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

Umpteenth edit war in Gibraltar

Entire discussion moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Gibraltar to centralize discussion and to free up space on ANI. MuZemike

Request interaction ban on Drolz09

Entire discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Drolz09 to centralize discussion and to free up space here. MuZemike

Incivility by User:TJ Spyke

• TJ Spyke (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

I had a discussion on mine and his talk page about an earlier good faith edit which I undid (See here: [1]), early in the discussion he did hint towards some incivility [2] and I did discuss what I thought the main element of the conversation was before and after his incivility and then he blatantly violated WP:CALM while I was still trying to keep it civil [3] and then he called me an "ASS" before he cracked a Sarah Palin joke which I believe it to have an uncivil meaning, he's had numerous warnings about uncivil behaviour, as well as edit warring which he was recently blocked for if you check his block log [4], I believe this to be just another case involving some of his immature antics and he obviously hasn't learned from his unblock on September 1, 2007 which reads "User agrees to conditions set out on his talk page and on Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. Further disruption to result in an indefinite block", I believe its time for an indefinite block as he's clearly caused more disruption and anymore disruption was supposed to result in an indefinite block. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 03:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse indef block - Final civility/edit warring warning was given last month after this ANI thread. He was just blocked for edit warring a few days ago. Enough already. iMatthew ^talk at 03:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree as well sadly. I've had numerous discussions with him about his failure to accept changes, I feel he is just causing a disruption now. I once looked up to him, but now noticing all the problems that have resulted from him, I see he'll never change. I'm not saying I am perfect, but sometimes I even know when to let things go. He obviously goes by his own rules, and most times they just cause more problems than needed.--WillC 04:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Will, I think you are doing this simply because you don't agree with me on many things. TJ Spyke 00:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse/support as well given the block log (17 blocks, including a couple indefs and one block from just a few days ago) and warnings. Such additional comments as "expect by people too lazy to check the capitalization" from today come off as needlessly hostile if not baiting (notice the others oppose there without making the suggestion that those who support are somehow "lazy"). Plus in such recent discussions as this, berating everyone who dares argue to keep with repeated WP:ITSCRUFT (not even policy/guideline based) comments seems a bit too antagonistic as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The YouTube comment wasn't aimed at anybody on Wikipedia, I was referring to people in the media since often they don't bother to get capitalization for tech stuff right before they print articles (it's annoying reading a article and see the writer constantly write "Ipod", for example). All of my replies in the AFD have been civil, so I don't see what you are trying to do with those. TJ Spyke 00:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Unsubstantiated - Sept 1, 2007 was more than two years ago. The current discussion is heated, but barely passes the noticable level under WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. It is certainly not disruption. If you have evidence of further personal attacks or disruption or gross incivility please provide diffs of those. We need much much more evidence to justify indef blocking someone who's a longtime contributor. Please don't bring cases unless you have sufficient evidence ready to go... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Further this - the block log is numerous prior to the Sept 2007 indef and then parole. However, since then, he's only had two - 3RR blocks in June and a few days ago in December. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose indef block Per GWH above. I don't see where this rises to the level of indefinite blockage. Yeah, this stuff is a bit incivil, but I don't see where we should hold a 2-year old block against TJ Spyke here. Other than 2 editwar blocks, he seems to have avoided any trouble in the past two years. --Jayron32 05:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, there was the incivility final warning from last month, but he's behaved since then other than these two. Even if this is a violation of that final warning, if that's all that has happened since the final warning then he's really only in line for a 24h block (beginning of the block escalation chain) as he hasn't been blocked for this recently. And it's not clear to me that this is justification for a block at all, even with a final warning a month ago. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

See this shouldn't be entirely about his incivility. There is also his endless edit wars over some important and some trivial things. His refusal to agree to a consensus. Plus his harassment on AFDs, including the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WWE Raw Guest Hosts. Him being blocked 2 years ago is still a problem. No matter what the time frame, this just comes to show he never learned from those many blocks in the pasted. Plus he just being blocked a few days ago and I've already seen that he went straight back to edit warring over list formats after it ended. His incivility was even discussed just a month and 12 days ago. In this archived discussion, plenty of proof is given to show that he has had enough time to stop his incivility. That discussion did not result in a block because he agreed to change his ways. That being so recent, clearly he has not. With all these disruptions present, I don't see a reason to not block him.--WillC 06:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

2 out of 3 admins responding so far seem to disagree with blocking, on the evidence submitted so far. You need to make a better case than this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify that somewhat. The proposed jump to an immediate indef is definitely clouding this discussion. I believe that given the evidence here, an indef is simply completely inappropriate, and it was inappropriate to ask for one.

The question of whether he's misbehaving to some degree or another, violating the final warning from last month, whether these recent comments are sufficiently uncivil as to be actionable - these are different questions than "should we indef him right now".

