Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive315

Violation of COI by user:Avahram

There is an ongoing mediation about the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad initiated by myself hoping to reach a compromise with different parties.

Unfortunately the mediation has not gained any result since its beginning on 20 May. Since then, the article has been fully protected (except for a couple of days in last two weeks).

Today User:Omegatron unprotected the article with this reason "no justification for protection. mediation has been ongoing for months and is not a reason to lock the page. we don't leave entire articles in a protected state for months because of a dispute about one statement." and then User:Avraham, himself a party of mediation and previous edit-warring, reverted the article then protected it with this reason "Ongoing mediation".

The other problem is that in my opinion the current lead is clear violation of WP:BLP and completely POV for an article about a high ranking official of a state, me and some other users tried to reach a compromise with user:Avraham by adding his own response to the allegation in the lead. But this proposal was rejected by above user with the reasoning that it doesn't belong to the lead (but of course details of the allegation belong).

I would be happy if some third party user invistigate the issues of this article. --Pejman47 19:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation. It's distinctly less than neutral, in my opinion, but I don't think it's a reason that so egregious that it requires some kind of immediate action if there's ongoing mediation. I'm not going to offer an opinion on the utility of long-term protection like this, since I'm not familiar with the circumstances surrounding it, and the mediation. --Haemo 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI violations require edits "in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups." I am in no way related, either personally or professionally, with any groups whose interests are either pro- or con- the article's subject; unless Pejman is implying that because I am Jewish I am automatically considered incapable of editing the Ahmadinejad article. From my previous interactions with him, I highly doubt he meant something as insulting and ridiculous as that, so I am left to assume that referencing WP:COI was a misunderstanding on his part. Any explanation would be appreciated. -- Avi 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It means that you are an admin and you must not use your admin's previlage in an article that you edit-warred. I also told you the same thing when you edited this article when it was fully protected. (do you remember it?)--Pejman47 20:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Restoring the article to the stable, protected state, especially after an unauthorized unlock, is maintaining and protecting the project. The unlock should have been discussed with the locking admin, user:Riana, and the mediator user:Daniel. It was not, and was an improper use of admin tools. Restoring the stable and locked version was anything but, and I believe you know better. Omegatron, as an admin, certainly should know better. -- Avi 21:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean in here: Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad/Archive_17#Image, I got angry in the previous case nad also in this case (even if it seems illogical to you). But please do not use your admin's privileges' in a debate that some of the users are not admins. I hope your misunderstandings have been solved --Pejman47 20:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that your use of WP:COI in the title was a mistake, and you meant possible sysop priv abuse, a completely different issue. See above how protecting the project is the responsibility of the sysops and what actually may have been the abuse here, per WP:ANI#Admin edit rights privilege abuse. -- Avi 21:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I also insist that some third party admin investigate the protection level of that article. I don't see any logic for full protection of an article for about six months. --Pejman47 20:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The page has been protected since October 2, which is 20 days; a far cry from the six months (182 days) stated. -- Avi 21:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted too interject that if Plejman (he wasn't, i see) is implying thay your Jeiwhness is a COI, that could be a valid COI issue. (I'm Jewish too.) It would depend on what the article is about. For example, in an article about Jews for Jesus or Holocaust Denial or something Jews tend to be emotional over, I would not feel it inapropriate to site COI. Same with any ethnic or religious group. If COI doesn't mean everybody, it doesn't mean anybody. Basejumper2 04:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are confusing a point-of-view with a conflict-of-interest. While related, in the context of wikipedia policy and guideline they are two different things. -- Avi 05:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Potentially offensive comments

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here. Perfectly innocent comments involving the Cleveland Indians.

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to be reporting this but I recently saw a message from User:Sasha Callahan which could be potentially offensive to users. The message can be seen here. Thanks --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 11:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Are you serious? I think everyone with a brain knows she is talking about the baseball teams. JuJube 11:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Doesn't look to me like anything worth coming to WP:ANI over...unless the comments have been changed since you posted. A "swear word" in an otherwise friendly talk page note isn't something to get worked up about. --Onorem♠Dil 11:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Please tell me that this isn't in reference to her disparaging remarks about a baseball team. Please? I'm sure we all have more important things to find "potentially offensive" than that. Somewhere on that page she advocated 'kitten bonfires' and I just missed it... right? --CBD 11:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not reporting it because somebody may be offended by her references to the team but maybe she meant Indians as in the nationality? That is why I put potentially offensive, because I wasn't sure. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 11:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone comes to a discussion thread about baseball, sees a post saying "!@$# the Indians" and thinks they're insulting the ethnic group, they're probably not worth worrying about. I'd be more concerned about how they manage to tie their shoelaces every day. JuJube 12:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's also really cool how you neglected to tell User:Sasha Callahan about this at all. JuJube 12:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please can everyone calm down, this was a post made in good faith by The-G-Unit and he shouldn't be taken as an oppotunity to shoot him down. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The-G-Unit-Boss, I think that in the context of the discussion it is clear she was referring to the baseball team... at least, I don't think the Red Sox lost to a bunch of guys from Kerala. :] --CBD 12:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess it could be interpreted that way, to someone unfamiliar with Baseball. He might not know that the "Red sox" is a baseball team and might think they are some other group of some kind. A lot of militant groups have names that sound like sports teams, such as The Tamil Tigers. It's not a stretch to think that he assumed that she was insulting the ethnic group opposed to the sports team. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the mistake that I made. I am not familiar with Baseball and so didn't realise the context of their discussion. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 16:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought the Tamil Tigers were a baseball team. Neil ☎ 16:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's what Detroit's AAA club was called before they moved to Toledo... Rdfox 76 17:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear JuJube, not everyone on Wikipedia is familiar with the minutiae of "Big Rounders Played by Tobacco Chewers in Pyjama's", possibly because they have the goshdarned cheek to live outside of the USA (and Japan - does any other nation play the game?), but do indeed have brains. As you might guess, I was not bowled over by your comments and think you have found yourself on a particularly sticky wicket. Toodle pip! LessHeard vanU 20:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A few other countries play, particularly Cuba, who have the best baseball record in the world, winning 3 of the 4 golds at the Olympics. Neil ☎ 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I need an administrator

I am having an issue with User:Twsx and it's driving me crazy. We cannot reach a solution. I have taken this issue up before in conflicts of interest but nothing happened. In the music infoboxes for band pages we cannot agree whether the genres should have a line break or comma break. Apparently, no consensus has ever been made on this and we need one. There should be a conversation about it. I believe the line break between genres in the music infoboxes look much more ordered and that the comma break looks sloppy. We must have a consensus on this. He wants the genres in the infoboxes to look like they do in pages such as Linkin Park and I want them to look like they do in articles such as Judas Priest.Navnløs 19:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's highly trivial and not something that this page needs to be used for. Try requesting for a comment or posting it on some music related projects for more outside input. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Line breaks vs Comma breaks. Thats got to be one of the lamest disputes i've heard in a while. You do not need an administrator, you need Request for comment--Jac16888 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have to dispute this designation as lamest complaint ever, instead awarding that honor to the complaint about Sasha's baseball comment above. K. Scott Bailey 20:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually you need a life! One of you decide to let the other one win. Problem solved. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm ... how to say this nicely? Isn't it pretty clear I was joking, and I wasn't really trying to "win" anything against Wikidudeman? I thought it was, but evidently not... K. Scott Bailey 20:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Although the indentation might have suggested otherwise, I don't think that message was directed at you. --Onorem♠Dil 20:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep I was talking tothe OP I indented too much. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I will let him "win" eventually, i just enjoy his desperate, incivil reactions on my talk page while they last. For the sake of the argument: I think line break seperated lists only take up much more space while they are not the least bit more informative, or "prettier" (if you will) than comma seperated, non-capitalized lists. However, a discussion about this is was made and ended up in a "useless trainwreck from which no consensus can emerge", so it is indeed trivial. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 20:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Boyling Over

I happen to have been dragged into the middle of this situation. I initially reverted the blanking of User:Tim.Boyle and protected the page to stop the edit war, and because my initial thought was that there are thousands of Tim Boyle's out there, and I knew of no reason why any one in particular would be implicated. (I went to elementary school with one.) But since there are apparently good faith suggestions of potential liability (not threats), I thought it would be best to have others weigh in as well. It's certainly possible that there's something in the user's contribs that singles out a particular Tim Boyle. I'm amenable to unprotection, blanking, whatever, so don't be afraid of stepping on my toes. Thanks for looking this over! -- But|seriously|folks  19:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a hard time seeing how this could be libeling anyone as the IP removing the tag states; it's not like this is a unique name. That said, I think a courtesy blanking of the userpage is an option if the IP stops being so demanding.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Also note, anything tying this name to a specific person has been deleted.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Vegas

Resolved

We have a persistent-self-confessed anon vandal here. [1] Can we have semi-pp on the page please? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 22:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And a short block on User:86.130.55.4 since he's also vandalising vandalism warnings and has said he'll come back! --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 22:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Page now being vandalised by User:89.241.157.159 . He's got to get the message --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 22:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

IPs blocked. As the IPs keep chaning, I threw a one week protection on the article. IrishGuy ^talk 22:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Webridestv

When this article gets deleted again, can somebody please salt it. See the Deletion Log. It is a non-notable website that has been deleted 3 times already, and about to be 4. The user keeps recreating it though. - Rjd0060 01:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've given the editor a specific note with a pointer to the policies that govern these types of articles and invited him to come discuss it further at the drawing board if he needs further assistance. His previous attempt to create that page seems to me to indicate a genuine effort to meet guidelines, but he doesn't seem familiar with them. Hopefully, after reading those policies, he'll either be able to create the article properly or will decide that the subject doesn't qualify per guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputants deleting each others' posts on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus

Wikipedians who dispute whether Copernicus's nationality was Polish or German have for the past few days been deleting, reverting, and restoring one anothers' posts on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus (edit history). The dispute has been raging since last year at least, as the Talk page and that page's archives and the subpage Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Nationality and the subpage's three archives illustrate. However, eliminating an opponents' comments is unacceptable. The pretext for some of the deletions is accusations of sockpuppetry, but so far as I can tell the alleged sockpuppets have not been blocked or banned. This same nationality warring caused the Nicolaus Copernicus article itself to be protected since 23 September 2007 and on 12 prior occastions since 7 February 2006 (protection log). And that is especially shameful in view of both the importance of Copernicus as an historical figure and the sub-standard quality of Wikipedia's article on him (partly due to nationality warring edits of the article).

I do not believe that protecting the Talk page of a protected article is a good solution. Rather, I suggest that the several Wikipedians who are deleting others' comments be warned and, if necessary, blocked or banned.

This board may not be the perfect place for this incident, but the problem is that parts of the incident fall within scope of several other notice boards. So, this seemed to me to be the best place to address the overall problem. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 01:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Support. The sub-standard quality of Wikipedia article on Nicolaus Copernicus is a result of a relentless campaign of a small number of deletionists interested in promoting their own POVs. I believe this issue will never be resolved and so at least some preventive measures have to be taken (and upheld) in order to maintain the principles of an open source format. --Poeticbent talk 18:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've expressed my views on the matter here. Raymond Arritt 01:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmph. User:H.J. was being disruptive about all Prussian/German/Polish matters back in 2001, Copernicus just one of them. Corvus cornix 02:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the remarks of User:Finell are hardly understandable to me. He should know better, he encountered one of User:Serafin's sock puppets here. Serafin made a mess out of the Copernicus article, and continues to do so on the talk page. Please have a closer look at Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Serafin, and regarding "so far as I can tell the alleged sockpuppets have not been blocked or banned", also Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Serafin and User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       03:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The deleted comments originate from a banned user. Doesn't policy require that we remove them? --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree at all to the description of the problem, which I not even consider a problem. I believe to understand this thread, it is essential to read Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus#Shame on you. It is not hard to find out that 131.104.219.176 is Serafin, is it? Contrary to Finell's above assumption that "the alleged sockpuppets have not been blocked or banned", they have, except for the most recent one, User:Lobby1 (just compare the time of the account's creation to another puppet, say User:Buggo1). I would like admins reading this to place User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin on their watchlists and act upon new reports. I have also wanted Finell to report them and I explained to him the wrong implications that are likely to be drawn if only those who hold another view are forced to report and remove the comments of a banned user, but Finell did not grant my request the way I had hoped for. Sciurinæ 15:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sciurinæ: If you want to report suspected sockpuppets, go ahead, but don't expect me to carry out this chore for you. I have no idea who Serafin is (although I did confirm for myself that he was banned), and have no expertise in recognizing his sockpuppets. However, it is clear that one editor's, or even a group of editors', suspicion of sockpuppetry is not justification to delete another editor's posts. Report it to the admins and let them deal with it; that is what admins are for. The Wikipedia community will not tolerate vigilantes deleting other editors' comments, especially when the deleters are partisans in the dispute: that is the road to anarchy. Admin Raymond Arritt expressed this view clearly, and those who ignore his warning do so at their peril. Finell (Talk) 23:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Arritt is an admin, he issued that warning, and was made aware of the watchlist User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin which was set up to "Report it to the admins and let them deal with it", yet he did not do "what admins are for" within the last days.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       12:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I just read the talk page guidelines and unfortunately, they are stunningly vague about deleting talk page comments. They allow "deletion of prohibited material" which one person apparently interprets to include "sock puppets", and "deletion of irrelevant material" which certainly includes some of the recently appearing off-topic comments about more modern German-Polish relations, and they even speak softly of the "refactoring" of talk pages, which opens the gates to anything that might not have been allowed by the first two policies. Under the circumstances it seems wrong to ban anyone, or protect the page, to prevent violations of a policy which is at best unclear and perhaps nonexistent. If this controversy gets the attention of an admin, perhaps that attention is better spent nailing down the policy first. At least one person in the discussion sounds like he'd follow it if he knew what it was. 70.15.116.59 18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and to top it off, they're talk page guidelines. Can you even ban or block based on a violation of guidelines that "are not set in stone" etc.? Is there any policy at all on talk page deletions? 70.15.116.59 19:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The policy which applies is WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. User:Serafin's comments should be removed and those who seek to obstruct tackling him persistently should be blocked. Sciurinæ 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The absurdity of Finell's suggestion to block or ban users who have removed comments of the banned User:Serafin on Talk:Nicolaus_Copernicus becomes clear when it is applied to Finell himself. Maybe he forgot that he, too, removed one of Serafin's comments (ie as often as I have) and one could now easily recall Finell's rhetoric about vigilance and the wikipedia community and anarchy; the only difference being that a person can only speak for their own motives and that means a lot given that Finell speaks of bad faith in deleting an opponent's comments and has deleted a then opponent's (otherwise ally) comment although he does not know or care whether it is a banned user or not. Finell also did not report the user as a possible sockpuppet of Serafin, leaving this "chore" to those he now wants to get blocked or banned if they delete Serafin's comments restored again and again by Serafin's sockpuppets that were blocked shortly afterwards. Surely, a victory of Serafin in this issue is further encouragement for him to continue ban evasions. Sciurinæ 19:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sciurinæ: Please do not misrepresent what I said; that is dishonest. I have no objection to deleting the postings or edits of a blocked or banned user. What I object to is someone deleting posts becasue of an unconfirmed (by an admin) suspicion or accusation of sockpuppetry. Finell (Talk) 21:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I consider your entire thread a misrepresentation and there's no honesty when I explain to someone how something might be mistaken and that someone comes to AN/I and tries to convince everybody of that this mistake was the truth. You should make clear in which way you have been misrepresented.

So what is your problem? Most of the time, the comments of the banned User:Serafin have been removed and rightly so. Should you seriously discover anytime in the future unbanned people who remove each others' comments, like you claimed, you might have a reason for a thread like this. It's a real shame that those who share Serafin's POV connive at his block evasions, but one cannot force people to do something against those they agree with. Still, you refuse to participate against (rather than for) the banned user, though I think that might be a fair chance for you to make up for this thread. The indifference of admins towards this thread at least should show you that it's not the admins alone who are going to clean up the mess of banned users. Oh, look - now that he's got his comments back in place, Serafin also wants the sock-tags removed ([2]). Sciurinæ 21:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't start the thread, but the problem I see is that an admin actually said he was going to block the next person who removed on-topic talk page comments. While I don't think that would be a bad policy it doesn't exist yet. So either this threat should be retracted or somebody should start writing a policy. 70.15.116.59 03:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Solution?

What's the denouement? Are we really forbidden to remove the posts of a banned user under pain of immediate block? I'm asking because User:Raymond arritt still has left the sharp warning on the article's talk page and still does not respond, and admin attention has obviously completely faded away within an hour of the thread's existence. Sciurinæ 22:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still watching. The goal was to get the disputants to discuss the matter amongst themselves. The basic point has been well stated by others: removing comments by confirmed sockpuppets of banned users is appropriate, but removing comments because someone thinks that a person might be a sockpuppet is not (much less simply removing comments that one doesn't agree with). Raymond Arritt 22:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You are still watching? What, or whom? Which ones of Serafin's dozens of sockpuppets do you expect to discuss the matter amongst themselves? You issued a First and only warning to good faith editors, and have been courteously asked [3] [4] to have a second look at the matter. You did not respond to these messages within the last days, and made only the statement above. During the last month, myself and others had tried to keep the Copernicus talk page readable, reporting numerous new suspects to User talk:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Serafin, but admins are not keeping up, there's a backlog to sort out. You jumped into this and posted your warning five days ago, but apparently you have not done anything about the real problem since. Did you overlook the links? Do you think sockpuppetry and repeated disruption is of low importance? Do you have other priorities as an admin? I ask you to start working on the sockpuppet issue, either confirming the suspects and moving them to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Serafin accordingly, or clearing them of someone thinks that a person might be a sockpuppet accusations. As you issued the warning, you should also put the necessary effort into the issue. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       12:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Serafin, there has never been any doubt whether a puppet of him was actually a real user. There may be some cases in which the banned user's comments have been removed before he has been blocked, but the puppet has been later confirmed. There would be no point in undermining one's credibility by accusing a wrong user and jeopardise Serafin's case, who is a long-term disruptive force to be reckoned with (see history of Bureaucracy). Is there any policy saying that banned users' accounts have to be blocked first before their mess is cleaned up? Sounds to me like having to wait until a vandal IP is blocked before being allowed to remove its insertion, say, of some vulgar words in an article, but then again even that is sometimes reasonable when the other person is probably still glaring at his or her computer, ready to undo should anyone revert. Many or most "comments" are simple restorations of his older comments that were removed, which would even allow removing them if genuine users have restored them (see the Everyking case). I can't criticise people for their first impressions and your warning would be suitable in other contexts like in a scenario told by Finell. Here, the warning would just deter from keeping Serafin at bay and be an encouraging victory for his guerilla revert tactic, which needs to be discouraged. I'd therefore appreciate it if you could retract it. Sciurinæ 23:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

BLP violation protected by an admin boy

Please check the last dozen or so edits on this talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sonia_Gandhi&action=history No edit war was there, warranting protection. Nishkid a Hindu fanatic supporting ultra rightist politics in India just desires to keep the insinuations on Sonia Gandhi. 59.91.253.175 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This section should be removed as nothing but personal attacks. Corvus cornix 17:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, there was no edit war - there was a SINGLE edit (as four section edits, uninterrupted) and a SINGLE revert (as a series of undos). I haven't even so much as looked at the content of the section and I can tell the protection isn't warranted yet. I'll note, also, that WP:BLP says These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. (emphasis mine), and one of the edit summaries appears to be asserting this is not the case. —Random832 18:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I like how "admin boy" isn't a red flag at all that this is trolling. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I like how claiming you're just innocently asking if there's any truth to it gives people carte blanche to post unsourced negative speculation. Regardless of who this 59 is, or what his intentions are, that section (and its reinsertion) were blatantly inappropriate. —Random832 18:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've looked further and can see that this user is clearly a sockpuppet of a banned troll as was stated by the protecting admin - however, the one section that I linked the diff for should still not be kept on the talk page per WP:BLP (the others that he removed don't seem to be the same sort of thing, and can probably be kept) —Random832 19:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. Unprotection and excision soon, please. Relata refero 19:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the semi-protection was unwarranted anymore - just that the particular section I linked to should not be kept. —Random832 20:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Does Admin Boy wear a cape? What are his powers? Neil ☎ 21:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

He's the sidekick to B'cratman ;^). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Throwing block-erangs, I think. shoy 13:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Eric / Éric Cantona

As I am probably now involved, can an uninvolved admin step in and stop two French users changing all the instances of Eric in the Eric Cantona article to Éric? On one side we have prior consensus, Wikipedia policy (WP:UE), and all relevant reliable sources in English and French([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]) saying it's "Eric" , on the other we have a French user who insists it should be "Éric" because that's how he spells his name, and the other citing the French Wikipedia (not reliable). It's too lame for RFC and as I've edited now, I shouldn't do anything more about it personally. Neil ☎ 21:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup. In English we spell Montreal thusly, not as Montréal. Raymond Arritt 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is getting silly. At one point some joker changed the word "maverick" deep in the article to "mavÉrick", which was reverted to "mavErick". It required an uninvolved editor to fix that edit. -- llywrch 22:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think someone was using "find and replace". Badly. Neil ☎ 10:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A curious case

User:KXS-KXS has declared that they are a "secret user", and appear to have no intention of ever editing articles. Instead, they seem to be planning some kind of social networking activity called the "brown monster club" (possibly involving giving prizes to editors for treasure-hunting?), and are constructing numerous templates for that purpose.

