlisted, so I saw VK's "stop acting like a fucking arsehole and get a grip of yourself you ego maniac", followed after a bit by Fozzie's comment that he had brought it up on ANI. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't canvassed or otherwise contacted about this, by anybody. Have never had any on or offline contact about this -- with anybody. Have AN/I watchlisted. Aside from starting the article on John Ging I don't think i've edited any ireland related article at all. For what it's worth, I'm an Irish American and am generally sympathetic to the Irish side of the troubles. My opinion is solely about behavior.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well done for taking that quote out of context and turning a WP:Civil breach into what looks like a WP:NPA brach to prove my above point. --LiamE (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Looks like"? You don't get to make personal attacks by claiming "oh, what he really meant to say was...".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In its original context the quote you gave above is certainly not a personal attack to my mind. Its not something I would write as it could so easily be taken out of context as you have proven, but there it is. If I were to write "You are an idiot if you think the world is flat" that would probably be a breach of WP:civil but it isnt a personal attack, if however you then just quote me as saying "You are an idiot" it would then look like a personal attack. You should be very careful about taking a quote out of context as you did above to suit your own ends. Yes it looks very bad out of context and it doesnt look great IN context but it does look better, it must be said. In context it doesnt read as a direct personnal attack to me.--LiamE (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

@LiamE: This is silly. It's ANI. Most or all admins have ANI watchlisted (unless they value their sanity). That's paranoid. Wknight94 ^talk 14:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Silly it may be - but I can hear the quacking. --LiamE (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• support ...and that's about enough of that. Tan | 39 14:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Indefinite block/ban Arbitrators or Community need to ammend Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles to throw out all the chaff.Support extended ban for arsehole comment Þjóðólfr (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose If you're going to unban prolific sockmasters who are just as, if not far more, abusive to other editors than Vintagekits has ever been such as Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), then an indef block of VK is a travesty of justice. Restrict him from commenting on disputes he's not involved in or something and keep him on a tight leash. 15:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

...and it's Good Morning Europe

• I am thinking long and hard about this; before coming to an opinion, I would like to see the emails he has sent you Rockpocket and Chillum and anyone else for that matter who has received one, before I make my mind up - we hear so much of his threats and abuse, I would like to see some of this "secret" emailed abuse (seeing as Rockpocket is offering to forward them). I don't doubt Rockpocket's word, but those with long memories will remember the plots and Arbcom case to get him banned a couple of years ago when the famous "death threat" email was found not to exist (as VK had protested) and the editor to who it was supposed to have been sent dissapeared off the face of the earth. One thing I have learnt from my dealings with VK is that he is as much a victim as those that fall foul of him - I do though find it rather concerning that Rlevse wanted to close the discussion and inefinate block inplace after only an hour and whilst most Europeans were in bed, is there a reason for this?  Giano  10:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose ban; not sure if I should be voting here but no time to find out. It seems Vk has been blocked for explaining a phrase as he was asked to do! Sarah777 (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. I disgree with the banning of an editor who has put a lot of time and hard work into this project when newbies are often allowed a free hand in creating havoc here. Once again, I strongly oppose the ban.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. WP:NPA is a policy that everyone on Wikipedia should be following bar none, and putting in some good work on boxing articles (including one featured article) doesn't give us a licence to abuse anyone who happens to disagree with us. If he has indeed been sending out abusive emails, this is very serious, as are his frequent accusations of bad faith against pretty much anyone who disagrees with him. Just as others have stated above, enough is enough. Bettia (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The emails Vintagekits has sent me (claiming to be the oness sent) contain no abuse, I would like to compare them with those received.  Giano  10:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Badgering opposers is generally considered uncivil, whether it's on or off Wikipedia.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose ban For giving an explanation come on, this stinks and we have an email situation again, what are the emails? BigDunc 11:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• One of the most important issues here is that an American Arb tried to rush this through while Europe was asleep, especially as this concerns a very contravertial European editor (known to be closely associated with a very European subject) perhaps Rlevse thinks he is Hilary Clinton or Edward Kennedy - who knows?, but I do know he has behave deplorably in this unseemly haste to dispose of a popular European editor while Europe is asleep. This must NEVER happen again.  Giano  12:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Look below↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓; he was not the only European editor they were after last night. Sarah777 (talk) 12:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to my request for copies of emails on this subject, I have received this from Vintagekits, I mailed back and asked for his permission to post it here - he agrees. It was sent to RLevse half an hour or so ago, perhaps when he get's out of bed, (as we have all been now for some hours) he will respond. I think VK makes a reasonable request and point:

"To RLevse: The discussion about my block is ongoing and as half of Europe has just woken up I think you should allow them the chance the have there say.

Can you a. please restored by block to the original 48hr b. unbar me from sending emails and c. unblock me from using my talk page.

You have left me utterly armless and legless in being able to defend myself against the allegations put.! From Vintagekits

Posted here by  Giano  12:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• European support for this ban, on the basis that my limited administrative interactions with Vintagekits have always involved, on his part, nationalist editwarring, or general unpleasantness, or both.  Sandstein  13:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The above editor makes a point of following my edits and disagreeing.  Giano  13:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

C'mon, the world doesn't always revolve around you. Þjóðólfr (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose ban (pending ArbCom Request) This is not a Macedonia/Balkans nationalist matter; it is a matter regarding English speaking cultural differences - and whereas almost all of those involved in ethnic based article editing in non English speaking related articles can quickly be determined as being on one side or another, the bias' and interests of English speaking editors relating to conflicts in respect of anything regarding Ireland need to be carefully sifted and examined before decisions are made. No permanent ban or restriction should be emplaced unless there is a full Arbitration on the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at some of the so called "abusive" emails on which this banning rests, I agree with you entirely. Arbcom should be the court to decode if VK's alledged crimes deserve a life sentence, not a group acting under cover of darkness.  Giano  13:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The ban doesn't rest on email, the ban rests on a 31 ("and counting")-block log. There doesn't need to be an arbitration to community-ban an editor who has a history of disruption and incivility. Given the current 21-5 (or thereabouts) support for a ban, there's no need for Arbcom to resolve things.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Feel free to sift through my history looking for bias. You won't find any. And never mind e-mails. If I have to page-down and hit a "next" button to see someone's entire block log, then the e-mail issue is just a distracting sideshow. Even his mentors above can't vouch for him - that's telling. Wknight94 ^talk 14:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Oh come on.. seriously! I can't believe people are actually suggesting that he isn't worthy of a ban, he is one of the most disruptive editors currently on Wikipedia (if not *the* most disruptive editor). He gets chance after chance after chance, and he always ends up back here. Its just his friends now coming here to ensure he doesn't get blocked. Hopefully whoever implements the final block will see common sense and ignore his mob. Jeni ^(talk) 15:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles

While we have eyes on this ANI thread, I wanted to bring up something else for discussion, the subject of authorizing administrator discretionary sanctions in the Troubles topic area. These sanctions are now routinely authorized in other nationalist topic areas, such as Israel-Palestine, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Eastern Europe, Macedonia, and so forth. However, they were never specifically authorized in the Troubles topic area, possibly because the Troubles case is such an old one (from 2007, when ArbCom didn't start routinely authorizing discretionary sanctions until 2008). This means that there is very little that administrators can do to reduce disruption in this topic area, other than enforcing 1RR or entirely blocking an editor from Wikipedia. However, if discretionary sanctions were authorized, uninvolved administrators could craft much more precisely targeted solutions, such as to simply remove a disruptive editor from one or more articles where they were causing problems. This would serve the project well, as with a discretionary sanction in place, a targeted editor would still be allowed and encouraged to edit constructively in other areas of the project.

The Troubles case has been amended before via community discussion, such as in October 2008[123] and October-November 2009.[124] Now, I'd like to propose one more amendment, as follows (this is mostly copy/paste from other discretionary sanction cases):

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, or any expected standards of behavior or decorum. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question must be given a warning with a link to the Troubles ArbCom case; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. This notification must be logged at the case page, as must any sanctions that are later imposed on the editor.

Thoughts? --Elonka 04:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Wording of proposal slightly tweaked per comments below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Discretionary sanctions have worked well in other contentious areas. It should work fine in this one too. NW (Talk) 05:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Could we drop the "or normal editorial process" part? It's a problematic (and cloudy) expression. The most recently closed case adopted a "or decorum" provision instead. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds reasonable. I have no objection. --Elonka 06:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Tweaked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support formally now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Sounds good. Rockpocket 06:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support --John (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support. A necessary tool for intractable disputes.   Will Beback  talk  08:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional Support we need something without any question. However we have people gaming the 1RR system by making multiple different POV changes to different parts of an article that should be reverted, but given the 1RR restriction on an article as a whole any editor taking action risks sanction. We also have editors such as Irvine22 who are regularly banned for varying periods and then simply come back and start again, but move over many articles to do with the Troubles making POV edits, interspersed with reasonable or marginal ones. Any uninvolved admin, unaware of the total pattern of edits might interpret action against such editors on a single article as disruptive. We've also seen confusion over what is or is not a good faith edit with consequent issues over if reversion is legitimate, or if the edit should be amended for a compromise. Sorry to go on a bit, but for something to really work here the "uninvolved" admins are going to have to do some detective work rather than just react to an individual article and the need for that is not clear in the above draft. --Snowded ^TALK 09:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Totally oppose - this merely extends the arbitrary powers of Admins who overwhelmingly come from one side of this "cultural" dispute. The wording is so vague it is a charter for the multitude of editors conditioned by Anglo-pov to impose their perspective even further on Irish editors. Sarah777 (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In the other disputes mentioned there is a much greater likelihood that Anglosphere Admins won't be conditioned to a particular perspective. That is manifestly NOT the case in Irish v. Britain issues - across a swathe of subjects, not all "troubles-related". This is proven beyond argument, over and over. Sarah777 (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah-Nothing else has worked, that is why this is being proposed. If the editors involved in The Trouble would behave in an appropriate manner things like this would not get proposed. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Point of order: why has this outrageous proposal that will affect dozens of Irish editors not been notified to the people it will affect? Were it not for Vk's latest flip I'd have missed this entirely. Sarah777 (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support and proposal. The method used in WP:ARBMAC2 worked really well. Macedonia is also a hotbed of ethnic warring. Ethnic wars are one of if not wiki's biggest problems. The time for stronger measures is long overdue. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem here is the complete absence of a neutral police force. The current situation is way more preferable from a WP:NPOV than the blanket imposition of Anglo-perspective on all Irish articles. The failure to define what a "troubles-related" article is guarantees that we will end up with all Irish-related articles classed as troubles related. You folk simply aren't thinking. This will be no Macedonia. Sarah777 (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So - who will notify the Irish editors who will be victims of this regime? And when? After the deed is done? Sarah777 (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, given how the same group "debating" on my page ended up here so quickly (though there was no notification) can I assume that Vk wasn't the only one writing emails last night? Sarah777 (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support in principle, oppose for now. Additional powers (including initial page bans rising to topic bans) are needed, but deciding them here and now is rash. Firstly, the editors involved in the problem should be given the chance to be part of the solution. As Sarah says, no one has been notified. I'm not saying there should be a vote on the content or a three month long discussion on it, as we need the situation to improve now. But at least give editors the chance to comment and make suggestions. Also, as per Snowded I see no specific solution to the slow edit warring issue. I also have issue with these sanctions being left to "uninvolved" admins. We need input from involved admins who are familiar with the editing of VK, Domer, Irvine, Mooretwin, myself or any other editor involved. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

