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

Is User:Stevertigo a disruptive editor??

The following stems from this edit by User:Stevertigo, an issue which arrived here very recently. The fact that "the Holocaust" is sometimes used to refer to the destruction of more than the Jews of during World War 2, is not under dispute. However, as can be seen on the talk page, myself and a couple of others have outlined to Steve several times - while pointing to a preponderance of reliable sources, that regardless of how "The Holocaust" is defined, "Holocaust denial", refers (with the exception of a few passing references regarding the implicit denial of Roma peoples, as one user brought forward) virtually exclusively to the denial of the destruction of the Jews during WW2.

Steve has responded with an eye-watering amount of wikilawyering, the most I have ever seen in my Wikipedia tenure. Some comments directed at Steve have undoubtedly been less than diplomatic, but this, and then amending it with this, frankly, is absolutely repellent behaviour in my opinion. I believed that I have exercised considerable discretion in this matter, such as by inviting Steve to suggest how he would amend the article, which he has responded to. However, it has occured to more than just me that Steve's desired prose not only misses the relevant points, but tacitly suggests that Steve is making his own extrapolations, then trying to find sources to support them. Well, not remotely tacit at all, in fact.

Judging from Steve's other edits (and pages in his userspace) such as this tremendously protracted redirect he established, not to mention this very recently written item or this BLP minefield, or what can only be described as a contemptuous attitude to other people's comments, I do not think it is unreasonable to infer that the interests Steve is interested in furthering are not Wikipedias. WilliamH (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on a good many points, but what exactly are you suggesting we do here? lifebaka++ 01:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest a block, indefinitely if necessary. It is abundantly clear that he is much more interested in tendentiously furthering his own interests, as opposed to Wikipedia's. I need hardly point that that is detrimental to the project, and I see no reason why so much volunteer time should be used to appease it. WilliamH (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a community ban discussion would get us anywhere, nor would it be all that constructive. We haven't eliminated other options yet, so I suggest we use them. How about an WP:RFC/U? lifebaka++ 14:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've looked over the discussion, and it seems that Steve is now trying to talk in a more civilized manner, accepting what people have to say. I don't pretend to understand the large amounts of philosophical debate flying back and forth on that talk page, but it looks to me that he's calmed down considerably and stopped making threats and stupid comments. A little insignificant (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Completely disinterested observer checking in. Looking over the discussion on the article talk page, it appears to be a discussion, and not at all heated to the extent that is seemingly being portrayed. The ripostes are rather courtly and just because there is a dispute does not necessitate a call for admin action. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

Sorry, but I must ask if any of you actually viewed any of the pages I brought forward. How on earth is for example, aiming to hose away reliably sourced material with one's own extrapolations acceptable? WilliamH (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter for AN/I, which deals w/ incipient problems that require admins to solve. Protonk (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If there are disputes about the reliability of sources, try the Reliable Sources noticeboard. And throwing words like "Holocaust denier" around with hopes they will stick to an editor, is not going to further constructive debate. If they do not stick, they tend to boomerang. Next?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

How can one not use the term "holocaust denier" when dealing with the article holocaust denial? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had a good night and have not yet gotten any sleep, so I will keep this short.

You paint a very good one-sided story William. I do mean that. Note of course that neutral observers appear to disagree with your one-sided portrayal and aren't hesitant to say so quite straightly. Your comment above (to those who took the time to review your concerns), "Sorry, but I must ask if any of you actually viewed any of the pages I brought forward[?]" should be understood as evidence of the weakness of your claims. Their comments above explicitly testify of their literacy in this matter. You have no evidence to show otherwise, and you have no cause to insinuate their negligence in that aspect.

WilliamH wrote: "How on earth is for example, aiming to hose away reliably sourced material with one's own extrapolations acceptable?" - Your linkage to my subspace (which I on rare occasion use in certain mundane ways) pointed to a draft for an unrelated topic. How do you conjecture a connection between this topic and that one? If you are building an overall case against me, please do so: Elicit help from others and put together some kind of comprehensive report on my behaviour. Not only would I welcome one, I would take the opportunity to demonstrate every weakness in your claims, arguments, and conceptions, and will do so with gusto and sarcasm in full measure to even the slightest vexatiousness shown to me. Your title for this thread already strikes me as a bit vexatious.

I'm going to bed. -Stevertigo 12:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume the thread title was meant to be benign. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I always AGF, but I would still prefer that the thread title be changed such that not even the slightest degree of slander remain. -Stevertigo 21:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made the title more clear in that it is about the article and you, rather than somehow implying that you might ascribe to the theory. I assume this is better. lifebaka++ 04:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the thread title is completely benign, and all suggestions otherwise are tremendous assumptions of bad faith. WilliamH (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This thread is rife with assertions of bad faith. I don't believe they all need pointing out. lifebaka++ 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A few people have checked the discussion page and note that the discussion seems less heated. Indeed. But this is beside the point. The question - and really, the only question for AN/I (as Protonk points out, this page is dedicated to specific kinds of problems) - is: is User:Stevertigo a disruptive editor? The thing about disruptive editors is, you cannot make a judgement based on just one glance. By definition, disruptive editing manifests itself through a pattern of edits across time or across several articles. That is why WilliamH provided a number of edit diffs. To those who say things have quieted down, I would point out this: Stevertigo has dominated discussion on the Holodcaust Denial talk page for quite some time, occupying quite a bit of space, and all this discussion has lead to not one single improvement of the article. Moreover, it seems to me that the rest of the participants in the discussion do not see any point to this lengthy discussion, do not feel that it is leading to any improvement of the article. This is an abuse of the talk page, which is meant to discuss improvements, and a perfect example of "disruptive" editing since Stevertigo's repeated comments, which never engage what other editors actually point out, is simply displacing any constructive discussion. Stevertigo's MO is to make things up, call it a "concept," and then refuse to provide any verifiable sources. He is a disruptive editor at best - the worse possibility is that he is here to push his own personal point of view with total disregard to our NOR policy. Here is another example [1]. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That this was recently archived yet is on this very same, not yet resolved issue, is an indication of the level of disruption. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced Steve is completely gone, yet. As I've seen, he is improving little by little, as we make it apparent that pieces of what he's doing aren't acceptable. I don't know that we can change him completely, but neither do I know that we cannot. Steve is capable of taking the hint from this thread, I know, and is capable of changing his behavior. For the moment, it would be best if we issued a warning about some specific behaviors (such as starting talk page discussions whose purpose is not the improvement of the article) and see if he does in fact stop. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I am not "gone yet," Lifebaka - I was editing here five years before you showed up. I've yet to see anything more than a few insinuations and complaints, so I don't quite understand how anyone would think I would just go away and leave things in a depressed state. I likewise don't understand how some people can go though life thinking everyone else is just stupid, but that's a little off topic. Anyway, I've written down a few thoughts regarding this thread and others, and put them in my log. It's a bit fluid and maybe wanders a bit, but the gist is fairly straightforward.

By the way, I appreciate the title change. Now any slander therein is nearly unperceptible, and nowhere near as obvious. -Stevertigo 00:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Lifebaka didn't mean "gone" as in "retired" - s/he means that you aren't beyond hope, and that you've been learning and improving by mistakes. Sorry, that was a confusing sentence, could have raised all kinds of hell. A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 00:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My experience with Stevertigo has, unfortunately, been pretty unchanged over a number of years. He generally shows up at an article and decides to put his own unique and idiosyncratic spin on whatever is there, either by modifying text to suit his own opinions, or by adding his own mini-essays. Though he has been editing for many years, as far as I can tell the WP:V and WP:NOR policies have made little, if any, impression on him.

Here is a perfect recent example of this; he showed up at the Reducto ad Hitlerum article, and decided to insert his own confusing digression on whether or not the National Socialist party were really Socialists. Aside from its tangential nature, note that (as is typical) the essay has not one source in it. As is also typically the case, on any article he is editing that is actually being watched by other editors, his insertions are deleted. As is also typically the case, he edit wars to keep them in.[2][3] When defeated, he drops it on the Talk: page, without any accompanying commentary.

Thus he showed up at the Holocaust denial article, with his own personal opinions of what the article should discuss - as it turned out, mainly a digression into which groups are covered by the phrase "The Holocaust" - something that is actually discussed in Wikipedia's article on the Holocaust. After days of circular discussion, including several suggestions by him that we should all be working together on a Holocaust comprehension article, he then proposed completely re-writing the lede, focusing in particular on his original point, and making his proposal without actually basing it on any discernible sources. Long exposure has taught me that every talk page discussion with him eventually comes to the question "Stevertigo, upon what sources do you base your opinions"? Constantly hammering on that statement usually makes him go away; unfortunately, in this case, many editors were unfamiliar with him, and gave him various openings to continue his digressions on his own unusual ideas. He has posted several thousand words on the Holocaust denial Talk: page without, as far as I can tell, bringing even one source that actually discusses Holocaust denial. At the least, this is extremely disruptive. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, was there any attempt, on your part or anyone elses, to ascertain what was missing in the reductio ad Nazium article? Indeed, as the term is said to not just refer to the Hitler fallacy, but to the Nazi one as well, I.. conceptualized.. a need for a treatment of the Socialism fallacy, and thought that article was the proper place, given the apparent ambiguity in the ad Nazium term.

So, I take it there was no effort on your part to ascertain what was missing in that article. Hm? Fine. But in the additions of others, do you at least attempt to ascertain whether or not the addition is actually true? Encyclopedic? Factual? Well-written? On-point? Relevant? Material? Substantive? Accurate? An improvement?

It strikes me at the very best "counterproductive" that you and others interpret RS in accord with only inane and destructive modalities that at best resemble deletionism. Keep in mind the context, these are articles in which you yourself neglect to detect any omission, and yet you claim to assert some kind of considered editorial judgment in simply deleting additions to them?

"Disruptive editing," indeed. -Stevertigo 02:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Steve, the way article writing is supposed to work is this: First, you find sources. Then, you write based on the sources. Then, you cite the sources you used. The issue appears to be that you are not beginning by finding sources, but instead writing and then attempting to cherry-pick sources which will support your text. Regardless of why you choose to operate this way, it gives the appearance that you are pushing a view. Please find sources as a first step.

Additionally, regarding the removal of unsourced content, WP:V stipulates that any unsourced contentious material should be removed. You shouldn't be too terribly surprised if, when you add material to a page without sources, it gets removed.

The new title you chose is... Odd. The first title was far more neutral. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Stevertigo has been around a long time and made many contributions. He isn't some troll who suddenly appeared. So whence this talk of banning him? Can't we tolerate people with unpopular perspectives? Do we all have to be mainstream here? If so, then who should we start kicking out: the gays? the libertarians? the Christians? Please let me know, so I can align myself with the Grand Inquisitor, and feel like a good person.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting perspective, Anthon. Keep in mind also the issue is not about "mainstream," its about this obtuse methodology of cobbling articles together from "reliable sources" such that they don't always make actual sense. In some cases it's quite deliberately so. So some people of course are worried that any future requirement of "making sense" will inevitably cause localized and other special-point-of-view concepts to implode. In fact its just a matter of time.

Just to forewarn you, when someone informs The Grand Inquisitor that you were just being sarcastic, he'll probably issue a standard proclamation and declare you "thou troubler of Wikipedia" as well. -Stevertigo 05:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Anthon, to be clear, Stevertigo is a troll who has been around over five years. The first encounter with him I recall (I could well be blocking out others) was when he showed up at "anti-Semitism" and argued that since Arabs are semites, anti-Semitism includes hatred of Arabs. This is the paradigm for how he operates and it has two major components. First, he claims he is using a conceptual method, but what he is really doing is taking actual concepts and breaking them down to parts that are actually not relevant to the concept. In the case of the name Ehud, he went so far as to do this with letters of the alphabet. It is true that Arabic is a semetic language. But "anti-Semitism" was explicitly coined to refer exclusively to hatred of Jews. Anyone who has done what jayjg and others call source-based research ... what I just call "research" ... would know this. As i pointed out on the Holocaust denial page, If Stevertigo really followed his method consistenly, he would be quite surprised to discover what the word "blowjob" really means. If Sgtevertigo really were commited to his "conceptual" approach, he would go the the article on blowjobs, and explain that since blow means a forceful expulsion of air, and a job is form of work, we need a section on people who blow out air for a living. This would be a violation of WP:NOR were it not just so ridiculous on its face. Anyway, the point is that he has done no research, he has no sources to support his claims, in the end it is simply what Stevertigo thinks a word or phrase should mean that he wants to go into the article. This of course never stands up to scrutiny, but Stevertio argues the point for days, weeks, and this is what makes him a disruptive editor. Second major element: Stevertigo has a clear preference for screwing with articles that have to do with Jews or topics sensitive to Jews. Although by his method we would have a long debate at the page on blowjobs, or "logrolling" or "parkway" or "driveway," Stevertigo prefers "Anti-Semitism," "Yeshu" "Ehud" and "Holocaust Denial." What do these things have in common? They are all issues sensitive to Jews, and Stevertigo has never done an iota of research concerning them. His is a simple, close to banal form of anti-Semitism. He has never directly insulted any Jews at ikipedia. But if left to his own devices, slowly, every article here relating to matters of Jewish interest or concern would be corrupted into meaningless garbage. I do not know if this is because this is his actual objective, or because he knows that it will draw some of the Jewish editors at Wikipedia, and force them to waste their time on the talk pages explaining over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again why he is wrong.

Please note my excessive use of "over and over and over." It is not a personal attack as such. It did not violate any content policy. But can anyone deny that its only effect is to irritate? This is Stevertigo in essense. It is why he is a disruptive editor. That he has gotten away with it for five years is no defense. In no other kind of violation, would we say that "well, he has been violating NPOV for five years so it must be okay." The only time editors say "Well he has been doing it for five years so stop complaining" is in the case of disruptive editors. That is because disruptive editors, by constantly shifting their targets, and by merely disrupting, rather than attacking, are generaly detected only by a small group of editors who for one reason or another (in this case, Jews or non-Jews who care about Jewish related articles) keep encountering this editor. But we have a policy, WP:DE that describes Stevertigo's MO almost to a tee! Folks, this is precisely why we have a DE policy. Generous editors here will say "let's give him anothe chance." That is because they weren't around for the over a month long "anti-semitism" saga (in which, after Stevertigo started introducing neologisms to support his argument, and created articles for his own neologisms, and was told, No, Steve, you can't create your own word and then create a Wikipdia article about your word, that is a neologism, and then we had to explain to him what the word "neologism" meant, then he went and created an article on neologisms! I kid you not! It is amost funny). But if we let him go this time, in a few nonths he will settle on some other article - maybe he will come up with his own theory about the etymology for Yom Kippur. Now, how many of you have this article on your watchlist? How many of you will notice it? Probably me and just a few others. And we will bring it up at AN/I and a different group of admins will read over the account of the conflict and say "Well, this seems mild, let's give him another chance." Folks, we have a policy against disruptive editors. Let's use it here. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

One could take all of that, substitute "Obama" and "liberals" in place of "Jews" and "antisemitism", and we would have an accurate description of Stevertigo's antics that led to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles as well. Sooner or later the ones with the proverbial mops around here have eat the spinach and say "that's all I can stands and I can't stands no more!" Tarc (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, most likely you'd get someone to act if you put some examples around, other than just the Ehud one. For instance, can you link me the threads from Anti-Semitism that you're talking about? Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• I recently attempted to warn Stevertigo on Talk:Holocaust denial that his repetitive arguing was becoming disruptive; he responded by misconstruing what I'd written, wikilawyering over policy, trying to score points, and making some rather odd allusions that I might be in off-wiki contact with other editors there to silence him ([4], [5], [6]). I don't intend to second-guess why he does this, but regardless of the reasons the resulting disruption, bad feeling, and general unpleasantness caused by his actions are what matter. I would support removing his editing privileges; although a topic ban would be my first choice, I think his interests are wide-ranging enough that this would be ineffective. Note that because I consider myself marginally involved on Holocaust denial, I don't feel comfortable blocking Stevertigo myself. EyeSerene^talk 14:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• I deplore this dogpile.

  The consensus is against Stevertigo in a number of areas, and he has some controversial views. He also occasionally takes an unfortunate tone with people. But this AN/I thread is totally unwarranted.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of a "controversial view" he has? The problem I have, and have raised, is not that he has controversial views, but that he is always promoting his own views. Wikipedia allows controversial views, as long as they are significant and come from notable sources. Not our own ideas, right? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

While I greatly appreciate the "dogpile" conceptualization, S Marshall, I have to disagree about it being "unwarranted," when in fact it's ridiculous. Particularly so when they don't bother to treat my arguments seriously to begin with, and then, instead of dealing with the concepts, they accuse me of "wikilawyering," which is precisely what this report itself actually is.

Note how easy it was to deal with William, who filed this report?

Slrubenstein wrote: "It is true that Arabic is a semetic[sic] language." - Actually, that's not accurate.

-Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 20:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC) PS: Wrote some responses. May submit later.

Lifebaka asks for some more links. Here are two:[7][8]. I must point out that archives from back then are sketchy - some articles were deleted, and then recreated when people had more research; we didn't have the same procedures for keeping records or archives of everything. In archive 4 of the anti-Semitism talk, Stevertigo makes his argument that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary so the article cannot be just a definition of "anti-Semitism." Fair enough. On this I agree fully. Here is where we differ: i think that instead of just defining the term, we need to see what sources exist concerning its history and the sociology of anti-Semitism, or whatever other research there has been, if any. Steve's approach is to apply his own brand oflogic, and this is used to make his own points (note: what is wrong is not that they are controvesial, but that they are his i.e. an editor's). In archive 4 he claims that anti-semitism has two meanings: first, it means hatred of Jews. Second, it is a term used to attack people who disagree with Jews. Uh, well, you can see how Jews might take exception to this second meaning of "anti-Semitism." Now, there may well be people who are anti-Zionists yet who are accused of anti-Semitism - this in fact is now the subject of a couple of articles, all backed up by research. Again, my problem with Steve's argument is that he is relying on his own argument, not research. In archive 6 he refers to himself, ironically I am sure, as an "anti-Semite." I really do not believe that he thinks he is an anti-Semite or was confessing to be an anti-Semite, I am merely pointing out that six years ago he was aware that there were other editors who found his views anti-Semitic. In archive six there is another classic example of his using his own kind of logic, rather than research: anti means opposed to, so anti-Semitism must mean, opposed to Semites, including Arabs. I and RK and Danny argued strenuously that anti-Semitism means Jew-hatred. RK points out that the person who coined the term meand, "Jew hatred." And here is the crucial thing: Stevertigo says it does not matter what the inventor of the word meant, words have meanings determined by logic. As RK points out, the reason that the inventor of the term is important is because there is extensive published historical research on the historical meaning of the term. Steve's insistence on logic is an insistence on his own beliefs. I am sorry I could not provide edit difs but it is hard with my connection to go back six years to find edit difs, but these archives are pretty short - I believe they are incomplete - so just search a bit and you will find all the pertinant stuff. Note: there was a separate archive for anti-Semitism talk, I do not know if there was a separate article or just some talk was being archived back then under a different system. The point is, those archived talk pages are all blank and I cannot recover the content, so some talk is missing. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Lifebaka, here is another link, to an article written entirely by our boy, Stevertigo.[9]. It is pure crap. Let me be clear: it is not his "controversial views." It is his bullshit. I really am waiting for an example of some meaningful contribution to Wikipedia. Anyway, his article on a neologism that he himself invented is a perfect example of what I have been saying about his MO, just making stuff up and calling it logic to justify why he didn't need to do any research. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(continued)

Honestly, take a step back. You're accusing a long-term editor of anti-Semitic views and being involved in a plot to corrupt every Jewish-related article on Wikipedia. That I think is bullshit. The link you just provided was from 2003. A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 22:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I provided that link because another editor explicitly requested I provide the link ...I explained this. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The behavior in Archive 4 is similar, yes. I cannot find any place where Steve states/asserts/implies that antisemitism is hatred of Semites (including various Arab groups) in any of the archives, though this may merely be because the archives are incomplete (there are certainly responses to such a statement, but I'm unsure if they're putting words in his mouth, as it were). Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(To Slrubenstien above) Keep in mind that there are historical concepts of editorship and controversy involved. For example, you now say that "ant-Semitism" has a pejorative meaning, but at the time you rejected the notion altogether - not just that there were no sources. In fact the sources I provided, Chomsky, Finkelstein, etc., were met by you with extremely prejudicial rejection. Hence you've been working with a concept of authorship that defies higher conceptualization, frankly because you think it has no relation to your own. Note for example how you surreptitiously promoted Trinitiarianism as an absolute condition in the Christianity article lede, when in fact there is some variance. I discussed this a bit in my wlog.

So, yeah, this has been going on for some time. The important thing though here is for you to build a case, and approach it rationally. This works in any context. For example you and William both above cite a number of diff-links, but you fail to put them into context, and thus fail to make an actual case.

And what is the case you are trying to make here? That I be banned? That my arguments, regardless of substance, simply be ignored? That you can continue to simply reject anything I might have to say, even when I do provide sources? (Which I have done on a number of occasions). That you can continue to take my arguments out of context, or otherwise misrepresent them? Do explain.

Likewise we will have to deal with some issues that transcend us both, even though Arbcom has some notable impotence in dealing with matters of its own fundamental legislation. One thing that has to go is this notion that RS's dominant modality be a deletionist one. I say so just in case collaboration still has anything to do with this project. Keep in mind that you appear to have no issue of collaborating when it comes to dealing with views which are in agreement with your own conceptualizations. Keep in mind also that because you reject collaboration with those you disagree on the fundamentals, you thus demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of what collaboration means, and what it can ultimately do. So I really do want you get your arguments in concise order first, and if that means filing some kind of formal case, I can then refute each.

Getting you and Jayjg to do something other than whine about "reliable sources" all day long - particularly when I referred 38 times to just one - would be good for everyone. My sense of things is that if I can't get obstinate persons to deal with just one reliable source, there's no point in me trying to introduce a second. In fact our presence here means to some degree my success in making you deal with just that one source. The rest is just a logical argument that says that "car parts" has something to do with "cars" and to a lesser degree "parts." Your completely irrelevant counterargument, which says essentially that an article like "cheesing" need not at all mention any definition of "cheese", is interesting. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 22:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Your post opens with a typical example of the source of my frustration. Nowehere have I said "anti-semitism" has a pejorative meaning My position has not changed since 2003: I believe that people can use the term incorrectly. My analogy would be to call an appale an orange - it is simply incorrect. But the word apple continues to refer to a certain kind of fruit. The term anti-Semite can be incorrectly applied to another person, but it is not pejorative, it is a term that refers to people who, among other things, say pejorative things. We went over this six years ago. I continue to see you violating NOR, se,dom using sources and when you do, using them inappropriately, often violating SYNTH, or taking them out of context, all in order to develop your own arguments about a topic, which violates NPOV. Do I want you banned? Well, yeah, until you show evidence of being able to work in a collaborative way with people. Ehud is a perfect examplke because so little seems to be at stake. You insisted it came from Yehudi and I insisted you provide reliable sources for that; instead you provided your own personal interpretation of Hebrew grammar. I said you were violating NOR (which you took to be pejorative). Another user provided the correct etymology and a source, and you had the gall to tell me that I should learn a lesson, and provide sources rather than just argue with people! When my "argument" with you was my insistence that you provide a source! If this is not trolling, what is? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I never promoted trinitarianism. You are just making stuff up. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement with processes and policy is fair, but even if you are totally correct in your views of RS, V, etc, article space is not the correct place to implement them as folks just want to edit (and collaborate!) within the existing consensual processes and not entertain these "conceptualizations." You mention how long you've been editing here pretty frequently, so I guess you know better than us newbies how wikiprocesses were formed and what you can do to change them. Propose your changes inside the WP process space - a great place for conceptualizing with folks who focused are on that topic. RS's are required because V / NPOV are required. Deviating from current, consensual policy inside of article space is hugely time consuming and disruptive as evidenced by all of the text here and at Talk:Holocaust_denial. Until and unless policy changes, threads that propose material changes to content without reliable sourcing should just be summarily closed until sourcing is provided. Doing this actually supports the process of collaboration as finite resources don't need to be endlessly engaged with discusses content changes that fail (current) policy. cheers, --guyzero | talk 02:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to go very far in terms of the policy route than to cite WP:LEDE/WP:LEAD. The fact that much of the substance in that policy's own lede comes from my own conceptualizations about what an article lede needs to do, should not be an obstacle to your continued faith. In short, the substance behind WP:LEDE is higher, relevant conceptualization.

