Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Report from ThuranX re: Joker "threat" emails

[1]

Section deleted. Given the nature of this problem, there is nothing that anyone who is not a checkuser can do about it, so there's no point fuelling the fire by discussing it and keeping him interested. WP:DENY, please. If you have concerns or questions of any kind about this, please e-mail the functionaries mailing list, functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org. We are looking at ways to solve this problem. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 15:40, 02 June 2009 (UTC) (fake time stamp to stop archiving)

Seconding Deskana's comment and request. Newyorkbrad (talk)

Update: We now have the ability to block IP users (and therefore, IP ranges) with the ability to send e-mails from accounts on that range disabled, which with some careful deployment by CheckUsers, should help this problem greatly. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes

Eh? Do you mean, "We have blocked the ip's from certain ranges, blah CheckUsers blah, from being able to use the email function."? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 22:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes the CheckUsers are currently working on it. Hopefully these emails would be a thing of the past. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like they already are.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder

Resolved

 – Banned by ArbCom, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#User:Guido den Broeder banned.

User:Guido den Broeder has been unbanned by User:Cool Hand Luke nearly a week ago, with a topic ban in place. His edits since then include a first edit denying any problems[2] (also [3]), removing quite normal posts as "personal attacks"[4][5][6], a claim that he won't edit Wikipedia anymore ([7]). He started being disruptive at [Talk:Global cooling]. He has already twice reverted perfectly normal edits as vandalism[8][9]; When called upon this, he removed this per WP:SPADE[10]. Finally, he posted a copyright violation[11], whihc I removed as such.[12]. When I then explained what he had to do to let it stay[13], he replied with the summary "pay attention pls" that since the speech was given in public, it was now in the public domain...[14]

This user has been banned before, but has been allowed to return. Since then, he has attacked the ArbCom member who unbanned him and caused all the above problems, all this in less than a week and less than 100 edits. I suggest that we don't waste a huge amount of time on him again but simply reinstate the ban before this starts all over again. Fram (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to add that CHL has acted brilliantly during this, first in the unblocking and extension of good faith, and then in addressing the concerns of other editors. This should not reflect badly on him, nor on the unblocking of problem editors with defined limits and a watchman such as CHL. Verbal chat 20:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The block log says that the user was unblocked by the Arbitration Committee so frankly, they should deal with it if there are issues. Perhaps WP:AE would be a better venue for this discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No, AE is for the enforcement of specific arbitration remedies, which does not seem to be the issue here.  Sandstein  21:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

WT:AC/N works just as well...I think you understand my point. Should the community really have a big discussion about this if the Committee will again overturn the outcome of said discussion? I really think that ArbCom should be handling the issue. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a point, while Arbcom blocks can only be undone by the Arbcom, unblocks by the Arbcom aren't "binding" and new behavior can supercede the unblock, if consensus is there. Any new blocks are just blocks. I've never heard of Arbcom "unblocks" having any special weight relative to their blocks. rootology/equality 21:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that's true. Above, I just assumed the opposite. Thanks for the note. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I agree with Rootology's interpretation. See below. Cool Hand Luke 00:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For various and good reasons I have removed the discussion in question from GDBs talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no involvement whatsoever with Guido, other than having initiated the discussion that got him banned. I observed Durova's good-hearted attempt to get him community-unbanned, which appeared to fail in the face of non-full disclosure from the banned party. I've also observed ArbCom's well-meaning trial unban and CHL's exemplary efforts to explain limits on behaviour. My sense of the developments over the last week or so is that GdB is more interested in discussing how many "t"'s you spell limit with than getting on with productive editing. This is a serious concern, to echo WMC's supposed personal attack, "this is all going to end in tears". ArbCom may choose to act, but the community may also choose to override ArbCom and re-instate the ban.

The situation bears watching. GdB seems well-meaning, but doesn't seem to understand the value of not shifting endlessly around every sentence and word. I'd say give it another week or so, in which time to try to more firmly establish that there are limits to behaviour. Franamax (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Right then, which administrator is going to make the tough decision to ban such a blatantly disruptive individual? I mean, there has got be a limit on how much wikipedians can tolerate before we get burdened by such annoying individuals, right? My vote is to ban him for the greater good of wikipedia. Nuff said~! --Dave1185 (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that sarcasm or genuine sentiment? It sounds a little like what Stalin or Henry II might have said. The current context is that we're trying to restore a previously banned user to good standing. Patience and attempts at education are warranted. These have their limits though... Franamax (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(after 10+ bwc's) :To clarify: I have no intention to edit WP articles at all at this time. My main interest currently lies in policy development, and occasionally I help out editors with policy questions. I suggest certain users to give me some space, refrain from making accusations related to things that may or may not have happened ages ago, and stop editwarring on my talk page, so that I actually get a fair chance. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I think that Guido's current behaviour is well within the norms of Wikipedia or at least it should be. Of course he used some questionable edit summaries, reverted a humorous edit on his talkpage by William and described it as an "rpa" in his edit summary, presumably meaning "personal attack", and pestered CHL, an absolute gentleman and just a messenger from the Arbcom, with inquiries about the topic ban. But his behaviour is not so egregious as to warrant reports at ANI, imo. I would hope that our behavioural norms are wide enough to accomodate Guido's present behaviour, because I'm afraid that if we reduce our tolerance to perfectly behaving people without any faults, this place will become too much of a cookie cutter factory to be of any use. Dr.K. logos 21:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact I applaud CHL and the Arbcom for their decision to unban Guido. Any action that expands the boundaries of inclusiveness within Wikipedia and extends the reach of WP:AGF is indeed commendable and in the best traditions of this project. Dr.K. logos 22:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a notice on WT:AC/N - Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Discussion of arbitration decision and enforcement at ANI. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Dr. K, the issue here is not necessarily with any one single edit, it's with the "arc of the storyline". An editor was banned, then was un-banned. On unbanning, the editor proceeded directly to discuss (some might say argue) the un-ban terms, and to begin editing at another contentious subject (Global cooling). They now protest that they are now only interested in policy development. Experience shows that this kind of interest in Wikipedia often doesn't work out well. In fact, when unbanned editors decide to focus on governance, they often are focussing on why they were right all along, and the whole thing was other people's fault. This seldom ends up well.

Our only interest here is that GdB ends up as a productive contributor to the encyclopedic content here. If a focus on policy ends up with policy better supporting production of content, all the better. If we're just looking at more discussions about (paraphrasing) "that depends on what your definition of 'the' is...", we're just causing other good-faith editors to tear their hair out. As I said above, this situation needs csreful attention and patient education. Success is not guaranteed however. Resumption of previous patterns of behaviour is not a good sign. Franamax (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• And hair is something that is not in abundance for some of us editors here... :/ --Dave1185 (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK; I knew that "pestering" would be part of being an arbitrator when I signed up. Don't worry about any alleged personal attacks toward me.

That said, I'm sure the Committee would be interested in your thoughts; they've retained review over his activity on Wikipedia. I had hoped that by setting some firm conditions, Guido could be steered away from topics that seem to have caused him trouble. I can't say I'm happy with the results so far, but I think the original theory was sound. Incidentally, I have recused myself from further involvement in his case.

I agree with Rootology about the review question. If the community wants to ban someone ArbCom has unblocked, I think they have that authority. The difference is that the community cannot unban someone banned by ArbCom. Cool Hand Luke 00:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Rootology is entirely correct, the community has that right. Whether they know how to exercise it wisely, is another matter entirely.

It's not specific topics that cause me trouble though. I've had a thorough look at all the topics on my watchlist can honestly say that as things stand, I expect trouble on any one of them, if I were to make an effort to improve their text. This has nothing to do with my editing style, which has always been constructive and will remain so. It has instead everything to do with how Wikipedia is currently functioning, to which someone with my background is more vulnerable than others.

This does not mean that I cannot contribute, just that my efforts will be better directed at other things. I have always had an interest in policy development, also in relation to my experience as an administrator, bureaucrat, project lead, etc. on various other projects, and there are still some kindred spirits here that value my input. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Luke, I didn't see your comments when I was replying to Franamax. I think it may have been an edit conflict. I note your comment about personal attacks. It doesn't surprise me because I expected such an approach from you. It is something that I like and really respect. It is nice meeting you. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 01:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

I agree completely with all your points Franamax, including the "arc of the storyline", as you so eloquently put it. I have to agree, it is a rather steep arc. I don't think smoothness is one of its attributes. Also you are right about policy discussions and encyclopaedic content. Hopefully Guido and other editors will cooperate in a sufficiently collegial environment that further drama will be avoided and the project will eventually benefit. I recognise that this a difficult case and some of the portents are not very good. But I wholeheartedly agree with your comment that the situation needs careful attention and patient education. Let's hope that this careful calibration will lead to an agreeable resolution. Finally I understand that success is not guaranteed. But I feel encouraged to see that other Wikipedians, such as you, are so fair minded and willing to give this user a fair chance, despite the not so great optics of the situation. I could ask for no more. Thank you very much for that. It was a great pleasure meeting you. Take care. Dr.K. logos 00:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you think?