Jumping straight from a warning to indef - absent obvious disruption/vandalism only abuse or something stunningly horrible - is moar dramaz pls - not a responsible approach. If you want to make a case that he's done wrong here enough to justify normal blocking - for 24 h, 48 h, whatever - that's a far easier thing to do, and not obviously a mistake under the circumstances.

If someone would like to restart this conversation from that standpoint and argue the case for enough abuse post-final-warning for a short, normal block, then that would be a good next step.

I do not have enough time this evening to conduct a complete examination myself. Some other admin may - or you can provide us more appropriate levels of detail to justify it (to me, Jayron, others).

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The complainer, User:Afkatk (renamed Afro), seems to have lost. Complaining about someone is incivility. We must have accountability. In America, there is no accountability, which is why lawsuits are rampant and causes all kind of trouble. If the consensus is to block TJSpike, then do it. If the consensus is against it, then Afro should be blocked for at least a week to prevent another disruption of drama and nuisance complaints. Only when there is accountability, will drama be reduced. JB50000 (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support blocking User:Afkatk/Afro if the current consensus continues. JB50000 (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"Complaining about someone is incivility"? Yikes. I'm no fan of our current civility standards, but that's got to be one of the most pernicious statements on civility I've ever seen made outright on-wiki. I see nothing in WP:CIV to support this statement; in fact, it directly contravenes that policy:

From WP:CIV (relevant phrase in bold): To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated.

This is the sort of statement that can be used to justify overzealous enforcement of standards not applicable to the given situation, or to skew sanction discussions in directions they weren't ever meant to go. Please, in the light of what WP:CIV actually says, please reconsider this stance. Thanks...GJC 20:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm still undecided on this per the discussion above. However, can TJ Spyke or anyone else explain this? MuZemike 09:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

JB50000, I ask what has Afkatk done wrong? Reporting a user for constant violations of civil, 3RR, etc. If that is such a crime, then everyone in this entire site should be blocked. JB50000, are you not at fault for what you just said. You are complaining over this report. Mind you, this discussion is still in its early stages. MuZemike, it looks to be a discussion over formats. Something TJ has discussion with 4 different editors and edit warred with 5. Yet even after being shown changes has been done with format, he goes ahead and starts up another edit war.--WillC 09:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

So far two-thirds of people have been opposed and only one-third for block. If Afkatk (who hides the username with the name Afro) calls for a permanent block and the censensus is against that, then that person should receive disciplinary action. It's like if you sue someone friviously and lose, you have to pay the winner's legal fees, at least that is the way in the UK (but not in the US, which is why there is a lawyer problem in America). If Afkatk/Afro called for a 3 month block and was wrong, then that is excusable but to call for a permanent block and call for it wrongly (according to the consensus), then action must be taken. This is why this noticeboard is flooded with complaints. People can complain and don't have to take responsibility for their complaints. I am not against Atkatk. What I said in the beginning was to block TJ if consensus supported it but to take disciplinary action against Atkatk/Afro is consensus was that no block was taken. If a short block is the consensus, then do that and Akatk/Afro's complaint is validated. JB50000 (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes 2/3rds do seem against me but that still does not make any justification for blocking me, I don't see in what universe of logic it makes sense to block someone because they've brought an incident here. Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 10:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

People have asked for more evidence, and I can not give that at the moment since I don't know where anymore is, though I am sure it exists. I would rather TJ not be blocked out of the kindness of my heart, however, his constant disruptions have turned my hand. I would like for more users who know TJ to get involved in this discussion. Would anyone mind if I was to contact WP:PW, the project which is primarily participates, about this discussion, to allow more users to give their opinion?--WillC 10:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

