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

Scott MacDonald question re verifiability policy

I just queried Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs) regarding an apparent misunderstanding of WP:V, [1].

It was removed with no comment [[2].

I therefore raise it here, as I am concerned that the admin does not understand core policy, and refuses to discuss it.  Chzz  ►  00:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Users are at liberty to remove messages from their talk pages. Chzz appears to be forum-shopping and attempting needlessly to escalate a non-event. Mathsci (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am absolutely not forum-shopping; this query is unrelated to any other discussion. It's about Scott MacDonald's apparent misunderstanding of V, which I used 2 lines to explain - taken from elsewhere. The 2 lines make it clear that he either fail to understand, or fail to acknowledge, a very simple statement of policy. His refusal to discuss it astounds me. this removal of the ANI notification with edit-summary of "don't be silly" furthers my concern over the behaviour of the user. Of course, he's quite at liberty to remove things from his own talk page - I do not dispute that, at all. But this apparent disregard of a query is not appropriate conduct from an administrator.  Chzz  ►  00:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The "don't be silly" edit-summary adds new dimensions to this non-event. Mathsci (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Chzz, hold on a second. Let's say that you and Scoot actually have different interpretations of WP:V and your reading of WP:V is more correct than Scott's (by consensus I suppose), how is that a matter for AN/I? He's not editing disruptively is he? He disagreed with you at deletion review. I hate to say it but this is beyond frivolous and I recommend you withdraw your query here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

On the issue of removing comments from ones own talk page, mathsci is right. Users are at liberty to remove anything from their talk pages they see fit except for unblock templates. However, just because someone can do a thing doesn't mean they should do a thing. Removing others comments may suggest that one doesn't give a rat's ass about their concerns. However, on the issue of verifiability and sources, a lot of editors confuse sources that are used to verify information in an article with sources used to demonstrate "notability" at AFD. The latter I like to call supersources. (a redirect to an essay you wrote Chzz) However, a source doesn't have to be a "supersource" to verify that something exists. For example, an IMDB entry can verify that an actor exists but it can't be used to demonstrate notability. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, I take your opinion very seriously, and thus if a couple more people tell me to withdraw this (and if you still think I should after reading the rest of this comment), then I will. Possibly there's some other more suitable venue; sincere apologies if I got the wrong place.

Mr. Ritzman - I totally agree re. user pages, but yes - admins seemingly not giving a rat's ass is exactly my concern. I don't see how the V policy on not having articles with no third-party refs at all can possibly be unclear - that was the specific point I raised. Admins just ignoring a good-faith attempt at questioning them, and just tossing it off their talk with "stupid" - that is NOT appropriate conduct. I believe that admins must be exemplary in their conduct - quite literally; setting a good example. I'm not saying this is a 'blockable' / 'desysop' thing, or anything so crazy - but to ignore my dispute, it ain't 'nice', it's not 'exemplary'.  Chzz  ►  03:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin comment)I tell you what. When it's time for me to pass out banana stickers, he won't get one. Other than that, I'm not really seeing any action that could/should be done here. - SudoGhost™ 03:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Chzz needs support here, as he has discovered a fairly serious problem of a whole series of unsourced articles about future events in the martial arts. It appears that Wikipedia is being used as free advertising space for unsourced articles about these non-notable pay-per-view events. I have looked at a few of the articles, particularly the contributions made on behalf of K-1. Have a look at {{2011 K-1 Events}}: you will see a series of self-sourced articles about non-notable pay-per-view events that are the property of this organization. Chzz noticed this problem and is hoping to do something about it. So to dismiss his concerns about the lack of sources is problematic. This kind of work is pretty much the opposite of fun, and without the support of the administrative team he is quite likely going to lose interest in pursuing it. We gotta decide here if we want to play web-host for K-1 and others who post COI advertorials, and offer support to editors like Chzz who are not keen to have the encyclopedia used as a free web host in this manner. So I agree with Chzz that Scott's behaviour was inappropriate for an admin. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I agree with Diannaa here. I don't know if this is the correct venue but I will say that there a way too many articles on Wikipedia that are either not notable or sourced very poorly or not at all and it can be very tough to get them removed if the talk page consensus is to keep even in spite of core policy violations. If this was a deletion discussion I could think of a few reasons why this and similar PPV event articles should be ditched. N^oformation ^Talk 04:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin comment)Me, too. Trying to keep the weeds out of the garden really is a thankless task, and it actually annoys me that certain people / groups are using WP as free-advertising space. This is not what we're here for, and an admin who seems not to understand the underlying problem could appear to be condoning the use of the 'pedia in this way. It's definitely a concern when the majority of people turning up at deletion-wossnames are fans, and effectively shout everyone down just by sheer weight of numbers. If it's against policy, then it's against policy - and, as they say, "300,000 people shouting the same thing doesn't mean it's right". I think we do need a new CsD criterion to deal with this kind of misuse of the 'pedia. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's take this in chronological order.

1. At a DRV launched by Chzz, Scott Mac endorses a redirect, relying on WP:V ("Remove all unverifiable information." leaving nothing but a substub, so redirect is preferred).
2. Chzz challenges this, drawing on the part of WP:V which quotes the nub of WP:N: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Implicitly, he's saying even a redirect is a sort of article which requires sources, which makes a sort of sense, but poses a bit of a challenge (I've never seen a redirect with sources in it).
3. Chzz technically asked a question of Scott Mac on his user talk page about this, but it either was a rhetorical question or could easily be mistaken for one, and either way it didn't illuminate the nature of their disagreement, and was brusque and somewhat confrontational. There was also no obvious need to do that there rather than carry on discussion at the DRV. Scott Mac's removal without even a reply in the edit summary was unfortunate at best; and most people on the receiving end of that would feel it was rude.
4. ANI post which would have been more suitable for WP:WQA (though there's no obvious alternative home for the "admin doesn't understand core policy?" aspect).
5. Diannaa illuminates the background issue is the serial creation of articles on pay-per-view events without evidence of notability (independent reliable sources).

Conclusion: WP:V is not WP:N. They intersect, but they can lead to slightly different conclusions. Obviously in deletion debates the key thing is WP:N (notability).

1. Somebody should look into who's creating all these K-1 articles. Perhaps some form of sanction would be appropriate to prevent the creation of spammy COI articles. Rd232 ^talk 04:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am gonna talk to Chzz and see if he wants to pull together a mass deletion nomination of some kind for the K-1 stuff. Then there is the question of people creating self-sourced articles about non notable events. They don't qualify for speedy under A-7 and by the time we get them through a deletion discussion the organizer has already taken advantage of our servers and resources for at least a week of free advertising. Then there is a big obstacle with getting them deleted as all the fans show up at the AFD and make non-policy based arguments for keeping this junk. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a potential expansion of CSD criteria - A7, or possibly A9. Rd232 ^talk 05:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I somehow doubt it'll happen (much as I'd like it to), but you can take a crack at it here if you think otherwise. I think a mass AfD here would be a good idea; I may take some time to sift through the (s)crap heap here myself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've been involved with this too, I did not find Scott's advice to be effective at Slammiversary IX.  I think the problem is not just spammy COI articles, it is announcements of future events in general, which is related to "breaking news stories".  Editors keep trying to deal with these at AfD and DRV.  This doesn't work, because the notability of the topic changes at the time of the instantiation of the event, or during the on-going course of events for the breaking news story.  Has anyone forgotten Serene Branson?  You can check on the latest medal totals today for the United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics.  There are two of these cases at DRV right now, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 25 (Winnipeg NHL Team) and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_May_27 (Slammiversary IX).  Unscintillating (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Point of order: in filing this at ANI, I had no intention of raising the "Future PPV wrestling" issue here. I'm quite happy that it's being discussed, but we've got 2 things going on here, right now. 1 being the problematic articles on future wrestling events, 2 being admin conduct of Scott MacDonald. So may I ask...could some clerky-type-person possibly sort this out into two bits? If #2 isn't appropriate here, that's coolio, and I'll go elsewhere for it, or drop it. Many thanks for all the input.  Chzz  ►  05:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear from my comments above, I think you should drop #2, not least since it isn't admin conduct in question - he was not acting as an admin. Rd232 ^talk 05:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Rd232, you're absolutely correct that #2 is not re. admin-conduct, it's re. user-conduct. The only caveat there being, I expect 'better' conduct from Admins than I would of other users, in as much as, I like to see exemplary behaviour - and thus am more likely to criticise actions of an admin which, if they were a new user, I'd turn a blind eye to. Thus - is ANI unsuitable? (genuine question) ta.  Chzz  ►  05:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, per point 4 in my comments above, though it's not the end of the world. I understand the issue, and particular in terms of communication, we have a right to expect admins to generally set positive examples, and Scott didn't here. But in this instance I set against that the things I said above in point 3. Rd232 ^talk 06:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. If ANI is the wrong place re. #4, yes, I'll move/drop; that's cool, but for better or worse we're 'here' now, so maybe it's best staying threaded here. Ta.  Chzz  ►  06:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Chzz, I should have offered a more complete explanation to you, and I'm sorry if my comment seemed harsh. For the record I agree with your concerns about these clearly promotional pages and I'm glad that you are tackling the problem, but that is a content issue. When I saw your post what I didn't agree with was the need for an AN/I based on admin or even user behavior. Perhaps WQA would have been a better venue. Sometimes bad interpretations of policy lead to actual disruption, edit wars, and talk page incivility. In such cases I would find AN/I appropriate, but I didn't see that from Scott. You are right to be frustrated by his response to you and I'm sorry that he didn't respond in a more collegial manner. Maybe he will next time. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• It is always a sad day when experienced editors reach such an impasse; especially when one of them outright refuses to discuss the issues. Diannaa appears to be spot-on here, and I agree that Chzz has cause for concern. I don't think we should be looking at any "admin. vs. editor" issues here though, as no admin actions have been taken. However, "experience" should dictate that there would be some sort of understandable communication when questions such as this arise. Anything sanction-able? Doubtful. I'll note that Scott has been in the thick of things lately, and I do commend him for his efforts in the BLP/FR areas, even if I don't agree with all his actions. Perhaps he's operating on a bit of a raw-edge lately, but it's not my place to presuppose his mindset. I'd like to think that perhaps someone could talk to Scott, but I have no idea who he'd be willing to discuss things with. In regards to the "fanboy/cruft" stuff with the wrestling articles, while it's been quite a few years since I followed it, I do agree that these articles being developed before the event happens do seem to thumb their collective noses at wp:crystal. But, meh - I admit that the higher end of the chain (Wrestlemania) meet the wp:v and wp:n policies, so I'm not going to dive into any of that stuff at the moment. In the end, I'm not really sure what, if anything, can be done; however, hopefully someone will be able to have a chat with Scott and find a way to breach this divide. I don't recall having ever interacted with him myself, so it's doubtful he'd care to discuss the issue with me personally. Any takers out there? — Ched :  ?  16:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I will do it. I am also going to follow up on the idea of getting a speedy deletion criterion happening for non-notable future events. I don't know if this idea has been discussed or tried before, so for now I am just opening a thread at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Speedy deletion of non notable future events. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ched Davis - I never thought of it as an "editor v. admin" dispute, I never would; it's "editor v. editor". But... - honest question: imagine this was the other way around - that an editor, who happened to be an admin, had - politely - queried me, over a policy, on my user talk page - and I'd just removed it ...and then, they'd posted on ANI, and I'd ignored that too as 'silly'. Do you think it'd be the same?  Chzz  ►  05:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)  Chzz  ►  11:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• note - User:Chzz has de-archived this when clearly there is nothing requiring any admin action at all and if as he says in his edit summary he wants an answer from User:Ched Davis he rather go ask him for one on his talkpage than replace this to the administrative incident drama noticeboard when no administrative action is required. IMO User:Chzz was mistaken to bring this here in the first place and is doubly mistaken to have de-archived the thread. As is IMO often the case, this thread says more about the person making the report than the person being reported. All to often there is a pointy, tittle tattle kindergarten playground style mentality expounded in such as this, Johnny who I have a little dispute with didn't answer my question and I demand one or I will stamp my feet, all supported by wiki lawyering at its worst. Off2riorob (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Rob, but I have to disagree with you. On balance, I think this is moving toward a resolution that will be of benefit to the community re these kinds of articles, and especially think Diannaa's participation here to try to deal with the issue surrounding differences of opinion re verifiability has been valuable in that respect. And I hope you'll forgive me if I also observe that the rather personal and belittling nature of your comment probably won't help move this to a resolution, but actually works in the opposite direction, to increase the drama that you say you're objecting to.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm the last one to want DRAMA. I did say in my edit-summary, sorry if people object, mark it as completed [3] - that still applies. I think it's the first time I've ever started a thread here; ANI might not be quite the right place - apologies for that, I'll know better next time. But being as we were here, I thought it best to carry on. If it's best handled elsewhere though, I'm absolutely happy to move. On four previous occasions in this thread, I've humbly asked if I was in the right place and offered to move/withdraw it [4] [5] [6] [7]. If people think I'm being childish or wiki-lawyering, please, just remove this thread; no worries.  Chzz  ►  13:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion requested

This sockpuppetry case (filed by User:betsythedevine on May 11) was accusing User:Red Stone Arsenal engaging in sockpuppetry. It closed by me because two previous and recent checkuser cases (from April 27 and May 8) have already shown that Red Stone Arsenal is not related to any other accounts. Upon my further investigations, I found that betsythedevine (betsy) and Red Stone Arsenal (RSA) had content disputes in Start-up Nation where betsy and RSA have opposing POV. I cautioned betsy[8] not to abuse the SPI process to intimidate or assassinate RSA's character even though RSA has a different POV because two checkuser reports have individually confirmed that RSA is not related to any accounts. In her reply,[9] Betsy said she's editing under real-life identity and want me to suppress my comments. Furthermore, she think my conclusion constitute personal attack. So I hope if others could take some time and give some third-party comments. Thanks. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is this on ANI? There's really nothing to this. She did not ask you to suppress your comments, and I'm bewildered as to where you get that idea. And she did not call your comments a personal attack in that edit. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You just missed it, Hand, certainly easy enough to do since the exchanges now span four pages: the SPI Betsy filed which will archive here eventually, Betsy's talk, Ohana's talk, and now here at AN/I. In his first entry to Betsy's talk page, Ohana wrote, "Since Red Stone Arsenal and you have opposing POV at Start-up Nation, I really believe that you use the sockpuppetry case to try and assassinate his character. Therefore, I am cautioning you not to abuse the process and use SPI as a venue to silence editors with other POVs."

In response to this accusation, Betsy posted back to Ohana's talk where she explicitly asked Ohana to redact his comments. Instead of retracting or apologizing, he explained his motivation, on Betsy's talk, and she replied very convincingly about what justified the SPI filing. She also repeated her strong objection to Ohana's accusation that she'd used the SPI process as a vehicle for character assassination. At that point Ohana opened this AN/I thread.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I notified RSA about this discussion. I'll say up-front that RSA and I have clashed at Start-up Nation.

Checkuser isn't the be-all and end-all of sockpuppet identification. RSA swims and quacks like a duck, and despite the checkuser results I think her/his behavior should have been considered.

I personally feel your comments toward betsy were a little harsh. I agree she should have done more due diligence before filing the SPI, but (as I wrote) I think RSA's behavior is sufficient for a WP:DUCK block. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Any experienced editor looking at RSA's contributions would recognize instantly that he's no new user. For that reason alone, the suggestion that Betsy was engaged in POV-based character assassination was just way out of line. This is certainly someone's sock. That said, I'll disclose that I was also opposed to RSA's views at Start-up Nation.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no rule saying that editors must be "new users" -- in point of fact, some users edit as IPs, and some change names which is not running a sock in the sense of improper behaviour. Indeed, I seem to recall that many admins run additional accounts. The business that anyone who disagrees with a person is automagically a "duck" is weird and contrary to common sense. If one can not deal with people of differing views, then Wikipedia is a damn poor place to work. SPI is being abused on a regular basis with "duck" complaints - as far as I am concerned, as long as one person is not pretending to be two in a discussion, I really don't care all that much. Cheers to all, and have a quart of tea. Collect (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please give me a recent example of the SPI being abused? Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Look no further. This is one of the example. Filing 3 cases in 2 weeks is excessive and a form of SPI tag team (even if it's done unknowingly). Betsy filed the third case (on May 11) when the second case was checkusered 3 days ago (on May 8) showed no accounts connected to RSA is definitely nowhere near AGF. And the first case (on April 27) was created 1 day after RSA began editing is certainly biting newcomers. Now we're finally getting into systematic trend of the reasons why less new users are editing and getting more warnings. This case is just the tip of the iceberg. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ohana, from your comments "even if it's done unknowingly" and "this case is just the tip of the iceberg", it sounds like you were straying rather on the side of making an example of Betsy in order to deal with something that you perceive as a wider issue. It seems to me that's not an SPI clerk's role. Would you consider striking the comments about character assassination? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My "tip of the iceberg" comment is referring to Viriditas' question of providing a recent SPI example, not towards betsy. Sorry if being unclear. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, but that's actually related to my point - that the "tip of the iceberg" comment seems to be an indication that the behaviour your comments to betsy were attended to address, was in fact the other part of the iceberg, i.e. not betsy's behaviour at all. I find that concerning.

Do you have objections to striking your comments to Betsy? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur that Ohana's comments are out of line, especially for an active SPI clerk. AGF is not a suicide pact, and raising a concern about a sockpuppetry by someone whose POV you oppose is perfectly legitimate. If it were not, we'd have to put up with reincarnated banned users all the time without being able to take action. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ohana, thank you for asking for a third opinion and considering these comments. And I admire the fact that you are trying to protect new users from being slapped with sockpuppeting allegations -- it seems like an unfriendly process to subject someone to, and no way to be introduced to Wikipedia.

Please reconsider your harsh words to betsy. She merits assumption of good faith. If we are rude to one another, and contributing becomes painful, we will lose our thoughtful and experienced and devoted contributors - even more worrying than losing new users.