In lines with Rootology and Cool Hand Luke... Guido and the community, ArbCom may have two options:

1. Leave this case at the hand of the community;
2. Close this thread and let ArbCom and Guido deal with it.

If you have any other options or may prefer one of the above please let ArbCom know at AC/N. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What does #1 entail? What happens if this case is left at the hand of the community? What is there to resolve? Dr.K. logos 01:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What is left to resolve is whether Guido has violated his return restrictions or whether some other community based action is warranted. With his unban by a majority of arbcom he is still subject to commnunity restrictions like any user with the addition of his return restrictions. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. Personally I think he should be given some breathing space to further adjust before any further action is taken. But that's just my opinion. Thank you very much for the clarification. Dr.K. logos 01:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

On the first, clarification has been asked from and will be provided by the ArbCom itself. This is not uncommon with unban restrictions, and I will abide by their decision. On the second, it is probably a good idea if someone could explain to Fram, who started this thread, that I did not violate any copyright. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite amazed that someone who owns a publishing house, and who plans on discussing policies here, can claim[15] that "It's a speech held this morning in public, so it's in the public domain now." This is a crucial misunderstanding of what public domain is and the Wikipedia:Copyright violations policy. Fram (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is entirely correct. One expects administrators to understand at least the basics of the concept. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This interpretation certainly doesn't accord with the decision of the 11th Circuit Court as rendered in 1999 in Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc.. This particular case concerned registration under the 1901 Copyright Act, but irrespective of the registration issue, the court was clear that public speaking is performance, which is protected speech ("Dr. King's delivery of his "I Have A Dream" speech was a mere performance of that work"; "[t]he rendering of a performance before the microphone does not constitute an abandonment of ownership or a dedication of it to the public at large"; "an audience [viewing a performance] does not thereby gain such dominion over the copy as to warrant the conclusion that the work has been surrendered to the public.") Do you have a verifiable source to suggest that copyright governance of public speech has changed? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, note that the original decision went the opposite way, so it was on the edge. But you are overlooking two essential aspects. King's speech is a creative work, De Meirleir's speech is a news item. It was furthermore distributed as a press release, even with explicit permission to redistribute ahead of time. Fram maintains that it is not allowed to post a press release. If that were true, newspapers would be out of business. Surely, that would defeat the very purpose of such a release. Kind regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The "edge"—that is, the earlier court decision—was related to the date of registration. Under the 1909 Copyright Act, which governed King's speech by date, copyright had to be registered at publication. King did not register his speech until after it was performed. The edge had nothing to do with speeches going into public domain. News items are also governed by copyright; the threshold of creativity, as the courts have clearly noted, is slim. Also, I am unaware of any law or court decision indicating that press releases are innately public domain. Many companies place prominent copyright notices on these. While they may be happy to publicize materials, they do not necessarily consent to these being freely reproduced or modified. For a single example, see this recent press release, Copyright (c) 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. The specifics of this case aside, it is misleading to say "It's a speech held this morning in public, so it's in the public domain now." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest to take into account the specifics of this case, since that's what initiated this AN/I report. As an apparent expert on copyright, help us out here. Is Fram correct by stating that press releases can't be posted, or not? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't consider myself an "expert", though I am somewhat experienced in some areas related to copyright. I look to reliable sources to confirm my impressions. It is my opinion that Fram is correct that press releases cannot be posted without verification that these are public domain or licensed compatibly to allow modification and liberal reuse, unless they are handled like any other copyrighted text under WP:NFC. WP:C notes that "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed." A press release carries an implied (if not explicit) license to reproduce for the outlets to which it is provided, but, again, so far as I am aware US courts have not verified that this implied license conveys to other publishers. Since you asked, I did try to find a definitive answer, but could not at least in the time I had to give it. However, the 2000 Handbook of Public Relations seems to support this, with the note that "...neither one's ideas nor those of a client for a press release or campaign can be copyrighted, but the written notes, photographs, printed verbiage, and/or recordings can" (citations omitted. Heath & Vasquez, p. [253, SAGE.) In the absence of verifiable information otherwise, we must presume that authors of press releases (or, more generally, the agencies that hire them) retain the right to set licensing terms for their use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The handbook is correct, thanks for finding this. Terms are limited to one aspect only: an embargo. Otherwise, it is not a press release. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you point out where the handbook says this? I only see one mention of "embargo" in the handbook, and it does not relate to this issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The way I personally look at it, since CFS and ME redirect to the same article, both fall under the topic ban; and if you disagree Guido, consider how quickly editing in ME has gotten you into trouble--it took less than a week. It's best if you just walk away to other parts of the encyclopedia to edit productively, otherwise I foresee continued problems. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a fair appraisal of the situation. I agree. Dr.K. logos 02:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not responsible for the faulty redirect. I have not been editing in ME either, I just made mention of news on my talk page and had a friendly discussion about it with Mastcell. There is furthermore no relation between the trouble Fram has caused me and the topic. Please, let's try not to make something of this that it is not. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What "trouble" have I caused you? The trouble of posting a "welcome" template on the talk page of an administrator[16]? The trouble of posting and reposting a copyright violation because you don't understand public domain and copyright? It's a bit to easy to blame someone else for your own actions... Fram (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I take full responsibility for my actions, thanks, and perhaps more importantly: for refraining from actions. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Some issues I see:

• Claiming an arbitrator, who made two issues to a contentious topic more than a year ago, is in conflict of interest, seems excessive. Claiming other users with valid, source-based disagreements are too biased to judge things like 3RR violations and the like is a common tactic with POV-pushers, which reduces the number of admins who are familiar with a topic sufficient to judge POV-pushing.
• Claiming he didn't realize ME and CFS were the same thing is absurd given the extensive discussions Guido was involved in over this very topic (and I believe was a substantial reason he was banned). See here, here, here, here (especially) and here. So if nothing else, given Hipocrite's comments, it should be clear that CFS/ME should not be discussed anywhere, including on his talk page.
• Claiming "I've had a thorough look at all the topics on my watchlist can honestly say that as things stand, I expect trouble on any one of them" is probably true, but claiming "This has nothing to do with my editing style, which has always been constructive" is either breathtakingly uninsightful or an outright lie. If that's the depth of insight that Guido gained while blocked, then I very much doubt that this is the last post on ANI we will see. Editing without conflict is quite easy to do if you're not giving due weight to what is said in reliable sources.

My opinion is GDB has done nothing but avoid taking responsibility for his actions, but that is just my opinion. Things haven't reached the point of a renewal of the ban, but it is apparent to me that nothing has changed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify for readers who are unfamiliar with the content dispute that has been going on since the start of Wikipedia: Fram and WLU believe that there is no genuine disease ME but that instead patients belong to some generic and (in their view) largely psychosomatic syndrome called CFS, and that ME was just an old name that got replaced. Therefore they equate the two topics, while I do not. It is now up to the ArbCom to decide where to go from here. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to second Rlevse, here, and repeat for the record that ME explicitly falls under the CFS topic ban. In fact, given your previous involvement in that very dispute, the very argument about whether they are or not the same also lies under the topic ban. Step away now. — Coren ^(talk) 12:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on CFS and whether it is psychosomatic or not. I have not included any CFS or ME related edits in my post here (the copyvio is ME related, but the reason I listed it here has nothing to do with the subject). I have not edited any CFS related articles for content reasons, only for dispute resolution, vandalism reverts, page protection... This is a weak attempt to change the subject of this section. I have made 9 edits to Chronic fatigue syndrome, the first one on October 23 2008[17], one vandalism revert in February[18], two more in February to protect it for three months[19][20], and five more, immediately after the protection expired and the disruption started again, between May 25 2009 and May 27 2009[21][22][23][24][25]. Fram (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify for readers who are unfamiliar with the content dispute, I believe that ME and CFS are treated as different names for the same condition. I believe this because of a thorough and reapeated reivew of sources that can be found in the archive links in the second bullet of this post. Please note in particular my first !vote regarding a redirect of ME to CFS on October 17th, 2007 in which I am explicitly agnostic on the topic. Painting me as a POV-warrior who came here with an opinion and a decision to inflict it on the innocent readers is completely, utterly wrong. I have no opinion on the psychosomatic versus biological nature of CFS because there is as yet no well-accepted etiology for the condition, though I have edited to include discussions of it's possibly psychosomatic nature in reliable sources. Guido has attempted to defend the difference between the two, in my mind unsuccessfully. I have analyzed the supporting sources for ME and CFS being different here and here (lengthy, perhaps skip to the conclusion). It is particularly aggravating to me that Guido would have the gall to accuse me of arriving on the scene with a preconcieved idea and pushing it in bad faith. This is a confusing condition, with no universally accepted diagnostic test, etiology or treatment, which Guido suffers from, and apparently strongly wants to believe that it is a biological condition. Anyone who takes lengthy time to review the talk page discussions on the topic will see the issues quite clearly. Put bluntly, I think we are wasting time on an drama-generating editor who has repeatedly demonstrated an an inability to work with other members of the community and an inability to understand and adhere to our policies and guidelines on verifiability, neutrality, consensus, soapboxing and probably a couple others. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