We should only support extra arbitrary powers for Admins if we are convinced the net result will be good for WP:NPOV. I'd suggest we'd get a better result in the end with yourself and Domer warring than we'd get from some of the Admins seeking god-like powers. Sarah777 (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support A necessary tool for an intractable dispute. Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh...which "intractable dispute" do you refer to? The proposers don't make that at all clear? Off2 - Do you regard Kilmichael as part of the troubles that occurred 50 years later? Sarah777 (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I dislike all of the nationalistic issues that attract opposing sides and constant editing disputes. Off2riorob (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, this is a rush job and involved editors have not received any notification, have to strongly disagree with Stu on the issue of involved admins, some are an integral part of the problem. BigDunc 12:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose pending proper and timely debate Things seem to be moving here with obscene and seemingly planned haste.  Giano  12:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Question - what exactly is the problem which this remedy is supposed to be addressing? We need a clear understanding and definition of what the problem is, before we can decide what the solution is. Mooretwin (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• No surprise to see some of the usual suspects opposed here. Will Domer48 be along in a day or two to add his disapprobation to the list? Well, turkeys are never likely to vote for Xmas. Support of course. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I would wish to amend working in the area of conflict to working in the area of conflict or the attempted bullying of those that do I personally have been bullied by both sides at differents stages in my Wikicareer. Bullying is a catch all term and we should all know it when we see it. Maybe a Wikilawyer will show VK was not directly insulting Elonka; maybe Elonka is a strong enough Character or has amassed sufficient mates to brush off attempts at bullying such as this, but many others (including myself) are not in this position. Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support, with the suggestion that any appeals of such sanctions should be handled as proposed in Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  13:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose – This is an unacceptable "solution" given the events that are responsible for its proposal and continuing support vary in their placement by many in the timeline of history. Cloudy definitions and reactionary sympathetic (or is it systematic) endorsements abound here. Israel-Palestine, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Eastern Europe, Macedonia are all well outside the normal personal involvement of major chunks of the sysop corps. The Troubles are much "closer to home" and can't be handled in the same way. I endorse Sarah777's view in her "Totally oppose" statement. Statements from sysops such as "Well, turkeys are never likely to vote for Xmas" are inappropriate, inflammatory and unhelpful to say the very least. Sswonk (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous rationale. This is not a matter to be decided on a discretionary basis; the facts must be teased out from the rhetoric, prejudices and bias' disregarded, and only decisions made as dispassionately as is possible - with the widest consenus available - enacted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you explain this rationale in a bit more depth for someone otherwise uninvolved like myself? My understanding of this is seems to be quite a bit different. The first time I commented on anything related to troubles was a few days ago at an AE request and I noticed there were some flaws not just in some established users own understanding of the sanction scheme, but in the very nature of the sanction (which only specified blocks). Other than the problem of editors repeatedly engaging in problematic conduct in that area, what was also clear was that there was a woeful amount of input from the community (which negates the possibility of having a widest possible consensus). On that basis, I supported giving admins the discretion to let editors be subject to page or topic bans rather than outright blocks for the conduct issues in this area. Why should editors from either non-English or English speaking backgrounds be considered differently on this basic conduct issue? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Rlevse; utterly fed up with the endless conflict in this area (generally from a very predictable set of editors). That they have taken this long to finally exhaust everyone else's patience is a credit to the tolerance of their peers, but it's long overdue that we do something to salvage this area and open it up to editors who can contribute without bringing along their baggage. To quote Antandrus's perceptive essay, "Every place on earth has nationalists; they are the dupes of demagogues, the tools of conquerors, and a great pestilence upon Wikipedia. Write a thousand good words on an important but neglected figure, and a nationalist will show up to argue over the spelling of his name; his birthplace, ancestry, ethnicity, or category; all in a tone of moral outrage. Look at the "bright" side: they keep our friends in the war industry employed. When some day earth is hidden in its final radioactive dust-shroud, their ghosts will declare: it's not so bad, they got what they deserved. Let the sane among you ignore them, and be good citizens of all of mankind, rather than just an angry splinter of it." EyeSerene^talk 14:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The ethnic/culture (pick your term of choice) wars are wiki's biggest long term problem. The Troubles is a prime example of that. Editors on both sides push their POV convinced that they are right due to centuries of ethnic/cultural conflict. Massive time and effort by many editors has not helped much in The Troubles. Business as usual will not help. Editors continuing the old conflict in the same old way will not help. Until editors on both sides of any of these disputes finally decide to change, nothing good will be accomplished. Until that time, stronger measures are needed to maintain an atmosphere on en wiki where editors can collaborate productively to improve the encyclopedia instead of constantly bickering at the other side and wasting other users' time and and effort in trying to solve intractable disputes because the editors on both sides of these disputes can't learn to get along and produce quality articles because they're more worried about their view not being "twisted". — Rlevse • Talk • 14:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose due to involved admins wording. We've already seen a grudge bearing admin issue a ban he had not authority to issue then abusively block the editor based on this non-existent ban, then he has the audacity to troll this noticeboard during this discussion. The idea that admins like that can issue draconian sanctions in future disputes on their own initiative is ridiculous. There's other involved admins who claim to be all neutral and above board and pretend to be guardians of neutrality and BLP, a laughable suggestion if ever I heard one. Would a guardian of neutrality and BLP claim someone who was in custody awaiting extradition is unemployed? Using that edit as a measuring stick, I presume Nelson Mandela was also "unemployed" for 27 years? There's too many admins who are way too involved with various editors in the underlying disputes, the idea that they have free rein to start using the knives they've been sharpening for a long time is a no-go. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Due process?

At 01:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) in response to a warning by Elonka on my page claiming the Kilmichael Ambush was "troubles related" I asked her to explain how. No reply. But at 04:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC) this outrageous proposal pops up here without anyone being notified. It would, coincidentally, allow Elonka, Rock and John (all already involved in the dispute) to have unquestionable power to impose their perspective without any need to explain anything! Sarah777 (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And whatever about Vk posting under the influence and letting his true feeling hang out - we got an angry graphic display of where Rock is coming from when the calm surface is scratched. Not neutral, not even close. Sarah777 (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It would help if you provided links so we can all see what you are talking about. I would also be interested in seeing evidence (specifically diffs) backing your claim that these administrators support either side of this debate over the other.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bit of work there. In the meantime you could check my talkpage for a "debate" I had with Rock last night and tell me how the Kilmichael Ambush is a "troubles related" article. Anyone like to try? Sarah777 (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I received a ban for unwittingly breaching 1RR on Easter Rising which it was claimed is Troubles-related, even though it happened over 50 years before the Troubles. Mooretwin (talk) 12:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Under this proposal you could get a block for making a comment relating to the last Ice Age if some random Admin declares it "troubles related". No explanation need be supplied. Sarah777 (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That has always been the case, as I found out at Easter Rising. Mooretwin (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that all I saw on your talk page was you gloating over an ambush that killed 17 people 90 odd years ago. I think the part of the Request for arbitration you want is the section that reads "To address the extensive edit-warring that has taken place on articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator." (emphasis mine). It seems to suggest that the uninvolved administrator is able to decide which articles are considered related to this topic, although the wording does provide loopholes if one chooses to see them. --Jackyd101 (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If that was all you saw then I doubt your contribution here is going to be very helpful. Tends to reinforce my point about the problem with Angloshhere editors in this area. Sarah777 (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This and this speak for themselves. It's never a question of whether the article concerns the Troubles but only whether the dispute does. Diarmait na nGall could be a Troubles article, if edited the right (wrong) way, so too could Edward Bruce, Henry II of England, cruthin, Togail Bruidne Dá Derga or Cath Maige Tuired to name but a few. I suppose we should be grateful that the Troubles disputes on Wikipedia haven't (yet) plumbed the depths that some others have reached. But "not as bad as the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute" is not much to crow about. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

All I see there is Rock edit-warring (apparently with impunity on articles that Elonka says are 1RR). But then I guess on Armenia-Azerbaijan we didn't have 95% of the Wiki editors Armenians. And 95% of the Admins policing the dispute also Armenians. Unlike Ireland which is dictated by British or American editors with a skewed view of history. As priven, again, by Rock's comments last night and Jackyd inability to see half the text. Slam-dunk. Sarah777 (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No ban in effect at this time

• There is a strong appearance of selection bias in the initial comments on this thread. Before we assume canvassing, it is possible that the editors who were first to comment were those who had certain user talk pages on their watchlists. I recommend taking this matter to arbitration immediately. There is no ban in effect; I removed the improper template. Multiple administrators have opposed. The block remains as set, though I do not understand why the user is not allowed to email or edit their own talk page. This thread once again highlights the need for a better venue to decide community bans. They should be done thoughtfully with sufficient time given to accept representative comments. This would avoid the pile on by supporters of one particular view. Jehochman ^Talk 14:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind talk pages ---- most admins - like myself - have ANI on their watchlist. Canvassing is an absurd accusation. Wknight94 ^talk 14:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Also keep in mind several of the opposers are Irish. Sarah even questions herself voting here. two of his mentors even support the ban or seriously question him staying on. 14:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs)

• What impertinent rubbish you talk RLevse, I for one don't have the lightest drop of Irish blood.  Giano  15:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the least bit Irish, and I don't remember Lessheard vanU ever making trouble with The Troubles either. WP:BAN says a community ban happens when no administrator objects. If we count Bishonen too, who probably isn't Irish, and Alison, who is definitely Irish-sounding and -appearing, that makes four administrators opposed to the ban. I think we need to have a discussion about what to do with Vintagekits. But I think if we are going to do that we also need to look at the people in conflict with Vintagekits. It's hard to have a fight unless there are at least two parties. It is not fair to ban one side for bad behavior and not look at the behavior of the other side too. I think we should at least listen to Vintagekits side of the story. (Full disclosure, two of my boys are red heads.) Jehochman ^Talk 14:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Read what I said, I said several, not all, are Irish, and that is fact. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't, Jehochman.

The community, through consensus, may impose various types of sanctions upon editors who have exhausted the community's patience:

• If a user has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion at a relevant noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard so that the user may be site banned, topic banned, or subject to an editing restriction upon a consensus of users who are not involved in the underlying dispute. When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments.