WillC, look at that diff more closely. You may have missed something in there which was why I brought that diff up. MuZemike 17:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Other than a few insults, all I see is a format discussion. Not sure what exactly you are referring to though.--WillC 18:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"ASSumming"? MuZemike 20:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• TJ Spyke has quite a history of problematic behaviour but does seem to have been better lately. Given the history a block is probably warranted, and I would have trouble knowing when to expire such a block given past history, but it's surely not time for the banhammer here. I'd say we need to talk to TJ Spyke and find out why this particular issue has caused such a problem. I've suggested to Afro that xe seek a mediator as the present debate does not seem to be heading anywhere good. The root is what looks like a good faith content dispute so I don't see any reason why mediation can't fix it. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Since the unblock in 2007, there have been quite a few incidents, including at least one admin board interest per month this season:
  • October 2009: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#TJ_Spyke and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#User:TJ_Spyke_using_wikicleaner_to_bypass_redirects_contrary_to_WP:R2D
  • November 2009: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive576#Incivilty_from_TJ_Spyke
  • December 2009: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:TJ_Spyke_reported_by_User:Afkatk_.28Result:24_hours_.29 and of course this current thread
• Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment about TJ Spyke's block log. Most of the blocks were placed by Alkivar, who was desysopped in an arbitration case with his behavior towards TJ Spyke a significant part of why he was desysopped. So perhaps it would be prudent to take all the blocks Alkivar instated against TJ with a grain of salt. 96.244.150.95 (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. Per above. If this disruptive behavior isn't going to stop, then the user should be blocked. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ordinarily I'd agree but here we see a long-standing pattern of problem behaviour, a significant period of evident reform, and then what looks like a slide towards recidivism. I think we should try some kind of parole first before we simply give up on the guy. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because he wasn't banned for two years doesn't mean he was reformed. There has been at least 4 ANI discussions about him (besides the ones linked above) just in the past few months. here[5] [6] [7][8] are several just from October. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a reason no one bothered to inform me of this discussion so I could defend myself? First, to the first user: I was not trying to b uncivil and I apologize if they thought I was (I don't think I was). I asked him why he was assuming he knew my thought on something and I jokingly asked him if he knew what happens when you assume (the old adage that "when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me"); I wasn't trying to be rude. The Sarah Palin thing wasn't incivil and came after I had to ask him something 3 times before he answered (referring to how Palin always tries to avoid answering questions and instead comments on something unrelated). As for Will's comment about refusing to accept consensus, I stopped doing the activities mentioned in that report. As for my block log, thanks to the IP for pointing that out; the admin who was responsible for most of them (including the indef block) eventually got de-sysopped for his actions torwards me and others. TJ Spyke 00:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Because User talk:TJ Spyke#ANI Notice, wasn't notice enough? and the Sarah Palin crack really wasn't necessary, I still gave you the answer you requested and you responded by being uncivil and cracking an unnecessary joke. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 00:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Indef block Per GWH and above. The links provided show somewhat heated disputes, but nothing that rises to the level of indefinite blockage. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose any block It would appear to me that the crux of this issue is the afore mentioned AfD discussion. A number of people have been badgering TJ (without being uncivil just for the record) and I note that a couple involved - including the OP of this incident - were involved in this. I suggest that TJ has been provoked by the opinion pushing of others, who should perhaps review their own behaviour before having a go at TJ's. As the old saying goes; "It takes two to tango". !! Justa Punk !! 05:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose any block There have been several times that I have disagreed with TJ Spyke (including during an AfD that is currently active). He is firm in his opinions and often blunt. Despite having had several disagreements, however, I have never had any negative interactions with him. A block would be harmful to Wikipedia, as his actions don't justify it, and blocking a productive contributor without just cause makes no sense. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose any block Has done really nothing wrong just trying to prove his points. Also if he gets blocked for these reasons I should be too because i've done this before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtis23 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering the LONG list of warnings on your talkpage, I'm sure TJ appreciates your support, Curtis, lol. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose indef block - At this time. User has demonstrated a pattern of worrisome conduct, but little recently. If the community would like to impose a block for any recent activity, I will support, but I am not aware of any precedent in which a user has been indef blocked after more than a year, after having contributed successfully to the encyclopedia. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm just gonna drop this since obviously consensus for what it seems is against any type of block against TJ (at least what I can make out) so I don't see any type of reason to continue this discussion, sorry if I've wasted anyones time. Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 10:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:DBaba

DBaba (talk · contribs) in this edit on the talk page of Cave of the Patriarchs massacre is accusing me of being rascist/nationalistic, running a cabal, harassing, and being POV. And all of that after I worked it all out with another editor there, due to both of us being civil and sticking to the rules of Wikipedia, as that same section testifies. DBaba seems to have a serious bias here, as well as a problem with neutrally assessing my person. I have informed him of this discussion here. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with these characterizations of what I've had to say. Debresser's activity continues to trouble me, and I find that this is just an alternative means of obstruction he has resorted to. DBaba (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your viscious and baseless attack compared to the discussion preceding it says it all. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem a seriously sticky attack. Is that all there is, or has he made other statements you find objectionable? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That is all, mam. Frankly, I find that more than enough. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

My previous post got removed somehow. It ran like this:

DBaba continues on Talk:Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre#Mediation calling people by unacceptable names. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is DBaba's post in full:

"Debresser, I find that your contributions are consistently as ethnonationalist as you seem to think you can get away with. It troubles me that you would attack Zero0000's contributions as POV, when you have racist revisionists working over the page to suggest the massacre was justified as a preemptive strike; that you have nothing to say about that, and only harass serious and neutral editors, and the comments accompanying your edits have frequently been blatantly wrong or incoherent, and that you've been blanking text as "not important" despite its being cited when it doesn't suit you personally, all of these elements lead me to ask you to please stop interfering. I requested comment to get away from this sort of ethnonationalist activism, not to invite more. DBaba (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)"

Hope this helps. DBaba, my experience is you're generally a pretty good guy, but there's a problem with calling other editors racist. Remember the fiasco on Nanking Massacre a while ago? I was just being stupid, but you and User:Flyingtiger were convinced I was a Japanese negationist. Try and assume good faith of Debresser. ALI ^{nom nom} 01:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