@Fram: The informed reader will find these diffs very telling. You call any edit that tries to make the article less biased towards the psychosomatic 'disruptive', despite thorough discussion on the talk page, and when you happen to find several anonymous (but clearly knowledgeable) editors on the other side of the argument you semi-protect the article for ridiculously long periods of time. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend any more time on these edits to CFS or any other CFS related topic after this post, but the fact that the edit warring by IPs started again the day after the 3-month protection expired indicates that it was not a "ridiculously long period of time". The IP has been reverted by at least eight editors now (me, Verbal, Crohnie, RobinHood70, Arthur Rubin, Flaming Grunt, OrangeMarlin, Gilliam), and has not discussed this on the talk page ever, despite repeated requests (through edit summaries and on his or her talk pages). The last revert to the IP preferred state, after the page was protected, was done by an editor who had never edited any article before this. I have engaged this editor on its talk page[26], only to get this not very promising response[27]. With your "experience as an administrator, bureaucrat, project lead, etc. on various other projects", it seems amazing that you would think that these IPs indicate "several anonymous editors" when, apart from the obvious evidence, you have even participated in a discussion that showed that they were checkusered and indeed were one and the same (Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome#Guido-s Revenge. Considering that this IP used your name to cause disruption (as Guido-s Revenge), and also uses Angela Kennedy's name to do the same (as Destroying Angela), I wonder what you hope to achieve by defending such an editor. Fram (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not, I am defending the good-faith anons that were reverted and insulted by you personally. The occasional vandal can simply be blocked, without the need to prevent others from contributing. Your actions on the article are in direct violation of the very essence of Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please stop making things up? You were wrong about the copyright thing (above), about the B-Class vs. C-Class (below), and aboutmy edits on this page and the IP's involved. You have provided splendid evidence of my initial post: you are a complete waste of time in many discussions you are involved in, since you keep on discussing long after the obvious and correct answer has been explained to you. I have reverted one good-faith anon on this page[28], and I have not insulted him or her. I have reverted one IP who replaced the infobox with question marks[29], again without insults. The other ones I reverted are 87.114.4.66 and 87.114.132.57, who fall clearly in the range of the previous disruptive editing by IP 87.112.34.51, IP 87.115.17.124, IP 87.115.17.165, considering that their edits were quasi-identical. So, which good-faith IP editors have I insulted? The others were not occasional vandals who can simply be blocked, they were single-minded IP-hoppers where page protection is the normal solution. All links to see this for yourself were added in my previous post...Fram (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that WLU is now hijacking this thread to once again spread misinformation on the topics in question seems equally telling to me. Please understand, that users Fram and WLU are not users that I work with. They are users that keep bothering me. I have instead worked happily and constructively with a great many other users, including on these topics. Note that the CFS article was rated B after we had worked on it, and has been downgraded to C (i.e. substantial info is missing) since WLU started editing there. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is B-Class now, was B-Class in April, March, February, January, ... The article was judged B-Class in December 2007[30], and I can't find any period when it was C-class (I obviously haven't checked all 1000+ edits individually). Fram (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected, it was another CFS article that received C status. The main article needs re-evaluation, as the text has nothing in common with the dec 2007 version. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were banned from this topic? Verbal chat 15:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Undent. Providing evidence of previous, extensive, source-based discussion is not my definition of hijacking. Providing diffs and section headings is also not misinformation, it's verbatim discussions. The users you work with are the users who edit the same pages as you. Failing to work with them leads to edit warring, blocks, bans and arbcom hearings. And for this discussionto go away, all Guido has to do is stop posting anything about CFS or ME, anywhere on wikipedia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Guido: ME falls under MFS, I strongly urge you to drop it, stop the wikilawyering, and move to another area of en wiki. This is my last warning. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I've had no involvement with GdB so consider this an outside view. First off I think CHL showed leniency towards GdB (which is a good thing) but I am opposed to any community banned editor being unblocked without being subject to clear terms of probation - they were banned for good reason. We've seen probation work and IMHO this case illustrates why we should implement it in such cases. It is troubling in the extreme to see the above behaviour from GdB in light of their block-log and the reasons for their ban, one would expect an unbanned account to demonstrate improved behaviour rather than demonstrate similar behaviour to that which had them blocked. There is something deeply problematic about an account with GbD's history being mainly interested in "policy development" while having "no intention to edit WP articles at all at this time"[31]. Wikipedia is not a social or political experiment and is not a bureaucracy - it's an encyclopedia and everyone's first priority should be articles.
  In short I suggest one of three options 1) sending this to ArbCom (which in light of the current list of requests will take a long time); 2) imposing a probation (beyond the topic-ban) to be monitored by uninvolved sysops or 3) reinstatement of community ban--Cailil ^talk 14:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. Disclaimer: I've had interactions with GdB for quite some time now, in quite a few places. Based on that previous interaction, I do not hold his ability to work collaboratively and constructively in high regard, and I don't see his recent contributions as very helpful... they tend to be wikilawyering. If he's not here to help build the encyclopedia, option 3 seems the likely eventual outcome, but starting with option 2 seems a good starting point. Perhaps there is a chance of improvement? ++Lar: t/c 16:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I have no objection to probation. Seems like a normal thing in the case of an unban. I've also suggested for someone in good standing to monitor my actions, which should work a lot better than a whole bunch of users on my tail at random intervals. If Lar is willing to take the job, that would be fine with me. After these first few busy days my actions will be fairly limited. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
      • So long as the topic ban remains n place, fine. Verbal chat 17:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure I have the time to take a mentoring role on... the only way I'd do it is if GdB immediately agreed about the definition of scope of the topic ban is what ArbCom members say it is, because I'm not going to argue that point. As usual I'd prefer to partner with someone or better, two someones. But, to be fair to GdB, I'm not sure I'm impartial enough. And that seems like a show stopper, more than any other challenge. ++Lar: t/c 04:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Just on a quick point of clarification what I proposed above is the ArbCom topic ban plus further conditions. If GbD has agreed to probation then these are the conditions that I would suggest: banned from WP:RFA, civility parole and the ArbCom topic ban (that is from Chronic fatigue syndrome & myalgic encephalomyelitis pages and topics to be broadly defined - that is a ban from editing or discussing anything related to CFS and/or ME anywhere on wikipedia) for 1 year from 00:00 (UTC) June 1st 2009. The ArbCom topic-ban and its definition are non-negotiable and I suggest if GbD cannot agree to it then we go back to my third option. Personally I also think we should include something about wikilawyering in the probation too-Cailil ^talk 16:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Guido blocked

I've blocked Guido one week. Arbcom will consider the status of his unban. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• *sigh* [32] we might just have to extend that block per WP:NLT or am I being too 'jumpy'--Cailil ^talk 02:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The "legal threat" is borderline. Of much greater concern is his statement I have done nothing wrong, as I have done nothing wrong in the past[33] i.e., he Just Doesn't Get It. Sometimes when you try and reach out to someone it just doesn't work and you have to write them off. This is one of those times. Indef block, put this behind us and move on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree that it is border-line ... but I don't like the sound of it especially considering he was blocked 11 months ago for actually breaking NLT. And I concur the bigger issue is that he seems just 'not to get it'--Cailil ^talk 04:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider it a legal threat myself. Cool Hand Luke 03:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cool Hand Luke. While I disagree with what Guido says, it is not a legal threat for him to say that he perceives his reputation to have been damaged, which is a prominent dictionary definition for the word "defamation". Risker (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Guido has been banned by arbcom by a vote of 10-0 for editing incompatible with the project. See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#User:Guido_den_Broeder_banned. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech

Unresolved

 – Split massive (138kb) thread to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/DougsTech. slakr^\ talk /

User:subash.chandran007 and User:Scenexcore12

It is obvious from the three edits made to 1953 in sports on 28 May that these two users are the same person and that both accounts are being used for vandalism, with one pretending to revert the other but leaving a similarly malicious edit elsewhere in the article. I recommend that both are banned indefinitely. --User:Orrelly Man (talk) 09:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; while User:Scenexcore12 is quite clearly a vandalism only account (and now indef blocked), I see nothing in the history of User:subash.chandran007 to indicate that they are in any way associated with the other account. Looks to me like a simple case of reverting vandalism, without noticing that the previous edit also contained vandalism. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC).