I Agree with Heimstern and Demiurge above: A comment about character assassination is rarely appropriate, when working with a known and respected user. You could simply decline a request or point out that similar requests have been made recently. Betsy noted below that many of your comments were helpful, and apologized for not preparing the request better. While you explained above your worries about an 'unknowing SPI tag team', I think you owe her an apology in return for the assumptions you made about her. – SJ + 22:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply by betsythedevine

I agree that SPI is not a weapon and my edit history shows that I rarely edit Wikipedia space at all. Red Stone Arsenal was not a particularly strong or active opponent at Start-up Nation; I filed SPI because I thought he was a sock of a particular user (Rym torch) who was flagged as a sock of NoCal100 based on some sekrit SPI method, which had to be done because Rym torch was editing in some particular way that baffles checkuser. But Ohana did not just allege, based on noticing conflict at one article, that I was using SPI to win a content dispute. He also made the PA that "I really believe that you use the sockpuppetry case to try and assassinate his character." [10] I would like that PA redacted. Also, if Ohana's use of the verb "caution," both on my talk page and at the SPI, implies that I was in fact using SPI to win content disputes, then it is wrong for Ohana to "caution" me in this public way. I am embarrassed to admit that I should have done a better job of preparing the SPI, and I apologize for the waste of everybody's time. Ohana's explanation of the steps that should be taken to file a good SPI were in fact very helpful, so for that I'm grateful. betsythedevine (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

@Ohana: None of us takes much pleasure in admitting a mistake, but I'm afraid you really did make quite a serious error in judgment here. I see you went offline shortly after filing this report, but will you please take your earliest opportunity to bring this to a graceful conclusion by striking through the allegations everywhere you made them ( here, betsy's talk, the SPI, and your talk ) and issuing a brief apology on each page, as well?

I ask that not to be punitive at all, but only so betsy's detractors won't be able to dig up any of those pages in the future and use them to disparage her reputation. That would put an end to the strife here, and allow everyone to move on to more productive activities.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment If anyone doubts that those remarks if unredacted would be a source of delight to some, Mbz1 has already discovered and joined the discussion at OhanaUnited's talk page saying "Hi OhanaUnited, I'd like to congratulate you on being the truth-telling boy. You are right, the Emperor is naked, but will you be able to hold your ground :-) Good luck with this! Regards.-Mbz1" [11]. betsythedevine (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me as though that comment by Mbz is a breach of the conditions set by Gwen Gale when unblocking her last December: "You've agreed to stay away from ANI, AN, SPIs and AEs for six months, along with going to only one experienced editor or admin if you have worries about the behaviour of another editor". RolandR (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Also of note is mbz1's attempt to remove another editor's AN/I comments. Tarc (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Tarc and RolandR, Mbz posted on my usertalk page, not ANI/AN/SPI, and thus did not violate any terms and conditions. That's why RolandR's comment on Mbz's violation is blantantly false. RolandR, you tagged RSA's userpage with a suspected sockpuppet template and yet the result of this SPI case disagreed with your findings. You should be the first person to apologize to RSA. To all, I did not tarnish betsy's reputation, as another editor also agreed.[12] Betsy chose to edit under real-life identity rather than anonymous. That's her choice. When she discloses her identity, other editors reminded her that it "added inconvenience of having your on-wiki behavior tied to your real life identity". That does not grant her any more or less rights than any other editors to redact/strikethrough/censor comments which some people viewed as negative or the chance that "betsy's detractors won't be able to dig up any of those pages in the future and use them to disparage her reputation", which may not materialize at all. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really the point I was making. Regardless of the underlying conflict, mbz1 has been around long enough to know that deleting another user's post...esp in a high-profile place like AN/I...will do nothing but fuel the eDrama, not alleviate it. This has been a constant problem with this user; if there is a least desirable way to address a conflict or disagreement on the Wikipedia, mbz invariably picks the worst solution. Tarc (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Mbz1 should not have removed a false accusation made by user:RolandR the way she did, but she tried to explain to user:RolandR why his post is a false accusation at his talk page, but user:RolandR removed her message with edit summary "Removed trolling". Only after this Mnz1 reverted a false accusation made by user:RolandR. I believe Mbz1 reverted the false accusations only because she was afraid that some administrator will act on it. It is surprising that user:RolandR still cannot understand why his accusations are false. Broccolo (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I cannot speak for rolandr's motivations, but if mbz1 were to ever post to my talk page again, I'd revert it, unread. Editors with problematic histories tend to earn a reputation that is hard to shed. As for administrator's acting upon an accusation...well, I have faith that they would look into the matter themselves rather than rely solely on what one person says. That's about the end of what I have to say on the matter, I think. Tarc (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

rolandr's motivations are the same as yours which is baiting Mbz1 every time you see her user name. You are clearly biased against the contributor. Please stop this practice. It is getting tiresome. Broccolo (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Like several other editors, I continue to believe that RSA is a sockpuppet, even if CU has not confirmed that s/he is using the same IP as a known puppeteer. I certainly owe no apology. Regarding Mbz's comments, I can find no record of the alleged lifting of the block; all that I see is Gwen Gale's comment on the block log "has agreed to stay away from ANI, AN, SPI, AE for 6 mos, tkng bvir wrs to only 1 editor". That was dated 27 December 2010, so should not expire until 27 June. RolandR (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1 has been busy contacting admins more sympathetic to her cause since then, so things may have changed. Regardless of that, I really don't think it is a good idea for Mbz1 to be commenting on a sockpuppet case arising from a dispute over an article currently subject to ARBPIA remedies, and reverting another editor's comments about that issue here at ANI, when Mbz1 is currently topic-banned from the PIA topic area. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1's bans for AN/I were lifted two months ago, and besides Mbz1 has never posted to AN/I even after the bans were lifted. It was user:Betsythedevine that copied Mbz1's comment left in other place. Mbz1 tried to explain it to user:RolandR but the user removed mbz1's message from his talk page, and left his false accusation to stay here. Broccolo (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As a purely practical and temporary consideration, can we just for the duration of this present discussion assume that everything Broccolo said above is correct, and not argue here over it? If anyone wants to dispute any of it, or feels any point he raised demands some kind of administrative attention, please just open a separate report for the purpose so we can keep this one on-topic.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think, as well, it should be emphasised that checkuser is not the be all and end all, although it does provide a useful indication in many or most instances. I have dealt with sockpuppets who are obviously well funded individuals who have access to a range of ISPs and/or travel - checkuser says no link and explains that position, yet the behaviour is obviously linked. That isn't the fault of the checkuser process to pick it up - it's just simply that the checkuser tool is only meant to do one particular thing, and the people operating it do their best with what they have. If the account(s) are behaving problematically, admins can still deal with them without a checkuser positive - as we've had to do on the Australian project once or twice with particularly determined violators (or just wait for them to horrendously slip up, which sometimes happens! :) Orderinchaos 07:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, other checkusers have commented publicly that particular highly-prolific sockmasters operating in the same topic area where Red Stone Arsenal ("RSA") made his contributions can't be expected to be caught out by our current tools. And progressively more sophisticated methods certainly do become available to evade checkuser detection the more resources someone has.

Since we've seen such a large upsurge of these day-use accounts (RSA edited for only three days) in this topic area lately, it's hard to escape the conclusion that someone has a new tech-toy they're breaking in. These accounts restrict their editing to short bursts or just a few days overall before moving on to the next account, to make it much less likely that behavioral evidence can be pieced together. We can't be certain with the our current tools, of course, but we'll never see an account that quacks more loudly in this particular way than we've seen here, with the Red Stone Arsenal account.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment user:Betsythedevine sees her role here as a fighter with NPOV and battleground behavior. In reality it is user:Betsythedevine who introduces NPOV to articles and exercises battleground behavior. For example with a single edit user:Betsythedevine turned a neutrally written article about a book to yet one more I/P related battleground. She later apologized for adding this quote taken from unreliable Palestinian advocacy site. Yet later the user filed a frivolous AE report, and frivolous SPI request. Isn't this too much for the user who sees her role here as being a fighter with NPOV and battleground behavior of others. I completely agree with the language OhanaUnited used in his closure of SPI request. Broccolo (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Stop! A point of order is called for at this point. I would ask all participants to please stick to the topic and help prevent this from becoming another I/P slugfest. Ohana has a right to a response about whether he was correct to accuse Betsy of a POV-driven attempt at character assassination, and support for that if he was in the right. Likewise, Betsy has the right to be heard and the right to an apology and retraction if he was in the wrong. Please save all the "look at the awful edit this opposing editor made" comments for a different thread, if you consider them egregious enough to bring up on AN/I. Don't lets derail this with off-topic grudges: Lets just try to calmly address and solve the issue that Ohana raised. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Fences&Windows just marked this thread as closed to discussion. But an extremely serious accusation has been made, that of intentional character assassination, and it's grossly unfair to leave it unresolved. It needs to be determined whether that accusation was merited or unmerited. I've returned it to open status for that reason, and on the basis of our refactoring guide ( since closing or hatting a thread is a form of talk-page refactoring ) which says, in part, "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted."  – OhioStandard (talk)

Was character assassination accusation called for or should it be struck-through?

Please briefly indicate your preference below as either Support accusation or Strike-through accusation, with minimal follow-on comments after others' !vote:

Wording of proposal adjusted slightly in response to Heimstern's comments. 07:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strike-through accusation. I understand Ohana's frustration that betsy didn't know how to check for a previous SPI concerning Red Stone Arsenal. But his contribution history makes it immediately obvious that this was a very experienced user rather than a newcomer. Such short-term accounts have become so common in the I/P area that we should be encouraging SPIs rather than blaming editors who initiate them, even if they make a mistake in the process, as betsy did.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• While I'm sympathetic to the idea behind this section, what good is it really going to do? It's obvious that OhanaUnited has no interest in retracting his comments, as he continues to believe he is in the right. I suppose the section could continue if we're hoping to !vote for an exoneration of Betsy, regardless of OhanaUnited's decisions, but is that really needed? The one productive thing that might be considered is if a discussion with the checkusers might be in order to ask them to review OhanaUnited's comments and decide if he should continue as a clerk. And no, I'm not really sure how we'd start such a discussion, and as it's an isolated incident, I suspect little would come of it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  That's not obvious to me at all. I see Ohana asking for input so that he can get further perspective. – SJ + 22:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is the question that OhanaUnited asked us all in bringing this here. Besides, I strongly suspect that this is just a simple misunderstanding that went south really quickly. My hope is that if all parties see that an alternate explanation is actually very plausible that it might still come to a calm resolution.

As I said on Fences' talk page, I absolutely understand how a checkuser who saw an SPI request for the same user three times in two weeks could respond with exasperation and assume the worst, especially when he'd seen a lot of duplicate requests recently. I'm going to continue this in collapsed mode, though, because I don't feel right about using so much real-estate to reply.

Good intentions on both sides?

Okay, I might have responded with considerable heat if I'd been in Ohana's shoes, too. I probably would have, actually. No responsible person likes the idea that SPI would be used to harass editors who hold opposing political views or to bite actual newcomers. Since that's the inference Ohana drew, it's very reasonable that he'd respond aggressively. Checkusers should respond aggressively when people try to use SPI as a weapon. I have no idea how often that actually occurs since I know little about SPI, but it must happen fairly often or Ohana wouldn't have responded as he did. The problem in this case is (sorry, Ohana) that he let his understandably mounting anger at the upsurge in SPI filings and repeat SPI filings boil over and convince him that he could mind-read betsy's motives, and that they were discreditable, when they were anything but. I saw somewhere that Ohana said he found it impossible to believe that betsy didn't see a prominent bar that indicates how to search for previous SPI cases. Well I used to teach user-interface design, and that comment puzzled me. So since I've never filed an SPI myself, I went to went to wp:spi and initiated a "test" case a short while ago, although I didn't save it, of course. I even did so for usernames that I know have had previous SPIs. Perhaps I'm being monumentally oblivious, but I didn't see anything that said "Wait! There's been a case about this just a short while ago!" I didn't see any indication of that at all, actually, and to my embarrassment I still don't know how to search for a pre-existing case. If betsy worked as a checkuser for the next month, maybe she'd be pulling her hair out by the roots and want to knock some heads together, too, at what I assume (from Ohana's comments) must be the rising level of SPI requests that really are POV driven attempts at character assassination to silence or drive off an opponent. Similarly, if Ohana could switch places with Betsy for the next month, he might have a better appreciation for how extremely common throwaway accounts have become in the I/P area recently, and how extremely frustrating that has been. All those articles are on 1rr restrictions, so these accounts come through and make very POV changes in heavily contested articles, requiring editors like Betsy to "burn" a revert if the long-established balance of POV in an article is be to kept roughly even. And since there seem to be literally ten such accounts on one side for every one on the other side of the political divide, these short-term or throwaway accounts are actually very effective at shifting that balance. Despite the lack of technical evidence found to implicate Red Stone Arsenal as just such an account, that account had all the hallmarks of this escalating pattern that we've seen repeated over and over in the I/P area these last several months. That has no doubt contributed to the frustration several of us have expressed at this whole mess, and at Ohana's likewise understandable frustration. For my own part, I'll ask Ohana's pardon for the extent to which I've let that slip into my own communication around this matter. (Please don't comment here since it forms part of a single post.)

Does that make sense to anyone, and most particularly, does it make sense to you, Ohana? Could you have possibly let your very understandable frustration cause you to miss this explanation and assume a motive that betsy didn't actually have? I'm not trying to blame you at all: As I said, I probably would have reacted just as you did, especially since you're so familiar with the SPI process that it must seem transparently simple to you. But is it possible that this is what happened?  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually does make sense to me - thanks for investing the time to write it! (Most of the stuff in here is pretty adversarial, nice to read a considered, well thought out piece trying to see both sides of the situation.) I myself have no idea how the new SPI system works, even though I've used it a few times and found it more efficient than the old. Orderinchaos 07:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comment. I've just discovered something about how the SPI user interface works that's extremely relevant here. I don't have time right now to post it, but I'll do so later today. I will just say for the moment that what I've found demonstrates that Betsy did absolutely nothing wrong in any of this, absolutely nothing at all.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Betsy Devine I am traveling around small places with not much internet, but thanks to OhioStandard for great kindness and to everyone who looked at my request. Taking the advice of OhanaUnited and others, I will now be closing this account I used under my real name. I did so because I thought such accountability was of benefit to the project, but I'm a bit sick of benefit to Wikipedia right now. I am accountable to myself, and I know I filed the SPI in good faith, and so does everybody else who looked into the matter, except Mbz1 and Broccolo. Fun times for them! Good luck with those admin tools, OhanaUnited, you do a heckuva job listening to third opinions. Which way to the door that says "Right to vanish"? betsythedevine (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Try the instructions at WP:CLEANSTART. Your situation is exactly why we have that option. I don't blame your decision, I don't have the courage to even try to edit under my own name. -- Atama頭 19:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question, I believe, Atama. And it's not Betsy who needs the clean start, it's every admin who saw all this and turned the other way.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

An undisclosed culprit

If we were to ask ten user's who aren't really familiar with the SPI process to go to wp:spi and initiate a request for an investigation of the Red Stone Arsenal account that Betsy filed her SPI about, I'd wager that not one of them would see anything in the process to tell them they were filing a a duplicate request. Please take a look at the wp:spi page. There's nothing there at all to indicate that one should begin by scrolling to the bottom of that long and very visually "busy" page, to use the green "search all cases and archives" bar there first. There's no indication, that you should do so before you use the prominent "Start or continue an SPI case here" gray bar that you first see as you read and scroll through the page, in other words.

If you try that, try opening an SPI on Red Stone Arsenal without being aware of the green bar at the bottom of the page, or the need to use it (please don't hit "save", if you do try a test) you may or may not see an obscure notice that says you're filing a second report. If you enter, as seems reasonable,

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Red Stone Arsenal

You won't see any such notice. The page you land on will say you're filing a first report. Sure, if you're savvy enough to just enter,

User:Red Stone Arsenal

after first clearing the edit field of the pre-existing "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SOCKMASTER" text, you'll briefly see an indication that it's a second report you're initiating, but how many people would know to do that, or would know that "second report" means "duplicate"? And even if you do, that text just flashes past briefly, before the page autoscrolls to an edit window. Betsy didn't do anything wrong; she wasn't even careless or negligent. The interface just sucks eggs.

It presents far too much information, and the dual purpose of the page to present open case information along with its case-initiation feature is just hopelessly confusing if you don't already know how to use it. It needs to be changed to prevent this kind of debacle from ever arising again.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

All I have heard the past several years was how submitting sock puppet cases sucks and nothing on how to improve it; the same was with when it was separately as WP:SSP (suspected sock puppets) and WP:RFCU (requests for CheckUser). Nobody seemed to try and offer any improvements on the process, even when it came to requesting a new bot to replace the broken User:SPCUClerkbot, and when somebody did, the entire community jumped on that user. Frankly, I'm not sure as to whether it may be a good idea to scrap the entire sock puppet process and leave it all to ANI or what else to do. –MuZemike 07:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That may be the case. But the immediate issue here, which OS was addressing, was the unwarranted warning to Betsy about allegedly filing a tendentious SPI. OS has shown definitively that her statement that she was unaware of previous reports is credible and in fact very likely. Acting on good faith alone, even setting to one side the fact that several very experienced editors also believe RSA to be a sockpuppet, the warning to Betsy should never have been issued. Nearly all of the response to this "request for a third opinion" have agreed on this, and the warning should be withdrawn without any further delay. RolandR (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Erlandinho, edit-warring and frequent inappropriate genre changes against consensus despite repeated warnings

Erlandinho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is what many in the music wikiproject refer to as a "genre troll". They have a long (well over two year history) of picking a band and going through and changing the genres on every song and album. Often they will do this while deleting a hidden message stating to "seek consensus on the talk page before changing genres" (the reason for this being that the current genres are already the result of an edit war that led to a long winded discussion). Despite general consensus being against the use of Allmusic for selecting genres, this user insists on using it,[13] sometimes as the end-all-be-all of sources on genres.[14] They have edit-warred on a number of topics to attempt to insert or remove genres. By the third revert, they occasionally add a requested source, but it is often allmusic as well.[15][16][17][18] The user also has a habit of being told to stop, disappearing for some time, then showing up and taking another shot at it.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]

This behaviour is annoying to say the least. The user has been at it for two years now with no signs of stopping, despite a talk page filled with warnings from multiple users.[27] Personally, I'd like to see this user banned from changing genres. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The 90% of the generes that I changed had a reliable sources, and the others (10%) also had no . Erlandinho (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been told and warned many times not to change genres without discussing it on the talk page, and to not rely on allmusic as a source for genres (allmusic CAN be used, however, as a source for bios). Yet still, you respond by reverting and using edit summaries such as "go home",[28] "accept it"[29] and "fuck u".[30] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on changing music genres. Sample uncivil edit summary from three days ago. We don't need genre warriors like this, particularly when they use no or poor sources. Fences&Windows 22:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• Bumping unresolved thread. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 10:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Neptunekh2 - long term competence issues

Although user:Neptunekh2 is probably a well-meaning contributor, their extreme lack of competence appears to be detrimental to the project. I noticed this edit which categorized an actor as an atheist because, as Neptunekh2 states in this post at the Help Desk, "it says in her personal life: Powers does not adhere to any religion". That post to the Help Desk followed the additiion of the category. Note that this same editor had previously categorized the same actor as a Scientologist and had been reminded of WP:BLPCAT.