I've invited them twice to come and join the encyclopedia project, and it's clear from their replies that they have no intention of doing so. What to do now? -- The Anome 23:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hide him in your pocket for seeecret eeeeating. JuJube 23:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Surreptitiously slip in a WP:NOT#MYSPACE warning. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. -- The Anome 23:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And of course, point out to him that every 'sekrit page' of his is available in his Contribs. Poor dear. --Thespian 23:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm getting old and curmudgeonly, but I'd be inclined to block the account (at least until s/he voices some interest in building the encyclopedia) and delete everything seen here without looking back. MastCell ^Talk 23:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, it should all be deleted right away, and the user indef blocked. It may seem harsh, it doesn't seem like they plan on doing any real editing, see this edit, [12] totally ignored the message, and showing no sign of stopping.--Jac16888 00:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking and deleting. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, with help from MastCell. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a general subgroup of users creating "secret" pages (which aren't secret to anyone who knows Special:Prefixindex) and "autograph books" (where people can parade around huge signatures that violate WP:SIG). I think some of these people need a serious reminder that Wikipedia is not MySpace. Maybe the autograph books and secret pages aren't intrinsically harmful, but they're a waste of time and database space for those who actually want to use this site as an encyclopedia. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Autograph books have already tasted the blood of wikibattle. Keegan^talk 04:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales would disagree with you, Elkman. This is a widely known quote of his about autograph pages (don't believe he made it? Ask him), which is shown below:

“ You keep asking how they [autograph pages] help build an encyclopedia. But you also link to Wikipedia:Esperanza. I think that is your answer, no? Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing. Unlike divisive userboxes, the autograph books seem to just be about saying hello and being friendly. ” — Jimbo Wales 13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

--FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 04:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo may feel that way about autographs books, but i doubt he would agree with what User:KXS-KXS was doing, which was taking it way to far. I can see how elkman can not like them as they can open the floodgates for editors like KXS-KXS--Jac16888 10:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Wtimrock second notice

Resolved

Unfortunately this is the second time I am reporting this user User_talk:Wtimrock, as his behavior has not changed since the last time.

Recreated a deleted article, again [13] - this article has been deleted twice and the same user reposted it twice as well as being the original author.

Removed maintenance tags [14] - including the CSD repost tag and a news release tag.

I last reported it here on AN/I but no action was taken then. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 14:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted and a stern warning was given...if this continues, let me know. — Scientizzle 15:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Theresa knott (talk · contribs) has issued a block... — Scientizzle 15:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually whilst you were doing that I was giving him an attention grabbing block. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Hope it works! — Scientizzle 15:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!! His refusal to respond has been the most frustrating part of cleaning up after him. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 16:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: He contacted me by email. I explaned what he was doing wrong and unblocked him. Hopefully he will now take heed. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can an Admin. blank a User Page?

I'm new to wikipedia rules and would like to know if Admins are allowed to blank a user page. I'd like to hear from various people. Thanks. Lookzar42 20:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Depending on what is on the page and whether the user is a regular contributor or a dead account, blanking it may be the right way to deal with inappropriate content. What user page do you have in mind? — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at controversial articles for COI and POV, and I followed back to this user user:Shia1. The original page, I restored. Before my restoration, I found the page had been blanked. It's not a lot of blanking, but it seemed suspiscious to me as it was blanked by the same person the user had been in conflict with further down in the edit histories. It didn't seem to me the message on the user page was specific enough to warrant this action. Basejumper2 20:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blanked userpages an many occasions and have deleted them too if they are being used innapropriately (not for the good of the encylopedia). However admins do not go around blanking userpages willy nilly. . Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm this is a tricky one. Normally I'd say people who get banned for sockpuppeteering lose any right to say anthing on a userpage. However on closer inspection I see that the account was not blocked, no sockpuppets were named and no evidence posted. All we have is the admin in question's say so. I'll ask him to comment. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That admin has been gone since August so you may wish to try email. Asking via a vandalism template ^[15], seems suspect, however. El_C 20:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked User:IZAK as he was the one to remove the ranting. Agreed that using a vandalism template looks a bit dodgy but will assumr good faith. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty sophomorically provocational. El_C 20:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

When part of the user's goodbye message is that the "harrassers know who they are, and that they will be judged in the final Judgement," I see nothing wrong with denying them that indefinite soapbox. I'd probably be in favor of removing the sock tag also if no evidence has been presented. --Onorem♠Dil 20:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we need WP:NOT#ESCHATOLOGY? Raymond Arritt 20:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with departing users soapboxing. No one reads their userpages anyway. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with removing the text from User:Shia1, if that user has actually left WP. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I found it worth puting the lightest vandelism template up specifically because the blanking appeared to me to have been done by an individual the user had been in conflict with. Basejumper2 03:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What made you think it was vandalism? — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And then you re-added it after an admin (moi) reverted it as vandalism? It doesn't add up. El_C 03:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It made me think it was vandalism because it appeared needless and personally motivated by the conflict I just mentioned. Frankly the message seems silly to me, and I can’t see why it would NEED to be erased.

If you go to the users talk page, you'll notice he complains about the admin in question banning his friends who use his computer as his sock puppets. There's no evidence or trial for those sock puppets that I could find; but earlier in the user page personal discussions with another user mention user:Shia1 is going to have a friend named Yoeli at his house.

Further down, user:Shia1 is temporarily blocked for using sockpuppets by the admin in question, one of those sockpuppets he’s accused of using if you click on the sockpuppet tag is called Yoel23. No evidence was presented. He rants wildly about the unfairness, but, again, seems to be given no opportunity to defend himself.

The user then left that final message on his user page. Then the admin the message evidently refers to blanks it. That's why I felt it was vandalism. I felt it was most likely motivated by personal conflict and not an administrative necessity. The language of the message just didn't seem harsh enough to warrant a blanking of it.

So I checked to see if the user was banned, thinking that banned users pages are blanked. I saw that he wasn't. That's when I decided it was probably vandelism. So I went and looked for the lightest vandalism tag I could find, and left a message on the admins page asking if he had done it by mistake.

El C, I don’t understand your question. Perhaps use more words. Doesn’t add up to what? When we discussed this, you seemed unaware the reason for the tag, and felt I had added it because of the sockpuppet tag, and were unaware of the blanking. But the reason I added the tag back, after it was removed is because I went to the page to see if there had been a response to my question. Instead both the tag and the question had been erased, so I re-added it hoping to get a responseBasejumper2 03:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In any case it appears that I followed the tabs in the history page wron and it was IZAK that balnked the page, so I apologize to the vandelism tag. Basejumper2 04:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, I was asked by User Theresa knott (talk · contribs) on my user page [16] to come to this discussion and tell how I know that the account of User Shia1 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet. The short version of my answer is that I looked at the options on the line that reads "See block log and lists of suspected and confirmed accounts" on the {{sockpuppeteer}} template on User:Shia1's user page and clicked on "confirmed accounts" which leads to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shia1 (created by User Jayjg (talk · contribs) on 24 June 2007 [17]) and which lists two more of his sockpuppets, User:TumbleRumble and User:Yoel23. What follows is the longer version of how I got to User:Shia1's user page: I came across his name and comments when I was involved with the problem of another notorious sockpuppeteer Daniel575 (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (7th) and in the course of my research I read Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (6th) and it is on that latter page that I came across lengthy comments by User:Shia1 matching the vitriol of blocked User Daniel575 (talk · contribs) and his most recent suckpuppet User:Eidah who deployed the most vile curses and slander during Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 22#Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism (during which it came to light that an admin Y (talk · contribs) was perfectly aware that User:Eidah was in fact a sockpuppet of banned User:Daniel575 and did not take action to stop him.) During September 2007, looking into User:Eidah's violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL by his usage of violent cursing and hateful diatribes during the CfD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 22#Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism and the discovery that it was "widely known" that User:Eidah and User:Daniel575 were one and the same users and by following User:Daniel575's editorial trail leading to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (6th) and coming upon the rants of User:Shia1 there so that when I clicked on his page I found that by then User:Shia1 had already been blocked in June 2007 as a sockpuppet/eer by admin Jayjg (talk · contribs). When I saw the rant on his page consisting as it does of "religious" curses "... the harrassers know who they are, and that they will be judged in the final Judgement" I deleted only those comments as unbefitting what should be on a sockpuppet's page (they should not be allowed to have the last word and in any case don't belong there or on any user blocked as a sockpuppet) and left only the initial {{sockpuppeteer}} template placed on that page by User:Jayjg, but since then, some anon has reinserted them [18]. I have given my side of the story. I do not know how or why User:Jayjg came to the conclusions he did and took the actions that he did back in June 2007. But knowing his work as an editor, admin, and as a former respected member of ArbCom, I am absolutely certain that he acted appropriately and with all due justification. Thus, the answer to the question that I was asked by User:Theresa knott can only be answered by User:Jayjg as I was neither privy to the initial and ongoing reasons, nor involved with blocking and banning of User:Shia1 as a sockpuppet/eer. Thank you, IZAK 05:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your enlightening comments. (Also, I was the anonymous restorer of his user page. I just hadn't signed in while surfing.) Point of fact, however, User:Shia1 is not banned as a sockpupet or sockpupeteer, so there's no worry about giving a banned user the last word. Also, his statement is silly and jeuvenile, but not particularly offensive, certainly not vulgar, and doesn't name anybody so as to be damaging in that regard. It's his user page, and if he wants to return, it should be left intact as he left it.

I'm very curious as to why he was ever tagged, however, seeing as his explenation that he used a shared computer is evidenced by his discussion page where at least one of the sockpuppets is referenced as a seperate individual in a personal conversation on that page. Also he makes the claim that none of the accounts listed as his sockpuppet are ever used together on pages during a dispute? Is this true? Is there a way to confirm this? Is it normal to block someone as a sockpuppet without a sockpuppetry trial or evidence being presented such as in the link presented above,Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (6th)? If there is no reason to believe he is a sockpupet/eer, I think the tag should be removed. If the same goes for the accounts listed as his sockpuppets, they should be reinstated as its very possible they were legitimate users who got booted out of wikipedia without being able to present evidence. .Basejumper2 05:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Addition: I just spent some time going through the history that user:Shia1 posted on his talk page to defend himself. If he posted it truthfully, he only edited a single article with user:Tumblerumble and user:Yoel23. They seem to argue with each other, and nobody else except the banned sockpuppet of Daniel575 is involved in the discussion. Basejumper2 07:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Basejumper: As for the broader questions you ask about who, what, when, how and why any pages are or should be tagged or untagged by admins I leave that for the others to decide and I shall not get into that policy debate because I honestly have not given it any significant thought, and I don't intend to. The only reason I removed User:Shia1's silly remark, is that having coming out of a heated set of discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 22#Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism, and then bumped into identical comments at a page that seemed to be a "guilt by association" user page with curses such as "... judged in the final Judgement" it deserved to be removed in my view. I still think those hateful comments should go, but if you like them, keep them. I am honestly very puzzled why you even care. It makes no difference to me, honestly as I cannot recall having a single exchange with User:Shia1. However, the fact that banned User:Daniel575 hails him as a buddy that he knows personally (see User talk:Shia1#Hi [19]) was enough to convince me that these are two "birds of feather" that it is best not to allow to "flock together" on Wikipedia for they shall only join up for WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT. That's my take on things, and I don't really have much more to add. Sincerely, IZAK 10:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. To be truthful, I added the vandalism tag only because I thought blanking a page was always vandalism. In the course of our discussion here, however, I think we've uncovered something larger which is a user types that he left due to harassment, we find an accusation of sockpuppetry, no evidence of the accounts having been used as sockpuppets even if they were the same person's account, and evidence that almost certainly one of them wasn't. That's what keeps me interested beyond just saying, "Sorry, I misunderstood what vandalism is." I want to know why this user was tagged without a similar process to this,Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (6th), and I want to know if his rantings and ravings about politically motivated harrassment against him were true, because wikipedia is not the place for that, if there is a place for that. Basejumper2 11:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's see: The user has left. The person who tagged him as a sock has left. So there is no what on Earth that you can peronally know anything more about why he was tagged so. End of mate! Move on, this one is in the past and done with. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Only User Jayjg (talk · contribs) could answer all those questions and as you have been told, he is presently on leave. May I remind you that while you are spouting all sorts of rules here, there is another dimension to Wikipedia governance, such as Wikipedia:Ignore all rules whereby even an admin who is confronted by a complex situation and has been privy to all sorts of matters decides in good conscience that he may take action as he sees fit. This action is further reinforced by the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding" and finally see: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee: "... Until the beginning of 2004, Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales dealt with all serious disputes and was the only person with the authority to ban users who were not engaging in simple vandalism (straight-forward vandals could be blocked by any administrator). This role has now largely been passed to the Arbitration Committee. Wales wrote: 'The Arbitration Committee [...] can impose a solution that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the exception that I reserve the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve the whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster. But I regard that as unlikely, and I plan to do it about as often as the Queen of England dissolves Parliament against their wishes, i.e., basically never, but it is one last safety valve for our values." – January 2004. To request Arbitration, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. The Arbitration policy details the rules and procedures involved." May I also draw your attention to my critiques and warnings at User talk:IZAK#Sockpuppet? and at User talk:Lookzar42#Reminder what puppets & co really evoke. Thank you for your close attention to these matters. IZAK 12:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Ashtoman3333

• User:Ashtoman3333 has been engaged in some fairly inexplicable behavior since mid-September, including overwriting articles like Cheers and Me, Myself, and I and creating quite a list of articles without context or sourcing (see his deleted contributions in particular at Special:Contributions/Ashtoman3333). His userpage, deleted on October 21st by User:Pascal.Tesson, was itself an elaborate musician bio that was apparently fictitious. On the 20th of October, I asked him to explain his purpose in creating these articles and that biography, but he did not respond to my question any more than he has responded to the warnings he has received on his talk page. He was blocked on October 21st and immediately upon return recreated his most recently deleted article, JAMM Band, which still sources to a non-existent Myspace page. It does not seem that this editor is interested in seriously contributing to the encyclopedia. Given my long history of addressing his behavior, I would appreciate other evaluation here. I have informed the editor of this conversation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there's a long term pattern of vandalism / creating inappropriate pages. Maybe a final warning that the next time he steps over the line he'll be blocked? --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pitching in. I hope he'll listen to your warning. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Eastren07 deleting material

Eastren07 (talk · contribs) has been deleting material from the article on British government minister Jim Murphy, and deleting related discussions from the talk page. Eastren07 uses no edit summaries and has not responded to warnings or to requests to discuss any concerns about the article.

• The revision history Talk:Jim Murphy is littered with edits by Esatren07 deleting material, and none in which any material is added about perceived problems with the article
• The revision history Jim Murphy is similarly littered with content deletions by Eastren07: [20], [21], [22] and [23].
• Eastren07's only contribution to his/her user:talk page was this deletion of requests to stop deleting

Two other points:

• Eastren07's only other edits have been similar deletions from the article Kenneth Macintosh
• Jim Murphy is the Labour Party Member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for the East Renfrewshire in Scotland. Kenneth Macintosh is the Labour Member of the Scottish Parliament for Eastwood, a constituency with the same boundaries (i.e. covering exactly the same area). I suspect that the username Eastren07 indicates an editor supportive of the Labour party in that area, who simply wants to delete any material, however well-sourced, which is considered unhelpful. (Note, BTW, that the discussion at Talk:Jim Murphy has been in favour of the eventual removal by me of some well-sourced but grossly unbalanced material on Murphy's current ministerial role).

So far as I can see, Eastren07 is a SPA with a possible COI, who has refused all requests to discuss concerns. Please can someone either block this user now, or issue a further warning and monitor for further misconduct? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• The editor appears to have stopped (for now). If this behavior keeps up, report it on WP:AIV and reference this discussion. Thanks, Caknuck 05:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• The editor's pattern of contributions has consistently been to perform a batch of content deletions within minutes of each other, and then to do nothing until the another day. So it doesn't seem quite right describe him/her as having "stopped", just as having finished that day's deletions.
  But you're right, I should have taken to this to WP:AIV, and I'll take there if/when the deletions resume. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Onideus - blatant troll violating WP:BLP

Resolved

User:Onideus has just left a nasty little note for me on my Talk Page because I speedy deleted the Onideus Mad Hatter article as an attack article. The little gift on my Talk Page doesn't bother me much except that he seems to be a single purpose account whose purpose is clearly trolling and violating WP:BLP.

I'm torn between trying to explain Wikipedia policy to him and just asking someone to block him as a SPA.

Since I'm now the target of his attack, I think it's best that I just report him here and let a neutral, uninvolved admin deal with him.

Thanx.

--Richard 06:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a review of his contribs will indicate that blocking is clearly called for here. --Richard 06:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Gogo Dodo. Hut 8.5 09:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Torchwood

The Torchwood Institute does not exist. Lots of Wikipedia articles write as though it should exist. It is a fantasy. So why write it does? When I tried to fix it they said I was being a vandal. I'm not. I put the template {{bad}} on it, but they took it off and deleted it. Why is everyone out to get me? There's a conspiracy! I am not commiting acts of vandalism, I am correcting errors in an otherwise rather useful encyclopedia. your information on Torchwood-related articles is rather rubbishy and could do with a good cleanup. I say, don't you know? Der loewe schlaft nie!

--Blickmaestro 07:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[24] - You remove just the Torchwood point.

[25] - You remove Torchwood, but leave the very similar Doctor Who point.

[26] - Again, just Torchwood

[27] - Again, leaving Torchwood, but keeping the two Doctor Who points

[28] - Just Torchwood

[29] - Just Torchwood.

Now, here's the kicker - Torchwood is made up. It is just the fantasy of Russell T. Davies on a 15-32 inch screen once every week. So you're not doing a service to the Institute, it's fictional. Either remove all the trivia or none at all. Because they way it looks right now, it seems you're on a systematic campaign to suppress any mention of them. Will ^(talk) 09:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith here, Blick, then I think you are suggesting that the articles are written in an in-universe fashion. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) may be of interest. Typically, articles or sections you feel are written in an in-universe manner should be tagged with {{in-universe}}. Neil ☎ 09:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It is plain from the very first line of the Torchwood Institute article that it's a fictional organisationor is it?. Anyone reading other articles referring to it, if not aware of this, can follow the link to the main article. That is, assuming Wikipedia readers are not so gullible as to believe everything they read. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 13:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also many of the examples removed such as this one are explicitly fictional. This looks to me more like someone who isn't a fan of Torchwood than anythign else. To be clear, Blick whether or not one likes a given spin-off or fictional organization is not connected to whether or not it should be mentioned anywhere. If that sort of thing did matter, I'd probably delete all the articles related to Powerpuff girls. JoshuaZ 17:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd

Revert war going on at this page, the image in question is being removed with claims of BLP breaches. The image contains Labor Premier of Queensland Anna Bligh, 23-year old Nicholas Rudd, federal Labor leader Kevin Rudd, and Grace Grace, Labor MP for Brisbane Central, at Labour Day 2007. I believe it to be completely relevant to the article of Kevin Rudd. I would appreciate assistance and clarification of why this user should be able to remove this fully legitimate image added in good faith? Timeshift 08:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Even though it's in 3RR territory now, it looks to me that the issue is fundamentally a content dispute - you want to keep the picture, and Brendan doesn't. Have you considered starting an RfC?  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  12:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We'll see how common sense and community consensus goes first. The Australian political editors and admins are all more or less aware of this issue. Timeshift 13:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Brendan is clearing his talk page including the AN/I and 3RR tags. Timeshift 14:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Point being? As admin User:Sarah told you here, "Brendan can remove messages from his talk page if he wants to. They remain in the history as a record, so there really isn't a problem with him removing them from his page. In fact, removing messages confirms that you have received them, so the editor cannot claim later that they never saw the warning. If you guys want to continue ... discussing this, I advise you take it to your own pages." --Brendan [ contribs ] 15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Per talk page. Timeshift 15:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ken Macdonald/User:77.101.77.131

Resolved

77.101.77.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is consistently vandalising the Ken Macdonald article, often cliaming to be the subject's son, or writing about the supposed son e.g. [30][31]. Some of this vandalism has been quite sneaky, e.g. [32], changing the article subject's middlename, which took quite a bit of checking to determinethat the original was actually correct. However, it tends to be hit and run vandalism, with a few days between each attack, so despite 2 reports by me to WP:AIAV, the IP has not been blocked. The contribution pattern convices me that only one user is contributing from this address (no useful contributions have been made), the address is assigned to blueyonder, so is probably at least semi-static. One previous 24hr block has been made at the start of the month, but the block was probably over before the user attempted to edit again. In addition to Ken Macdonald, the user has also made repeat attacks on Impetigo and Alan Dicks. Is there any chance of a block of 5 days to a week, which should actually prevent the next attempt, and maybe make the user get bored? David Underdown 08:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually since it's been going on for a month at least I put a month long block on. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Theresa, I seemed to be the only one watching the Ken macdonald article so it was getting a little frustrating. David Underdown 10:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Requests for registration

FYI, a user has been waiting for approval on this list for more than 24 hours. The list appears to be only sporadically monitored. Will somebody please add it to their watchlist? Thank you. The Transhumanist    10:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks question

I asked a question recently about User:Cyborg Ninja's personal attacks and stalking of me. As a result, she was issued a warning by an admin:

• [33]

Cyborg Ninja disputted the warning, so the admin issued a further explanation:

• [34]

However, Cyborg Ninja continues her personal attacks on me on her talk page. In response to an editor's suggestion that she have a "Fresh start", she replies by repeating the personal attacks on me.