Ditto. Please be more careful when reporting things here, this is how bad rumors get started in school. Cheers, Man. lifebaka++ 10:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what has happened now. My apologies to User:subash.chandran007. Thanks for clarifying and dealing with the vandalism account. --Orrelly Man (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted the edits by User:Scenexcore12.Anyways User:Orrelly Man ! apologies accepted -SubashChandran⁰⁰⁷ ׀ sign! 11:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Subash.chandran007: Why did you change Orrelly Man's signature on the initial message? Celestra (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Chalk it up as a mistake, eh? lifebaka++ 17:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops . i was copying the user name of both and ended up misplacing them. will correct them now -SubashChandran⁰⁰⁷ ׀ sign! 17:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Moreover i have a query , whether the flag raised against me cause any problem when i request for rollback permission -SubashChandran⁰⁰⁷ ׀ sign! 18:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as I just looked over your contrib history, and was impressed by your anti-vandal work, and gave you the rollbacker flag, I'd say "probably not" =). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

Diversity

Could we have admins watching various pages under Diversity (dance troupe) and similar titles? Several different articles under similar titles have been created (one is AFD) and I think protection maybe needed shortly. D.M.N. (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll lend my eyes for this. Help is appreciated, though. Drop me a note if I miss something that needs taking care of. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Me too. --John (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Changing the subject—the AfD referred to above was (after 41 minutes) closed by a non-admin as "speedy keep," even though a delete and a merge opinion had been registered. Once again (I've brought this sort of thing up before), this is an invalid closure; and 41 minutes seems a bit quick even for snowballing an AfD. I leave it to the admins to decide if any action is needed. Deor (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty quick, but a Google News search brings up more than 4600 news articles - posted in the last 24 hours. We tend towards keeping individual articles on reality show winners; I don't think that AFD was going to end in any other way. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Pagemove vandal

Resolved

 – Page moves corrected and editor indefinitely blocked as a vandalism only account. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to go through the contribs of RadarJim (talk · contribs) and revert the pagemoves to the proper titles.  Skomorokh  03:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done. — Aitias // discussion 03:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the editor has been blocked for three hours. They tried to add themselves to the Abuse Filter under false positives. Here's the abuse filter log. Someone trying to probe for weaknesses perhaps.  Skomorokh  03:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

---

This should have warranted an indefinite block. I would think that racist edits would be frowned upon a little more than a block for 3 hours. Especially when his next edit was to do it again. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

And it's been done. Good (clear) call. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

De-facto ban review/endorsement for User:PirateSmackK

PirateSmackK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by Toddst1 indefinitely today (log), reason given that PirateSmackK attempted to trick a crat' into granting sysop/admin rights to him. I'm posting it here for the record, so that the community may decide whether to endorse it as a de-facto community ban (as no other admin willing to unblock) or to shorten/review the block. Editors may want to note the previous threads on AN/I about PirateSmackK : [34] [35] - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Endorse Block After reviewing the diffs there I endorse a ban block, however in the interest of fairness maybe the length should be a bit less then indefinite maybe a term of a few months with a reinstatement —Preceding unsigned comment added by HellinaBucket (talk • contribs) 16:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse as mentor. PiratesmackK has now admitted he meant to do that but thought it was "a joke", so I'll add "bullshitting" to his list of little disruptions. I stopped him from getting blocked when he was pissing around and doing next-to-nothing useful - a second chance is not a second chance to piss around again. I have serious doubts that he's here to contribute usefully - see his Encyclopedia Dramatica efforts, replying to this (remove the *, spamblacklist you see with something (which has now been hidden, odd, but User:Mentifisto will back me up on this) reading along the lines of "lol, I'm just enjoying the drama at the moment". Ironholds (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - was just here to fuck around. Good riddance. //roux   16:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• "to trick a crat' into granting sysop/admin rights"? Diff? I see this which is rollbacking, and neither a sysop or an admin right. I also don't see anything "tricky" about the above. So, provide diffs, and I find it highly questionable that three people responded to this without asking for diffs. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  Ottava, I missed it too first time around; the link Pirate actually provided was to Special:MakeSysop/PirateSmackK, and he marked it as [[Special:MakeSysop/PirateSmackK|rollback. That's the diff - I assume the two respondents worked it out and replied based on that. Ironholds (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not "highly questionable" to look at the contrib log and backtrack over this and other dispute to see a pattern of ongoing disruption. You may want to ask what we based our opinions on rather then question our motives outright, at least give us the chance to explain our opinions before assuming we are commenting in bad faith. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's in the block log itself. - Mailer Diablo 17:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not even close to obvious. You should have provided this information. You can't just call for an indef block discussion without providing the appropriate diffs. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? He linked to the previous discussion, where Pirate was not blocked in exchanged for supervised editing and not arsing around, and then linked to Pirate arsing around while under said supervision. That's called "diffs". Ironholds (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That is not the justification for an indef. The justification was the tricking someone into providing sysop rights without even linking to that. Such a thing is unacceptable and shows a lack of propriety in an indef discussion. Have some more respect for people before you put them on the chopping block. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

And I just had to give him his ANI notice. Mailer Diablo should really have known better than to start a thread at ANI about someone and not do this. This is really bad practice.Ottava Rima (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

He did know, and Mailer told him - Pirate blanked his talkpage. "The justification was the tricking someone into providing sysop rights without even linking to that" - the justification was attempting to trick him, and it was linked. I explained where in the diff you questioned the "trick" was. Ironholds (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't excuse lack of the original diffs. The "trick" wasn't linked above. I was the first one to post the diff on ANI. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised you said that because I brought it here with the view that his block might actually be reduced; quite the opposite of what you might actually think. I actually expect other editors to run through his contribs and make the judgment for themselves. - Mailer Diablo 18:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, most people took it as if you are supporting the indef and then followed in suit. If you want the block reduced, then put forward the actual situation, analyze it to point out why the situation shows that it is not to the extent that justifies a complete ban, and then hope people see reason. Live, learn, and all of that. Not that anything would probably have changed how this has resulted, as the people have seemed to be very happy to set forth a new standard for indeffing. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse community ban - That "joke" on EVula's talk page was intolerable – we could have had one of the most disruptive sysops ever if EVula had fallen for it. While I have seen PirateSmackK around, and he has made a few good/insightful edits, he's an all-out net negative in the end. Precisely what Roux said – good riddance. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 16:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - Unfortunately, there are two words in play: "less" and "clue". Your order may vary. This is a serious project, and this editor is doing his best to go against my belief that "everyone has something to add to Wikipedia". Maybe he does, but not in this manner. (talk→ BWilkins ←track)
• Endorse All the game players need to be shown the door. rootology/equality 17:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - No steward would have been fooled. It would take you to another page that is clearly marked, and if EVula would have approved it he should have his Steward access removed for not reading things first. Furthermore, he probably wouldn't click on that link to give rollbacks regardless. This is an egregious block for something that isn't even an actual violation. There are far too many mobs at ANI indeffing people without a good reason. This is a disturbing trend. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't you mean bureaucrat? EVula isn't a steward. SUL 21:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, that's right, he made CU and not Steward. I couldn't remember which was which. Either way. Stewards and Crats can both equally use the button (and Founders, if we want to add all three). So yeah, even those lowly Crats wouldn't make that mistake. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, bureaucrats do make mistakes when changing user rights. User:Lar, a steward, has made more than one mistake (see [36] [37]) and he hasn't lost his steward access. SUL 22:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse Ottava makes a good point, true. Noone would really have given him those rights by just clicking the link, as far as I know, opening a link will not make him a sysop, will it? So EVula would have had to confirm this and if he had, it would have been his fault. Nevertheless, I do thing the block is justified. This user has (as evidenced above) a long history of such behavior and has not shown any signs of learning from previous ANI discussions. As such, there is now no other explanation other than to assume that they are only attempting to disrupt the 'pedia. This cannot be tolerated. Regards SoWhy 17:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Is that how Wikipedia is turning out now? A series of relatively minor problems and we just shove them into indef and hope they don't come back, when we know that a large majority do come back as sock vandals? Why not put it at a week block? Or something else? Or why don't we try to find him a mentor? Do we solve all of our problems by just pushing them under the carpet now? I am troubled by this recent trend as it has never solved anything in the past. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Have you read the ANI discussions? We did find him a mentor. He was told we wouldn't block him, we'd just supervise his editing and he'd be left alone if he didn't piss about. Result? He pissed about. He's contributed nothing useful apart from a lot of myspacing and some minor AV work. Ironholds (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that an indef block is strenous and renew my call to at least ban him for a month or two with a reinstatement of mentorship at that time with an understanding that further jokes will end with a community indef ban. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"He pissed about" If that is what it takes to be indeffed, I can give you a whole series of people who just "piss about", including over 2 dozen people who frequent ANI constantly and many, many admin. Why don't we indef them too based on the above standard? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse > he's dome some really silly things, but trying to fool a crat into sysopping him really takes the biscuit. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 17:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Community ban enough violations of WP:DE to exhaust patience. This account has shown that they are out to disrupt the site--Cailil ^talk 18:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose You guys are way too serious business. He did not hurt anything and has a good edit record. An indef block is way too harsh in this case. --Zaiger _talkplx 18:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  Good edit record? We're talking about a different editor, yes? One who wasn't under editing sanctions for his godawful standard of editing? Disclosure, Zaiger is Pirate's friend from Encyclopedia Dramatica, where Pirate has been bragging (RE: the last ANI thread) about "enjoying the drama". Ironholds (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  So I am a sysop on another wiki, what does that have to do with anything on Wikipedia? Nothing. It is obvious that you just have personal issues with anyone associated with Encyclopedia Dramatica, which makes you far from partial in this matter. --Zaiger _talkplx 19:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  Its obvious? Based on what? My concern is that you and Pirate associate off-wiki, and indeed that one of the first things he did here was say hi to you. My opinion would not change whether this association was by email, IRC, ED or anywhere else, the fact of the matter is that you're not a neutral party and did not disclose that. Ironholds (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  I don't have to be partial, you are the one throwing a temper tantrum at me for not share the same opinion as you. I just said an indef ban is a little harsh for someone asking for sysops. The truth is that piratesmakk and I only know each other because he is a user and I am a sysop at ED, we do not chat, email, twitter, myspace, talk on the phone, or go out for sunday brunch together. Alison said hello to me also, are you going to chimp out on her next? </conversation> --Zaiger _talkplx 22:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  You don't have to be impartial, but it is nice to disclose it. In the interests of a level playing field, that's what I'm doing. I did not throw a temper tantrum, I was slightly confused because Pirate doesn't have a "good edit record", not at all. He's been here just over a month and he's already had an ANI thread on him for his activities in which he had to undergo supervised editing or be blocked. Respecting the points of view of others is something I believe in, but when that point of view is obviously detached from reality (and influenced by your contact with him, I must assume, because the alternative is that you're completely unaware of the situation). Again, I'm not "throwing a temper tantrum" - you, on the other hand, are accusing me of doing so and having something against ED. And while I don't, it's obviously perfectly acceptable to do so, because "I don't have to be [im]partial" (I assume you mean "impartial" rather than "partial" because "partial" would mean "I don't have to be involved". Ironholds (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  By the way Zaiger, you do know mr.SmackK from here. He's the one who renamed your userpages to "Pedobear"[38], remember? Apparently "per request in email"... Yintaɳ  14:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  Echo what Ironholds has to say, plus: what length of block would you suggest, then, Zaiger? </humouring> ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 18:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  I think one or two months is suffieciently suited to the level we wnt to convey without overdoing it.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  I agree --Zaiger _talkplx 19:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  Given the fact that PirateS was already on his second chance, what makes you think that he will not continue being disruptive, jokey and lulzey and lovin' da dramahz in a couple of months' time? ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 19:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  Oh I apologize, I didn't realize that joking was a bannable offense, someone needs to stop this monster now then. --Zaiger _talkplx 19:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  Joking isn't per se, it all depends on how much of it there is, and how appropriate it is. It's not really "joking" to put make-sysop links on a 'crat's talkpage under false pretences. It's disruptive, particularly after being warned for such "jokes" as adding {{db-faggotry}} to pages. And disruption is bannable, of course. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 19:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