Keep in mind, I did provide sources. They simply rejected their relevance. So the extrapolated principle in this case is simple: If a topic is a specialized one, we need to explain why it is so. Also, if the topic likewise uses more general terminology, in some specialized way, then we need to explain why. There is some historiology for the relevant terms, which is not too controversial. However if even simple, concise, and relevant explanations of these specialized ("denial") and subjective ("motive, scale, intent") historiologies are rejected without substantive argument, then this rejection is easily understood to be based not in policy or a reliable interpretation thereof.

The common-sense explanation for this type of rejectionism is simply that these explanations give some sense that the specialized terminology is actually a specialized one. And thus they are not rejected because they do not fit policy, but because such explanations defy certain ethnic conceptualizations. This is basically what Slrubenstein was referring to when he said above that 'conceptualization destroys meaning' (paraphrasing). My translation-reparsing of this is something like 'such conceptual explanations can only contradict the ones written down in scrolls.' Now granted, these are "reliable scrolls" to be certain. Most of them anyway. But these have no meaning at all here if no efforts are made to unroll them, read them to people, and gain new understanding from their unconstrained resonance.

I have always known how to express myself with "sensitiv[ity]," as Slrubenstein calls it. That I often do not is simply a requirement of the age, an instrument of the times, a necessity of the context, and due in no small measure to the lack of good faith that I have grown accustomed to dealing with. I am always pleased, however, to find I am not right in this regard. Regards, -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 03:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where you really responded to anything guyzero said, nor have you given a reason why we should be doing anything other than what he's suggested. lifebaka++ 16:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"deal with William". Oh dear, Steve, there's this thing called real life, which I, judging by your elaborate responses, have to be a part of more frequently than you. I do not have the time or interest to appease your wikilawyering. Incidentally, I have abolutely no qualms about the thread title being changed, and even offer an apology for the impression it falsely/inadvertently suggested.

Consequently, this is the first time I've checked this thread since my comment 2 days ago. I'd just like comment on one thing: on Wikipedia, it's always been my intention to keep controversial articles, such as Holocaust denial, as they should be, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Indeed, I was selected - and supported unanimously - to be an administrator largely on that basis. The fact that all hell breaks loose when someone leaves a few daft opposes on requests for adminship, yet the general response to someone who - on top of all the disruptive editing - systematically rejects core policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR and (by his own admission) cherry-picks material to push his agenda on an encyclopedia page viewed thousands of times a month is largely "uh, nothing to see here, move on", in my opinion, encompasses everything that is wrong with Wikipedia if this individual is not sanctioned in some manner. WilliamH (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You could have picked a far better example, Steve. Cheesing has absolutely nothing to do with cheese, unless one has a very strange definition of cheese. lifebaka++ 16:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think.. anyone reading this no doubt thinks we are all talking past each other. (Note, I wanted to keep this extremely short, but I failed in that regard): WilliamH above, just to take one example of this 'talking past each other,' references my example of an argument, but he misses the point behind it entirely that it represented Slrubenstein's actual argument, simply putting into a rather absurd reformulation. Slrubenstein's argument is certainly valid in cases like the example I used ("cheesing") which are entirely idiomatic and unrelated to their apparent core terminology. In cases like this one (Holocaust and Holocaust denial) where the terms are entirely related, his argument is so utterly irrelevant that it constitutes a demonstration of a deeper capacity on his part for fallacious argumentation.

Slrubenstein and Jayjg have echoed this same argument several times, stating essentially that "Holocaust denial" is so far removed from the term "The Holocaust" that no mention of the latter is required in the former. The underlined portion is oversimplified, but these are the essentials of his argument. The underlined portion can be augmented with something like matters of subjectivity in its definition.

The background is straightforward: term "The Holocaust" first split off from its apparent original definition of "all Nazi murders," and became used to refer exclusively to the mass-murder of Jews alone sometime during the 1960s. That's according to the Columbia Guide. Naturally, there has been a concerted effort to promote an entirely Jewish definition of "The Holocaust," to the rejection of several million other victims. There are of course explanations for this selectivity, and these invariably employ concepts of "motive, scale, and intent" (Columbia Guide). The issue then is an editorial one which can be broken down into two basic counterarguments of somewhat differing validity. We've seen examples of each. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 18:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• sigh* this is what makes him a disruptive editor. Now I have to go and explain that I never suggested that Holocaust denial has nothing to do with the Holocaust. Nor have I ever suggested that the Holocaust refers only to the genocide of Jews. In fact, far from it. But by misrepresenting me and the argument, I have no choice but either to disengage (and people will have an unfair representation of me) or repeat what I have said many times ... thus ... further ... delaying ... any ... improvement ... on ... the ... article ... We can go back and forth cand back and forth and back and forth and just let SV continue to use Wikipedia like his own little ball of yarn. I'd rather we didn't. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, well at least you're not mad. (Or else not showing any outward signs thereof). Nice talking with you. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 18:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

PS (Slrubenstein): BTW, Salvation needs reworking to get it somewhere back to neutrality. Its upfront usage of "..from eternal damnation" is just the start of it. Please have a look, if you're not busy. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 19:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think either one of you are understanding each other. At all. I think it would be a great help to me, and everyone involved, if Stevertigo said in a single, simple sentence what he wants to do, and Slrubenstein then stated in another sentence what he doesn't want Steve to do. All this without long explanations. I think if people can know for sure what the other side wants, and not respond to what they assume the other side is saying, this issue can be resolved a lot easier. A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 16:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding our understanding, to a certain extent. Keep in mind we have been crossing paths for seven years. In any case It's not really about what I want to do, or what Slrubenstein wants me not to do, but how you and others can help us by sorting out the arguments and giving us your input. So I appreciate the questions.

As far as the article issues go, my argument is that including a reference to the core term's variance (such that arises from a subjective definition) is simply good explanationism, and necessary to move forward in the direction of dealing objectively with issues of terminology and etymology, as well as comprehension, which I feel is an essential dimension within the whole sad topic. As I understand them, Slrubenstein presents two main arguments for dis-inclusion: The first one (m1) is valid only in unrelated contexts wherein a pair of terms might only have a superficial relation, and the second (m2) is implied based on his various expressed concerns for how his own subjective ethnic lens relates to the article/concept. His arguments related to sources are likewise twofold: The first (s1) that I have not provided any sources at all is nullified by my presentation of a very ample and relevant one (Columbia Guide). His second argument (s1) alleges the irrelevance of the above source in the current context - an argument that itself rests circularly on one of his main arguments (m1).

With regard to what do I want in general (which is the other way I interpreted your questions), it's about how to formalize and broaden what I do, which is to turn an articulate wreck into a clear, concise, and conceptual statement of the subject. With regard to Slrubenstein (since we are talking about what the other is supposed to be doing), I'd like to see him transform his acuity for detail from its current expression as a modality of exclusive expertise, into a helpful and outgoing movement based on the assisted procurement of citations and the qualitative adjudication of sources. Regards, -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 10:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Steve, if I had embraced the part of anthropology that had embraced postModernism, I'm sure that I would understand what you had just written. But, unfortunately, I embraced something much more wholesome. I like User:A little insignificant's suggestion: "I think it would be a great help to me, and everyone involved, if Stevertigo said in a single, simple sentence what he wants to do, and Slrubenstein then stated in another sentence what he doesn't want Steve to do. All this without long explanations." Not much fun, maybe, but helpful... --Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthon. And Steve, if I'm getting this right, all you want to do is... include a mention that the term "Anti-semitism" can mean different things? A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 17:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

actually, i think it's the different meanings of the "holocaust" that steve wants to note. untwirl(talk) 22:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right. Thanks for correcting me. A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to A little insignificant: I would like Stevertigo to stop filling up talk pages with obtuse wordy rambles that express his own views, but no research. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Great. I agree- Stevertigo tends to write using a lot of very long paragraphs and very impressive words. Steve, I don't mean to criticize your writing style or to deny the importance of your comments, but such huge posts are daunting to their readers, and people trying to communicate with you cannot do so easily. They end up confused and lost and misunderstanding your points. If you want to be able to communicate better with people you need to address those issues. A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 20:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Topic Ban of User:DHawker

I have posted this at the admins talk page. My first post was missed (I AGF), and the admin hasn't been on since the second message was posted (14th of September).

User:DHawker was placed up for discussion for block evasion [10]. He was subsequently given an extended block by User:Golbez for evasion of his previous block.[11].

Three days later, User:Matthewedwards came in and applied a further, but unwarranted block that was not agreed upon by two of the four parties in the discussion. This block was against consensus, and even against the requests of the user requesting intervention (User:MastCell), who wanted User:DHawker blocked from the article itself for edit warring.

The punishment does not fit the crime (Nothing has happened on the talk page warranting a topic ban), was not per consensus, and was applied several days after the incident was closed and done with. Please remove the topic ban by Matthewedwards so that the user only has the punishment with consensus applied. Thank you. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Matthewedwards did not block DHawker, he formally imposed a topic ban that was agreed upon by two of the three editors who specifically responded to the ban proposal. A WP:BAN is not the same thing as a WP:BLOCK -- let's keep our terminology clear. Looie496 (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside the rather vexed issue of under what exact circumstances an admin can enact a topic ban, and the equally important issue of exactly how such bans may be appealed, and exactly how ME came to this determination: I just happened to notice an unresolved ANI thread and decided to take the time to investigate for an hour or three, from an outside point-of-view. I probably did swallow a ten-cent piece once or twice in my infancy (I'd have to ask Mum, and that was back when they had actual silver in them) and I'm admittedly one of the SPOV-with-appropriate-balance crowd, but they won't let me into the cabal. ;)

I'll stand by my assessment that on balance DHawker has been a net negative at Colloidal silver and a topic ban is a plus for the 'cyclo. However, I'll restate that they should be given a clear path to redemption. Specifically, what goals can they be given to prove that they are able to contribute here in a productive way, such that the topic ban can eventually be lifted? Franamax (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the incorrect use of terminology.

While I will not argue the community's census on preventing further edit warring by blocking DHawker from editing the article, I stand by the belief that the user is constructive more often than not on the talk page.

I think given that the complaint issued was regarding a violation of 3RR, the goal they can be given is to allow access to the talk page, and see if they can constructively assist in the construction of the article without engaging in soapbox behavior or endless repetition of shot-down arguments (which a quick look at the talk page will reveal is not really happening). The editor should be encouraged to branch out and avoid being a single-purpose account, but being an SPA is only discouraged, not prohibited. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I could see lifting the talkpage ban in, say, three months, and go indefinite if they continue posting disruptively. Also, I have notified DHawker of this discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Would agree with 2/0 with the additional requirement that they exhibit a willingness to improve other areas of Wikipedia. When an SPA editor becomes a problem they should be encouraged to "broaden their interests" rather than focusing on a single article. Single article problematic behavior suggests a conflict of interest. Vsmith (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I admit I am an advocate for colloidal silver and currently an SPA I do object to being called a 'promoter.' Yes my edits have mostly been 'positive' but that has simply been (IMHO) to try and put some balance into an article that was unrelentingly negative. The article already contained just about every possible negative statement that could be made about colloidal silver, and usually those statements were repeated many times throughout the article. I believe all my edits were factual and sourced and had some validity. I never tried to include claims about the theraputic value of colloidal silver or any anecdotal comments such as 'colloidal silver cured my dog'. My 3RR violations came about because my edits were being totally deleted by other editors who were putting in little more effort than a keystroke. Mastcell continuously accuses me of 'watering down' and 'contextualization' but surely thats a matter of opinion. In many cases I could accuse him of the same tactics . Regarding the length of my arguments in the Talk pages, I think this indicates the lengths I have gone to to try and win agreement rather than get involved in edit warring. This is a Fringe topic so expanding the article is not as simple as just citing another PubMed reference. But basically I just ended up arguing with Mastcell and Arthur Rubin who obviously are opponents of colloidal silver so I was rarely making any progress. Fortunately other editors have now become involved with the article so I hope things will improve. I actually welcome this discussion regarding my 'banning' as I hope it will bring closer attention to what is going on at Colloidal Silver. With due respect to Franamax, who has made an effort to understand whats going on, its very difficult to come in late and get the full picture, especially as most of the earlier debates have now been archived or deleted.

I would like to propose this course of action: Ban me from editing colloidal silver for the next three months but let me continue to make suggestions in the Talk pages. If I prove disruptive or abusive then take further action. DHawker (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree that more eyes on colloidal silver would be useful. Single-purpose accounts are not inherently problematic - some of our best articles are written by single-purpose accounts. But a single-purpose account whose single purpose is to promote an agenda at the expense of the site's basic policies is a problem. I personally feel (as an involved party) that at this point a total ban from colloidal-silver-related pages would be most appropriate. I don't have a problem with setting an expiration date on the talk-page ban, but I would like for there to be some relatively efficient means to re-raise the issue if there has been no improvement.

Regarding a path to redemption, I would strongly recommend editing some other articles to get a better sense of how Wikipedia works, and how its policies are applied. A commitment to 1RR, or at least to avoid edit-warring and utilize dispute resolution, would be ideal if the article-ban is ever lifted. I think that the talk-page issues could probably be solved with more uninvolved input, or if they were decoupled from the edit-warring. MastCell ^Talk 18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I see no good reason to amend the restrictions, nor any sensible reason to revisit this after the restrictions were enacted from such a recent community consensus. The community view was clear; please move on guys as nothing is going to change for 3-6 months. We don't want to even hear the possibility that you, DHawker, "prove to be disruptive or abusive again"; please eliminate the doubt for us by finding an area you can edit where this problem will not arise to begin with. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If you check, the consensus was to extend the block, which was done. ME then revisited this closed issue and added their own additional 2 cents to the block. I'm glad wikipedia's justice system is as corrupt and wishy-washy as Canada's or the US. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of your views on how DHawker should be sanctioned, but to say that Matthewedwards added his "2 cents" to the block is out of line and fundamentally flawed. The matter was not "closed" after the block extension (which incidentally, was enacted promptly to reflect the timing issue). Even if the discussion was archived by a bot, the community consensus was not limited to extending 1 block. Effectively, Matthewedwards enacted the community consensus which remained unenacted, and saved me having to make a formal call to the community to do its job (by enacting what was unenacted). So the fundamental problem here is not with the system, but rather regrettably, your own understanding - you are responsible for opening this thread when you decided to voice your additional "2 cents" about an action that was, and remains, approved by the community. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the community of 3 people. You have a grand understanding of a jury. Why is it that 3RR on any non-fringe topic warrants at best a 24hour block, yet the second its on a fringe theory, the "community" (Aka the several banded editors that disapprove of fringe theories) makes all effort to expel them when they have done nothing worthy of that. Your community consensus is a three person brigade. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Continuing to harp on about a ridiculous notion that Wikipedia is a justice system, or the community is a jury, is really becoming old. Please move on. Someone please close this already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah quickly, shut it before anyone that has an actual neutral and unhindered opinion on the subject matter makes a comment. What do you call this board if its not essentially a place to bring justice to editors acting out of place or in contempt of the purpose of the encyclopedia? You still skipped my question on why (Even repeated, but occasional) 3RR violations warrants a topic ban with fringe articles but nothing even comparatively close anywhere else on the site? I look through the block log and see users such as SOPHIAN, who was blocked 5 times for 3RR over the span of 2 months before finely getting a ban. DHawker has had 3, two of which occurred nearly a year ago. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think I've only had 1 previous 3rr violation. I incurred a brief extension to it for some misdemeanor due mainly to my inexperience but it was all one episode - about a year ago. I'm not a serial offender.DHawker (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is (and was) entirely neutral and unhindered, and I have no view on the particular subject, and I proposed said editing restrictions after taking a look at the editing in question. Despite this, I still welcome (and have welcomed) more opinion - the fact that there were no other objections spoke volumes; there's been no change, which is why the discussion ought to be closed, rather than dragged out because you remain the only user who has a problem. This board, much like most other admin noticeboards, simply exists to help bring community attention to particular incidents - this often involvesenforcing any necessary measures to ensure the smooth functioning of the project, particularly in the areas affected by the incident(s) and in relation to the users involved in those incidents. This is not a justice system; it's merely a noticeboard.

It really should not surprise you that I stop answering your questions, when you show all appearances of not making the effort to look through the comments I made at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#Editing_restriction_proposal. In other words, it wasn't mere 3RR violations that led to me proposing and continuing to endorse the topic ban. Finally, the case of SOPHIA is not one that you can compare to here, and note, incidents can only be dealt with as and when attention is brought to them. SOPHIAN was community banned; that editor lost their privilleges - they cannot edit ANYWHERE on Wikipedia. Unless DHawker violates his restrictions (wherein his fate will be no different to SOPHIA's), DHawker retains all of his editing privilleges except that he is not allowed to edit 2 particular pages on Wikipedia (topic ban), and he is not allowed to use more than 1 account (account restriction). Do you get it yet? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

DHawker, editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally, rather than through disruptive editing - revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. Edit-warring does not require an editor to violate 3RR. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I still do not understand why DHawker is given a topic ban for an offense that normally never incurs a topic ban. I could provide plenty of examples, all of which you'd just shoot down and say "Oh... Well that doesn't apply to this situation" because it simply proves how wrong this is.

Fine, call this a noticeboard. Regardless, it is the place where incidents are brought up, tried, and punishments applied. These are the components of a justice system, but this is besides the point.

You claim to have no view on the subject and yet you placed a vote. Does this mean you reject said vote? In which case it becomes 1 (me) vs 1 (Franamax). We could also look at the fact that you voted All which means your vote is essentially thrown away since you voted for no particular remedy. My vote is thrown away because I am involved. This leaves Franamax. There's your consensus!

I obviously read the entire thread. It reads like every other incident involving a fringe theory. I'll spell it out: B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T. Complete and total mockery. The editor is not a sockpuppet, he merely evaded the block because he is not as up to speed with all our policies. Yes, you have a small bit that defines that as a sockpuppet, but thats amidst the several paragraphs that describe them as malicious editors, which DHawker is not. The evasion wasn't malicious and was a simple reply at the colloidal silver talk page. I reposted his comment as my own and will gladly post it here to show how evil and destructive this user is and why he must be blocked from editing his subject of interest. Why? Because he believes the theory, and thats just too annoying for the editors who want to go on painting the absolute nonsense fringe theory picture and reject all positive influence on the subject matter (Note: I am not referring to MastCell here, I'm referring to the scores of biased elite editors who have taken ownership of each particular fringe theory). To hell, call me a fringe theorist, but it smells like a friggen conspiracy theory! This BS needs to change

Block for NPA violation by Ched

I bring this matter to the attention of my esteemed colleagues so that the party I've blocked has fair audience. I have blocked Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and notified the editor here. While calling another editor a nitwit is hardly the most egregious of things, I believe that this is totally unacceptable. For those of you not familiar with the term "rider of the short bus", it is slang for calling a person mentally retarded. (see here). There are two reasons that I bring this before my peers: 1.) It is always possible that I'm unaware of something that may have a bearing on the situation, and 2.) I will be out of town for some period today, and away from the keyboard for periods of time. As always, an administrator that feels any modifications to my actions would be of benefit to the project, is free to make them at their own discretion. I'll hold no judgment on any admin acting in good faith for the betterment of the 'pedia. I'll also make note of this post on the editor's talk page. Thank you for your time. — Ched :  ?  11:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think I would have sent both of them to the corner for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• No cause for concern - your actions seem fully justified and reasonable. I'll be around for a few hours so I'll keep an eye on it. Manning (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I've unblocked Calton to participate in this discussion, and notified User:JohnHistory of the thread after input from a couple respected editors that may feel I was not being fair to all sides. I believe the block was good, but since another admin. has questioned it on Calton's talk page, and there is a concern here, then I respect the views of the community and have no desire to apply my actions unfairly. I've notified both users of this thread, and hope the community can assist in this matter. Either way, this disruption and these personal attacks must be brought to a halt. Thank you for your support Manning, and thank you for keeping an eye on things while I must be away. I'll check back in as soon as possible. — Ched :  ?  11:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Completely unacceptable comments, block is appropriate. Viridae^Talk 12:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block per Viridae; but I don't see any reason why he should've been unblocked when transclusion templates exist. In any case, this long term problem needs to be addressed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There are several long-term problems here. The first is, of course, the ease with which Calton reaches heatedness in an argument. One of the participants on User talk:JohnHistory was ObserverNY (talk · contribs), who appears only a few sections above on this very page. So that's a second long-term problem. Then there's the subject matter, which is United States politics, the extreme partisanship and battlegrounding which some U.S. editors present, with regard to which, is a third long-term problem. Then there's the classic thinking that everyone holding a contradictory position is one person. That's a long-term problem outside of Wikipedia, and a long-standing one on Usenet, and a fourth long-term problem here. Then there's repeated "would you personally do this, Calton?" badgering and baiting. (Just look at the length of User talk:Calton#Okay then let's debate it.) This brings the count of long-term problems, all accumulating and compounding here in this incident, to six. There's far from one long-term problem to be addressed, here.

    And that's not even counting the fact that this all came from Talk:Van Jones, so the Obama-related-articles ArbCom sanctions are probably here in the mix somewhere, too. Uncle G (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

My only recollection of dealings with Calton was regarding the NeutralHomer incident from a couple of days ago - at that point, he seemed to clearly misunderstand the nature of mental illness, and felt it to be "fair game". I sadly am not surprised by this action. Unfortunately, a good block. Passion is good - incivility towards invisible disabilities is not. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

What ARE you talking about? My point -- my ONLY point -- was saying and giving evidence that Neutralhomer was using his Asperger's as an excuse for bad behavior -- despite his claims to the contrary -- and someone else's suggestion of therapy of a self-disclosed condition he himself claims is a barrier to proper editing behavior is not a personal attack. Short form: discussing a topic one raises oneself is not off-limits.

Hell's bell's, I did not -- and would not -- use the phrase "mental illness" as you did to describe the condition, so I'd say YOUR confusion of Asperger's with "mental illness" is a much more problematic misunderstanding. --Calton | Talk 23:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Except he's no longer blocked, as Ched backed off when another admin questioned it. So presumably a consensus is building here for a re-block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

First, pardon the non-logged in post, I'm not on my PC, and not in a secure location. Yes, when there were questions brought forth about the appropriateness of the block, then I did unblock because I'd rather error on the side of being fair, and allowing explinations. I will revisit this and review the info when I return home later tonight. Thank you all for your input, and I appreciate the community's indulgence in the matter. Ched 173.88.220.161 (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You did right. Better to be safe. He can always be re-blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Also, any administrator that feels there is evidence or consensus to conclude the matter in one fashion or another is free to act in the manner they feel best for the 'pedia. I'll not pass judgment, or be upset no matter the result. Ched. 173.88.220.161 (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Entirely proper block.  Sandstein  20:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Entirely ludicrous -- and context-free -- block I'd call it, given, for example, that the blocking admin's bogus rationale: I'm harassing JohnHistory? Who, exactly was that who was posting the thousands of words of ludicrously off-topic baiting that he was explicitly requested, numerous times, to stop clogging my talk page with? (Hint: not me.) He came to my talk page looking for an entirely unwanted argument and badgering -- note that his second message was -- what? -- half-an-hour later with demands I answer him immediately? He would not stop. I made ONE off-hand comment on a User Talk page and I get harassed in return. Why the blocking admin let the harasser get away with it might be due to the admin's explicit support of the harasser and his cohorts' points of view.

I did not and do not have the slightest interest in arguing politics, ESPECIALLY in a way that is utterly irrelevant to building an encyclopedia -- hey, wasn't that the point of this project? -- which, since I have not and do participate in the writing of articles on said subjects, might provide a clue to even the most careless reader why JohnHistory's mistaking of my User Talk page for a Free Republic thread was wildly inappropriate, especially when he was told so explicitly and he refused to stop. Cherry-picking words and completely ignoring context are particularly bad rationales for the use of admin tools.