Looking through Neptunekh2's contributions, I came across this edit where they copied the text of another editor's answer to a question they posed on one of the help desks. Yes, they posted another editor's answer into an article.

I asked someone who had experience with Neptunekh2 to see if they could get anywhere, but their message was deleted without comment. I suspect that unless someone is willing to do some very close monitoring and mentoring, a block will be necessary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I've also tried to work with the user, and see her messages pop up on various talk pages I watch. Another problem that Neptunekh2 has is that she tends to post the same question to more than one place; for the most recent example, see the same two questions on the Help desk and Elen of the Roads's talk page. The other recent concern was the creation of categories about living people of highly dubious need, particularly category/ethnicity intersections where the intersection may number only a few hundred people worldwide, and thus the list of those notable enough to even appear in Wikipedia might be as low as zero. Elen of the Roads has probably done the most to try to help this user in terms of clear explanations. The problem is, Neptunekh2 has never, as far as I know, responded to any message any user has left her, except for one that Elen left, and that result was quite unpleasant: see Elen's friendly warning, followed a few days later by a stronger statement from Elen, to which Neptunekh2 responded on Elen's talk page with this threat. Then, less than 10 days later, Neptunekh2 was back to asking Elen questions on her talk page.

The underlying behavioral problem is presumably connected to Neptunekh2's self-identified Asperger's syndrome (indicated in a userbox on her talk page). I've previously asked Elen whether or not she feels Neptunekh2's problems cross over into WP:COMPETENCE area, and she, like I, seems uncertain. It's certainly the case that asking in multiple places is irritating to other editors (I got annoyed a while ago after writing up a big explanation to one set of questions only to find another editor had already taken care of it); and the excessive creation of categories, along with improper categorization, certainly costs other editors' time. But some of Neptunekh2's work has been valuable, I think, as some of the categorization does seem to be accurate. This is a very tricky issue, because we (I think) never want to invoke WP:COMPETENCE on a well-meaning editor unless we're really sure that there's no way to help him/her achieve a minimum acceptable standard of interaction on Wikipedia. I know I have no answer here. I'm going to go notify Elen since I've now discussed her extensively. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I, too, have seen much of these events; and I, too, am baffled regarding how to resolve the issue. This really looks like a situation of the immovable object/irresistable force nature. It needs some sensitive handling but, on that score, I cannot fault Elen - has been very, very understanding over a prolonged period. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If the medical condition is making this user behave poorly, I think WP:CIR is relevant and a block is needed. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I should mind my own business, but if hypothetically Bill Gates were editing Wikipedia, would you propose to block him for having Aspergers' as well? FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If it made his behavior disruptive and he didn't show adequate competence, yes. I know several editors with Asperger's and they do fine. But I also have seen one or two that have been unable to work in Wikipedia's environment and have thus been blocked. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe medical condition is the problem here in-and-of itself, but rather if that is providing a problem with WP:CIR then yes, it would be an issue for him as well. For my own, limited interaction with this user, it is frustrating to interact with someone asking for help, but failing to engage in the resolution. I would suggest reaching out for mentorship before enforcing a block.Tiggerjay (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

To clarify to FuFoFuEd: I would never say we should block/ban anyone for any medical condition, age, lifestyle, or personal opinion (with the one known exception). We can, however, block someone for being generally disruptive, refusing to communicate with anyone, and causing a drain on the resources of other users disproportionate to the value they bring to the project. For example, I think Tiggerjay's suggestion of mentoring is great. However, assuming Neptunkh2 does the same thing she does with every other talk page message, and simply deletes it without response, and then continues the same behavior that's frustrating other editors, then what? Note for example that today Dismas told her to stop double posting; the comment was blanked about 5 minutes later. Yes, blanking means that she's read it and acknowledged it; however, since the behavior never changes, we're starting to get to the point where we're running out of options. If she won't accept or is unable to accept criticism/suggestions for improvement, we either have to decide to put up with that irritation forever (as long as she wants to use Wikipedia) or start the unpleasant but potentially necessary work of stop the disruption via blocking. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed some of this going on at the RefDesk periodically, and I understand why it's annoying. I think a mentor, should she want it, would be a good idea (I wouldn't mind doing it myself). However, she'd have to agree to it first; until there's some positive response to that, we're faced with the choices directly above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC) And god knows, FuFoFuEd, a lot of users would have been blocked if we followed that logic; I myself have PDD-NOS, and a relatively high percentage of users here show various signs of being on the spectrum. This is the sort of activity that attracts our kind, for various reasons.

It's certainly not just the Aspergers that is an issue. I blocked Neptunekh a while ago for copyvio, and we had a few conversations by email before I unblocked her, in which she did expand a bit on what caused her problems with the project. The effects (as they affect wikipedia) are no patience - so she asks the same question in half a dozen places; a desire to categorise to the nth degree, a failure to understand existing categorisations (on her talkpage, you'll see that she has both "this user is a christian" and "this user is an atheist" userboxen. This is not some deep philosophical statement), feels she can't to write prose (she's said this herself, feels she has poor english skills and it makes it difficult to interpret information and rewrite it for the encyclopaedia, hence the copyvios, the copypaste of Marco Polo's response on the reference desk, and the endless requests for other users to clean up articles), and a fascination with poking around in odd corners (hence the current Inuit/Nunavut/Grise Fiord questions that resulted in Looty Pijamini and the addition to Canadian English that was fine once SlimVirgin had found a source and rewritten it.)

I'm sure if one met her in real life, one would really like her. She's passionately inclusionist and against discrimination, and she takes delight in finding out information. However, at least 75% of everything she does gets reverted, deleted, or it's a duplication. I have tried to explain. I have asked her not to remove the messages from her talkpage, because I think that 'out of sight, out of mind' is a big problem. If a mentor could get her to compile a list of "things I have been asked not to do" in her own words, I think that would be a start. I'm all for The Blade of the Northern Lights giving it a go, but I think someone may have to block her to get her to pay attention, and I'd rather it wasn't me as I just feel way too involved. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

See this. I have asked her to respond to us. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's give her a chance to respond; she hasn't edited since you left her a message, and she's probably logged out at the moment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No reason not to wait. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, I think that most of the people in this discussion have tried to reach out to Neptunekh2 at various points, or repeatedly as is the case of Elen, and, as is noted above, the continual deletion of talk page messages and lack of response makes it difficult to make headway. Everybody seems to want Neptune to accept mentoring and transform the 75% delete / 25% keep ratio into its opposite (wouldn't that be great?)

Apparently Elen managed to have an e-mail discussion with her before, but, in general, I get the impression our posts to her talk page (to encourage or try to help) are taken as a "telling off".

You can lead a horse to water ...: unfortunately, unless Neptune decides to open up to some sort of dialogue this is going nowhere, and I understand Elen's preference for someone else to take over. Is a block necessary to get this person to enter into communication? A real shame, I will post to her talk page too, to ask her to please come see that people want her to continue on Wikipedia and transform her enthusiasm into something positive. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

We have User:The Blade of the Northern Lights offering to mentor. Why not just relax? I don't think there is any rush to address any pressing issue. Bus stop (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Er, Bus Stop, I don't see the point of your comment, in fact I am relaxed to the max and about to go take a long poo! Please see the user's talk page and the comment I posted there, I (like all the above concerned editors) would like for Neptune to engage in dialogue and not get blocked. BTW, what are you doing here? I have never seen you involved in any discussion involving this user, if you're following me around because of debates on DSK and Jewishness then I would like to inform you that this is frowned upon at Wikipedia, thanks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Lets take this down a notch. No-one wants for Neptunekh to get blocked if this can be sorted out another way, so lets everyone assume good faith of each other and wait to see what she says. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Our approach is eliciting a response, which appears to be the response hoped for, engaging with Neptune and resolving to edit positively! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

CaptainScreebo—you say, "…if you're following me around…"

I posted here earlier but I reverted myself. Bus stop (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI, she's accepted our offers, and hopefully we can figure something out. I have a feeling I might need to use e-mail for some of this, but I'll do my best. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

So glad this is working out. You go good now :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop, my bad, recently I've had some minor stalking on my talk page due to people getting heated over DSK and, despite asking people to keep the discussion over at the relevant talk, still got posts on my talk page totally unrelated to the subject being discussed there. As I had just replied to a converstaion over at DSK in which you're involved, I couldn't understand what you were doing here, especially concerning this user.

Shame you reverted your comment, seemed like a useful suggestion and I wouldn't have been surprised to find you in the thread after all. No offence intended. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Full deployment of Article Feedback 3.0 planned for tomorrow

This may not belong here but it doesn't appear to have a natural home. It appears that there is to be a full deployment of MW:Article feedback tomorrow, and so far as I can see there has been no community discussion about this. I asked about this recently but didn't get very far. [31]. Shouldn't something as massive as this be discussed by the community first? There's been a little discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Article Rating appears immediately after creation?. Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that the template that has appeared at the bottom of some articles asking readers to rate them? --JN466 14:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the one, yes. Skomorokh 14:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it can and will get tweaked, but having seen it in a couple of articles, I liked the idea. --JN466 14:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I went looking yesterday for somewhere on our project that documented our approach to this extension but couldn't find any central location either. Has this all really been thought up and put into motion without local consultation? A recipe for trouble, if so... Skomorokh 14:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've spoken to Guillaume Paumier from the WMF who said that he has raised this issue with those driving the project (Alolita Sharma on the technical side, Erik Möller overseeing) and is awaiting a reply, but that a response might not be expected today because it's a holiday in the U.S. Skomorokh 14:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Not a good idea to launch something like this the day after a three day weekend (and thus also during a week when a lot of people may be on holiday). Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a shallow tool. It won't give much to Wikipedia except a bunch of headaches and stats that won't guide editors to any specific point. People rate what they *like* or *dislike*. This means there is an inherent bias built into such a system that doesn't necessarily correlate with encyclopedic content. Also, such a system usually ends up being gamed by people who like or dislike a particular topic, or by those who simply like to mess with people. All told, the number of people who actually thoughtfully consider their rating based on a whole picture of the article are few. It seems based on the page you linked to, that the creators are primarily looking at this as a tool for engaging more people to become editors. I'm sure once this tool is deployed across all the pages, those working on creating this new feature will be getting a TON of feedback about how it is working. -- Avanu (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree, seems like a gigantic waste of time. I've seen this sort of thing on other sites for years, and watched as they have eventually done away with it for exactly the reasons mentioned in the above post. Since the foundation side seems to be pushing this, doesn't seem like we'll be able to stop such a useless waste of time its implementation.Heiro 03:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Having done a little digging, I've found an announcement on May 9th cross-posted to the technical Village Pump and the Wiki En-l mailing list. So while not an ideal level of community engagement, there was at least a local heads-up. Skomorokh 14:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The mailing list makes sense although it isn't widely read (I think), the technical Village Pump doesn't seem to make sense to me, although there are technical aspects to the implementation I wouldn't call it a technical change. It seems to me to be a pretty basic change in how Wikipedia works, implemented without either a community discussion of the proposal or so far as I can see a discussion of the trial (why a trial if it isn't discussed?). Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Aye; for all the trouble that came with the pending changes trial, at least there was a local policy on its use and local community discussion before and during it. Skomorokh 15:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to add to Avanu's comments above this rating item creates a target for those who have an axe to grind with Wikipedia. I foresee this rating tool being used by blocked, banned etc editors to leave negative (or in some cases positive) feedback on any article that they find it attached to that will have little to do with the actual content of said article. Since, as others have pointed out, that there has been almost no community input on this I do hope that the results are going to be taken with a rather large grain of salt. Just to use one example what is going to happen when a "featured article" receives mostly negative feedback. MarnetteD | Talk 15:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see this postponed until there has been a community discussion. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that community discussion needs to take place, and add my comment on the terrible timing for U.S.-based editors, many of whom are at the beach or grilling hot dogs and hamburgers. (In the interest of full disclosure, I was not smitten by the rating notices when I came across them during the test, and agree that they will probably be subject to gaming and abuse.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

We definitely should have discussion on these sorts of things—I understand maybe the WMF was OK in enabling it without community consensus for a research trial, but if this is going to go on indefinitely and for all articles, we need to postpone it. Unless, of course, the WMF intends to exercise its right of doing what it feels is best, which it is perfectly allowed to do, consensus or not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

They are just going to turn this on for a day, and at the moment it's not even clear to me that that day will be tomorrow. MW:Article feedback says it will happen "on a date near 31 May". As the people involved don't seem to be reading even the talk page of that Mediawiki wiki page regularly, I am not sure they would have updated the date if it has been moved. Hans Adler 18:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I questioned the other day as to why the feedback template only allows users to issue "good" ratings, and not neutral or bad ratings, but that doesn't seem to be addressed anywhere. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This page on software deployment says tomorrow. [32] I don't see any reason to think it won't happen tomorrow unless someone stops it. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hans, where does it say it will be turned on for only one day? Dougweller (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought I had seen something to that effect somewhere. But the point seems to be moot now, and with this communication chaos – information spread mostly over various wikis that hardly anyone watches, and discussions happening on those LQT-using backwater wikis and mailing lists – it seems I am unable to check now whether I misunderstood something because I am simply unable to locate the likely source of the information again. Hans Adler 07:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ehm, if this is supposed to be a community discussion, wouldn't it be better suited at a Village Pump or as an RFC instead of on an admin board ? Just saying, admins are not the community. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion on the merits of the extension, it's an attempt to figure out just what is going on – which, as the OP points out, has no natural home. Skomorokh 21:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Article Feedback tool's home is here, and a discussion about consensus (or lack thereof) has been started here. --Bensin (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This needs community discussion in a central venue with plenty of publicity for it. The criteria offered by the poll tool are vague and too open to purely subjective answers to be of any real statistical value. A system for public rating of article quality is a good idea in principle, but this one is open to massive improvement to make any assessment of its results worthwhile. It needs to be re-designed by experts - there are plenty of regular editors here who are grads in stats and info gathering. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I got an answer that indicated the "Software deployments" page was in error. There won't be a full deployment today (Tuesday), but instead an incremental roll-out over the coming weeks, to allow for community feedback. guillom 07:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this a trend?

I have a question for those of you who follow these things. The change being discussed in the above thread will affect articles all over Wikipedia. Just two weeks ago we also had this discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive697#Question about Suggest a Bot about a change where all editors with a user name suddenly started receiving Wikipedia emails without any information about what they were. Thus my question - Is there an upsurge of of system wide changes which either aren't being discussed by the community or which the community is not receiving timely information about? Now I know that it is only two items so maybe I am unduly concerned but my impression is that we used to get those message boxes (which we could turn off after reading) at the top of our watchlists informing us of discussions about, or informing us of, upcoming changes. I don't always follow these closely so if this is SOP then fine but if it is a trend away from allowing community input and/or from keeping the community informed it would be nice to know that this will be the procedure from now on. Thanks ahead of time for any information that you can impart. MarnetteD | Talk 00:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The same happened with the introduction of the new Twinkle menu template yesterday, which incidentally, although basically an improvement, has introduced a bunch of new bugs with it. Twinkly reaction to bug reporting and the need for updating for compatibility with upgrades to popular browsers is notoriously slow. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I certainly hope it's an indication that things are moving away from the ossified "community consensus" model to something at least a little more likely to lead to improvements as opposed to interminable pointless discussion and ultimate stalemate. Malleus Fatuorum 02:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

So what are you suggesting? That's it's fine for developers to just impose something without discussion (even of the trial)? What's your alternative? An elected committee to make such decisions? What? It's a shame that the community wasn't consulted more in the design stages, as some of the objections are to the concept but others are mainly about the design. The trial itself should have been discussed before implemented, but it certainly should not go past trial stage without discussion as to whether it should be implemented t all and if it should be implemented what changes, if any, should be made. I sympathise with the developers, but we all want the best for Wikipedia. I think the question now is how to initiate that discussion. Dougweller (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with systemwide changes made by the devs without a long and unpleasant discussion/trial/etc. My only hope is that devs understand the dual of discussion free iteration is the responsibility to roll back changes if they are problematic or pointless (as I suspect the article rating system will be). Protonk (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There are some things for which discussion is better (given that there has been significant protest against flaggedrevs in the past, the WMF was correct in not making a unilateral decision to turn it on indefinitely), but there are more minor things for which a discussion would only slow things down. At any rate, it is the WMF (and devs', when instructed by the WMF) right to do whatever they want to the site, so sometimes we just have to defer to their judgment. But I think they know what is and isn't controversial. I just wish there was more advance notice of these things. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

it's their right only in a technical sense. I'm sure they have no intention of making decisions that would impair the policies of any established project. Whether a technical change would do so is a matter of judgement, but the human experience with all central organizations anywhere, is that, unless watched, that power tends to being used more and more expansively, and with progressively poorer judgment. POur role in evaluating it is part of the necessary process. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Csteffen13

Csteffen13 (talk · contribs) appears to edit solely for the purpose of supporting Winchester2313 (talk · contribs).

• His very first edit was to support Winchester2313.[33]
• The only AfD he ever participated in was in support of Winchester2313.[34]
• The only AN discussion he's ever participated in was to defend Winchester2313.[35][36]
• His first, and until recently only user talk page contribution was a gushing praise of Winchester2313.[37]
• His second, and most recent user talk page contribution was to admonish another editor for talking to Winchester2313 in a way Csteffen13 did not like.[38]
• He returned to Wikipedia on May 20, after a 5 month editing break, to edit-war in support of Winchester2313. Winchester2313's edits:[39][40]. Csteffen13's edit:[41] His Talk: page comments were also all in support of Winchester2313's positions.
• He has edited a total of 16 unique pages,[42] 11 of them in common with Winchester2313.[43]

Many of Cteffen13's other edits are in support of Winchester2313, though he has also made a small number of other "decoy" edits. Because his writing style differs from Winchester2313's, I doubt Csteffen13 is an actual sockpuppet, but it appears that this little-used (85 total edits) account's purpose for editing Wikipedia is to act as Winchester2313's meatpuppet. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, this seems like it would be more appropriate at WP:SPI as opposed to here. - SudoGhost™

At the SPI talk page they said it wasn't required if one wasn't asking for a CU. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not (as yet) overly informed about the methods and workings of these things, but reading the charge above, I feel a few obvious points would serve everybody well:

1.I am quite active on some fairly controversial articles, particularly Elazar Shach, Chabad Lubavitch and other, similar articles. These seem to attract a number of sporadic, narrowly focused editors, e.g Csteffen13, Yonoson3 and others on both sides of the debate. Brewcrewer has focused here on Csteffen13, but much of what he says might be equally applicable to an editor like Yonoson3 editing sporadically in support of an editor such as Jayjg ?