E.g. If I remove a sentence or paragraph, it is either unsourced, or irrelevant. And I am willing to defend any my decision to do so. If User:DBaba has any specific problems he could have raised them on the talk page, as another editor has done. In view of my edits, it seems unjust to assume I have a POV agenda. In fact, I have made edits and comments to this article and its talk page that are contrary to what I would have liked, based on the facts and a neutral way of representing them. Calling editing - "interfering", is plain ridiculous. Especially since I am not what you would call a "newbie" on Wikipedia, and have numerous edits to my name, including many on pages related to Judaism. In short, User:DBaba seems to have a bias here, both in regard with the article as with me personally, and he has a very unpleasant way of expressing it. I think a civility warning is the least he should receive. Debresser (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are six instances of Debresser using the Undo function to remove cited and neutral text, all from this same article, in the space of one week. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

I do not peg him as actually participating in any FBI-designated terrorist group, as is apparently the case with some of my other foils in this area, but this hasn't stopped him from working fruitfully to the same end: blanking factual and cited information, with the claim that it is "not important". I am troubled by this and I am troubled that he still does not understand what he has done wrong; and I believe he is being manipulative when he suggests I am "calling people by unacceptable names", or that I have been vicious.

I also think he and I can work this out without any help from outside, and that his choice to come here to seek sanction against me is a stunt which further demonstrates political activism on his part. And I apologize for calling him an ethnonationalist, which only served to change the subject from how awful and POV his editing has been, as well as being needless and an inefficient method of bringing him into the light. DBaba (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. But you see, you are doing it again! Now you are accusing me of coming here as "a stunt". You just don't seem to know what Wikipedia:Assume good faith is about... As to my removals of "cited and neutral text", please see the talk page that at least part of it is considered POV by some, or is indeed plain irrelevant to this article. These are content issues that you should discuss on the talk page, not here. But your failure to apply WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, now those have to be brought here. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, being that he calls experienced Wikipedia editors "participating in any FBI-designated terrorist group", perhaps it is wiser to just block this guy altogether? Debresser (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Is your objection to the suggestion that they participate in the Jewish Defense League, or to calling the JDL an "FBI-designated terrorist group"? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, is anybody reading this? Debresser (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

When you start off Talk:Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre#Mediation with (and I'll quote) "all edits by User:Zero are POV down to their minutest details", most admins are going to ignore both of you (or block both of you). You can decide which way I should go. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Please notice that although I personally feel that was the truth, I factually admitted I should not have said so. And I did so in the best way possible: I undid my edits to the article and tweaked other things. I also admitted in this edit that I had previously been overly hasty in editing the article. DBaba to the contrary, seems to be steadfast in his opinions. Debresser (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've collapsed the mediation section as it's just a poisoned well and nothing good can come from it. There's plenty of conduct that's not productive but I'm not interested in playing the who was the first to be uncivil game. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you seriously mean to say that you put saying that an editor has a POV on one level with saying that he is racist and participates in an FBI-designated terrorist group? Especially since he wrote this after the content issue was already resolved, and his edit could have no meaningfull purpose. Debresser (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Jojhutton

In early December, User:Jojhutton began removing "United States" (both the link and the text) from articles, primarily geographical articles about cities, townships, et cetera, but also from biographical and other articles. He was quickly questioned about this on his talk page, and in the ensuing discussions he often cited WP:PLACE, sometimes referring to WP:PLACE#United States. He was informed again and again that this guideline is about naming conventions, and that nowhere in that guideline (or any other policy or guideline that has been identified so far) is there a call for the removal of "United States" from the infoboxes or bodies of articles. The principle stated by many opposing editors (including myself) has been that in an international encyclopedia, articles about people and things in the United States should not assume that the reader knows which country is involved, but should specify the country consistently. However, he has doggedly continued to remove this information from articles (albeit a small number of articles thus far), even after a public discussion at the Village pump. His practice, when questioned about this on his talk page, has been to archive discussions using the "hat" template, so as to "close" the discussions, thus indicating that he is not willing to discuss any further. So far, it appears that at least 11 editors have questioned him on this on his talk page since December 7, and that no one has supported him; additional editors disagreed with him in the village pump discussion. This seems to have had no effect, as the edits continue through today, December 19. He is a well-established editor, and I believe his edits are typically of good quality. It's just that with this particular issue, he believes that various (non-Wikipedia) manuals of style tell him to remove the country, and he seems determined to do so in spite of opposition from many other editors, lack of support from any other editors, and the lack of supporting Wikipedia policies or guidelines that anyone can find; so far he has not cited any that stand up under scrutiny. What makes it worse is that in these discussions he has had a tendency to accuse other editors of wikilawyering, gaming the system, stalking, et cetera and using sarcasm and insults; and he resorts to these devices very quickly. He accused one editor of stalking after a single isolated revert. I have repeatedly asked him to discuss this and have remained civil throughout; but I'm not sure what else to do, so I am mentioning it here. Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Relevant related discussions:

• in this ANI archive about Jojhutton
• this long section in Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)
• talk:MOS