At that point we will allready have the consensus for a community ban. A two month ban is not a brush offable offense, it conveys a very serious message. this is his second his next is the third. 3 strikes and you're out. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse indef, the latest incident is much less serious than some of the previous ones but this was something of a last chance. Did he hurt anything? Well Pedo and Faggot are pretty hurtful insults. ϢereSpielChequers 19:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse Even though EVula would not have been fooled by that link (see the difference between Special:MakeSysop and Special:UserRights), he has been too disruptive recently. SUL 19:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse "Indefinite" is just that - and it can be lifted tomorrow or never, and the person who will be responsible for that is the blocked user; if they wish to make a go at having a net positive Wikipedia experience then they can make the attempt. For the record I oppose a community ban, since my feeling is that PSK is not acting maliciously (if only because that would entail a quantity of serious application that is otherwise absent from his participation) but for the "lulz". It may be that they will grow up, perhaps even in the near future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse long-term block, but not necessarily an indef right off the bat. Ottava is right, in no reasonable world should any bureaucrat actually click that link without knowing what it does. However, this is not a reasonable world. I'm not saying I would have clicked it, nor am I saying evula may have. Nor am I saying it was a deliberate power play or trick by PirateSmackK. It may just have been for fun, EUI, whatever. However that doesn't make it okay. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not MySpace, ED or any other place that we won't mention because of a couple low-numbered rules, where getting tricked or seeing a trap gives you a giggle. As Wikipeida is an encyclopedia, we need to maintain a collegial atmosphere. We cannot tolerate these sorts of shenanigans, and when it becomes clear PirateSmackK can comport himself in a professional manner, PirateSmackK should be readmitted to the community. WP:SO might provide some useful thoughts on how to manage this editor's eventual return. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse community ban. He's not here to help build the encyclopedia, and trying to deceive is not okay. Fortunately, EVula knows what he's doing. However, he's caused too much disruption, and WP will irrefutably be better without that disruption. hmwithτ 21:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• What? Joke links are a reason to ban people now? There may or may not be legitimate reasons to block / ban this particular user, but putting a joke link on the user talk page of someone is not one of them. Sheesh. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with MZM. Pirate's done some pretty bizarre things, but joking on a talk page is not in itself bannable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) Comment As the editor who initially welcomed Pirate, I thought I should comment. Ottava brings valid points to the table; but, I think we need to give due weight to Ironholds as the mentor as well. It's obvious we're not dealing with WP:NOCLUE here, and considerations of gaming the system has crossed my mind. Perhaps we could revisit the situation after his "long wiki-break" Indef =/= infinate, and I hate to look at permanent community ban issues without consideration to any constructive edits. I'm not sure I understand the intent with his strong desire to have admin. buttons, rollback, etc. I don't want to take anything at prima facia value, and I'd certainly be interested in any perception EVula had on this. Has anyone notified her of this thread? — Ched :  ?  21:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to thank everyone here that thinks I'm so stupid as to fall for such a painfully obvious joke. Thanks! :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Hey! You should be honored that I defended your intelligence even though it goes against every fiber of my being. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, that just made this whole fiasco totally worth it in my books. :D EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Hopefully you don't think I ever questioned your gray-matter, just thought those closest to the situation can offer the best perspective. — Ched :  ?  22:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose It was just a joke. -download ׀ sign! 22:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support So is yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre or making obscene phone calls. HalfShadow 23:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Your analogy is a tad strange - one is a life or death matter, the other could be something that someone doesn't get in trouble for or could be sexual harassment, a death threat, etc. Very little parallel. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support 30-day block. — Ched :  ?  23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• While I support a 30 day block in order to provide Pirate the chance to re-evaluate his patterns and goals here, and I think it's time to put a halt to such nonsense, I also strongly oppose a "Ban" per LHvU line of thinking. — Ched :  ?  02:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Non-admin Support per LessHeard vanU, and because some "jokes" have serious consequences. Kcowolf (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• STRONG oppose That guy is a good editor and he makes a positive contribution to wikipedia, I would support a 24 hour block but that's all I think would be apropriate.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  He's been here a month and already had two ANI threads on him for his editing - that isn't "a good editor [who] makes a positive contribution to Wikipedia". Ironholds (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Greatly oppose Listen, Pirate is a good editor. You may have your feelings hurt Ironholds but don't act like a hypocrite. You can't act like an unbiased user when you're making a hard, biased decision. There are plenty of satirist and comedian esq. users on Wikipedia, so stop acting like a tool and get the fuck over your emotions and biased feelings towards Pirate. This is not a vandal we are talking about, so stop treating him like one and slandering the hell out of him. Seriously, you all endorse an indefinite block? You should all be ashamed. With my own entitled opinion, M^\R

  A good editor lasts more than a month without two ANI threads. I can't see how you can accuse me of bias when the diff was discovered by a different user, blocked by another and brought up at ANI by a third, all me. I attempted to support PiratesmackK initially. I don't quite understand where your accusations of bias are coming from. You, on the other hand, are a former vandal and ED user - I note the other users claiming Pirate is a quote "good contributor" are as well. Coincidence? In future, by the way, I advise you to watch your mouth and avoid personal attacks ( stop acting like a tool and get the fuck over your emotions) and learn the correct meaning of the word "slander". Ironholds (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  "A good editor"? [39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45]. Give me a break. Yintaɳ  13:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Completely, unreservedly endorse Toddst1's indefinite block — and this comes from somebody who seldom ever speaks out against a fellow editor (or for that matter, person). Pirate has demonstrated nothing but immaturity ever since he started and his presence is wholly disruptive to the encyclopedia, and when he was given the opportunity to be mentored it blew up in everyone's face. That link on EVula's talk page was basically the proverbial straw that broke the camels back. I say be done with it, there's no need to waste time on an editor who never learns. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• On second thought, endorse shortening it to its original length. 96.52.64.82 (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, 1 or 2 weeks would be good if it's that serious for you guys. I mean, he may joke around a lot but he's made good contributions. Just so you know, I really don't like Pirate, but an indefinite block is really really over the top. M^\R —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

I guess it's sort of obvs but that IP above is mine. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: I'm sure the "victim" would've undone the action well before any damage could be done, and is smart enough to hover over a link before clicking it.. Removing him from the community on a permanent basis is extreme, though some punishment is in order for the failed prank. Perhaps a month long block, then whatever probation? That Thing There (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Pattern of disruption, and the way he linked to the rights change with a misleading tag is plain dirty. Maybe he can apply after 6mos or so, but not now and I'd leave as is. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per the history of disruption more than anything else. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. He was just gaming the system and effing about. Sometimes the WP community assumes too much Good Faith for far too long, and this was one of those times. Arguing about the length of the ban/block is pointless IMHO since he's probably back already under a different username anyway. Yintaɳ  12:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, disruptive user - that link may or may not be serious but it was still flagrantly stupid considering his previous history of disruption. I doubt that he'll ever become a constructive user. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endores Editors with this short of a history at Wikipedia that show this level of poor judgement are probably not a net benefit for the project. Impersonating an admin is not something to be taken lightly, and coupled with a past history of problems, I do not see this user as being interested in improving the encyclopedia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. We need editors who will help build an encyclopedia. This editor does not. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If that is your standard, I can provide you a large list of people who don't help build the encyclopedia. There are many people on that list that just edit ANI and do nothing constructive. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  Contributing to the smooth running of the place on ANI is constructive, and does help create a climate suitable for building an encyclopedia. There are cleaners who work for Microsoft—while they don't directly work on software engineering, they help in the broad creation of the operating system, and it couldn't be done without their services. PirateS, however, posted silly joke (at best) links whilst under agreement not to mess about. And that had no positive impact, direct or indirect, on the enyclopedia. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 15:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse indefblock. We need editors who will build the encyclopedia, and we do not need editors who use it as a playground to prat about in. He has filed an unblock request; on the basis of the obvious consensus here I am going now to decline it. Any admin or above who didagrees, please feel free to revert me. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

has another mentor stepped forward?