2. The positions I take in controversial articles are well-sourced, and I hardly rely on others 'support' (or lack thereof) to establsh validity. That others may see things as I do regarding Elazar Shach is not surprising, as the man made a career of attacking other Rabbis and groups, so I'm sure he's viewed with an equal measure of disdain across many lines and by many different groups.

3. I'm not sure what significance an editing crossover of 11/16 topics might have, considering the confluence of so many popular debates within the Jewish religion and various groups of its adherents, especially, again on highly controversial subjects...? Winchester2313 (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that Csteffen13's only purpose for editing is to support Winchester2313, and this is done in many different venues, which one would not normally find an editor with so little Wikipedia experience or with a specific topical area of interest. The question here is, does one actually need to make an SPI report if one is fairly sure a meatpuppet (not sockpuppet) is editing? Or can this board simply ban a little-used obvious meatpuppet account? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious enough an SPI is a formality. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 22:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So Csteffen13 should be blocked then? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd actually prefer to see an SPI and checkuser results in this case. I realize the writing styles are different, but I imagine that's easy enough to accomplish if one sets one's mind to it.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

To what end? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(I've been asked to respond here by Jayjg) Technically a case like this would go to SPI, but I really don't see a reason to split the discussion. If they're not suspected of being the same person (leaving aside any meatpuppetry concerns), there's no technical information a checkuser could provide that would help. At that point, it would be up to a patrolling admin/clerk to close the SPI and decide what, if any, action to take. Leaving it here just skips straight to the admin action part. TNXMan 11:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

@Jayjg: The topic area is so contentious, and so rife with socks, that I'd prefer to see a formal SPI, with checkuser. I loathe socking, and I'm not convinced by the different writing styles that these are two different people; I'd hate to miss catching a possible sockmaster, and only block his sock. By copying the diffs already provided above, it would just take a couple of minutes to file the SPI and request checkuser. Also, and with all possible respect, Jayjg, I'd suggest it's probably not the best practice that ideal perfection would require for you to yourself block accounts on the opposing side of the I/P wars, except in cases of blatant vandalism. I mean no offence; I'd say precisely the same to any admin who's expressed any similarly strong support for the opposite side to your preferred politics in the topic area.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ohiostandard, perhaps you are under the impression that this is an I-P related article. It's not. This is an Haredi Judaism related dispute, and more specifically a dispute that supporters of Chabad have with Elazar Shach, because Shach was very critical of Chabad's leader. I can't ask for a CheckUser here, because CheckUser is not for fishing, and no-one thinks Csteffen13 is an actual sockpuppet, even though he's an obvious meatpuppet. If you want to satisfy your own curiosity, feel free to, but I think most people that an SPI is not required, this is at the right place - in fact, they'll no doubt just kick it back here if you try. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Response: I am not any kind of puppet that I know of, and nice try by Jayjg and Brewcrewer to ban an occasional editor who they obviously disagree with. The simple reason for me being a heavy wiwkiuser and a very light wikieditor is that I really have very little free time. I happen to have strong opinions about Elazar Shach as I bet do most editors. I did in-fact study in Ponevich for almost 2 years, so feel like I have more knowledge about what happened there in the late 80's than most. Still, I limit my edits to things that meet the wp:v standards and try to keep a wp:npov. Interesting how Jayjg warns ME about edit warring on the Elazar Shach page, but not Brewcrewer who keeps warring to support Jayjg's own arbitrary and disruptive editing, which clearly violated wp:npov. Or am I the only one noticing? C Steffen 00:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs) Oh, and the simple reason I support Winchester2313 on most of his edits on these controversial topics is simply because I usually agree with him. I didn't know there was anything wrong with that?!C Steffen 00:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csteffen13 (talk • contribs)

NOTE: I see Csteffen13 has been recalled from his most recent absence to yet again defend Winchsester2313 (immediately above), and revert on his behalf. Is it finally time for administrative action? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Response: As I pointed out above and in my edit summary, I'm not here to 'defend' anybody or anything. My edits all conform to the rules as I read them. Its a really sorry situation if all Jayjg can do after harassing and edit-warring with editors whose work he doesn't like is to now try and ban them. Perhaps its time for Jayjg to post another warning on my talk page now, as seems to be his habit whenever he disagrees but can't legitimately deny others contributions. Yes, I think his actions on Winchester2313 s talk page make this clear to anybody bothering to look. As I read it "Wikipedia is not censored", even by long-term editors like Jayjg. Am I missing something here? --C Steffen 13:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Improper image added

User Mbz1 has added a very provocative image to a reply Betsythedevine posted to Mbz1's talk, subsequent to Mbz1's having posted to Betsy's. Her action makes it appear that Betsy herself posted the image as part of her reply, which isn't the case. Coming on the heels of Mbz1's having poked at Betsy earlier, when Betsy was incorrectly accused of having filed a frivolous SPI request, this just seems a needless provocation to me.

I'm not asking that Mbz1 be sanctioned over this, but since it presents another false impression about Betsy, would someone please ask Mbz1 to remove the image from her talk. No drama, please, just a simple request that the image be removed. I'd ask her myself, but she's previously requested that I not post to her page, so I'll also have to ask that someone else notify her of this thread. I noticed this because I have Betsy's talk page watchlisted, btw. I'll also add that I probably won't be able to reply to any response here very promptly, due to real life demands on my time for the next eight to ten hours. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

M's last edit to B's UT page was a while back (early May) . B posted a fairly lengthy post on M's UT page on 30 May. The image is a sort of reply, and does not appear "provocative" from any point of view. I see no reason for this to be of any importance at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Precedent says that an image like this is completely acceptable. I disagree with its need but when other editors have popped up images that are clearly problematic they have not only not received a reprimand but actually received support from admins under the explanation of more leeway given to editors on their own user page. Image isn't needed but this ANI isn't either. Cptnono (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Just stepping in for a moment: This is now the third immediate and contrary follow-up to my posts here that Collect has made now; I evidently have an admirer. But he's in error and needs to look at the history of both talk pages before commenting.

@Cptnono: Perhaps I should have titled this thread "Image improperly added". The problem isn't the image intrinsically, but its insertion in Betsy's comment to make it appear as if Betsy added it. Scroll down from the diff and view the page rendering: It absolutely gives that false impression. If Mbz1 wants to add a flame-war image to her page that's her prerogative, but she can't do so to give the impression Betsy was the one who added it. That makes it look as if Betsy had fanned the flames when it was in fact Mbz1 that did so. You can't edit other people's comments to give a false impression, even if those comments occur on your own talk page.

You're on excellent terms with her, Cptnono; do her a favor and ask her to delete the image before some admin sees this and takes any more severe action. And please inform her of this thread. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not find M's offer to bury the hatchet to be in any way problematic. As for where I respond to posts on noticeboards on my watchlist - that has nothing whatever to do with who posts ahead of me. Indeed, I recall you posting after me on occasion. If one looks at my total number of posts on any noticeboard, one will find a wondrously random assortment - as that is how noticeboards work. One thing is sure - making personal asides about who else has posted does not actually fit into the proper use of a noticeboard. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Also worth noting: Mbz's edit summary reads "added image to thedevine's response"...and this whole thing in concert with the recent "third opinion" debacle just stinks. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the image is provocative, and a misrepresentation of what betsy devine wrote. The image, if desired, should go below the betsy devine reply. Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Image now seems to be gone, so there's nothing more to do here apart from optimistically hoping that Mbz1 would stop doing this kind of thing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I totally get what you are saying, OS. Unfortunately, editors have done far far worse with edit summaries, talk page discussions, essays, and just plain images that highlight how insignificant this "incident" is. I think it is cute but not needed. If Mbz1 feels that the image is not needed then good for her. But mandating that it is removed means we need to revisit many decisions regarding other editor's user pages. Maybe it is time to revisit how the community reacts to what is allowed on user pages and how they are handled. I doubt that is something contributors to the project are willing to actually tackle. So as the tradition has been: Let it go for now. Hopefully Mbz1 will replace it sooner than later. And maybe the image has some point if it has come here.Cptnono (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And there you go.Cptnono (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Question Not really related to the discussion, but I'm curious, wouldn't that image be a derivative work of File:Eliza-Crossing-the-Ice-Morgan-1881.jpeg, as opposed to a public domain work? I honestly don't know, and I may just be splitting hairs needlessly, but it isn't the same exact image, so I thought I'd ask. - SudoGhost™ 03:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The original is in the public domain (according to the States?) and the summary gives all of the detail. The file at commons could be amended to make it clearer. The file could also be deleted if no one is using it. I think it would be cool in an essay on hounding but we could also probably just request its deletion over at Commons. Cptnono (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a good idea about adding an image to essay. I did add it to this one for now, and maybe one day I will write an essay about being hounded and how it feels, of course if I will not get hounded to death before that :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have notified Mbz1 for you all. If there are other notifications that should have went out, can someone else please address that? (I'm off to bed). ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops.I actually just assumed. Sorry for talking about you behind your back Mbz1. Looks like this is all fixed anyways.Cptnono (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Explanation For the last few days User:Betsythedevine has been busy retiring and changing her mind, and claiming such things as:

1. "I don't have the heart to fight injustice when it settles on my own head, especially when it becomes a fun opportunity for Mbz1 to wikistalk into my life."
2. "Basically, I am sick of being harassed by some anonymous person calling himself Mbz1."
3. edit summary: "Links to Mbz1's harassment over the past six months".

• Seeing all that I decided to remind the user an offer I made to her about a month ago. In a polite post I told the user "I believe that, if two users, who usually are not editing in the same area (as we are not) do not get along with each other (as we do not), would agree to disagree and walk their different ways, it is the right thing to do for the involved users and for the community.I believe that, if one user (me in this situation) is asking for this agreement, and the other user (you in this situation) angrily refuses, there should be no doubt who is the victim and who is the hound there.If somebody, no matter who, offered me something like this, I would have agreed immediately with no questions asked."
• In response I got a long ... to both my talk page and the user talk page, in which the user recounted all my "crimes" for the last 6 months linking to both my block logs on Commons and wikipedia,with taking out of content differences and with some of these differences being already used against me by that very user.That post was disgusting.

• I believe that if one user is asking another user to disengage, and if these users are not editing in the same area, and if the other user refuses, there is no doubt who is victim and who is the hound.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yup, I thought this was your goal as I wrote in the following section before you posted the above. As if you didn't know that Betsy's comments were in response to your doing a little jig on her grave, as you supposed, among other pleasantries. She certainly was intending to leave at that point, out of sorrow and pain at OhanaUnited's refusal to retract his unwarranted accusation. And now you think that if you start enough of a dust-up with her, with your vile dog-attack picture inserted into her post, and your monumentally mean-spirited barnstar (see following section) that you can provoke the community into silencing a critic. The community isn't so easily manipulated, though, as I believe you'll discover.

I suppose I'll have to inform Betsy of this now, since you're making accusations. But I hope she'll have the good sense not to be provoked into a fight, or even to respond to this nonsense. The community can handle the kind of strategic accusations you're making here without having to call upon an already beleaguered editor to defend herself from these kinds of attacks.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Frankly people, I have seen a lot of things in EE area, but never anything like that. Yes, it would be grossly inappropriate to place a slogan advocating murder of a living person (I saw it once), but filing an ANI request because someone placed an artistic image of a girl (apparently meaning herself) at his/her talk page?! Come on. That exceeds battlegrounds in EE area by a wide margin.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it urgently necessary to show up to support Mbz1 every time she does something like this, Hodja? Your loyalty is touching, but if you'd read the above you'd know that the objection wasn't the violent image, but rather that she purposely made it appear as if Betsy had posted it.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it. So what? Do not you have any sense of humor? She feels like a person haunted by dogs. Yes, sure. And you are only proving her point by filing this request. Please see Wikipedia:Ignore all dramas. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for making false accusations of character assassination

Well, this matter was sorted until Mbz1 decided to poke the bear again, by taking the time to create and post a customized barnstar (permalink) to OhanaUnited's talk for having mistakenly accused Betsy of trying to silence an opponent by filing an SPI that amounted to character assassination. Since the accusation was clearly erroneous ( see "Third opinion requested" now on this AN/I page ) this just fans the already high flames over this very difficult issue again. The only motive I can guess at for doing so is that it's an attempt to provoke the community into issuing the interaction ban Mbz1 has been pushing for with respect to Betsy.

Pushing for an interaction ban is a standard strategy Mbz1 has used in the past to try to silence those who've been critical of her actions and who oppose her political orientation. Mbz1 actually began this latest round of interaction herself, though, and did so after her first unseemly "you are the truth-telling boy" post to OhanaUnited's talk, and after then following that with an extremely ill-timed post to Betsy's page that culminated in the business with the dog attack image, documented just above. She's evidently willing to risk possible sanctions for poking in a bid to silence Betsy, but the community shouldn't fall for it. We should just tell her to stop poking.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It's also rather ironic that Mbz1 added an image of hounding to her little "essay" about how persecuted she is, poor thing, while still having all but hounded Betsy off the site entirely. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hound Betsy off the site entirely? Really? I am happy to report that the user is as active as ever, and no, I would not like Betsy to leave wikipedia. I would not like anybody to leave wikipedia.

I gave barnstar to an editor bit to "poke" anybody. I did it in a separate section on their talk page. I did not mention any names. I did not link the text I added to the barnstar to any comment made by anybody. To bring this matter here is absolutely ridiculous. Here's is the barnstar:

Truth-telling boy barnstar

Hi OhanaUnited, I am giving you this barnstar for being the truth-telling boy, for being unafraid to say clear and loud that the Emperor is naked.Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope I still have a freedom of speech and a freedom of expression.It was done not to "poke" anybody, it was done to award the editor that I believe should be awarded.Just as simple as that.

That whole matter about so called "false accusation" should be dropped at last. Apparently nobody is going to apologize to user:Betsythedevine for making so called "false accusation". Demanding an apology is a bad tone. An apology should be issued from the heart and not because an editor is threatened with sanctions. For the last few days user:Ohiostandard has been busy preventing the thread about "false accusation" from archiving with the latest attempt being this artificially added comment. user:Ohiostandard conduct on this matter is disgusting. user:Ohiostandard was told by an admin: "By the way, were Ohana's allegations written anywhere except Betsy's talk? If so, it seems a little beside the point, as Betsy herself would be free to remove or refactor comments on her own talk anyway." So, just go ahead and remove the comment you do not like, stop making more AN/I drama. Enough is enough

--Mbz1 (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I had to check the calendar to see if this was 4/1 again. On a scale of 1 to 10, this affront is not worth the paper it is complained about on. I am ordering a 55 gallon drum of tea. Collect (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That barnstar is about as clear a case of "I told you so, neener neener neener!" as one can get. In the grand scheme of things, is it minor? For any other user, probably. But it's these types of pinprick-sized jabs that led to mbz being, quite properly, banned from AN/I and related for several months in the first place. Tarc (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The following is a reply to Mbz1

"I did not mention any names"? And you think that excuses your little grave dance? It couldn't have been more staringly obvious that you were referring to Betsy. And no, you don't have freedom of speech here. This is a privately owned website, and all our speech is obliged to further its goals and values rather than indulge our own private grudges.

As for Betsy's having reconsidered her leaving, it's my understanding that she's willing to do so now only because a very strong consensus has emerged that she did nothing wrong, certainly nothing remotely connected to any attempt at character assassination. In fact, you and the editor who goes by "Broccolo" were the only two people who supported those accusations. But I don't suppose your support had anything to do with the fact that you are both vehemently, passionately opposed to her view on Mideast politics, and are probably her two biggest detractors on Wikipedia?

That was a rhetorical question, and I'm going to try not to respond further if I can help it. Your behavior in this whole matter has succeeded in making me angry, which is a pretty unusual event for me, and I don't want to say something I'll regret. But I'd very much welcome the opinions of wholly uninvolved editors, i.e. of those who are fortunate enough to have no strong interest in Mideast politics, and who don't edit in that regrettably contentious area.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Uninvolved Editor I don't edit in that area, I have no real opinions in that area, I have never encountered any of the at-issue editors except for having familiarity with Betsy's name for some unknown reason. I have, however, been following this extremely sad little case ever since it bubbled over onto ANI via the hilarious and ironic "third opinion requested" thread (which should probably have been titled "I have no intention of listening to the third opinion I've requested"). Mbz's posting the hounding image, and this adorable barnstar, would typically prompt a "Uhm, why is this at ANI" reaction from me had I not been following this terrible little escapade, but in this case, it's wholly inappropriate, bordering on grotesque. Ohana's initial accusation against Betsy was ill-advised, surely, but his failure to atone for this accusation once near-universal consensus against it emerged -- and in a thread he started called "third opinion requested," to boot -- is far worse. And...far worse still is anybody celebrating the unfortunate outcome of this fiasco, as Mbz is clearly doing here. It is further strange that Mbz is apparently continuing to update and enhance her celebratory actions by converting them into a barnstar.

  All that said, I have no idea what action or inaction is appropriate here. You might say I'm venting, and you might be right about that. This whole thing -- from the initial accusation to the poor way it's been handled -- has been a shame.