The part you're referring to says that if no admin overturns an indef block, it's a de facto community ban. If the community at large specifically imposes it, it's valid, even if some admins oppose.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Jehochman, all that is required for a community ban is a community consensus as with any other restriction - what you talk about is a de-facto community ban, and unfortunately, it is not the same thing. I have no view on Vintagekits conduct in particular which is why I haven't voted on that discussion, but the reason I'm noting this is so that both types are not confused as one and the same; experienced admin should take greater care to avoid misrepresenting both policy and practice as it currently exists. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The discussion is ongoing. There is no statement by a closing administrator yet, so there is no ban. If no administrator had objected and this were a quiet discussion, theoretically, a ban would be effective. Jehochman ^Talk 15:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Right, but when making a section like this, care must be taken to ensure that emphasis is on the de facto bit because that is the only outcome that is certain. Users may misinterpret this as indirectly closing that proposal off as no community consensus and starting off with the other one below, rather than as one that suggests the discussion is still ongoing. Of course, in contrast, a comment on the user's talk page could be misconstrued as the community consensus as already being enacted, even though discussion is actually ongoing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Saying there "is no ban" is a bit like looking at a zebra and saying "there is no such animal". The current consensus is in favor of the ban and he is blocked indef with a ban template on his page. Perhaps consensus will change later, but until/if it happens then yes, there is a ban. ^Chillum 15:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no ban, Chillum because what we had was a group of mostly Americans ganging up on anm Irishman while most of Europe was asleep. Maybe VK should be banned, maybe not, I have yet to exppress an opinion. However this bullying was highly suspicious, that so many arrived so quickly with no dissent. That Rlevse was so quick to impose a ban proves him at best unfit to be an Arb, he should have at least srealise how things would appear when Europe, no to mention Ireland, woke up. We expect "Randy from Boisse" may act in a small minded way like this - an Arb should not.  Giano  15:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Another proposal

How about Vintagekits is explicitly allowed to edit boxing-related articles, but is otherwise topic banned from The Troubles for some period of time. That would allow them to do what is most helpful to Wikipedia, while hopefully keeping them away from further Troubles trouble. Thoughts? Jehochman ^Talk 15:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - Its just another way for him to worm his way back in. The indef block is for the best. And consensus is pretty clear in the ban section above that a ban is what the community wants. Jeni ^(talk) 15:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(@ Jehochman) Yes, because he conducts himself so much better when he is discussing boxing articles. Syrthiss (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Was he causing trouble, or was he being hounded by traditional content opponents? I am not able to tell by looking at that thread. Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion about nicknames in boxing articles is just that, a discusion. It has been opened up to get the views on people from a WP:BLP perspective as well as the boxing perspective. As far as I know there has been exactly zero bad behaviour in that discusion. The fact is Audley Harrison does indeed have some negative nicknames which are well used by press and public alike and some editors object to the article/infobox including negative nicknames while others think they should be included so as to maintain a NPOV. As I have said before I know VK gets in to plenty of WP:Civil scrapes some of which are blown up to become WP:NPA breaches and perhaps some where actual WP:NPA breaches but the fact remains where I have come into contact with him.... on boxing articles in the main... he is very knowledgable and useful editor. --LiamE (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• A lot of users have noted that they supported a site ban due to the block log - why would they consider this proposal better? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Echo chamber. "He's been blocked before, so he must have done wrong" is a poor argument. We need to look at the conduct and see why he has been blocked so many times. Has he been damaging articles? Has there ever been an RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vintagekits, to document the evidence of wrongdoing? Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • That's not a poor argument at all. It's called interminable disruption. If you'd like to build a case against a ban, go ahead, but you're not offering anything to refute the ridiculous block log other than hypotheses of baiting and so forth. Clearly there has been no RFC because his "disputes" are so blatant as to get him immediately blocked. There is no Wikipedia:Requests for comment/General Tojo either. Wknight94 ^talk 15:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• This proposal reminds me of the time VK edit warred on a boxers' article over his nationality, using as a supporting reference, the colour of shorts he wears. You don't heve to be Einstein to guess what the colours were, or the words he used to describe the people opposing him in the 'dispute'. MickMacNee (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Jehochman's proposal.  Giano  15:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Its been tried before: User:Vintagekits/terms.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about NuclearWarfare and Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at CSD

Resolved

 – Nuke has apologized on the project talk page for naming names, and has indicated it will not happen again. No further action seems warranted at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

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

(NOTE: Sorry for my previous edit, I'm having some issues with my browser) It seems that the admin NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs) has openly violated WP:POINT (not to mention handful of other policies) and striven to deliberately bait myself and admin RHaworth (talk · contribs) at newpages. Yesterday, an article Matrena Balk was created and repeatedly recreated by what I believed to be a newbie editor with the account Matrena balk (talk · contribs). The article did not credibly assert the notability of the subject and it was tagged A7 as a result, with very readable and pertinent twinkle notices being added to that account's talk page. The article was deleted multiple times by admins and then recreated multiple times by the same account without any real improvement or attempts to assert notability. At one point I redirected it, this was reversed by the ceating account and I redirected it again with somewhat of a rude comment due to my frustration with the "newbie" to read the many notices on their talk page or to ask for help.

Today, I find a note on my talk page taking me here. It seems that all along, the Matrena balk "newbie" account was an unannounced sockpuppet/alternate/role account created by NuclearWarfare in order to make a WP:POINT and to deliberately bait myself and RHaworth. (The Matrena balk account added a notice to their talk page specifying it is an alternate account after all of this nonsense took place). I have never heard of this "Newbie treatment at CSP" Wikiproject but if their regular activity is to create secret role acounts to entrap newpage partollers into certain types of behavior than that project needs to be discontinued post haste. I have a feeling this Wikiproject and this behavior has something to do with the recent negative media reports that new page creation has slowed on Wikipedia. And, shockingly, it appears that ArbCom has given approval of this. Please forgive my Irish temper, but I do not see how violating WP:POINT, WP:SOCK and deliberately entrapping others in such a way that constitutes real harassment is helpful to the project. Rather, I find it massivley disruptive, a blatant violation of WP:AGF, POINT, SOCK, and others. <>Multi'‑'Xfer<> (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NEWT is not about baiting and entrapping anyone (has anyone indeed suggested any kind of sanctions or admonishmnets to you over your actions?) but is designed as a fact-finding experience with the aim of increasing our awareness of issues that newbies may face. In fact the guidance at that project specifically discourages naming anyone as part of these experiments. Unless someone has told you off for your actions or has threatened some kind of "punishment", my advice would simply be to not take it personally as it was not intended as such. Shereth 19:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well that's lovely, because both myself and RHaworth were named openly at the linked discussion and my frustrated questions there were met with snark by User:SoWhy. I do not care WHO "authorized" this, secret role accounts are NOT ACCEPTABLE. And how can ArbCom approve a Wikiproject whose aim is to deliberately violate multiple longstanding policies? It's disgusting and reprehensible. It's a kangaroo court with "special secret powers" and it disgusts me. Once again, how is it ok for editors to create role accounts and entrap fellow editors? And why has ArbCom given approval to this "project"? I do not care about adminishments or sanctions, I care about sneaks, trickery, subterfuge, and public floggings at notice boards. <>Multi'‑'Xfer<> (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you elaborate how saying "I do not assume that ArbCom would allow any activity that would consist of policy violations of the kind you mentioned" can be considered "snark"? Regards SoWhy 19:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Multixfer, a simple quick rule of thumb I have found useful, is that the number of negative words and images in an editors comments usually is a good indicator of the editors willingness to work towards comprimise. The more negative words, the less the editor is willing to work together. "violate" "disgusting" "reprehensible" "kangaroo court" "special secret powers" "disgusts" "sneaks, trickery, subterfuge, and public floggings". Wow. Instead of attacking editors for revealing the way you typically treat new editor contributions, maybe you should reevaluate your potentially negative role in helping wikipedia grow. Ikip (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I reject this explanation in its entirety as it assumes the NEWT project is correct in operating secret role accounts. I did nothing wrong and using trickery to find "problems" with "behavior" is not the proper way to go about things. Why should I compromise with someone who seems to have engaged in trolling with sockpuppets to prove a WP:POINT? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• As a point of order, ArbCom neither endorses nor specifically approves of this project. Editors have been notifying the committee of alternate accounts created during the project so that they cannot be mistakenly believed to be disruptive socks, but noting the accounts is the extent of the involvement of the committee. — Coren ^(talk) 19:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  I would have thought that using an alternate account to pretend to be a newbie in order to troll admins for responses and waste the time of other good-faith editors meets the definition of "disruptive socks". Just sayin'. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Without looking at the specifics of this situation and how they handled themselves, one of the first examples given for legitimate sock use at WP:SOCK#LEGIT is for longterm users to create new accounts to experience how the community functions for new users. I am guessing that if this group is deliberately pushing the edges of bad sourcing, bad grammar, bad formatting, and questionably notable subjects, they're very likely to find the response that they're thinking they're going to find. --Onorem♠Dil 20:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, they are all attempting to behave like "normal" newbies. I personally think they're being a little to naive in their impersonation but not out in the field: most of the socks have been behaving much like a random well-intended newbie would (and sometimes to a poor welcome indeed). — Coren ^(talk) 20:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't put too much stock in that exception. It was added to the policy, without fanfare, just a month ago: [125]. By an unsurprising non-coincidence, WereSpielChequers added this loophole to the policy just two hours before he created a fake-newbie account ( [126]) on the very first reported day of their 'newbie treatment' project. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that wording was in the article consistently (as far as I can tell) from February 2004 until it was removed this July by Kingturtle. WereSpielChequers then restored it on the 6th of this october. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this thread, something Multixfer should have done. Taking offense to NEWT is a mistake. It shows us a huge problem with the way we have all been handing things (remember that decline in new editors everyone was wondering about?). If you made mistakes, you are in good company. Don't take it personally. We are trying to help the project, not hurt anyone. — Jake Wartenberg 20:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good-faith attempt to assess our false-positive rate in article tagging. Since all the articles created appear to pass the guidelines, I don't see the problem with doing this with an alternate account. However, trying the same approach to assess our false negative rate (creating articles that don't meet the criteria) would indeed be disruptive. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome of this discussion may be, I think it should apply to all members of NEWT. Singling out NuclearWarfare is unfair, unless he was doing something that no one else had done. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He was the only one who created the article multiple times since his was the only article deleted multiple times (which is the approach a newbie often takes if the deleting admin ignores them and noone told them about DRV) but apart from that I also see no reason to single him out. Regards SoWhy 21:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the lesson we should be learning is: Be nicer to new people than we clearly have been doing. Instead of finger-pointing by dragging this to the noticeboards, take a look at how situations are conducted, and try to improve on them. This is something everybody can learn from, and I for one am pleased that this problem has been so clearly highlighted. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of the project (which I am not even a part of) seems to be identifying areas everyone in Wikipedia can improve, by identifying bitey and snarky actions by new page patrollers and admins. It seems that multifxer's main complaint is that he was caught doing something he shouldn't have done (treating an editor he thought was new in a not-so-welcoming way). The entire goal of the project, one which everyone who values contributions should support, is to improve how we treat newbies. It is not to "entrap" or "bait" admins into doing something wrong and then sanctioning them for it. The bottom line is NW, with his "new" account, was treated in a way by multiple editors which clearly violated WP:BITE. Perhaps instead of screaming about entrapment editors should examine their own behavior, and question whether it was appropriate regardless of whether the account was really a new editor. The Seeker 4 Talk 21:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It really concerns me that Multixfer felt the need to bring it here, when in fact he was the one clearly in the wrong biting the newbies! If any sanctions were to be applied, I'd argue they should be against Multixfer if anyone. The behaviour highlighted is completely unacceptable and I am now very concerned that this user is patrolling new pages! Jeni ^(talk) 21:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Somebody who uses WP:ROLLBACK to revert a WP:PROD tag removal [127] really ought to think twice about bringing the incident to wider attention. Rd232 ^talk 21:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, this was the state of the article at the point at which Multixfer redirected it. It was in similar condition when the page was A7 deleted. Durova³⁶² 21:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What an excellent idea. I certainly notice that new users are not treated as well as they should be all of the time. Using Wikipedia "as a new user" is a great way to find such problems. This should be commended. Chillum 21:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

On the plus side, this thread reminded me to create the article on HOTHEAD (gene) that I was thinking about writing for some time. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is such a great project. Wikipedia:NEWT#Jake_Wartenberg.27s_experience strikes me as a reasonably likely outcome. This seems like a whole lot of fun (And exposes bad practice pretty efficiently), but we can get overzealous. Protonk (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that reinserting a WP:PROD tag is a violation of the rules, unless the deletion was as part of clear vandalism. Nonetheless, the WP:A7 tagging and deletions were clearly correct. Even the claim of being "Catherine the Great's favorite" doesn't seem to be an indication of importance or notability, although that one is at least marginal.