Without commenting on the appropriateness of the block/ban, has another mentor stepped forward to offer to work with this user? I get the feeling that Ironhold's offer is no longer in place. Since the user was allowed to continue editing after the ANI discussion with the understanding the user would edit with a mentor's guidance, it seems that any unblock would need to at least fulfill that minimum requirement. –xeno^talk 12:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that needed? At the moment I'm seeing a lot of endorsements for an indef. Ironholds (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I posted this as more of a prompting to those arguing for his unblocking. A new mentor in place strikes me as a necessary starting point for that argument. –xeno^talk 14:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, gotcha - sorry I misunderstood. Ironholds (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is asking for unblock, we're only asking for a block in place of the ban. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't ask for that, though. Original situation was "its a block". It came to ANI, ANI said "it's a ban". You can't really go "excuse me ANI, could you please change your mind". Ironholds (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The title also says De-facto ban which means unofficial community ban. And if that is the case then I have to Oppose Community Ban, however I believe we are trying to get a consensus on the appropriateness of the actions because the original was an indef block. The title may have been misnamed and I do believe I am writing in the spririt of this threadspurpse. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

also the thread states "to endorse it as a de-facto community ban (as no other admin willing to unblock) or to shorten/review the block." so I am commenting correctly as to my views on the situation. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now the majority wants a ban however if we leave it at a lower more manageable remedy just block him, don't ban him so if he does decide to grow up he can return appropriately. I'm probably not the best qualified but I will attempt to mentor him if he ever gets the indef block lifted. I will warn though I am a bit like Ironholds and would do the same thing he's doing now if Pirate did anything similar again. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a colorful edit history so I won't be hurt if you guys disagree either. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we've ever interacted, so "I'm a bit like Ironholds" doesn't really work. As you say, the majority want a ban, so why bother fixing mentors? The block is an indefinite one - if he is eventually unblocked we can cross that bridge then. Ironholds (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean that as a bad thing, you obviously don't like putting up with crap. I'm the same in that respect. You might want to tone things down a bit though because you are getting pretty worked up here, keep cool it'll all work out on it's own. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see myself as getting "worked up". I don't like obvious ED buddies commenting and trying to portray themselves as neutral parties, but that's another thing all together. My point was that your comments seem a bit premature - there is consensus for a block, and borderline consensus for a ban. As such, establishing a mentor is pointless. Ironholds (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You may not see it but the way you are talking to people is a bit ramped up. I think that people are just really annoyed right now and need to step back and reconsider when their head is cleared. I'm not pirates frend never interacted with him either. I just see a whole lot of people that want to sweep someone under the carpet for something trivial, it was serious enough to warrant an extended block but not a Ban. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't saying you were (sorry if that came across, I meant the ED people). We're not sweeping him under the carpet for something trivial - we're sweeping him under the carpet because he did that something, lied about how and why he did it and did all of that while already on probation, with the threat being "if you mess around while you're on probation, you'll be blocked". Ironholds (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I just want to state my point that an Indef. Block would do the same thing. I'm only arguing that the community ban is too strenous. Yes his offense was serious enough to warrant a block, but to ban him that is, in my opinion trivial. I personally believe a 2 month block with possible reinstatement is the way to go, I would suggest some requirements such as authoring an article with 7 reliable sources and reinstatment with a mentor. While not cakewalk it's not permemant either and makes the editor demonstrate willingness to work towards this project (and hopefully gain a new respect for what we are trying to achieve). Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose indef ban, but support long-term block. Editor does good work -- he just needs to learn to leave the vandalism out of it. Maybe 3 months? A year probably wouldn't be too long, but I'd like to see a shorter time tried first, with zero tolerance for repeat behavior. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, indef doesn't mean forever... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I know, but setting a time will give him something to wait for, instead of posting multiple "I've reformed, give me a chance to prove it" messages.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not spam!

Resolved

 – It's on the blacklist on Meta. No can do here. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 17:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Why will this site not let me add *[http://lenr-canr.org Comprehensive index of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions papers] (cannot even link it in this forum? sheesh!)? LENR-CANR.ORG is the best site on the internet for explaining real, observed cold fusion phenomena, and contains links to print resources and other hard-to-find materials. I have been using that site for years and never found a virus or been spammed or found anything besides accurate, truthful information. Omitting this link is a MISTAKE, or, dare I suggest it?, an intentional slur by wiki editors against honest, dedicated researchers pursuing our best hope to end global warming and the energy crisis. Thank you for your prompt attention in this matter. 70.88.48.118 (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well considering that there's been no well-documented evidence that cold fusion is real, I'd say it's been blocked as a fringe source. Ironholds (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It was, actually. And ArbComm rejected that, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG. See, specifically, JzG's use of the spam blacklist, JzG not an uninvolved administrator with respect to cold fusion articles and Purpose of the spam blacklist. --Abd (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's on the global spam blacklist (hosted on Meta), so we can't do anything about it here. I can't find why it was added (there seems to be no archived discussion), but I'm sure there's a good reason. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 17:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

<< Ah, here we go. Apparently the site's owner was abusively pushing his POV on the English Wikipedia, so it blocked out. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 17:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Very complicated situation. Most responses here are incorrect, or off the point, but this editor came in, totally naive about the situation and unaware of current efforts at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#lenr-canr.org (3), and was understandably outraged that what is one of the top two web sites on the internet for finding information on Cold fusion is blacklisted. The blacklisting itself, which began here on en.wikipedia, led to an ArbComm admonishment of the blacklisting administrator, but, since that admin went to meta while delisting was being requested here, is trusted there, it was blacklisted there without any apparent investigation, and undoing that is complicated, delisting there was denied, but ArbComm did rule that the blacklist is not to be used for content control. And that was in the specific context of this blacklisting, it wasn't some abstract ruling. However, ArbComm has no jurisdiction over meta, nor does it make specific content decisions, so ... you can see how controversial this is by the current discussion on the whitelist page, where arguments that ArbComm has rejected are being heavily pushed, while other arguments are more cogent, and it is one big mess, I feel sorry for the poor administrator who feels obligated to read that discussion. I asked the IP editor to stop. --Abd (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Understandably outraged"... They ruled that the blacklist is not to be used for content control, but did they rule that this had occurred? The current discussion and consensus on the whitelist seems pretty clear. Verbal chat 18:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Consensus" seemed pretty clear from a host of editors, before this went to RfAr, including Verbal, running two to one, that I was beating a dead horse. ArbComm decided otherwise. No, they made no specific content decision. That's not what they do. --Abd (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

But did they say that the blacklist had been used inappropriately, as you imply? Verbal chat 18:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. See the findings of fact for JzG, cited above in my response to Ironholds. ArbComm would not issue a finding on principles, as they did with the blacklist, unless some case has arisen that represents a violation of it. They specifically found that JzG had abused the blacklist. What they did not do was to find that meta had done so as well, this question was not litigated, and they don't have jurisdiction. --Abd (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence that ArbCom ruled on the acceptability of adding the name to the blacklist, merely that the individual who added it shouldn't have added it. Of course, if you have a concise quote from someone with authority, that would be great. Hipocrite (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see the diff too. I see no criticism of JzGs addition, just a description of what happened. No where does it say that the list was used inappropriately, that I can see. Verbal chat 19:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin needs to gain consensus first before considering to unblock

Resolved

An admin might be considering to unblock a wikihounder without consensus.

The IP has made a number of unblock requests and was denied an unblock and now an admin might possibly be considering to unilaterally unblock the IP who was wikihounded me. The IP intentially reverted my edits numerous times but did not target other editors. It is important for the admin to gain consensus first before unblocking.

The admin thinks this is in part about the co-founder issue. This has nothing to do with the co-founder issue. The IP even reverted my edit at the Larry Sanger page. This is related to chiropractic and not the co-founder issue.