Uncle G makes several good points -- and Ncmvocalist utterly misses it -- though based on the reports coming through here, the problem with "extreme partisanship" seems almost all one-sided. I would also quibble with his characterization of what I would call my unwillingness to suffer fools gladly. As far as I'm concerned, the long-term solution would be to discourage an increase in the number of fools, but that doesn't appear to be a priority around here: about more, see Uncle G's post above.

Now, if things are true to form, some of the regulars will scan my text looking for the contrition code words and, finding none, will call for immediate blocking because I "don't get it". I'd suggest they read the actual words and points and compare them to the actual context first. --Calton | Talk 23:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Calton, as you took the better part of the weekend and stepped away from the WP editing, I'm content to consider the matter closed. You've been here long enough to know that personal attacks are not acceptable. I'm not interested in any of the "mommy, he did it first" crap here. To paraphrase your own words: "To recap in words [anyone] should have no trouble understanding" Suggesting that an editor has mental deficiencies (riding the short bus) is a personal attack. Don't do it again. — Ched :  ?  13:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Breakdown at Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality

Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is currently indef-protected. The admin protecting it is the primary author and editor. Protection was done on the grounds of WP:HRT. The template currently has fewer than 500 transclusions, and doesn't appear to have ever been the subject of vandalism itself. Requests on the talk page have been declined, met with a rather long response from the protecting admin - as a result, a request on RFPP has been going stale, with the outside admin stating that the page should not be protected, but declining to action it. There has been no sign of an edit war, and there is no indication that one is about to begin.

Some further outside input would be greatly appreciated. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I also came across this at RFPP, though I haven't commented there. User:Tedder has taken no direct action but has brought the issue on the template talk page; however, he seems to know that User:Ezhiki isn't around on the weekends. He has stated at the template talk page that he will not unprotect because it would be wheel warring; I disagree. User:Ezhiki's actions are of doubtful necessity and are an abuse of administrative tools where he is the creator of the template and one of the only editors. He also appears to have added the protection after User:Pigsonthewing made a bold move; indicating he's using the protection indicating he's using the protection to win a dispute over titling the template. It is perfectly appropriate for an uninvolved admin to take action here and unprotect, wheel warring is when an admin uses his tools to redo an action reverted by another admin. As the admin is apparently not around to discuss, I am unprotecting. However, this issue remains open and I think we need to look harder at this admin's use of his tools generally.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think semi-protection should be preserved, as this templates is still used on a few hundred pages. Ruslik_Zero 19:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that discussion needs to continue on the template's talk page as to whether Wikipedia:HRT applies to this template. I have no opinion on the matter. I unprotected because there was a request at RFPP, the protection appears to have been an abuse of tools by an involved admin and I posted here about it because there was the suggestion that unprotection would be wheel warring. Much of the current discussion there was emotional surrounding the abuse of tools and your point would probably be a good place to make a fresh start with that discussion. This discussion should be about the abuse of tools, this is not a place to discuss the overall merits of protection.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The circumstances under which the template was protected are unusual. There does not seem to have been what many might consider sufficient cause for full protection to be placed, so I can see how removing it, as even the admin who first declined to do so favored. Semi-protection is another matter independent of the circumstances, and could easily be requested at WP:RFPP. I'm not sure I would necessarily oppose such semi-protection, but that is another matter. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Ezhiki typically abuses his tools. I normally love the guy, he is usually very level-headed, I am concerned in this instance though that he has purposefully locked the template from even me helping constructively edit it because of a perceived threat of deletion or edits removing things which he disgarees with like Farmborough did and that he has resorted to trolling the TFDs to prove a point even when he knows little about them like the Bangladesh template. If you check the actual history of the template to completely lock it fully is clearly inappropriate and seems to have been done out of fear rather than anything else. A semi-lock maybe but I don't think it will get much if any vandalism, the previous Russia city template never did. If at a later date it gets vandalism from ips then semi-lock it. His actions of late over templates and "settlements" have admittedly teed me off a little. Himalayan 13:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I am very concerned that on 9 September he made two edits (to the template under discussion), one to reverse Pigsonthewing's move of the same day, the other to fully protect the template. This is clear use of tools to win a dispute and is most inappropriate. If it weren't for that, I probably would have let things lie the way Tedder had left them - i.e. wait until Ezhiki got back; but this is very disconcerting.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to see something quite inappropriate check out his excessive posts at the TFDs providing the same invalid argument each time to prove a point. He has voted to keep a template on Bangladesh I nominated too which is actually at present providing seriously false location information and is in interfering with the effort I made to make 64 district locator maps which they could not provide to clean them all up and correct them. He has obviously not actually stopped to examine the pros and cons of the templates and treat each one indiviually but has hounded all of them to prove his point over naming convention because of an earlier conflict on the Russian template with Pigs on the wing, check it out. That in my view is unacceptable behavior from an admin. He has never edited any articles on Bangladesh or the Solomon Islands and normally would not have done this. Himalayan 21:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I remember now why I love taking wiki-weekends so much—it is always so nice to return to the sweet smell of napalm admin abuse accusations on Monday morning! So, should I sign my sentence somewhere now? :)

Anyway, joyful bantering aside, in case anyone is still interested in my take on the situation, here's what happened:

1. For the past couple of years, the infobox needs of articles on Russian cities/towns were taken care of by {{Infobox Russian city}}
2. The template worked OK for its purpose, yet had a score of annoying minor problems and inconsistencies. Also, it was only suitable for cities/towns, and not for other types of populated places in Russia.
3. After having collected numerous feedback about that template, I designed and implemented {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}} on August 19 & 20, 2009.
4. After polishing out the most obvious bugs, I semi-protected the template on August 20.
5. While it was my belief even on August 20 that the template qualifies under WP:HRT, I did not choose to fully protect it at the time because there was a possibility someone other than me would find undetected bugs and fix them.
6. For the next two and a half weeks, I was observing the template for problems.
7. Those few minor problems which I've noticed, I fixed on September 8. Since in two and a half weeks no one else complained about anything, my intent was to fully protect the template (under WP:HRT) soon after.
8. On September 9, the template was moved to a new title ({{Infobox Russian settlement}}) by User:Pigsonthewing (Andy).
9. I do not question it was a good-faith move, but it also was uninformed and negligent.
   1. The uninformed portion was the fact that the term "settlement" in context of Russia is both a synonym of the term "inhabited locality" and a term referring to a type of an "inhabited locality" (as in "Russian inhabited localities include cities, towns, villages, settlements, urban-type settlements, etc..."). In articles about Russia, for reasons of clarity and unambiguity, we always use the term "settlement" in its latter sense. Using a precise term in its generic sense, if only in a template title, can be confusing to editors and ultimately leads to increased maintenance overhead within WP:RUSSIA (of which I am a member). Having seen how carelessly this template had been applied in articles in the past, I do believe that the clarity of the template's title is of utmost importance.
   2. The negligent portion was due to the fact that the move created several double-redirects, which remained unfixed for several hours. As a result, a number of high-profile (for WP:RUSSIA) articles displayed a double-redirect notice instead of the actual infobox.
10. I discovered the move upon logging in on September 9 and moved it back for the reasons explained in the edit summary.
11. Since it was my intent to fully protect the template that morning anyway, that is what I had done.
12. Was that action probably not a good judgement? In the hindsight, it was. Note, however, that the protection was imposed due to my interpretation of the WP:HRT, as well as to the fact that the previous negligent move clearly demonstrated the need for such protection (good-faith actions can be as harmful as the bad-faith ones). The protection action had nothing to do with the "conflict" (which, as of the time of protection, had not even started to develop). I truly and honestly find the accusations of "admin abuse" far-fetching, unsubstantiated, and not in spirit of assuming good faith (especially considering the fact that they've been made even before the accusing side had a chance to hear my reasoning and explanations). I would not object to allegations of "poor judgment", but I find allegations of "admin abuse" so early in the process despicable. At least take some time to hear the whole story! Is one weekend too long of a time to wait for me to return?
13. Moving on. A few minutes after the protection had been imposed, Andy voiced his concern on the template's talk page.
14. I replied immediately after having seen the comment, explaining the terminology peculiarities.
15. After a follow-up request, I wrote up an extensive and detailed response further explaining the reasons.
16. After that, the thread died (for six days!). Naturally, I assumed the issue is settled. The template remained fully protected.
17. On September 15, Andy posted three further comments, one of which stated that he is "disinclined" to read my previous response as it is too "lengthy". I have not addressed this comment as I have not noticed it; something which I later apologized for.
18. On September 17, User:Himalayan Explorer inquired as to the purpose of having the template locked.
19. I explained that the protection is for WP:HRT reasons, and that if he does not agree with my interpretation of WP:HRT or its applicability in this case, he is welcome to seek opinion of an administrator of his choice. To that, I received no response from Himalayan, nor was there an indication that Himalayan solicited any other admin for an opinion, so (here we go again) I assumed the matter settled (at least with him).
20. I did, however, receive a follow-up inquiry from Andy, in which he also alerted me to the fact that I have overlooked one of his previous requests (the one in which he states his "disinclination" to read my responses, for they are too "lengthy").
21. In my response, I addressed both issues:
    1. On protection, I advised Andy to take the same course of action I recommended Himalayan—he is welcome to solicit an opinion of another administrator of his choice and, if that opinion happens to differ from mine and the template does not qualify for protection under WP:HRT, I would comply nevertheless. (For the matter of record, I fully understand how HRT applicability in this case can seem borderline and subject to an individual interpretation, although I firmly stand by my own assessment).
    2. On the matter of "disinclination" to read my responses, I advised Andy that he cannot expect a productive discussion to take place if he refuses his opponent the right to be heard on the basis of a facetious essay.
22. As a result, Andy listed the template for unprotection, which ultimately lead to this AN/I thread.

To summarize: I admit that it was not a very sound judgment decision to protect the template after having moved it back (although I emphasize once again that no conflict took place as of the time of protection) and that I should have probably contacted a different admin to handle that. I do not admit any "admin abuse" or assumption of me acting in bad faith at any point of this conflict. The above list, hopefully, provides a clearer picture. If anything seems unclear or inaccurate, I'll be happy to take questions.

As for the template, as indicated above in my responses to two other users, I had agreed to abide by an assessment of another admin, and since that assessment is presently "unprotect", that's what I am going to abide by. I do, however, still believe it qualifies for protection under HRT (it is relatively high use and affects the area not many other admins watch over, so vandalism has greater chances of going undetected). I also reserve the right to fully protect this template again if a) it starts to attract vandals; b) when it's usage level increases by an order of magnitude (~3,000 articles).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:00, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Whether you disagree with Andy's moves with the Russian template or not you retaliated by hounding all of his (and one of my) nominations with the same copied and pasted message to prove a point about template naming conventions. If you had actually stopped and considered the content and function of some of the templates particuarly the Bangaldesh one which at present is far from accurate then you might see that some of them are actually valid nominations and not just part of a vendetta of Andys to add settlement to everywhere. If yo had assumed good faith in the first place rather than locking the template after a disagremeent and then angrily raiding his other TFDs nobody would have said anything and you most certainly would not have received a response from me. Himalayan 16:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

90% of Ezhiki's response is irrelevant. What is relevant is that, five minutes after reverting a disputed move, he protected the template. I requested he reverse that, explaining that it was an abuse of his admin powers. When he apparently did not see my request; I drew his attention to it. Once he stated that he would not unprotect it, I requested unprotection using the correct channel. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It is very much relevant in a sense that without knowing what led to a protection (and a subsequent denial of an unprotection request) it is impossible to ascertain the merits of my actions properly. The reasons why the template was protected are covered under items 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, and 21.1 in the explanation above.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:07, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see the point in continuing this discussion here. It is not addressing the real problem or helping what needs to be done here. Ezhiki is not going to be blocked and niether is he going to be stripped of his tools for locking a single template and neither do I want him to be so I think we should end this ANI discussion and discuss more calmly how we address Ezhiki's concerns about naming convention without conflict or misunderstanding and come to a consensus elsewhere. Himalayan 17:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't cherish the thought of having to drag this further either, but I do take accusations of "admin abuse" seriously. I would thus sincerely appreciate Doug's comment on the situation in light of my explanation above.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:07, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

• Any use of tools to advance one's own personal position or interests is a violation of the trust that the community has in us - even if we think we are doing it for the benefit of the project. I don't find the explanation particularly helpful or convincing. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on your intentions but the evidence shows at best very poor judgment and a misuse of tools. Your statement: the protection was imposed due to my interpretation of the WP:HRT, as well as to the fact that the previous negligent move clearly demonstrated the need for such protection is very troubling. HRT is a guideline and it requires consensus to determine whether it applies to a particular page - as the HRT page clearly states; not the determination of the creator of the template. There had been no discussion of HRT that I'm aware of prior to your protection and there was an ongoing disagreement over the proper name of the template. Whether you previously planned to protect the page or not is irrelevant, at that point you should definitely not have done so. The idea that the move was negligent is conclusory and is a content dispute in reality over what the template should say and how it should be named (if a user makes a move and fails to clean up the double-redirects, this should be explained to him or her - but there's a bot that will eventually take care of it, it's not a justification for locking the page!). the previous negligent move is exactly why you should not be protecting this page at all as it shows you went into the protection decision with a bias that if done by a newbie editor would get him or her slapped with an ownership warning. I find your reservation of rights above to be a problem too; there is nothing that says "~3000" pages is the cut off for HRT and HRT actually says otherwise, the community decides through consensus on a page by page basis whether the number is 3 or 3,000,000,000 for any particular page. As I've said at the template talk page, I take no position on whether this page qualifies for HRT at present.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User:The Squicks

Can you all tone down his language and possible misuse of multiple dynamic IPs (173.*.*.*) and maybe others? I think, now, I recognize it when I see it. Also, he's been called on his language before. -MBHiii (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• To accuse someone of sockpuppetry is pretty serious. You should provide some diffs, and evidence to support your claims. Lychosis ^T/C 18:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Also, User:The Squicks has been notified of this thread. Lychosis ^T/C 18:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I have no capability to make such an accusation, only to see a pattern, one that could also be produced by the Admin User:Ched Davis, say, who seems to use 173.*.*.* IPs following Squicks and reverting in his favor. I don't have the technical tools to make such investigations, but I can request those who do look into it. Squicks has accused me of being "sexually obsessed", as I recall, for trying to document and write about the original, rude, British meaning of "Yankee doodle." Such accusation, in the context of an edit dispute among people who are not friends, I consider, and most people I know, would consider libelous. That he sees me saying so as threat of a lawsuit is his own overreaction. Social norms reflected in law, without necessarily resorting to it, are often good guides. -MBHiii (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Here's a good guide for you: When coming to WP:AN/I complaining that editors are logging in and out to edit war, try not doing it yourself at the very same time. It's pretty clear, from even a quick perusal of the edit histories concerned, that you are
      • 74.162.148.126 (talk · contribs) in the edit war at Teabagging,
      • 74.162.156.72 (talk · contribs) and 74.162.129.139 (talk · contribs) in the edit war at Yankee Doodle and on Talk:Yankee Doodle,
      • 74.162.156.72 (talk · contribs) in the edit war over an external link to a Youtube video at health care reform in the United States,
      • 74.242.231.34 (talk · contribs) and 74.162.156.72 (talk · contribs) in the edit war at Doodle,
      • all three of 74.162.147.56 (talk · contribs), 74.162.147.36 (talk · contribs), and 74.242.231.34 (talk · contribs) in the Obama-related edit war at Teabagger,
      • and a whole load of others besides.
    • And the edit wars that you are participating in on the user talk pages of many of these accounts, such as on User talk:74.162.151.64 and User talk:74.162.129.139 for examples, are descending into the absurd. Uncle G (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • It is my understanding that using IPs is no violation, except when used to avoid policies. I have no proof for whether the apparent pattern of IPs supporting Squicks is that, but you may, if you care to look into it. Thanks for calling him about his language, again, if you did. MBHiii (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There is yet more that of Squicks that needs correcting:

Accusing "vandalism" when he's the vandal. Repeatedly replacing a blue link with a red one. Calling an official DHHS document (an "Order" in fact, directing policy change) merely "personal opinions of A government offical" (as if not reviewed and authorized as official).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pre-existing_condition&action=history

Accusing "vandalism" when he's the vandal. Repeatedly deleting a hidden note to other editors on a key point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teabagging&action=history

Repeated failure to abide by consensus. Inappropriate vulgarity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Health_insurance_cooperative&action=history

-MBHiii (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In all of those circumstances, you made edits that blatantly distorted the sources and then you accused any opposition to that distortion as "vandalism". You then started a persistent edit war to put your distortions into the articles, refusing to talk anything out. This is a particular pattern of you, given that this is exactly what you did at 'doodle' and 'yankee doodle' and 'tea party protest' and everywhere else you have edited.

Everything that you have me of- and I mean everything that have written above- was done by you first. I must admit that it is a shrewd move, attributing your actions to someone else to cover up your tracks, but it's not going to fly here. Other editors have noticed. The Squicks (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Mbii claims that a website blog statement labeled The Satirical Post (no, I'm not making this up, he really claims this) is a source for the statement "Teabagger' is now widely used to mean a participant in the Tea Party protests, a series of protests against the expansion of government spending in the USA in 2009 by opponents of the protesters and by protesters themselves."

He also took out an 'NPOV' tag when the issues were not resolved. His argument was "The dispute is resolved by our refusal to waste time with you", which is hilarious coming from someone expressing such touchy skin and feelings of hurt on this page.

Of course, all of his comments in the healthcare related articles (e.g. "Squicks needs to be banned", "reverting a determined vandal", etc) came when he was using multiple sock-puppets to get around editor consensus against his additions (which is completely against WP policy but- as you can see- he sees as a personal matter of pride having socks). This makes his thin skin now to be even more hilarious.

Don't forget, this is the editor who created the page for 'Bushcronium'. If you have never heard of it, Mbii made these claims=

Bushcronium's mass actually increases over time, as morons randomly interact with various elements in the atmosphere and become assistant deputy neutrons in a Bushcronium molecule, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that Bushcronium is formed when morons reach a certain quantitative concentration level. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "critical morass."

The Squicks (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I was new to WP, then, and didn't know there was no place for satire, but Squicks is an old, honored, and sometimes insightful editor, which makes all this a puzzle, explainable only by what appears to be ideological fervor. -MBHiii (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Icing on the cake is his libel threat. I enthusitically support going to court with him and having him explain his personal theory that the term 'Yankee Doodle' = 'Americans masturbate too much" to a typical Texas Jury (and how, by daring to question him on that, I have committed libel). The Squicks (talk) 06:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Don't know where he got the quote, ridiculous. The IP thing is old and I've addressed above. The Satirical Post points to something I've seen and heard, first hand, teabaggers publicly calling themselves Teabaggers at rallies; it just needs more references. -MBHiii (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

So you've seen something firsthand. And you claim that that is enough to put that material in an article?

I'm also wondering exactly where you got the idea for 'Bushcronium' from. What reliable sources was that from? The Squicks (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, you have to agree that for you to call me a vandal over and over again for what was you going against other editorial consensuses, and then for you to make a 180 and claim hurt feelings after your unsourced additions to various article are reverted is funny. Isn't it? The Squicks (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Recall I moved this disputed key point of mine into a hidden note to other editors, to seek sources, which Squicks deleted anyway. He didn't want even them to see it? -MBHiii (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, things haven't changed for you. You're still doing exactly the same things that you did when you first started-- adding content not represented by reliable sources, using sock-puppets, edit-warring, calling other people names, and so on.

When I read that you wrote "explainable only by what appears to be ideological fervor", I laughed. I recall that you once made an edit with the edit summary= The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with neither.

Which is an interesting political view (I suppose Barack Obama would agree, as would others here) but I can't believe that you used that summary as a justification for your editing! And then you accuse me of having "ideological fervor"... The Squicks (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's quoted directly from his user page, with two words switched. -MBHiii (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you two need to call it a wikiday and go take a break for a day. You're clearly at each others throats, and outside opinions will have to decide what to do here. In the meantime, you are both only making it worse for yourselves by carrying out your quarrel here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Mbhiii has been using socks to harass editors and evade 3RR before. Two recently indefinite blocked Mbhiii IP's are 74.162.150.109 and 65.246.126.130. Jmcnamera (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This whole situation is extraordinarily stupid. User:Mbhiii, I warned you specifically about the use of the revert feature, or manually reverting people's edits. I am not seeing any attempt to engage this editor (or others for the most part) on talk pages when in a dispute. You seem to enjoy dancing around the edge of WP:3RR and in my opinion you've stepped over the line more than a few times, ironically in the very page histories you have posted here to "report" another editor. I've tried to assume good faith in this situation but that has been exhausted; there will be no more flirting with the line because there ought not be a line for you anymore. Same goes for User:The Squicks. You are both engaging in the same kind of tendentious and incivil edit-warring that is absolutely unacceptable. Next time I catch either of you serially reverting one another, calling each other a vandal (when there is clearly no vandalism going on - please read WP:VANDAL before you sling accusations) or engaging in any of this sort of behavior again, I will block you without any further warning. This behavior has been going on far too long. If you cannot learn to edit in a cooperative and collegial manner, then try disengaging from each other and finding something less contentious to edit. Shereth 14:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Page copied from MyWikiBiz ?