I don't think anyone has behaved well, other than those who merely tagged and deleted the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the A7 criterion clearly states "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." The stub asserted that the biography subject was a favorite in the Russian imperial court. So a cleanup tag or a request for references would have been appropriate, but the article was not speediable. Durova³⁶² 22:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure myself, since it didn't say she was "a favorite", which is almost an official position, but just that she was part of somebody's household and was greatly liked by the Empress. Seems arguable both ways, so probably should have gone to AfD, but I could also see the argument that you could tag this as having no claim of notability (being liked by somebody famous isn't relevant to notability). Tim Vickers (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've started a thread here about calling out users in NEWT. — Jake Wartenberg 22:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with Jake that specifically putting individuals out on front street isn't the best solution here. Durova³⁶² 22:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no harm in adding the names to the detailed experience reports since everyone reviewing the article will find out about those names anyway. I agree that they should not be in the overview (WP:NEWT#Results) though which is what most people will read. Calling out users in such a project may be embarrassing but a detailed discussion on a specific case (i.e. a experience report) requires that we invite those users to it to allow them to reflect on their editing in this situation and as such their names have to be mentioned. Regards SoWhy 22:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've commented some questions and tenative objections to the project at Wikipedia talk:Newbie treatment at CSD. I believe this issue needs a centralized discussion area and some community wide discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The correct way to study how newbies are treated isn't to play dumb and generate work for other editors and admnistrators. The correct way is to look at the pool of existing, honest, legitimate newbies' experiences. Pull a random sample from the user creation log, and check their article edits, article creations, and deleted edits. (Alternatively, start with the page creation log, and look for pages by new editors.) The data are already available; it isn't necessary to make up fake newbies.

If the objection to that is, 'Well, then we won't know which edits are from legitimate newbies and which are from trolls playing dumb'...then you've learned something very important about the experiment that you chose to conduct over the last month. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Properly handled, secret shoppers can offer extraordinarily good evidence about how well or poorly a process functions. We just aren't properly handling it. Protonk (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am beginning agree with TenOfAllTrades the more I see about this project. I find Protonk's argument strange given that all interactions (except for deleted ones) are public (and even the deleted ones are available to admins, of which the majority who seem to be interested are). Shadowjams (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me attempt to allay that confusion. this paper describes an experiment where economists invented fake names and generated thousands of resumes in order to determine whether or not businesses would respond differently to equally qualified "black sounding" applicants as they would "white sounding" applicants. Obviously if you just measured employment between black and white americans you would get a result which could be muddied by class differences, self selection, macro effects, and so on (i.e. if you just looked at the rate of article creation). If you just asked the companies whether or not they discriminated (i.e. asking admins/taggers if they are nice to newbies), you would get the obvious response. But testing this directly showed that the response differences were large and significant. It would not have been helpful to report the names of the HR employees at the various firms in the paper. It would hard to justify even offering the names of the companies, but the experiment itself is valuable and informative. Likewise, a process like NEWT should generate data like it has been doing, but report in the aggregate, unless some particularly egregious response comes up, where an editor could be poked on his/her talk page (rather than shamed in some more "public" WP page). Protonk (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make that argument, you're going to have to tell me what data these fake newbies will gather that isn't available through proper spadework involving existing logs of genuine newbiews. Incidentally, the use of 'real' newbies rather than fake ones has the added side benefit that these 'researchers' might actually be able to directly help newbies with genuine problem situations. Of course, all that's more work than just going out admin-baiting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's easy. Fake newbies can create articles of a relatively uniform nature on a subject they know will meet our inclusion criteria. Real newbies create articles for a variety of reasons and in a wide range of quality (and obviously with little relation to our inclusion criteria). Using fake newbies removes a number of data problems and zeroes in on what really concerns us, false positives. Without using them, all we get is one crowd saying "WP is mean and our numbers are dropping, this is all because of the meanies at CSD" and another crowd saying "most of what gets deleted is shit and we delete tens of thousands of pages per month". Protonk (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much the same difference, isn't it? Chief distinction I see is that doing it the way they've been doing it generally results in new content. Another benefit might be its somewhat inflammatory nature - by being somewhat embarrassing to the folks caught out, it gets the project and the problem more attention than it would receive if it were a dry statistical report posted in a big block on a noticeboard. Nathan ^T 23:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a red herring. They're perfectly capable of creating the exact same new content using their primary accounts. And since they wouldn't be pretending to be newbies, they'd do a better job of it, saving hassle for other editors. If, as I note above, they had instead worked on problems encountered by real newbies, they could also be protecting and improving content, and solving real problems instead of fake ones. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Here's what I'm not seeing here: a clear request for administrator intervention in this matter. Although ArbCom did not endorse the project, they were made aware of it. While there may be some issues with the way this was handled, I don't see any need for any blocks or anything, so why is this being discussed here exactly? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The OP claimed multiple violations of various policies. Doesn't look like those claims have been substantiated, but there was an initial request for intervention. Nathan ^T 23:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• One issue raised here was my edit to wp:sock, I'd just like to draw people's attention to the thread that I first started on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry#restoring an example. I wasn't inventing a new part of that policy - merely restoring a useful example. If people don't think that this sort of thing should be allowed can I suggest we discuss it there? ϢereSpielChequers 23:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am currently busy and unable to comment at length here. Fortunately, my workout this afternoon has helped calm me down significantly. However, I will state the following: 1) I DID NOT bite any newbies. I "bit" a secret role account of an established editor who appeared to me to be behaving in a sneaky, disruptive manner. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, I've done absolutely nothing wrong. 2) I absolutely reject the claim that this article met guidelines. It was correctly speedied multiple times because it did not assert the notability of the subject. 3) It's true that NuclearWarfare isn't the only problem here, the real problem is this NEWT project. I'm currently debating whether or not to send it to MfD but my RL duties will have to come first, I'm afraid. An interesting point I will make before leaving for a few hours: If this account has been a genuine newbie, and someone had simply come to my talk page and said "you were too hard on this person, be more patient and helpful inthe future" I would have listened and taken the advice to heart. Instead, we have subterfuge and drama. So, consider how valuable a project like NEWT really is. EDIT: My use of undo to reinsert a prod tag was a simple mistake, as you'll see on the very next edit I redirected it. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You are openly refusing to learn anything from all this, even though you acknowledge you would have learned something if NuclearWarfare was an actual newbie - I don't see the logic in that. Wikipedia is already known by non-editors as a place that is hostile to new people, and I think your reaction to all this is only cementing that stereotype. Rm999 (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This process is a very good idea. The basic mechanism has been endorsed by the WP:SOCK policy for a very long time, and with our shrinking user base, things like this are essential to the future of Wikipedia. Following actual newbies is also a good idea, but a problem I have found when sticking up for actual newbies is that some of them end up being actually disruptive. When this happens, it tends to undermine the point and vindicate the newbie-biters. So doing this with editors who are already known to edit in good faith is useful. rspεεr (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, so far wp:newt has resulted in the creation of over thirty articles, and has identified a number of problems at new page patrol, speedy deletion and the welcoming committee. If anyone is concerned about the way it is running please come and discuss your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Newbie_treatment_at_CSD. ϢereSpielChequers 00:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Block request

Resolved

 – IP blocked - Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Can some kind admin please re-block 24.109.207.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? It's the main IP of lovable but persistent sockpuppeteer Swamilive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It might be a sensible idea to check for any accounts created by that IP since the block expired. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

1yr hard block applied, only one account was created on it the IP during the time it was unblocked and it's already been blocked. --Versageek 21:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Versageek! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

User Name Issue

Since going into retirement, I have periodically come back to check on a couple articles that are important to me. I have found on my watchlist today the user Neuralhomer. This is obviously done VERY close to my username. Some of the edits the user has made are vandalism and should be reverted, but I worry more that this copycat account and mine legitiment account will be confused for each other. I would ask that the admins investigate this new account and see if there user is here to be constructive or not. Thank you. - Neutralhomer (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith - whether or not any of those edits ought to be reverted is up for discussion but they are clearly not vandalistic in nature. Consider contacting this user and asking if they would be amenable to either a name change or putting a notice on their userpage to make it explicitly clear that they are not you. Currently there are no obviously bad-faith edits by this user nor any obvious intent to impersonate you. Shereth 19:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made Neuralhomer (talk · contribs) aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 19:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is he editing pages that you used to edit? If so I would say it's likely not a coincidence. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Person creates an account today[128] and immediately starts messing with radio station templates, an area Neutralhomer worked in. If vandalism was also involved, I'd say block immediately; otherwise, tell person to choose a new username. Person also somehow managed to create several new templates. I thought this was not possible for an account too new to have been autoconfirmed, but maybe I'm wrong. I just tried creating a template (without being logged in) and couldn't. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have edited a couple of the templates he did in the past, but not recently. I do feel the name it not a coincidence. It is essentially my username missing a "T". While I normally am not bothered with this, I feel since I am in retirement that it could cause people to think I am socking (to confirm I am not, I would welcome a checkuser...you will find me using an IP account...not the one above...for a couple edits). - Neutralhomer (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, barring evidence to the contrary we cannot jump to the assumption that there is any nefarious intent in this situation. I can find no evidence that this account intends to confuse editors into thinking that they are you. The simplest course of action (at this point) is to kindly ask the user to rename themselves or clarify the issue on their userpage; there is no need for drastic measures such as administrative intervention or checkuser. Now, if the user had been contacted and had refused to acknowledge the issue while still editing that might call for further action but right now this does not require admin intervention. Shereth 22:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks pretty nefarious to me. If the user changes their name promptly to something that's clearly not confusable with another editor, though, it'll be resolved. rspεεr (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This username hardline soapboxer agrees that it's a name that needs to be changed. If there's any crossover between NeutralHomer's and NeuralHomer's editing the new editor may need to e blocked if they don't agree to a change. FWIW NeutralHomer could probably have got a swift, hard, block if theyd reported this at the (out of control trigger happy) username boards. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser shows the following are  Confirmed sockpuppets:

1. DelayedBrick (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. Yay999 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. CP992 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. XPL883 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
5. Neuralhomer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
6. SuitiganBigBoy88 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
7. ProdConn9095 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
8. VeiraMyers9908 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 Confirmed matches for each other,  Likely matches with the overall group:

1. GoalKeeperGate (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. MaxJebel99 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. ToughCookie89 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. LeFanz882 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 Confirmed matches for each other,  Likely matches with the overall group:

1. Carry3Over (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. SallyRider898 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. ProudAmericanAuto (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 Likely match with the overall group:

1. PlantWaves898 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

That's a lot of sudden activity. Might be useful in evaluating the situation. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Zermelo's theorem

Resolved

 – No probs. Abecedare (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I split out Zermelo's theorem (game theory) from well-ordering theorem, as it clearly doesn't belong there. However, I'd like confirmation that I used the appropriate tags to retain GFDL, per WP:SPLIT. I don't think there's a problem, but … — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine as far as licensing goes. Abecedare (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Review a block?