After reading this comment it does seem the IP thinks it is appropriate to wiki-hound me or is someone who, in good faith, is clueless enough to think that looking through my contributions and reverting my edits is appropriate. Wiki-hounding is not acceptable. QuackGuru (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP clearly won't stop. The IP wants to continue the debate about the co-founder issue. This wikihounding by the IP needs to stop. QuackGuru (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think your posts here are helpful, nor is threatening Mangojuice with a block. Admins are chosen to decide when and how to handle such requests amongst other things and should be trusted to do the right thing (as I trust MJ to check with those who declined the request and the admin who blocked the IP). There is no need for admin intervention in a case where an admin just is doing his job. Even if MJ decides to grant the unblock request, the IP can be reblocked at any time if needed. Regards SoWhy 20:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I informed the admin of the situation. When the IP indicated that the wikihounding won't stop an indef-block is appropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith QuackGuru - an accusation of wikihounding needs to be fully and properly substantiated. This editor didn't say they'd follow you around reverting every edit you make - if they did then they'd be wikistalking. In fact they were quite honest and said that your areas of interest overlap--Cailil ^talk 20:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you point to the consensus discussion that resulted in the ip's block? Blocks are not usually the result of consensus, but the interpretation by the blocking admin of violation of policy and there is in place the ability to contest blocks both on the grounds of misapplication and also as deprecated (the blockee undertakes to cease the activity/ies that lead to the block). From my review Mangojuice is discussing the basis under which he may consider unblocking - noting the requirement to stop pursuing certain topics and individuals - and the ip is not heeding that advice. I see neither the ip getting the unblock, nor anything wrong with Mangojuice's conduct, but I do see considerable problems in your block warning to Mangojuice; you seem unaware of how Wikipedia works to the extent that you do not know that ip's are hardly ever indefinitely blocked. Again, I would ask you to link to the discussion or other process that formed this consensus you speak of. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with LHVU - "Mangojuice is discussing the basis under which he may consider unblocking" which is thoroughly appropriate - we don't leave IPs blocked indefinitely (see WP:BLOCK). In fact once an editor has undertaken not to violate policy again they can be unblocked. Also what is the consensus you refer to - was there an ANI thread?--Cailil ^talk 20:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Also agree... its always better to give a second chance and be found wrong then to deny a useful contributor for good after a mistake. Lets see what develops. --M^ask? 01:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Since this block is being discussed, I thought I'd get feedback before unblocking. This user was previously blocked for edit warring, including some reverts of QuackGuru; more recently he was reverting across multiple articles regarding whether Jimmy Wales is "founder" or "co-founder" of Wikipedia. The user has voluntarily agreed to be placed on general 1RR until the end of June, and at my suggestion has also agreed to limit himself to at most one revert of any of QuackGuru's edits during that same period. I see the concern about Wikistalking but he has been involved in both Chiropractic and Larry Sanger for several weeks and does not appear to have come to the dispute illegitimately to pursue a grudge. If there's a problem here deeper than edit warring, it's partly that QuackGuru refused to repsond to an attempt by the IP to discuss the issue; see here. Comments from other admins? Mangojuice^talk 01:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out the blocking admin doesn't have an issue with the unblock: [46] --M^ask? 04:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm marking this resolved. Nothing to see here. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 09:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it ok for a partial admin to close a RFC on a user despite new input?

User:Gwen Gale is a partial admin when it comes to this. She had unblocked User:Collect [47]. Collect has 106 (as of 20:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)) edits on User talk:Gwen Gale [48]. Gwen Gale had also closed my previous AN/I thread about Collect [49], I reverted that [50] and that thread got many more answers. [51]

I also reverted her RFC closure but she reverted back [52], despite new input from a new user [53] [54]

Is this ok? Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note that she also made some unfounded claims such as "Collect has a sound understanding of WP:BLP" when she closed. I and many other editors would disagree. I dont think it is appropriate for an involved admin to make partial comments like that while closing a RFC. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • THF was a very involved editor. Why wasn't he contacted when the RfC began? I'm involved so I'll keep commentary to a minimum. Soxwon (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• (ec)Yes. The RFC/U had run for 6 weeks, which is far longer than is standard. Just before and while it was running, several ANI complaints were raised. And then an RFAR was raised. Surely that is enough process for the year. Additionally, the admin was not "partial" which speaks volumes about raising yet another ANI post (read the restrictions she imposed on me for a start). It is, moreover, uncommon for a non-admin to reverse an admin's closure of an RFC by revert -- if you wished it reopened, ANI was the proper procedure on your part. And it is indeed possibly curious which editors were contacted, and which not. (and it would have been nice had the editor not interpolated added material which makes the "replies" look odd. Thanks!) Collect (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• What's a partial admin? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe he's trying to imply that Gwen Gale is somehow involved based on unblocking Collect. Soxwon (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • [EC]Good question - without checking with Gwen, I think Phoenix defines partial as "involved"?--VS ^talk 21:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh! I thought it meant somebody with partial admin rights. NM.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone, your focussing on Phoenix of9's chosen adjective is reflecting on you. "partial" is a quite proper antonym of "impartial", and has been generally used as such for approximately 600 years, it coming, via the Middle English "parcial", from the Late Latin "partialis". There is a handy dictionary right next door, remember. Whilst it didn't give the etymology in this case (an omission which I have now rectified), it did list the 600-year-old meaning. Please focus upon the substantive issue. Uncle G (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Context is everything. In this particular context "not impartial" would have been a better chose, since "partial admin" is quite ambiguous. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And checking recent edits would be enough to avoid the obvious yuks at this editor's expense. No matter what, please don't. Flowanda | Talk 05:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Ambos Nogales

The article creator has ownership problems. [55] When I removed a completely unrelated picture [56] the editor accused me of vandalism [57] [58] and falsely claimed I had given no reason for my edit when I had done so in my edit summary [59] and on the article talk page. [60] I would strongly appreciate some additional eyes on the article and someone attempting to explain things to this editor since they clearly are not listening to me. Edward321 (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Er, no. It is you who are not listening to xem. In both the edit to your talk page and the edit to the article's talk page xe is quite clearly asking not about the "unrelated picture", but about your substantive change to the article text, where you removed all mention of German involvement. Yes, novices sometimes bandy about false charges of vandalism, especially if they don't understand the notes below the page edit box and the whole idea of a collaboratively written project that anyone can participate in. Sometimes one has to look past that.

  I also note that the editor appears to have a good point about your not checking your facts thoroughly before wading in. One of the sources that the editor had already cited in support of xyr content is a book available from the Huachuca Museum Society, chapter 7 of which calls the battle a "German-instigated clash" and documents the arrest of Lothar Witzke in Nogales' Central Hotel for being a German spy, before the battle, and chapter 6 of which documents and supports (citing, as its source, page 83 of Edward L.N. Glass' The history of the Tenth Cavalry) all of the "strange white men" content that you removed from the article.

  I recommend doing editors who write content the courtesy of first reading the sources that they cite before wading in with claims of unverifiability and original research. Sources are cited to be read, not to be ignored. I also recommend putting the verifiable content that you have removed back into the article. Uncle G (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Continuing series of unconstructive edits

Resolved

 – Blocked 1 week - tendentious editing.--VS ^talk 05:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

After being warned repeatedly for using Wikipedia as a blog, and blocked for 72 hours on May 12, Agre22 (talk · contribs) continues the same behavior, with posts such as this, and numerous other equally useless things. There is no sign of any intention to reform. I have given notice of this thread. Looie496 (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The user may not have been using that talk page for what one is supposed to use a talkpage for namely to propose changes or give ones input on changes that others propose but it's not like the user dropped a bomb in there citing crazy conspiracy theories or personally attacking other editors. I intend to have a word with this user on his/her talkpage and I ask that other editors also weigh in on the discussion there.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that's been tried a dozen times already, we're well past that point. A one-week block is the minimum right now, with an option to unblock if the editor actually addresses the problem instead of ignoring it. Looie496 (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree - tendentious editing, soap box and disruptive editing. Now blocked 1 week.--VS ^talk 04:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

He is definitely aware that it is wrong to do this by now, I support the block and suggest blocking for even longer periods of time if this behaviour continues. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Chopper2cube: Suspicious behavior

This user first made this edit to my userpage, and immediately reverted it, as if to get my attention. This is this user's first edit, with the edit summary "COM and I are back in business." I'm finding this behavior suspicious. (See Special:Contributions/Chopper2cube) -download ׀ sign! 00:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The user was indef'd and the situation is being discussed on his talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User has asked for a review of my block. Edits remain highly suspicious and I agree that he was trying to attract attention also. I suggest we await review from alternate administrator before continuing this thread.--VS ^talk 03:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The user's very first edit was on the page of an indef blocked user, an edit to notate that the user and COM (aka ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs)) are back in business. WP:DUCK anyone? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Either a sock or pretending to be a sock in order to incriminate CENSEI - as another editor did a couple or three weeks ago. Either way, he goes into the washer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request has now been declined by another administrator.--VS ^talk 10:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Preparing for General Motors bankruptcy