See Osmund Lewry a page copied from there. According to this page, the author retains all rights to content posted on MyWikiBiz, and Thekohser (talk · contribs) has stated that the page is not GFDL. Can this page be accepted? Triplestop x3 18:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

See also WR thread Triplestop x3 18:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The original page is here, its in the "Directory" space, the "Directory" space is explicitly not licensed with a compatible license (looks to be a version of "all rights reserved to MyWikiBiz"). Since MyWikiBiz is Thekohser's site, presumably that means the copyright is owned by him and he's free to reissue it GFDL? Nathan ^T 18:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If as Thekohser says ([12]), the content is posted on Wikipedia at the request of the author, then this needs to be authorized through WP:OTRS. As it stands now, the content has to go. Evil saltine (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be acceptable to contact http://www.mywikibiz.com/User:Ockham , the author of the content on MyWikiBiz. Evil saltine (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Tis true, my fine lad - but yon link shows they writer gave thems permission to post here, as well. I tell ye no lie, I thinks the content be used in Wikipedia under ars own license (and a pretty one it is, to be sure) being donated. Yaaaarrrrr!? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Then MyWikiBiz would need to be contacted to show that they gave permission. Evil saltine (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yon Cap'n of the good ship MyWikiBiz goes by the name Thekohser, and he be the fellow as written that permission be granted. Does thee suppose another tale be told if the ship were hailed directly? Yar...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I'll e-mail permissions-en to see if that would be adequate. Evil saltine (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Pardon the intrusion but this seems like a cute little attempt at a breaching experiment. This could be resolved rather rapidly if thekosher decided not to be so coy about things and simply state who wrote the original article and under what license is it distributed. As far as I'm concerned if that doesn't happen in the next 48 hours or so I have no problem speedying it as a copyvio. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thekohser claims to may have permission to relicense it per [13]. Evil saltine (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I, along with Greg, received an email from the original author asking to repost the article. Although I declined to do so, I'd say that email constitutes permission to release under Wikipedia's current license (CC-BY-SA 3.0, not GFDL) because the original author is fully aware of Wikipedia's license requirements. Thatcher 20:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
      • It would be really helpful if you could forward said e-mail to permissions-en at wikimedia.org so this can be formalized through OTRS. Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't think OTRS is needed since the article did not come from Kohs' web site, rather it came from User_talk:Petrus_Damianus and Kohs copied it first to MyWikiBiz before posting it in main space. Thatcher 01:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll see your September 2009 on Wikipedia's User_talk space, and raise you one February 2009 on MyWikiBiz's Directory space. -- Thekohser 02:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. In that case, however, the original author on MyWikiBiz [14] needs to release the text under a compatible software license. He could do that by contacting the WMF permissions email address, or by posting a note on some page on MyWikiBiz and then we can link to it here. Right now it looks like Petrus Damianus plagiarized the copyright-protected work of Ockham. I know someone who claims to be both Petrus Damianus and Ockham, but to prove it, Ockham has to post some kind of confirmation on MyWikiBiz; either confirmation of his real name, or confirmation that he releases the article under GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0. Thatcher 03:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed released under GFDL. Thatcher 11:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Page likely created by/for PD

Columba Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article was created by the banned user Peter Damian [15]. User:Lar has said that he would "take responsibility" for it [16]. I would like more input on whether this is acceptable. G5 states that the article must be "created by a banned user in violation of his or her ban, with no substantial edits by others", however should a banned user be able to add an article through offsite coordination like this? This looks like a reasonable page, but given PD's comments on destroying wikipedia I am having trouble assuming good faith as this seems like a campaign to prove some sort of point [17]. Triplestop x3 21:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

PS thank you for the compliment Peter Damian (if you are reading this), I am sure I have 10x the brain you ever had. Triplestop x3 21:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You're just making yourself look more foolish when you do that. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the hard part of G5. PD knows this. So he's going to sock and/or proxy to get "good" articles into wikipedia in order to show us all how wrong we were about banning him for being disputatious and unpleasant. Burn. with. fire. Protonk (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. While a reasonable article has been produced as a result, this is still pure trolling. I won't pretend to understand Peter's ultimate goal here, but certainly the medium-term intention seems to be to demonstrate that banning him was counterproductive to Wikipedia's overall goal. It's an odd form of it, I'll grant you that, but this is still disruptive sockpuppetry to prove a point. I would personally have no issue with G5ing this. ~ mazca ^talk 22:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be instructive to review all of the banning policy, (but in particular: Users who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content by so doing. ... I've done exactly that) and all of the discussion in this section of the talk: Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Reinstating_edits_of_banned_users.3F. The article is no longer G5-able. ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Triplestop is referring to Columba Ryan when he says I took responsibility. And I did, for that one. I have nothing to do with Osmund Lewry. Peter Damian no doubt would like to see this article deleted as it would further his campaign. My typical approach to Peter's actions is to thwart his unreasonable actions. But if he's willing to write good articles (which Columba Ryan has every possibility of being), let him. Deleting it is what he wants. Or drama, whichever. Don't play that game. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with what Lar said, especially the last few lines. NW (Talk) 22:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a lose lose situation. Banned users need to stay away, however if we delete it then it adds to his trolling campaign. But I think his use of the name "Previously Banned User" sums up his intent pretty nicely. Triplestop x3 22:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

So if it's a good article, and someone else takes responsibility, chuckle to yourself and let it slide. ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the policy page, the page can be speedy deleted on sight. So since you are taking responsibility for this I would like to see you making substantial edits. Triplestop x3 22:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you might advise Lar, someone who has been editing Wikipedia for as many years as you have months (on this account, amyhoo), what further edits you might wish to see. Perhaps which pastime the subject were interested in, or if they have been rendered as an avatar in a Xbox game...?Sometimes, taking responsibility for an article when it was created by or on behalf of a banned editor (and you have checked the chronology to ensure it was created by PD while he was banned from WP, and not when he wasn't, I suppose per AGF) is simply to say, "This satisfies the requirements for a WP article as is, and I therefore take responsibility for it." Unless you can provide the policy or guideline that notes an adopted article must be substantially edited by the adoptee I think you may reconsider your strident posturing (and language). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban having no substantial edits by others." This approach would please everyone would it not? And I am sorry opinions from us worthless peons don't matter. Triplestop x3 14:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This is probably noteworthy to... the edit where I confirmed Brandon's findings at the relevant SPI report (after blocking PD's latest sock) ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree w/ NW. There is really no option here other than avoiding playing his games. Part of the reason he is banned is because he insisted on treating other people like this, placing them in seemingly implacable binds in order to fulfill his views about wikipedia. It's petty and fanatical and we are better off just going without it. If that means wikipedia has 1 less article on 13th century theologians so be it. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Except NW was agreeing with me :) ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I read his agreement as "yes we suffer a crappy tradeoff in this situation, but the last few lines (ie the decision) aren't correct". :) I don't really think that we have an easy answer available. Protonk (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I agree with what Lar and Skomorokh said. If Peter Damian wants to do everything he can to get good content on to Wikipedia, we can ignore him and chuckle at his efforts, thereby exterminating drama and adding content to the encyclopedia. If he wants to start attacking editors, we can block him. Simple as that. It may not go along with WP:BAN, but that's why we have this. NW (Talk) 23:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with this approach; we should approach the matter from the point of view of being an encyclopaedia first, a community second. If looking the other way while banned editors contribute productively (before immediately blocking if they start any trouble) and having mildly annoyed adminsitrators is the price we have to pay for a better eneyclopaedia, then so be it. The problem with situations like the above is that we defenders of the wiki are buying into and playing up to the moral framework of the banned.  Skomorokh  22:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

But that (whether or not we play into his moral framework) is largely unimportant. And frankly, if we are going to do that, let's unban PD right now. Protonk (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

On second thought it is best to keep this page. Thank you for your contribution Peter Damian however you are still banned and you are not getting what you want. Triplestop x3 01:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• In fact, I think Damian should be unblocked. You have to understand his particular form of disruption. He wants to prove (it seems to me) that Wikipedia's policies are defective and are geared to preventing useful additions to the encyclopedia—the reason we are all supposedly here.

1. He was blocked for 3RR on Objectivism (Ayn Rand). He was edit warring with an IP that refused to discuss edits on the talk page, and deliberately noting in his edit summaries that he was exceeding 3RR. He was blocked, but the IP was not blocked until 24 hours later after an outcry on the noticeboard. What he thinks he proved is that the blocking policy is enforced in a non-sensical and capricious way. But what he failed to do is use the processes that are already in place to deal with this kind of problem (such as WP:RFPP).
2. He was blocked for using sockpuppets to tag an alleged sockpuppet of FT2, exposing what he thinks is hypocrisy that treats FT2 differently than Geogre. What he failed to do was use the process already in place for dealing with user conduct problems (laying out a case at WP:RFC/U).
3. He now uses sockpuppets to create articles, then identifies himself hoping someone will delete the content, or as in this case creates content on another site and asks someone to copy it across. What he wants to prove is that good content will be deleted for political reasons, putting politics ahead of the stated goal of writing an encyclopedia. What he fails to do is simply edit quietly as the sockpuppet, since if he did not call attention to himself by disruptive conduct, no one would object to his creating content.

I think that a more rational approach to Damian is to encourage him to follow the dispute resolution processes already in place, whether it involves article content or user conduct. (They may not be perfect, but they are not going to get any better by deliberately ingnoring and undermining them.) Whenever he feels the need to climb the Reichstag and ignore the appropriate process in favor of being deliberately disruptive, he should be blocked for some standard length of time (maybe 5-7 days) and then just ignore further demonstrations by him. He could remain unblocked forever or spend the next 5 years blocked for 120 out of every 121 hours, it would be his choice.

It is important to recognize that unlike some other banned users, for whom I definitely would not advocate this approach, Damian can not cause significant disruption unless he has the unwitting help of other editors and admins. Just stop playing the game by his rules. Thatcher 01:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep. ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember he was banned for being unbeleivably difficult and unpleasant and we just rationalized it by listing those specific proscribed acts. I would support an unban if someone would give me reason to believe that he wouldn't just come back here, act like a jerk to anyone who wasn't a classicist and then get upset when we ask him not to act like a jerk. Protonk (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

His current indef ban follows from tagging FT2 as a sockpuppet user, after his unban in 2008 included a condition that he not interact or discuss FT2. I think this original condition was too broad, that he should have been allowed to use the appropriate dispute resolution channels as long as he did not go outside those channels (harassment, using socks himself, etc). For example, he was threatened with blocking or actually blocked (I forget which) for making AfD nominations of articles FT2 had contributed to years before. I never meant for the prohibition on harassing FT2 to be interpreted that broadly. As I said, I think the best way to handle him when he disrupts to make a point is to give a standard length block, without drama, and to ignore any attempts to raise more drama. Think of him, if you must, as a striker. By himself, he can only make sparks, someone else must provide the fuel if he is to get a fire going. Thatcher 06:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet tagging page

This is completely inappropriate. Whoever is doing that should stop now. It is one thing to have such a view, it is another to create a secondary account for the purpose of pushing such a view. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• That's just some drama whore with 2 dozen sockpuppets already blocked for other reasons....and blocked. Thatcher 13:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Was it confirmed? Because, I must say, if it was Peter then he is really scrapping the bottom of that barrel for names. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I was not clear. it's not Damian. It's someone from a different country, actually, who has a couple dozen sockpuppets and seems to be up to no good in various ways, such as [18]. Thatcher 13:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Gesh, Thatcher. When you say "drama whore with 2 dozen sockpuppets already blocked for other reasons", you have to know that it applies to many, many people here. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would be clear from the context that I meant "A drama whore who is not Peter Damian" :) Thatcher 13:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

PeterSymonds, maybe? Killiondude (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Unintentional oversight of admins?

I assume the fact that no one addressed these edits before they were archived as an unintentional oversight. (???)

Some users have taken it upon themselves to unilaterally delete several images that consist entirely of text and/or simple geometric shapes. I request that they all be restored as improper speedy deletions.

File:ASUinterlock.gif

File:AzSt.gif

File:Colorado.gif restored

File:Akron.gif

File:Tulane shield web.png *note that this one was deleted after someone changed the file tag. Needs to be fixed.

File:UT&Tmark.png restored

While I view these as clear PD images, it doesn't mean they can't have a valid use and a FUR even if someone decides they aren't PD. No notice was given as far as I can tell and speedy deletion wasn't appropriate here. Request these images be restored and, if the orignal deleter decides, place them back up for deletion via normal channels. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, WP:DRV? They aren't clear PD images to me, and so they had an improper license, a valid speedy criteria. If you want them restored, you can ask the deleting admin and then go onto DRV. I don't see what else should be done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What specifically about them isn't PD? They consist entirely of typeface (some might have simple geometric shapes too). All of those are not eligible for copyright. While they all clearly have trademark protections, they are PD images, not copyrights. What am I missing here? — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, if they aren't clear, you nominate for deletion and notify the uploader, not just delete them. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Several of these images have been restored. Thank you. If anyone feels the restorations are in error, please feel free to nominate them for deletion: WP:FFD. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Working with the deleting admins now to at least move the discussion to WP:FFD if not full restoration. Seems like a simple mistake, easy to fix. I'll place the results here for the record. This section can be archived and I'll add the results to the archive under WP:IAR if no one has a problem with that. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

External link "Ons vir jou, Suid-Afrika/At Thy will, South Africa"

Resolved

 – Update: spamlist amended/issue resolved (for now) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a host of IPs going 'round, adding a video by the Afrikaner Broadcasting Corporation to all South Africa-related articles, particularly South Africa under apartheid. The video, tellingly, starts out by talking about "the civilizing light of Europe" that was brought to the dark continent and continues in a similar tone. I just weeded out most of them (I hope all of them), see my contribs.

Despite the fact that a discussion-string was started at the said page, the IPs are unwilling to engage in a conversation, switch to a different address and re-add the link (even putting it sometimes at the top of articles, or very close to the top). I'm at a loss. I don't think I can request semi-protection for 37 articles at a time... Opinions? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spam blacklist the link? The website seems to be hosted on the John Birch Society and we can debate its overall later another time. From a search at Special:LinkSearch, there's quite a few more uses (the election pages). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That could be a good solution. I'd be interested in a centralized discussion regarding the video's merits, but running around undoing stuff isn't my cup of tea. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we really work on centralized discussion really. If the video is a reliable source then it can be used anywhere it's considered relevant. If it's not, it's not appropriate anywhere. If they're just spamming anywhere and everywhere, then they'll all be removed. If there's a remote attempt at some discussion, then it's worth having. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Added it for proposed blacklisting. I hope I did this right, never done this before. If somebody finds the time, please check it to see if it's ok. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 Added to the blacklist. MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#At_Thy_will_South_Africa_.2F_Ons_vir_jou_Suid-Afrika--Hu12 (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Multiple socks of TheStrayCat

Resolved

 – Quite a sockfarm. 30 socks + master bagged and tagged at SPI case. Nothing more to do here. Tim Song (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a pretty obvious case - TheStrayCat (talk · contribs), IzDaNocky (talk · contribs), DudeBrownie (talk · contribs), Katesparrow (talk · contribs) and Rocket to Jupiter (talk · contribs) have been used, one after the other, to perform the exact same type of edits. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Add RugratsFan2 (talk · contribs) to the list... 98.248.33.198 (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

And now Anti-Sockpuppet (talk · contribs), which is practially an admission of guilt... 98.248.33.198 (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

...Wikis4everybody (talk · contribs)... 98.248.33.198 (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. None of these accounts you are listing are performing the same edits as TheStrayCat. They are merely new accounts that are editing pages regarding animated films. TheStrayCat however matches the MO of a vandal who tacked on "animated" or "cartoon" to television series and films that were animated, or were merely animated in part. Stop listing them all.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim they were the same edits, I wrote that they are the same type of edits. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I meant.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

However, they are all accounts utilized to edit articles regarding actual animated films.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The main efforts of IzDaNocky (talk · contribs) and DudeBrownie (talk · contribs) thus far seems to be reverting TheStrayCat (talk · contribs). Could be an attention-seeker doing vandalism edits on one hand and "heroically" repairing them on the other. If so, then this is someone with WAY too much free time. Manning (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It's the timing of it all that caught my attention. I haven't checked account creation times, but I'd bet money that the puppet accounts were created right after the last edit of the previous account. Classic serial sockpuppetry tactic - create an account, make a few edits, move on to the next account. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

All the suspect accounts listed there seem to be blocked.- Sinneed 17:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but because Ryulong directed me to stop listing new socks, there are a few more that haven't been blocked. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations seems to be the place to list them?- Sinneed 22:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be if IP users were able to create new reports. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My ignorance is vast, and I thank you for lightening a bit of it. I fear I have edited anon only when I suddenly found myself logged out in the middle of a session. My apologies if I seemed callous, I assure you it was ignorance only.- Sinneed 00:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TheStrayCat is up; I added a CU request. Please submit additional evidence/add socks as necessary. Tim Song (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User Simon Speed being disruptive

I'm having a serious problem with user Simon Speed, under justification this edits were vandalism, where he justifies that classification by assuming bad faith and pointing to old unrelated edits in my talk page, he ignored the last version, before those edits were made, and the earlier version of the article (before problematic changes in that article). Instead he reverted to a a specific version of the article that he liked better, without making that change explicit in the edit summary, restoring problematic and unreferenced content. That action was deceptive, unjustified, ignored the previous stable versions and, as many of his last actions disruptive. I think the user is having serious problem understanding Wikipedia's policies and editing process.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears you are having a content war. From first glance Simon Speed seems to be attempting to adhere to a more neutral point of view. Not ALL of your recent changes fail NPOV, but enough were to justify the revert. For example, you changed the heading "Anal sex" to "Dangers of anal sex". You removed references to Christian promotion of abstinence and re-expressed it as if Wikipedia itself was advocating abstinence. I don't necessarily regard your edits as vandalism but they are POV biased and deserved to be reverted. You are unlikely to find many allies to your case here. Manning (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know which specific edit you're talking. I'm talking about the latest. Where he says this edits were vandalism, but restored to another version that isn't neither the latest or the last stable version (before content dispute started). You can see more details on the article talk page.

I've made earlier changes on the article, but since Simon Seed was reverting all, I then restored to a previous version (before recent changes started), as it was, so we could discuss all the changes on top of that, as by the talk page. It doesn't mean I agree with that old version, right the opposite, otherwise I wouldn't have changed it into to that version (the first before Simon Seed started reverting)

I didn't change "Anal sex" to "Dangers of anal sex", that was simple the way it was in that earlier version. I didn't make any specific change for that purpose.

Christian promotion of abstinence was removed (13:13, 16 September 2009) under the following justification "Removed problematic text supported by no or unreliable sources, please don't readd without providing a reliable scientific source". I had former rewritten that section in a balanced way, but that change was reverted by Simon Speed, as all my edits in that article.

Abstinence was rewritten] citing reliable sources and presenting both POVs.

I would like to hear other administrators if that user behavior, which just reverts all my edits using prejudice argumentation (assumption of bad faith) is appropriate.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You are perfectly free to appeal for the input of further admins. I will recuse from further comment. Manning (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As with the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User systematically reverting my edits incident opened yesterday, I don't see a note at the user's talk page about this bit. I have added one. I also updated WQA to say this issue has been taken to ANI. - Sinneed (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to Sineed for informing me and thank you to Nutriveg for escalating this: this is one of the few points on which I am in agreement with them. Thank you to Manning for considering that my reversions on Safe sex were justified, however since that point Nutriveg re-reverted, then User:Cameron Scott reverted their edits, then Nutriveg re-reverted, then User:MishMich reverted their edits, then Nutriveg re-reverted and then I reverted their edits. Would anyone wanting to deal with this please note the following edits Nutriveg made to their talk page spanning most of their editing career :- 2009-09-19 [19] 2009-04-20 [20] 2009-03-12 [21] 2008-12-14 [22] . --Simon Speed (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an actionable problem. Maybe I am being dense.

I do see a content dispute. I do see some too-large changes, some of which are problematic, some are not, all being done at once. Because 1 edit had such a wide range of changes, a single revert made MANY changes, and may make it "feel" as if all one's changes are being reverted.

I suggested to Nutriveg making more focused edits, so that it is easier to work with them, should an editor oppose.- Sinneed 20:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That page is currently blocked for 3 days, but the dispute continues at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Mammary intercourse. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sinneed, I've already done that, reverted to an earlier version (7 September 2009) and started from there, but suddenly, after a few days user Simon Speed deleted all those edits and restored to a later version (16 September 2009) arguing vandalism. It's the second time he does that. He only reverts all my edits saying I'm acting in bad faith and doing vandalism.--Nutriveg (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My last edit to Safe sex was at 19:18 on 2009-09-20 when I reverted to the last edit of neutral editor User:MishMich which Nutriveg had reverted. Nobody is editing that article at the moment and I am trying to stay out of the discussion as this is exhausting. Any admin can check the response the 2 new editors are getting from Nutriveg on the talk page. I am now trying to deal with the issue mentioned above which seems more and more like griefing. Lets face it, looking at past history, this user is a troll. I admit that I have fed them, but then trolls do what they need to to get fed. Will an admin please check the history, as after this Nutriveg will move on to new pages and new editors as they have done in the past. --Simon Speed (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit that motivated this section, it's on top of it, was this, where using an excuse to revert vandalism you ignored that earlier version (7 September 2009) and reverted to later version (16 September 2009).

User:MishMich didn't knew the article history then but now is aware of the last stable version of the article. But you were well aware when you did that revert to (16 September 2009) instead of (7 September 2009), since you were there at the time it was done (because of the reverts made by you) and followed that argument in the article talk page.

You just reverting all my edits, attacking me of troll, bad faith and vandalism, instead of proposing content changes beyond reverting to unreferenced text, is exactly the problem we are having here.--Nutriveg (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit war and Peronal Attacks.

User talk:MickMacNee has been counseled on making personal attack and he continues to make them. He is also in violation of 3rr Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I count five reverts (so far) by Hell In A Bucket to the same page, which surely breaches the three-revert rule as well. It smells strongly of censorship to me, given the high number of personal attacks that are flung about on that talk page without being reverted. Malcolm XIV (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You haven't been blocked, Mick has. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

ec, Micks action of posting what looks to me like an uncivil comment about another user and then repeatedly reinserting it after it has been removed by other users is a bit much and not needed at all.Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverting Vandallism or personal attacks aren't considered violations. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. That's useful to know. Malcolm XIV (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Doing it six times isn't clever, though. Report it here or at WP:AN3 before you break the 3RR line next time, please. Black Kite 16:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No arguements there. I did however base it off WP:EW#WHATISNT 16:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that WP:NOTVAND clearly says that personal attacks aren't vandalism. Confusing, isn't it? Black Kite 16:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

MickMacNee has been blocked for 2weeks by User Cirt. Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this at User talk:MickMacNee#Policies_to_read., where there appears to be a consensus for shortening the two-week block, as the course of action most likely to reduce drama. Note that the editor against whom the personal attacks were directed is Tfz (talk · contribs), who also supports lifting the block.

I suggest shortening the block to 48 hours. Are there any objections to that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

None, So long as the attacks stop.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Unban of user [[::User:Ararat arev|Ararat arev]] (talk · contribs)

• Nareg510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

According to this, the user above is a blocked sockpuppet of a previously banned user, the user who's name is part of the section title for this section. As I have understood things, when a user is community banned, it takes the community to unban them, not just a single unilateral unblock by an admin, as seen here. So far, the user seems to be acting good, so, what do you all say, keep banned, or unban? I'm neutral in this matter, I just think it is the community who should decide, not a single admin.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Er, I have no real opinion about the user per se. In blocking him, I was just acting on an AE report and on Versageek's checkuser finding, cited in the block log, that he's a sock of a confirmed sock of banned user Ararat arev. What I do find rude is Fred Bauder's decision to unblock him without prior consultation with either me or the admins who blocked/banned Ararat arev in the first place. But I assume this means he takes responsibility for this user's conduct and agrees to deal with Ararat arev-related issues from now on, yes?  Sandstein  20:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree to monitor him; as to assuming responsibility for all Ararat arev-related issues from now on, you must be joking... Although this experience, like all Wikipedia experience, will equip me to be more able to deal with this particular complex of trouble. I engaged in an extensive dialog with the user and notified you; I'm sorry if that was not enough for granting a provisional trial to this user. Fred Talk 20:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not quite sure how to prove that I am not a sock puppet, master, or any account related to Ararat-arev. I do not want to be associated with this account. At this point, if I may be honest, I feel like I'm being punished for following Wikipedia's rules and not creating another account. Thank you to Fred Bauer, for taking my word and I will honor his trust. However, I do not want to be held responsible for any thing that happens with Ararat-arev, Ararat-arev issues and Mr. Bauer should not be held responsible either, because I am no way associated with that user. I was falsely accused of being a sock puppet and I am in no way one. If I was one, I wouldn't go through all this trouble right now and I would just create another account. I would like to be held accountable for the edits made on MY account and no one else's and would appreciate Wikipedia's support. I own the fact that I made a few errors in judgement on my account, but I will not take responsibility for other people's actions. Nareg510 (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The evidence from my CU on this user tied him to Ararat-arev via a previously identified sock of Ararat-arev. The evidence tying him to both Turk00 (talk · contribs) & Prof.Tomson (talk · contribs) is particularly strong - to the point where "my roomate/friend/family member" would be the only plausible defense. I'm rarely adverse to giving someone a second chance - but it may be a bit too soon for this user.. --Versageek 22:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Unban

• Support. If the editor understands that there will be very little latitude. Welcome back. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support I think it is best with any troublesome editor, when they say they are prepared to turn over a new leaf, to grant them a brief trial, and appropriate assistance with whatever problems they have had in the past. In this case help with identifying appropriate sources and editing productively rather than arguing about issues. If they appeal to the unblock-en-l mailing list, any administrator who monitors that list should be able to unblock them, provided they take responsibility for monitoring their behavior. It is not clear that the particular editor unblocked, Nareg510 is in fact the sock master Ararat arev (checkuser depends on a chain rather than a direct link). However, sock or not, if he is ready to edit responsibly, he should be given a trial period to demonstrate that. Fred Talk 20:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• User is contrite and appears to understand the problem, there will be plenty of eyes watching for future problems, so why not. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why people are voting, not a constructive approach to this problem. I don't think the route Fred took on this unban (or, apparently, a separate instance of the same thing as described on his talkpage) was ideal, but since its done... It won't hurt much to take a wait and see approach on the Nareg510 account - particularly if Fred keeps a close eye on him. Nathan ^T 20:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Unban