User_talk:Thewtfchronicles#CS_Independance_of_the_Seas_.28sic.29. Please note that the user has removed my blocking template (I did add one).[129] Regards, —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fully endorse - User was previously warned on his talk page by Abecedare that a block could used if he did not desist his inappropriate CSD tagging. That warning came after several of us had advised the user his taggings were problematic. He continued. This behaviour is disruptive and off-putting for newby editors. LadyofShalott 21:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, unblock request declined. LadyofShalott said all that needs to be said. Chillum 21:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• (after ec) I am familiar with the users inappropriate CSD taggings and I, and many other users have advised/warned him about it. Given that the user has largely ignored the advice, I completely support the block. My only cavil is that perhaps the block should have been indefinite - with the provision to unblock immediately if the user commits to refrain from CSD tagging for say a month - till he is more familiar with the norms. Abecedare (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Enough people tried explaining it first, without success.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - 4 or 5 warnings plus an extended (ultimately failed) attempt at explaining it to him didn't work.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 22:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

While a new account, this is evidently very far from a new user. The account was created on the 7th, and within a few dozen edits was welcoming new users, quick-fire undoing, using (and substing) the appropriate vandalism and csd templates, correctly navigating the process of nominating for AfD, and quoting policy on AIV. The reasonable assumption of good faith we afford new users clearly does not apply; this person is not new. Their facility with our procedures and policies shows they're quite familiar with the CSD policy and the rest of deletion - they're so obviously flaunting them because they want to, not because they don't know better. Blocked twice in four days, with a torrent of warnings, I think this shows the person intends disruption. I'd suggest an indef block on the basis of repeated and evidently wilful disruption. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse - Constantly calls Truth or Square an "extended SpongeBob episode" while many people (including me) tell him/her to read the noblility guidlines. See Talk:SpongeBob's Truth or Square. Rowdy the Ant talk to Rowdy 22:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  What does WP:PEERAGE have to do with SpongeBob?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse and echo what Abecedare stated about the length of the block. I attempted to engage this user in conversation about their CSD nominations, and the fact that their rapid editing was maybe not giving the articles the attention they deserve, but despite my (and several others') best efforts, this user entirely refused to engage in conversation and basically takes a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach whenever someone tries to work with them. Frmatt (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block and would endorse longer term restrictions on CSD activity. Also - agree with Finlay McWalter - this is definitely not a user.  7  02:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

7, did you mean a "NEW" user? or just a user? I did ask that question on their talk page and they replied that they had edited a few years ago but forgot their password. I took that at face value and didn't take it any further at the time. Maybe it is worth pursuing with the user at this point? Frmatt (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Hippo43 stalking my talk page and wikihounding me

I brought Hippo43 here before for his constant watching over me and interfering and disruption to places I contribute. Now I caught him basically admitting that he watches my talk page and that he came to a place I contribute to because of he found it on my talk page. For quite awhile Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines I have been working on changing the guideline to reflect that bold and italics are not shouting and do have good purpose if used correctly; I felt the original wording to be overkill (and regardless of everyone making it about capitals I never had an opinion on that, I cared about bold and italics). From day one I was clear the reason I wanted the change was that I had recently been told that using bold and italics was "shouting", something I do feel is tweenish and teenagerish (as do alot of internet users my age). During a discussion at Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means I had the caps lock on during typing for work, came back to the internet and wrote my edit summary, accidently having my edit summary in caps; not intentionally to make a point. A non-involved person "warned" me about it on my talk page. Less than five minutes later Hippo43 showed up at that policy talk page for the first time at the guideline talk page and started supporting the "status quo" side, then showed up at the "talk page guidelines" guideline and stated that I wanted to change it only because I was just warned about using caps as yelling; which he probably didnt notice that I'd started that discussion long before, when I was accused elsewhere of "yelling" when using an occasional word in bold, which is my style. This shows that he's been watching my talk page and goes around to different locations that I'm involved with for the express purpose of frustrating me; this is the very definition of hounding and is unacceptable; he had never been active in either discussion and then suddenly shows up only after noticing something on my talk page!

Now to make it clear to everone I am not talking about just this one incident! There was confusion last time I brought Hippo here. Last time I took Hippo here my case was thrown out as most of you looked only at that one case, and declared in his favor due to the circumstances and threw in as support for his side the fact that Albany, New York had a "may be too long" template. I did some editing to that article, and looked into the policy/guidelines about that issue, removed the template per Village Pump discussion in which the only two who responded agreed that the template wasnt required for Albany. Hippo of course reverted my removal. Luckily an admin and at least two or three other editors on the talk page were able to revert Hippo and give me a consensus on keeping it off.

This all started with Siena College and a dispute over whether it is in Loudonville or Newtonville (consensus of editors has always been that it is not clear and both may be mentioned. Hippo dissented saying "only consensus of sources matter, not editors") from there because many editors pointed out Loudonville is a hamlet not a town as he tried to write into the Siena College artricle he attempted at the Loudonville, New York page to say "it is a town unless you can show a source that specifically states it is not a town. Again consensus of editors told him NO. Then he moved on to Administrative divisions of New York, where he has continued to harrass my contributions. Anything that puts his "viewpoints" in past arguments in jeopardy and make me look right automatically brings him. Now any discussion I am in that in "his opinion" Im doing something wrong he shows up. I will not be wikistalked, and dont need to be "watched" by anyone, especially not him.

I know this is long, but this has been going on for over a year, I'm fed up with it; he's won arguments simply based on people not wanting to "fight" him again. I hate to bring them into this and hope they arent upset by it, but asking the following users about the issue at Siena College/Loudonville/Newtonville might be helpful in this- User:UpstateNYer, User:Juliancolton, User:Doncram, and User:Daniel Case; for the Albany too long template case- User:ZooFari, User:AFriedman, and UpstateNYer. I request that we each be banned from contact with each other. I have worked hard on working and IMPROVING and constructive edits at Capital District related articles within Capital District Wikiproject where as Hippo's only "contributions" to those articles have been to disrupt and attack mine. I have lots of flaws, I'm agressive and abrassive; but that shouldnt allow Hippo to think he has a right to "supervise" me and frustrate anything I work on that he doesnt agree with.Camelbinky (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the relevant policy I bring this under is WP:HOUND which states- "Wiki-hounding is 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 believe it is clear that this is what Hippo's intentions are.Camelbinky (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd that Camelbinky (talk · contribs) has only edited Hippo43 (talk · contribs)'s talk page to inform him/her of this discussion. That seems like the place to start. Toddst1 (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction - since Since April. Toddst1 (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand Toddst1, you want me to continue to have a dialogue with someone who has failed to listen everytime I have asked him to stop this? Have you bothered you to read his archives on his talk page or the history, or the talk page discussions at the articles I listed? I'm confused as to what you wanted me to do regarding his talk page. I've asked him not to edit the articles I work on, he accuses me then of "ownership". I've asked him to stop what he does. He wont. This isnt the first time I've asked him. This has been over a year this is going on. I've been in discussions with him. Contact some of the users I mentioned. Could you clarify what I did wrong. I want this resolved but if I'm doing something wrong please tell me. Your post was a bit cryptic for me.Camelbinky (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is indeed plenty of discussion in Hippo's talk page archives. I'm sure Toddst1 just overlooked that. Equazcion (talk) 23:12, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I've done some cursory checking and found that stalking is a possibility here, but I'll leave it up to better and more diligent people than I to make a determination; I'd also like to hear from Hippo43 before saying anything definitive. On Camelbinky's request that the user's be "banned from contact with each other", I'm not sure how that would work, unless you were both topic-banned from the pages where these disputes have arisen, and I don't see that happening. All I can see coming of this is a stern warning and administrative scrutiny over Hippo's future contributions, if it is determined that there was a violation. That's not say we shouldn't discuss it here -- I do think we should -- but the resolution you've suggested doesn't seem feasible. Equazcion (talk) 23:40, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know where to start with this garbage. Camelbinky's sense of time, in particular, is a little out. His claims of "over a year" and "less than five minutes later" are both wildly inaccurate. His talk page is on my watchlist because of previous (disagreeable) conversations, and I noticed someone claim that there had been a personal attack (User:A8UDI), so I looked into it, followed some links and made a comment on a project talk page. I'm not sure what I'm being accused of - making a legitimate comment on a page Camelbinky was involved at? I come across the same editors all the time. Was I uncivil? Did I make a personal attack? Was I disruptive? No, no and no. If I wanted to stalk him and "disrupt his enjoyment of editing", I could simply watch his contributions and criticise him for all kinds of crap he has written. I have better things to do. --hippo43 (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, only a tiny percentage of my edits are in any way related to Camelbinky's interests. Likewise, the vast majority of his edits have not attracted any attention from me. If I had any intention to stalk or hound him (I'm not sure of the difference) I could easily take a much more active interest in topics he is active in - New York's Capital District, for example - and pick fights all the time. Again, I have better things to do. --hippo43 (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky, could you post a list of the pages where you believe Hippo43 has "followed" you to? It's a little confusing to dig through all of those histories and contribs. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 23:48, 11 Nov 2009 (UTC)

The "warning" posted on my talk page was at 22:38 and then at 22:46 Hippo43, which is 8 minutes and for the first time, goes to Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means and comments in opposition to me; then the next day goes to Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines and posts in opposition to me again this time stating that the reason I am there is because I was just warned about capitals being shouting (which was the day before, but I started the thread on the guideline page weeks prior, so his accusation was completely unfounded). As I stated his involvement with me started at Siena College, moved to Loudonville, New York, and Newtonville, New York, which caused him to start watching my edits at Administrative divisions of New York, and then when I brought him here last time he went to Albany, New York to disrupt my attempts to improve that article and remove a template that he felt supported him in our past AN/I dispute but was wrongly stuck on there so when I removed it I'm sure he felt that I was doing it for the wrong reason, but as others pointed out the tag should never have been in there in the first place. Watching my talk page and deciding to "investigate" or go to places because I had a discussion somewhere or because I got warned is clearly a type of wikihounding, in my opinion Hippo43 pretty much admitted to doing it and as to why when he said "I could simply watch his contributions and criticise him for all kinds of crap he has written"; which I find uncivil and a personal attack and would like to have that added to the things he has said and done. At Siena College he blatantly stated he did not recognize a consensus of editors, just the consensus of the sources; this was not civil behaviour and was warned by the three admins (four as one was promoted soon after) that were on "my side". Saying that I write "all kinds of crap" is his motive for following me. I ask all who read this to look at Capital District, List of incorporated places in New York's Capital District, Tech Valley, Port of Albany-Rensselaer (GA status) all articles I created or completely rewrote; all four are 90% me (with much gratitude to those that helped, I am not denigrating them, I thank them every day for their help), check my user page for others that I have done that arent "crap". He can say what he wants about my opinions, but my editing contributions by calling them "crap" is over the line and typical of his opinion about me, his problem is that he thinks I personally need to be watched.Camelbinky (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to Hippo's comment "I could watch his Capital District articles", he does! That's where Siena College, Loudonville, Newtonville, and Albany are all in! That's where it started, so his idea that he doesnt get into what I work on is ridiculous; he has never added anything meaningful to any article in that entire wikiproject (as the cofounder and one of the three most active members I should know, since almost every article with that wikiproject tag is on my watchlist). Capital District articles are the only ones I work on! So, yes if I see Hippo at an article it is going to be a CD article, which I still have no idea why he has showed up at any of them, and has only gone to any of those articles after our first dispute at Siena College, any time he has shown up at any Cap District article it has only been in opposition to me, he has never gone to one otherwise. As for Siena College, it was 8 months ago. So yes I was wrong about 5 minutes and 1 year in time spans; it was 8 minutes and 8 months. Does that make this any less legitimate that he's been hounding me for over 8 months instead of 1 year, or that it took him 8 minutes after finding something on my talk page to going to where a discussion I'm involved in is located? Camelbinky (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Saying Camelbinky has written 'crap' was not a personal attack, but justified criticism of some of his writing. If I thought Camelbinky needed to be watched, I would watch him - I don't. His sentence "I still have no idea why he has showed up at any of them" just shows his arrogance and sense of ownership of this material. --hippo43 (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky wrote above "so his accusation was completely unfounded." There was no accusation - this is some very skewed thinking on Camelbinky's part. I made a legitimate and inoffensive comment on that page, to explain what I felt Camelbinky's view was about. --hippo43 (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasnt a "legitimate" comment as you were commenting on my motives, which you couldnt have known and showed your ignorance about by claiming it was because I was just warned about using CAPITALS and that it was shouting, and therefore I wanted to change the policy. By mentioning the capitals=warning problem (which occured the day before) you showed you had not even read or looked at when the thread was begun, by referring to Rd232's proposal in a way that seemed like I was opposing it you further showed no knowledge of what was going on because Rd232's proposal was in fact a compromise effort on his part to get the policy to address my concerns but still keep the essense of it. At every instance you show your contempt for my editing, I would put my best four articles up against yours any day to a judgement on who is the better editor if your problem is that you think I write "crap"; if you have no interest in CD articles, why show up at them at all? It's not ownership I'm showing, its concern for things I care about being ruined by someone who has ulterior motives. Why get involved with the Albany, NY article's "too long" template when I removed it? I can give you the benefit of the doubt and good faith that you thought I was removing it because of our dispute, but when AFriedman, UpstateNYer, and ZooFari (people who actually work on CD articles) told you "no" you pressed it; your problem I believe is that you dont give me good faith on my editing, perhaps if you take my talk page off your watchlist and stick to articles you know about and can add constructive things to instead of worrying about "Camelbinky sticking in crap" to CD articles you wouldnt ever see me. Your job isnt to worry about if I'm putting in crap and then to stop me. All of my articles are within a very active wikiproject and all my new articles are posted clearly for them to look at, all big rewrites are undertaken with their OK, I have them helping me as I help them; no one need you "watching" me. Which is what you have done at multiple locations, if I put in "crap" someone else can take care of it. (your response now I'm sure will state "Camelbinky doesnt know what I am interested in or not or what knowledge I have", if you had knowledge about the CD area then you sure havent shown it the numerous times I've asked you to contribute any meaningful help)Camelbinky (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hippo, do you think you could respond regarding the specific pages Camelbinky listed, and tell us how you ended up on those pages, if it wasn't due to camelbinky's involvement? PS If someone called my writing "crap" I'd take that as a rather personal attack, albeit on the lower end of the spectrum. It's uncivil at the very least. Equazcion (talk) 00:45, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I guess you're right - although it wasn't a personal attack, that phrase wasn't civil, and I shouldn't have let this entirely uncivil complaint get to me like that.