  I think the right way to go is to just drop this whole thing, so long as continued pettiness by involved editors who wish to celebrate the frustrated semi-retirement of a well-regarded editor comes to an immediate halt. And pretending that this barnstar is some kind of general reward and not in specific regard to this fiasco is patently absurd. Anybody who's been following this can tell that that's untrue.ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Two things

• Since Red Stone Arsenal is very likely to be a sockpuppet of a topic banned user, doesn't matter who, none of this would have happened if they had simply been blocked.
• It's unfortunate that the admins who defended the policies of this project by blocking the countless sockpuppets of NoCal100, Stellarkid, Historicist, Drork and so very many others didn't get barnstars. Oh well, c'est la vie. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• The problems in the past two sections could be solved if OhioStandard just removed Mbz's talk page from his watchlist and stopped following her contribs. Just a suggestion. A wise man once said "This is a privately owned website, and all our speech is obliged to further its goals and values rather than indulge our own private grudges". It's time to get a mirror. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Read the thread: I have Betsy's page watchlisted, and it was Mbz1's post there that brought this to my attention. I also have OhanaUnited's page watchlisted, and so noticed Mbz1's "barnstar" there. Nor is it true that attacks on others don't matter if no one takes any notice. Now would everyone please let uninvolved, and non I/P editors or admins comment, if they wish to, without further partisan comments? Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've read the thread. Mbz put an image you don't like on her talk page. She then gave someone a barnstar you don't like. Niether has anything whatsoever to do with you, except for what seems to be an infatuation with Mbz. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• It is quite clear the Mbz1 has issues with civility and letting something die, instead having to make further rude actions that keep perpetuating a sad issue. Of course, since ANI has never really sanctioned anyone in regards to incivility and WP:CIVIL is a dead policy that is never followed or acted upon if someone breaks it, I suppose we should close this discussion. Silverseren^C 01:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Guilty as charged. It was really uncivil of me to reward an editor with a custom-made naked Emperor barnstar, but may I please ask you to look at the mitigating circumstances? I assure you I have absolutely nothing to do with the undressing of this poor Emperor. It was Hans Christian Andersen who did it :-) --Mbz1 (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  You should really stop with this crap. You're not helping yourself. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  What a nice post ;-) I am afraid you do not understand my situation. I am beyond help, so at least why not to have some good time ;-)--Mbz1 (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Betsy, who is traveling with little time and rare internet

I would like to thank OhioUnited for his great kindness in defending me. It seems to me that Wikipedia would have a lot more luck retaining women as editors if more people would do as Ohio has done here and speak up for a person who is unfairly attacked instead of urging those who are hounded by Mbz1 and others to cowboy up and drink tea. Let me remind people that WP:HOUND rebukes people for editing with the goal of repeatedly causing unhappiness or distress to another editor--as Mbz1 has done to me and to many others. It is not a policy that forbids people to provide diffs from the history of those they are debating. I am always happy when people provide diffs to what I really said. Hugs to all the kind people out there. It is true that my hurt feelings and plans to leave were greatly diminished by 1) having people say kind things in the "Third opinion" ANI and on my talk page, 2) by problems on my watchlist, 3) by Mbz1's continued attacks on my character for being a generally bad person who has clashed with her in the past (an accusation that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of whether or not it is true that I file bad-faith SPIs against content opponents), and 4) that I did want to contribute an article I've been working on Guide to the Lakes. I don't know what admin action is possible here. I am not asking for Mbz1 to be blocked, what good would that do? When there was an AE report on Mbz1 a while ago, I asked for some specifically-worded civility restrictions, but instead she was given a PI topic ban. Anyway, I am about to drive away from this patchy internet into unlikely internet for a few days. If somebody would give OhioStandard a barnstar for defense of the wiki, I think that would be a good thing. It is a wonderful project. betsythedevine (talk) 07:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Once again user:Betsythedevine accused me in hounding her without providing a single difference to confirm the allegation.
• WP:Hound is: Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work.
• Here are my evidences of me being haunted by User:Betsythedevine

1. "I don't have the heart to fight injustice when it settles on my own head, especially when it becomes a fun opportunity for Mbz1 to wikistalk into my life."
2. "Basically, I am sick of being harassed by some anonymous person calling himself Mbz1."
3. user:betsythedevine making absolutely false claims about my contributions that were obtained by using the tools that should not be applied to my contributions (May I please ask you to read the collapsed portion of the thread)
4. edit summary: "Clarify what Gatoclass is talking about and Mbz1 is objecting to"
5. edit summary: "Friendly wave from another target in the latest round of PA from Mbz1" and so on, and so on, and so on.
6. edit summary: "Links to Mbz1's harassment over the past six months". This post violates WP:UP#POLEMIC that states: "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed."

• I did post to the user talk page after she asked me not to, but I did it only after I saw this post made by user at her talk page That's why I posted asking the user to go our separate ways
• In response I got a long ... to both my talk page and the user talk page, in which the user recounted all my "crimes" for the last 6 months linking to both my block logs on Commons and wikipedia,with taking out of content differences and with some of these differences being already used against me by that very user.That post was disgusting.
• I am not asking that user:Betsythedevine be blocked, I am only asking that we agree to go our separate ways because both of us and the community would be in the win, if we do.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Outing threats

An IP at User talk:123.231.114.171 has made a threat to out me. At first, I thought the user was a sock of a different vandal, now I recognize them as the IP from the range 123.231.64.0/18, who had been involved at the article and talk page at Reporters Without Borders (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch. The user had been edit-warring in the article over POV material followed by edit-warring on the talk page over the restoration of personal attacks (resulting in both the article and the talk page being semi-protected). In the article where they accuse me of abuse, I only have one edit of which I can recall, and that to revert their resumption of edit warring following expiration of an earlier block.

Given that it has now resulted in outing threats, I believe it best if another user investigate to determine if any further action needs to be taken at this time as I plan to not interract with the user any further myself (following notification of this thread). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah..I remember them. Yes, they also caused disruption at Press Freedom Index resulting in the article being protected. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an IP-hopping serial vandal, who has caused disruption in the past too. See the previous AN/I report. RolandR (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This IP editor seems to have been halted temporarily due to the blocking of a single IP, 123.231.114.171. It is possible they will continue the IP-hopping campaign. Since the vandalism is targeted against Barek and it's quite nasty, I suggest that a block of 123.231.64.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for one month should be considered, even though there will be a modest amount of collateral damage. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Blastikus and WP:TALK

Blastikus (talk · contribs) insists on inserting a long screed at the top of Talk:Jewish Bolshevism, in which he links to an external bulletin board posting where he claims to have "refuted this article", makes various not-so-veiled accusations about editors of the page, and then includes an extremely long and difficult to understand series of quotations and links which apparently prove his point that Jews are behind Communism, and, in general, have "a long history of concocting the most bizarre fabrications". I've removed the material as unrelated to actual article content a couple of times, but he keeps re-adding it, and making it even longer. Is a ban in order at this point? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added the {{NOTAFORUM}} flag to the Talk page to try and forestall disruption. I've also read the article and Blastikus' material, and to me it looks like a conglomeration of WP:NPOV, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR problems all balled up together. That said, I wouldn't call it disruptive...yet. I have also notified Blastikus of this discussion. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense - the items I have linked to are directly relevant to the article and directly contradict the material presented within, there are also a great deal of modern, reliable, contemporary sources combined with primary sources that support each other.Blastikus (talk)

Err... having read it, that looks like Jewish and Zionist conspiracy stuff.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes - the thing is, if there is sufficient evidence to support your position, then it has to be considered. The word "conspiracy theory" has taken on a derogatory meaning in modern times, usually referring to articles that go against mainstream consensus. To most people, it means a fabrication concocted by a group with little political power in order to advance their ideological agenda. But in my case, the information I have presented is totally authentic. And we have to ask ourselves - was Disraeli (Jewish by ethnicity) an "anti-Semitic" conspiracy theorist? Was Churchill? What about Jewish sources confirming this? Is the fact that Moses Hess was the founder of BOTH Communism and Zionism an anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theory? Was the biography of Trotsky published by the Jewish publication society which said that Trotsky was deeply intimate with the Rothschilds anti-Semitic conspiracy literature? Was Trotsky's OWN admission that the 18th Century Illuminati was the originator of Bolshevism, thus confirming the Judeo-Masonic thesis popular among far right circles in the 1920s, anti-Semitic conspiracy mongering? What about the admission from Churchill and the secondary citation of the American Hebrew that the Bolsheviks razed Churches, but spared Synagogues? Was Volkoganov's biography of Lenin anti-Semitic conspiracy literature? Was the admission of pro-Communist Bertrand Russell about the role of Jews in the Soviet Union anti-Semitic Conspiracy mongering?

Many times, we find that the term "memory hole" accurately describes the predicament. For instance, the 1905 Jewish Encyclopedia article on the Rothschilds clearly shows that the Rothschilds and other Jewish bankers had attained domination of the European Financial scene by 1905: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=445&letter=R&search=rothschild

Yet many will attack you as an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist for bringing up similar points to that article.

Regarding Petrie's comments on "Zionist Conspiracy theory stuff", I suggest he look at the following items, after which he might change his position:

1) 1903 statement of Max Nordeau: long link refactored

2) the admission of Samuel Landmann, secretary of the World Zionist organization from 1917-1922: http://www.itk.ntnu.no/ansatte/Andresen_Trond/kk-f/2005/0036.html

3) The following September 10th 1941 letter from Chaim Weizmann to Winston Churchill: http://oi52.tinypic.com/98rmtt.jpg

4) The following boast of Nahum Sokolow: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F40D13FF3B5D1A7A93CAAB1783D85F468285F9

5) The following "prophecy" of David ben Gurion: http://www.mailstar.net/bengur62.jpg

6) Zohar I, Bereshith 47a: long link refactored

I also suggest reading "The Controversy of Zion" by former London times Correspondent Douglas Reed: http://knud.eriksen.adr.dk/Controversybook/

Truth is stranger than fiction.Blastikus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC).

When one askes enough rhetorical questions (with proper phrasing) to the right people, they can convince them of anything. A lot of this appears to be drawing together your own conclusions from various documents and synthesising info. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I hate to cause drama, but would anyone care to look at this fellow's contributions? They appear to be almost entirely Jew-related, and done with what appears to be an agenda. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The contributions are to form a basis for an attempted revision of the article. My central interest on wikipedia is on matters related to that article. Blastikus (talk)

Really? All of them? Dating back to 2010 as well? They all appear to relate to Jews and Communism. Some of your summaries are also quite uncivil, including the tinyurl one that links to a YouTube video removed for "Hate Speech" [44], and [45]. Oh yeah, I'm not entirely sure, but I think if you are here for one article or just stuff relating to it, WP:SPA might apply, but I'm not sure on when and how it applies. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 15:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I was in an extremely bad temper in the Hoffman article, because there were distortions I had felt to be libelous. I apologize and have refrained from uncivil behavior. This is the "hate speech" video, which I linked to as I became interested in the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ0FGWcj7P8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blastikus (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) You did not address the central point of my comment, I'm afraid. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a holocaust-denial video. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It does not explicitly deny the holocaust, but rather notes that those who question the holocaust are imprisoned, and looks into another holocaust in history.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blastikus (talk • contribs) 17:51, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

I am not attempting to create a propaganda effort, but merely attempting to dispute points I felt were inaccurate. For example, I do note that in the period from 1949 to 1952, Stalin was beginning to attempt to create a pogrom (after he had been crucial in the formation of the State of Israel), but the circumstances surrounding his death are quite interesting: http://mailstar.net/death-of-stalin.html

The cited material above does not fit the article. See WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. If notability can be demonstrated per WP:GNG, it may warrant a separate article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The cited material above does not relate to an article I was trying to make but rather to a specific point I was trying to make in a tangential area. With the exception of Douglas Reed, none of them would be considered "POV" or "fringe". Reed was actually a widely popular journalist who got into trouble for discussing some of the points I am discussing. Blastikus (talk)

(edit conflict) Most probably because Reed looks like he went off the deep-end... "Reed believed in a long-term Zionist conspiracy to impose a world government on an enslaved humanity.[2]" from his article. Sounds fringe to me. Anyone disagree? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The leaders of Zionism have stated explicitly that their goal is World Government. The New York Times noted that Nahum Sokolow boasted before the World Zionist Congress that the League of Nations was a "Jewish Idea", and that Jerusalem will one day be the capital of "the World's Peace" (rather it it "Peace" or "pacification" remains to be discovered): http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F40D13FF3B5D1A7A93CAAB1783D85F468285F9

David Ben-Gurion also said, in Look Magazine, January 16, 1962, p. 20, "In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind.": http://www.mailstar.net/bengur62.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blastikus (talk • contribs) 10:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on what's been written here (even by me), I'm really not seeing anything for an admin to do. It all looks like a content dispute, and would best be handled through those channels. Or am I missing something obvious? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess things are fine so long as he doesn't break rules excessively. =p He has an opinion which he is welcome to have so long as it doesn't go into yon article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not a content dispute at all. There is no content that is disputed at the article. The issue is that he keeps filling the article's Talk page with long screeds about the bad, bad Jews. Does that make it more clear what the problem is? Persistent violations of WP:TALK. And the administrative action required is to delete the Talk page screeds, and block him if he keeps adding them. Unless someone objects, I'll do it myself. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah those (I was playing AC:Brotherhood while looking at the convo so I was more focused on that than the substance of the whole thing). They do seem to be much like the conspiracy hypotheses I'm well acquainted with, and he has posted it quite a few times there on the Talk as both this acct and the IP, 128.114.105.98, though he probably just forgot to sign in there. I think it would be better to cite WP:SOAP and POV-pushing (idk if that has an article) if anything, but I'm just a humble editor so idk what y'all normally do. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an incorrect assessment. I did dispute content, for example, noting that the veracity of the WH King chart was in question, because aspects of it were falsified: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,716624,00.html

And also that authoritative sources give much higher numbers for the percentage of Jews in the Bolshevik regime (I listed 5 that were directly relevant to my argument).

I also noted that the idea that Jewish Bolshevism was a "fabrication" created by the White Russians was inaccurate, for Jewish sources will admit to it, and even Benjamin Disraeli stated in the mid 1800s, in Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography (Colburn & Co., London, 1852, p. 497):

"But existing society has chosen to persecute this race which should furnish it's choice allies, and what have been the consequences? They may be traced to the last outbreak of the destructive principle in Europe. An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property. Destruction of the Semitic principle, extirpation of the Jewish religion, whether in the Mosaic or Christian form, the natural equality of men and the abrogation of property are proclaimed by the Secret Societies which form Provisional Governments, and men of the Jewish race are found at the head of every one of them. The people of God cooperate with atheists; the most skillful accumulators of property ally themselves with Communists; the peculiar and chosen race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe; and all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure." (the search function is not working for this book, but if you scroll down, you will see it is an accurate citation): http://books.google.com/books?id=SeA5AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Lord+George+Bentinck:+a+political+biography&hl=en&ei=A-DlTayNKorXiALnvNjfCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

In a speech before the house of commons in 1856, Disraeli also said:

"There is in Italy a power which we seldom mention in this House ... I mean the secret societies.... It is useless to deny, because it is impossible to conceal, that a great part of Europe - the whole of Italy and France and a great portion of Germany, to say nothing of other countries - is covered with a network of these secret societies, just as the superficies of the earth is now being covered with railroads. And what are their objects? They do not attempt to conceal them. They do not want constitutional government; they do not want ameliorated institutions ... they want to change the tenure of land, to drive out the present owners of the soil and to put an end to ecclesiastical establishments. Some of them may go further...": http://books.google.com/books?id=yKE9AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA774&dq=%22There+is+in+Italy+a+power+which+we+seldom+mention+in+this+House+...+I+mean+the+secret+societies....+It+is+useless+to+deny,+because+it+is+impossible+to+conceal,+that+a+great+part+of+Europe%E2%80%94the+whole+of+Italy+and+France+and+a+great+portion+of+Germany,+to+sa&hl=en&ei=ua2aTfD8AYyWsgOY3ZWPBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Edwin Davies Schoonmaker noted:

"Fifteen years after the Bolshevist Revolution was launched to carry out the Marxist program, the editor of the American Hebrew could write: "According to such information that the writer could secure while in Russia a few weeks ago, not one Jewish synagogue has been torn down, as have hundreds-perhaps thousands of the Greek Catholic Churches...In Moscow and other large cities one can see Christian churches in the process of destruction...the Government needs the location for a large building,"(American Hebrew, Nov. 18, 1932, p. 12) Apostate Jews, leading a revolution that was to destroy religion as the "opiate of the people" had somehow spared the synagogues of Russia." (Schoonmaker, Edwin Davies. "Democracy and World Dominion". 1939, p.211): long link refactored, long link refactored

Winston Churchill also confirmed this in his "Zionism vs. Bolshevism" article when he stated - "The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies which are now being perpetrated.": http://www.archive.org/download/KhaosOdenslandArchiveDocstheMisanthropicMisogynist/1920WinstonChurchillArticle-ZionismVsBolshevism-AStruggleForTheSoulOfTheJewishPeople.pdf

Why would a regime in which Jews were insignificant raze churches, but spare synagogues??

Stalin stated - "In the USSR anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under USSR law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30): http://books.google.com/books?ei=g6lYTaDhMonWtQP1rLWjDA&ct=result&id=33EJAQAAIAAJ&dq=under+USSR+law+active+anti-Semites+are+liable+to+the+death+penalty&q=%22under+USSR+law+active+anti-Semites+are+liable+to+the+death+penalty%22#search_anchor

Why would a regime in which Jews were supposedly insignificant exterminate anti-Semites?? Anti-Christians were certainly not treated this way.

Even the Encyclopedia Judaica, Volume 5, p. 793, notes that the Communist International actually instructed Jews to change their names so as to "not confirm right-wing propaganda that presented Communism as an alien, Jewish conspiracy.": http://www.google.com/search?q=%22not+confirm+right-wing+propaganda+that+presented+Communism+as+an+alien%2C+Jewish+conspiracy.%22&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1

The the Hearings before the sub-committee on Bolshevik propaganda notes this name change and independently corroborates the lists of Robert Wilton. See p. 142: http://books.google.com/books?id=DW9WqP4sHKsC&pg=PA5&dq=Bolshevik+propaganda:+Hearings+before+a+subcommittee&hl=en&ei=j_SjTeHULIPQiAL686zaCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Chernoff&f=false

see also pp. 111, 114, 116, 142, 135, 977, 47, 69, 269, 270, 310, 424, 33, 41, and 57

The Report on Revolutionary Activities issued by a Committee of the New York Legislature, headed by Senator Lusk, stated the following, on p. 374:

"There was no organized opposition to Bela Kun. Like Lenin, he surrounded himself with commissars, having absolute authority. Of the thirty-two principal commissars, twenty-five were Jews, which was about the same proportion as in Russia. The most prominent of these formed a directorate of five: Bela Kun, Bela Varga, Joseph Pogany, Sigmund Kunfi, and one other. Other leaders were Alpari and Samuely, who had charge of the Red Terror, and carried out the torturing and executing of the bourgeoisie, especially the groups held as hostages, the so-called counter-revolutionists and peasants.": long link refactored

What all of this suggests is obfuscation and that facts have gone down the memory hole. Victors have written the history, obfuscating facts they find unpleasing.

Regarding the dismissal on the grounds that my argument is a "familiar conspiracy hypothesis", when people intimately involved with a situation, from a diversity of backgrounds, give information that conflicts with a mainstream argument, then we must give it consideration, and consider if there are any systemic flaws in the mainstream. For instance, Bertrand Russell is the exact opposite of a "fascist" or "Black hundreds" adherent, yet he gave conclusions, from his travels in Soviet Russia, that are very similar to those of these now marginalized groups. You find this constantly. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was intimately involved in the American political scene. In a letter to Col. Mandell House, he wrote:

"The real truth of the matter is that a financial element in the large centers has owned the Government since the days of Andrew Jackson" (Letter to Col. Edward Mandell House (21 November 1933); as quoted in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), p. 373.: http://books.google.com/books?rview=1&id=VpwqAAAAYAAJ&dq=FDR+His+Personal+Letters++financial+element+government+since+the+days+of+Andrew+Jackson&q=financial+element+government+since+the+days+of+Andrew+Jackson#search_anchor

Note that he said "owned", not "influenced". Yet the mainstream argument is that we live in some kind of "pluralistic" or "democratic" society.