Toddst1 (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a content dispute that has sparked a minor amount of edit warring and incivility. Forgive me if I'm a little bit green on this particular issue, but as a style / content matter there seems to be no absolute rule or overwhelming consensus to include "United States" in place names within an article and in infoboxes, when the lede has already clearly established that the setting is the United States. Sure there are strong arguments on both sides. The proponents claim it is America-centrism and disrespectful of non-American readers to assume they know something is in America, or to have different rules for American place names that seem to assert that the United States is some kind of default location when the country is unnamed. The opponents claim that articles should be written for clarity, not to encourage equality among nations, and everybody knows which country we're talking about when we say that someplace is a city in California. The outcome of those discussions isn't really relevant. You can't legislate consensus from a guideline page. What's relevant is that consensus is not so clear that choosing one versus the other is anything other than a content choice. Like a lot of style choices (American versus British spelling, punctuation inside versus outside the quotes, citation styles) deference should be paid to status quo, the opinions of regular editors on an article, and consistency among related articles or within a project. Making mass changes or mass reverts just to enforce your favored version is disruptive and can lead to lots of wikidrama. So best not to do this on either side, just stick to the articles you enjoy editing. I sympathize with Jojhutton's frustration, but calling it "stalking" is unduly inflamatory. Technically it is not stalking. Stalking is when you follow someone from one article to another to pursue a grudge. By contrast, noticing one bad edit, then checking up on the editor's other recent activity to see if it's a pattern, is only good wikignoming. The problem here is that Jojhutton's edits are not clearly wrong, so reverting them en masse is provocative. If someone really wants to add, or remove, or link or delink, the country name "United States" from a bunch of article bodies and infoboxes, they need to get a strong prior consensus not only that this is the correct way to go style-wise, but that the mass edits are a good idea. Best to get approval for a semi-automated bot or the like. But this is such a tiny issue. The two editors have been reverting each other to 1RR or maybe 2 on perhaps five or six articles in the past few days. Administrative mediation could be useful, but I don't see anything warranting sanctions here. Just my opinion. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It began as a content dispute, and content is still at the heart of it, but the issue now seems to be a refusal by User:Jojhutton to accept that every time he makes an edit to remove "U.S", someone disputes it. Not always the same editor, so it's not a simple matter of two editors disagreeing. The issue as I see it, is that User:Jojhutton has an opinion that the United States is redundant when discussing a place name for a United States town or city and his contention is that it should be presented as "City/State". He's entitled to his opinion, but his opinion should not and does not carry any more weight than that of any other editor. It has moved from a content dispute because, he has used WP:Place#United States as justification for removal, and although every editor who has commented has said either strongly or weakly that he is misinterpreting that part of the guideline he has dug in his heels, told everyone they are wrong, and has continued to use it as justification. You say, "The problem here is that Jojhutton's edits are not clearly wrong, so reverting them en masse is provocative." I would say that Jojhutton's edits in the face of opposition, and without anything resembling consensus is more provocative. I've been concerned mainly with the use in the infobox, rather than the article body. I've pointed out to him that several infobox instructions explicitly state to use the "City/State/Country" format, with no exception made for "U.S." and I've also given numerous examples of WP:FAs that use this format. I've also pointed out that consensus is not always achieved by a formal discussion, and often consensus is indicated by the fact that something exists, is used commonly over time over a wide area, and has remained without opposition, which is the case for at least the infobox component of this disagreement. His response has been to say that it's very interesting but still completely wrong. Clearly there is some kind of consensus in place to say that the use is at least "acceptable" given that it's used widely, and even in featured articles that have been more closely scrutinised than many articles. He does not need to accept that it is a preferred style, because nobody is suggesting that, but he does need to accept that there is nothing to say it's incorrect, and that editors who choose this style are not wrong. I'm disturbed that he reacts to some editors as "stalkers". That's particularly hostile, and in the case of User talk:Omnedon and you need only look at this user's page to see that editing American geographical articles is a primary interest. I was concerned with this edit at Marilyn Monroe which removed "U.S." from the infobox and added sources with the edit summary "removing original research and adding a ref to support current version" Having "U.S" in the infobox is not original research. This suggests that User:Jojhutton is either unfamiliar with or is misinterpreting what is meant by "original research" or is providing a deliberately misleading edit summary. Neither is acceptable. "United States" was first added to Marilyn Monroe's infobox when the infobox was included with this edit in April 2006. (Admittedly as "Los Angeles, United States" which is not correct either). Since April 2006 this has not been a contentious point, and it is only a contentious point now because one editor has decided it's not appropriate. I believe that due to widespread use, support by infobox template instructions, and the fact the some of Wikipedia's best articles use the country name in the infobox, there is a consensus to say that it is acceptable, and anyone wanting to add this to the infobox should not feel hindered - but there is no such evidence to support the removal. It is currently, as you say, an issue primarily between two editors, and a small issue, but when User:Jojhutton first started this about a week ago, he got a response from several editors who seem to have moved on now that he is not making such widespread edits. I would have too, if not for the Marilyn Monroe edit which shows that he has not accepted the other viewpoint, and has put the change through with a dodgy edit summary. I would hope that is the last time that happens. Rossrs (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it seems not such a big deal to people who have memorized the names of the US states, their postal abbreviation, etc. and who speak English as a first language. Leaving out "United States" (and it has been removed from the lede in some instances) is not a tiny thing: it encourages confusion and can mislead. Believe it or not, not everyone outside the US knows what an Arizona is or that AZ is its postal abbreviation. Some will think AZ means Azerbaijan, CA Canada, and KY Kenya. Without the country name somewhere obvious, we run the risk of misleading international users. I don't think that's encyclopedic. --NellieBly (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that there are those who do not understand that New Mexico is part of the US and not Mexico. MarnetteD | Talk 23:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There would be a not-small number of Americans who don't know that either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This being an English encyclopedia, most people who have learned the language know that California is in the United States. Those who have not can probably figure it out from the first sentence of the lede if the article is written properly, e.g. "City National Bank is an American financial institution headquartered in Los Angeles, California", not "City National Bank is an American financial institution headquartered in Los Angeles, California, US". Anyway, I agree that the arguments are strong on both sides but not unanimous, which makes an isolated edit on the subject a matter of editor discretion, not behavior. If consensus is clear in a particular area (say, articles about airports, or an infobox, where counter to my earlier statement, a small group of editors maintaining that particular template or family of templates can establish consensus for how the location fields are to be used) and an editor violates that after objections, it could cross the line into tendentious editing. Also, edit warring is bad, making accusations in edit summaries is bad, and doing mass bold edits over others' oposition outside of one's normal editing space is bad. Is he on some kind of campaign, or does this just affect articles he's actively editing? If he's minding his own business on a small number of articles and other editors are ganging up on him outside of their normal editing range, that does approach some kind of hounding. I'm reminded of the geocoding fights and date delinking, kind of funny that people get so passionate about the details. It's like, war of the wikignomes! - Wikidemon (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I must point out that I came into this situation after several other editors had already taken issue with Jojhutton's practice of removing "United States" from articles. Those discussions have since been moved into an archive; they started here on 7 December. There were four such discussions which took place (three of which were "archived" with the "hat" template) before I even became aware of the situation. I became involved when some articles on my watchlist were similarly edited some days later; these are articles which I've been involved with in the past and which I watch. Among these were articles for several (but for some reason, not all) townships in Marion County, Indiana, as well as articles for several Indiana towns. For example, here he removed "United States" from Decatur Township, Marion County, Indiana. Because of these edits, I calmly questioned the practice on his talk page like many before me, and was quickly accused of wikilawyering and gaming the system. However, I have not engaged in edit warring with him.