I came across Siena College (about 8 months ago) because I wanted to find out some info on the college, then noticed some strange wording in the article, cleaned it up and found myself involved in an extremely lame, long-winded and unpleasant edit war/discussion. This involved me reading, and editing, the Loudonville, Newtonville and Administrative Divisions articles as they were related to that issue. It also apparently led to Camelbinky taking a dislike to me and developing a kind of paranoia that I'm out to disrupt his work. Out of my interest in these articles (I presume - I really can't remember) I made an edit to Albany, New York in July this year, adding a tag to an unreferenced section - this was two weeks and four intervening edits removed from Camelbinky's previous edit there, and attracted no comment from him, but meant the article was now on my watchlist. Then last month, Camelbinky took exception to another legitimate edit I made there, reverting his addition of trivial information about library storage. He made a complaint here - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#Help_again_please- - which was unanimously dismissed as unfounded, as my edit was obviously beneficial to the article.

So none of my edits to these articles were motivated by Camelbinky's involvement. I believe he sees 'Hippo43' on an edit summary or discussion page and assumes I'm out to get him, and doesn't give the slightest thought to whether my edits are valid. His long rants directed against me suggest to me that he is not thinking about these rationally. He has failed to take into account the many times that edits of his show up on my watchlist, but that I agree with, so don't revert or get involved with. Again, if I wanted to pick fights with him, I'd watch his contributions and get involved at any of the many articles he edits. Indeed, I've often avoided taking part in discussions where he is involved, particularly at content policy noticeboards. He and I generally find ourselves on opposite sides of arguments about reliable sources, verifiability, original research etc, and I have generally chosen to avoid getting drawn into this kind of argument with him, as he has tended to take disagreements with me rather personally. I have better things to do. --hippo43 (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, complete misrepresentation of events. He has a habit of doing that, as he has been repeatedly called out on doing, lately by User:ZooFari at the latest debate at Albany, New York where ZooFari pointed out Hippo was misrepresenting what the guidelines actually said and stating things that werent there. His edits at Loudonville, Newtonville, et al were all in opposition to my edits which came first, I've been at each article before him and he has never never never just gone to a CD article and contributed, only to remove or "clarify" my edits. He, very late in the discussion at Siena College brought up this "I was looking for information on the college" argument for his reason there when several of us asked why he was there, we all had good reason and actual knowledge regarding the college and its location; when pressed "what information were you looking for?" his response was "it wasnt in the article", and then when asked "why didnt you add it?" his response- "its not notable"; our response was "then why were you looking in Wikipedia in the first place?" no response. He has not contributed any new information to any of these articles despite pleas to be helpful. If he had been helpful there would be no animosity; User:Doncram and I had gotten into an argument and then became good collaborators because we added information and helped each other (and bonded in our opposition to Hippo); this idea that I'm paranoid after one argument is his excuse and only something he started bringing up after I mentioned in an argument that I have a form of autism and other issues, ever since then he has this "its in Camelbinky's head" and thinly disguised it as an attack on my psychological emotional stability. He claims that the "too long" template was perfectly fine, if it was why did several other editors all agree with me that it wasnt? Why did he go to the Albany article in the first place (one I have long worked on) to put that template in and not to add any information? He doesnt contribute, he weakens and finds faults in others. As for noticeboards, he has never contributed to them except maybe twice (again in opposition to me and only on ones that directly related to our arguments and would weaken his viewpoint if it went in my favor) so the idea that wants to comment and intentionally stays away is bogus (I generally tend to be on the majority side at RS and OR noticeboards, and I dont know of any V noticeboard; so is he admitting that his views are the minority? I even got to incorporate into WP:V a new subsection based on my views I put into the RS/N). There are lots of threads at each noticeboard and VP that I dont get involved with, why dont we see him comment at any of them? I want him to stay away from any Capital District article, that is what I want. He has nothing to contribute, he has only edited to hurt my contributions or remove them.Camelbinky (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And I'd like to point out he pretty much admitted to "watching" me as he states he sees my edits and has seen ones he agrees with...why is watching articles he doesnt contribute to? Because he does not contribute to any of the articles I have created or contribute to... so why are they on his watchlist? Most of my edits are to articles I create from scratch, I'm a bit scared that he may be watching me through the user contributions button and looking at everything I do, that's how it sounds from what he wrote; I'm just going by what he himself said and to me it sounds creepy. I'd like a topic ban keeping him from CD articles, I see no problem with that as he hasnt added a shred of information to any of those types of articles and I am one of the heaviest contributors to them; that would keep us pretty much 100% apart. I dont think that is unreasonable, and could easily be enforced as if he shows up at one I just could let an admin know to enforce the topic ban. Perhaps Hippo43 would be kind enough to voluntarily state that he would stay off any CD article?Camelbinky (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC) addendum To clarify since I stuck my statements above that of Equazcion's earlier statements- Equazcion's question is directed to Hippo43, and is not in response to my question to Hippo about a voluntary ban.

What about Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means and Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines? Equazcion (talk) 02:16, 12 Nov 2009 (UTC)

I explained above how I arrived there. --hippo43 (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it looks like Hippo43 went to those discussions to comment just after Camelbinky.

I visit this ANI discussion after noticing this rather insulting edit by Hippo43 at Camelbinky's page, and figured that meant trouble. It is similar to Hippo calling Camelbinky's edits "crap", which they are not. Camelbinky above accurately notes that Camelbinky and i somewhat bonded in response to what we both found to be obstinate edit warring by Hippo on the Siena College article. I haven't studied it, but my general impression is with Camelbinky that Hippo has not contributed meaningfully in Capital District articles and any continued participation by Hippo in anything there would appear to be more to bait Camelbinky than for any other purpose. Bottomline, I don't see why Hippo should be following Camelbinky's talk page and following Camelbinky around. Hippo, why not just agree to drop Camelbinky's talk page from your watchlist and agree to stop following Camelbinky around? It is indeed an aggravation for Camelbinky and there is no useful point to your being the one to disagree in some way with Camelbinky in conversations involving other editors who will come to reasonable decisions. Hippo should just stop it, IMHO. doncram (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if Camelbinky could explain in detail what I'm supposed to have done wrong. I simply don't have time to trawl through the badly-written rants above and try to make sense of, and answer, every point. If there is a case against me, it needs to be presented in a clear and orderly way - can you please provide a list of specific complaints, each with diffs and each quoting the area of policy I'm slleged to have infringed?

I certainly won't agree to "stop following Camelbinky around", as I've been doing no such thing. --hippo43 (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

From my own recent experience I think Camelbinky could do with some overseeing, and so could sympathise if someone was looking at what Camelbinky did. Camelbinky as far as I can see seems to divide the world into us and them and try and recruit people to fight against them with no holds barred. I think one warning on the user page would have been in order before bringing this charge. I don't believe that any apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor has been established. I think this whole business should just be thrown out and counted as a warning to hippo43 to try and avoid anything that might be construed as hounding and to be light on the edits. It seems a bit like restricting a person from doing what's right to me but one has to do that to a certain extent to get along with others in wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Saving Grace (2000 film) edit war

There seems to be an edit war going on over the inclusion of a fan video mention in the article lede. Maybe it should be semi-protected. MotherFerginPrincess (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I see about a half-dozen edits from IPs on that article over the last eight months. Usually you'll see that many in a single day before it's considered to be enough disruption to warrant semi-protection. The edit war itself is about the slowest I've ever seen, spread out over months. I really don't think protection is necessary. There isn't even a discussion on the talk page, if there's really a dispute, start up a discussion there. -- Atama頭 01:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ani medjool

Unresolved

This nettle still needs grasping, please do not archive until this is resolved. Mjroots (talk)

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, because as admin and respect member of wikipedia, the editor should know not to make personal attack and should know difference between personal attack and regular response. 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)

Comment The redacted comment was not intended as a personal attack on Supreme Deliciousness. It was a statement of fact re SD's POV. It was also made clear that the SPI referred to cleared SD. If it came across as a personal attack to SD the I publicly apologise to him for the remarks. It's not a question of neutrality here; I don't know enough about the Middle East and the background of individual editors in the ARBPIA case to be able to deal with this myself. Which is why I've raised it here and am happy for other admins to deal with the situation. I myself will not be taking any action against you, Ani medjool. Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment—It is clear that Ani medjool's edits are not simply controversial and disputable, they are pure vandalism. For example, in this revert, he removes a category and insert a controversial statement but also with improper spelling. He has also made a disruptive edit to a template, which is especially problematic. I wouldn't mind participating in a discussion about the content of the edits, but don't feel that User:Ani medjool should be allowed to continue these making edits like this until he has had time to familiarize himself with Wikipedia and its policies. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Counter-Comment I haven´t looked at Ani medjool contributions in general; but if someone call the Golan for "Israeli-occupied", (as Ani medjool did), then this simply cannot be labeled "disruptive". After all, it is the internationally recognized position. Reading what the BBC writes about notation might be educating: [130]. Regards, Huldra (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Counter-Comment - Poor spelling/grammar/capitalization is not vandalism. Don't get me wrong; I'm not stating that he should be allowed to continue editing (he doesn't seem to be cooperating terribly well, which is necessary), but I just should hope that any action taken would be solely for the preservation of wikipedia's article standards, rather than based on any assumptions of vandalism or other malicious intent. (a fine hair to split, perhaps, but I think important) 139.57.101.207 (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