What you find is that there is tremendous intellectual inhibition in these matters. Notable Professor Francis Boyle gave the following presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5wtE9wd1uU

@0:00-0:36

"I remember once lecturing at NYU Law School about the Middle East Peace Process - the Creation of the Palestinian State- and the whole faculty and student body beat the hell out of me for 2 hours, 3 hours a bout being an "anti-Semite". Then they wouldn't publish my paper in the proceedings, and then they tried to stiff me on my expenses. And this is typical."

@1:10-1:58

"This is organized by the ADL, AIPAC, Dan Pipes, people like that - saying "we don't want this person speaking, we don't want that person speaking, we don't want this person on the faculty, make sure this person doesn't get a job offer, etc.""

@4:50-4:58

"You realize how much hypocrisy is shot through the entire academic world. These people are racists, and they're hypocrites."

quote from a commentator:

"I worked for the ADL in Boston, and what the professor is saying is absolutely true! At the ADL's NY headquarters is a library of banned books, Chomsky is right next to Hitler!

Names and bios, along with PHOTOS, of serious academics critical of Israeli policies regularly came across my desk! We were supposed to ensure that these blacklisted people were harassed wherever they appeared."

So if the situation is that bad with the much less controversial issues he is discussing, why would anybody think that it is not extremely bad with the issues I am discussing?Blastikus (talk)

Pretty clear what we have here is basic anti-Semitic propaganda, masked as "look at all these out of context quotes from famous people!" I'm starting to think WP:DISRUPT applies here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing I have written could in any way be described as "out of context" or "anti-Semitic" or "propaganda". I understand that it might clash with your worldview, and so you respond with poorly researched, knee-jerk reactions, but that does not in any way invalidate them.

I take extreme offense that the previous editor would libel me as an "anti-Semite". I have nothing but praise for the great Jewish individuals who have condemned the atrocities committed in their name. Benjamin Freedman is one: http://iamthewitness.com/archive.php?dir=audio%2FBenjamin.H.Freedman%2FWillard.Hotel.1961%2F

Dr. Oscar Levy is another Jew who deserves immense praise, who stated, in the prefatory letter to "The World Significance of the Russian Revolution" by George Pitt-Rivers,

"We have erred, my friend, we have most grievously erred. ... We who have posed as the saviours of the world, we who have even boasted of having given it "the" Saviour, we are today nothing else but the world's seducers, its destroyers, its incendiaries, its executioners. ... We who have promised to lead you to a new Heaven, we have finally succeeded in landing you in a new Hell. ... And yet we are not all Financiers, we are not all Bolshevists, we have not all become Zionists. ... our last word is not yet spoken, our last deed is not yet done, our last revolution is not yet made. This last Revolution, the Revolution that will crown our revolutionaries, will be the revolution against the revolutionaries. ... when the values of death and decay are put into the melting pot to be changed into those of power and beauty, then you, my dear Pitt-Rivers, the descendant of an old and distinguished Gentile family, may be assured to find by your side, and as your faithful ally, at least one member of that Jewish Race, which has fought with such fatal success upon all the spiritual battlefields of Europe." (pp. x-xi, xiii): http://ia600603.us.archive.org/22/items/TheWorldSignificanceOfTheRussianRevolution/48920297-Rivers-The-World-Significance-of-the-Russian-Revolution.pdf

I do not seek to degrade Jewish individuals or treat them as sub-human. Unfortunately, if we look at Jewish religious texts, we find that exact racist practice, which they accuse others of. The Zohar states:

""living soul" refers to Israel, who have holy living souls from above, and " cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth" to the other peoples who are not "living soul"" (H. Sperling and M. Simon, Editors, "Bereshith 47a", The Zohar, Volume 1, The Soncino Press, New York, (1984), p. 147): http://books.google.com/books?ei=Ewm5TbbdBsTliALKg6kh&ct=result&id=mBQmAQAAIAAJ&dq=refers+to+Israel%2C+who+have+holy+living+souls+from+above&q=%22living+soul%22+refers+to+Israel%2C+who+have+holy+living+souls+from+above%2C+and+%22+cattle+and+creeping+thing+and+beast+of+the+earth%22+to+the+other+peoples+who+are+not+%22living+soul%22#search_anchor

There is a lot more where that came from. A lot of evil hides behind the mask of Judaism. Hopefully decent Jewish individuals, rather than denying it, will condemn it and divorce themselves from it.

Personal attacks by Manorathan

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

User blocked for six hours for disruptived editing. Other editors, please do not extend this discussion and could we use this break to start again with a clean sheet all round please? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Manorathan (talk · contribs), in edit summaries of Tamil Kshatriya (see the edit summary for [46]), in the text of Talk:Tamil Kshatriya (see the section title created here), on his/her talk page, and, finally, on User Talk:Qwyrxian#Dealing with vandals on Tamil Kshatriya page that the edits of User:Sitush and User:Rajkris on Tamil Kshatriya are vandalism. Manorathan also gave an actual vandalism warning to Sitush here. User was specifically told on xyr talk ([47] and [48]) that this is not acceptable and could constitute a personal attack. A lengthy discussion ensued in several places, but came to fruition in the aforementioned section on my talk page. At the end of that discussion, I explicitly told Manorathan that it was not worth fighting about, and that no action would be taken as long as they no longer referred to the edits as vandalism. Manorathan's response, rather than walking away, was to again restate the claim of vandalism. The insistence upon using this terminology, along with the generally non-collaborative attitude at Talk:Tamil Kshatriya makes collaborative editing difficult at best. It feels fairly stupid to me to report this here, because it's not that big of a deal, but this editor is just not listening, and, at a minimum, needs a clear, unambiguous warning from an admin that this just isn't acceptable. Since accusations of vandalism against clearly good faith editors can be considered a personal attack, this could possibly deserve a block. As I stated on my talk page, there is no reason for a block as long as the user agrees to stop attacking Sitush and Rajkris (and ideally act more collaboratively on the article talk page). Off to notify users now. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal fights between Sitush and me

The ^ user hadn't read the discussion fully, and neither did the accused editors verify my citations before removing them, as I had to repost everything then and there on the talk page. I am not against Rajkris, as he later accepted in the talk page that it was his mistake. The edit warring by Sitush is indeed vandalism, as he tried removing well cited content that I added, leaving frivolous edit summaries and personal threats on my talk page. Yes, this is funny. All because of personal opinions of a few editors. And it is not nowhere clear that the Sitush's was editing in good faith, as he warned me point blank in the beginning to stop contributing as the page would soon be deleted.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 05:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, a consensus to leave the article well alone while I reviewed sources nominated by two sides to a dispute was agreed on 5 May. It was an explicit consensus, ie: both "sides" actually said "ok, I agree this review is the way forward" or words to that effect. That review has been ongoing on the article talk page and until Manorathan's intervention the article was indeed not edited. Manorathan keeps insisting that his edits etc were not against consensus despite this. - Sitush (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, 1 May - see Talk:Tamil_Kshatriya#Review_of_sources. - Sitush (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That was a month ago, and there was no way forward after that, except his personal intention to delete the page, which he admitted in his threatening in my talk page. Moreover, the sources examined were mostly inaccessible, with only snippet views available on GBooks. Sitush lacks knowledge on the subject, which is evident from his factually wrong addition to the page, regarding Prakrit to be Tamil Brahmi, and his confusion between languages and scripts, and confusion/aversion towards Kshatriyas. the article needed my addition of references in all WP:AGF.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 07:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The review was quite clearly ongoing & neither "side" has raised issues about the time it was taking. In fact, both told me to take as long as was needed, "No way forward" is a nonsense, sorry. Given that your own recent edit is from a book which is missing two potentially crucial pages at GBooks, and you seem unwilling to supply them, I am not sure that your own sources are any better than the ones which I have discounted previously due to snippet views. - Sitush (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You cannot call things unfavourable to you as nonsense, sorry. The page was almost dead, and the article then had citation-needed and citation-notgiven tags. And there is no proven reference that the two missing pages on GBooks are crucial enough. If you regard them as crucial enough to be added, it is your WP:BURDEN to add them. This book's preview provides sufficient and referable coverage on the content to be added as a WP reference.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 07:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINE - Sitush (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, things got better for this page only after I took the initiative yesterday, in adding references after a month long vacationing by the contenders. I was and am totally for WP:AGF. WP:DEADLINE also has a section where it talks about editors halting their work due to incompetency on the subject or religious/ personal opinions. Help yourself.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 08:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

How is a huge row "better" ? You have ignored consensus, period. - Sitush (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The huge row was basically due to you, making me repost everything n number of times, as there was one editor who couldn't find time to view the references himself and hence straight away wanted its removal, and there was you who initially failed to understand my content with citations, missed a few sentences, and later added your own version of the subject, misunderstanding the source, which is the current version of the page. I have been telling from the beginning that this fight was totally unessential, if you had apologised for removing well cited contents from the page.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 08:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Mandrathan has now refactored content here at AN/I in at least three different places today. It has been discussed at User_talk:Manorathan#refactoring others comments, This cannot go on, surely? - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have modified only my comment now, after going through the WP:TALK page. My comment was anyways modified by Shitush in the act. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 10:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Sitush. Sorry for the typo in the above comment.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 10:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The bolded comment above - "Personal fights between Sitush and me " - is a refactoring by Manorathan. -Sitush (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ofcourse it is a part of my comment, which you refactored to make it appear in a way that I didn't intend to.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 10:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Show me the diff where I added and bolded it, please. - Sitush (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You had removed the enhancement that I made to my comment in one of your reverting tasks. Check the history for yourself.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 11:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

But why did you "enhance" after others had replied? That is what people have been complaining about (amongst other things) on your talk page. Here's your original. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And now you have ignored two clear warnings on your talk page and have hit your fifth revert to Tamil Kshatriya. If I can figure out how to cite this then you'll be blocked. for now, I have just added a formal warning template to supplement the two text warnings issued previously. - Sitush (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a reversal as you complain. And placing a warning for adding a valid reference is disruptive. And there is no reason for others to complain for my enhancing my comment. I hadn't backtracke/ contradicted my original comment. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 12:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have protected the article for two days. I'm not personally convinced that Manorathan has actually reverted five times, but there is certainly edit warring going on (and I'm not at all qualified to comment on who's information is better). I am convinced that Manorathan is calling other good faith editors 'vandals' and other such terms, and I predict that if he does it again he will be blocked for it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

@^ How can you say that they are good faith editors when all they are doing is ridding the page of references, citing their own personal opinions on the authors of the books cited as references, for instance, Sitush was not satisfied with an NCERT History textbook cited as a reference citing the author's potential bias. He had infact left a warning on my talk page asking me to stay away from the article adding that the page would be deleted soon. And there was no valid ground for his removing the references that I added. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 12:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussing references is generally an acceptable activitiy when deciding how much WP:WEIGHT to give to any particular source. This does seem to be a conflict relating to how much weight to give particular views on or aspects of history. I recommend all the editors concerned try not questioning each other's motives, or throwing terms like vandal about, but try discussing on the talkpage what they are trying to achieve and how it will benefit the article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Manorathan has been quite difficult to work with. he either doesnt or doesnt want to understand wp policies. he seems to of the opinion that just having a reference for something is enough. besides, his arrogant comments and attempts at insulting me can be seen here and here. --CarTick (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Manorathan removing sockpuppet tags

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

It is permissible for sockpuppet tags to be removed after any block relating to them has expired. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

---

The user User:Manorathan continues to delete the sock puppet tag that was placed on his user page and user talk page, claiming that it expires. From the wording in WP:DRC it says nothing about about sock puppetry tags expiring. He also blanked the page of his sock removing the tag from before, but so far has not undone my edit to restore that tag. The diff for the last removal is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Manorathan&diff=prev&oldid=431773372Inks.LWC (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Inks.LWC's addition of expired sockpuppetry notices to User:Manorathan's userpage

The above user is behind me for long, and he insists on what I should keep on my talk page. Sockpuppetry notices are valid only during the notice period as it was said during that period. Why can't he just move on?Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 05:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe the tag should be removed. User page should not be a page of shame. The socks are blocked, and according to only 24 hours block of the sock master they were not so abusive. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Inks must read WP:REPU, which clearly states anyone can remove the template, and stop his activities, and he nevertheless, deserves a warning for stalking me, which he had been doing from the beginning.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 05:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have read WP:REPU. However, you are failing to read WP:DRC, which clearly states that users should not remove confirm sockpuppetry notices from their own user pages. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Also. I have not been stalking you. I had your sock on my watchlist from when I created the talk page for it, and it popped up in my watchlist when I was on earlier. I then noticed you had removed the tag from there, and came to your talk page and noticed the same. Please do not accuse me of "stalking" you, when you have no evidence to support that claim. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You had already received a warning for stalking me by an another user for wrongly putting up my articles for deletion, all of which resulted in strong keep, check your talk page. And better read WP:REPU before accusing me of anything. You should also be reading ther other guidelines of WP, going by the number of speedy deletions initiated by you getting declined. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 05:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:REPU appears to state that non-blocked users can remove sockpuppetry notices from their pages, since they still are available in the page's history. Dayewalker (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Inks.LWC, I agree that you appear to be very closely following Manorathan. Care to explain? Manorathan appears to have legitimate discretion at WP:REPU to remove the sock notice from his own userpage. In any event it's in the page history and the sockpuppetry case page is also archived. I believe the two of you need to stay away from each other. N419BH 05:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I created the talk page for one of his socks, when I made the first post on the page, so it showed up in my watchlist when I got back from work today. I looked at the diff and noticed he had removed the sock tag. Other than that, I haven't paid any recent attention to him since the last time I dealt with him. Also, WP:REPU is an essay, not a guideline, and UP#CMT is somewhat ambiguous on whether or not sockpuppetry tags expire. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(ecx2)Since both WP:REPU and WP:DRC are essays, it's hard to tell which "applies", if either. The guideline in question, WP:USER, is unclear to me. It says, in section WP:BLANK, that most information cannot be blanked, but lists a few specific items which cannot. One of those things which cannot be removed is, " Sanctions that are currently in effect, including declined unblock requests, ban, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions, and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices." The reason why I find this unclear is that a SOCK notice doesn't have a time of effect; a block for sockpuppetry can be said to be "in effect" only for the duration of the block; however, my guess is that it works the same as the unblock requests: they have to stay up for the duration of the underlying block, but can be removed after the block expires or is overturned. Is there precedent that clarifies the meaning of this sentence? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I never entertained Inks, but he still is behind me. I don't want him around. Please check the edit warring we had on my talk page. WP:DRC says nothing about the removal of sockpuppetry notice, while WP:REPU does, and hence it applies here. It makes it very clear that edit history alone is permanent and hence they alone would serve to preserve the incidents.@Dayewalker, WP:REPU goes on to say that the notices can be removed even by other users, as the edit history would anyways be there.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 06:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm trying to be argumentative, but WP:DRC does say something about the removal of sockpuppetry notices. It says There are only four types of messages that a user should not remove and that confirmed sockpuppetry notice is one of the four. However, it is only an essay. WP:REMOVED, however, is a guideline. It states Sanctions that are currently in effect, including ... confirmed sockpuppetry related notices' should not be removed by the user. Unless I'm misreading it (I invite whoever reads this to check for themselves and offer their opinion) I believe the wording currently in effect means that since the SPI block is no longer in effect, the template can be removed. However, this is just my interpretation, and should probably be looked at by someone more familiar with WP:REMOVED (I'd also suggest the wording of WP:REMOVED be clarified to avoid confusion like this in the future). - SudoGhost™ 06:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Since both are essays, and neither are policies (something I overlooked on both at the beginning, and was wondering why the 2 policies contradicted each other), and UP#CMT is ambiguous, I've asked for input on the userpage talk page. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am 90% sure the tag could be removed from a user page, if the user is not blocked, but why to continue discussion here? It should not have been brought to AN/I at all. You could have asked an admin, who should now a policy. --Mbz1 (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

@SudoGhost As per WP:REMOVED, it is very clear that the notices shall not be removed only during the notice period. I don't think you can interpret it in any other way. And essays represent the views behind a policy. Inks seems to be overlooking all cases concerning me. Earlier he overlooked the notability policies and had to withdraw all his nominations of my pages for deletion. I was about to initiate WP:ANI against him, he has done it himself and saved my work.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 06:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If it were very clear, this thread would be much shorter. That WP:REMOVED itself links to WP:DRC, which states that confirmed sockpuppetry notices should not be removed by the user, makes it unclear. Your statement that essays represent the views behind a policy doesn't help, because there are two different essays being discussed here, one saying you can, and another saying you cannot. - SudoGhost™ 07:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:DRC is ambiguous as it doesn't say anything about the time limit for sockpuppetry notice, while it does for unblock requests. So, WP:REPU alone applies here, and also the wording in WP:REMOVED is very clear. I found from the discussion initiated by Inks in your talk page requesting support on this, a link to a talk page about the earlier ambiguous wording in WP:REMOVED, which was edited recently after a consensus. It is very simple to remove this discussion with a warning or a block administered to Inks for his questionable contributions : long list of declined speedy deletes, prods and AfDs, and above all, stalking me.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 07:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I also bring to your attention the edit wars this and this by Inks in my user and talk pages.

I have summarised the posts, including lengthy and self contradictory posts which try to cloud this dicsussion with ambiguity, as below.