• [35]

Is this allowed? It is her talk page, but she is continuing the stalking for which she was given a warning. Thanks, --Mattisse 12:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't read like personal attacks to me. Neil ☎ 12:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

More like sour grapes on the part of the complainer here, imo. --Martin Wisse 13:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess you mean me. Sour grapes for what? Yesterday she was warned by admin for stalking me and posting personal attacks on me on others talk pages and discussion pages, but the links above indicate she is still stalking me. Maybe you are saying that I am being oversensitive. It is just that she already did a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2 over one incident that received no support whatsoever. I do wish she would stop stalking me. However, the talk page complaints indicate she still is stalking me. That is my problem. But I will try to be less sensitive. Thanks! Mattisse 15:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should be happy that I am so darn interesting to someone that they bother to stalk me! In my real life, I do not command such interest! Mattisse 15:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at this please

I am supposed to be writing my thesis so I dont have time to keep any eye on him: [36]. Thanks. Viridae^Talk 12:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, thats unusal, perhaps a username block is necessary, name matching what they added suggests a role account.--Jac16888 13:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I found it unsual that there was only one post, so I am giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming they though fys may have been interested...? Viridae^Talk 13:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I know, i din't mean they should be blocked straight away, it was just a suggestion for if they continued, could some form of soapboxing. Now get back to your thesis--Jac16888 14:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Visca el Barca's userpage

Resolved

Can someone please pay attention to the userpage of Visca el barca (talk · contribs); there are several statements which are outright derrogatory, and several which are pure trolling, and explain him what Wikipedia is about. As I was involved in several disputes with him, I would rather not leave an impression of impropriety. Duja► 13:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

WTF is all that junk on that page? I think this could actually be a violation of home-land security laws in the United States as the message clearly supports a well known terrorist. Plus, it's extremely inflammatory, and trust me, I'm very hard to inflame. That rubbish doesn't need to be in any respectable encyclopedia and I encourage it be deleted due to obvious trolling. 68.143.88.2 13:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with above, that is not something we want on Wikipedia. I think we should do a checkuser (just to be safe and see where this person is, be it some kid at a school or an adult) and delete the userpage outright. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 13:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh. Very blatant trolling, IMHO. I support the page-blanking.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  13:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User's been blocked indef, obviously (not by me, I got beaten to the block). Apart from the junk on his userpage his edits consisted almost entirely of POV-pushing via edit-warring on Bosnia-related articles, and goodness knows we don't need more disruptive, tendentious editors in that corner of the encyclopedia. Moreschi ^Talk 14:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

After seeing this, I was about to do the same, but it would have been kinda lame 7 days after; thanks to the rouge colleagues for stepping in anyway. Duja► 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The slogan goes like "Visca el Barça!! Visca Catalunya!!. I thought the user was a Catalan nationalist until i realized it was not the case. So from the username you can understand that this is a troll. At least if i were a Catalan i'd have protested against my favorite rite being used as a trolling tool. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

State Flags on Radio Market Templates

Resolved

User:Rfc1394 is adding animated state flags to radio market templates in several states. These appear to be good faith edits, but they flags are against rules. I will do my best to revert, but if someone could, please, give me a hand, I would greatly appericate it. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 13:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Goodness - he's been busy. Yeah, I can help out.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  13:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help :) - NeutralHomer ^T:C 13:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure.  :)  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  14:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ban IP 216.56.26.2

Resolved

This IP (Special:Contributions/216.56.26.2)has a long history of vandalism according to his contibutions page. Can he be banned, we had to revert his changes several times yesterday on the Woody Guthrie page. Dannygutters 14:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a shared IP belonging to a school so the vandalism is highly unlikely to be by the same user. I'll put an anon block on it for 6 months. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc frivolous 3RR warnings

This section has been blanked as a courtesy.

Ombudsman banned

Ombudsman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor of two years plus, with thousands of edits and no prior blocks, was recently blocked indefinitely by Jimbo Wales, who noted in the block log that the name suggests a "role account". I doubt an editor of such long standing can be considered a "role account" and I don't believe Jimbo realizes this; in any case an indefinite block for such a tenured editor is not the only means of preventing the person from posting inappropriate links. I've posted a note on Jimbo's talk but he's rarely online so I doubt he'll even see it. Obviously no one should be wheel warring with Jimbo but maybe if anyone agrees with me they can mention something on User talk:Jimbo to increase the visibility? Milto LOL pia 19:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd lean towards Jimbo's side on this one. The name could easily confuse new users into thinking the user had some special status. Is there some reason why the name can't be changed to something less confusing? Ronnotel 19:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

? What? That wasn't the meat of the block, just an indication that Jimbo didn't realize the guy has made a career here. But if the guy's been editing for over two years and the username is a problem, then why don't you point out where it has caused a problem int he two years+ the guy's been editing. Surely such a problematic username has caused such problems given the long time of his activity. Milto LOL pia 19:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

While I can understand the confusion about the name, perma-blocking the guy seems more than a bit harsh. Couldn't he just have Ombudsman's name changed? -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  19:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue is also the harassment block, not just the username. Milto LOL pia 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved at all in the BADSITES nonsense (no opinion implied either way there, BTW) but Ombudsman has been a massively tendentious editor for years on vaccine and psychiatry-related articles. His behavior resulted in an RFC and an arbcom hearing, and he was almost certainly editing in violation of his arbcom-imposed restrictions. I also think the name issue was raised in the past, though I haven't dug enough to find it. I'm amazed his block log remained clean until now. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not relevant to this issue. Milto LOL pia 19:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, yes it is, because you are promoting him as a good editor, when he was far from it. Skinwalker 19:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• There was some previous discussion of possible problems with this username. Concerns were also raised at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ombudsman. See also m:Ombudsman commission --JWSchmidt 19:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, but there's also the issue of the harassment and whether or not an indef block is the best way to deal with it. Milto LOL pia 19:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest renaming the account. Is that possible, or does he have to create another one? -- ChrisO 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest looking closely at Ombudsman's contributions rather than solely the length of his tenure. He's a highly tendentious soapbox-style editor, and recognized as such and sanctioned by ArbCom. Since then he's edited less frequently but no less tendentiously, generally throwing around charges of vandalism, whitewashing, etc. Here are some recent (and entirely typical) highlights:

• "Restore unscrupulously vandalized article" (for an article PRODDED and deleted without comment)
• [37] (not even sure how to describe this)
• More of the same

It would appear that Jimbo's block was based on repetitive insertion of a particular link, but before anyone agitates too strongly that this guy be unblocked because he's been here awhile, I would strongly encourage a more detailed review of his tenure and impact here. The username thing has been done to death and deemed not to be a violation in the past, but there is more than enough reason for this editor to be banned. MastCell ^Talk 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Block has been reduced to a week. I suggest those of you with other problems pursue dispute resolution, but my involvement here is done. Thanks everyone for your comments. Milto LOL pia 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Good job, Milto LOL pia. A permaban out of the blue did not seem right, at least I could not find a reason for it. Guido den Broeder 21:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The one week block seems reasonable. The attempted link placement seemed like a clear cut-case of trolling/harassment. JoshuaZ 00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Righteous block. Restoring links to harassment has zero tolerance. This is a very direct and clear message. Don't link to harassment. Especially don't restore links to harassment or revert those who are deleting them. It's unfortunate that editors want to soften written policy on this when in practice it is not soft and should not be tolerated. --DHeyward 00:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, there's no consensus for WP:BADSITES or anything similar. This is at this point well-established. The reason this was a good block was because it was linking to the site to harass, not because it was a link to an OH-NOS BADSITE. JoshuaZ 00:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

StevenBlack repeatedly removing AfD template

Could someone else please talk to this user? I tried explaining the policy to him but he says I'm bullying him. It's my AfD nom and he's called me a whole bunch of names, so I don't feel right blocking him myself. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks  20:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed he's now moved it to the bottom of the page. Less problematic but still not where it belongs. -- But|seriously|folks  20:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply by StevenBlack: My view: It is simply not proper, nor fair to volunteer contributors, to be strafing a topics within the first few minutes or hours of a topic's appearance. I live, work, and play on Lake Ontario, and I have first-hand knowledge and experience in this area. If you look at my contributions I've given a lot to Wikipedia about Eastern Ontario. I've also been a Wikipedian for many years, and I've been operating a very successful technical wiki since 1999. I must tell you: I have NEVER been bullied like I have been bullied today, firstly by the arbitrary deletion of the L.O.W. topic by Butseriouslyfolks (with no backup available!) then the slobbering of that AfD box on the topic within the first hour, well that's too much! Please knock it off, and show due respect for nascent topics. - StevenBlack 01:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me the policy where it says articles with insufficient content and/or context should be left alone to "cook"? JuJube 01:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply: C'mon, that's disingenuous. Wikipedia is, by definition, a work in process. StevenBlack 03:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, what's disingenuous is you bypassing my question. I repeat, show me the policy where it says articles with insufficient content/context get a pass because you think other people will expand on them someday. JuJube 11:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

We're very pleased for your contributions — however, if there are concerns about the notability of a group you've written about, the correct procedure is to address them calmly and carefully at the proper venue. In this case, AfD. It is inappropriate to attack other editors, and to unilaterally remove tags. The first deletion was not "arbitrary" — the text was a copyright violation. --Haemo 01:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Please show how the text was a copyright violation. Also, the notability of the group in question cannot be ascertained in the first hour of a topic's appearance in an outline form. No? Thank you. StevenBlack 03:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The original article consisted of four sentences. One was copied verbatim from this page. Another was taken from part of a sentence but had two words changed. The remaining sentences were copied verbatim from a single sentence in the source, but split into two sentences with a few words added to one of them. That's a copyvio. -- But|seriously|folks  05:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As I explained in the discussion page before you deleted it, the description of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper was NOT taken from the website you cite. The website you site is a DIRECTORY full of such summary descriptions of related and allied groups. The text I posted was taken directly from the source: the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper website itself and was modified for NPOV and in other ways I deemed appropriate at the time for the very early stages, the first stages, of fleshing a completely new topic. I was only a few minutes into my work when you, sir, deleted my work in progress, with no explanation, no warning, and apparently, without ANY wider community oversight. You have been repeatedly accused of heavy handedness. I find your behavior boorish and not quite in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Do you know what I did this morning? I had to completely re-trace and redo my work because of YOUR BOORISH and ARBITRARY and INSTANTANEOUS application of power. There was no historical record of my work that I could find, and I have little recourse other than, in my utter frustration, to face a plethora of roused admins that you summoned from this very page. Please, STOP THE BULLYING. I have spent far more time defending this article's right to exist than I have spent actually contributing. Does anyone else find that warped? StevenBlack 09:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

ALSO: One of the so-called "copyright infringements" was (I assume -- I have access to no records) the line "Lake Ontario Waterkeeper is led by President and environmental lawyer, Mark Mattson and vice president, Krystyn Tully." That is a simple statement of fact in an article that was, at the time, barely minutes old. Can you please explain to me how this justifies your unilateral actions, Butseriouslyfolks? StevenBlack 09:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(link, since none has been provided before now.) Any particular reason not to take Chunk Rice's advice from 6.5 hours ago and userfy? Wouldn't that make everyone happy? --barneca (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

People: If you have problems with Lake Ontario Waterkeeper at this stage, less than a day old, then why not the same flak for San Francisco Baykeeper?? What about Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper?? What about most of those listed under "United States" in List of environmental organizations?? Is this, in fact, Wikipedia.us  ?? What's really going on here?? StevenBlack 03:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are other articles that should not be here. We're working on it. Feel free to help out and tag them. -- But|seriously|folks  05:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's disingenuous. Please stay on topic. The acid test here is, sir: does Butseriouslyfolks have the rectitude, and the courage of his convictions, to fight for the deletion of the San Francisco Baykeeper article, or is Butseriouslyfolks a wiki admin "bully" who is picking on a new article for petty reasons? See, in Wikepedia we have corporations documented down to the minutest detail in some cases. We have consumer-society products and excesses documented in minute detail. But is there no place in Wikipedia to document established, registered and active groups of people who speak for waterfront and the environment? I argue that there is PLENTY of scope for this in Wikipedia. Clearly you disagree. Butseriouslyfolks, plain and simple, put up, or knock it off. I wager that if you were to apply your logic to San Francisco Baykeeper, you would be soundly defeated and, in my view, rightfully so. StevenBlack 08:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly relevant to the topic. The existence or non-existence of other similar articles doesn't give any article the right to make an end-run around policy. (Also, this is wiki.en, as in English. We have plenty of articles about things outside of the United States, as indeed we should.) shoy 12:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Steven, AFD'd articles must remain up for discussion for at least five days - this gives you at least five days to ensure the article becomes suitable for Wikipedia. It's not doomed as soon as it is tagged. Many of our best articles are ones which were rescued from the AFD process. Neil ☎ 10:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that if the article is deleted that you ask any one of many admins willing to recreate material in userspace to do just that, and work on the article in your userspace until you are certain it will pass an AfD. That's what I've learned to do with my drafts, many of which are just random collections of links and notes... users with long positive contribution histories are given wide latitude to draft articles in their userspace, free of worry about whether the item already shows notability or not, as it's clear that the article is a work in progress. Just don't add it to articlespace categories or use articlespace specific templates that do that, till you are ready. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Getting tired of the personal attacks here

This diff is way over the top.--SarekOfVulcan 11:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I have given Steven a final warning. Neil ☎ 12:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

How much abuse do I have to take before I'm allowed to reciprocate in kind? -- But|seriously|folks  17:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

He's still at it. [38]. -- But|seriously|folks  17:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It is never appropriate to respond in kind to inappropriate comments. It is appropriate to seek third party intervention. Since I don't know either of you from Adam, let me take a look... GRBerry 19:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Never mind, already blocked for 24 hours by Neil. GRBerry 19:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Irresponsible editing on Archimedes Plutonium

Later Addition

Although the page in question has been deleted, against the vote of the AfD, the discussion here is more relevant than ever.Likebox 23:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It has just dawned on me that the discussion here is not relevant at all. I apologize to Artie-poo, for falsely accusing him of smearing Mr. Archimedes Plutonium. He was not doing any such thing, and his comments were not libelous in any way. He was just politically well aware, through discussions with other administrators and as part of the Wikipedia aristocracy, that it was a foregone conclusion that the page was to disappear. As such, he was just trying to dissuade me from writing the page, by providing antagonistic pressure. I suggest that he could have done it in a way which was less liable to misinterpretation on my part.

I am very sorry that I misunderstood the situation. I am writing this here so that it is clear that I will no longer contribute to wikipedia. I only regret that I cannot erase my numerous contributions to date.Likebox 01:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to apologize to Ed Johnston, who also was in on the game.Likebox 02:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Beginning of the old discussion

I have been involved in editing the page Archimedes Plutonium, and I would like to bring a matter of some concern. The case involves unfortunate editing of the page, which I tried repeatedly to correct.

The editor in question is User:Arthur Rubin. Similar additions were made by User:EdJohnston.

The subject of the page was questioned about a murder, and I didn't know very much about the case then. I wrote that the accusations were groundless (specious was the word I used), and the next thing I know, it reads (specious). While I accept that in any other circumstances this is a legitemate and supportable tag, in this case the effect of the tag on an unsuspecting reader is to sew suspicion. It would have been more responsible to rephrase this section directly, instead of putting tags which have the effect of casting shadows on the subject's character.

Just to be clear about the known facts: Archimedes Plutonium was living in another state for two years at the time of the murder, and he was at home online at the time of the murder. The murderers were two teenagers who confessed to the crime, and fingerprints, boottracks, purchases, matched the scene. Nobody considers the case in the least bit open, and the chance that anyone else was involved is zero.

Further, I was writing about this as an example of the way in which this eccentric character has been harassed because of his notability.

I changed the tags, and tried different wordings, but each time the wording changed back to again be ambiguous about his culpability. No matter what wording I chose, I could not edit this page to make it unambiguous, despite bringing up the comments on the talk page of the two users. EdJohnston placed an incriminating link on the talk page of Archimedes Plutonium, and I had to place a link to a later page on the same site, where the whole thing is solved in order to (hopefully) correct the misleading impression that the previous comments made.

After many days of back and forth, the wording eventually settled down to an acceptably unambiguous phrase, the intermediate stages were so fraught with libel, that I was on edge for many days. I tried to explain my concerns to Arthur Rubin, because at first I thought this was done out of ignorance. But his responses were so bureaucratic and unhelpful, and did not alleveate the dangerous ambiguity. Then I came to the conclusion that this was happening as a result of either gross irresponsibility or of malice.

A representative sample of the edits in question are contained in these links::[39] [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]. The relevant comments made on the talk page Talk:Archimedes Plutonium under the section heading "Harrasment, Specious, etc.", although I later added a link and a bolded statement to remove insinuations of culpability. The comments on Arthur Rubin's talk page were made during the same period of time, and the briefer comments on EdJohnston page also.

I would like to point out that the amount of insinuation was so large, that I personally began to think that the two users had some extra incriminating information about Archimedes Plutonium. They never made a single mention of the fact that this case is closed, either on the talk page or in the main page. I had to actively read about the case in great detail to convince myself that indeed he wasn't involved, and then fight with them to get this wording into the page, again and again.

I believe these actions are a blight on wikipedia, and reflect gross abuses by the editors in question, whether they were done out of irresponsibility or malice. I hope that something can be done to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.Likebox 21:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I may not have been clear, but LB is using "specious" to imply "unjustified", but the sources only imply "inaccurate" (and not considered credible by the local police chief, who may not have involved in the actual investigation.) As for "harassment", you would need a source other than AP that he was unjustly harassed.

For what it's worth, that AP was home online at the time of the murder was not known at the time, and would have been difficult to verify even if it had been suspected. (If I had reason to believe I would be suspected of the murder, I could easily set up an anonymizer at my home PC, and connect through it.) The parenthetical remark is WP:OR, but can easily be seen to discredit the unsourced assertion that the police knew that he was home online at the time of the murder.

The "blight" on wikipedia is the recreation of an article deleted under authority of the AfD. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This would be perfectly legalall-right to speculate if the case weren't solved and you were speculating in your own home. To speculate that AP used an anonymizer to go out to another state, put on some teenagers boots, steal a knife from their home, stab a professor and his associate, put the bloody boots back in the teenager's home, and then go back to his home state is Original Research, and more fanciful than anything that Archimedes Plutonium has ever written.

The fact that sources do not say explicitly that he wasn't involved is because it is so bloody obvious that he wasn't involved that they don't feel the need to say it. The only reason the books mention him at all is because he is so interesting and notable. After the obligatory Fun Archimedes Plutonium facts, they go back to talking about the actual case, which goes on and on, and is eventually solved. If you were actually ignorant of the facts of the case, that would have been ok. It should only take a small discussion to explain that he wasn't involved, and the page would be reasonable. But I am not completely sure that you were ignorant of the facts of the case, when you persisted in making ambiguous edits despite pleading and begging on my part. All I was asking was to find some way, any way, to state unambiguously that he was not involved. Eventually, such a way was found, by me, after many, many attempts, but it cost me a few gray hairs.

In my opinion, this is the definition of irresponsibility.Likebox 22:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. But, AfD4 has closed with a delete outcome, so it probably doesn't matter. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether you disagree or not, the talk page needs to be kept as evidence for other editors to take a look at, and determine if indeed you acted irresponsibly, and if so, if any other actions need to be taken. The fact that the page has been deleted does not matter, because AP is notable enough and brilliant enough for his page to be recreated along largely the same lines in the future. Your possible wrongdoing, though, is evidenced in the talk page and discussion page. The evidence is overwhelming. The talk page needs to be looked at, as also the edits.

For future reference, the vote on the AfD was a definite keep, and the person who brought it up voted to keep, with no hesitation, and once he understood who AP was, wrote "I am withdrawing my nomination for various reasons. VICTORY FOR USENET".Likebox 23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This AN/I discussion has no relation to the page. I will only close it after the issue of irresponsibility is settled by a review by other administrators.23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Specious and inaccurate mean different things, especially in context. If you say specious, and another user says the sources say inaccurate, then a request for souring was valid. --Haemo 01:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read your comment carefully enough. He didn't say "inaccurate", he just put tags on the "specious" (although, to be fair, he later took out the ). Please go through the records. Then I changed it to something else. I didn't know what he wanted. I was completely at a loss.Likebox 02:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I know it follows the letter of the law. But I later changed the phrase to "Nobody suspects him of any involvement" using the present tense, and it got reverted. I tried "but he was never under serious suspicion" or words to that effect, and it got deleted, later it got to work the opposite effect of my intention. I racked my brain on this each time to come up with something new that would be OK with Rubin et al, but I couldn't think of anything they liked, and they wouldn't help. This was really jarring, because, I understand disagreements on dubious mathematical content. I also understand disagreements about notability. I understand the controversy about this page, and I sympathize. Even if the whole page is deleted, I understand. But this is an accusation of murder for God's sake. Where is the humanity? This is a human being here, and a human being that I respect very much. I thought I would get an apology at some point, or at least an acknowledgement of error. But all I got was more bureaucratese. This is not decent human behavior in my book, no matter what the disagreements on content.Likebox 02:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I was at 3RR, so could only tag, rather than revert and modify to a correct statement. I'd consider the suggested change a revert. Perhaps I chose the wrong tag. Do we have a NPOV-word tag? Thinking back over it, that would have been better than {{or}}, and {{dubious}} was inappropriate because the word "specious" doesn't have a clear meaning. I don't recall the "nobody suspects him of any involvement", but that seems biased in context, as it appears he really was a suspect at the time (at least, we have no evidence to the contrary). That one, I probably should have just corrected to: "the case is closed and he is not considered to have been involved." — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think your 3RR explanation is honest and convincing. I think that other adminstrators should take your word here and not do the to check the deleted history logs and see for themselves.02:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It also pains me that you can't bring yourself to say "The case is closed and he was not involved", even after all this.Likebox 05:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Constructive Suggestions

I have had some time to calm down, I am sorry I lost my temper. But I didn't sleep because I was worried those tags would show up again, and Plutonium would lose his job again or God knows what. I am still not going to contribute to Wikipedia in the foreseeable future, but I thought that it leaves everyone with a bad feeling if there is no resolution to disputes, and if all the comments are of a destructive nature.

So here are my editing suggestions, you administrative folks can do what you will:

1. The tags have got to go. They are tools of lazy editing, used in place of a thoughtful rewrite. I think there is a (very slight) possibility it just didn't occur to Rubin that tags can change meaning so drastically, even after I repeatedly tried to explain. If somebody wants to edit the page, let them edit the page by thinking and writing a sentence.
2. Recognize that any description, even a neutral encyclopedic one, involves some original reinterpretation in order to be coherent. It is ridiculous to assume that Wikipedia will be cobbled together from sentences and sentence fragments in scattered sources. Recognize that the editing process is political, and choose the political tools carefully. I think this is already recognized, and the policies in place are by and large sensible ones. But be careful to not whip out "original research" for something which does not involve a radically new idea, or a radically new synthesis of ideas. Be careful with the OR accusation, and use it for idea-units (paragraphs) and not individual sentences or words. The individual sentences or words should just be rewritten back and forth until they settle down.
3. Require edits to be made using a username. This will also cut down on vandalism. There is no reason that someone can't log in to make an edit, and there is no reason that someone can't make a new username if they want to edit anonymously. This is just to cut down on the chance of someone inserting tag-libel or other subtle vandalism.