• No. This user has been sockpuppeting for at least 2 years. And he's been really busy: Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ararat_arev. Now he says he's going to turn over a new leaf and you welcome him with open arms? Notice that he doesn't even acknowledge sockpuppetry: Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ararat_arev. So I don't exactly have hopes this guy is going to reform. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• First one I looked at, User:KahaneTzadak, is not blocked and the tag seems to be a joke. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• User:KahaneTzadak isn't blocked. I'm not sure the tag is a joke, exactly, though--it was added to his userpage in this edit by KahaneTzadak himself. What he did is transclude User: en onto his user page, thus transcluding the sockpuppet notice already on User: en's page. User: en is a checkuser-confirmed and blocked sock of Ararat arev: [23]. This was KahaneTzadak's 18th edit (all of his editing took place on 30 May 2007, after which the account was apparently abandoned.) The easiest explanation for KahaneTzadak's knowledge of User: en is that he was User: en, and User:Ararat arev, and User:Alex mond, and so forth... --Akhilleus (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Try looking at the suspected sock Alex mond (talk · contribs) and his history of anti-Semitic conspiracism and attacks against admins. Example: "Dont waste my time, we tried to fix this BS site, but it seems to remain in Jewish lies. And yes, the Jewish were involved in a hidden way of the Armenian Genocide." --Folantin (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• This unblock is ridiculous. This user is even still denying he is Ararat Arev, still insisting he was "not a sock" both in his recent wiki postings and in the e-mail correspondence with Bauder. He has also made no commitment about how he plans to edit more constructively than he used to, other than a cheap and meaningless promise "not to edit-war again". The edit history of the most recent sock shows precisely the same disruptive behaviour as the original account and all the other socks. After the massive amount of disruption caused by this user, a unilateral unblock without any substantial assurance of change, without any substantive precautions against abuse, and without any community feedback, is completely unacceptable. No way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Reviewing further the behaviour of the sock and the extremely thin nature of his commitments towards the unblock arrangement offered by Bauder, I have re-blocked the account. There is absolutely no realistic basis for an un-ban here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, the decision to unban was absolutely ridiculous. Ararat Arev (and his sock army) was the most disruptive user ever to infest Armenia-Azerbaijan topics. He's treated himself to plenty of "fresh starts" (he has 278 listed suspected socks). He's wasted hours and hours of good faith editors' time as they've attempted to counter his relentless POV-pushing and trolling. It's hard enough for the very few admins who actually bother to deal with Armenia-Azerbaijan conflicts without somebody who appears to have no clue about the issue granting a unilateral unban to such a disruptive user. --Folantin (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• No. Just...no. Sockers almost never stop; I've seen examples of sockers promising to stop and mend their ways while at the same time running sockpuppet accounts. His word can't be trusted. HalfShadow 20:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Voting is evil

1.  GARDEN  20:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

Fred Bauder unblocked a purported sock of a banned community banned editor (per WP:BOLD or WP:IAR?) and Future Perfect At Sunrise has reblocked (per emerging consensus or application of WP:BAN?). Any admin action to revert Fut.Perf.'s block would be in violation of WP:Wheel, so it appears the requirement of further admin intervention is closed. The account may appeal the block through the usual channels. Can someone stick up a resolved template, unless there are disagreements with my understanding? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

this was not the way to do it. When one admin comes here and asks for consensus, he doesn't usually mean to see who does what first. DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Fut.Perf.'s action "resolved" anything at all. He preempted discussion and took action based on his own understanding of the situation, without allowing the discussion to proceed to a consensus. This is precisely the same thing folks have criticised Fred Bauder for doing. It's ironic, really, because not only does it replicate the same problem in the other direction (with the additional second mover advantage tossed in for good measure), it blocks a more useful and definitive conclusion on the question of whether Fred's action was appropriate. Nathan ^T 22:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

i just recently noticed fred's arbitrary unblocking of another confirmed sockpuppet Tannim1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and thought it strange but noted that he took responsibility for the user. however, after looking at his talk page list of unblocked users, i wonder how it is possible for him to monitor all those accounts adequately. he seems to make arbitrary unblocks after private emailing with the user and no community discussion. this doesn't seem like a good way to handle these things and i think fred should be admonished to consult the community before acting in these situations. untwirl(talk) 22:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's definitely not a good way to handle things and it's not the way the unblock list or on-site block reviews have ever worked in the past. An admin helping on the unblock list has no more authority than an admin working on-site and they still need to follow the block, ban and administrator policies. The community is going to have to address this at some point because Fred's quite prepared to unblock, without discussion, users who shouldn't be unblocked on one person's say-so. The Tannim1 unblock looks very dodgy because Fred apparently overturned the block without a word of discussion with anyone but the blocked user and after at least five admins had already reviewed the block but declined to unblock, which should have told him that there was no consensus to unblock. And if he still felt there was a good case to be made for giving the user a second chance, it should have been brought to the noticeboard for a discussion. Sarah 11:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Four admins. I reviewed twice because he kept blanking declined unblocks from his talk page, and in any case I noted he was deliberately lying in my second one (he claimed he was here for at least a year; his contributions, deleted or otherwise, run back to earlier this month). Why Fred would unblock someone who has been busted prevaricating is beyond me. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Arguably, Fut. Perf has actually initiated a wheel war, since Fred reverted via unblocking an indef blocked account and Fut. Perf re-did the block; particularly since the matter was already under discussion here and there was no closure. Saying above that further unblocking would be a wheel war is incorrect and stifles discussion - even if that's not what was intended. Further unblocking without consensus here would be a wheel war. Personally, I think Fred was a bit generous with this to say the least but this was not part of a private discussion as suggested above but in response to an unblock-en-l ticket that was open to view to all list subscribers (it has been often noted that there are not enough admins subscribing to the list). Any subscriber could see the whole conversation as all replies are sent to the list normally.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We have run into the is issue before, it is problematic that the willingness or lack thereof of any admin to unblock is part of the definition of a ban in many cases; however, we often claim community rights to consent to the unblocking of a banned user. We also have a problem with making provisions for fresh starts but then claiming any attempt at a new account by a banned user is a sock. Whether any banned user must be brought before ANI for unblocking is a question that must be resolved at some point. But I think we should first resolve this matte and I think we should do it as if Fut. Perf. hand done nothing.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment

If the consensus is to unban this user (and I don't think that would be a good idea), then WP:ARARAT should be updated to reflect this. *** Crotalus *** 18:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Rules violation in other language Wikipedia

Hi, is there a way to make an article in other language Wikipedia to comply with its (and English language too) WP:LIVE, WP:OR, and other WP:5 rules? I'm talking in particular about russian language Wikipedia, and there are editors who keep adding poorly sourced and unsourced material to articles, which also contain negative information about living persons thus breaking WP:LIVE. Administrators there are weak to respond for various reasons including they prefer not to get involved into "hot" topics and suggest a route of "mediation" instead of negative material removal. Thanks for advice. windyhead (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd discuss such an idea at the Russian encyclopedia. There's not much we can do here. Sorry.  GARDEN  20:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe somebody can suggest the place where I can get an advice. Russian wikipedia admins are pretty unresponsive, issues were discussed there numerous times. windyhead (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Different language wikipedias are independent of each other so there's nothing that can be done here. Also some of them will have different rules, so it's worth confirming that the rules that apply here also apply there. Valenciano (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If there are Biography of Living Person concerns, and Russian admins are not taking any notice, you might want to contact someone at the foundation. If Russian wikipedia is trashing the 5 pillars I'm sure someone would want to help you sort something out. but, as other people have said, Russian WP is independent of English WP and so you'll have to show dramatic diffs to get anyone here interested. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will try to ask on meta. windyhead (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

External links - Shadowrun

I'd just like to get some other eyes on a topic if I may. The topic is about external links in the Shadowrun article. It started a couple of days ago when the administrator of an online fansite and community came and added his site to the article, which was then removed. This continued on and off for a series of edits with a couple of other editors removing the link. Subsequently it has gone to the talk page. Unfortunately it has now gone to the point where the owner of the site appears to be soliciting their site members to come to Wikipedia to point out why their site should be included, which is muddying the waters a little. In my mind the link, as it stands, doesn't seem eligible for inclusion under the WP:EL guidelines, namely the not to include numbers 4, 6 and 11, plus the conflict of interest guidelines and and sites requiring registration. Anyway the conversation is all here under Talk:Shadowrun#Fansites, so if someone else could take a look if they have a spare 20 minutes and provide some feedback either way it would be appreciated. I don't mind either way, however it seems to be getting more involved that a simple EL should have become, so some neutral oversight would be appreciated. Canterbury Tail talk 22:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

See #Shadowrun_Wiki_Links_Dispute above. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

113.252.174.136

Resolved

 – Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring and disruption. MuZemike 22:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

113.252.174.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is spamming references to a specific book or article to multiple Wikipedia articles. I have to take off now, so, could some one else take care of this? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Given a 24-hour vacation, courtesy of yours truly. MuZemike 22:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained Admin Abuse by User:KillerChihuahua and User:SlimVirgin

Resolved

 – No administrative action possible or needed. Please take the chit chat elsewhere. Jehochman ^Talk 09:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For reasons I can not fathom, User:KillerChihuahua appears to be on a crusade against me. The issue started at Oroonoko, which I came across while looking through novel FAs. I noticed it had a lot of unsourced material, which is not acceptable in an FA, so I tagged it for refimprove. The tag was removed by User:Outriggr with a summary of "this n that"[24] so I readded with a fuller explanation of why[25]. Outrigger again removed[26] with a note of "The text is full of attributions, plus the footnoted material. You've looked so closely you're referring to the subject as a film? Maybe leave it to someone else." so I added again, wiht another explanation and posted a note to the talk page giving even further details.[27][28]. I also posted notes to the Book and Novel projects about the problem. This was on September 14th. On the 16th, KillerChihuahua suddenly pops in and removes the tag again[29] with a summary of "Please explain what you think is inadequately sourced on talk. Do not re-add this template to an article which has managed to acheive FA; overkill at least". As noted, I had already explained the concerns on the talk page, which he was clearly aware of as he requested I be more specific.[30] I again reiterated the lack of citations, which he responded to in a hostile fashion saying the tagging was a last resort and claiming I was uncivil and "template happy". I refuted the claim that templating is a "last resort" and went into further detail, specifying which sections and paragraphs were not cited. He was still not "happy" and continued to demand I be even more specific in an increasingly hostile and belligerent fashion and continues to deny that I have explained my concerns.[31][32] I finally got sick of being so attacked for noting a problem with the article, and as it seemed no one actually wanted to address the actual problem - lack of citations, instead of attack me for saying so, I went ahead and started the FAR. On the 20th, SlimVirgin joined in the discussion, asking if I would be fixing the article myself and offering to "help" me do it[33] I declined to answer, so he posted to my talk page to reiterate the question.[34] I explained that I would not be responding there anymore after the hostile responses from KC, and that I had already started the FAR and would let the community discuss dealing with it.[35] SlimVirgin then tried to claim that I was engaging in "drive-by" tagging and that I was obligated to fix the article because I tagged it for having issues and because I started the WP:FAR on it, and repeating KC's claim that I was somehow spraying "graffitti" on the article because I tagged it. After a lengthy exchange,[36] I tired of the argument and removed it from my talk page. SlimVirgin then copied it to the talk page of the article, despite it having nothing to do with the article, so I removed my comments.[37] KC restored them, claiming I was trying to "change history"[38] and left me a level 3 warning for vandalism![39] He also modified my FAR to remove my notes indicating that I had attempted to have the article worked on before the FAR, claiming it was a personal attack[40] while leaving a real personal attack alone[41], not surprisingly this attack was also left by a third administrator User:GiacomoReturned. When another editor noted and removed it, KC deliberately restored it[42] saying "please discuss this with G.". This has been a seriously upsetting experience and is not the sort of behavior I'd expect from any administrator, much less three. I violated no policies, no guidelines, and did nothing wrong except apparently dare to note that an old FA from 2005 no longer meets the featured article criteria and trying to prod someone to work on it. None of these administrators are listed as being in either the Books nor Novels project, neither had edited the article before this except SlimVirgin who apparently did one edit to it in 2005. So I'm baffled and confused as to why this seemingly coordinated attack has begun and with such an insane level of hostility and viciousness. To have so much attention, I can't help questioning what off-wiki activities might be behind it all. In either case, would like some neutral admins to review this situation and, hopefully, provide some assistance to stop this harassment. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Too much to review quickly, but just to point out that User:GiacomoReturned is not an admin Well... Black Kite 22:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC) ...and having looked at the article, that looks wildly undersourced for an FA, though I am not an expert on the subject matter. Black Kite 22:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC) No, it isn't undersourced. Perhaps you only looked for footnotes, Black Kite? There are other, by no means inferior or less complete, methods of sourcing; I won't bore everybody here with one of the dullest subjects in the universe, but I've explained it in [this post here]. Note especially my quotation from Outriggr. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC). Struck that part, misread his user page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Too long, didn't really read, but also didn't see anything that has anything to do with administration. Seems more like a content dispute. Perhaps if the complaint was concise and to the point...--Tznkai (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Sometimes complex issues take more than a soundbite to describe. I think if you take the time to read it you'll understand why Collectonian thinks this is an issue appropriate for AN/I. I took the time and I get it. ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but I can't make it much more concise without leaving out the appropriate support and history, which is usually asked for when doing AN/Is, especially regarding an admin. Short version, though, is I feel the two admins noted are harrassing and making personal attacks against me for pointing out a FA level article no longer meets the FA criteria and tagging it for needing more references, and KC, in particular, is being openly hostile, left a completely inappropriate level 3 vandalism warning on my page for removing my own comments copied elsewhere, and tried to refactor the FAR to remove my remarks claiming it is a personal attack while blatantly allowing an editor's personal attack in response to the FAR to remain. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Bit difficult in this case I think, because it's convoluted. I have to say that though that KillerChihuahua's vandalism warning strikes me as inappropriate, and restoring this one of Giano's comments whilst removing Collectonian's (which wasn't even a personal attack) strikes me as frankly ludicrous. Admin action needed though? Unsure. Black Kite 22:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I take lying about me as a personal attack. I was named. This is unacceptable. I stated in my edit summary FA is the wrong venue to raise complaints about an individual editor and to resolve issues with those editors. C chose to restore the falsehood and ignore my attempts to discuss with her. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC) See below. Black Kite 23:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I think some clarification on when it's appropriate to up and move conversations would be helpful. It appears SlimVirgin asked Collectonian a question on his talk, and then after 5 or 6 vack and forths, moved it elsewhere. We are subject to review for our words whereever they are, of course. But is it acceptable practice to move conversations out of userspace that way, after they've been archived? ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC) This is common behavior toward the nominator if any article affiliated with Geogre (talk · contribs) is nominated for FAR. I have personally experienced it and thought you were brave to nominate it. I have learned from experience that nothing is to be done about the resulting abuse except ignore it. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Mattisse, even apart from the fact that Geogre left the project in July, so one would have thought it might be time for you to stop spitting venom at him, that is exactly the kind of remark ArbCom and your mentors have tried to get you to stop making. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC). Quick note, I do not have time to respond to this fully: This is not about the article, which so far as I know no one has stated could not be improved - I in fact asked several times for a list of issues, and C informed me it was 'not her job'; I contest the assertion that C answered queries about concerns in any meaningful fashion; the brief ew over copied content involved a question I asked of C, SV and C had a discussion, then C removed the entirety. I believe (not being SV I am guessing of course) that as it was entirely about the article, the tagging, etc, SV felt it was pertinent and copied to article talk; C removed only her comments leaving my question and SV's posts rendered meaningless. I view this as falling under refactoring others comments in effect if not in specific; I support the solution tendered by another editor; I stand by my warning as appropriate - had C removed the entire section that would have been one thing, but rendering others' comments nonsensical and meaningless is a hostile act - and the entire situation has been from the start hostility by C and refusal to respond in any civil fashion to questions and concerns. I will reply in more detail when I can; thanks in advance for your patience. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I do need something explained to me: Where is it declared in any policy or guideline page, that, if a person requests further sourcing on an article, it is incumbent upon them to do the sourcing? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Nowhere, because that's not the case, and no one has suggested it is. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Can you just clear something up? This edit - which is why I made the comment I did above. Excuse me if I'm being stupid. Black Kite 23:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Slim Virgin seems to disagree with you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I don't like to see any kind of drive-by tagging, and particularly not of a featured article. If you tag an article as POV, you should first make an effort to make it neutral; if as uncited, first look for some references; if as OR, try removing the OR first, and so on. Otherwise, we end up with a class of editors who go around adding tags but leaving the job of improving things to others; and if no one does the work, the tags might sit there pointlessly for months or even years. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Your personal preferences have no bearing here. It is not incumbent upon Collectonian to source something that is not properly sourced, it is the resonsibility of the people edit warring to remove Collectonian's tag. Either leave the tag where it is, or source the article. It's that simple. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I personally find tagging of this sort very frustrating. Editors who don't think the tags are justified have the options of either (1) wasting time adding sources they don't see a need for, or (2) leaving an FA in a disfigured state. I am inclined to see it as disruptive for a single editor to fight to maintain tags when no other editor supports them. Looie496 (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC) (ec; reply to Mattisse) The reason for that, Matisse, is that Geogre's articles are among Wikipedia's best. That doesn't mean they can't and shouldn't be improved. Nor does it mean that inline citations wouldn't be welcome. But when we have Augustan literature removed as an FA, for example, while numerous articles about video games remain starred, some editors feel that signals a problem with the project. Therefore, when yet another of Geogre's articles is tagged and listed at FAR, it can't help but be a little depressing—especially when the FAR was added only because some editors asked that the article not be defaced with a tag. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I completely agree with you about the bias towards pop culture in FAs; though sadly this reflects our demographic. I made the comment that I did above though, because I looked at this article and thought "if this was at FAC now, would it pass?". And I don't think it would - fine article as it is - with that little sourcing for many of the paragraphs. So I don't think one can attack Collectonian too much for thinking the same thing. Black Kite 23:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC) But then surely the thing to do is stick around to help improve it. Or else move on. Tagging it helps no one. SlimVirgin talk|contribs I would generally agree. However, I must admit that I have found in the past (in cases of FAs abusing non-free images) that in some cases, tagging is sometimes the only way to get people's attention. So each case needs to be taken on its merits. Black Kite 23:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC) The FAR was added because the article does not meet FAC. The tagging was an attempt to give a chance to improve before the FAR, but the response showed there would be none done. As for Geogre articles being "among the best", I have no idea who he is but if this article is any indication, I'd have to disagree with you that they are among the best at this time. And I have no bias in what I will FAR, I have FARed pop culture articles as well, and agree with you that there are many that should not be starred. That, however, is not a valid reason to attack someone for noting this article, whoever wrote it, needs fixing and being hostile towards a good faith effort to note so, call attention to it, and taking appropriate steps when those efforts are rebuked. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Are you saying that some subjects are more worthy of FA status than others, or that some editors' articles are more worthy of FA status than others'? I'm not clear here. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Wow. I hadn't even looked at the article when I made my comments above, as my comments were based upon behavior and claims by certain admins, but not upon the content that the disagreement was about. I go and look at the article, and lo and behold, this article is almost completely bereft of inline citations. What the hell is the disagreement about? This poorly sourced articles needs sourcing, period. Is is not incumbent upon Collectonian to do the sourcing, it is incumbent upon those who disagree with him to prove that the article is properly sourced. It is not. Collectonian was perfectly correct in behaving the way she did. KC and SlimVirgin are completely out of line here, and referring to Collectonian's complaints as vandalism is far more a damning comment upon them, and not upon Collectonian. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC) FWIW, I looked at the article and completely agree with Collectonian. As it stands, the article is a well-written essay. I'm not sure what KC and SlimVirgin are complaining about as it'd be easier to point out the parts that are sourced, rather than the ones that aren't. It's pretty obvious to any experienced editor, never mind those who work on GA's and FA's. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 23:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Would it not have been better to add a few more sources than to tag the article for lacking them? That's a much less troublesome way to improve an FA. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC) First, a clarification. By sourced, I mean having inline citations. As to your question, the tagger doesn't always have access to the books used as references. Oroonoko relies heavily on scholarly works. If I, for example, place a fact tag beside a statement then I'm hoping that an editor who has access to the reference work will replace it with an inline citation. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 23:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I am not sure if I will succeed, but I will try to make a constructive comment here. It seems to me that this article is about three things: User:Geogre, FAs, and tags. I have never worked with Geogre and can't make any comment about him/her. About FAs and tags, I do have three things to say. First, I personally am against FA. I started out here when Wikipedia was the encyclopedia anyone could edit at any time, which had the correlary that all articles are works in progress. I remember when FA was first proposed; Wikipedia had reached a point where we knew we had some articles that stood up to the best online encyclopedias and felt that we should put our best work forward. I appreciate the reasoning here, I just don't agree, I would rather we always present a shaggy face to the world as a project that is always becoming something else. But, boy!, am I in a minority! And it seems to me that IF we are going to have FA, the purpose being to say to the wider world "this article is good enough to rely on, it holds up well next to other encyclopedias" then it makes perfect sense that it have a higher degree of immunity to all those pesky tags that frankly make the article look ugly and unfinished. "Unfinished? Why, our articles are never finished, this is a constant work in progress" you say. And I agree which is why I do not like FA. But we do have FA so let's take it seriously. We can continue talking about the article's defects on the talk page and discuss how to improve it and even edit it, but let's try to maintain a presentable look to non-Wikipedians which is a major purpose of FA. Second, Wikipedia is a place where our standards for ourselves are constantly being scaled up. Articles that were considered great in 2002 were crap in 2004; articles that were considered stellar in 2004 were crap in 2006. Public scrutiny compels higher and higher standards, and the more we work on it the higher our own expectations grow. So, no offense to anyone who brought an article up to FA status, don't be surprised if sometime later people who are reading the article for the first time cannot believe it ever got FA. I am trying to explain an inevitable phenomena, not to criticize anyone. Final point: I hat those tags as much as I hate FA. Collectonian, I applaud your pointing out problems with the article on the talk page. I do not think you are going to care about what I have to say next so let's agree I am speaking in general, and not addressing you or anyone personally. When I first came to Wikipedia, I read articles that interested me. When I saw weaknesses and i knew how to fix thenm, I made changes. Over time I saw articles that I knew needed work and i didn't know what to do, and that meant my taking time to read books and articles and I made edits (and this was before V and RS and a lot of what I wrote then was unattributed which of course means that today it either has tags or citations). I often came into conflict with other editors and began editing talk pages as much as articles. But I never added a tag. Now, I understand the reason we have tags. Oftentimes someone (like me) did research and added content at a time when we neve required citations or references. Now that we like citations, who better to provide them (for content I added) than me? Someone else adding a cite tag can be a hasty request to me to add citations. I get the point, I really do. When we were in a time of transition from no cites to all cites, such tags were valuable prompts or ways of telegraphing a request. But we have long passed that transition. And now we have an encyclopedia with lots of article filled with these ugly tags, and NO ONE working to add the cites. C'mon, this just makes Wikipedia ugly. What is the value of these tags anymore? To signal the work on the article is not yet complete? Well, now we go back to my original point: Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit anytime, so all articles are in progress. We do not need all these tags which cummulatively makes an article ugly just to signal this fact. It should be made clearly on the main page. Apparently we have no shortage of people coming by to add tags. What we have a real shortage of are people who will do research to improve articles. We are dying for editors who can do research to improve articles. There was a time when Wikipedia grew largely because it attracted people who either knew something they could add, or were willing to research something that they could add. I miss those days. The number of editors has grown exponentially, and yet where are those editors who, like I did when I first came here, saw something missing, did a little research, and added it? My point is simple: THIS is the real problem afflicting Wikipedia right now: not articles lacking citations, but a project lacking people willing to do research when they see it needs doing. Maybe this is what KC and SV were responding to, i do not want to speak for them. But it is clear to me what the graver problem is. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Statement 2: I didn't ask for C to add sourcing. Read the talk page. I asked what the complaints were, so they could be addressed. C refused to clarify; how are we supposed to "fix" an article if she won't say what is wrong? This is absurd. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Addendum/What is the issue here: I will try to summarize. C edit warred against at least two editors to tag the article while refusing to say what she thougth needed to be done to fix it, being so hostile and rude one (who tried to improve the article when removing the tag) left in misery; the other is myself: I have asked numerous times, saying "I'm trying to help" etc, for what C sees as the specific issues. C was so nasty that if I were not sick as a dog and barely editing at all I would have already started an Rfc on her. She has been uniformly hostile and rude, and refused to answer simple questions which were only asked so her concerns can be addressed. She has now placed the article on FAR, lying and saying no one was interested in improving the article, even though I made it clear I would do my best if she'd just let me know what she wanted. She failed utterly to AGF and since she never listed her concerns until she put the article on FAR then her assertion that she'd given anyone a chance to even discuss her concerns is, to say the least, implausible. I am now going back to bed. I will try to get back on tomorrow and will address any specific issues then; but for now, allow me to state that I'm not asserting the article lacks inline sourcing. I have never made that assertion, and anyone talking about the article here is missing that C is accusing me of 'admin abuse' and also SV, whom she accuses of collaborating with me (which those of you who have seen mine and SVs interactions over the past year or so will find laughable at best.) Regardless, she's clearly claiming I'm in a Super Sekret Kabal to harass her, and all I ever wanted was for her to list what she thought was wrong with the damn article, preferably without insulting me or other editors, or acting like a total shit to anyone. I got neither of those wishes. Good night, and apologies for any terseness in this post. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC) In response to Slrubensein, about the tags, when reading articles I personally find fact tags pretty helpful as a warning. I know they may or may not be of use in editing... They often get ignored; but I have seen editors who care about a topic work to provide citations to replace fact tags. As a reader, fact tags tell me that someone who probably knew something about the topic felt that a statement was contentious or unreliable, and when I'm genuinely interested in finding information on the topic, that helps me know which information to question. Of course there are drive-by taggers who don't know much about the topic, but then, editors who know better would probably remove it -- therefore if the fact tag remains, I know it's probably there for a somewhat good reason. Equazcion (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Fact tags can be helpful, because they tell you what exactly needs to be checked. But this was a tag slapped on the entire article, with no effort made to say what needed sources, no offer of help to find them, and indeed a direct request to help being rebuffed, accompanied by edit warring to restore the tag when two editors removed it. That kind of tagging isn't helpful. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC) As has already been noted, I DID say what needed sources before KC got involved[43] and before you got involved.[44]. Instead, the only responses were "be more specific", as if you'd prefer I slap a fact tag on every last unsourced sentence in the article (the large bulk of the article), which would then result, I'm sure, in being reverted again. The fact is, the article has enough unsourced statements that the article tag is far more practical than individual fact tags. And as KC now claims I didn't explain until the FAR, it would seem that he has no problems with my FAR details which is...the same points I'd pointed out before and that he either kept ignoring or kept claiming was not specific enough. I made more than enough effort to explain, numerous times, and was attacked every time. It is not my job to help you or anyone else to find sources for the article, which I have never edited. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Wow, my post near the beginning of this thread[45] must have been invisible. People simply go on saying the article needs footnotes—is unsourced because it doesn't have footnotes. It would really be helpful if they read the whole thread first. Or, another suggestion: please go straight to the FAR of the article, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Oroonoko/archive1. I believe people are more likely there to have read the article before posting, because, as Tznkai points out, ANI isn't really for content disputes. I suspect many people aren't psychologically prepared for a tl;dr thread about footnotes (that dullest of subjects) when they dip into an ANI thread such as this one. And I'm extremely sorry that I've now made it longer and duller still! Bishonen | talk 01:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC). Bish, this article needs footnotes (inline citations) if it's going to remain a FA (inline citations are mandated by Wikipedia's featured article criteria). I think this is what Collectonian was pointing out. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 03:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Inline citations are indeed mandated by Wikipedia's featured article criteria where appropriate. Where appropriate =/= every paragraph, sentence, clause, etc. and it's unfortunate -- perhaps even a bit tragic -- that we as a community lost sight of that, that we lost our ability to stop and think about what our guidelines are and why we have them. --JayHenry (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Wow is right. I'll admit that I haven't read much of this tl;dr thread, but I have to say that I am truly shocked to see this here. I've known KC for a while, and I have never known her to be unwilling to discuss, explain, or work to an acceptable solution. I have to ask - was there an attempt to talk this through with KC (and/or Slim), if so could you point me to it, because I haven't found it or clicked the right link yet. — Ched :  ?  02:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Jay, exactly right. But what do we do about it? I've tried to raise the issue at the FA and FAR talk pages. I've tied to make it clear on WP:V and its talk page that not every edit needs a citation. But the reality is that inline citations are demanded on FA for the most trivial and obvious of points. As a result, submitting an article for FA nowadays is a truly miserable experience, and some of our best FAs are being delisted, or threatened with delisting, because of it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC) I count about six sentences in the opening two paragraphs that I would tag as needing a cite. And to be honest, if this was a new article, I would point the creator to WP:NOR and WP:V and remove large chunks of text if nothing was done. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 05:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC) The article has cleqrly sourcing problems and doesn't meet current FA criteria. Furthermore, I fail to see the "personal attacks" removed here by KillerChihuahua[46], and can't help but notice that the clear and obvious personal attack by Giano made minutes before in the same discussion[47] is not removed. I think it is best if people like KillerChihuahua and Giano took a step back from this article and discussion, it looks as if they aren't approaching this in a neutral manner at all. Fram (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC) KillerChihuahua isn't an admin? That is a real problem here that needs fixing. Unless it breaches animal cruelty laws. Verbal chat 08:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Giano