So, this is not simply a content dispute between two editors. Rather, it is part of an ongoing pattern in which at least 10 editors (not including myself) have questioned the practice on his talk page over the last couple of weeks and have been met with the same answers over and over without any resolution or progress at all. The practice itself is not the core issue here; rather, it is the way this particular editor is dealing with the situation. The validity of the reasons he cites has been questioned again and again, but though he has altered his edit summaries, the edits themselves have continued in the same manner throughout the various discussions (albeit on the same small scale as before). Given that everyone involved in the discussions on his talk page has disagreed with him, his determination to continue, combined with his tendency toward sarcasm and accusation and his unwillingness to have discussions, shows clear disregard for any kind of consensus-building. Basically, he seems not to be interested in anyone else's opinions. Consensus is a frequently-discussed concept on Wikipedia, of course, and its application and methods of development are sometimes vexed questions; personally, I think it's easier to define what consensus is not rather than what it is, and it is certainly not ignoring the well-founded objections of a dozen other editors and pushing on regardless with a dismissive attitude. Omnedon (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Dismissive" is one way to describe it, but given the accusatory and ridiculing tone in some of Jojhutton's comments, "dismissive" is probably the most tactful way of describing his approach. His frustration is duly noted. I also note the frustration of those that have attempted to discuss this with him. Regarding the earlier comment : "If consensus is clear in a particular area (say, articles about airports, or an infobox, where counter to my earlier statement, a small group of editors maintaining that particular template or family of templates can establish consensus for how the location fields are to be used) and an editor violates that after objections, it could cross the line into tendentious editing." That was exactly what he was doing with some of the actor related infoboxes despite the fact the the infobox itself, supported by WP:ACTOR says that for birth and death place the format is city,state,country. Jojhutton removes and reverts against this consensus and the clearly expressed opposition of several editors - this is a behavioural issue which stems from a content/style issue. If Jojhutton can accept that there is a community based consensus to allow the use of country as acceptable -not preferred, not mandatory, not standard - just acceptable, there won't be a problem. If he can also accept that removing against the objections of other editors is unacceptable, again there will be no problem. That's what we've been trying and failing to achieve over the last week or so. I believe Jojhutton has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, but I'm not as confident as he seems to be that he has all the answers on this topic. Rossrs (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the discussion started here on ANI just yesterday, Jojhutton has continued his practice by removing "United States" from more than 20 articles about places in California, once again citing WP:PLACE#United States in the edit summary. That guideline has been shown again and again to have no bearing whatsoever on what he is doing. He has been questioned repeatedly by many editors on that, yet he is clearly determined to continue anyway. He is continuing to operate against the clearly-voiced objections of many editors. Omnedon (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I share the concerns of Omnedon, Rossrs, Cptnono, Cybercobra, and the various other editors who've been trying to grapple with this problem recently. A couple days back I politely suggested on Jojhutton's talk page that he should refrain from carrying on with these edits, given that it's clearly provoking concern from many editors, none of whom seem to support his campaign. Unfortunately, he seems intent on ignoring these concerns and just doing his own thing.