And here are my political suggestions:

1. Get rid of the tools of brownnosing, those stupid (but well intentioned) barnstars that anyone can give to themselves and friends.
2. Do not select administrators by a vote of previous administrators. That's how aristocracies are made and perpetuated. It creates tiers of administrators and lackeys, who are vying for power. Recognize that wikipedia administration is a political office, and expand it slowly by some sort of vote restricted to non-administrators. Create separation of power, and make sure there are ombudsmen to control abuses of power.
3. In order to attract mathematical talent, it is essential that the people who contribute do not feel exploited. Writing a mathematical argument requires about ten times the effort of writing a usual exposition, and the work is underappreciated. You have to check and double check and yes, horrors of horrors, do original research. Otherwise your mathematical discussion will be shitty. In order to encourage mathematical contributors, you must assure them that their work will not get tagged into oblivion, and will be evaluated carefully. Fortunately for wikipedia, for the time being none of the current contributors can understand any math so the stuff all stays no matter how original and how good it is.
4. Do not allow academics to serve in any administrative capacity. They have an interest in perpetuating certain ideas and marginalizing others because that's how they eat. They should only contribute content. I do not have a PhD nor a serious academic position, so I can be fair to everybody. There is no reason that a layperson can't decide what is a competent exposition and what is not. But an academic administrator can just punish his academic competitors on a whim.
5. Be expansive in the topics you cover. I know there is a debate between the "restrictionists" and the "expansionists", but the debate is dumb. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia (as you say) and there should be no debate. All the "restrictionists" are people who want to keep something marginalized.

End of comments. I will know that someone is listening when the Archimedes Plutonium page is back up. I think that will happen when hell freezes over.Likebox 04:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Upon rereading this I realized that point 3 could be misread as a bid for administratorship on my part. It's not. I would like to have an academic position in the future.Likebox 04:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Libellous material on AFD

An AFD has been started on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlaneShift (computer game) by User:SpigotMap and User:EvanCarroll (possibly a sockpuppet since they're both from Houston) to get the article PlaneShift (computer game) deleted, but the nominators have been using the AFD as a way to defame the director, Luca Pancallo, and his open source project [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54]. Not much of what they say here in the above diffs can be backed up, and I don't appreciate their defamatory personal attacks against Luca—who has also edited Wikipedia [55]—or his project. A closer look into SpigotMap's very first edits on Wikipedia will reveal his conflict of interest: He has played the game under the pseudonym Link and has been banned from the game for quite a while [56] [57] [58] (for over five years to my knowledge), and he only registered a Wikipedia account to make sure this article gets deleted. SpigotMap aka Link is also the only reason Freenode staffer SportChick is in your IRC channel. Tuxide 21:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Edit: Removing Christel since that person is no longer on the channel Tuxide 03:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the diffs you link appear to be innocuous. Statements like "the license is authoritarian", "It is a luke warm game", "proprietary junk", "I hope this project dies", are clearly not libelous or defamatory under United States law. Any suit based on those statements would be dismissed instantly. The first diff, with reference to "normal Luca lying about the project", is the closest thing, and it is obviously an expression of opinion (ie, protected) - not to mention that it's difficult to see how Mr. Pancallo could prove that it materially damaged his reputation! IANAL, but this kind of silliness is wasting everyone's time. Admins are not going to block anyone for saying mean things about your favorite person or project. <eleland/talkedits> 02:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Luca Pancallo has made it quite clear that this can be sued over, since he has no way to back up his statements, and the only reason such a case would not be accepted is that his project is not-for-profit. I have no reason to assume good faith in SpigotMap due to his first edits on Wikipedia and because I know him well enough. Furthermore, there really is no point to blocking anyone—he is already well known for ban evasion among Freenode staff, so it would be impossible to ban him here. My reason for bringing this up on AN/I is to address this to the closing admin. Tuxide 03:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid Mr. Pantallo is incorrect. Libel is defined as a defamatory falsehood - that is, a knowingly untrue statement of fact which places the subject in a negative light. Statements of opinion, on the other hand, are protected speech under the First Amendment. As far as I can tell, all of the statements you refer to are statements of opinion and thus are not actionable libel. (Disclaimer: IANAL, but I've studied media law extensively.) FCYTravis 09:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor correction: He can sue; he just doesn't have any chance of winning, for the reasons that Travis states. I'd also advise Mr. Pantallo to stop talking about suing people for on-Wikipedia statements, or else the IP from which he's making those edits could end up being blocked per WP:NLT. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, to clarify, Luca Pancallo has never made a legal threat on Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. I've seen him make claims of libel elsewhere for remarks like these made outside of Wikipedia, however. Second, my issue is not whether this can be sued over, but that you wouldn't see claims like the ones SpigotMap and EvanCarroll have made in the article namespace—such claims would just get reverted as libel unless they really can be cited appropriately. Thus, I don't see why they should be present in the project namespace either. Furthermore, if Mr. Pancallo does have a reason to sue—and I highly doubt he will—it would probably be to find out who these people are and move on. Which really makes it no different than the Skutt Catholic lawsuit (which I clearly know all about). Tuxide 06:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham and Birmingham, United Kingdom

A rename and revert by a new user has left the Birmingham article without an edit history. The edit history is now at Birmingham, United Kingdom. Could someone do the appropriate delete and moves to fix it please? Ta. Mr Stephen 23:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

User:BrumBoy1234 moved Birmingham to Birmingham, United Kingdom, did a cut and paste move of the content of the article to Birmingham, then blanked Birmingham, United Kingdom and put a speedy delete tag on it. I have reverted the speedy delete tag, would somebody please move it back? Thank you. Corvus cornix 23:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Should be done. – Steel 23:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Thanks. Mr Stephen 23:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, dear - looks like Birmingham redirects to itself, and Birmingham, UK redirects to Birmingham. And the content is nowhere to be found. Am I missing something here? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 23:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am just getting redirects to each other and i can't find the article history anywhere. Did you edit conf with Maxim, Steel? Woodym555 23:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The edit history was in Birmingham, United Kingdom, but it now seems to have gotten lost. Corvus cornix 23:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Maxim went and re-broke everything after I fixed it. Joy. – Steel 23:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[thousand edit conflicts] And now a third admin has fixed it. – Steel 23:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been to Birmingham. I doubt if I'm alone in rejoicing its disappearance, even for a few minutes. Only in Wikipedia! --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I can empathise with that :P – Steel 23:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's back.  :) Corvus cornix 23:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I used to live in Birmingham!. Brummies will unite ;) It has been fixed now. The logs look a mess though! Woodym555 23:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately only 6 people attended to this meet-up. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A couple of thousand people set off - but they ended up in Alabama ;-) B1atv 07:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There were seven at this one, the trend is heading upwards. If and when we have one in Chester, I may finally have no exuse for not coming. Neil ☎ 07:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Could he have been trying to get the history deleted? See also this vandalism from earlier: [59] —Random832 19:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisting Website

The editor Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding ref links to the article Ahwaz territory that link to www.al-moharer.net. See diff, [60]. [Note added by Sarah: Guys, please be careful with these links. Admin Gnangarra said his antivirus and firewall went off when he followed one of the links. Sarah 02:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)]

This website is particularly disturbing and promotes terrorist activity against the US government and the Iraqi government: "The organization basically represents Iraq and comprises all the Iraqi people and its legitimate and bona fide resistance forces which the occupation wants to destroy, with the Iraqi national armed forces as a high-priority target." www.al-moharer.net/mohhtm/mukhtar262en.htm

Again, "Rise up Iraqis! United like the fingers of one hand! Expel these US' swindlers, crooks and rogues! These who fled their countries of origins to loot others or to escape their pariah conditions.. Reject their mentally sick local puppets who lived on welfare that the Western countries grant to handicapped, and mentally ill. Aren't these who claimed to be mad are nothing but mad!" and "Bloodthirsty US rapacious and debased rogues.. You will pay dearly for your crimes!" www.al-moharer.net/mohhtm/abu_assur262.htm

Among other things, this website contends that there are "more similarities between Post-9/11 America and Third Reich Germany than just over-reliance on Blitzkrieg tactics. We finally determined that the two nations were following parallel political courses." The author of that articles is, supposedly, a US military officer. www.al-moharer.net/mohhtm/guenther262.htm

Another quote from a different article, "October 2nd, 2007, will be a milestone date in the history of the Movement for the Liberation of Iraq from American and Iranian Imperialism. On that day, the Supreme leadership of the Jihad liberation struggle, which is comprised of 22 fighting factions of the Armed Iraqi National Resistance, was founded." www.al-moharer.net/mohhtm/mukhtar262en.htm

There are more, you can find them for yourself. I don't find any mention of Ahwaz anything on the site. I suggest that this site should be blacklisted, but I don't know who to take that to. I do not know if this individual is dangerous or where he is editing from. Note, I am unsure as to how secure this website is regarding viruses, etc. --Strothra 02:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the sake of transparency, this article was the subject of this AFD and is currently under this DRV. Sarah 03:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

First I would just suggest removing the link as an unreliable source. If that doesn't work, then you could considered listing it at WP:BLACKLIST as a spam web-site. Not sure it exactly fits what that was set up for, but it certainly seems like it might do the trick. Ronnotel 03:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the editor adding the links? I think that simply his addition of them is disturbing - should an admin not review that behavior? Is this vandalism - should I add vandal tags when he does this? --Strothra 03:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not exactly the message that the governments in London and Washington would want conveyed, and I personally deplore calls to arms from any side; but leaving aside the flowery rhetoric, this is a website for or by those engaged in armed insurrection against the current Iraqi regime (or armed resistance, depending on PoV). Depending on POV, that may be seen as a wonderful thing or something to be expected or something terrible, but I see nothing wrong in referencing or linking to that site where such links are relevant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Rise up Iraqis! United like the fingers of one hand! Expel these US' swindlers, crooks and rogues! These who fled their countries of origins to loot others or to escape their pariah conditions.. Reject their mentally sick local puppets who lived on welfare that the Western countries grant to handicapped, and mentally ill. Aren't these who claimed to be mad are nothing but mad!" and "Bloodthirsty US rapacious and debased rogues.. You will pay dearly for your crimes!" seems to be directed at the whole Iraqi population and put into context promotes violence against US and Iraqi forces - it doesn't matter your POV, unless you're for violence you're not going to find this a reliable source. --Strothra 03:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(after 2 ecs)I've already removed it and I do not believe it is an appropriate site for us to link to. And I do think there is a problem here with this website, the editor, the various sockpuppets and this article. Sarah 03:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there's a problem with the socks, but I do not think they are the same as Hisham since the socks seem to have a far superior command of English.--Strothra 03:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The latest sock has been blocked by Ryulong Sarah 04:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The website is clearly anti-American and anti-Iranian. But guys, you showed no evidence so far that it promotes terrorism yet you label it as a "terrorist" website. The link added by that user relates directly to the subject of the article. It is not a call tp violance but an article from a different POV about the Iraq-Iran conflict and its relation w/ Ahwaz. Please read it and do not fear about your firewall and anti-virus going off as if it was the case neither Strothra nor me would have read it while still having them on. You could argue using WP:RS and biased source as an argument instead as Ronnotel said but it is clearly not a "terrorist site". Most of the terms used are limited to "resistance" and "liberation". There is no bombing or mass killing mentioned. Please let me know if you got some clear mention to that. I have no particular interest on the issue (or in politics in general) but you guys have participated at the AfD so the idea of a content dispute comes to mind. I hope i was fair. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)Note: This is also used as a source for a statement on Mujahideen Shura Council#Insurgency in Iraq (external link #12). It is also used as an external link in it:Michel Aflaq and is used on 3 pages in ar.wikipedia: ar:العرب وإيران, ar:يهود أشكناز, and an image ar:صورة:Khaled abdelmajid.jpg. Mr.Z-man 03:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal, I understand the content dispute issue, that's why when Strothra raised this with me, I advised him/her to bring it here and why I noted at the top there the AFD and DRV links. Thank you for your comments. Sarah 04:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The behavior of the use in question is another issue but i am going have some sleep in a while. Someone else can please have a gentle word w/ him. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Fayssal. It's clear, however, that it's Ba'athist and supports violence against the Iraqi and US government forces which I think still strongly goes toward the WP:RS and NPOV arguments. I'd hardly call the site a call to peaceful resistance. To be fair to Sarah, the terrorist label was my own - I point that out because you wrote "guys." Please note that I added a level 2 linkspam warning - I'll add a note that the website above is what I'm specifically referring to by it. --Strothra 03:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually i read it in English because it wouldn't make sense if i have read it in Arabic (basing my arguments on a version different than the one you used -the english version). Well, as i said, i am not involved much in politics and i'll leave that to the community though i'd have used WP:RS and biased source to end the story. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. No worries Strothra. I know you and i know Sarah and i know you are acting in good faith as always. It is not personal and i know of course that it was you who used the title but that wasn't my focus. I was more responding to both of your comments in general. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just realized I copied only part of the website address when putting it into my browser and so I kept getting the Arabic main site. I apologize for the confusion.--Strothra 03:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the article itself should be up for deletion, but any severly biased content that was there before should be kept out. Some of the rhetoric you're describing is the same garbage that you'll find in a lot of far-left propaganda(the false parallels between the Third Reich and post-9/11 America), but it's still easy to see why this is more of a Ba'athist site. I assumed it might've been a Sunni jihadist propaganda site as well, until FayssalF pointed out that it was Ba'athist. I added a biased source tag on a site about some far-left political party in Bangladesh a month or so ago. ----DanTD 20:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:butseriouslyfolks - Harassment

Can somebody please show first steps towards bringing a harassment action against User:butseriouslyfolks for his actions on User:StevenBlack and in Lake Ontario Waterkeeper?

Is it possible, in policy, that an admin user be formally removed from interaction with specific users, or topics?

See, with this premature AfD that he instigated, completely disrupting article development, he's evidently not a disinterested party and I see no NPV at all here. Can this topic be confided to watchers in the Environment Project, perhaps? I don't know if User:butseriouslyfolks is qualified to deal with the article's subject matter, or me for that matter.

Please consider this a formal request. StevenBlack 07:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

BSF is an administrator, and even if he weren't, anyone on Wikipedia is "qualified" to deal with anyone else. I don't see how someone can be unqualified to deal with another editor. BSF may have AfD'd the article prematurely, and he has certainly been open to discussion. He has done nothing, as far as I can tell, to harass, attack, or undermine you. On the other hand, you (repeatedly) removed the AfD notice, which is strictly prohibited. He nominated an article for deletion, in good faith. Bad timing, yes, but in good faith, which you're supposed to assume he did. To others, please note the ongoing at the Wikiquette alerts board here, regarding Steven Black's noncompliance with AfD procedures, his comments on BSF's talk page, at the WQA, in his edit summaries, and from the article in question. --Cheeser1 07:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm, BSF's five posts to the thread vs. your 17. Who's harassing who here? JuJube 07:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If anything, my early AfD accelerated development of the article. It was an A7able stub before it was listed for AfD. The author's getting a crash course, but I think he's starting to understand what the deficiencies are and how to go about correcting them. I only wish he would be more civil, but with the volume of stuff I delete, I'm developing quite a thick skin. (Really, it's all skin and no fat. And if you believe that . . . ) -- But|seriously|folks  08:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment; even if the AfD was premature, it did spur people (involved and not yet involved) to jump in and start making sure that the article established if/how the subject met notability policy. I do wonder why Steven Black requires a "crash course" (not to mention why his behavior seems to reflect an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia) - he's been contributing for years. --Cheeser1 08:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is troublesome. Also, I assumed from all of the procedural difficulties that he was new here. -- But|seriously|folks  08:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This editor seriously needs to cool down. Hostility, incivility, personal attacks, and frivolous complaints against others. Perhaps an uninvolved admin would like to assess the situation and take appropriate action, if necessary? --Cheeser1 08:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with butseriouslyfolks stepping back, as I have been requesting for a while now? SarekofVulcan definitely should step back, in my view. StevenBlack 14:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody please show first steps towards bringing a harassment action against User:butseriouslyfolks for his actions on User:StevenBlack and in Lake Ontario Waterkeeper? / Try reading about "WP:RFAr" if you're really interested. ¶ Is it possible, in policy, that an admin user be formally removed from interaction with specific users, or topics? / It's possible for any user to be so removed. ¶ See, with this premature AfD that he instigated... / Er, which "premature AfD"? ¶ Please consider this a formal request. / I don't understand how a series of questions, comments and musings can be a "formal request". Anyway, you make a formal request on some page designed for formal requests. -- Hoary 11:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary. I have left a mediation request with Daniel, the mediation chair. StevenBlack 14:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You do realize you have to be civil with other editors, during mediation? You'll need to improve in this area if you're going to get anything out of mediation. --Haemo 19:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Regiment

Resolved

Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This user has been causing a disruption on Template:Racism topics. He insists upon adding three articles to the template even though he has been asked multiple times by multiple editors for documentation which he has yet to provide. He has stated that the articles list the groups/ideologies as racist but the articles only state that some small groups which are at best polar opposites consider them racist if anything at all. He has been reported at the 3RR noticeboard once for a violation in spirit if not in letter of the 3RR rule and he recieved a 3 hour block. Since his block has expired he has made three more reverts on the page. Most concerning about this individual is his use of abusive language in accusing editors and Wikipedia in general of racism. CJ 17:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

After I made this post, I checked the page again. And Regiment is now in violation of 3RR. CJ 17:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins, see here. Also, check the talk page. His "posse" has tried to practice apologetics, before getting me blocked, then asking for sources afterwards, then disagreeing with the nature of the source I MIGHT provide, even though Mexica Movement already describes the racial supremacism inherent within their agenda, even though some editors have refused to include statements from critical sources which use the term itself, "racist", in their criticism of Mexica. Who says that articles like that have to be sanitized? Who says that White people can't complain when Mexica treats them like shit? Its all edit warring now, since he has refused to accept sources from people he doesn't like. CNN isn't a good enough source? What about YouTube recordings of Mexica demonstrations and hate marches? That's plainly wrong right there. He doesn't really want to hear the other side, but he wants you to bully me. He set up the revert war just so I'd bite the bait and break the 3RR, but he's a vandal in my eyes and Wikipedia deserves to be an NPOV community. Regiment 17:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur CJ 17:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have chosen to not be NPOV and freely admitted it several times. Regiment 17:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside view: From a look at the related talk page section, editors asked for sources to indicate that the additions to the template were proper, were told they were being politically correct, and then declared to be "ideologically aligned" with the groups in question. YouTube videos are not considered a reliable source, as was pointed out on the talk page. Regiment appears to need to review Assume Good Faith and WP:CIVIL at the least, provide reliable sources for his/her argument, and really consider that coming off a block for disruption only to go on and do the thing he was blocked for (violating 3RR in the process) once again is probably not a good idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Another outside view: both have broken 3RR. I think the page needs bit of protection to let the war cool off a bit. Spryde 18:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If I've inadvertently broken 3RR, although I don't think I have because all I've done is remove unsourced content, then I'll take whatever comes. All I've asked for from the very beginning is a source and some civility. CJ 18:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Regiment is engaging in revisionist history. With the very first removal of his additions to the template (at 5:40 on 22 October), Crownjewel82 left a message on the Talk page (at 5:46) asking for "some clearer documentation of a specific racist agenda". Another message before Regiment's 3-hour block asked for WP:RS and explained that adding articles to the template without them was WP:OR. After his block, I left another such message at Template talk:Racism topics and a longer message at User talk:Regiment#Template:Racism topics. In the message at his Talk page, I again explained WP:RS and WP:OR; I also wrote about WP:AGF and the proper approach to getting his articles into the template if, in fact, they belong there. His claim that nobody told him he needed sources until after he was blocked is pure nonsense, and his behavior today is unacceptable after several editors have gone to such lengths to explain appropriate WP process to him. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 18:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• This user has now been blocked for a week following a report at AN3. The reasons for the block given [61] were deliberately breaking the 3RR having just come off a block for a previous 3RR violation, POV pushing and personal attacks concerning other editor's motives. I also noted that he did not constructively engage in discussion of the disputed edits. In short, we don't do it like this (well we shouldn't anyway) and I chose a length of block designed to clearly signal that the behaviour isn't acceptable and will not be tolerated. As with all my admin actions, this is open to comment, review and adjustment by others. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

75.162.105.19 (talk · contribs) on Andrew J. Moonen

Hi, Merope asked me to post this here after a WP:AIV report. This IP has advocated "vigilante" action against a BLP article subject here, and is making other incendiary edits with this summary. I'm not sure if any action should be taken but wanted to bring it up here just in case. • Lawrence Cohen 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Snocrates on Laie Hawaii Temple

User:Snocrates is unilaterally deleting historically relevant content from Laie Hawaii Temple without discussion. He refused to discuss his reverts on the talk page, instead referring to me as a "dimwit" when I contacted him on his talk page,[62] claiming that I'm the one who needs to discuss his deletions.[63] Now that he has finally arrived on the talk page, he is insisting that structure-related articles cannot have history sections. —Viriditas | Talk 21:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at this. It's mostly a content dispute where (IMO), Snocrates has appropriately explained his removal of the history section. Unless I missed something, he's not saying that history doesn't belong in architectural articles, just that the history in this article doesn't belong. He was uncivil in that edit summary and I'll leave a comment for him on his talk page about that. Hopefully this helps. Into The Fray ^T/C 23:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Snocrates didn't "appropriately explain his removal of the history section" until 21:33 on October 24. Prior to that, between 21:24, 23 October and 20:02 and 21:31 24 October, he failed to use the talk page. User:Snocrates deleted your message[64] claiming that he had "civilly asked" me not to edit his talk page. You will not be able to find any such message because he never made such a request. I watch the Hawaii recent changes watchlist very closely for vandalism, and after seeing Snocrates delete content from Laie Hawaii Temple without explanation on the talk page several times, I contacted him at 21:38, 24 October 2007.[65]. Apparently, during the time I was writing this message, he added a comment to the talk page at 21:33, approximately five minutes previous to my posted comment.[66] Nothing was said about editing his talk page. At 21:39, 24 October 2007 he deleted my message with the comment "Undid revision 166840410 by Viriditas (talk) already placed discussion on talk page, dimwit". After you warned him about civility, he replied, "what is my alternative when people choose to edit this page when I have civilly asked them not to? "pretty please"?[67] Contrary to Snocrates's claim, no such action by Snocrates ever occurred or was recorded in any edit history or summary. It is also important to point out that Snocrates's first edit to Wikipedia was to declare himself an "exopedian" who is "extrememly uninterested in trying to talk with other users here or on other talk pages".[68] This seems to go against the basic, fundamental Wikipedia idea of collaboration and is not conducive to editing. Further, looking at Snocrates (talk · contribs) in depth, I see a continuing pattern of deletion without discussion related to LDS articles. This needs to be looked into by other administrators. —Viriditas | Talk 03:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to do a range block?