Keep the tag  : User:Inks.LWC

Ambiguous  : User:SudoGhost

Weak remove the tag : User:Qwyrxian

Remove the tag  : User:Manorathan

                           User :N419BH
                           User:Dayewalker
                           User:Mbz1
                           User:MichaelQSchmidt
                           User:Boing! said Zebedee

Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 09:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Remove the tag per guidelines governing such. The tag was in place during course of investigation, is available in the page hoistory, and may now be properly removed as the case is closed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• My take on this is that an ex-sockpuppeteer can remove the tag from their own page when any block has expired. At least, that fits in with my reading of the policies, fits in with the general ethics of the project, and seems to match actual practice - sanctions are intended to be preventative, and we don't permanently brand ex-offenders once any sanctions have expired or been lifted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense to me; I wonder if we might want to consider rewriting that guideline for clarity; I'll look over at the talk there later. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

@^ The existing policy, WP:REMOVED is very much clear on the removal of an expired tag, which had earlier been discussed in the article talk page and later edited. It was totally negligence or personal motives on the part of User:Inks.LWC to initiate an ANI on me.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 11:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KinoSearch

Resolved

 – AfD now properly listed. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

without contacting a specific admin, this AfD has existed since December 2010 and never been closed... surely it's time to! LibStar (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a notification of the discussion was not added to the article [49], it wasn't listed in the AfD discussions for that day [50], and the creator wasn't informed [51]- ie, the person who nominated it for deletion discussion made the AfD subpage, but didn't do the rest of the steps. So, it's probably only fair to start again (if you want) - list it for deletion afresh, to give people a fair chance to find references etc.  Chzz  ►  07:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have closed the AfD, and will inform its creator. Anyone who wishes to start a new AfD is, of course, free to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

On second thoughts I will reopen it and list it in today's AfD listings. There is no reason for the couple of comments made in the original AfD to be lost. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

A cute block

Resolved

 – Block evading IP blocked. T. Canens (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me posting as an IP, but it is surely wrong for one administrator to block for socking when another has just said he is checking whether there was any socking or not. (I have not registered any accounts for more than a year, since I discovered that editors are not at liberty to contribute under any name but must use the name they first thought of). At the time he went away to check, the administrator (Hersfold) said I had evaded my block by editing my talk page whilst logged out. This was simply forgetfulness on my part - I am sure we have all forgetten to log in at one time or another, and anyway the terms of my block specifically allowed me to edit my talk page. A year ago the community decided that I should not be banned, but nobody has yet implemented that decision by clearing my block. Daniel Case said he was blocking me because I had put forward no new argument. If that was true, why did Hersfold go away to check the information I had just supplied? Daniel asked me whether I thought Vote for Change looked cute - completely the wrong approach since I believe Jimbo has commented that editors pay more attention to customing their signatures than they do to what goes above them. Can a more experienced editor please notify this post to any party required to be notified under the rule? 156.61.160.1 (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As this is, apparently, about Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs), I've put a note on that user talk, and notified Daniel Case (talk · contribs) and Hersfold (talk · contribs).  Chzz  ►  08:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, whether the talk page edit was or was not an innocent mistake due to forgetting to log in, the edit to this page was block evasion. If you wish to be unblocked you may request an unblock via your account, and otherwise you may not edit anywhere. The IP has now been blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP appears to be stable for the indef'd user, and this is at least the third time he's pulled this stunt in the last year. I've asked for a lengthier block.[52] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The admin is concerned about collateral damage. My guess is that it's all the same guy, who has repeatedly ignored the rules against block-evasion. But we'll see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you please unblock my talk page to enable me to file the unblock request? It probably won't be in the near future as I want to demonstrate that I'm serious about not socking. From comment on some user pages you'd think I was another Bambifan, but I don't vandalise and I don't abuse other editors. My edits have been examined by the community who have seen nothing there which merits a ban. 62.140.210.158 (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked this IP as well for block evasion ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 17:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Verbal abuse by IP

Resolved

 – IP range blocked for a short while. Pages semiprotected. Abusive comments removed.

Hi, a series of IP's were vandalizing the Mohammed Rafi article. See this. Consequently, the article was semi-protected by Cirt. Today, i was verbally abused by another IP at my talk page. See this. Furthermore, i was abused at the Mohammed Rafi talk page as well. (Math chad means Motherfucker). See this and the talk history page as well. The following edit summary was a bit scary, given that there is a history of attacks in Mumbai against non-Marathi speakers. See 2008_attacks_on_Uttar_Pradesh_and_Bihar_migrants_in_Maharashtra. I can't help wondering whether he really means it.

"You are opinionated. You suck the blood of Maharashtra and simply are thankless. I'll take my avenge in my own way to people like yiu in Mumbai."

I request the following:

• Semi-protection of my user page and user talk page for a month or so.
• Semi-protection of the Mohammed Rafi talk page.
• A block of the IPs as can be seen in the history page and this fellow who abused me.
• A delete of the abusive edit summaries in the talk page.

Thanks. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 09:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't overlook the funny side of this. The outrageousness of the insults reminds me of the French guard in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Better do something about that IP soon, or they may come back and taunt someone a second time... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As long as he doesn't fart in my general direction..--Blackmane (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have checked the editing history for the IP range involved. All recent edits are either clearly by this editor, unconstructive, or both. I have therefore placed a two week range block. This can be extended if it becomes necessary, but I am reluctant to impose a longer range block as it potentially could cause collateral damage to innocent editors. I will also give the requested semiprotection and deletion of abusive edit summaries. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

@ James: Thanks James. I will create a separate talk page for IP's, as per your suggestion. @ Baseball Bugs: Man, i love that scene! lol.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V7zbWNznbs

Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 17:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Resolved

 – Fixed, and vandal blocked. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

He must have vandalized a template, but I can't figure out which one. See L'incoronazione di Dario (Perti) Voceditenore (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

{{it}} fixed, and vandal blocked. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Medeis

It is my first time posting here. Please excuse me if I make mistakes.

Can an administrator review the vandalism regarding User:Medeis? He repetitively deleted the Ductch/Ductchman entry from List of ethnic slurs without any discussions or consensus-building efforts as recorded in the history [[53]] starting from 3:01 on May 31, 2011. Then today in order to stop me from making further discussions, he posted disruptive warning messages on my talk page [[54]]. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarm12345 (talk • contribs) 19:44, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

Notified Medeis (talk · contribs) — ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 18:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) As a note, I've informed the user. However, Dwarm, I'd suggest you to read WP:NOTVAND. Although the two of you are on opposing sides of a dispute, his edits are not considered vandalism. Wikipedia has a strict definition of vandalism, in part (I suspect) because calling someone a vandal tends to inflame things and distract from improving the article(s) in question. As for the warning messages, he wasn't attempting to stop you from making further discussions, but to stop you from making further reversions to the article. Unless I'm mistaken, I see three reversions on the Chinaman article today. This message wasn't intended to stop you from discussing, but to make you aware of a rule that Wikipedia has called WP:3RR. Editors who violate WP:3RR are blocked, even if they are correct. I would advise that the best thing to do in this situation is to not make any further edits to the article for now, and to use the talk page to discuss the content, and reach a consensus before making changes to the article (and considering you've made 3 reversions today, I'd advise letting someone else make that article edit, once consensus is achieved). This way it avoids a back and forth that seems to be happening on the article. - SudoGhost™ 18:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Message taken. Please see below. Thanks. Dwarm12345 (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dwarm, not awesome (see below). Don't do that. lifebaka++ 19:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See below regarding this user's modification of another post I made [55]. I've never had any contact with this user or any of the articles the user is associated with. Yet this "new" user began Wikipedia by launching into a major edit dispute with another editor, has shown knowledge of Wikipedia noticeboards and somewhat advanced editing procedures, and now appears to be modifying comments left by other users. For what its worth, I don't think this is a new user at all....but I could be wrong. -OberRanks (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry that you formed such impression. I am indeed new to WIKI but I happen to be very computer competent. Unfortunately I was not aware of the 3-edit rule until yesterday. As for the three edits made last night and today, it was because I might have misunderstood another editor's comments as a go-ahead. Now the miscommunication has been resolved and we are engaging in open communication in good faiths. I will have the other editor to make to revision this time. Dwarm12345 (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the edit history of Chinaman, but usually if there is an article under dispute, and a brand new user arrives and immediately takes up one of the positions, and this same new user appears to already know some advanced features of Wikipedia (edit summaries, noticeboards, talk pages, etc) it is usually an automatic assumption that they are a second account of someone else. But, on the flip side, we must also abide by WP:AGF unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. So, since I don't know anything about the situation, I can only accept your word. -OberRanks (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I surely respect your right to remain skeptical. As I becomes more familiar with WIKI, I hope to have an easier time here. But at least I am now well aware of that dreadful 3-edits rule. Stay away from it at all cost! Dwarm12345 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting.

Well, the accusation of vandalism can be summarily dismissed per the above comments of no-involved editors.

And let me state that I have been nothing but courteous to Dwarm12345, explaining policies at length, addressing his arguments in substance when they should simply be dismissed as out of place by policy and wikipedia style (for instance, a DAB page is not an article, and not the place for POV or statements which require sources to support them.)

And let me commend User:Mr. Stradivarius for his patience with the user, even though he reverted today to edit warring on Chinaman, for which he was previously blocked.

And I will refrain from complaining about the user's implicit accusations of racism and editing according to distaste on my part.

But,

I must complain that Dwarm12345 has shown a total lack of disregard for wikipedia policy, and of concern for trying to learn or comprehend it.

I will state that the user appears to be an abusive single-use sock-puppet account with a rather sophisticated knowledge of wikilawyering.

I note note that the user showed up in conjunction with a concerted web campaign (See ANI) to manipulate this issue at wikipedia.

I highly suspect that the user is a sockpuppet of users User:Mattyjacky and User talk:18.252.5.59, given their consecutive editing histories and the abandonment of those accounts when they were laden with warnings and reports, and given their similar UserPage formats and identical OR arguments regarding the racist nature of the word Chinaman, "because one does not encounter the terms Englandman and Franceman."

Note also:

• the continued Chinese language recruitment at mitbbs.com, (mentioned in the prior ANI) with a post added (here in English translation) Saturday May 28 recruiting people now to edit the existing article Chinaman

and that

• Dwarm12345's user history begins Saturday May 28 with the immediate single purpose of editing the article Chinaman.

I think the facts are obvious, that Dwarm12345 has shown himself incapable at this point of editing according to policy, that the user is emotionally compromised, and that overwhelming evidence links the user to other single-purpose accounts and an off-wiki campaign to manipulate the project. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• I propose that Dwarm12345 be topic banned for some reasonable period, during which he will still be free to contribute in other areas and learn WP policy. μηδείς (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

While remaining in the realm of WP:AGF, there does appear to be a lot evidence that the Dwarm account is being run by someone who knew a bit about Wikipedia prior to creating the account. The account (so far) also appears to be single purpose, solely created for editing the Chinaman article. -OberRanks (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. First, it's a threat that gets trotted out FAR too often on ANI. Second, Medeis brings up fairly compelling evidence of sockpuppetry. I believe that should take precedence over a topic ban proposal, especially in light of the described Chinaman editing. As an alternative, I'd propose opening a WP:SPI investigation, allowing it to run its course, and only then discuss other sanctions. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with that, so long as it doesn't mean I have to keep putting up with accusations of dubious good faith as a response to my good faith efforts. I have other contributions I'd rather be making. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't even bother, guys, I am shutting up now, which will surely make some people very pleased. This is way too time-consuming for me. If any of you are true scholars, you ought to know how the scholarly process works. Unless things drastically change from here, Wiki will remain an easily accessible but highly unreliable source of information. Sorry for this assessment. But if you ask any scholar/educator, he/she will say the exact same thing. Dwarm12345 (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Something else interesting:

• User MattyJacky created an Edit warring complaint by overtyping another's comment and saving it as his own
• User Dwarm12345 created an Admin, Notice Incident by overtyping another's comment and saving it as his own

Please advise me whether this should be taken up elsewhere. μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Medeis, your off-topic tactics seem to be doing its tricks. Isn't it true you deleted the Ductchman entry from the Ethnic Slurs List three times within one hour without any discussion? If you are being truly scholarly, please focus on the topics. Oh, well, I have been spending too much time on this. Good luck, Wiki, and those most vocal, most skilled, most connected but unfortunately not necessarily the most knowledgeable and truthful. Dwarm12345 (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Recommend checkuser to confirm/exonerate user per Medeis' evidence. User suddenly seems evasive.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Same violations, different treatments. Dwarm12345 (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been involved with this since the beginning, so I think it might be helpful if I give my version of events. First, I think Medeis's claim of sockpuppetry is reasonable given the editing histories of the users he mentions, and I also think a quick checkuser would be a good idea. However, whether the allegations are true or not, Dwarm12345 has shown a quick ability to learn about editing here, and I see the mistakes they have made as due to a lack of experience rather than actual malice. For example, the three reverts on Chinaman yesterday seem to be due to a less-than-full understanding of the nature of consensus here, and also confusion with the language I used on the talk page; I don't think they were due to a disregard of the consensus process itself.

I am a little more concerned with Dwarm's accusations towards Medeis of vandalism (above) and of "newbie mistakes" and "POV" (here) and I think Dwarm should be very careful not to let this continue. It's unfortunate that Dwarm chose a controversial page to be the first one they edited, as the tolerance for their mistakes has been pretty low, but with a little more time here I have confidence that they could become a good contributor. I don't think there's any reason for Dwarm to stop editing Chinaman and related articles, as long as they complete their understanding of WP:CON and WP:AGF and keep discussion calm and rational. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship Re-Listed

Can an administrator review the situation I outlined in this post [56] regarding User:Hoops gza? This is a tricky situation as the user has done nothing wrong on purpose, but the editing habits are heading in a bad direction. The most serious of which appears to be possible dozens of images uploaded with misleading or incorrect tags. I brought this matter up on the user's talk page with no response, so I am bringing it up here. I stress this is not an attack against the user, just concern for the behavior. -OberRanks (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like OCD or some other behavioral disorder. Might fall under WP:COMPETENCE, but less-drastic steps should be taken before admins step in (unless one wants to, of course). Since no admin commented, here are some suggestions. You might want to try a WP:WQA first for difficult communications regarding the edit summaries and see if that can poke the user in the right direction, or a WP:RFC/U. WP:CCI handles copyright problems with the image uploads and might wake up the editor. Sorry to put you off to other boards, but since it does not appear to be at an admin-intervention level yet, this might offer some help at least. --64.85.217.213 (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

NOBLE2's legal threats on users' talk pages

Resolved

 – Blocked for legal threats.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone else please review the conributions of "new" editor NOBLE2? I'm not sure what exactly is going on there but it's ducky and socky —This lousy T-shirt (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't know about how loud they're quacking, but the commentary goes WAY beyond the WP:NLT line. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And they've been blocked accordingly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It's obviously User:Kaufman1111, who pops up now and again with this legal rhetoric.--Atlan (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

User:WhiteWriter

For the past week User:WhiteWriter has been reverting every edit he doesn't agree with ([57],[58],[59],[60]) and calling the edits vandalism, but when he reverts something he agrees with, he calls it consensus. He doesn't make more than one or two reverts per day, because of the three-reverts-per-day rule, but he was warned not to continue with the same edit-warring pattern about a week ago ([61]) on Duklja. While his edit summary was rv inclusion of unreliable sources, when another user asked for explanation he claimed the opposite (I DONT DISPUTE SOURCES, but their usage). In the meantime the talkpage was used to make remarks about other peoples' edits like Very, very awful editing habits by several editor in here. WhiteWriter is the only editor who has been removing a particular version but when he was reverted by other users he left a message on one of their talkpages telling him that his revert was a blind revert that could be considered vandalism and that he should use the talk page. Of course, the user had used the talkpage and WhiteWriter's reply to his comments (just about a week ago) were School example of the trolling comment... This has been one very long dispute and all editors have at least contributed and discussed despite the occasional reverts, but WhiteWriter's recent behavior can't be ignored any longer.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Also he warned me because i reverted his trolling on vojsava. He left me this message --Vinie007 05:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed that whenever he reverts he immediately asks for full protection as an attempt to make his version stay longer online. Btw just a few hours ago I was trying to explain some basic guidelines about SYNTH/OR and when I used the word we for the community his response was And who are those "we"? It is only you and me in this discussion, without any meat puppets.. Btw he has been repeating the same argument ad nauseam for about half a year and every time someone refutes it, he waits for a while and then restarts the same issue.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikid77

Wikid77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Wikid77 has been editing the Murder of Meredith Kercher page and its related talk page. There's been a long-term problem there with sock and meat puppets being recruited off-wiki to push our coverage more towards advocating the innocence of one of the accused. It's been discussed on this board recently several times.

I started out as an admin there, and this year have participated as an editor. I have made few edits to the article but have participated in some of the talk page discussions. Wikid77 has been slightly problematic there due to sometimes arguing for the inclusion of ridiculous amounts of detail (the layouts and exact contents of the rooms at the murder scene was the latest one, and there was a previous very long discussion about whether to include one of the murder accused drinking a glass of orange juice, I kid you not).

The debates have been increasingly civil and productive but I noticed Wikid77 taking a new tack by accusing other editors, presumably including me, of not being intelligent. This has somewhat disrupted things at the article talk page and been robustly defended by Wikid77 at his talk page, with the memorable "Maybe you would be happier working on simpler articles, until you are able to learn more about hard subjects."

In looking into this user's contributions I saw this fairly recent SPI for which the user was blocked for misconduct on this article.

Now, I am not particularly into civility blocks, but I am genuinely at a loss (maybe through being so unintelligent?!) about where to go from here. I feel like it will be very difficult for me to work productively with this editor at this article, and I feel like this latest nonsense clearly crosses into NPA territory. Will someone please take a look and figure out how best we can proceed? --John (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This recent diff [62] appears to be quite uncivil, and actually quite insulting on several levels. Dayewalker (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikid77 has a history of adding long comments to user talk pages with little apparent intention other than to disparage users whom he dislikes. Some of the comments are openly offensive, others are less hurtful, most are at least inconsiderately and poorly worded. I would urge that uninvolved users review other, recent little gems such as this, this and this. Excerpts from the latter two:

• "... do not feel offended: the managers of the Wikimedia Foundation do not condone the actions of people being so rude and hateful against you; the problem is there are so many hostile people in some areas, and others are getting tired of dealing with them. Normal people do not have time and just prefer not to be around those people."
• "We are trying to make sure that crap doesn't happen to other editors, but remember those kinds of blocks/bans are not the stuff that normal people would do ... There is an article about 'Oppositional Defiance Disorder' (ODD) which gives some insight into dealing with oppositional people. Years ago, I tried to offer psychiatric counseling to some people with severe mindsets (they are obviously off-balance); however, I was reminded, by an admin, how Wikipedia is funded to 'write the encyclopedia' not to provide mental-health advice to afflicted editors, so we just try to avoid conflicts. Perhaps, some day, Wikipedia will have a way to offer the much-needed psychiatric help, but for now, just try to team with positive-minded editors and keep editing."