As others have already pointed out, Jojhutton cites the Place policy when making these cuts, but the policy has been shown to have no bearing on what he's doing. Alternately, he references in discussions and on his talk page "every English language manual of style" as the basis for his activity. Manuals like the APA or MLA handbooks are certainly fine resources, but a) I see nothing in my own copy of the MLA Handbook that addresses this (and he doesn't cite any specific sections/pages, despite my request), and b) such handbooks don't control Wikipedia content anyway.

Various editors' voicing their concerns has so far had no effect. Attempts to engage Jojhutton in debate haven't been fruitful, and reverting the cuts simply prompts him to quickly put the cuts back (often with accusations that the editor is "stalking"), resulting in 3RR violations and edit wars, for which he's already been warned. Guidance from administrators on this would certainly be appreciated! Huwmanbeing ☀★ 20:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The addition to the FAQ on his talk page, made while this discussion is taking place, does not inspire an assumption of good faith. The FAQ seems to anticipate another stream of questions and complaints. The link to this : "This archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style seems to agree that the convention is (City, State)" seems to overlook that although four editors discussed it, they stopped short of endorsing it as a blanket rule. It's cherry picking. There is no mention of the discussions in which his viewpoint is challenged and his edits disputed, such as this discussion, or the several on his talk page and talk page archives, the one at Village Pump or even the one at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Is there a convention for use of country when refering to US cities. It looks a lot like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. His talk page is his business, but the FAQ hasn't been added for decoration. It's a shame to be talking about an editor rather than to an editor, but when an editor appears to have withdrawn from the discussion when there are still things to be resolved, it doesn't leave a lot of choice. Rossrs (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I love how people are always claiming Americans are geographically ignorant, but won't allow the removal of "US" from place names on the grounds that people outside of the US don't know where American cities are located. They attack Americans for wanting to label things like Paris, France as proof of American ignorance, but won't allow the removal of the country name from Paris, Texas, USA (for example) on the grounds that nobody outside of the US could possibly know that Texas is in the US. Woogee (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think removing country names from English speaking countries is a great idea. Surely every English speaker knows perfectly well where Cumbria, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nunavut, Otago, Somerset, Taranaki, Tasmania, Victoria, Waikato, and Yukon are. --GRuban (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What? I'm a life-long English speaker and I no idea what/where Otago, Taranaki or Waikato are. Either way, it's beside the point since this thread is in regard to the actions of an editor and related edits. Thanks Huwmanbeing ☀★ 17:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Woogee, there are so many things wrong with that statement that I hardly know where to begin. And no, GRuban, not all English-speaking people automatically know where all of those places are. But in any case, as has been mentioned, this isn't about content, but about a behavioral problem with an editor. Omnedon (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly my attempt at humor failed. Apologies. Carry on. --GRuban (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually it did occur to me that you might be joking; but it's hard to tell in text without any other hints. Certainly in my experience (not necessarily here) people have occasionally expressed views to me that I privately considered to be outrageous, yet they were quite serious. Omnedon (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request (The Pimp Hand)

• The Pimp Hand (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Drolz09

Just wondering if somebody could take a look at The Pimp Hand's indefinite block.

[15]. By all indicators this editor was blocked for nothing but suspicions. He was blocked for "abuse of editing privileges" and for being an "apparent sock puppet". I can find nothing inappropriate from this user not even one 3RR. He even used the talk page on WP:LOC, that shows some good faith. Perhaps mentorship from an experienced user could help. but I think this user may have been judged to harshly given he was listed as a possible sock of userDrolz09. --172.163.33.223 (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The user, and that user only must email arbcom: arbcom-l-at-lists.wikimedia.org to appeal his indefinite block, it was indicated on his talk page. Please read WP:BSAC. Momo san ^Gespräch 01:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry was confirmed by a checkuser jpgordon. It would be hard to argue against that. Everyone on BASC is a checkuser, so they would be in a position to confirm or refute jpgordon's conclusions. However, I've never heard of his conclusions being questioned in matters like this. --Jayron32 01:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: I didn't confirm sockpuppetry; I said, "Checkuser evidence shows you are employing methods to evade scrutiny; this in itself is sufficient to sustain the block, as there are no reasons to use such methods that are to the benefit of Wikipedia." I'd consider all the evidence, including mine, behavioral. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

as an aside, I may need to invoke WP:PLAXICO on the OP. How does a new IP user suddenly find a blocked user's talk page with no prior evidence of contact?--Jayron32 01:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh please.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Should this user ever be unblocked, the question of the inappropriate username should be addressed prior to unblocking. Names like "rapist", "pimp", "thug", and whatnot really aren't in keeping with our mission. --TS 02:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Pimp" hardly has the same meaning these days as it did a couple of decades ago. I don't find the username inappropriate. Throwaway85 (talk)