Ras Kass is being hit by really offensive vandalism. It started with 142.29.133.72 (talk · contribs) who has had multiple warnings, and is now switched to 142.29.133.47 (talk · contribs), and then back to the original vandal again. I don't know how range blocks work, but would it be possible to range block the IPs in their range for an hour or two? Corvus cornix 21:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nasty stuff. Blocked the /24 for a few hours. Raymond Arritt 22:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Corvus cornix 22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Conservative321

Conservative321 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly changing BCE to BC and CE to AD in articles, is blanking articles about gay topics, is repeatedly removing references to global warning and greenhouse gases, all without discussion (even going so far as to changing references to BCE in Talk pages that were put there by other users). I'm on uw-v3 on him/her, I tried to point them to the MoS discussion on dates, but they are either not reading their Talk page, or are ignoring it. With a User name like this, it looks like they've come here with an agenda, does somebody want to be less brusque with them than I usually am? I do try to be helpful, but sometimes I come across as more incivil than I intend to be... Corvus cornix 22:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, other people have reverted their edits over the last couple of days, but nobody made any comments on Conservative321's Talk page explaining the problem with their edits. Better communication, hm, people? Corvus cornix 22:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that this [69] can be taken as a response to Corvos' notifications and clear explanation of policy regarding ... what do I call it? ... year labelling conventions?ThuranX 23:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, that's a meaningful response. Thanks for the heads up. I guess I'll have to continue with a uw-v4 next time, followed up by a WP:AIV report, if they continue. Corvus cornix 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

When you file reports at AIV or elsewhere you should point out that this likely is the same person as Conservative765 (talk · contribs). Raymond Arritt 04:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Gee, the username isn't that big of a hint towards their objective? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and indefinitely blocked both accounts. Besides the obvious issue with sockpuppetry and single-purpose vandalism/trolling accounts, BC/BCE trolling is kind of a red flag. MastCell ^Talk 05:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:28736285Bimbo0129547623094Wales

Unresolved

 – Blocked, as were subsequent socks

Would somebody kindly block 28736285Bimbo0129547623094Wales (talk · contribs)? Thank you. Corvus cornix 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If This account was only created today, why are they able to do page moves already? Is it because the pages being moved are in User space? Corvus cornix 22:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there's no autoconfirm requirement for general page moves... — Scientizzle 22:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[70] :*Cough* Gah! 3 edit conflicts Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Anything with "Bimbo Wales" in the name can be hardblocked on sight as User:Connell66 socks, according to the response to an IP check I filed. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I added "Bimbo Wales" to the blacklist for that username-watching bot thingy yesterday, so they should generally get taken out pretty quickly. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm also adding the sockpuppet notes as per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#Bimbo Wales. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Corvus, i thought you were already an admin! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. :). Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah.  :) I don't really want to be, either. Thanks. Corvus cornix 22:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Trolling and vandalism

This troll who is posting here at the ANI has been very active at WP:RFCN. This is one of the cases reported before withdrawing it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:78.146.211.125

Resolved

Already in violation of 3RR & has recently vandalised my warning on Talk:Blizzard Entertainment. Could we have a block please? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:86.142.155.71

Resolved

History of vandalism this evening. Just blanked IP report from his talk page. Already warned. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place for reporting standard vandalism, you're supposed to give the full set of warnings, then, if the vandalism continues, report them at WP:AIV--Jac16888 00:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Long-time infobox disrupter

Resolved

74.12.148.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has for months (under other anonymous IPs as well) disrupted infoboxes. The pattern of edits is always the same. S/he removes captions in the infobox, removes references in the infobox, removes the country name in the place of birth/death, replaces birthdate/deathdate templates with sole dates, or adds a fair use picture in the infobox when a fair use photo cannot be used. Could some admins warn the user about their behavior? It's been going on for far too long. 140.247.131.86 01:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

 Note: Blocked by Riana (talk · contribs) for vandalism. ( arky ) 03:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Race warrior

The Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom has been a contentious entry, to say the least. Things have been relatively calm lately, until this edit. Its obviously inappropriate and has since been removed by another editor. I threw a final warning down on his talk page, but is this kind of edit ever acceptable. There's race baiting, clear WP:CIVIL violations, and a vague threat (which he did remove). His other contributions for the most part seem to be linking various celebrities to various ethnic groups, and he tried to do something on the page for Nazism (red flag)... but isn't this the kind of editor who should be banned on sight? AniMate 01:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In case it wasn't obvious, this report is about Mortifer. AniMate 01:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, these edits aren't acceptable, ever. I removed it earlier, along with some identical anon speech, which attacked another editor. I hope this is the end of it — not optimistic, though. --Haemo 05:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Throwaway account blocked

I've indeffed Scion87 (talk · contribs), as it seems to be an obvious throwaway account and likely sock, as it came in and immediately started edit warring over the name of the Mexican-American War (breaking links on the page in the process). It also seemed to have a remarkable knowledge of our sockpuppet tagging procedures [71]. In case I'm missing something, I'm posting here so others can check on this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I seem to recall other socks targeting the particular editor targeted by Scion87, but can't remember the details. Anyway, this was a good block of an obvious, disruptive throwaway sock account. MastCell ^Talk 05:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's an absolute ream of them. I've personally blocked more than thirty. There's been a checkuser request in since the 6th, in a vain attempt to smoke out the sleeper accounts but there's been no action — something which has really frustrated both myself, and another editor whose been working on the article, and subsequently been the subject of a lot of abuse from these sockpuppets. I don't know what else to do but keep playing whack-a-mole. --Haemo 05:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin edit rights privilege abuse

• Omegatron (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A while back, the above admin made a content edit to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a page protected due to edit warring and currently under mediation. Furthermore, that edit was to a section under specific discussion on the mediation page. The admin was notified both on his talk page, and here on WP:ANI, that his actions were improper. The mediator, chair of the mediation committee, user:Daniel, agreed that edits to those sections should not occur until the mediation was completed.

Today the admin deliberately unlocks the page in order to continue his editing, even though the mediation is ongoing, although thankfully, progress is being made.

This article is a most tendentious and difficult one to keep appropriate. There has been discussions, debates, and mediation attempts on this article for years now. Recently, we have actually been having success hammering out some of the issues. Keeping the article stable during this discussion is of great importance in allowing all sides to discuss what should and should not be there. Omegatron has been informed of this AND has been invited to join the discussion and mediation process, which he has not done in earnest before using his admin rights to unlock the article. At this point, one can no longer assume good faith as the admin has been informed, and warned, about this activity before. I believe some action needs to be taken. -- Avi 12:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not all interested parties *have* to agree to mediation. :S —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 12:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but i don't think protecting an article for months at a time is the right way to go. Why can't parties have the mediation without the protection?Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well during mediation it does help to have a stable article. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 13:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I will say unprotecting so that you can edit a page is probably not the best way to be using the mop, but I'll let others have fun with that. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 13:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that having a page protected for months on end is not good. There are several minor edits that could be done. For example, on my display the references section is messed up by the sister links box protruding in from above. A simple {{clear}} would sort that. I also note that while one of Omegatron's edits was to do with neutrality, the other (here) was a simple formatting edit, and that should be reinstated. I also note that although Omegatron unprotected the article, he didn't continue editing. See here: "Unprotected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: no justification for protection. mediation has been ongoing for months and is not a reason to lock the page. we don't leave entire articles in a protected state for months because of a dispute about one statement.". I'm going to add an {{editprotected}} request to the talk page to see if minor edits are being accepted or not. Carcharoth 13:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that among the edits he wishes to make is one that is at the heart of the current mediation, please read the mediation page Carcharoth. Yes, it is frustrating; it is frustrating for all of us involved, but making changes to the very portions that are under discussion is not the way to do it, especially when after being invited to partake in the discussion, Omegatron demurred. -- Avi 14:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read the mediation page, Avraham. If you re-read my comment, you will see that I link to the edit by Omegatron that I think is non-controversial. It is this one. Have a close look. It is only a formatting change - no content has changed. Note the edit summary: "trying to make long list of refs easier to navigate around". I completely agree that the other edit, seen here, should have been discussed at the mediation page first. My concern was whether minor edits were being ignored. I left an edit protected request, and you only partially fulfilled it. Possibly you misread what I wrote, but it wastes your time and my time if minor edits have to be done in this back-and-forth manner. If editors of the article can't control themselves, and engage in edit wars, then the conduct of the editors should be looked at, rather than protecting the page. Carcharoth 15:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Since general editing to that section, which being in the lead is under scrutiny and mediation now, should be curtailed, changing the structure to facilitate editing-only ease, which is invisible when reading the article, can wait. Regarding editor conduct, sometimes, certain articles require patience by all involved. Yes using {{editprotected}} to suggest changes is a pain, but having articles in edit wars is worse. This article, obviously, is among our most tendentious. So if it requires a bit more understanding and patience than most people in today's "instant gratification" world find bearable, that is a small price to pay for working out a firm consensus. As important, it is part of the dispute resolution process here; which will only work if respected. -- Avi 15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then I read this wrong, I don't think there is any admin misconduct here, at least not of the egregious sort. I think we could debate for a while whether or not full protection for months is a good thing or not, but I don't think this admin has done anything horribly wrong. I could be mistaken, but best to wait for him to comment I think ;) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 14:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation has been ongoing since May. Biased editors cannot use this as justification to lock down an article in their preferred version, and then stall in mediation to prevent others from making changes indefinitely.

Please unprotect the article. There's a lot more work to be done, and Avi cannot be allowed to assert ownership of the article in this way. — Omegatron 14:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is an integral part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Showing disrespect and disregard for the process will in no way shape or form help the project. Wikipedia will be around for a long time; sometimes, patience is required for the community to come to a reasonable consensus and compromise. Making edits to sections that are at the direct heart of the ongoing mediation shows a complete lack of respect for the process, the project, and the editors involved. Those of us actively involved in the mediation have been editing this article for years, and we do know what the "hot-buttons" are. Join us in working to fix the article on a long-term basis instead of ignoring all of us, wikpedia process, and the project's integrity by making unilateral decisions and edits despite ongoing dispute resolution. You have been asked to work WITH the process before. Why do you choose not to? -- Avi 14:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• You can request edits by posting them on the talk page and use {{edit protected}}. This might be the best way to proceed with noncontroversial edits and after demonstrating consensus among different editors for more substantial changes. Thatcher131 14:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Out of interest, does the same "edit by committee and keep protected while discussion takes place over months" process apply to articles where editing behaviour is being examined by the Arbitration Committee? Carcharoth 15:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• I would recommend unprotection. Ahmadinejad is a controversial public figure and is in the news often. It is quite likely a high-traffic page. Leaving such a page protected for long periods of time is extremely undesirable. If people involved in the dispute ignore the mediation discussion and continue to edit the disputed statements, take it up with them. Mr.Z-man 05:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That has been tried. This started when Omegatron, perhaps initially unknowingly, edited one of the major parts of the article under mediation, ignoring said mediation. -- Avi 15:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Locking a high-traffic and uncomplimentary article about a national leader like this one for long periods is bound to appear to be partisan. I (misleadingly) advertise a likely POV - and did so in the full expectation that even this suspicion of partisanship would exclude me from ever wielding admin powers. PR^talk 08:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Avi: And did you bring it up on his talk page before coming here? What's wrong with just reverting and warning? Why does the article have to be protected so that almost no one can edit it just because a few people should not be editing a couple statements? Mr.Z-man 18:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding previous communication see User talk:Omegatron#Your edits to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Regarding protection, please realize that there are 18 archives stretching back over two years that have been trying to hash this out. We are in the last phase of Dispute Resolution that does not require ArbCom. Getting ArbCom involved would be to no ones benefit, as that certainly will last months. If protection helps us solve the issues here, as having a stable article undergoing mediation does, then that is a good thing. -- Avi 18:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well during mediation it does help to have a stable article.

So Avi's allowed to protect the entire article in his preferred version because it's "under mediation", while simultaneously keeping it "under mediation" for months at a time by refusing to reach agreement with other editors? (See smb's mediation comment from Sept 25, a month ago.) How is this not wikilawyering and an abuse of admin privileges?

This undermines the entire editing process. Wikipedia is edited by people working cooperatively to achieve a neutral point of view. If someone makes an edit that is not neutral for some reason, someone else can fix it. If there's a long drawn-out dispute about a specific part of the article, then you can go to dispute resolution, but that doesn't mean the entire article should be locked down indefinitely. In this case, the dispute is only about one particular sentence in the intro. When mediation has reached an agreement, the sentence can be updated accordingly, and people who make further changes can be referred to that decision.

But if that mediation process is going to take many more months (as it already has) then the article should remain editable in the meantime. Even if there's a moratorium on editing that particular disputed statement (and there shouldn't be), during such a large amount of time, the article's topic is sure to change drastically. — Omegatron 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, which is why we have {{editprotected}} tags and admins are supposed to use their judgment if the requested edit will create more or less disruption. The edit you want to make to the lead is at the heart of the mediation and will only add to the disruption. If you want to make a completely innocuous edit, you can still post it on the talk page, wait some time for responses, and perform it. You were using your ability to edit and unprotect protected pages to make an edit that would directly add to the articles instability. -- Avi 12:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I will say unprotecting so that you can edit a page is probably not the best way to be using the mop

...because the only reason I would have unprotected it is so that I could make a number of controversial edits immediately afterwards without getting tattled on?

And what if someone is "unprotecting so they can edit the page" because it was wrongly protected in the first place? — Omegatron 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been asked to work WITH the process before. Why do you choose not to?

Whatever are you talking about? I've left many comments on the article's talk page and the mediation page, and am not "unprotecting the page in order to edit war" or any of the other things you've made up about me. The page should not have been protected in the first place.

There are plenty of other admins, editors, and mediators who apparently disagree. -- Avi 12:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

See the comments on my talk page, Riana's talk page, and the previous AN/I (which includes a list of my "unilateral" edits) for further information.

Will someone else please deal with this behavior and unprotect the article? — Omegatron 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Which behavior, the one trying to acheive a resolution to this article, or the one that wishes to ignore everyone else and make changes that are likely to further destabilize the article? -- Avi 12:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is this, the page be unprotected, and a notice be placed at the top of the page stating the page is under mediation. This way new folks get fair warning that this is controversial, and you best make sure your edit won't cause a shitstorm, while allowing for others to edit. Also it might be wise to engage in the mediation. If parties in the mediation want to edit the page disruptively, there is arbcom. Put simply the parties in the mediation, if they agree to not edit the article and one of them chooses to edit the article to advance a POV, then we have problems with editors. A suggestion would be to place the whole article under 1RR if editing gets really nasty. (Admins can warn parties on the talk page that reverts past 1 revert a day will be viewed as disruptive). Just my two cents here... protection for 4+ months because people can't agree is just problematic and is getting in the way of others improving the encyclopedia. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 01:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection has been in place since October 2. Where do you get 4 months from? -- Avi 07:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy is back

DreamGuy is back, for barely 24 hours, and is already getting into a dust-up with another user over on the Jack the Ripper page and on his talk page. DreamGuy is subject to an arbcom ruling from a case during which he was absent. IMHO he is in violation of the case's rulings, specifically the AGF requirements (especially this edit comment), but as I had a (IMHO minor) editing conflict with him a while back, I do not feel comfortable taking admin action against him myself. So could an uninvolved admin please take a look at the arbcom ruling and his latest escalating dispute, and decide if enforcement of the arbcom ruling is required, or at least a warning that he's across the line. - TexasAndroid 20:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you ask him what's it abut before coming here? El_C 20:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dreamguy is subject to a behavioral editing restriction. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. Seems straightforward. [72] is incivil and assumes bad faith, therefore blocked for 24 hours. Neil ☎ 20:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not responding to my question, why is that, Neil? El_C 20:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, El_C, I thought you were asking TexasAndroid. And I do apologise for failing to respond to your question for a whole 4 minutes. It doesn't matter what it's about. The case was closed just 8 days ago and is abundantly clear - any incivility or bad faith from Dreamguy = block. Neil ☎ 20:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no further comment at this time. El_C 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think your question was directed at me, not Neil, but I've been trying to parse just what it is you wanted me to ask DreamGuy about before I came here. I'm really not sure what there is to ask. What the dispute on the JtR page is about? I'm not really certain that matters. The arbcom restrictions are about his behaviour, and are not mitigated by the subject or even whether he is right or wrong in his debates. - TexasAndroid 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're just not a very curious person... El_C 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Off to WP:AE with this thread, please. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. You're right. While I generally followed this case, I try to avoid ArbCom drama as a general rule, and forgot that there was a specific board for these reports. I think that this one is pretty much done for today, and if I have further reports in the future I will be sure to send them to the correct place. - TexasAndroid 21:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't this have just been a warning instead of a block? Given that there is history between them, and he put it fairly civilly given how he sees it? AGF is fine, but it gets tricky when there has been bad blood in the past. There was still room for admin discretion here - you could have talked about it with him without threatening to block or blocking. If he was being difficult/disruptive enough to warrant a block, I doubt one of the people he was disagreeing with would have followed him back to his talkpage to discuss the mattter. Petenotrepeat 22:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the blocking admin failed to address the administrative rollback that DG reverted (which does not appear evenhanded) or any of his other claims, I deem the current duration to be sufficient and I have granted DreamGuy's unblock request. Thx. El_C 02:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem with El_C's unblocking. DreamGuy needs to realise reverting good faith edits with incivil edit summaries and accusations of stalking are not helpful, and was pretty much mandated against in his Arbitration finding, and hopefully he has now done so. Neil ☎ 07:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I do have a problem with Arthur Rubin showing up, seemingly out of the blue, to click the rollback button. Out of respect for his on and off wiki work, I wouldn't call his action baiting, but seeing his past dispute with DG, greater sensitivity was due. El_C 08:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. Is it worth asking Arthur Rubin not to revert DreamGuy's edits? If they are poor edits, someone else can revert them. Neil ☎ 10:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As Neil says, reverting good faith edits with uncivil edit summaries and accusations of stalking are not helpful... unfortunately I think Neil failed to look into the incident and chose to interpret a legitimate complaint of inappropriate behavior as mere namecalling. I believe that anyone who would take the time to look into Arthur Rubin's history of conflict with me -- by going to articles he had never edited in the past solely to blind revert my work without giving any rationale -- should honestly question whether there could be any good faith explanation for this behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_the_Ripper&diff=166375433&oldid=166349952 His edit that I reverted] removed several footnotes I added to give scholarly references to sections that were tagged as requiring cites, removed a correction to an author's name that had been misspelled, added in old versions of the article so that whole sections were duplicated unnecessarily (the victims section ednded up being sections on their own as well as subsections of the main one), and otherwise cannot in any way be considered an improvement to the article. Seriously, can anyone look at the content of that edit and give an encyclopedic rationale for that behavior? Based upon the content and his long history of similar actions in the past, it seems safe to say that it was a blind revert for no other reason than to undo a series of edits I had done recently. While ArbCom ruled that I need to be more polite and more civil, the interpretation of the admin that was made here functionally means that anyone can take any action against me they want and if I make mention of it *I* will get blocked for it. If I say someone is harassing me, especially when the action in question was so blatant and in line with his past methods of the same abuse, admins must accept the possibility that such a claim is not mere insults but an accurate reporting of what's going on. It's a question of good faith and civil behavior on the part of admins enforcing rules, and the admin who blocked me did not entertain that possibility and chose to interpret it in the most unflattering light. Certainly if someone vandalized pages over and over and I revert another edit with the comment that it is vandalism I would hope nobody would block me for making mention of that. But who really knows, as there's no rhyme or reason to these things and no attempt to give a reasoned explanation for them after they happen. The mere presumption of wrongdoing without discussing it anywhere is all that some people need to try to justify their actions, which certainly has turned the whole Assume Good Faith and Civility policies on their ears. It seems to me that there needs to be more structure to these kinds of actions. As it stands the people who have a history of conflict with me can now do what they want and just shop around for any admin willing to interpret things to their side of the dispute.DreamGuy 16:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, DreamGuy, it was User:TexasAndroid, not Arthur Rubin, that made the complaint here. And from what I read, Neil did give a reasonable explanation for your short block. It seems to me that it might be advisable to just take a step back for a bit - your own comments here aren't really complying with WP:AGF either. After all, you are subject to the ruling of the ArbCom, and as such, you are going to be held to a stricter standard.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  17:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Who made the complaint doesn't change the nature of User:Arthur Rubin's edits. You may disagree with my opinion of Neil's edit, but the admin who unblocked me agreed that there was no reasonable explanation, and other admins have also said via email the same thing.DreamGuy 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to split semantic hairs here, but if you're referring to El_C's comment about unblocking you, I think you might be reading a bit too much between the lines. Of course, I can't speak for El_C, but then again, nobody can except him. If he has an issue with Neil's block, I'll them handle that between themselves. As for what others have said via email - I can't really comment on that either, since nobody you and they have seen those. In any case, I'd just offer my friendly $.02 - given that the ArbCom has ruled on your need for civilty, I'd take that ruling seriously and take an extra moment or two prior to posting, even when you feel like you're being baited or needled. Better to handle things calmly via the proper channels than to say something that might be regretted later. Cheers  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  18:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, DreamGuy's edit seems to have added material that should be somewhere in the article, but it broke sections which were already there and should remain. What are my choices: Revert to the pre-DreamGuy version, which is at least consistent, if incomplete; leave DreamGuy's version, which is not at all consistent, and had a few broken references; or spend 4 hours verifying sources, even if they were all available online? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, while that sounds like a nice explanation after the fact to the people who don't check the content of the revert you made, your edit comment on your own talk page shows an entirely different motivation for your action. Your characterization of my version of the article as "not at all consistent" and "broken references" is not accurate. Simply put, I am not sure how you intend to prove that you are not harassing me when you have today twice edited my own talk page despite the fact that I and a number of admins in the past have specifically told you that doing so comes across as harassing, you have argued with me about the block in edit comments on my talk page, and you are clearly watching my contribution history (as you showed up out of the blue to edit Jack the Ripper in the incident in question here and today have commented on an edit I made to false memory on your talk page). Honestly, if you want to show good faith, stop editing my talk page, stop watching my edits, stop blind reverting me with no rationale offered, and go on about editing Wikipedia on your own without worrying what I am up to. If you are unable or unwilling to do that then I think my case has been made for me. Good faith does not entail following me around after admins have warned you off. DreamGuy 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I decline further comment, unless invited, except to say that El C frequently used "unjustified" for any action that he considers incorrect, whether or not "justified" or required by Wikipedia policy. As for false memory, I've been watching the article for some time, but didn't have the time to do research as to which of the edits you reverted were justified, although I think very few of them were. I'm afraid that "most" is not supported by those references, even though it's almost certainly accurate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the block I made, and the revert Arthur Rubin made ([73]), I think I owe DreamGuy an apology, which I shall now go and make. Neil ☎ 22:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very sincerely appreciated. DreamGuy 13:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User calls me a WP:DICK for linking to policy

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.