These are not the only examples that I can find to illustrate this regrettably persistent tendency of Wikid77 to leave crass remarks on user talk pages. SuperMarioMan 04:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note: Immediately after receiving notice of this WP:ANI discussion, Wikid77 decided to cut and run, blanking much of his talk page in the process. SuperMarioMan 04:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually it looks like he archived it, though it seems certain threads (namely a block for violating editing restrictions) did not make it to the archive. It also seems as though he selectively archived threads...and though I'm potentially noticing a theme I'll leave it up to general judgement. I find it interesting that the user has chosen this route rather than come here and explain themselves. The whole thing leaves me with an overall negative impression of his recent conduct... N419BH 04:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes. He is now on a "short WikiBreak", according to the latest revision of the page and the edit summary. It certainly comes at a convenient moment. SuperMarioMan 04:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• I believe in light of Wikid77's recent behavior, right down to his last edit before archiving his talk page, the prevention of further personal attacks on the encyclopedia would be furthered by the use of technical measures to enforce his highly convenient "wikibreak". I also found User:Wikid77/Amanda Knox, which appears to be a blatant violation of the userpage policy. N419BH 05:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • And another: User:Wikid77/Michael Jackson in fatherhood N419BH 05:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have speedied that old page ("db|1="), which was set {NOINDEX} by another admin. -Wikid77 06:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• I tried reading through several of Wikid's almost comically uncivil comments but then my brain started hurting and I suddenly lost the ability to see. Weird. Before this loss of basic Wikipedia editor functionality, it almost seemed as if Wikid was suggesting that numerous editors and administrators are blind, mentally retarded, insane, rude, hateful, childish, and abnormal -- and that was before I even got past the diffs supplied in this ANI thread. The strangest part was that I almost thought I saw something where he chastised two editors for making personal attacks in the same edit in which he suggested that the two editors are mentally retarded, blind children. Oh, wait, it's here! Phew.

  Uhm, yeah, I share other folks' disinclination towards harsh civility discipline but this is, to put it very tenderly, excessive. This break should not be voluntary. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Ginsengbomb, You have misunderstood, the terms "Blind" and "Mental retardation" are in reference to WP:ACCESS, to make articles easier to access, or read, for sight-impaired or learning-disabled readers (in the case of blind then, the text can be read by machine or narrators). Please do not inflame this discussion with wild, sensationalist claims. -Wikid77 06:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing "wild" or "sensationalist" about Ginsengbomb's comment that I can see. It's unfortunate the same cannot be said of the comment that you made: "I realize that both of you are disturbed, by some unknown frustrations, but Wikipedia has a policy of 'no personal attacks' (see WP:NPA). That policy page was written by grown ups, and it means that negative, insulting words (such as 'cowardly') should not be written as describing particular editors. It is clear, now, that you have a hard time understanding policies and other things, so perhaps ask some other people what the text in WP:NPA means. I do not have time to explain stuff to you, right now, but I will try to find ways for you to understand, when I have more time. Maybe you would be happier working on simpler articles, until you are able to learn more about hard subjects. Also, see the articles on 'Blindness' and 'Mental retardation' before trying to read the guideline WP:ACCESS" (Blatant WP:NPA breaches in bold.) SuperMarioMan 06:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• RESPONSE: This is yet another attempt to badger editors working on the article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" when I wrote to another editor that perhaps we should work on other articles about Italian towns or history in Italy, where more scholarly text is needed. I had somewhat suspected, when I indicated that I had lost interest in their WP:BATTLEground games at "Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher" then they would attempt to escalate the confrontations, elsewhere, most likely here at WP:ANI. They had recently deleted descriptive text of the murder scene, against consensus (this edit), text which had described the cottage for sight-impaired users, where a window was broken in a 3rd bedroom, 2 doors down from the victim's bedroom:

"The bedroom with the broken window, nearest the entrance, was on the other side of Knox's room, 2 doors from Kercher's room." (text deleted)

As many times as we have discussed "DO NOT DELETE" without consensus, User:John just went ahead and deleted that text (while discussion was still underway), knowing that I had objected, having added the text earlier that day (in this edit for sight-impaired editors). I gave up on their games, because there is no requirement for me to continue discussing an article where other editors, repeatedly, ignore discussions to reach WP:CONSENSUS and delete text added for WP:ACCESS of sight-impaired users. When I mentioned that I intended to work on other Italian articles, instead, then 2 of them called me "cowardly" (as if I were running from their WP:BATTLEground):

• User:Pablo_X calls me "cowardly" (this edit): making me suspect a WP:BATTLEground mentality, when I tried to leave.
• User:John then also calls me "cowardly" (this edit): as another WP:BATTLEground mentality, when I expected him to tell User:Pablo_X to remember WP:NPA (and retract "cowardly").

But no, instead, the 2 of them were acting like they do not understand WP:NPA, so I tried to explain the policy to them, and recommend that they ask others what it means (in this edit), which one of the two of them should have understood but neither did (or perhaps WP:IDHT). However, they also need to understand WP:ACCESS, about writing article text to help sight-impaired readers understand the subject, without insisting that they see diagrams and photos. The MoMK article is expected to be among the top 1,000 most-viewed articles for the year, and sight-impaired readers should be considered. Now, based on their intense reactions, I wonder if they were just pretending not to understand WP:NPA, and were just trying to provoke me (by calling me "cowardly"), before I left their WP:BATTLEground to work on other articles. Meanwhile, I had gone on Wikibreak, to try to avoid more confrontations with them, but they just escalate every disagreement to become a WP:ANI crisis. I think those editors need to be topic-banned (perhaps 3 months); for almost 6 months in 2010, I did not edit that MoMK article (or talk-page), but their quarrels there continued with other editors. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool story bro. Care to explain this? N419BH 05:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) I think he just did. He doesn't see himself as making any sort of personal attacks in the post in which he suggests that two editors are incapable of understanding "hard subjects" (e.g. "policies" and "other things") written by "grown ups." You know, the post in which he's defending an earlier post of his where he suggests that the editors in opposition to his points-of-view at MOMK are not "intelligent," are "childish," and are members of "the slow crowd." As you can see, Wikid is entirely innocent and we should really be discussing sanctions against John and Pablo for calling Wiki's comments "cowardly." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I must add myself to this group of "slow unintelligent editors", for I remain unable to understand how such comments could be anything other than disparaging other editors. And I remain totally baffled as to how "not intelligent childish" editors calling someone else a "coward" is a personal attack worthy of "three month sanction" while the comments by the individual suggesting such are not grounds for same or worse. I also note Wikid77 seems to be saying he was dragged out of wikibreak to respond to an ANI post, when clearly the ANI post predates the wikibreak. Guess I'm just not that intelligent...and that must go for all of us except Wikid77, as we all seem to be reaching the same conclusion... N419BH 05:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Where did you find that phrase "slow...editors" because I certainly did not write that. Also, if I had been the one who directly called 2 people "cowardly" then what a difference this conversation would become. I already noted that some editors might have been pretending they did not understand the policies, as an attempt to mislead me. -Wikid77 07:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The statements about the "slow crowd" were made here.[63] Mathsci (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that WikiBreak didn't last long. Wikid, I notice that you have referred to WP:BATTLE. In your view, do recent edits such as this and this do much to promote a constructive atmosphere at a talk page? We can leave the blatant POV-pushing and misinterpretation of policies and guidelines to one side for a moment. SuperMarioMan 05:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Again, Wikipedia does not require a "Mother-may-I" attitude of begging permission to add each word to an article. Instead, as I noted following WP:BRD: "Let people simply add the text, and then others can discuss if, or how, it should be modified". I think that comment is constructive, but perhaps people who want to insist, on getting prior permission, might feel that simply adding the text is a threat to their WP:OWNership of an article. Anyway, I was on wikibreak, to avoid this attempt to escalate a confrontation, after 2 other editors both referred to me as "cowardly". I apologize if people were offended by my attempts to explain policies to them, if they pretended not to understand policies and that referring to another editor as "cowardly" is a WP:NPA vio. This whole matter seems contrived by calling me "cowardly" (twice: #1 #2), and then taking the discussion to ANI. So, I am returning to wikibreak. I think this is a non-event. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:50, revised 07:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does however require interaction amongst editors to be civilcivility and also requires editors to refrain from making personal attacks regarding others. Statements like: "I realize that both of you are disturbed", "That policy page was written by grown ups", "It is clear, now, that you have a hard time understanding policies and other things, so perhaps ask some other people what the text in WP:NPA means", and "Maybe you would be happier working on simpler articles, until you are able to learn more about hard subjects", seem to cross that line to me, and so far you have yet to address this conduct of yours. All of these statements are contained in one edit by the way, your most recent one before going on wikibreak. I am not one to dig for others, but they are already linked on this thread. N419BH 07:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• I already said that User:Pablo_X and User:John had just called me "cowardly" (twice: #1 #2), so I tried to explain WP:NPA, but now it seems as if they were pretending to not understand WP:NPA but just bait me into a response, as an excuse to flood this WP:ANI page with more conflicts. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • So them calling you "cowardly" is grounds for calling them all of the above? N419BH 07:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You are imagining far more than is really there. Clearly, I was right that they were disturbed (hello?). User:John even filed this ANI complaint, soon after, so, of course, he was disturbed about the situation, and then referred to me as "cowardly". So, you tell me, to what aspect of Wikipedia editing the term "cowardly" refers. I still believe policy WP:NPA is written by grown ups, but I am not sure about the other policies. Both User:Pablo_X and User:John called me "cowardly" as if they did not understand WP:NPA, so of course, my conclusion is that they might prefer working on simpler articles, because else they should understand not to call another editor, directly (personally, by name) "cowardly". So, perhaps you are wondering what I am going to do. Well, I am not waiting to see if User:Pablo_X or User:John apologize for calling me "cowardly" because they haven't yet, and did not apologize after I noted their remarks were against WP:NPA. I really think they should be topic-banned, because when they disagree with something I said, then they reply, "Cowardly" as a clear vio of WP:NPA, and so show no indication that they will be stopped by a policy such as WP:NPA. Instead, they are likely to call other editors "cowardly" and bring them to ANI as well (related to article "Murder of Meredith Kercher"). I expected admin User:John would have told User:Pablo_X that he is not allowed to call other editors "cowardly" but instead, he incited the conflicts, repeated the personal attack of "cowardly" as a WP:TAGTEAM effort, and then escalated the situation to ANI level. I just want them to back away from badgering people. I am not sure all the other actions that User:John has conducted with article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" so perhaps ask him for full disclosure. I generally advise to wait a few weeks to see if matters improve, but when an editor calls a specific editor, personally, by name (on the user's talk-page), as "cowardly" and then pretends there is nothing wrong with that WP:BATTLEground challenge, then I sense future trouble from them. Perhaps ask them if they "understand" WP:NPA and whatever from there. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

My only comment here will be this; calling your actions cowardly might be construed as a personal attack, but really they are of the sort that should be brushed off by any sensible editor. The same applies to you calling people rude/hateful or hostile; it is something they should have brushed off and ignored. Where you cross the line is a) in questioning the mental health of editors and b) referring to editors as "slow" and questioning their intelligence. This is not excused by doing it in a general way, because you were talking about a specific group of people. You completely trampled on the spirit of the NPA policy. And you did so without any provocation, posting on a talk page several days after tempers had calmed down - surely you can comprehend that doing so was like a red rag to a bull, and you can surely see why it was completely un-needed. Here you seem to be claiming to be the injured party; in all of this, I really do not think you can claim to be such a thing. You're contributions to MoMK have been muddled, confusing, often badly written and occasionally confrontational. You've stirred up the pot a number of times now, and I think it is best for everyone if you just stop and walk away. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • Only if it serves to demonstrate that he's not cowardly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I tried to avoid them, by archiving my active talk-page threads (at 3:53]) and going on wikibreak (at 4:03), 10 minutes later, but User:John quickly filed this ANI complaint. And then, get this: people accused me of misconduct by trying to avoid further confrontation with people calling me "cowardly" who then brought this conflict here. However, I think this discussion has revealed that they are purposely ignoring policies (such as WP:NPA) and then coming to ANI as if having done no wrong. -Wikid77 09:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked Wikid77 for one month, for the personal attacks he made and the response to them in this thread, which boils down to "ignore my comments, even those I made before some people called me cowardly, because that is a personal attack directed to me". Fram (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Support block - the obvious inference from Wikid77's reported comments is that not agreeing with the viewpoint that Amanda Knox is innocent is a clear indication of mental deficiency, and the obvious inference from Wikid77's comments here is that he believes he can wikilawyer away any issue regarding same. Whatever, it is the polar opposite of WP:AGF and is specifically disruptive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Long overdue...prying those with emotional/personal stakes in a heated article away from the topic area can only be a good thing. Rather peculiar that almost all the major players from one side of this wiki-battleground have gone largely silent the last few days. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Intel SDK and user:Mustafa1702

An editor unfamiliar with WP has broken the article Intel SDK with a rename and total rewrite. The changes need to be reverted, but I'm raising it here in case there are history log issues that require an admin bit.

Intel SDK was a stable 15k article on an Intel microprocessor development system of the 1980s. user:Mustafa1702 has recently renamed it to Intel Other Products, blanked its content, and started a new 1k article on that topic, under the new name.

• Intel SDK should be restored, as it was since January.
• Intel Other Products, despite being a short list with little context and MOS issues for the article name, appears to be a GF article and can be left under that name, pending cleanup.

Thanks, Andy Dingley (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've split the two back out. All the history before the content was changed is at Intel SDK, including the move, while the new content is at Intel Other Products. I'm also going to leave a note for Mustafa1702. Cheers. lifebaka++ 10:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also Intel System Development Kit, which is the same as Intel SDK. I've redirected the latter to the former for now, but I don't know if this is ideal, so feel free to make the redirect point in the other direction if it's the more common title. Cheers. lifebaka++ 10:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

user:LaszloBacs

Resolved

Can someone issue a quick block on this Iaaasi sock? It's reported at SPI, as well but at this point it's not really a big investigation, created minutes after the last one was blocked. Hobartimus (talk) 10:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Previous sock was user:nonairt blocked at 09:38, 1 June 2011 by Closedmouth. Compare contributions and creation date with user:LaszloBacs. Hobartimus (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've got to cook, protected the article in question though - semi for a week. Dougweller (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Account indefinitely blocked. As extreme an example of a duck case as I have seen for a long while. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Manorathan

Resolved

 – Too soon after yesterday's AN/Is for another one. Give this editor some time to demonstrate whether or not s/he can edit constructively.

Manorathan (talk · contribs) who was blocked yesterday for issues related to Tamil Kshatriya stalks me around to post the following messages, I wouldn't find it surprising when the stream of IPs do turn up, for personal motives of such editors should be made public and be dealt with appropriate coverage in all sources of media. in Talk:Nair, I am quite tempted to send his views to the media, with the subject, 'casteism backfires in the 21st century' in User:MichaelQSchmidt's talk page, and mocking my username here There should be no problem for the cart user with his resuming his contributions later ... this may sound silly, but i dont want to deal with him for issues unrelated to the improvement of articles. though, user MichaelQSchmidt gave him an appropriate advice on his talk page, i wanted to bring it to the attention of the wider community. --CarTick (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is far too early after Manorathan's very short block to send the posse round again. I closed two AN/I discussions yesterday regarding Manorathan and opening this one up is a bad move in my opinion - we will just get more of the same. Give this editor some time to see how they react to the block for disruption; the last few edits noted above may just be blowing off steam after the block. If not - ie if this tone is repeated and contributions of this sort become the norm - then doubtless others will notice and a further, lomnger block will result. Manorathan, I would advise you to edit article pages more and talk pages less. CarTick, I would advise you to step back and not raise another AN/I less than 24 hours after two previous ones. There is no rush here, the encyclopaedia is not in danger. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Obvious sock needs swift blocking

Resolved

 – Blocked 24 hours by Materialscientist bou·le·var·dier (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

An obvious sock (with an unknown sockmaster) is way over 3RR in his first ten edits here in his first half hour, plus has knowledge of our abbreviations, exemption to the 3RR rule, and so on. He is disruptive, so if anyone can block him? I can't, as I am involved (in the first reverts). User:Crows Forever is the user, and this are his contributions so far. Fram (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do Yoenit (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for one day by Materialscientist, don't know about the socking though. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No new editor has that much knowledge of template warnings, rules of 3RR, etcetera: at 14.44 Lerdthenerd reverts and gives in the edit summary a 3RR warning[64] (without explanation of 3RR or a link to the policy): the next minute, this brand new user reverts[65] with the edit summary "rv vandalism. 3RR does not apply to removing blatant vandalism". We have to AGF, but this is quite blatantly some duck quacking. Fram (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no question there's some ducks floating around here (the warnings on everyone's talk pages were a lovely touch), but I'm not sure it would be enough to go CU fishing. There's only a few people involved in the debate who are on the same side as the sock, and I wouldn't consider any of them potential sockmasters. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why I didn't request a checkuser or asked for anyone to be blamed. The sock angle was more to make the distinction that this is not a clueless newbie needing some more warnings and guidance, but that this is an experienced user trying to avoid scrutiny and/or just disrupting the normal editing process. Whether a one-day block is sufficient will have to be seen... Fram (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

See you in 24 hours, then :) bou·le·var·dier (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

BBCForum mass linking to radio shows.

BBCForum (talk · contribs · logs)

This new user is adding links to BBC Forum radio shows on users that have been on the radio show Example. This doesn't seem particularly relevant, and bordering on spam (although as BBC is non profit, maybe not). I don't know id this should be allowed or not, but it seems that it should be brought to the attention of admins. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Per instructions at the top of this page: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

SPA created for paid editing.

• Kcdcchef (talk · contribs)
• A-E-I-Owned-You (talk · contribs)
• 71.236.97.1 (talk · contribs)

This is a unique situation of editing for hire, arguably meatpuppetry as well. Kcdchef has admitted here that they payed A-E-I-Owned-You, a single purpose account, to create an article which was deleted after an deletion discussion. This method of WP:EVASION was well covered in the AFD yet the editor(s) continue to persist to push this article. The article in question was undeleted by an admin who immediately started an 2nd AFD. The puppetmaster didn't care much for the delete !votes that were again posted on the AFD and began Kcdchef's lobbying on my talk page (to use a kind word) to reverse my delete !vote and also made it clear that he/she does not see hiring someone as a form of COI. The meatpuppet A-E-I-Owned-You persists in removing maintenance tags he/she disagrees with (advert and COI). Several attempts and clarifying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on WP:COI and WP:SPAM have resulted in only arguments.

While not as impactfull as the issue with MyWikiBiz, it still raises some questions. Is editing for hire within Wikipedia policy? I'm not aware of a policy or guidelines covering this in any specifics. I'm thinking this should be covered somewhere, either in it's own guideline (probably overkill) or clarified in WP:PAY to note that paid COI isn't limited to contract or long term employment. A short term business relationship such as apparent in the Kcdcchef example is still employment and still presents COI issues.--RadioFan (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)