Giano's comment I think steps over the edge of WP:NPA. He's usually more clever about dancing on the edge of the policy, but perhaps he tripped and fell over the line. As for tags and so forth, all articles are subject to them, and none, whoever wrote them, is immune. However, a tag should carry with it an obligation to set forth the problem on talk page, and to stay engaged. I agree that standards for FA are tightening, and that even FAs from 2004 or 2006 that have not deteriorated may need improvement to meet standards. Editors such as Mattisse are doing good work in that area.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume you refer to "get a life, get an education and write a page yourself - you fool!" ([48])? I agree that this violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. The user at issue, GiacomoReturned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), previously editing as Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Giano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has a long history of blocks for such behavior and should know better by now. I have blocked him for a week; we should consider an indefinite block on the next occurrence.

Since my last block of Giano triggered a remarkable drama, I invite community review of this block here (I have also added the "Giano" header above for ease of editing).  Sandstein  10:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, you're feuding. Using the tools to feud is a serious offense. Jehochman ^Talk 10:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How am I feuding? I am not aware of being in a feud or some sort of editing dispute with Giano. (Sorry for inadvertently removing this reply with a buggy script.)  Sandstein  10:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the devious thing about feuds. Sometimes the participants don't see them as feuds. The signs to me are that you're over-reacting to provocation, your response appears emotional rather than rational, and Giano does not view you as a neutral party. This one week block of Giano will cause much more harm than good. Calling somebody a fool is pretty mild. The action here turns a molehill into a mountain. Jehochman ^Talk 10:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. My (limited) previous interactions with Giano were in a purely administrative capacity; if Giano has not taken well to them, that is not my fault. I would have sanctioned any other user with a similar history of past disruption likewise, and I do not believe that the disruption at issue is mild. I invite you to show me a diff of any edit I made with respect to Giano that is emotional, otherwise inappropriate or somehow indicative of my being unable to act as a neutral administrator.  Sandstein  10:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Just above you said, "Since my last block of Giano triggered a remarkable drama," and then you asked for input at ANI (here) a page watched by >4000 editors. Lighting the fuse and tossing a drama bomb is what I'd call that. Jehochman ^Talk 11:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd call it asking for community review of a potentially controversial action, which is advised practice for admins as far as I know. So far, it is not I who is generating drama.  Sandstein  11:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sysop tools are not to be used for controversial actions. When is doubt, ask for feedback BEFORE, not AFTER, acting. Jehochman ^Talk 12:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This was a non-issue to begin with, and it had gone away. Sandstein, as you admit your last block caused drama, it would be a good idea not to do the same thing again. Please unblock before this escalates. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that severe violations of our conduct policies are non-issues, and Wehwalt's report indicates that it has not gone away. I am simply reacting to a disruption report on this page.  Sandstein  10:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This thread was closed. It should have been finished business. It's classic, classic to the point of farce, for a closed thread to suddenly change topic to Giano and for him to be blocked. Just undo your action and start ignoring Giano. It will be best for all concerned. Jehochman ^Talk 10:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe any sense of déja vu is because of Giano's apparent persistent inability to observe our conduct policies? My job as an administrator is to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, not to ignore it.  Sandstein  10:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You asked for input, Sandstein, you're being given it, and it's good advice. Please undo. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I will do so, of course, if community discussion here - for a reasonable amount of time, to allow admins from all time-zones to participate - does not support my action.  Sandstein  10:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, this was an insanely bad block, so much so that I'm wondering if we shouldn't block you for disruption. As JHochman points out, the thread was closed, your block was fueding / punitive which is exactly the kind of behavior which led to Jimmy having to "voluntarily" give up his block privileges. Poor judgment. Yes, there are those who are missing the point, below, who are supporting this block. They are viewing the post Giano made only. They are missing that you didn't prevent a damn thing; you've been involved in dramafests due to your quickness to block Giano before, making this block wrong even if everyone completely agrees Giano should have been blocked - as you were most emphatically not the person to do it - and of course, blocking on a very stale event which was provoked by one of the rudest people I've ever had to deal with, who started this mess by making threats and started the thread by accusing me and SV of "admin abuse" even tho no admin actions at all have been taken against her. This is pathetic; I agree with you most of the time, so it makes me even sadder to see your judgment go so thoroughly down the drain. Just don't do anything regarding Giano, Sandstein - you're not neutral and you're not following policy and you're causing problems not solving them. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Why am I not the person to do it? I'm just an admin doing my job, and we're not usually allowing disruptive editors to choose the administrators that they are comfortable with to block them, yes? As mentioned above, I invite you to show me a diff of any edit I made with respect to Giano that is emotional, otherwise inappropriate or somehow indicative of my being unable to act as a neutral administrator. Unless there is community consensus that I am insufficiently neutral in this regard, I intend to do my job with respect to Giano just as I will do it with respect to other editors, with no particular favor or disfavor.  Sandstein  11:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, I don't think you are to judge on this block, since you first removed an imaginary personal attack from Collectonian, but then saw fit to reinstate the blatant personal attack by Giano[49]. For you to threaten other people with blocks for disruption in this incident is laughable.Fram (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. If anything, KillerChihuahua should be blocked for reinstatijng the attack, but that is something I'll leave to another admin.  Sandstein  12:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Good block. Giano gets away with too much too often. It won't stick, of course, because the usual cheering section for Giano's outrageous treatment of other editors is loud and cranky enough that they cause disruption until they get their way. And of course that just enables Giano the next time he decides to start hurling invective. → ROUX ₪ 10:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  Wrong person. Sandstein blocked stale, blocked late, and this is not the first time. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have no issue with this block. Giano stepped over the line, again, and was correctly blocked for it. Turning this into an ad hominem about Sandstein's theoretical feud with him (an argument I don't personally agree with) doesn't change the fact that Giano is still being seriously uncivil and one of these days he needs to actually stop doing that. ~ mazca ^talk 11:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  Wrong person. Sandstein blocked stale, blocked late, and this is not the first time. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Adding a clear-cut personal attack (nothing behind the "keep" was an answer to the FAR rationale, it was only directed at the nominator) with a history of personal attacks is way over the line, I endorse this block. I hate blocking constructive contributors, and have no problem with giving them more leeway in some regards, but that doesn't include answering with a WP:PA to a good-faithed remark (And I don't think I ever commented on one of those before, so I consider myself uninvolved). Amalthea 11:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• I'm also completely uninvolved. I see the block as fair enough. However IMHO if the previous block caused a drama then perhaps it would have been better to just put a notice on AN/I expressing your assessment to the community and let someone else take the required action. Regards Manning (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  Precisely, thank you for looking at the larger issue. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Judging from my limited experience, any block of Giano will cause drama, mostly generated by people who appear to be his friends. Leaving the blocking to somebody else, therefore, would very likely have generated the very same drama and no appreciable benefit.  Sandstein  11:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with block though in the interest of full disclosure I've had a run in with Giano in an editing capacity. I like to think the name wouldn't have mattered, that I would feel the same for any editor. Either way, I've given you my view and my COI which is why I took no action myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  Which was a good call on your part; Sandstein should perhaps take note. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well, you want uninvolved opinion so you can have mine. "You fool", whilst certainly falling under WP:NPA, would often merit a warning for many many users - not a block. In addiiton the duration between the comment and the block is less than optimal. One week as a block length seems to be total overkill. Mostly however - block first ask questions late (knowing that any Giano thread get's everyone up in arms) would not have been the way I'd have gone about it. In short, whilst the block is within policy(ish) I think it would be very advisable to now unblock. This seems a bit too much like punitive than preventative. Pedro :  Chat  11:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree. The attack (completely unprompted, as far as I can tell) is not limited to "You fool" alone, and as to the length, it's just an escalating block, taking into account all the previous blocks (of previous accounts) from which Giano appears not to want to learn.  Sandstein  12:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Look, there's very little value in starting a thread "inviting community opinion" when you clearly aren't prepared to listen to it when given.Pedro :  Chat  13:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am listening. I'm not required to agree with every opinion that is expressed.  Sandstein  13:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• It appears that you've decided to listen only to those opinions you agree with, making this a pretty pointless exercise. Your judgement in making this block was clearly flawed, but that's not what you want to hear, so there's no point in reiterating what others have said. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• While the blocking admin may say he is neutral all he wishes, I don't see that is the case, especially as it deals with Giano. Stale block, arbitrary time for usage of the word 'fool.' I'd unblock, but I used my one unblock and can only handle one straight-to-arbcom complaint at a time. Sandstein acts like a robot, reading a manual, and implies that he's the real victim because he has the burden of doing this job. Apparently policy is so clear about each and every administrative 'obligation' that it simply merits no discussion, ever. Law _{type! snype?} 12:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support as the remark is an attempt at intimidation to prevent other such articles from being nominated at FAR. It attacks the nominator for a good faith nomination. It is also an attempt to disrupt FAR which in the past has been disrupted during nominations of articles by the same author. Because Giano has gotten away with similar and worse behavior in the past is not a reason for trying to stem it now. If Wikipedia wants to keep and retain editors, than this attack culture by regular editors must change. —mattisse (Talk) 12:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• For those only reading the discussion and not the reason for it, the full PA was "get a life, get an education and write a page yourself - you fool!" A bit worse than just "fool", IMO. Fram (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think the full context should be taken into account and that this was on an FAR page. Please read "Unexplained Admin Abuse by User:KillerChihuahua and User:SlimVirgin" above which involved attacks on the same editor over the same article. This is a pattern of abuse that occurs at FAR when articles by a specific editor are nominated by any editor. Often the abuse starts on the article talk page, as an editor seeks a simcere discussion of the article. —mattisse (Talk) 12:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• A week, for God's sake, and for a stale remark?! Gar, somebody shoot me already. "Excessive" is the only word that applies here. But what should I expect from this stupid website run by rulemongers, anyway? As usual, we waste our time with Da Rules instead of an encyclopedia. Anyone looking to fork? I'd be really glad of a website that is actually about articles and such. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• The complete quote is: "Keep; get a life, get an education and write a page yourself - you fool!" This is an utterly obvious NPA vio and certainly not falling within the standards of civility that one would expect to find on-site. Combine this with the previous remedies that have attempted to dissuade the blocked user from engaging in this type of discourse on-site, and there are reasonable grounds for a block of some sort. I don't believe the calls to completely reverse the block as null and void are justified at all, even if some of the voices are becoming predictable at these discussions. That said, any calls to keep the block duration as it is would not be justified either. Looking at the most recent of his block-log entries, I see two 24hr blocks (one in May [50] and one in July [51]) which appear to have been OK'd. In such circumstances, to progress to a 1 week block in September is overkill.
• In summary, reasonable grounds for a block of some sort, but the duration of this particular block should be decreased (if not by the imposing administrator, someone completely uninvolved if possible) - the duration should be one that is more appropriate; definitely not longer than 72 hours from when the violation occurred. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree with such an extensive block. Jehochman is correct, as far as I can tell; the block was issued after-the-fact, and does not apparently do anything to prevent damage to the project. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Julian: If Giano were to get blocked for his nasty behaviour--and more importantly, if those blocks would stick and not get overturned by a very small and very dedicated group--one might hope that it would have some chance of ameliorating his behaviour. As it stands, he has a free pass to say just about anything he likes, because he knows that within 24 hours, maybe a little longer, enough of his crew will scream and shout loud enough to get the block removed. And then he gets to do it again. And again. And again and again and again. Giano's blocks need to stick--he will not stop otherwise. And they need to start following a pattern: next offence, one week. After that, one month. Then three, six, 12. Oh blah blah blah, blocks aren't punitive--we all know that's a lie. But in this case they would prevent the guaranteed future personal attacks from him. We know they'll come, so no use pretending otherwise. → ROUX ₪ 15:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I fully agree that something needs to be done to prevent further incivility from Giano, but as you said, the dozens of blocks thus far have done little, if anything, to help. Therefore, blocking for one week for what seems a relatively minor incident in the grand scheme of things is not the most appropriate course of action, at least in my opinion. Moreover, blocking under fairly controversial circumstances will in all likelihood do little else than fuel the flames, so a provisional stern warning might have had the same, if not more, effect. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
      • The dozens of blocks haven't done anything because they are always reduced or removed. If they start sticking, Giano will be forced to realise he will be taking long timeouts for his nonsense, and at that point he will have to calculate whether it's worth more to be able to attack people or edit freely. As it stands, he gets both--not an acceptable state of affairs. → ROUX ₪ 17:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• I take no position on the justifiability of blocking Giano for his comment. However, Sandstein should certainly not have been the one to take action. Giano has been commenting about the Eastern Europe Mailing List ArbCom, where there have been numerous comments about Sandstein having been manipulated by the mailing list participants. Giano's disapproval for the alleged activites of mailing list participants is clear, as is Sandstein's sensitivity to claims he has been manipulated, so it would be understandable if Sandstein's objectivity is a little off at the moment. I don't know whether thier mutual connection the case fits within the letter of WP:INVOLVED, but it sure makes me think Sandstein's claim of neutrality look tarnished. Added to the action being late, on a stale issue, and pretty harsh (even as an escalating block), I think this action looks extremely unwise. Sandstein, I suggest you reverse the block before someone else does. If the recent WMC case shows anything, it shows that ArbCom and "involved" blocks during a case are dangerous territory for admins. EdChem (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am not responsible for any edits Giano might have made with respect to me. It would be ill-advised to discourage admins from blocking editors who might have previously attempted to offend them, because otherwise a disruptive editor would only need to attempt to offend enough people in order to claim immunity from being blocked by them. (Maybe that's what Giano's trying to do here?) As said above, I invite you to show me a diff of any edit I made with respect to Giano that is emotional, otherwise inappropriate or somehow indicative of my being unable to act as a neutral administrator.The mailing list matter was and is far from my mind here.  Sandstein  13:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is a rather interesting issue; I did not touch on whether Sandstein should've been the one to take the action, or otherwise in my review above. I'm concerned that a lot of claims are being made, while not enough evidence is being presented here to actually substantiate a lot of it. EdChem (or anyone else who can help), could you please provide diffs to the comments Giano made that related to Sandstein? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sandstein, you have misunderstood my point - please allow me to clarify. I am not suggesting that either you or Giano has made an emotional "diff" about the other. Whether it turns out to be true or not, the claim has been made that you have been influenced by those on the mailing list. This is not to say you have acted improperly - it could be about mailing list participants allegedly provoking others into unwise actions, which you then sanctioned without knowing there was deliberate tag-team provocation in the background. It would be natural and understandable for your judgement to be a touch off with all this going on. Equally understandable would be a dseire for the mailing list issue to just go away, seeing as you feel you have not been influenced in any of your administrator actions - or even maybe feel some anger about being caught up in the whole mailing list issue. Then, along comes an incident where Giano, one of those making a lot of noise about the mailing list, has arguably violated WP:NPA. It's stale, the thread is settled, and you've had a controversy with Giano over a block before - but you still decide to block, and for a week. Can you really be 100% sure you were acting objectively and neutrally, with no influence from any of the background? Also, can you see why it might look from the outside like a less-than-wise decision? Maybe I'm totally wrong and am seeing something that isn't there... maybe I'm not. In any case, I remain of the view that you were and are the wrong person to act in this situation - but you are the right person to undo this block and end this controversy. EdChem (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, some relevant background material that you (and others) might wish to consider...

• The Eastern European Mailing List ArbCom case was first raised at AN/I in this thread, which first raised the possibility that Sandstein had been influenced by mailing list members' activities. "They specifically discussed how to nurture special relations with Sandstein and use them to block their enemies", according to the initial post in the thread. It is relevant to note that the thread was itself a spin-off from another thread, titled Massive problem with admin User:Sandstein.
• It is also relevant to note Sandstein's reaction to the claims made: "I do not take kindly to any attempts to be used as an instrument in any plots, and may need to check whether any of my recent enforcement actions in this area require reconsideration (though I do not believe that I have been influenced by anybody, and have as far as I know not communicated offwiki with any involved parties". This shows Sandstein was concerned about the possibility that he may have been influenced.
• The "massive problem" was a ban imposed by Sandstein on Russavia. Giano's view was clearly expressed here when he wrote "Sandstein, your bulying and threatening is now becoming a problem. I strongly suggest you back off, before others take action against you. You are too involved with Russavia now for your judgement to be sound or trusted. Please let others deal with these matters. You are only an ordinary admin please stop crediting yourself with airs, graces and powers to which you are not entitled. Russavia, you need to clarify your meaning."
• Following the opening of the ArbCom case, Giano commented to Russavia that "There is already more than enough evidence doing the rounds for you to be unblocked unconditionally. I think it would be a pleasant and concillitory gesture if Sandstein were the one to lift any sanctions against you. He has been, in a way, as much a victim as you. I hope he is big enough to see that." Sandstein was notified of this comment by Giano here.
• Giano's view of the mailing list issue: "Thank you. I have definitively formed my opinion. Those concerned are in the mire up to their little necks. The only question following such organised and long term abuse, cabalism and manipulation of Admins and subsequently Arbcom cases is quite how one makes such an example of these people that no-one is ever attempted to be party such a thing ever agian. (Incidentally, for those wondering, Sandstein was not a member of this cabal, but one of those manipulated). My view is that the only option is making them all permanently banned users - The full extent of their actions will probably never ne known, but their proven Wiki-crimes and the damage they have caused, and the innocent reputations permanently tarnished, is too severe for anything less. I don't think any other view is possible or any excuse plausible."
• This background information is provided without comment, simply for others to consider as part of what led to my comments above. EdChem (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Cheers EdChem; that's clarified a lot for me. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• If the block dissuades abuse of editors for nominating such articles at FAR, the the block will prevent future damage to the project. As to length, that I do not know as there seem to be widely varying standards on such matters. —mattisse (Talk) 13:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Christ almighty, this again? I'd like to note without amusement that this block has spawned a number of battleground behaviors assumptions of bad faith and outright nastiness. I congratulate all of you, with the deepest of sarcasm, on managing to collectively and completely bury the lead, making it impossible for a user to actually understand what is going on here.--Tznkai (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm trying hard to feel outraged, at either the stupid comment or the dumb block or the inescapable march toward pointless drama that followed. But I find that I just don't care anymore. I used to be firmly in Giano's corner, and in general, I still feel a bit more of a kinship with those who are traditionally his Friends, than I do with those who traditionally his Enemies. But lately, he seems less interested in what's Right and what's Wrong, and more interested in who's a Friend and who's an Enemy. His Friends will likely deny that; his Enemies will likely claim he's been like that all along; but I'm comfortable in my opinion. He's finally succumbed to just playing Wikipedia The Game with the rest of his Friends and Enemies.

  I try not to care what happens to those playing The Game. The only effect is has on the rest of us is keeping ANI up at the top of our watchlists, making Wikipedia look ridiculous to others, and wasting our time when we're weak and momentarily succumb to caring about The Game ourselves.

  But since I am weak, and have succumbed myself, I just want to register my disappointment in pretty much everyone involved. Sandstein: It's possible to communicate with other humans without jumping to the block button. Giano: Content-free insults? Is that what you're reduced to? Worse, inelegantly pedestrian insults?. KC: Inexplicable restoration of an insult, from someone who a few weeks ago asked me to remove a much milder "unhelpful" comment. Please, please don't tell me that you define "helpful" and "unhelpful" as "agrees with KC" and "doesn't agree with KC".