I am closing this incident as it has been resolved and any further discussion would be counter-productive. R. Baley 16:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Recently, User:Rjd0060 called me a dick because I'm linking to policy, and went on to say "Most of us are as familiar (if not more familiar) with these policies/guidelines as you are." When I asked him not to jump to conclusions and make such strong accusations, he went on to say that I was "show[ing] everybody how smart [I am]." (See here for the conversation, which I won't rehash here.) Can someone please jump in here and diffuse the situation before it gets any more out-of-line? I'm extremely busy, and don't want to have to waste Wiki-time (or real-life-time) dealing with an issue that could be diffused by an admin or third party stepping in and asking this user to respect policy and other users. Thanks. --Cheeser1 05:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have explained to the user that it was not intended as a personal attack. If you (admin) think it was, then I guess you can warn/block me. Please go and read the conversations though, as the whole context is not explained here. - Rjd0060 05:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. This is all about whether or not one should link to policies in an AFD debate? Get a grip. Then get a life. You both have wasted too much time on this. It doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong. Just go do something else on Wikipedia. Or, failing that, leave your computers and go do something else in the "real world". Then maybe you'll get some perspective and get over this little squabble.

--Richard 07:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? This is a complaint about a personal attack and abusive comments, not about the issue of linking (yes, it is extraordinarily petty, which is exactly why Rjd0060 was so far out of line for hurling an accusation/attack at me for it). --Cheeser1 07:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

He said he didn't intend a personal attack. What do you want? Rjd0060 please apologise for causing offence. Matter diffused. 08:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.90.193 (talk)

WP:NPA clearly states that the intent (or inability to articulate himself in a way that is not construed as a personal attack) is not relevant: Wikipedia discussions are in a text-only medium that conveys nuances and emotions poorly; this can easily lead to misunderstanding...personal attacks are not excused because of these factors (not to mention the more broad Comment on content, not on the contributor.). And then there's WP:DICK, clearly stating: don't bandy the criticism about lightly. Calling someone a dick because they link to policy "too much" is definitely bandying things about pretty lightly (especially when it's all a product of his bad faith assumption that doing so is an attempt to make myself feel smart). Such a flagrant and inappropriate personal attack / accusation may be worth letting go, but not when the editor in question insists that he has done nothing wrong. --Cheeser1 10:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Must...resist...urge to comment [74] EconomicsGuy 13:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I do apologize that the user interpreted this as a personal attack, as I've said a couple times, that is not how it was intended, at all. I have respected the users wishes and not pursed this anymore (on his talk page) because as he said above, he's to busy to waste his time with this? I will repeat myself one las time and after this, I will not leave any more comments about this, because I do have other things to do: I sincerely apologize for the fact that Cheeser1 misconstrued a comment as a personal attack, but it was a big stretch on his part...IMO anyways. I also believe that this discussion needs to come to an end, so that we don't waste anybody else's time, like this user's. - Rjd0060 14:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on this is a waste of everyone's time. Did you read the part about copeing with being labeled a dick? And this part: "Are you here to contribute and make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault, get your views across, or be the one in control? Perhaps secretly inside you even enjoy the thrill of a little confrontation. This may not make you a bad person, but to everyone who is busily trying to build something great, you become an impediment. People get frustrated, rancor ensues, the atmosphere changes, and the whole project suffers. Are you here to give, or to take?". By bringing this here, it looks like maybe you may be. Jeeny ^(talk) 15:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith. Let's open the door for people to hurl about dick accusations left and right because it's not like anyone respects civility - it's too much of a hassle. --Cheeser1 15:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this thread since I saw it. I think the dick essay is useful for self reflection but should never be used to refer to another editor. It's like placing {{User warning-mentalhealth}} on another editor's user page. But we have an apology, and everybody reading this is now on notice that dicking somebody may be taken as offensive. So don't do it again! -- But|seriously|folks  18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mostly agree with BSf above, however the "apology" seems disingenuous. If I call someone a dick for no reason, and then say, "I'm sorry. . .that you perceive that as an insult" when it is in fact clearly meant to be an insult, well, that's a non-apology. Better to just remove the link and say "I shouldn't have done that" with no apology at all. Overall, I'm pretty disappointed with the general community response here. And also, I think links are helpful, but they are especially appropriate in the AfD which started all of this link because there appears to be more than a couple of single purpose new accounts weighing in there. R. Baley 19:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The apology that I have given, is the only one I am going to give on this matter. It isn't my fault that people cannot take some constructive criticism on things that I have opinions about. Because that is all this is, difference in opinions. I didn't intend it as a personal attack, I think I would know what my intentions were better than anybody else would. So I am not going to apologize for saying it, as some people could benefit from reading that essay. I've apologized for the fact that people misinterpret comments that I've added, but thats it. I will say that had I known the comment would this much nonsense and a trip to ANI, I probably would not have said it. I don't know what this continuous conversation is going to help. - Rjd0060 19:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone a dick is not constructive criticism. If you're suggesting that it's not reasonable and foreseeable that someone might interpret that as a personal attack, I think that's rather insensitive. Whatever your intention, you should have realized that it could very well and very reasonably be interpreted as an attack. So an unqualified apology would have been (and still would be) appropriate. -- But|seriously|folks  05:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You just don't seem to get it. I have apologized (and I do feel bad about it) for the fact that this comment I made was received as a personal attack, as that was clearly not my intention. Thats it! End of discussion (at least on my end). You people can dwell on this until hell freezes over, but what is that going to achieve? What do you want to come out of all this? I gave a proper apology as per censorship, I shouldn't need to worry about how comments are received by others, unless I am blatantly making a personal attack (which obviously people don't seem to think I have) or making a legal threat. I think WP:GETOVERIT needs to be entered into policy because this is, ridiculous. - Rjd0060 14:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I woulnd't receive this as a personal attack. As the essay suggests, I would examine my motivations,and try to figure out what behavior would cause this reception by other people. Apparently, for linking that article, I am was being a dick too, and I understand that now. I don't think know I will not refer anybody else to this essay. - Rjd0060 14:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[75] - Rjd0060 15:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Apelbaum

Serious sockpuppet or meatpuppet problems here. Or WP:COI. Or WP:CIVIL. Take your pick! -- But|seriously|folks  09:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll go with regular sockpuppetry and COI, with a side order of CIVIL.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  12:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Report it to WP:SSP and note it on the AFD so the closing admin is definitely aware. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Yabbadabbawho

This user repeatedly makes the same POV edit to Mary I of Scotland. I have given him a welcome, and later a warning, and he deleted the latter from his talk page with an offensive comment. I don't want to be the one to block him - any thoughts on how best to deal with this? Deb 11:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I added another (hopefully friendly) NPOV warning to his talk page. I'd say that if he keeps it up, maybe a sterner warning about NPOV, then perhaps a short block to drive the point home. The account is a little suspicious, though - either he's a quick learner about the intricacies and culture of Wikipedia (account was created on 7 October), or it could be a sock account.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  12:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered about that. Thanks, anyway. Deb 18:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This edit summary is problematic. Corvus cornix 18:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just warned them for it, and for the edit-warring. --John 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked them for 24 hours for this. This user may need more eyes on them; they may also need an indefinite block as they have really not made any positive contributions. Thoughts? --John 17:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This comment doesn't really suggest that they'll be productive. That plus the other random disruption looks like persistent vandal behavior to me. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

HaggerdlyOldMan (talk · contribs)

We all know "Hagger?????????????????" is constantly used by vandal Grawp. This account was UAA'd but declined. He has not responded to my comments and has not made any edits since he registed. Anyone think sleeper account? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I would watch the account. I though "Haggerd" was the correct spelling ("Haggard" is I have since found out). I have heard of a lot of people call themselves similar things so I would merely watch and wait. If they contribute positively, super! If not, the +10 sword of blocking, dicing and julienning can be used. Spryde 21:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm suspicious. Most people with any self-esteem wouldn't describe themselves as "haggard". -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to watch Haggerdoldman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), created on 10/8. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey bull, you're not a Merle Haggard fan? I think he's great! --SGT Tex 21:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I declined the UAA report as there have been zero contributions and they could easily be good-faith accounts created by someone who doesn't spell well. I am watching for contributions from the first account and the second now, too. There have been HAGGER socks active since Haggerdoldman was created (Oct 8) which I hope means that it has nothing to do with HAGGER. But these socks are extremely disruptive. We could block the accounts and use a personal message explaining why (rather than {{subst:unb}}. I'd like more input here. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should wait and see if the account becomes a problem. I also think people are starting to jump at shadows here. --Carnildo 23:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Do ya? Well, what if I told you that checking up on this report indicated that the following were all the same person?

1. Wutizevrybudylookingat? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Haggerdoldman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Saidpenny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Untilwhen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. Darkranch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Givesnaked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. Givesnake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. Iamzlookinatyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. Poetboats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
10. Giantgrawp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Oops, look at that last one. Quick, get the spray gun! (I've not blocked 'em yet). However, that being said...HaggerdlyOldMan isn't a 100% certain match as the rest of these are, but is indeed highly suspicious. So yeah, keep a close eye on him. And leave me a note if he starts acting up. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So HaggerdlyOldMan is not related? –Crazytales talk/desk 01:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

He's suspicious, but he isn's as much of a slam dunk as everyone else. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've blocked all of the above, with the exception of HaggerdlyOldMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). However, If someone wanted to block that account, too, I'd be ok with that. I have tagged them as socks of User:Grawp.-- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I've blocked User:HaggerdlyOldMan. According to the above, User:Haggerdoldman is almost definitely a sock, for HaggerdlyOldMan to not be a sock given all the above and Grawp's extensive use of sleepers, it would have to be the biggest coincidence I have seen in a while. Mr.Z-man 18:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please block User:207.197.77.194 and delete all of their edits from the history?

User:207.197.77.194 has been adding somebody else's phone number to a large number of articles, that needs to get out of the history of the articles. Corvus cornix 21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked one month. Did not find ph numbers, did that already get done too? — Rlevse • Talk • 14:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I sent an OVERSIGHT request in. Corvus cornix 16:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

user:Sarvagnya's deletion of Talk:India page content

• Earlier today I made this post on the Talk:India page about some potential problems I foresaw with the rotation of images being currently tried in two sections of the India page. (I had earlier organized the straw poll for/against this rotation here.)
• Almost immediately after I made the post, user:Sarvagnya deleted it in this edit, with edit summary, "this is a discussion page. not a blog. blogs are free, go find one and record your idle musings about your "vivid experiences" with encarta or whatever."
• user:Sarvagnya's edit was soon reverted here by user:Dwaipayanc, however, user:Sarvagnya re-reverted here with edit summary, "rv abuse of talk page. see WP:TALK and WP:NOT."

This is not the first time user:Sarvagnya has done this to my Talk:India posts.

• He deleted my post there in late August 2007, (see here).
• He then made a post in early September 2007 on the Talk:India page here, which ended with, "For now, I reject all of Fowler's filibustering as nonsense. Can somebody tell me why I shouldnt delete all his nonsense as rank abuse of a talk page?"
• This in turn elicited a polite but firmly opposing response here from user:Abecedare.
• However, when user:Sarvagnya persisted in the very next post here and, moreover, accused me of "defecating all over the talk page," he brought on a more aggressive response here from user:Hornplease, who threatened to report user:Sarvagnya to Wikiquette alerts.
• I should add that user:Sarvagnya is less than forgiving when he is at the receiving end; my edit once here that merely put his out-of-chronological order interruption in proper chronological order, elicited this response from him, with edit summary, "i will add my comment where I think fit.. stop moving other people's comments around!"

If user:Sarvagnya has some genuine complaint against me, he should pursue it in the relevant Wikipedia forums, but I am tired of his deleting talk page content. Some one needs to warn him in no uncertain terms that this can't go on. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As a comment, this was also posted on WQA here, which seems a reasonable place for it. (And there's a response there). In the future, please don't cross-post. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Cross-posting is not forum-shopping. One is simultaneous, the other successive. Relata refero 06:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Reign of Terror

Resolved

Please lock the Reign of Terror. Its being repeatedly vandalized by non-users. AllStarZ 23:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week. Please refer to WP:RFPP next time. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure AllStarZ meant to say anon users, not non-users.  :) Corvus cornix 16:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry at deletion review

Can someone possibly have a look at this. Open the Jamie Schzanyr (sp?) section. The only person to oppose the deletion is ShyGuy69. Looking at the contributions, it looks like he is a sock of someone. Click this and open the Jamie Schzanyr section. ThisDude62 wants it unsalted, and only ShyGuy69 wants it unsalting too. Almost certain sockpuppetry, given that ShyGuy69 has made only three edits. Davnel03 09:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you got any other evidence? (it could speed this up) Rudget _{Contributions} 10:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, but it seems like the ShyGuy69 account is only been used for that only purpose. Davnel03 11:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, highly suspicious he'd open an account and go straight to a DRV. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking me!

Resolved

Hi. For personnal reasons, I'd like to be blocked during 130 days (so to be unblocked in the middle of March 2008). If it's possible, I'd just like to keep my user talk undblocked. Thanks for your help and comprehension. --Two Wings (jraf ) 10:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean have your user page protected? This is doable only if vandalism is very likely to occur or has occurred. If you mean blocking, you could just leave for 130 days and change your password if there's any risk of anyone else using it. This would not require any admin intervention (admins broadly speaking are rather busy). Orderinchaos 10:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is that I don't want to have any temptation to use any Wikimedia project for a while because it's a personal drug and I have some exams to prepare! I don't contribute that much to the English WP but since I asked to be blocked on the French one, I might be tempted to come here instead! It's very weak but I have to do that if I want to be kind of cured (and succeed in my exams!). So I just want to be unable to contribute to WP English for 130 days. Isn't that possible? It's possible on WP French so I guess it is here also. --Two Wings (jraf ) 10:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Stare at some paint dry, that should distract you while you fall asleep... Rudget _{Contributions} 10:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)In that case you can enforce a wikibreak on your account for an amount of time you specify. This will prevent you from being able to log in during this period. See Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer for instructions on how to do this. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 10:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec2) Different rules apply here though. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Self-requested blocks and Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is that impossible? I see no logical reason to forbid that! Anyway, I'll use that Wikibreak enforcer then... --Two Wings (jraf ) 11:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Because people change their minds, and it creates a lot of work and hassle for the admins. If you say "Block me for 130 days", and then come back on day 60 and say "Wait unblock me", then what's the point? Admins are not your guardian angels, and they're not going to deny an unblock, which makes the whole situation useless. --Haemo 16:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Systematic page move vandalism using multiple accounts

Resolved

User:Pussy bait seems to be a single-purpose page-move-vandalism account, clearly created by an experienced Wikipedia vandal (e.g. the use of non-Latin homograph characters in page names). I've indefblocked it: can someone more experienced at undoing page-move vandalism please clean up the mess they've created? -- The Anome 11:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

See also User:Internet Connection 1, same MO as above. -- The Anome 11:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am very concerned about page move vandalism by Internet_Connection_1 as he has moved the User talk page archives of Daniel to different numbers. My concern is that undoing his vandalism will lead to more disruption - ie, if I revert "new page 8" to "old page 6"; before moving "new page 6" back to "old page 5" (etc) then I will end up deleting archive pages unintentionally. Can an experienced administrator please do the necessary. Thanks. B1atv 11:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This is undoubtedly the vandal's intention. Strange how some people get their jollies. -- The Anome 11:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the archives back to their correct titles and speedied the resulting redirects. Looks like its all fixed. WjBscribe 11:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

TVM B1atv 11:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Alexander.Keays - page move vandal

Resolved

• Alexander.Keays (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It would appear that everything (recently) done by this user needs to be undone, starting with moving That's So recurring characters. (note trailing '.') back to List of recurring characters from That's So Raven. Many other edits then need to be undone: for example: [76]. --Jack Merridew 11:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be all back the way it was now.--Isotope23 ^talk 11:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much. --Jack Merridew 11:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser

1.1 Names

. . . If the list contains entries that are over 24 hours old, please mention this (nicely) at WP:ANI, and an admin should be by shortly to process the requests. . . .

1.1.1 Users

Cambrant . . . 12:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert Greer 13:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Mario Balotelli and alleged privacy issues

Mario Balotelli is an Italian footballer born to Ghanaian parents in Palermo, but then entrusted to a Northern Italy family. According to the Italian law and several sources, his full name is currently "Mario Balotelli Barwuah". All these facts were extensively deleted by User:Simonefrassanito, who claims to do this "for privacy and with mandate from Mario Balotelli" and feels he has the "right" not to have his full name published here. I continuously reverted all of his edits, but he keeps on removing all the facts I described earlier, lately asking me which law allows me to keep this information on the article. I would like to have some opinion from all of you; personally, I think all the information above should be kept on the article, because it is verifiable and sourceable. Thank you. --Angelo 17:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually see the claim for the Barwuah name sourced in the article, but if you can find a source then there shouldn't be an issue with it (google seems to show many possible sources). However, note that you should not have protected the article since you were an involved editor. JoshuaZ 17:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I just added a couple of reliable sources about the Barwuah name, and unprotected the article. --Angelo 17:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

POINTy revert warring by MONGO

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

MONGO is not going to be blocked for this action. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Closed per WP:DUCK and WP:DFTT. Durova^Charge! 16:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:No personal attacks page is currently fully page protected. This is directly and deliberately caused by MONGO's revert warring behavior on it. Over four days, MONGO has reverted the page ten times with useless name-calling edit summaries. It is a textbook example of gaming.

I put this on the 3RR noticeboard as it involves MONGO walking up to the 3RR electric fence and pissing on it for multiple days but never crossing it. El C closed it as non-actionable because gaming 3RR isn't 3RR [77]

So ANI, what is it then? 10 reverts over the span of a few days, often three reverts in the span of an hour, than waiting a day and doing it again. This policy page has been protected 7 times this year because of this crap.

Action, or another free pass for MONGO? SchmuckyTheCat

To be fair to El_C, he didn't say that "gaming 3RR isn't 3RR". He just opined that such cases are better dealt with here rather than on WP:AN3. As far as blocking MONGO, it's pretty straightforward. The page in question is already fully protected, so the edit war is over. Blocks are preventive, not punitive. Blocking someone for edit-warring after the page in question has been protected (and the edit war thus ended) would be punitive. I doubt you'll find an admin willing to do it. MastCell ^Talk 16:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The full protection has to end sometime. Do we have any assurances from MONGO that he won't continue this edit war as soon as it does? Why should he stop when he knows that he can get away with it? -Chunky Rice 16:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The disruption caused by his unprovoked personal crusading needs to stop as well as the edit warring; protecting won't solve that. Milto LOL pia 17:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that citing edit warring as 3rr violation on an3, when one knows that, technically, there hasn't been a 3rr violation, is problematic, and unnecessary. We don't need the 3rr for that. One can be blocked for edit warring, wp:point, or gaming the system (including 3rr) violations without 3rr being cited in the block, or an3 being used. Leave an3 for 3rr violations which are, in fact, 3rr violations. El_C 08:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

El C's non-action is neither here nor there, I'm just pointing out why this is being posted here instead of there, and there has a diff history for anyone that wants to look. 3RR gaming should be actionable on the 3RR noticeboard, but that's a general admin discretion issue, nothing with any individual.

Full protection for a page isn't appropriate when it is primarily one contributor making it into an edit war. MONGO's actions have caused that page to be under PP multiple times this year. When does it end? SchmuckyTheCat

To be honest, I think it was a kneejerk reaction because you and Miltopia are ED editors, and he's already got enough reason to hate ED. Still, I'd block for 3RR. Will ^(talk) 16:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it against WP:NPA to use outside affiliations, "mainstream or extreme", to dismiss any editor's views? *Dan T.* 17:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not explicitly, but commenting on the contributor vs the content they add is. MONGO violated that quite awhile ago with edit summaries like [78], [79], and [80] are. Spryde 17:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes explicitly. It's been (sensibly) a consideration for a while. The language comes right from the page. And for good reason, as you can see by this situation... Milto LOL pia 17:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is dismissing Mr. Cat's views by noting that he is an adminstrator of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website. We're just putting it in context. MOASPN 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is what intent seems to be. Otherwise, why keep mentioning it in edit summaries, the talk page, etc at every moment possible?