English not my first language, I sorry you have problem with my spell and language skill. It not vandalism, the edit I make, because international community recognize Golan Heights be part of Syria that currently under military occupation by israel. This do not change fact that place in article be located in Syria and not Israel. Vandalism be disruptive false insert of material to article, I just attempt to correct false information with truth: that Golan Height is recognize as Syria not Israel and there fore article about thing in Golan Height should be attributed to Syria and not israel. If other editor do not beleive this be Syrian and instead it be part of Israel, i stop making edits. But i request discussion because this important issue that has for long time not be addressed. Ani medjool (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Ani medjool, you have edit-warred, POV pushed and politicized many non-political articles. For instance, at "Talk:Falafel#Images" you and another editor complained that the falafel photos taken in Israel should be removed because of the fact they were taken in Israel. Furthermore, your comments on that talk page telling me that I should "cease cry and cease play of traditional "poor me. poor jew" wolf call" are not constructive. Those actions, and others, have made it very difficult for editors to Assume Good Faith when dealing with your edits. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 02:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - When looking through his previous edits, it is more than difficult to assume good faith. It's impossible, as it is clear that he is incapable of putting aside his political beliefs and contributing positively to Wikipedia. He isn't here to help the website; he's here to spread propaganda. The best example of his intentions is one of his past reasons for edits: "the picture in ramallah is good enough, its better than the one in jew city". -- 99.253.230.182 (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment There is no doubt that this editor has a strong anti-Israeli POV which he regularly pushes. He also has repeatedly made offensive comments against Jews. However, in reference to the specific issue which caused this thread to be raised, there has been collective violation of NPOV by multiple editors which has resulted in the pervasive categorisation of places and properties in part of Syria as Israeli. (Claims of items such as roads and wineries as being Israeli-owned are problematic due to their being constructed on illegally confiscated land and therefore there alleged Israeli ownership would be regarded as in violation of multiple motions of the Security Council and other internaitonal legal bodies.) Ani Medjool's highlighting of this problem is a positive contribution to the project even though some of his behaviour justifies repeated short bans. His conduct problems should not be used to prevent the pro-Israeli npov-violations in Golan-related articles from being addressed.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - regardless of the status of the Golan Heights (that's another debate for another time & place), it seems to me that this editor is indeed anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish, and these beliefs are affecting his editing ability; Wikipedia is meant to be neutral! GiantSnowman 17:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Lest there be any doubts remaining as to this editor's blatant bias, this should set them to rest. The Golan categorizations are being dealt with. The question remains as to whether this editor can be trusted to edit articles having anything to do with Israel or Jews with any semblance of neutrality, objectivity and good faith. I think the answer is clear. I suggest a topic ban. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think based on all of the above, it is clear this can certainly be invoked to ban this user from I/P articles and topics. If it is not yet at this point, when will that point be reached? The Seeker 4 Talk 19:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have moved this back from the archive, because it is still unresolved and the problem is still continuing. See, for example this edit and this edit. This is starting to get highl anti-Jewish, and becoming offensive (if it isn't there already). Singularity42 (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• This got archived automatically, meaning no one commented on it for 24 hours. At that point it ceases to be an "incident" and becomes a festering problem. Seek other methods of dispute resolution, please. Protonk (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Hopefully the behaviour will improve. Otherwise, I think arbitration enforcement is the only place left (I just reviewed the logs, and it looks like he was cautioned back in December 2008). Singularity42 (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Jwesley78

Jwesley78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent incivility and edit-warring by the above user on Groupon, its talk page, his and my talk pages and edit summaries. He was taken to task about this by Atama apropos the WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS, and other violations that Atama I or others have alleged, but Jwesley refuses to acknowledge or reform.

Claims that "any non-constructive edit" can be considered vandalism. (But that's absolutely untrue. Reading WP:VAN, it is strongly stated that the edits must be deliberately disruptive, and says, "Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism." The policy tries to make it very clear that the edits that the IP were making were not vandalism.)

Seven examples where my edits were falsely called vandalism: (diff - this was the first interaction) (diff) (diff) (diff with misleading edit summary - a delete J marked as an undelete. (diff "Reverting vandal") (diff Second AIV, the result which should have given him pause and/or resulted in an apology (and is mis-marked as a minor edit)) (diff But no, he falsely reports me for vandalism again.)

The user does know how to revert good-faith edits. But labeled my GFEs as vandalism 7 times. If I wasn't 'just' an IP (but, say a non-anonymous editor), I'd be way more pissed off by the unjustified disparagement.

He overrode my edits to my own talk page here : [131] , [132] , [133] and [134]. (Some of these are also edits of mine he tagged as vandalism.)

In contrast, I try to admit when I'm wrong about content or policy (3RR), instead of pretending to go on break.

Insists his vandalism accusations were not uncivil (diff). Needs to be set straight on that, more forcefully than Atama's attempts have done. If we don't enforce policy, the we don't really have policy. --98.248.113.11 (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

_{I've informed Jwesley78 about this thread. -- Atama頭 00:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC). Thanks for doing that for me. I was looking for my round tuit. --98.248.113.11 (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)}

I better chime in here since I'm involved. I've been trying to keep this from escalating. I got involved in this from a posting at WP:COIN, which led me to Talk:Groupon. I cautioned Jwesley78 about inaccurate vandalism accusations made when reverting the IP and when posting a report at WP:AIV. I then cautioned the IP about strong language on Jwesley78's talk page. I've made attempts to settle this matter, because the original reason for this whole dispute (some controversial text at the Groupon article) has already been concluded after discussion. But for whatever reason neither side wants to let this lie. I've let both editors know that at this point they can just walk away; both of them have made mistakes, but there's nothing unforgivable. I don't think this report is necessary, but I guess if it brings in an outside opinion it can't hurt. -- Atama頭 00:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to say here. There are a few of points on which I admit fault:

• I misunderstood Wikipedia policy about IP talk pages. I was under the impression that they were not to be blanked by the IP user. Under this assumption I reverted his edits to the IP talk page.
• I wrongfully called this edit vandalism, but noted on the IP's talk page that my revert was based on a violation of WP:NPOV
• I was too aggressive in reporting this IP to ARV: 1, 2, and 3.

For these actions, I apologize. Other than these three points I feel that my edits have been fair. You can see the discussion on Talk:Groupon has been civil. And even the discussion that occurred on the User Talk:98.248.113.11 have been relatively civil.

I'd also like to point out that 4 times I had to remove the same content of his from my User Talk page (1, 2, 3 and 4).

Jwesley₇₈ 00:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to Jwesley several times recently (for example, see 3, above), and [[Talk:User:Aatama]] : We actually have a civility policy, WP:CIVIL. It tries to show what is meant by uncivil behavior. Often when people say "uncivil" on Wikipedia, that doesn't mean raging like a maniac (which a lack of civility often equates to in the "real world"), it just means violating what is laid out in that policy and similar behavior. Uncivil behavior can include inappropriate edit summaries (specifically mentioned in the policy) and reverting somebody who is blanking their user talk page. Even though this has been pointed out and is in an official policy, Jwesley does not accept it. I regret that, after Jwesley78 repeatedly added the same content to my talk page (diffs in opening statement), I gave him a taste of his own medicine (not realizing that, in doing so I was doing roughly what he did with respect to 3RR), however I did not add the same content 4 times. I restored and added varying content removed based on unfounded claims of vandalism. I appreciate the (much overdue) apology however. If what Jwesley has done is fair, then WP:CIVIL is not policy, because he just violated it at least 7 times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.113.11 (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm detecting some funny business going on. Why was User:CCritic responding as if he was IP:98.248.113.11, and then IP:98.248.113.11 overwrites his signature? Jwesley₇₈ 02:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Here CCritic refers to the "IP" in the third person, implying that it's someone other than him. Jwesley₇₈ 02:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly, I don't understand how this issue has gotten so big. How could he be so offended by what I've done? I'm really not angry at him or anyone else. Jwesley₇₈ 02:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• How is an IP user who's only been actively editing for 2 days already voting in AFDs? There's no rule (that I know of) against it, but it seems obvious this IP was an experienced editor at some point. He seems fully knowledgable of Wikipedia policy of Civility, but didn't understand why his edit violated NPOV? This whole thing smells fishy to me. Jwesley₇₈ 03:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No funny business, other than you trying to attract attention away from the topic of this ANI. One is supposed to be able to open notices on COIN anonymously. That's why it's suggested to sign with 5 <sic> ~ chars, not 4. --98.248.113.11 (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Jwesley, I think you need to read WP:Newbie_treatment_at_CSD, espcially the article it links to. Somehow, you need to learn/accept what does and does not constitute vandalism. You called me a vandal about a dozen times* (while violating policies left and right) so I got quite offended. It's hard to characterize your apparent lack of comprehension of that without being rude. --98.248.113.11 (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

*Well, you called my edits vandalism, but after the first few accusations, it becomes a distinction without a difference.

Ok. So you thought I had a "Conflict of Interest" with the Groupon article? I had never even heard of that site until recently. Jwesley₇₈ 04:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for calling your edits vandalism. It was a mistake on my part. I will try to be more careful. Jwesley₇₈ 04:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is nobody else commenting on this? We need a 3rd party to give more perspective on our situation. Jwesley₇₈ 04:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention this: User talk:Acalamari#Jwesley78. Jwesley₇₈ 05:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• It has been 12 hours now (since submission), and not a single Admin has commented on this issue. If I'm going to be censured for my behavior, then I'd like to receive my punishment. If my behavior has been within the bounds of Wikipedia policy, then I feel that I have been harrassed unnecessarily by this anonymous user (who has an amazing amount of Wikipedia knowledge). This whole issue has been a headache for me, and has made it uncomfortable for me to patrol RC. Jwesley₇₈ 12:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been advised to be especially wary of calling edits "vandalism" when they are not - which you had been doing. As such, the complaint was valid. No further comments needed to come forward, and claiming harassment when the issue has been appropriately dealt with is probably the wrong idea. Learn the lesson and move on - the rest of us have. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, when I called the anonymous user's edit vandalism, it was not the 3rd time the user had edited an article. He has an amazingly thorough knowledge of Wikipedia. (I didn't even know about WP:Third Opinion until I saw his admitted "puppet" CCritic using it.) In any case, the user has been around long enough to know how to deal with such issues. If he felt that I had improperly labelled his edit, he should have come to me in a civil manner, and we would have talked about it. I think I would have had the decency to apologize for the mislabeling. Instead his first action is to contact a Sysop to ask for my Rollback privileges to be removed. This is not the behavior of a normal IP user! Since this was how he chose to respond before even talking to me, the label of WP:HARRASS is appropriate! Jwesley₇₈ 12:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If mislabeling vandalism is my worst crime, then Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts would be the proper forum for this discussion. I have not misused my Rollback privileges, so the Admin's noticeboard is the wrong forum anyway. Jwesley₇₈ 13:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Really, stop begging to have rollback removed ;-) The removal of rollback is something often discussed right here in this forum. You were WP:BITEy, you mislabelled edits as vandalism, you were a little uncivil, and you were a little tenditious about it. You have apologized. The admins have obviously accepted the apology, and unless you keep pushing it, there will not likely be any further actions. Sure, parts of this could have gone to WP:WQA, but the rollback issue belonged here. Really, going after the person who validly reported you is not going to end well ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

italictitle template

Is it okay to use {{italictitle}} on an album's article? Btilm 01:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you bring this up at the talk page of the template, there in fact is a current discussion that might be relevant. -- Atama頭 01:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Dolfrog adding his on-line research collections to articles

A user, Dolfrog (talk · contribs), is adding his on-line research collections to articles. Many on-line databases have options where you can save specific, even sorted, search results and establish a fairly permanent link to them. It's a useful function. This user has a number of such collections, listed on his user page, and is adding them to articles.