Template:Wikinewshas General Motors will go bankrupt tomorrow at 0800 EDT, 1 June 2009, just before the markets open. President Obama will go on national TV. Already, the GM article is being heavily edited, and not too well. Please watch for trouble. Semi-protection for a few days might be in order. --John Nagle (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've gone through the last 50 or so edits - clearly some higher levels of vandalism - but probably not enough for a protection request just yet. I will be happy to semi-protect if vandalism rises dramatically as expected but (as you are probably aware) we do not protect pre-emptively. Best wishes.--VS ^talk 08:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• What's 8am EDT in mere mortal time? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Per timeanddate.com, EDT is UTC-4. So just under an hour an a half to go, by my reckoning. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) An hour and a half in the future you mean? :) Thanks mate. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Heh! I changed "UTC-5" to "UTC-4" - damn daylight savings, my career has been blighted by dates - did you know that Java has thirteen months?! But aye, 80 minutes in the future! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Mwahaha ;) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Time is an illusion. Lunchtime: doubly so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've created two prepared stories at Wikinews, and added a prominent notice to Talk:General Motors#Bankruptcy. I hope that this helps to siphon off current events reporting to the correct project, and to keep the article on track with respect to Wikipedia's policies. Uncle G (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats on Irfan Yusuf

While on RCPatrol I noticed Oncewereradicals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making some very dubious edits to Irfan Yusuf. I reverted and warned, and he left the following comment on my talk page:

I would suggest you contact Irfan Yusuf directly. Wikipedia is being used to defame him, and he is filing court proceedings in this matter. Would you like his contact details? [61]

Immediately, I indefinitely blocked him. I have no indication that it's true, but it warrants additional scrutiny, especially since there is a BLP-related content dispute going on with this article. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 09:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I indef-blocked him (seems like the button wasn't actually pressed). I've also watchlisted the article. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oncewereradicals very likely to be related to this editor with a history of similar behaviour.--VS ^talk 11:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Nympho wiki

I am raising an ANI against this user. He/she is continuously adding unreliable sources and original research to the Lady Gaga discography article. Repeated warnings is doing no good as the user is continuously reverting the changes and continuing to add the unreliable sources including forums and music download sites. Please help as I donot want to revert for 3RR. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User blocked for 72 hours for violation of 3RR. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Outside opinion requested

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

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Ng, I removed a comment from an AFD that I viewed as a gross personal attack. Stalin --the way you edit he probably is your hero. LOL. I warned the user about personal attacks, he restored the comment, I removed it again and warned again, as I don't believe the comment should have remained visible, particularly when it's served as part of a negative first impression for a new user. Someone else restored it the next time.

The subsequent discussion, which took place on my talk page can be seen here (since removed). He has copy/pasted my comments to his talk page as if I posted them there, and he's added my image to the section. He also refers to me as "sweetie pie". I find the whole thing inappropriate.

That said, unless I'm mistaken and it's good times to tell someone that their editing leads one to think their hero is a totalitarian dictator who caused the deaths of tens of millions of people, it would benefit everyone if someone else made this clear. لennavecia 12:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that it's a personal attack and didn't belong in the discussion. Removed again with an edit summary to leave it that way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

After all, per WP:CIVIL - "Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. لennavecia 12:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, the usage of LOL didn't really neutralize the whole Stalin thing. And here I thought LOL, along with :P or even ;) really had some greater purpose. Guess not. Law _{type! snype?} 12:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Jennavecia, speaking of outside opinions, could you take a look at Talk:University of Maine#Flagship RFC and see if anyone needs to be warned for approaching the NPA line?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, out of the millions that Stalin had killed very many of them were Nazi's - that is a huge plus in my book. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Does 1 Nazi cancel out 1 Polish Army Officer, or even 100 Polish Officers? Does 1 Nazi cancel out 1 Russian political dissenter? No. Seriously flawed and disrespectful argument. I hope it was just an off-the-cuff interjection and not a serious statement. --64.85.223.128 (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:TPO The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.

WP:RPA "There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack.

Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. The most serious types of personal attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about Wikipedia editors, go beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be excised for the benefit of the community and the project even if they are directed at you. In certain cases involving sensitive information, a request for oversight may also be appropriate."

Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable; please read WP:RPA and WP:CIVIL#Removal of uncivil comments before removing anything.

WP:REDACT Strike out, strike-through, strike through, etc. To place text in strike-through (HTML: 111, 111, or 111) tags. This is very rarely used in articles, but is relatively common in votes and discussions when a contributor changes his or her opinion. As not to cause confusion, the outdated comments are struck out (like this). The inserted material HTML tag is sometimes used with it to show a replacement for the struck material. Generally, one should strike out only one's own comments. Some editors prefer to simply remove or alter their updated material, though this is discouraged if others have responded to it and their responses would not longer make sense after the change. Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context.--Duchamps_comb MFA 15:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A personal attack is, essentially, a comment on the contributor, rather than the content. The above remark certainly fits that decription, and I'm glad to see that it has (again) been removed. Skimming the contents of the AfD, I saw a fair bit of incivility from User:Duchamps_comb, but I think that no further admin action is necessary at this time, since Duchamps_comb is by now aware that this is not considered acceptable. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Meghna Rajshekhar

Respected Sir/Madam-

Please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meghna_Rajshekhar

User:Thryduulf has nominated this article for deletion. According to this user third party reliable sources are not enough. Media must take follow-up of survivors. This little 13 year old was in almost all print media and TV channels in India at that time. Please confirm this from some Indian who remains in touch of news.

I am seeing articles on criminals like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Philip Abramo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_convicted_of_murder_by_the_United_States_federal_government

Somehow all these criminals deserve notability but this little 13 year old girl Indian ocean tsunami survivor who was out there in sea clinging to door for two days without food, water. Rescue helicopters didn't spot her 11 times. She was swarmed by snakes on beach. She was all ove in print media and TV channels. But this according to User:Thryduulf, she do not deserve notability. I would like to request him through you to explain how these criminals deserve notability.

If you think that this article Meghna Rajshekhar do not deserve notability, then I request you to straightway delete it.

But this racist attitude towards Indians is completely unacceptable. Petty criminals from USA deserve articles. But no matter how notable Indian is, he/she do not deserve notability.

Shame!

Please, Go ahead and delete that article.

--AbhiJeet (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Politeness to accusations of bias in three sentences, nice! Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In particular, immediate news reports are not good enough to confer "notability" on an event or person. To show notability in this sort of situation you have to show lasting coverage - not just a couple of immediate news reports, coverage of the events for a significant period of time. Eric Harris, Dylan Lkebold, Philip Abramo - significant coverage. We don't include everyone convicted of murder by the US federal government, for example, unless they pass this test. In addition (although it's by the by) I wouldn't describe Columbine as petty crime. In future, please try and keep accusations of racism out of your comments, it is hardly going to turn ANI people into shiny happy sparkle-unicorns. Ironholds (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Abhijeet ... please read WP:ONEEVENT carefully before additional comments. As has already been noted, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Please also read carefully WP:N ... you seem to be confusing the order when you say "she does not deserve notability". The person or event must meet notability guidelines before they can be included ... being included does not give notability. I will assume good faith that this was perhaps a linguistic nuance. Nobody here will disagree that this girl's story is "wow, really?!", but just as we don't have articles about everyone on board the Titanic, we're not likely to maintain this article. It's not racism, so please, don't offend the others of us who are of mixed origin by trying the place the race card wrongly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Tryde

To Whom It May Concern: Recently User:Tryde has been reverting (see [62]) numerous pages related to the British nobility from individual pages to generic family name genealogy pages (see [63]) with no notification to last editors. I would very much like to know under whose authorization this user is entitled to do this.

Thank you. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In future, perhaps you should discuss it with the user? I note that you gave him ten minutes in which to reply or you would "bring this matter to WP:ANI". That doesn't seem long enough to me personally, and you should also inform him that it is at ANI now. I'm assuming that he's redirecting them because they're articles about non-notable people. Simply being a peer does not make you notable unless you've done something else with your life. From what I've seen he's been redirecting the "X was baron of Y. He had 3 kids, one of whom also became Baron of Y" articles to the article on Baron Y, which is perfectly acceptable. Ironholds (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not wait because I am angry and I did not know how long it would take for him to respond. His behavior is outrageous. This is an excerpt from User:Tryde's own talk page from another Wikipedian whose pages User:Tryde redirected without notice or authorization: I can't see that this article meets the notability criteria. I thought it better to redirect it than to propose it for deletion. Any reader interested in the biographical details of this peer should be referred to thepeerage.com or some other reference work on British nobility. Tryde (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This user, whose userpage is completely blank, evidently feels entitled to determine what is and is not notable. That is not how we do thing on Wikipedia, to the best of my understanding. He or she should be required to undo every redirect he/she made. And I am going to give the user as much notice that this is now at WP:ANI as he gave to the people whose articles he reverted. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? They are against the notability guidelines. AfD is a lot of hassle for pages that are obvious fails - thats why we have CSD, and parts of certain guidelines (such as WP:MUSIC, say) advocating redirects rather than AfDs. Whether or not his userpage is blank is completely unimportant. If you're angry, fine - but come back when you're calm. Being petty, making snide comments about him and going off on one is not going to endear people to you. The guidelines allow for this, so he's not in the wrong. In future you discuss it with him before taking it to ANI, giving him a reasonable period of time to respond. Ironholds (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming/disambiguation

Can we get a couple more eyes on the Ireland/Republic of Ireland articles? A couple of users have taken it upon themselves to "correct" the contents of the articles, in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion. It's a contentious subject, which is why people aren't supposed to be shifting things around at the moment.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)