Can you read minds? I'd like that power. Are you an adminstrator of ED also? MOASPN 17:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, I give up.

On second thought. No, I am not giving up. I can't read minds. But I can take what appears to me to the be the intent (and it is fully my opinion) for bringing it up. To disparage the contributor instead of his or her argument itself. You are doing the same thing, in my opinion, here by explaining what ED is and what role that person may or may not have had. Accusing me of being an editor there is the same action as above. What part of my argument is faulty? Did my diffs not show that the person was reverting based on who the person is and not what the argument was? Did my diffs attempt to disparage the person by commenting on the person rather than their argument? I don't think so. If I might have missed it, please show it to me. Spryde 17:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of anything - I'm asking you if you are an editor there. You seem to think I'm attributing motives to people by noting they are adminstrators of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website. Since they are, in fact, adminstrators of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website, it seems that you are able to draw connections between their being adminstrators of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website and their actions with respect to external links and MONGO. Why would you do that? I'm shocked, shocked that you would violate WP:NPA by assuming that adminstrators of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website would be harassing and hounding MONGO. MOASPN 17:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Nope, been there, read a few pages, did not like it have not been back. Let me ask you a question, what is the point of repeating the same phrase over and over except to make a point? And to comment, the recent edits by the ED people have been mostly constructive in my opinion. Their recent contributions may have not been to MONGO's liking but IN MY OPINION, he is quick to react and has a temper which got him into trouble in the first place. He contributes quite a bit towards the project but he also grates on many people's nerves with the "fuck off" edit summaries, accusations, and basic way he steamrolls people which he suspects of being someone else. This causes valuable editors to leave/be banned/etc. Spryde 17:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you get the chance. please produce evidence that I have steamrolled a single "valuable" editor off of this website...on the contrary...I have seen a lot of valuable editors steamrolled off this website by ED supportors...I can name a half dozen that have left due to the harassment that has been written on that website about them. If you are going to make accusations, then you best gather your facts to substantiate them.--MONGO 06:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

MOASPN, I don't edit stuff about Wikipedia on ED. I've been editing Wikipedia going on several years now. You're not contributing to the discussion by maligning my intentions. The issue is whether MONGO's daily edit warring is disruptive. Is it? SchmuckyTheCat

Please can we not argue over who edits ED on this noticeboard. It's not relevant to anything, ever. Take it to user talk or something. Milto LOL pia 17:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please focus on the edit warring, not the name calling, please.

It's been shown for two years that MONGO has carte blanche to be incivil and call names. Nobody cares anymore. It's me he's calling names and I'm asking everyone to please focus this only on the edit warring behavior. SchmuckyTheCat

Who is he edit warring with? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends on who's online when he signs on. Last night it was myself, Privatemusings, and Schmucky. Meanwhile his only input at the talk page was the sort of insults that have disrupted the page for a while now. I'm not making an issue now of the name-calling, only that his lack of meaningful input on talk makes it clear he won't stop this warring. Milto LOL pia 17:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it worse for him to revert than for you to revert? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it seems to me at least that there is a burgeoning consensus building and he opposes it. Spryde 17:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And, as I've said before, because of his lack of discussion on the talk page. His only input there is to sidetrack others with personal remarks. Milto LOL pia 18:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave MONGO a polite final warning on his long, continuous pattern of incivility and personal attacks the other day; he rebuked my warning and continued as usual, so I blocked him. The block was overturned within minutes, and he's only continued the same behavior. It seems clear at this point that the community has basically given MONGO a free pass to be as disruptive as he pleases. --krimpet⟲ 17:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Rebuking an administrator is not grounds for a block. Though if that ever changes, I'll be all over it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not the case at all. You blocked me because I removed your warning with the comment "Bye"...that was an abuse of your admin tools, period. Furthermore, Schmucky reverted my change back to the older version which used wording directly from an arbcom case which states that ED is not to be linked to. Schmucky is a contributor to ED, as is Miltopia...so there is a definite COI when these two are removing information to the NPA policy which details that we don't link to that website. Schmucky's revert also seemed, at least at first, to be random as I had not seen him making any effort to participate in the ongoing discussion on that policy talk page. Lastly, Schmucky seems to be forum shopping at this point...not getting a block for 3RR (which I have not violated), he then marches here to complain further...Nevertheless, I will self impose a 1RR restiction on myself on that policy henceforth.--MONGO 18:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The page is currently protected. I'll add it to my watchlist and help out when I can. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh whatever, Tom, you're proxy reverting for him and all you ever bothered to do on the talk was "vote" on the poorly-attended RfC that was made obsolete by my rewrite oft eh section. Milto LOL pia 18:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, it's not forum shopping when the closing admin says it belongs in a different forum. kthx. SchmuckyTheCat

Let's remember-- these edits happened at WP:NPA. It isn't an article-- it's a policy. Regardless of what you think the policy SHOULD be, it is NEVER okay to knowingly take some highly contentious proposal text and just edit it into a policy page. If you know it hasn't gotten consensus, you should NEVER put it into policy. You just shouldn't do it-- not even once. Policies reflect consensus-- if you take a rejected proposal and even ONCE add it into a policy page-- you're being disruptive-- and I've seen people blocked for less.

Now, by my count-- MONGO has taken highly-disputed text, text he KNOWS is highly disputed, and he has added it into policy TWELVE times. Not once, not twice-- TWELVE times.

How many times are we gonna let him do this before we stop treating this as if it were "just another article content dispute" and start seeing it as a disruptive editor trying to edit-war a rejected proposal into becoming policy in order to circumvent consensus? --Alecmconroy 19:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm encouraged that MONGO has pledged to abide by 1RR in the future. This is very encouraging. But the point my comment stands-- even 1 revert is too many if you're using that revert to re-add highly disputed text into a policy. --Alecmconroy 20:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's easy to claim to only do 1RR yourself once you've organized your posse to join in. SchmuckyTheCat

Schmucky, press the extra tilde and help us all out. As far as MONGO's editing of this page goes, yesterday I asked him why he chose to revert an IP's good faith edits ([81]), and his reasons were that in his view, IP editors should not be allowed to edit policy pages ([82]). This is also a concern. As best I can see, MONGO is loath to allow this policy to exist in any form which does not include the link to his ArbCom case, I think because it expressly forbade ED linkage. This, despite it now being made defunct by the more recent and general ArbCom attack sites ruling (and the meta blacklist). The majority of editors participating see having both as pointless and potentially confusing, MONGO wants it there and thus far he has reverted 2 or 3 times a day every day using various edit summaries, but all with the same end result. Neil ☎ 21:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Schmucky and Miltopia joining up to complain about MONGO? Is this the right Wiki for this crap? Close down this thread and stop whining. --DHeyward 22:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's just not helpful. As I've said before elsewhere-- MONGO needs help from his friend to DISCOURAGE bad behavior, not to egg him on. With feedback from those he respects, MONGO could spend 100% of his time helping the encyclopedia-- instead of the case now, where despite incredibly positive contributions, a fraction of his behavior is highly disruptive. Help him to see this and you help him to become a better editor, and one day again, an admin. Egg him on, dismiss complaints like these as the `whinings of trolls` and you only make the problems worse for Mongo in the end. --Alecmconroy 23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, DHeyward, I feel the wikilove. My three years of contributions here are meaningless because I've dared to call MONGO on his disruptions? I can see my presence is appreciated. SchmuckyTheCat

We just had an ArbComm case in part because of edit warring on WP:NPA, and now we have more edit warring about WP:NPA. Something needs to be done to put an end to this, and I am starting as an admin to believe that the right solution is to invite certain participants to go away and not return. MONGO's reported behaviour in this matter is not acceptable. GRBerry 02:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The bad behavior is that of ED and WR partisans who have tried to get the NPA policy altered so that they can link to their capricous websites and not be blocked doing so. Did everyone miss the part that Miltopia reverted three times as well, or is that not a big deal? This is the same song and dance I have had from this crowd for some time now...they contiue to mischaracterize my efforts and comments when I have repeatedly shown that they have a serious conflict of interest when they remove prohibitions about linking to malicious sites and they are active participants in these very same sites. In article space, we block or end up doing topic bans for COI...why is this any different? I recommend a topic ban on the partisans of these websites. In addition, the external links policy proposal so many are boasting about is still a proposal so there is no reason to remove current arbcom case of from an existing policy until (if) that external links proposal passes.--MONGO 06:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't bode well that you can't refrain from slinging insults even in a thread discussion the disruption you've caused by slinging insults.

Here's the facts-- I'm not an ED member, I'm not a WR partisan, and I have no interest in promoting ASM. The same holds for almost everyone else involved in this debate. And it's my feeling that you have tried very very hard to spread lies suggesting that I am affiliated with those psychos-- and I'm pretty damn sick of it.

• At the arbcom case, we were all having a very civil discussion about the many important issues raised. You chose to present "evidence" that said nothing of the actual issues, but just instead accused me of being part of a campaign of harassment.

• I raised concerns on the WP:NPA talk page. I politely explained my point of view, in great detail, and explained why the BADSITES text was disputed. Many valued community members expressed similar points of view. You reinserted the disputed text explaining "the only dispute is by those who contribute to WR"

• GTBacchus, a very valuable and respected member of the community, joins the discussion. You dismiss him by saying "GTBaccus is also an ED contributor and always comes to the defense of his fellows." When he takes offense, you stand by your statement: "says I 'lie'...how odd, 'cause I always see whenever ED is brought up, there he is, defending present and past editors of that website...I am not a liar, thanks!"

• When your disruption and personal attacks are reported to ANI, your justification for the disruption you've caused is simple: "Schmucky is a contributor to ED, as is Miltopia".

• Your actions are criticized, and you are given several warnings to cease making personal attacks. Your response is to declare the entire dispute to be the work of ED partisans. Think about that just for a second. When we take time to ask you to stop slinging personal attacks, you dismiss the whole lot of us with another vile personal attack????

How DARE you try to justify your own misbehavior by fabricating some link between me and ED just because I disagree with you about a content policy. How DARE you take an important discussion over the fundamental nature of this project, in which practically everyone on all sides is acting out of sincerity, and try to pass it off as just a trollish campaign to promote some hate sites.

It seems you will justify any actions whatsoever merely by alleging that one of your opponents is affiliated with ED. And if that behavior is so ingrained in you that you can't cease it even for five minutes, in the midst of a discussion about how you need to cease it-- I truly fear that in the end, you're gonna have to go.

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this little tactic of dragging people's names through the mud every time you get into a content dispute-- it's gotten real old, and I'm quite sick of it. Stop it. Stop it right now. Don't do it again. Seriously....

The sad fact is, however, I don't think that you can stop. I bet dimes to doughnuts, even after I've warned you, even after I've asked nicely, even after I've told you I think you're unable to stop attacking people-- I bet you your response, and the responses of your allies, will still be to imply, allege, or accuse people of being trolls, ED partisans, WR loons, or ASM stalkers. --Alecmconroy 08:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I have nothing whatsoever to do with ED, Wikipedia Review, or any other of these sites, and to be characterised as an "ED and WR partisan" and my comments dismissed is insulting. Right now the "ED and WR partisans", or as I like to call them, all the Wikipedia editors who disagree with MONGO, are coming out of this a whol;e lot better than MONGO. Neil ☎ 08:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry...I guess since Alecmconroy feels that I "have to go", I might as well.--MONGO 09:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. While I have no wish for MONGO to leave, the lies about other editors' motives and offsite activities must cease. Milto LOL pia 09:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Lies?--MONGO 09:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Lies about myself and Schmucky being active ED contributors. Lies about me and several others advocating support for ED. Lies about me or GTBacchus or several others being "ED partisans". Lies about me wanting to allow links to ED. So yes, I'd say lies. Milto LOL pia 09:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Just checked ED...you still contribute there. Inactive to me at least means no edits, nada, zero...not occasional = inactive...whats this...was this true?...I'm inclined to believe it was trolling. I think we're done here.--MONGO 09:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you perhaps notice that both of those diffs were from april? Viridae^Talk 09:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why, yes I did...but was he a newbie then?...he started editing in Ocotber 2006...oh darn, I can't complain about other editors...this is actually the AN/M (Administrators noticeboard/MONGO)...but wait, I already have a board of my own...and no one wants to play there lately, even though I have promised barnstars that are really nifty!--MONGO 09:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point MONGO has once again receded into incoherent rambling about me. That or he is just blatantly trolling, but I'm inclined against believing that. This is pretty much how every dispute MONGO has thrown himself into with me has gone. Milto LOL pia 10:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, during either the most recent, or next most recent, previous MONGO thread on AN/I, he accused me of being a WR/ED troller as well. It really is becoming his standard reply. And, in the interest of full disclosure, After being attacked like that, and after he refused to take it back, I went and looked. I've never registered as a member of either, and only started reading ASM last night, in regards to another thread on AN/I. So now, MONGO's made someone else into a reader of his most hated sites by accusing them. It's only a matter of time til he's a one man membership drive. MONGO needs to see the substance of their complaints, not be dismissive of them using personal attacks on them. ThuranX 11:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)The accusations don't matter in any case. Let MONGO throw out his accusations. They are meaningless. Offsite actions aren't important to Wikipedia. Which, fwiw, was another ArbCom finding in a MONGO case that he chooses to ignore so he can continue to sling the accusation around. SchmuckyTheCat

Here is an interesting comment on a very similar issue from one of our most experienced and influential editors. I completely agree with the sentiment expressed; civility is non-negotiable here as without it the entire community becomes unworkable and the project fails. On the plus side I see good signs of progress here and here and MONGO's statement that he will adhere to 1RR on the policy page in future. --John 19:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty clear harrasment sites will not be tolerated. Nor will restoring deleted links to harrassment sites be tolerated and the solution is indefinite ban. It seems the policy ought to reflect this since unsuspecting editors might find themselves on the wrong end of the ban hammer after reverting harassment link deletions. Misinterpreting BADSITES Arbcom or misinterpreting rejected BADSITES policy or WP:NPA will not save them so it's a service to include this in the policy so no one is confused. Hopefully this will end the discussion on MONGO's reverts since if User:Ombudsman read MONGO's version, he would probably be an editor today. --DHeyward 00:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood the thrust of my message then. Jimbo Wales reduced Om's block to a week; but he also laid down a clear marker that incivility will not be tolerated, even from experienced editors, a message I heartily applaud. --John 00:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I understood where you were coming from but I thought you missed the forest for the trees. Schmucky and Miltopia are generally upset that MONGO doesn't want to soften the WP:NPA policy and limit it's extent to badsites and offsite harassment. You could argue that is why Miltopia took up Ombudmsan's cause on Jimbos talk page. Schmucky claims that off-site contributions have no bearing on Wikipedia but it's clear that if it creates a hostile editing environment on wikipedia, that editor should find another hobby. Jimbo went out of his way to ban him when he restored links to harassing sites. MONGO is simply trying to reflect this reality in our written policy so editors understand what harassment is and what will get them blocked. --DHeyward 01:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the others dissatisfied with MONGO's gaming and personal attacks have equally nefarious motives. Let's hope they at least understood my comments about Ombudsman better than you did. Milto LOL pia 01:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. I did't even talk about motives of Ombudsman and certainly never mentioned any nefarious motives. The truth is I don't care what his motives are. I don't really care what your motives are. I only know it's disruptive and time wasting to hear you constantly complain about MONGO. It's an extension of your "todo" list on ED and it's tiresomely predictable. --DHeyward 04:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for editing ease

If the revert warring and incivil edit summary problem with WP:NPA is still ongoing with the same offending party(s), I would say that you've exhausted this, ANI, as the first step in the conflict resolution process. I would suggest, then, that the aggrieved editors, and there appears to be more than two of you, go ahead and co-sign an RfC on the offending parties' behavior and leave that open for a week or so. If that doesn't take care of problem, then take it to the next level- RfAr. It's a long and frustrating process, but that's how the "system" works and it has worked before which is one of the reasons why one of the offending editors mentioned above is no longer an admin. Cla68 01:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The system doesn't work, though. Not matter how many WP:CIVIL policies, statements, decisions, redactions, RfC's, RfAr's, AN/I's, AN's, and so on MONGO goes through, no one's got the balls to give him any amount of blocking that sticks. Instead, admins engage a series of delaying tactics until things cool off on the relevant pages, cite 'blocks are preventative not punative, and it's been too long', and MONGO walks off to do it all again. There's a pattern here of disruptive editing and incivility, and he never ever gets blocked for it. Not really. All those blockings that get undone in 2 minutes don't count, they aren't supported blocks. I'm not on ED, ASM, or WR, though I admit to HAVING READ them. I'm just a wikieditor who thinks that it's not fair that most editors get blocked far faster for far less, far more often, than MONGO. MONGO does get special treatment here. It's pretty undeniable at this point. Some editors love him so much they bend policy and procedure with big piles of bureaucracy, and it's incredibly frustrating. I'm sorry MONGO can't talk his issues out, but maybe he needs to leave to get help. My attitude twaors him is well known, and after this, it's a damn guarantee that he'll trot out my last screed against him as 'proof' of my WR/ED alliance and my membership in the great conspiracy against him. No, I'm just one more editor tired of a double standard. He needs a blocking. It's been promised for 'the next time'. Never happens. Not fair. frustrated. ThuranX 01:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If the system did work, you would have been blocked for your comments [here... but you weren't so be grateful the system failed to do what it should have done when you made those comments...which are much worse than any I have ever made.--MONGO 01:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Called it, didn't I? Every time I speak out against MONGO, he brings this up. Ironically, while I've learned from that, and my warnings, he has not. it's enough to start insulting him all over again. Hell, I'd take a 24 hour block for that in exchange for never having it brought up against me again, and a 48 hour block in exchange for that AND the full block Viridae would have hit MONGO with. However, none of those things can come to pass. Even if I did get a block for it, MONGO will still drag it up as proof that rather than being a WP editor dsigruntled by his 'special' treatment, and I've have to counter with my block log, and then it'd be a bigger disruption. Further, go digging, you'll see that before that, I'd spoken out civilly over, and over, and over against his getting off the hook. He'd been condescending to myself and many, many others. It's not coincidence that fewer and fewer editors speak out against it, most have realized that speaking out makes you MONGO's target, and speaking out does no good.ThuranX 02:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are others, but that one was so outrageous, I was really taken aback by it. You seem to constantly yell "block" all over the noticeboards about numerous editors...so I guess we can all be grateful you don't have that capability.--MONGO 03:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That was sad Thuran and a huge mischaracterisation. You presume he is guilty of all these transgressions yet the evidence shows otherwise. In fact, the lo9ng list of accusations without consensus of wrongdoing speaks more to MONGO being harassed than it does about him getting away with anything. This is just you repeating a bunch of stuff that has already been adjudicated. Wh ydo you keep bringing it up? Here I'll call it: there is a particular list of editors that will bring MONGO to ANI for every content dispute and you will show up with your "MONGO is above the system because one time in bandcamp they didn't block him like I wanted them to" bullshit. I'm sorry you didn't like the consensus of the community but give it a rest. --04:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For the love of god MONGO - that was July - this is late october, live in the present. Viridae^Talk 01:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well gee, it's really hard to live in the present when responding to the comments that is about the past. Maybe Thuran could talk about the present instead of the past. Thruan complaining about how MONGO didn't blocked for all his past transgressions is kind of pointless. --DHeyward 04:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I experienced this sort of "impeccable memory for past slights" also. Mongo got very very angry with me once for asking too many clarifications about the MONGO case. I was a relatively young wikipedian at the time, I was acting in 100% good faith in that discussion, but I did acknowledge I should have had that discussion in a different venue and with people who hadn't been so personally attacked. I very quickly and very sincerely apologized for accidentally upsetting him and not picking up on his stress level.

Naively perhaps, I assumed that with my apologies, the matter was settled, and that was the end of that. To the best of my knowledge, I didn't say another word to Mongo or interact with him for the next year-- perhaps I did, but i didn't have any interaction that was sufficient for me to remember it now as I type.

But when I decided to contribute to the Attack Sites arbitration, Mongo quickly showed up and started screaming about this once isolated incident, a year old, in which I did nothing but act in good faith, and in which I had profusely and sincerely apologized for inadvertently upsetting him.

It would seem that MONGO has mentally compiled an "enemies list" of sorts, and that I was still on it, and at the first sign of a dispute, Mongo was eager to unload personal attacks on me with both barrels, as the saying goes. --Alecmconroy 02:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If anyone isn't interested in letting go of past disputes, it seems to be you, not me.--MONGO 03:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you sincerely feel that, but I promise you MONGO, it's really not true. I've never held the 2006 incident against you-- it's clear you'd been through a lot, and when I complained about it, it wasn't because I wanted you destroyed, it really was because I wanted you helped. You basically snapped in the middle of an otherwise civil conversation, and it was clear to me that we didn't do something to help you, you couldn't continue to function as an admin. I still wish there has been something I could have said that might have been able to reach out to you and help you see, and helped you avoided the consequences that ultimately befell you.

When I, a year later, participated in the Attack Sites case-- it wasn't out of any desire to 'get back at you', it was out of a sincere concern for the integrity of the project. If I had been motivated by some desire to attack you, I could have easily done so in that forum-- you would have made an easy candidate, having been de-admined for bad behavior, but I never crossed that line, I never made it personal, and I kept my remarks as focused as I could on principle, not people. To the extent I even mentioned you, it was almost exclusively in rebuttal to your attacks on me-- and even then, I didn't harshly attack you.

You've been a real puzzle for me. I've sincerely wanted to try to find some way to help you out of habitual assumption of bad faith that I assume was created by the harassment you were subjected to. I don't think you're a bad person, I don't think you're a mean or cruel or suffering from character flaws on anything like that. GTBacchus has talked about "considering everyone children of God, and therefore aspects of God", which is why he's someone I look up to, and that very very vaguely approximates what I feel towards you. You're not a bad person-- you're a good person who just has a problem, and it saddens me to no end that I can seem to help you.