  Luckily, I can solve the "Giano Problem" for myself by unwatchlisting ANI for a day or two, until this either dies down, or you all get a subpage and go play there instead. I recommend this method to whoever has the willpower to do it themselves. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not going to question anyone's efforts here (WP:AGF and all), but I am wondering what the "heat to light" ratio is going to be in the end. All for a FAR? Just seems to me to be another drama chapter in the Wikipedia MMORPG at the moment though. At least in my opinion. — Ched :  ?  14:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've seen different editors comment that the issue was stale, too old, or something similar. While I understand that you shouldn't block for things that happened months or years ago, I fail to see why a block of a regular editor for conduct that happened less than 12 hours before, and which fits in a regular pattern, would be a bad thing or too late. The core of our blocking policy is "Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern." Giano has (as an editor) long-term civility problems, some of it excusable, some of it not. This is a current problem (as in, happening in the last 24 hours), and he should be strongly encouraged to change his behaviour. A week long block may send the message that many editors are fed up with this aspect of his contributions, and that all the good he does and has done is no excuse for such remarks. It also indicates that if he does continue like this, his next block may be a month, and so on. That the remark came half a day before the block seems highly irrelevant to me in this case. Fram (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

More reruns? Seriously, lets try adjusting the plot a little bit the next time this episode airs. Chillum 14:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

? Could you explain your reply? It's unclear what you would want to adjust and in what way. Fram (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This entire thread has happened on this page several times before. I was not responding directly to you, but rather to this thread. Chillum 15:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take more care with your indentations, then. Indenting like that made it appear you were replying directly to Fram, as I am replying to you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, asking for inline citations is enough to push some people over the edge of civility. This isn't as bad as the "nuclear meltdown" of another user last week in similar circumstances. By now Giano got the message that his remark was inappropriate. Perhaps the block length could be reduced to a standard 24h one? Pcap ping 16:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If Giano has gotten the message and credibly apologizes for his personal attack, I'll unblock him at once. Unfortunately, I do not believe that this has ever happened in any of the past incidents that caused him to be blocked. At any rate, we can't know until he reacts to the block.  Sandstein  16:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Demanding apologies for an unblock is what stinks the worst about this block, Sandstein. Such demands should never be made. Bishonen | talk 19:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC).

One need not call it an apology, but I do think that Giano needs to understand - and say so - that the manner in which he interacts with those he disagrees with (generally through insults, it seems) is disruptive and will stop. That's a rather basic thing, and normal practice, to expect from blocked disruptive users.  Sandstein  19:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sandstein is DEFINITELY involved with Giano and they have been in repeated disputes in the past. This block also stinks beacuse there was no discussion or effort to resolve the issues in a reasonable collegial fashion. We must expect better from our admins. You're not here to add fuel to the fire, but to help resolve disputes so the content work and article creation can be aided. Bad block. Sanctions against Sandstein may be needed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• ChildofMidnight (and Law, above) may be a bit cross with me at the moment because of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight, so I guess his comments may need to be taken with a pinch of salt. I'm still interested to hear what all these disputes are that Giano and I are supposed to be involved in, though. I remember none. I did block Giano (once, I believe), which led to a dramatic discussion much like this one, and since then, Giano has made disparaging comments about me whenever he seems to come across me; I have been ignoring that. I do not think that this makes me too "involved" to act as an administrator here.  Sandstein  16:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• You can use as much salt (and pepper too) as you like, but when you note "Giano has made disparaging comments about me whenever he seems to come across me," that suggests that letting one of the many admins that DOESN'T have that history deal with the issue would have been the way to go. Have you considered that if one of Giano's friends had suggested he refactor the comment we might have been able to avoid all this drama entirely? And indeed it is very similar to your recent policy violating 30 day block against me which included numerous false statements and misrepresentation of my editing history and block log, when a simple request not to edit an article would have sufficed. More courtesy and common sense would result in a lot less drama. I know you're editing in good faith and that I've said some nasty things, but civility is a two way street Sandstein and you have to treat your fellow editors with respect and consideration. Otherwise you're not likely to get much in return. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I entirely agree with that last sentiment and invite any user to show me a diff where I have not displayed proper respect and consideration to Giano or anybody else. (As to your block, that's currently under arbitration, so let's not discuss that.) But as to your first point, no. We can't let users game the system by allowing them to choose who may block them and who may not. If we consider an administrator to be "involved" just because he has been repeatedly derided by the user at issue (as I have), without ever reacting to these comments (as I have), we're allowing just that - and we're encouraging more personal attacks, too.  Sandstein  18:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Did you suggest to Giano that he refactor his comment? Or better yet, given your history with Giano, did you think to drop a note off to Bishonen and/or Lessheardvanu that it would be good if someone asked if he'd be willing remove or refactor the offending statement? Wouldn't this have been a way to resolve the the dispute with the least possible drama and without the need for any blocks? PREVENTATIVE!!! Your actions don't show respect or consideration for your fellow editors. You refuse to make reasonable attempts to resolve disputes in a collegial way. Just because you can justify a block or argue effectively that an infraction occured doesn't make your enforcing actions right. Look at all this disruption and drama your actions have caused. You expect Law to discuss fixing another of your egregious blocks (and it looked to me like he did, but that you blocked and ran without sticking around to respond to questions), but you refuse to engage in any discussion regarding your own decision making process before taking action. Try working through disputes without using your tools. Even in article building you've ignored polite requests to discuss content. I have found you to be exceptionally rude and uncivil. Try collaborating for a change and stop shooting first and asking questions later. You do a lot of great work, but your approach is NOT civil or respectful to your fellow editors. This not a police state, it's a community where we collaborate to build an encyclopedia and Giano is one of our most distinguished contributors. Maybe after this is all blown over you can reach out to him and thank him for all his good work. He edits in good faith just like you do. You are both human and prone to make a mistake now and again. It's not fair to expect everyone to be perfect like I am.ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Giano has a long history of incivility, so no, taking such extra measures of communication is no longer a feasible or productive use of admin time. Try to keep your beef with admins over your ArbCom case from spilling into unrelated issues, eh? Tarc (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• (ec) Hmm, but at some point, all the good will and good-natured nudges to try and play nice have to come to an end. Giano is a big guy, does he really need his friends to suggest not making personal attacks? I mean, look at the block log, for crying out loud, hasn't he realized that by himself? Amalthea 19:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Are you running out of good will Amalthea? How sad. :) People make mistakes. Giano is a very valuable editor who is passionate about his work. It seems practical to try and get mistakes fixed when they occur instead of circling them, highlighting them, sticking them in peoples faces, and creating massive dramas so we can argue endlessly over them. No one has suggested it's a good idea to call each other fools (even though there are many among us). :) We are human. We make errors all the time. The beauty of a wiki is that we can work together to help each other and we can fix all the mistakes that inevitably happen. This approach makes editing collegial and collaborative and combines our strengths. Playing gotcha and busting each other when we mess up just puts everyone on the defensive and encourages a gangland and battlefield mentality where editors feel compelled to team up in order to get some protection. Disputes are often long over, while the arguing over the "incivility" goes on. What good does that do? Give peace a chance. (In a noble display of following my own advice I'm going to lead by example and refrain from commenting to or about Tarc ). ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Out of patience, rather.
  I don't see this thread as an end in itself. And seriously, are you expecting that this is the last civility thread about Giano? Is the underlying problem really resolved? Don't get me wrong, I have no issues with being blunt with vandals, POV-pushers, and other disruptions, or calling out bullshit in general. A certain confrontational nature is also required to get things moving here, so I welcome that. I like reading Giano's essays, for example, I like seeing him call out organizational issues on Jimbo's talk page. It stops with personal attacks directed at other constructive editors though. I can even forgive that a lot of times. It can happen, as you say. But I want to see an effort to try and avoid that, and I don't see that from Giano, not in this case (I realize he has an "away" message on his talk page, but reinstating the personal attack at the FAR says a lot), and I'm not aware of anything following recent blocks or threads here. An effort to oblige with WP:5#Code of conduct, to keep a collaborative and constructive atmosphere. In the long run, I think that's worth more than one exceptional editor. Am I asking too much there? Am I too naïve? Amalthea 21:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• As a general point, civility policy is not a rule made in a vacuum. First, it is a positive claim that we want editors to act with a certain amount of decorum and cordial behavior, for the mutual benefit of all. Second, and more on point, incivility, especially personal attacks, are distracting. They end to quickly sidetrack conversation from the point at hand (ideally content) to fights either wikipolitical or personal. The aim should be to avoid these tangential and ultimately pointless discussions.--Tznkai (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would support a block of Sandstein. The idea that he is only an admin doing his job rings hollow considering his COI with Giano. He should have gone to another admin to do any blocking. Good luck. --70.188.131.232 (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block per Roux; it was blatantly a personal attack, and Giano has had a long history of them. Why should he be exempted from WP:CIV? 70.188.131.232 – don't be absurd, we don't block admins except in cases of genuine and serious abuse. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't believe in "civility blocks" on pragmatic grounds; they don't make the blocked party any more civil, and they make everyone else less civil (cf. this entire thread). I'm reminded of Loeb's Second Law of Internal Medicine: "If what you're doing isn't working, stop doing it." So I disagree with this particular action of Sandstein's. But perhaps we could disagree with a specific action without impugning the character of the admin in question? As far as I've seen, Sandstein is an excellent admin who does good work in some of the project's most troublesome areas. This isn't Mortal Kombat; we can disagree without going for the fatality. MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Blocking Giano does nothing useful. Ban him, or do nothing. Prodego ^talk 17:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • I concur. If blocks are a preventative measure and not punitive, and in Giano's case they don't have the desired effect of halting his behavior, maybe stronger medicine is needed. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well, there is the possibility that he reacts to this block with an unblock request apologizing for his behavior and sincerely pledging not to do it again. In the case that he does not, I agree that further blocks are unlikely to prevent him from causing further disruption, so a ban would be the logical consequence.  Sandstein  18:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Seems a reasonable block to me, this editor has a history of making personal attacks and has been instructed by ArbCom to "avoid sweeping condemnations of other users when he has a grievance, more light, less heat." Tim Vickers (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'd love to see comparisons of byte counts of "content that Giano has contributed" verus "meta-wonkery Giano has inspired". His content had better be really fucking good for the megabytes of non-content stuff about him people wade through. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Giano hasn't contributed to this discussion at all. So to blame him for our decision to talk about it seems outrageously unfair. And yes, he does fabulous article and essay work. You should check it out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

An admin's reactions to Giano's actions is usually what starts these enormous threads. Giano is the cause of these threads, even if they're fuelled by editor reaction to admin action. (Where's the meatball wiki VestedContributors link when I need it?)NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable as well. When a user keeps repeating the same actions that he's been warned of in the past, we shouldn't be just nicely asking him not to do it for the 9th, 10th, 99th time. Tarc (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree with this block. I don't think we will achieve anything because of this block, instead this block will generate more drama. And Sandstein had disputes with Giano multiple times. AdjustShift (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but, what disputes have I had with Giano?  Sandstein  19:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• During the recent Russavia case, Giano and you had disputes with each other. AdjustShift (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Giano criticized your administrative actions during the Russavia case. It may have been better if another admin would have decided what to do with Giano. This is at least how I feel; others, of course, can disagree with me. AdjustShift (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• That he criticized my actions does not constitute a dispute. It takes two for that. As far as I know, I never reacted in any way to any of his criticisms. Besides, as a moderately active admin, I am criticized every day by the many users I take administrative actions against and by their friends (and socks), and by people who just have a different opinion (such as many in this thread); if I were not allowed to block any of them ever again if they cause disruption, I'd soon be pretty useless as an admin.  Sandstein  20:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Perspective

No Personal Attacks means to not comment on the real life identity. Saying "you fool" is a characterization of actions - "you are acting foolishly" is what it means. He did not say "you are stupid", he didn't say "you dumb Welsh/Jew/Black/Russian/etc", he didn't say "fuck off, you dumb prick", etc. To say that this is an egregious violation of NPA (which NPA and CIVIL both say it must be -egregious- to warrant a block) would be a misinterpretation of NPA and CIVIL. I think such blocks as above, especially for one week, further undermine both NPA and CIVIL, set a bad tone, and show a misuse of blocks as a whole. "fool" might be unpleasant discourse, but to give it such a reaction is to add to it what clearly does not exist. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree, excessive blocks undermine the project and create a disrupted editing enviroment. This seems to be a recent pattern of excessive wanton big ban hammering, I support a reductiion of Giano's week block Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Block time is about right, shorter blocks haven't helped and the general route is to lengthen them when dealing with problematic behaviour. And what "you fool" means is >you< are a fool and certainly is a personal attack. Again, this isn't a one-off occurance. It's a pattern, so saying the block is too long is to ignore the history here. RxS (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Just indef him if he is not learning by the punishments. (this is of course a cryptic comment) Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please reread what NPA states. Fool is a behavioral characteristic. Race is not. Sexuality is not. Intelligence is not. Your clear misunderstanding is problematic and is not within either the spirit or letter of NPA. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No, someone being foolish is a behavioral characteristic. Your wiki-lawyering aside, calling somone a fool is a personal attack just about anywhere you go. Generally when someone starts parsing the rulebook this closely they know they are on thin ice or just taking a postition. Either way, the block was good and the length is about right. RxS (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that the term "wikilawyer" is incivil and your use of it only verifies that you don't understand appropriate conduct. I suggest you stop before you dig yourself into a whole that you wont be able to climb out again. Grammar and language is against your false understanding. Consensus is against your false understanding. Tradition is against your false understanding. Right now, it seems like you and a few others against Wikipedia. I think you should read WP:POINT before you continue trying to promote a clearly disruptive and inappropriate belief. Our policies are not for you to suddenly rewrite to add what clearly is not there in order to promote such abuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I said you were wiki-lawering, not that you were a wikilawyer. Comment on edits and not the editor. That's the baseline here. You don't seem to get that. And it's not a new concept....it's been here awhile. The rest of your assertions are inaccurate enough to not need any comment. I will say that accusing someone of wp:point because you disagree with them is a little disingenuous. RxS (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Civility does not need to differentiate between personal or actions. Your misunderstanding of the two is telling. This is also telling. I think our lax standards at the time is possibly how you attained Adminship while having a destructive understanding of NPA that goes far beyond what it states. The fact that you would try to claim that someone who exposes you for adding things to NPA which clearly aren't there as a "wikilawyer" is rather disturbing and telling. I suggest you put yourself up for re-election if you honestly believe you are correct. The swift amount of opposes and your quick failure will be enough justice. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

From WP:NPA Comment on content, not on the contributor. Second sentence. You can (although you probably shouldn't in most cases) call someone's edits foolish, you certainly cannot call someone a fool. So I see no evidence that I have a "destructive understanding of NPA". Anyway, I don't have time for this and am unimpressed with your argument by abuse style. Take your last word and we'll be done here. I don't see any consensus forming against the block in question. RxS (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

comment - huh? 'wikilawyering' is uncivil, but "you fool" is a "characterization of actions"? i'm missing something here.
personally, i think the snide faux-civil sarcasm and baiting that seem to be the rule for many regular editors here is much more of a problem than either of those two comments, but i digress ... untwirl(talk) 21:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is not WP:NPA. Why would you think that one is the other? They clearly are on two different pages, so it would be hard to confuse the two. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

from the civility page: "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict." a personal attack is automatically uncivil. is it your contention that giano's remark was neither uncivil nor a personal attack? or are you just quibbling over the semantics? this section should probably be collapsed due to drama. untwirl(talk) 22:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism continues on Pokémon manga articles

For background, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Removal of demographic on Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu, Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#User:TheFarix, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mathemagician57721/Archive. Editor as returned to using Dynamic IPs from AT&T in Springfield, Missouri claiming that the sourced information that he/she had previously called synthisis are now a personal attacks against some obscure forum users.[52][53][54][55] —Farix (t | c) 22:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd hardly call the two largest Pokémon forums on the internet "obscure". --70.245.189.21 (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"obscure forum users" does not seem to mean "users" on "obscure forums" but instead seems to mean "obscure users" who are on "forums". Could be wrong, English is an iffy language.- Sinneed 23:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that the both the forum and its users are obscure. However it is absurd to claim that stating that a manga (comic) is targeted towards children (referred to as Kodomo) is some sort of personal attack. This is not the first time this editor has vandalized Pokémon manga articles. He/she has removed the exact same information from both this article and Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu, which is currently semi-protected do to the vandalism. —Farix (t | c) 23:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This IP has been at this for awhile and has been blocked some half dozen times, at the last, under different IPs. He is also now vandalizing Church of Scientology and he has already jumped to a new IP, so blocking of User:70.245.189.21 may only be marginally helpful at this point. Requested RPP on the target article, again, as it seems to be the only way to deal with this particularly persistent vandal who is determined to deny reality. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and semi-protected the article for now. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Fairx, so far you've posted on the content board, the NOR board, and you've posted here. Please be aware that could be considered forum shopping. I responded to you over at the NOR board, and for ease of reading, I'll summarize here.

The IP is removing the statement that the movie is a Kodomo. There's no source that says this, so the IP is correct. Any claim has to be backed up by a source. The "kodomo" claim isn't. (I'm an anime geek, and I'm familiar with that term, and I agree it's pretty obvious to anyone that watches the movie - BUT - I AM NOT a realiable source, so I can't put in what I know. :) ) _{Naluboutes, Naluboutes}Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 14:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither of these articles are about a movie, but about two manga series that ran in a children's magazine. —Farix (t | c) 14:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ban of RMHED lifted

I'm going to place the lifting of the ban on RMHED under the category of controversial incidents. There is a diversity of views on RMHED, on his ban, on the ArbCom, and on the ArbCom lifting the ban. I started a little poll to get a true idea of whether or not people agree or disagree with the lifting of the ban. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

First Flight High School

Resolved

Can someone keep an eye on the idiocy taking place on First Flight High School? – iridescent 23:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

reverted to your version, and fully protected for 3 days. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of unblock requests?

Resolved

 – Question answered. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I would like for someone to explain to me exactly what the rule is. It has been my understanding from what admins say, and supported by what the rules appear to say, that removal of declined unblock notices is forbidden while you're still blocked. Is that correct, or not? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• that is correct (see the start of the second paragraph). Protonk (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This started with a minor edit war involving User:Prodego and another editor over removals of various warnings from a blocked IP address's talk page (User talk:68.52.42.38). We've got Prodego saying a user can remove anything he wants "as long as he's not being disruptive". I interpret that rule that removal of denied unblock request is automatically assumed to be disruptive, "gaming the system", and thus is not allowed at all. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Baseball Bugs is asking this after I said - in response to a theoretical question - that it is ok to remove anything from your talk page, so long as it isn't disruptive to do so. For example, if you were to vanish, or you were to not request unblocking again, it would not be a problem to remove an unblock notice from your talk page. However, Baseball Bugs insists that even in cases such as these, removing the template is totally forbidden, and has spent the last 4 hours trying to convince me I am wrong. He has now started this thread on ANI because he disagrees with my response to this theoretical question. I'm not sure I see the point of this. In addition my so called "edit war", consisted of one edit. Prodego ^talk 23:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
      • The point is to find out the right answer, so that we're both clear on the rules. And I did say a "minor" edit war. Maybe "edit skirmish" is more like it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This would likely be a situation where WP:IAR could come into play. Yes, blocked editors aren't supposed to remove declined requests while still blocked, but it would be a silly thing to get into an edit war over unless they're removing them while continuing to add new requests. --Onorem♠Dil 00:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, that IP did not have a unblock request on their talk page, in fact, that IP wasn't blocked. What I did there was restore an edit in which the (static) IP removed warnings from its own talk page. Removing warnings is uncontroversially allowed. This entire section is based on something entirely theoretical. Prodego ^talk 00:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That's true. I didn't have any issues with Prodego's handling of the talk page. I had an issue with has blanket statement that a user can remove anything they want from their talk page. At the time, I was not aware Prodego was an admin, and I'm seeing 3 different opinions from 3 different admins here so far. Regardless, it seems that the rule itself is clear but that some flexibility via IAR could come into it. Obviously, blocked users will react in a variety of ways and handling them has to be tailored to fit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, I'm all for hypotheticals, but Prodego's answer was accurate. Plus, an unblocking admin would still review the block log and contributions of the blocked user. This particular scenario would not be a problem to any admin who is doing their due dilligence. Hiberniantears (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll let you and Protonk slug it out. :) However, I still insist that his original blanket statement that a user can delete anything on his talk page, is not correct. And I'm getting tired of this expired equine by now. Thank you all for expanding my understanding of all this. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Protect this page from editing by unconfirmed users?

WP:AN has had to be protected from unconfirmed users due to repeated vicious personal attacks. They're now coming here. Can somebody protect this page? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like a range block is going to be required, despite the fallout, because whoever it is is address hopping, and making the attack edit on a wide range of articles. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Anybody? This needs to be addressed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Wait, what just happened here? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• please explain what you are talking about. Protonk (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • See vandalism on WP:AN which then spread to here. I've removed it. Semi'd ANI for a while to see if they get bored. Rangeblocks will be ineffective, it's AOL, far too wide a range. Black Kite 23:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • But the edits are being made to all kinds of articles, not just AN and ANI. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits such as this are being dropped all over Wikipedia. This page has been protected, but a range block needs to be looked into. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Which part of "it's too wide a range to block" was the difficult bit? Black Kite 23:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Why do you feel the need to be abusive? My concern is that there are too many of these edits, and just protecting these two pages isn't going to accomplish anything if they're editing things like Colorado with the same sort of edit. Have you decided that you've done your part by protecting these two pages, and now nothing more needs to be done? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not being abusive - I pointed out that a rangeblock was not feasible, and you carried on asking for one. There's nothing to be done about edits from a range that wide except treat them as one wuold normal vandalism. It's not that we wouldn't want to block a range that wide, the technical restrictions meant we can't block it (it's a /10 range, max block is a /16 range, it'd need hundreds of rangeblocks) Black Kite 23:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite is one of the very few admins who even understands how to do a rangeblock, let alone is actually willing to go and do one. I'm inclined to think he knows if it's too big of a range or not. Tempting though it may be, we probably shouldn't block half of America from editing Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• We might want to take that to a policy discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I accept that explanation. Thank you. Your previous snippy, snarky, nasty comment was not acceptable. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We might want to think about whether it would be possible to set up short-term edit filters to handle situations like this. Looie496 (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible, if it continues long-term. More likely, as I said, they'll get bored of it eventually. FWIW, I looked at the IPs that have been used so far, and while they don't cover the whole range, they're still too far apart to usefully rangeblock, not to mention the collateral damage. Black Kite 00:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

So instead of figuring out how to keep the guilty parties from editing, it's decided that preventing ALL IP's and new accounts is a better solution? Insert baby with the bathwater, overkill and all those other trite but true cliches here. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if someone contacted me about this (figuring this was an attack on me), you would have had your answer sooner. Basically, on a different wiki, a member who had it out for me on that wiki decided to come after me here. He is obviously using open proxies, so I don't know how to logically stop him if it happens again short of a range block. –túrian^patois 01:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Black Kite. I apply range blocks from time to time and found them moderately effective, but dealing with collateral damage can be a real pain. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC) If the edits are from open proxies, as Turian suggests, doesn't Wikipedia:Open proxies apply? Rd232 ^talk 12:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• The edits that I checked were from a dynamic AOL IP. There may be others that I have not seen. Black Kite 18:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

False charge of sockpuppetry

Resolved

 – I think this is under control now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A series of harassment sock accounts, aimed at me, have duped User:Nimur, with whom I have had pointed discussions about the ref desks, into thinking that I am responsible for those socks. I have warned Nimur to stop making these false charges, but he won't, so here I am. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This is purely a distraction from the main problem: Horseplay at the Reference Desk. Bugs has been repeatedly warned to stop the disruptive play at the desk. More often than knot (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

And your appearance twenty whole minutes ago lends a tremendous amount of credence to your case. </sarcasm> J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)"More often than knot" came on board immediately after "More honestly" was indeffed. He's a troll who's trying to get both me and Nimur into trouble. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Bugs has too much self-respect to do anything as pathetic as socking. But may I respectfully suggest that he limit himself to one RefDesk comment per day across sections where he does not actually know the answer to the question? I enjoy his jokes but it's clear that some people don't. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've seen worse comments at the ref desks than the ones I've made. But I will work to adhere to your recommendation. With the caveat that sometimes a question requires more questions back, or some "guesswork", to clarify what the reader is asking for. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Not that it is really necessary, Knot is checkuser- Confirmed as Honestly. NawlinWiki blocked just before I attempted to. Ranges are too large to block, unfortunately. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)"Knot" is now indef'd also. There have been several harassing socks recently with vaguely similar names. I don't keep a list, and WP:DENY suggests I shouldn't make too big of a thing of it. But I want Nimur to cease and desist from making these false sockpuppetry charges against me. Meanwhile, I have been doing better than I was at refraining from mocking silly questions on the ref desks, and I pledge to continue to do better. By the way, the broad range of the block suggests a particular sockmaster, which I would just as soon not state publicly due to WP:DENY. I'll send you an e-mail. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

As a point of reference, I declined the block request at AIV and reminded Nimur about WP:POINT. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Bluecanary99

I would like to bring to attention the conduct of Bluecanary99 (talk · contribs). When the cancellation of the radio show Too Beautiful to Live was announced, they immediately started pruning references to it and nominating it for nomination. That's fine. However, their conduct became... off. They became extremely paranoid and/or exhibiting a martyr complex, i.e. everyone who disagrees with me is in some kind of cabal. This only got worse, and he or she created a WP:COIN thread, accusing User:Nathalmad of being Luke Burbank, without any evidence. After "harassment" (i.e. people questioning the very basis of his accusation), he begged and begged to be left alone, to which I finally acquiesced, hoping that it really was all over.