Another user has a problem with this:[135] original research, lack of community consensus, non-official external link, etc., etc. Can someone deal with this issue? The other editor is discussing the issue with Dolfrog, but not making any ground. I don't think Dolfrog means poorly, but he's determined and hard to reach.[136][137]

There may be a place in an article to post the stable, notable, research collection of a known and identified expert in the field, but not anonymous, uncredentialed, wikipedia editor's research collections. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with both Ip69 and the other involved editor. The best way to deal with this is probably to simply keep reverting the edits - and to keep gently telling this editor that Wikipedia is not the place to further his personal agenda. At some point, he will either get the point or will be blocked as 3RR/edit warring. Tan | 39 03:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:EL: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should avoid: (9) Links to any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds."[138] The Four Deuces (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Kmweber's AC candidacy

Resolved

This does nothing but incite unnecessary drama. Re-closing procedurally. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User conduct RfC is thataway.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{resolved}} Durova362 04:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Before this dissolves into the "OMG Sceptre's making a thread about Kmweber STALKER!" argument which is bound to come up, I have serious reservations about this candidacy, for several reasons: By rights, Kurt shouldn't even be editing. Once you exercise the right to vanish, you don't come back. Kurt's views on the Arbitration Committee are well known and this is obviously a troll candidacy. Kurt almost got banned 11 months ago, partly because of his candidacy last year (the most opposed in ACE history), personal attacks, disruption, and off-wiki harassment. Technically, his candidacy last year was invalid as he was banned from editing metaspace during the elections. I don't think Kurt has matured enough to warrant a clean slate, and thus I believe that any actions that took part the day he left are treated as though they happened yesterday. I honestly believe that he's returned just to troll Wikipedia during the ArbCom elections. You all know what the best course of action is... Sceptre (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC) With respect to Durova, I don't think sending this to RFC/U would do any good. It's hard to get stuff done there at the best of times. It's harder when the person you're trying to RFC has an ungodly amount of protection from the rules. Sceptre (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC) When it comes to the candidacy, I highly doubt that with that platform he will get elected, so why not let him run? I say we treat it with the "I" in RBI. As for having vanished, I don't see a problem with a return if (and only if) he can keep from behaviors that would get him blocked. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 05:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Because even allowing him to edit makes a mockery of the behavioural policies and general rule structure we have in place on Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Uh. Who fucking cares. Just don't vote for him. Protonk (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Reigniting the ban proposal Support, per above. Sceptre (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Oppose, too many bans currently Tan | 39 05:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Counter-proposal I propose that Kmweber be banned from the Wikipedia namespace. This will prevent trouble for himself and others and allow him a second chance, since most of the trouble was from the Wikipedia namespace. However sparse, I do see legitimate encyclopedic edits from this account Triplestop x3 05:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC) We tried that. It failed. Sceptre (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Editor adding unusual section to Fascism

Resolved

 – User blocked by Golbez for disruption, talk page privileges revoked by Mjroots. Should he continue after the block, report to Golbez, Mjroots or to me for indef.  Sandstein  13:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not resolved. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Franklinbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Franklinbe continues to insert a section into the Fascism article that is an incoherent conpiracy theory claiming the US government is "Fascist Government #1 Worldwide".[139][140] He has set up an RfC[141] and has applied for mediation[142] despite no support for his section. None of this is constructive. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That indeed might not be 50% proven, so not ready for an encyclopedia. If anyone should've told me it was this little detail, I would've let it out.
Beeing raised katholic, with a US Nuke in my backyard and secret forces operating after Hitler Shot himself, I like some Truth. And since it's out here it's time to make some links as Our Wiki Founders wished for. End of the World in 2012? Good or Bad? Belgium is not the one who started talking about Change. --Franklinbe (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A cursory glance at the user's contribution log shows that his sole activity thus far has to constantly insert that one section into Fascism. Additionally, the comment above clearly shows his thought processes, for better or worse. --HubHikari (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[143]. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, I believe you are slowing me down in life. Check the IP adress before you make idiot comments and vandalising someone elses work.--Franklinbe (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Asserting yourself will not make you thin, nor pretty. --Franklinbe (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyne else feel that the editor needs a reminder about no personal attacks for these comments, and others on his talk page? Tony Fox (arf!) 07:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Author (Franklinbe) is picking the wrong article. Suggest he takes his efforts to the article on Neo-fascism. Problem solved. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If Nazism belongs to the article (fascism subgroups), I believe this sub-category belongs there (Fascism) to. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm. It must have occurred to you by now that you are very alone with this belief... no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you're prob 'In' with America. The next Fascist Cunt that deletes an article (stub) on a system that is besad on equal liberties, could get shot in a lot of countries. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If I can't say that, what is the use of America anyway? --Franklinbe (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I see your basic misconception. Wikipedia is not America. In America , you certainly have the freedom to "not give a fuck" as you so eloquently put it on your talkpage. On wikipedia, we do give a fuck, and that fuck is called "consensus." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem is that the 'talk' about fascism and the right to have a 'non-brainwashed' brain from birth, is in fact a discussion that has been going on for over 2009 years.
Some indeed have problems with the fact that most people are wise enough to take the right decissions. But as a former Belgian Politician once said; "Enough is Enough". --Franklinbe (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

PS: Please put a little efford into life and look at Gladio. That will shut you up for a year or 100. I hope. Otherwise, I'm always in for an interesting conversation. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Restating the point: Should you decide to re-insert material to this or any other article without consensus, your edits will be reverted. If you revert more than 3 times in a 24-period, you will be blocked. Issue resolved. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that. That's why I will only check this page once in 'a while'. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wich means every day for the next couple of days, 'cause I'm having Fun here @ Wikipedia. Keeping an eye on the Timer though. ;) --Franklinbe (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Did any of you seen 'InGlorius Basterds' by Quentin Tarantino? --Franklinbe (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I did, yesterday. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This Song Is Not A Rebel Song This Song Is Called 'Sunday Bloody Sunday'. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the 'Resolved Part' about? Am I still in highschool? Not aloud to critique or ask 'difficult' Questions? Why do we Vote? --Franklinbe (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is 85% of the World Laughing AND (Googelisious) all of the Birds Signing (Fascist) Louder Than Ever (bit of Philosophical Wisdom and Poëtic Creativity') before? --Franklinbe (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember that every edit you make is noted (or to be found). --Franklinbe (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that. That's why I will only check this page once in 'a while'. --Franklinbe (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wich means every day for the next couple of days, 'cause I'm having Fun here @ Wikipedia. Keeping an eye on the Timer though. ;) --Franklinbe (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Those that believe to have the right to ask for Respect, should think about the Responcibility that comes with it. Thereby I give all of you 14 Days to come Up with a Good Explenation why my part of the article should be Deleted. If you believe that this is not acceptable, Please get in touch through my Talk Page or file a complaint with WikiMedia. 10Q --Franklinbe (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Every Second I Think about this, is a Second on your Account. That is what I Believe. --Franklinbe (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on the evidence provided in this section, his contributions as well as this diatribe following his recent 48 hrs block, was it not about time to consider if this user should get an indef? Even with the best of faiths I have a hard time imagining this user being able to contribute anything worthwhile to this encyclopedia. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have to agree with Saddhiyama. He has no concept of neutrality or of what material is encyclopedic. He seems to add incoherent content in the most inappropriate places. He doesn't listen. He doesn't learn. He doesn't take advice. He misinterprets advice as oppression. He gets angry and abusive. Whether or not he is being intentionally disruptive, it is clear that he is highly disruptive to an important and sensitive article (one that has a genuinely important RfC ongoing which we should be giving our attention to, not dealing with this nonsense). I didn't report him myself because he seemed to have moved from adding inappropriate content to articles to arguing on various talk and project pages. This seemed to show some respect, if not understanding, of our policies and processes. My hope was that this was a prelude to him either gaining understanding or else getting bored and going away. I am dismayed to see that he then went back to adding blatantly inappropriate article content and also seriously ramped up the incivility. Once he got blocked he just continued ranting on his talk page. All he wants from us is a place to rant. We are not here to provide him with a free soapbox. There are plenty of other places he can go for that. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've revoked his talk page editing privilege. Let's see what happens when the block expires. Support an indef block if he doesn't learn from this. Mjroots (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems more than fair. Do you think we should clean up the mess he has made on the various talk pages and project pages, or just leave it as it is? --DanielRigal (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say leave user talk pages to the user concerned, they are free to remove of leave the comments as they see fit. Leave project pages to project members to deal with. Offensive comment tend to say more about the commentor than others. Mjroots (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Apt time to point to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

This is continuation of "Admin help needed" above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_help_needed

User Breein1007 who opened his account today have once again deleted the Jubata Ez-Zeit article. At the Neve Ativ talkpage he says: "as usual you are " [144]

First of all the source is accessible and reliable "Arab Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Golan and co-authored by Declan Gannon, legal researcher Al- Marsad, and Dr. Ray Murphy, senior lecture Irish Center for Human Rights." If he didnt feel it was reliable or wanted to removed the article he should have asked at the talkpage.

The fact that a new account does something like this says something. I am now asking, how do I revert it so the article Jubata Ez-Zeit‎ re appears? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way I reverted Breein1007's Jubata Ez-Zeit redirect to Neve Ativ. That seemed way to bold. The source looks fine and the pdf loads. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI is over there. Mjroots (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

Interested editors are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. SecurePoll was recently used in the Audit Subcommittee election, and has been proposed for use for the upcoming Arbitration Committee election at this current request for comment (RFC). Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Reversal of Complex page moves

Resolved

Can someone advise how best to revert a complex series of page moves that have been carried out against consensus at the Wakefield article. For reference, the debate about the proposal for such moves is here. Your attention is drawn to the final paragraphs of the debate. Thanks, LevenBoy (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Reversed per WP:BRD. As ever, the next step is further discussion. I haven't examined the arguments enough to form an opinion myself, but it is clear that opinion is split on this, with even possibly a majority against the move. Black Kite 15:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior by Rndxcl

Rndxcl (talk · contribs)

Constant uncivil behavior by Rndxcl [145] [146] [147] [148] PRODUCER (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User notified of thread. No attempt at discussion of this behavior appears to have been made on user's talk page.  Frank  |  talk  13:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Warned by User:Dougweller.  Frank  |  talk  13:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Rndxcl is a single purpose account that, as of this comment's posting, has made 35 edits since June 2007. Rndxcl is a very aggressively political contributor whose contributions are more intended to engage in soapboxing and real-world political debates rather than attempting to improve the encyclopedia. His edits are at times very inflammatory and directed against Muslim people of former Yugoslavia. Either way, they're not helpful. Here's some examples:

• [149] - "wikipedia is the most antiserb tool out there", "were it not for the media markale square massacre would be painted in its true light, being the selfinflicted PR wound that got the serbs bombed to hell", "you think the fucking media is worth sourcing?"
• [150] - "muslims are capable of slaughtering their own fucking people"
• [151] - "This article is in dire need of deislamofication"
• [152] - "You practise beheadings, just like Your child raping prophet", "whiny little protoserbs"
• [153] - "but clearly you are right and the Serbs are the root of all ills in that Bosnian hellhole"
• [154] - "Lol well, you must be very careful of what you say when muslims are around"
• [155], [156] - "Calling this a massacre of 8000 men and boys makes it sound as if the muslims were using child soldiers, which they probably were"
• [157] - "You idiots"
• [158] - "you piece of shit muslim revisionist", "Won't separate the women from the mujahideen. Nuh huh. We'll kill them too! even the kids!", "Srebrenica was amazing by the way"

The project is not helped by letting this editor continue spreading his polemicism in articles of already volatile nature. It's not even an issue of civility, this is an issue that needs to be remedied by employing a decision reached at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2. The arbitration case decision for single purpose accounts states:

• "Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project."

Therefore, this user should be given a specific ARBMAC2 warning that further disruption will result in a topic ban from all ex-Yu related articles with a subsequent project ban if the topic ban is violated. There should be no tolerance for people using Wikipedia as their political or religious battleground which is all this user has done in the last 2 years. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)