I know you probably are convinced otherwise, but I've never for a second been "out to get you" or anything like that. Even here when I speak harshly too you, I have to confess, I'm not really experiencing anger-- my heart doesn't pound, my blood doesn't boil-- I just figure maybe speaking directly and imperatively will let you hear me in a way that you haven't been able to hear me when I was peaceful and philosophical.

I know it's probably futile for me to say this, because I'm sure you think I'm trying to scam you, or project false compassion or something-- but I'm really not. --Alecmconroy 04:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well had I noticed that it had been 12 reverts in 4 days he would have had a lengthy 3RR block - but as it happens I had just seen a lot of watchlist so I had a brief look at the history and protected the page. The irritating thing is I had hope the people involved would have taken the chance to engage in discussion on the talk page, but very little has taken place. I feel that once the protection is lifted the cycle will start again - and should i see any more than two reverts in a short amount of time I will once again protect the page. Viridae^Talk 01:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Lengthy? You can only block for 3RR for 24 hours. Furthermore, if you were to block me after the disagreements we have had, would be a really bad abuse of your admin tools.--MONGO 03:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was not in disagreement with you over this matter, it was a clear cut case of gaming 3RR. Call abuse all you like but no reasonable person is going to look at that evidence and see anything but gaming 3rr. Furthermore, an admin can block for a length of time they feel appropriate. If it was straight up 3rr and your first offence then it would have been 24 hours - but because this was 12 reverts over four days it would have been a minimum of 48 hours. No block length is set in stone, they are all subject to the blocking admins discretion. You can call admin abuse all you like, but as long as I am not directly involved in that dispute then I see no problem with blocking an editor who clearly deserves it. Viridae^Talk 03:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Careful, no doubt, your protection of the NPA policy was on a version you have argued in favor of on the policy discussion page. I would have sent a request to WP:PP even if I was an admin. Furtherore, since I have been on the opposite side of the dispute in that matter from you, any block you were to do on me in the near future would be a violation of the block policy.--MONGO 05:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Viridae has just given a clear shot across the bow that anymore of the type of disruptive behavior being discussed here in the WP:NPA debate won't be tolerated. If it continues, however, I repeat that you should use the escalating conflict resolution system to try to correct the behavior of the offending editors. It's not true that the system doesn't work if you utilize it correctly. If you look at some of these cases here you can see that the ArbCom has given plenty of editors enforced wiki-breaks to reconsider their behavior or to help them break their addiction to drama or dissembly. Cla68 03:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I doubt you are in a position to talk at this point...you seem to have been an advocate for banned editor Wordbomb for some time now and your ongoing accusations regarding SlimVirgin have been pretty bad. I really would give it a rest since you have just emerged from a block on this matter.--MONGO 05:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Give your threats a rest Viridae. You're an involved editor and since your last block warning against MONGO was wholly inappropriate I don't see how this one is suddenly above board. Put the admin tools down and step away. --DHeyward 04:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Mongo again falsely accuses me or any other good-faith editor of being affiliated with harassers or of being a participant in a campaign of harassment, I'm gonna take whatever steps necessary to get the behavior stopped. Falsely accusing good-faith editors of engaging in nearly-criminal behavior is just not acceptable. For a long time, I'd hoped that unflappable peacefulness towards Mongo would convince him of our good-faith, but that didn't bear out. Now I hope that a little bit of tough talk and some clear warnings will stop the behavior. Hopefully it will stop and that will be the end of it, and, speaking for myself, all will be forgiven. If the behavior doesn't stop, it seems we'll have to turn to methods of last resort. --Alecmconroy 04:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually of the people who commented on that block warning, only yourself and MONGO found it to be inappropriate - everyone else thought it was justified. Whats more it wasn't a block warning, it was a NPA warning. Viridae^Talk 06:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, WR, ASM and ED are compaigns of harassment. I am not sure what peacefulness you speak of nor do I know who continues to participate in those campaigns on those websites. However, I do know that trying to relax policy to allow links to those site has the de facto result of continuing harassment whether or not it's intentional. opposing harassmnet and opposing policy changes may increase harassment is not the same as accusing the editors of engaging in that harassment. --DHeyward 04:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

SO, given the multiple responses here, to many editors who oppose special rules for MONGO, you're in fact saying he shouldn't be blocked for 3RR violations, gaming 3RR, or incivility. Right. No special MONGO rules, except for the special MONGO rules.ThuranX 05:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is protected so there is no edit war, whence no need to block. Blocks are not punitive so once the edit war is stopped there is no blocking. I have not seen incivility that was worth blocking. So I don't support a block on you or MONGO though the constant rehashing of previously adjudicated incidents is bordering on disruption. If you believe there is a pattern of misconduct, bring it up on an RfC and stop bringing it up every time MONGO is mentioned on any noticeboard or talk page. It serves no purpose and doesn't shed any light on the current situation. It's just whining. --DHeyward 05:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, reply to DHeyward) No, no-- let me apologize for miscommunicating. The edit warring and personal attacks exhibited by MONGO is completely completely unrelated to any opposition to linking to some sites. Many, many good faith editors have very valid concerns about links like that-- I think we all do, really. Supporting a BADSITES-esque policy is NOT a problem, it's a valid opinion, and one we should all take seriously. I have no problem whatsoever with MONGO or others supporting BADSITES-- I think BADSITES has been motivated by compassion.

The behavior problems I'm discussion here are Mongo's edit warring, his inserting rejected proposals into policy pages without consensus, his incivility/personal attacks, and his falsely implying or stating that other good-faith editors are linked to harassment campaigns. Mongos support for a BADSITES policy is most certainly NOT a behavior problem-- it's an opinion, and one that should be taken seriously. --Alecmconroy 05:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know...I find your threats made a few posts above to be alarming and unwikipedian. Telling me to not DARE and other threats like that are unacceptable. I find that you have also edit warred on the NPA policy pages, so acting as if I am the only guilty party is hypocritical. The facts of the case are that many excellent contributors have been driven away from the NPA discussions by editors who seem to have a single mission, and are not on this website for the purposes of ehancning encyclopedic content. A lack of mainspace contributions by SOME (that is SOME, not all) editors is worrisome...furthermore, the fact that SOME (that is SOME, not all) who have been arguing against strong wording prohibiting attacking our contributors via external linking to malicious sites are also either present or past contributors to these very websites is a definite COI. Soon as one of the "silent persons" makes a comment on the NPA policy stating they are against linking to websites such as ASM or WR, a post shows up, usually on WR, condemning that person. So they have instead decided to give up, and let editors that have what appears to be an agenda at times determine and make our policies. I find this situation unacceptable. Some may think I have an agenda...well they are correct...my agenda is to do all I can to ensure our contributors edit this website in peace, and not have to look over their shoulder when someone wants to barge onto their talkpage and say...hey, did you see you're article on ED, or what they said about you over at WR...as if what is said on a silly blog dominated by mostly banned editors matters one iota..it doesn't.--MONGO 05:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(after ec's)For something that matters so little... we sure let it get to us a lot. If it's trivial and boring, then why are we up in arms to write special policies about it? There's no problem removing the links you want to remove, because they lack any possible encyclopedic value. That's sufficient. Let's not give them any more significance than that. Let's not reward trolling behavior with emotional reactions; that's the very definition of feeding. It's just another site we don't link to, like all the porn and online pharmacies and random blogs and.... the part of the Internet that sucks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"my agenda is to do all I can to ensure our contributors edit this website in peace, and not have to look over their shoulder"

Do you like to go to the beach and pound the sand for not resisting the tides as well? You can't control what people do on external websites. Our issue is to decide on a policy that makes sense on how to react to these sites. Pounding your preferred opinion into the page with an edit war is not going to accomplish your goal. SchmuckyTheCat

On incivility/personal attacks, frankly I think a lot of people are simply taking MONGO's comments much too personally and confusing them with a WP:PA. Take for example this comment:

"GTBaccus is also an ED contributor and always comes to the defense of his fellows." When he takes offense, you stand by your statement: "says I 'lie'...how odd, 'cause I always see whenever ED is brought up, there he is, defending present and past editors of that website...I am not a liar, thanks He is simply pointing out that GTBaccus may have a conflict of interest based on observed behavior. This is not in my opinion a PA, if it was, WP:COI should be deleted because to say someone has a COI is automatically a PA which initself is forbidden. Anynobody 06:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Anynobody, please note how the screen name is spelled; thanks. I'm not offended at this point by anything MONGO has said about me; I believe we understand each other to an extent. I don't blame him for not trusting me implicitly, knowing all of the history. Whether or not one thinks I'm editing with a conflict of interest, I think my arguments stand or fall on their own merits. I'm concerned with MONGO that he's largely disengaged from the conversation, participating more in policy page reverts than in talk page discussion. On the other hand, he's been through the same thousands of words as the rest of us, and if I were he I'd be sick to death of it.

What I would most like for MONGO to believe is that he can get the protection he desires for our editors without the paragraph of policy to which he seems attached. That paragraph is not the protection; it's an empty symbol of it. The actual protection is in our core, core policy WP:ENC. There's no encyclopedic value in linking to the harassment that you want to legislate against, and it can therefore always be removed as simple encyclopedic work. It won't suddenly become worthwhile and relevant just because we don't draft a rule targeting it. In fact, such a rule would make it more relevant, because here we are, discussing it in our policies.

We really can trust the boring procedures of encyclopedia-writing to protect us better than all the policies we can write. Those policies... they're attempts at word-magic; they tend to backfire. Think about WP:DENY.

Check it out: if a link has no encyclopedic value, then it may be removed at any time, because it makes no contribution to the project. If someone persists in adding material of no value, they may be blocked, as a common vandal, and that's just normal and undramatic. Removing the link and blocking them "per BADSITES" is terribly misguided when we could just do it "per sweeping the floor".

MONGO, I entreat you to consider - where in that process is a special policy required or desirable? I'd like to hear an answer from anybody on that point - on my own, I can't imagine how a special policy would do anything but raise the heat, increase the drama level, feed any and every troll....

If you'd like to think that I'm only arguing this point because I have a conflict of interest, then my question to you is: why would I work to undermine a project, Wikipedia, that I have poured so many hours and months of my life into improving. Why did I sit there today, reading comments of contributors, and weeping at the sheer beauty of it, if I want to support harassment of our contributors. I love this website, and I'm confident that MONGO knows that. What I'm asking him to do is to trust me a little further on this point - we can get what we need without that paragraph - this is not a about paragraphs. It's about trusting each other because we care A LOT about what we're working on here. Will you join me, MONGO? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So why doesn't it work in reverse? Just leave MONGO's version of words in the policy if it's not going to change anything in practice. Since he's been a prominent victim of off site abuse, I would think helping victims by not symbolically stripping them of protection would be of paramount concern. It's like a court order of pretection: it doesn't stop abusive husbands from hitting their wives, but it certainly makes their wife fell safer. Why not just go with it since, as you say, it doesn't make a difference? --DHeyward 06:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm saying it "doesn't make a difference". I'm saying that having a special policy raises the heat, creates conditions for drama, encourages useless ad hominem arguing, and empowers ("feeds") those who would harass and troll by rewarding their behavior with defensive action. How exactly did you get "doesn't make a difference" out of that?

I'd still like to know what concrete good this proposal would do that makes up for these disadvantages, especially when we would be so much better to prosecute these cases as simple content disputes and not as part of some kind of internet war. That's a terrible idea; this is an encyclopedia, not a soap opera. This is not the wiki for drama - you know where to find that one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I paraphrased your comments that his protection is in WP:ENC. If all the protection is there and the policy MONGO wants is just redundant, then it doesn't make a difference whether it's duplicated or not. There's not a lot of drama over "revert, block, ignore." The drama is added when three months from now an editor claims that ED is encyclopedic and should have an article. The drama starts when an editor thinks an article inside of ED become encyclopedic as some sort of notable internet meme. Or when an editor thinks that Blu Aardvark is a notable person and deserves a biographical stub with links to ED and WR. Why not give the "block, revert, ignore" guy as big an arsenal as we can so we don't have to fight this silly drama. Today it's this silly policy section which whether it stays or goes doesn't change anything about the project. No article will be improved or created tomorrow no matter which way the policy goes. So the choice give me is a) make a longstanding prolific editor happy or b) try to reduce drama by changing link deletion edit summaries from WP:NPA to WP:ENC. I don't really see b) working and I think making the editing environment more comfortable for valuable contributors as paramount. This seems like a no brainer. --DHeyward 07:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, it is not a "no-brainer". I see your choice (a) as misguided and likely to create more trouble. I see your characterization of (b) as missing my fundamental point. We don't enforce encyclopedic standards because we want to reduce drama; we do it because we're an encyclopedia. The fact that trying to add the quest for justice to our project here creates volatile situations is taken into consideration as part of that project. Please note as well that my suggestion also amounts to "block, revert, ignore". I'm just suggesting we do it because the links have no encyclopedic value, and not because they're determined to come from some kind of bogey-site. I would see it as a no-brainer, except there are clearly intelligent and rational people on both sides, so I can't call it that in fairness. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's an attack because of intent to discredit. Being called an "ED contributor" on Wikipedia is an attempt to discredit the other person, and not engage in the issues at hand. That's why it is incivil and an attack. It doesn't address the issues, it addresses the person. SchmuckyTheCat

A COI violation is always ad hominem. The person's arguments are at fault because the person making them has a COI. The merits of the argument are secondary to COI. If that's incivil or a personal attack, then you should address it on the WP:COI policy page and change the policy. --DHeyward 06:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't really see the point in exposing COIs, although I'm happy enough to acknowledge my associations. Why talk about the person's COI when you could just talk about verifiable material in reliable sources? In the case of a policy discussion, why discuss COI when you could just discuss the arguments being advanced based on their merits, and not on who makes them? Seems kind of... off topic, to start talking about whose idea we agree or disagree with. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Couching Mongo's habitual personal attacks as merely "speculating about COI" is all well and good, but we may well remember that some of the most vile personal attacks we've seen here have also been couched in terms of "speculating about Conficts of Interests". If MONGO had politely commented, once or twice, on potential COI concerns, we would all be fine with that. In reality, he has brought up speculation of bad faith in practically every discussion on this subject. He has gone far beyond merely point out potential COI, he's crossed the line into persistent namecalling. Worst of all, he's made accusations that were utterly false, made speculations based on little-to-no evidence, and has cast aspersions at every turn. --Alecmconroy 06:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that your constant insinuations that I am incivil smack of incivility as well. The ongoing character assassinations you seem to enagage in are not helpful either. I am not making false accusations when there is no doubt that SOME editors have a COI. If an editor is a participant in a malicious website and has made efforts to minimize policy which bans linking to these websites, then that is indeed a COI.--MONGO 07:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel I'm being incivil in expressing my concerns about your behavior, but I don't know how else to solve the problem except to raise them here, and to try to convince you to stop attacking others. I might point out, for example, that even the very post I'm responding to is another instance of the problem-- you invariably respond to good-faith disagreement by attacking the character of others-- accusing me of performing an incivl "character assassination". That's kinda what we're trying to get at here, and find a way to stop. --Alecmconroy 07:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To respond to your other statement: "I am not making false accusations when there is no doubt that SOME editors have a COI." If you accuse 100 people of being communists, and only 2 of them are-- you've been making some false accusations. You've often implied that EVERYONE who opposes you has a COI, ED affiliation, and bad-faith. ED is like any open forum-- there are some very bad apples and some fine people. Absent evidence that they were involved in harassment, merely having once edited ED is not, in my eyes, a scarlet letter that classifies a person as worthless or immoral.

The clear truth is that vast majority of participants in the BADSITES discussion have no COI when it comes to ED-- but that's a truth you either don't see or that you try to bury. Furthermore, COIs don't justify not listening to people's comments, or responding rudely, or inserting policy texts that have consensus. Even if a few of the people who opposed BADSITES have a conflict of interest, that just means you should scrutinize their arguments more closely-- not that you should ignore them, revert them on site, or use it as a tool to attack them at every turn. You may want to make people aware of it, if they're not already-- but a COI is NOT a community ban, as you seem to wish it were.

Even someone with a COI deserves to have their opinions judged on merit. I might add, Mongo, that I practice what I preach. There is not a single person on this encyclopedia who has bigger conflict of interest in regard to ED and BADSITES than you, Mongo. You have been vilely attacked by ED, and as such, you have a vested interest in prohibiting links to ED (and promoting BADSITES). If I were really as "out to get you" as you think I am, I could easily allege that your only interest is in preventing people from seeing the attacks that have been made on you, and that as someone who is so utterly conflicted, you should have no input whatsoever into ED or BADSITES, because you have such a strong personal interest in minimizing ED's traffic. But I've never tried to do that, and I'm not trying to do it now. Your views on BADSITES and ED aren't self-serving, and they're not for yourself, they're for the next person who might be their victim. --Alecmconroy 08:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be a COI, but that does not mean that the editor's arguments should not be considered on merits. I'm frustrated by a refusal to engage what I see as my substantial arguments by some on the pro-BADSITES "side". The fact that I may have a conflict of interest does not automatically make me wrong. That applies to everyone here, right?

For the record, I have no desire to "minimize policy which bans linking to these websites", I have a desire to avoid destructive and redundant policy which hurts our project in a real and concrete way. My way involves all the same links being removed, but for the right reasons, and minus the disadvantages. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest is not an issue here. It's just another red herring meant to discreit those MONGO disagrees with. Having told MONGO directly on multiple pages now, explicitly, that I don't want to see links to ED anywhere, I think I can safely conclude that this assertion is no longer being made with anything that could be confused with good faith. Milto LOL pia 08:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not worried about MONGO's good faith. He's at least as frustrated with the situation as you are. While I agree that conflict of interest is not an issue, I don't mind answering those who ask about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind answering questions about it either but this is not MONGO asking us if we have a conflict of interest, or even asking us to be sure that we're not motivated at all by wanting to link to that other website. I'll leave it at that before I rescind into whining, but MONGO if you're reading this then I'm more than willing to take it on faith that you're making this claim sincerely if you're willing to ask me to examine my own motives and then take my honest answer about it on faith as well. But one way or another the issue needs to be settled. If you're not willing to take me up on my offer please post to WP:COIN, get some administrator input, and then drop it. Milto LOL pia 19:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember that old article?

Do you remember when we had an article about ED? It was nominated for deletion something like 18 times, and kept closing as no consensus, or being speedy kept as too soon after the last AfD, or being deleted and then recreated... the point is, it didn't go away. After the last AfD, it finally went away. Do you know why? What was different about that one? Well, enough people finally decided that we needed to delete the article for boring encyclopedic reasons, and not because we find its subject offensive. Everyone (ok, many) managed to leave their moral outrage outside the room for a few hours. We managed to get a group of people to look objectively at sourcing, and whaddya know, there wasn't sufficient sourcing to have an article.

For a few more months, some of us guarded the deleted-again, back-again talk page, and make sure that it was always explained to inquirers that the page was deleted for lack of sourcing, and not because those racist, homophobic, baby-eating, so-and-sos appall us so much. It can't have anything to do with being "appalled".

Now, it appears that people are arguing that we not learn from history. Shall we conduct ourselves as we did at the 17 unsuccessful AfDs? Why not give the encyclopedia a chance; what's going to happen? Will Wikipedia Review suddenly become a reliable source, linked at the bottom of every article like the IMDb? Look at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia#Link to WR?. That's the idea. I got a bit frustrated in that case, but I hope you can see what I was pointing towards, and that it worked, and will continue to work. Let's try it. Let's learn from the past.

DHeyward, thanks for putting a succinct phrase to "symbolically stripping protection". That helps me understand the perception that I don't want to project, because that's not remotely my idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the attention it got from when I was being harassed by the contributors there ensured that the article was deleted...beforehand, whenever the article was nominated for deletion, ED partisans showed up in enough numbers to keep it from being deleted. In the end, their tactics worked against them, and this website finally enforced guidelines on the matter via relaible sources, and there were none. It failed notability.--MONGO 07:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It failed notability, not on some moral or defensive grounds. It failed for the right reason. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Like inditing Al Capone for tax evasion.—AL ^FOCUS! 16:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't (in my opinion) need to have a special policy against linking certain sites; as GTBacchus points out we already have sufficient means in policy to remove any links which are unencyclopedic, and without creating the drama and free publicity for these sites that MONGO's course of action seems to have precipitated.

However, the origins of the frustration that led to the edit-warring and incivility are moot. It needs to be clearly understood that all users, especially experienced ones, are bound by our policies. Anyone unable or unwilling to conform to that needs to be blocked. I would hope we can all agree on that. --John 22:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a new wikipedian - well, I say new, I've had this account since 2004, and I've been an avid reader, and only just recently decided to become a frequent editor. From a purely outside perspective it does seem that MONGO has, time and time again, pursued a relentless anti-*something* agenda, an agenda not unlike editors convicted by ArbCom or the community got slapped with an indefinite block because of. I do think it is a double standard. Again, I am a new editor here, and my opinion is not worth much. But I think someone objective needs to look at this situation - which will be hard cos nearly all of the community has been involved in this issue from the beginning - and decide whether to block MONGO or not. My opinion? A block is needed, and an indefinite one. But I am likely to be wrong. I just wish this issue would go away so we can concentrate on editing for once. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent...) I would wholeheartedly disagree with the indef block. He is a productive user and has created tons of very nice content for the project. All I ask is that the rules that apply to everyone else are applied equally. That is the heart of my argument. Spryde 10:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think MONGO may be headed for stronger sanctions, but I can't believe it would really take an indefinite block to stop his behavior. I hope, perhaps naively, that this discussion itself was all that it will take to get through to him. If not, stronger messages will be needed-- but an indefinitely block-- a wikideath penalty-- would be an incredible loss to the community, and I can't fathom it will truly have to come to that.

Without in any way calling MONGO immature, I'll use an analogy-- If an elementary school student insists on testing the limits of acceptable behavior, the solution is to provide clear limits and reliable consequences. Until you've done that, there's no reason whatsoever to contemplate expulsion. --Alecmconroy 14:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the same openness that lets me or Dan T contribute here also lets MONGO contribute here. Wikipedia would be a much less interesting project without him.—AL ^FOCUS! 14:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

MONGO does more good on Wikipedia than harm, far, far more. Milto LOL pia 23:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.