But though he promised to 'never edit any page defended' by our sekret cabal ever again, he started doing just that, but with the opposite intent. He is making strongly pointy edits, attempting to damn Luke Burbank with faint praise. The best example of this is [56], an edit that cannot be justified even by the most diehard TBTL fan, let alone someone who clearly has an agenda against the show.

Furthermore, I would like to point out this account was created a mere 27 hours after a previous account, User:Notabilitypatrol, gave up in their attempts to get unbanned for a long cycle of exhibiting a paranoid martyrdom complex while trying to get TBTL and Luke Burbank's articles deleted. Sound familiar? I have a strong feeling that NotabilityPatrol and Bluecanary99 are the same person, though I doubt the issues at play here justify a checkuser. But due to the lack of civility (They both also share a trend of accusing those who disagree with them of being sockpuppets or, in this case, a meatpuppet of the very subject they're trying to delete) and the recent WP:POINT edits, I wanted to bring this to the wider community. Since there's been no false death threat for them to bandy around like NotabilityPatrol did, I can't justify blocking them with current evidence (And, frankly, I'm surprised I didn't get chastised for that one), and I'm too involved, though I managed to get past that for NotabilityPatrol. But this really does need more eyes looking at it; Bluecanary99 clearly does not have the wiki's best interests in mind with their edits. --Golbez (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference material:

• The TBTL AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too Beautiful to Live (2nd nomination)
• The COIN entry: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#COI_-_Editor_Not_Revealing_IRL_Identity.2C_Possibly_Editing_Articles_About_Himself
• The Wikiquette alert against Bluecanary: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Bluecanary99

Please note, I have pleaded with Golbez, Nathalmad and other members of this group to please leave me alone. I have pledged to them - repeatedly in many different forums - not to edit TBTL or Luke Burbank entries, nor to even view them, in the future and I have apologized for filing a COI against Golbez' colleague Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#COI_-_Editor_Not_Revealing_IRL_Identity.2C_Possibly_Editing_Articles_About_Himself. (Note in this COIN I did the best I could do to draw admin attention to what was then a spiraling out-of-control situation by noting - prior to listing my evidence - an "Appeal for Higher Level Action", noting that - based on 4 hours spent reviewing the edit and talk logs of the first AfD a 'noise machine' would likely be started against me in retribution for the COIN, which did occur ... the only thing I feel guilty for is not understanding just what I would be put through or how fast it would happen. Now, it appears, I'm "in the thick of it.")

I know I got them upset by appealing for help with Arakunem - User_talk:Arakunem#COI_Complaint_Against_Nathalmad - mistakingly thinking he was a mod and could help me and that backfired. I have apologize for raising this issue many times as well.

When I made my initial edits I did not know these were "defended" pages and didn't know what I was getting into. I am not any of the various other users I have been variously accused of being in the last couple days - there are several HUNDRED accounts created "within 27 hours" of any editor ever being banned - I very much invite checkuser or anything else to confirm this; in fact, I would plead not to deny me this before stringing me up. I'm at a total loss of what to do. I just can't deal with the "noise machine" of transparently coordinated "flood complaining" by this group of editors anymore. As a single editor I don't have the time or ability to be in a constant state of defense. Since my apologies and repeated pledges not to edit - or even view - the offending pages have met with no luck I have a strong suspicion my time is up and, if an admin can't be found who'll agree to ban me, Golbez will just do it himself as he told me he would do on my Talk page and elsewhere at a time that suited him.

In my last moments here all I can do is apologize one final time to Golbez, Nathalmad and the others, reiterate my pledge not to make any future attempt to edit "Too Beautiful to Live" or "Luke Burbank" nor to view them, and hope for the best. Golbez, I plead with you, Nathalmad, etc. - again - to please accept my apology and pledge and let us move on. I want to be able to participate in wikipedia and I HONESTLY did not know these were defended pages when I nominated "Too Beautiful to Live" for deletion. I know I was warned by other contributors who were afraid of participating in the AfD discussion there and I should have paid heed.

Humbly Awaiting My Fate - Bluecanary99 (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have notified the user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 01:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but you may notice the previous edit was of me doing the same. --Golbez (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems we made the notification edit in the same minute of each other. My apologies for not noticing it first. Basket of Puppies 01:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I became involved after replying to the above named COI report. Bluecanary later asked for help on my Talk page. My advice there was for him to completely disengage. His reply was that an offline "arrangement" had been reached whereby he would take some course of action in return for "guaranteeing his protection". These actions were apparently, judging by his contribs after the fact, to go through various articles and add or replace references to Luke Burbank and the show. I'm a bit concerned by accusations of stalking and phrases like "guaranteeing my protection", though I can't find any on-wiki evidence of such. My advice to Bluecanary still stands: Disengage completely. Just walk away from any and all these pages. You don't have to bargain for your "protection", just stay clear of these areas and ignore any "noise" that comes from them. For this board, if the SSP is not to be pursued, I would ask that we drop it here as well. This user seems to be in a full-on panic over this, and I think it best if all sides just disengage completely. Arakunem^Talk 14:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The panic, I can assure you, is false, a put-on to attempt to engender sympathy (yet does the opposite, since they spend paragraphs on begging to be left alone, then punch the lion again).

I just noticed something very, very interesting. In my time here, only two users have ever consistently misspelled my name as "Golbrez": NotabilityPatrol, and Bluecanary99. I consider this valid enough evidence to consider them the same person, which means Bluecanary99 is block-evading. --Golbez (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

See, Arakunem. Anything ... anything will be found and used as justification for what Golbez decided the minute I filed the COI against Nathalmad: site ban. That's why I gave up on trying to defend myself. I'm going to be banned for an innocuous typo that other users have made but I'm guilty because I did it "consistently" ... even though no logs are provided showing the dozen or so times I did made this horrible typo. If it's not that, I'm sure another similarity or something can be found to justify a ban. Golbez, "The Lion", whatever you prefer I call you - just ban me. I already told you, Nathalmad and the others I give up and surrender. I don't care anymore. I just want it to be over. Please just stop it. Please. Bluecanary99 (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING and a new RFC

Moved to Wikipedia talk:OUTING § WP:OUTING and a new RFC

This discussion, which resolved around whether or not WP:OUTING applied to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody has been moved to a more appropriate venue by User:Ikip. Protonk (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
“ "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted one's own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia oneself. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently." ” Over the past few years I have seen WP:OUTING being unevenly applied. For example, a certain editor I talked with a few months ago, no one can mention his old name. In other cases, editors regularly out other editors with no repercussions. Take for example [57] posted today. A Nobody has repeatedly asked editors to stop calling him by his previous user name. There was some real world harassment when he used this name, which DGG is aware of, and which I am sure that A Nobody can share with other admins on request. Protonk, one of the 3 authors of this RFC wrote: "The WP:Right to vanish thing isn't too important. It plays a role in the RfC insofar as it marks the watershed of past bad behavior, but the purpose of this RfC is not to rap his knuckles about that issue." [58] I requested that the creators of this RFC to remove this section.[59] Protonk, responded, saying "Why we chose not to is explained in the RfC. I'm prepared to have a discussion about this, but the cat is out of the proverbial bag."[60] I asked Protonk to give me the "the cat is out of the proverbial bag." policy. i.e. you can out someone when everyone knows their old name. I think in the previous case, like many cases here, this editor has powerful friends, like an arbcom member to enforce his OUTING concerns, A Nobody doesn't so the outing continues. I just removed this section, and I would like editors comments on this.[61] Ikip (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC) I have reverted. OUTING applies to real-world consequences, not a change of an online handle. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Okay, that may need to be clarified. How can this be dealt with: "It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found." I have posted a notice about this on WP:OUTING and have contacted two arbcoms with Oversight ability who have special knowledge about these two cases I mention above. Ikip (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC) "An editor who has requested a change in username"—did A Nobody request a username change (keeping all the old edits under the new name), or is it just a new account? Evil saltine (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Are we planning on notifying affected parties? Protonk (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC) It seems silly to suggest that "outing" a user's previous handle is WP:OUTING, particularly when 1) the previous username contains no personal information, 2) it's common knowledge and 3) the user retains so many - I'll go for individual as a polite way of saying it - character traits that anyone vaguely familiar with the old account would be able to identify the new one. Ironholds (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Not commenting on the specifics of this case, but I think the need to have a discussion about agreed norms concerning outing is clear, as illustrated by the recent disagreement surrounding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Pusspuss (2nd nomination) and related pages.  Skomorokh  03:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC) One point I should make. Once the RfC is closed, it can be courtesy blanked. As I noted on the RfC and the RfC talk page the reason the old username is used is to eliminate confusion and offer a clear delineation of actions. Once it is no longer needed then the rationale for showing it disappears. I am also willing to {{hat}} it if there is consensus to do so on the RfC talk page. Protonk (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC) The explanation is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/A_Nobody#Description and the response to the original concerns are Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/A_Nobody#WP:OUTING there. Protonk (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Odd page move by admin - support for reversion sought

Hi - got an odd one. Admin User:Proteus renamed a page without discussion or consensus at Tom Denning, Baron Denning. One of the regulars at that page is a bit upset as a result.

What makes it odd is that the admin had never edited that article before as far as I can tell. Also there was an extensive discussion where consensus for the pre-move name was achieved seven months ago. Talk:Tom_Denning,_Baron_Denning#Changes_and_move.

Attempts have been made to contact the admin involved but he's been offline for four days. Hence User:Ironholds contacted me and asked me to revert. I don't see any problem, but thought I'd run it past the community before taking action. Manning (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion on the talk page, or anything in the history, to imply any upset with the move. If a discussion is needed it should be taking place on the article talk page. Also it seems that the argument being used against the move on Proteus's talk page really has nothing to do with the move as the article was named in that style previously anyway. Canterbury Tail talk 12:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that there was a clear consensus for the previous name and this was changed without any discussion is substantial. Manning (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it needs to be discussed on the article's talk page. If there is consensus, then move it back. At this point we have yes an undiscussed move, but also only one regular editor speaking against it. Doesn't seem like intervention is needed at this point. Canterbury Tail talk 12:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

While there is nothing on the talkpage noting upset at the move, there are two examples on the talkpage noting the consensus for the pre move title. The one from 2005 might be considered deprecated if not for the one noted by Manning from earlier this year, which confirmed it. Notwithstanding lack of a link to the upset, the admin clearly was unaware of consensus and the move should be reverted. Another discussion may then be restarted by the admin over what policy they believe backs their action - in other words, I think this is a matter of WP:BRD. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was just putting in my 2 cents. I don't think the consensus was particularly pronounced, but fair enough. Canterbury Tail talk 13:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I appreciate the input from both of you. Cheers Manning (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it to be a major issue, since BRD happens all the time. As ever, when I commnt here, it is just my 2cents also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Creation of page apparently broke citations

Resolved

I have no idea what the deal is with all of the <ref> tags at envelope (mathematics), but instead of being footnotes, they now all link to the newly created page Help talk:Cite messages. Could someone please fix this? I am willing to bet large sums of money that this article is not the only one affected by the problem. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, that page looks fine for me, but Fighting in ice hockey is displaying the behaviour you describe on my browser. Resolute 13:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an urgent problem. Many of the articles listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Help_talk:Cite_messages&limit=500 appear to be affected! Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I just tried something with the envelope article – can you try looking at it now and see if it made a difference, as it did to me. – B.hotep •talk• 14:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That fixed the one (just a null edit?). Now there are many more to fix, though:

• Lacrosse
• Slang
• Servius Tullius
• Narwhal
• Kurdistan Workers' Party

And so on. About half of all articles listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Help_talk:Cite_messages&limit=500 . Is anyone up to processing these as well? Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually unsure as to what the problem was, because I'm not seeing anything wrong on any of those pages. Perhaps it was a temporary glitch, and you just need to clear your cache? Odd. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My fault. I was centralizing some talk pages and goofed by redirecting MediaWiki:Cite references link suffix to that talk page. I found it and deleted it pretty quickly, but I knew it was going to be noticed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Aha! You got away with it as far as some people running indeterminate browsers/settings are concerned! ;) Resolved (I think) – B.hotep •talk• 14:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I knew it was going to be noticed, so I am prepared for my trout slapping. The job queue is not that large, so it should clear itself up without any "fixing". If you still see it, purging is resolving the problem. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive and extremely uncivil editor

Resolved

 – Blocked for one week by MastCell. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I’m not sure I’m in the right place, but I’d like to report a very disruptive and uncivil user. User Die4Dixie has violated several Wikipedia policies within 24hrs. Everything started with him deleting some sources and disputing whether Augusto Pinochet was a fascist dictator or not. Several sources were presented to back up that claim (9 in fact). Within a few hours another user (Frank Pais) besides me joined the discussion on the talk page. Sometime later (within the same day) Die4Dixie left this message (in Spanish) on Frank Pais’s talk page: De hecho, estoy harto de tus pendejadas. Lástima que la gloriosa operación no fuera más exitosa. Si fuera el caso, no tedríamos tener esta plática tan asquerosa. Y lástima que la madre te parió no se desapareciera. [62]

I’m a native Spanish speaker, and this is a rough translation (which can be corroborated by any other native speaker), and the sentence in brackets is mine, so that you get the context of the vicious attack.

In fact, I am very tired of your bullshit. It’s a pity that the glorious operation [to kill leftist in Latin America] was not more successful. If that was the case, we wouldn’t be having this revolting talk. And its pity that the mother gave birth to you did not disappeared.

Right after that, Die4dixie began canvassing for support [63], [64], [65]. Oddly enough, he now claims that he support the inclusion of the word fascist [66] but does so in a pointy way. He has added the Fascism portal into the article, when such an addition is not standard for a leader considered to be fascist. See, Mussolini or Hitler for that matter. I advised him that he might as well add Pinochet into the portal itself as there’s a section for “Persons”. He refuses to do so, discuss or otherwise seek consensus and instead engages in an edit war. [67], [68], [69]. All of this has happened with a 24hr timeframe. Please advice on what to with this very disruptive and uncivil editor. Thanks. Likeminas (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Some might question your civility as well.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 15:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Some might, but after a random sample of recent contributions, I'm not jumping in that direction. I seconded the 3RR warning on D4D's page, but they haven't edited for an hour.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Bedford I'm not sure what you're refering to, but I can assure you I'm not even close to violating as many policies as Die4Dixie has. Likeminas (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan he gets away with such a vicious personal attack? Likeminas (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Likeminas has been a voice of reason during edits to the Pinochet article and elsewhere. His civility cannot be reasonably called into question. Dix4Dixie is another story altogether. His conduct has included personal attacks of a particularly vicious nature. Frank Pais (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the only adequate reaction to a slur like the one cited by Likeminas is an indefinite block, to be lifted only if and when a credible apology is received.  Sandstein  16:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Tend to strongly agree. He should be blocked.Simonm223 (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, guys, it was Die4Dixie that stated the slur above, not Likeminas. Assuming that Sandstein and Simonm are speaking about the correct user, then I agree that a block is necessary and add my voice, for any admin trying to determine consensus here. GlassCobra 16:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I can verify the translation of the comment as accurate, as well. Pretty egregious civility violation and a block looks warranted. Shereth 16:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sandstein, GlassCobra, and Shereth. I have a pretty high bar for block-worthy personal attacks, but that comment was well over the line in any reasonable setting, much less in one that aspires to civility and collaboration. To Die4Dixie's credit, he did strike the comment; on the other hand, I don't know if that's sufficient for something so vile and hateful. More to the point, Die4Dixie has followed it up with continued edit-warring, now disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

I've placed a 1-week block. I'm open to having it lifted if there's some evidence that Die4Dixie realizes how inappropriate his comment was. A commitment to stop edit-warring and pursue dispute resolution would be an added plus; there is a reasonable argument that Pinochet's policies should be described rather than labeled, and it may convince people if made reasonably, but these are absolutely the wrong means to pursue it. MastCell ^Talk 16:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I understood perfectly who we were talking about.Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I offer an apology.

Resolved

 – IP evading block; blocked.  Sandstein  19:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I offer an apology for this edit.

[70]

Sometimes AFD debates get heated, and people have episodes of uncontrollable rage. Looking back on it now, I don't believe that all the things I said in this edit are true. In the future I make a commitment for all those who edit from this IP address that we will try and control ourselves, and when we find ourselves becoming emotional in an ADF debate to just walk away from it. I understand now that it is wrong of me to edit when I am on the verge of a nervous break down from Wikistress, because at these times is is difficult for me to be WP:CIVIL. What I should have done would have been to recognize that I was becoming irrational and take a break from editing. I would add that by the principle WP:IAR, that the WP:RBI policy should not apply to this particular edit.

I believe I have the right to do this now since the block on this IP address has timed out.

Make edits not WikiDrama

Thanks for your time.

130.86.73.198 (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear that. But the IP who made that edit was blocked for block evasion by TeamQuaternion (talk · contribs), a sock of indef-blocked Hobojaks (talk · contribs). So instead of continuing to evade your block, please log in as Hobojaks and make an unblock request with that account, after reading WP:GAB. In the meantime, your IP is now blocked for block evasion.  Sandstein  19:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sarah777 again

Resolved

 – It was a reasonable page move, and the disambig page has been moved appropriately. Nothing to see, move along... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Following on from the previous ANI thread a few days ago, where it was deemed that no administrative action was necessary, the user has continued to move M2 motorway to M2 motorway (Great Britain), despite a RM discussion being in progress. This is a blatant ignorance towards process, unless some sort of admin intervention occurs she will be allowed to continue in this disruptive point proving process. The RM discussion has been ongoing for only 3 days now, and there may be a consensus forming for a move, but there is certainly no consensus as to where to yet. This behaviour is highly disruptive and needs to be stopped. Jeni ^(talk) 19:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Whilst i support a move in this case, the RM process is still ongoing and there was no reason for Sarah to take action by moving it herself. This is really becoming an annoyance when users move pages with out agreement, because its impossible for things to be moved back fully because other articles are created in their place. Meaning we have to get pages deleted or request an admin to clean up the mess.

Can move "privileges" not be taken away from certain editors who make such a mess? The other night M4 motorway and M3 motorway came under attack aswell, this is not an isolated case and its not just Sarah. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've already warned editors that if they persistent in moving M# pages without a discussion that they will be blocked. Black Kite 20:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Now the user has resorted to removing speedy deletion templates on pages she has created herself. [71] [72] Jeni ^(talk) 19:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've moved the dab page to M2 motorway since it was in the wrong place. If there is consensus to move the page back because the discussion had not reached a conclusion, then feel free to revert me. Black Kite 20:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Has Sarah777 been informed of this discussion? Jack forbes (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. This is far from resolved, her continued disruption needs admin attention. Watch out M3 motorway, logic dates that is next on her list to disrupt ;-) Jeni ^(talk) 20:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes.

OK. Jack forbes (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki to az:Alban xaç daşları in article Khachkar

Users from Armenia Taron Saharyan (talk · contribs), MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs), Sardur (talk · contribs), Serouj (talk · contribs), Meowy (talk · contribs), Aptak (talk · contribs) and guest which vandalized some articles about Azerbaijan with IP 67.84.101.196 (talk · contribs) in recent 1 month maniacally removing the interwiki to Azerbaijani wikipedia in article Khachkar. The fact of the matter is that in Azerbaijan khachkars, i.e. stones with cross icon on it identifying as "Albanian cross stones" (Template:Lang-az; Alban khach dashlari). But this guys think that there is no Albanian khackars at all. Let's face it, their opinions can't change the fact that this objects calling Albanian. But they don't want to seize that. So, dear administrators, please, explain them that removing interwikis for no special reason is inadmissible. Wertuose (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• The page is now protected. I warned you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive560#Khachkar, Wertuose, and in the weeks since you still haven't gone to the talk page to discuss this point, even though others have. Discuss, don't edit war. Uncle G (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on Template:Politics of Madagascar

I forgot to mention yesterday, above mentioned IP adress (192.18.43.225) is also the source of vandalism on Template:Politics of Madagascar, and i think that some action must be taken to stop this vandalism also. --Иван Богданов (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

192.18.43.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is in an edit war with you at Template:Politics of Madagascar. That's not really a vandalism issue, you two just disagree about the content of the template. I've protected the template to stop the edit war; in the meantime see WP:DR for advice on how to resolve the dispute.  Sandstein  21:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed the IP user of this discussion, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 22:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Me, my huggle edits and this IP

Invovled parts:

Gsmgm (talk) and 88.112.189.85 (talk)

Problem:

On twentieth of september 2009 I using WP:Huggle did this edit [73] twenty minutes later 88.112.189.85 enters my talk and started arguing, his first post was by my standard quite offensive: Quote

Trigger happy guy, only after increasing revert/edit counts. See comment below "I don't know what program you're using, but it is clearly not functioning properly" The refered comment below is on my talk page my addition.

End quote

I therefore present him with a 4im for personal attack with explanation of my edit. 3 hours later he again tries to reason with me, albeit with aggressive edit summaries. An hour and five edits later my talk end up with a case of shouting [74]. The next day I present him with a formal apology which was left unanswered to yet. I started a self scrutiny of my huggle edits on the same day, the results can be found here my sandbox talk last section. Gsmgm (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Since this is the Administrator Incident Noticeboard - what exactly would you like an administrator to do? What action are you looking for? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I will say that your explanation of your revert on 88.112.189.85's talk page does not strike me as satisfactory: "Your edit appeared in huggle as a removal of content and therefor under Wikipedia:Vandalism constituted vandalism". You're justifying your revert based on the fact that Huggle picked it up? A little insignificant ^{talk to me!} _(please!) 22:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You do realise that a self-calculated error rate of 18% is massive (that's almost 20%, or 1 in 5, incorrect reversions)? Everyone makes mistakes, but it does appear that you might be going a bit too fast. Slow down, and double check your reverts before making them, or you risk rollback being removed. Ale_Jrb^talk 22:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't understand the sentence where you seemed to gain satisfaction from it. And it's obvious in some of the reverts you simply haven't seen what the other editor is doing. In the one that started this, the editor had added an entire row to the table, not removed any content, in one of the others, the editor had corrected a spelling to include the necessary diacritics (the one you labelled death by wikipedia), in another which you dismissed as unsourced they had corrected an unsourced date of 1520 to an unsourced date of 1519 to make the subject's age match the text which said she was 15. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

uncivil editors/vandalism charges against me

I edited Government of India, where a wrong info is found in the first sentence: "officially referred to as the Union Government". I corrected the sentence to "officially referred to as the Union of India" because the constitution of India says so, which is also my reference. The name is primarily in use in the Indian supreme court. Now two different editors charged me of vandalism! and i got 2 different warnings on my talk page. diff diff2 Please help. --91.130.91.48 (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be acting in good faith, so describing your edits as vandalism would thus be improper. Because of this, I have put a notice on the talk pages of Student7 (talk · contribs) and BilCat (talk · contribs) reminding them that good faith edits shouldn't be termed "vandalism".

However, those editors may have other, valid reasons for reverting your edits. If I were you I'd query Talk:Government of India and ask why your edits were reverted before editing the article further. Gabbe (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)