You might want to check out pimp and wikt:pimp. It might have a tangential meaning in popular culture derived from the usual meaning, but it very definitely does still have the original primary meaning as well. Guy (Help!) 10:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, but calling yourself "gangster" or "thief" or "criminal" or what have you isn't outlawed. It's not blatantly offensive, and I can see a lot more innocent interpretations than sinister or offensive ones. The editor in question has plenty of problems at the moment, and their name is the least of them. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The original comment regarding the necessity of enforcing ethical naming conventions was spot on. We agree that it is not a matter deserving of great concern in regard to a blocked editor. However, the blocked editor should be aware of this potential objection. —Amelioration 01:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Aware of the potential objection, yes, but I don't think having a username that is at worst questionable should pose any undue impediment to the editor's return, should such a return be offered and the editor declines the invitation to change their name. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

User:The Pimp Hand is an attack account who made his first edits in project space, not to build the encyclopedia, but to attack editors like User:William_M._Connolley[16] New users don't go straight to project space and attack long-term editors. The user did the same thing in his first edit to Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident posting an off-topic link to the infamous attack piece "Wikipropaganda On Global Warming" (See also: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikiproganda_on_Global_Warming). I suggest that there is no reason to unblock this account. Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:PCHS-NJROTC has unilaterally declared another user to be "banned"

User:PCHS-NJROTC seems to have a particular interest in what they refer to as "cheerleader vandals". They have seem to have decided that there is a ring of "cheerleader vandals" who spread their message via secret "chain letters". PCHS-NJROTC has recently added a banned user template to User:LBHS Cheerleader, the account which they seem to believe is the ringleader, despite having only 11 edits. The edit summary was "Has been banned for a while, ought to be tagged". LBHS Cheerleader does indeed appear on the list of banned users, because PCHS-NJROTC added them.

When I asked PCHS-NJROTC about this, their responses were somewhat evasive. Apparently there was no community discussion of a ban nor any decision to ban this user. I am concerned that a user has been improperly labeled as "banned", based on the somewhat dubious decree of a single editor. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it's already been settled. Not officially banned, taken off the banned list, template removed, issue resolved. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just be to clear, LBHS is indef banned: 19:18, 28 January 2008 Philippe (talk | contribs | block) blocked LBHS Cheerleader (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism-only account). — Huntster (t @ c) 04:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you perhaps mean to write "blocked"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No, seriously, I'd not letting a troll win this by convincing a user that I am "power hungry," so unless admins here seriously think there's a need for an "official ban," let this one drop as simple vandalism for my sake. The vandals will be blocked one way or another anyway unless they behave and contructively contribute, in which case there's no reason to hold their past against them in my opinion. I feel as if the general community has been very supportive of my efforts to fight this particular vandal, but I'm done with them entirely. This is not worth my good name. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood why I brought this here. You declared a user to be banned when they weren't and then you dissembled when asked about it. Apparently there were other accounts affected by this, based on your actions since this thread started. Edits like this are not appropriate even if you suspect someone of being a vandal. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I quit, since you're going to try to persue action over something I was never warned about, and occured when I was practically a newbie, after I chose not to run checkuser on your account. Bye Wikipedia. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

One person complains about you, no one else backs him up, and you quit within 4 messages? Wow. --Golbez (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I quit because this is not the first time I've been sanctioned over this kind of mess. I realize I am imperfect, and I tried to handle this within reason, but I will not be sanctioned because of a troll, which is why DC is being so... unreasonable? This was not over 4 messages. I hope this point is heard loud and clear. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If I may butt in where it is really none of my business, I don't feel that Delicious carbuncle is being at all unreasonable. In fact he could of been much more direct in his communication, and told you quite plainly that you are way out of line putting banned messages on any pages. Beach drifter (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Indef blocks where no admin is willing to unblock is pretty much a ban. Since the vandal keeps coming back under new accounts, we're tossing the socks as we find them. PCHS-NJROTC is familiar with the long term abuse and for ease of processing, tags the account(s) as banned. Not seeing the problem here. Shell ^babelfish 04:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at this SPI case. Absent the bogeyman of "cheerleader vandals" why did User:Jess Selders 2012 get indef blocked? A 2 minute Google search show that there is a Jessica Selders at Charlotte High. Let's not get into this bans are just blocks etc bullshit. PCHS-NJROTC is quickly undoing all of their edits relating to this "ban", so I think they see the problem. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's over DC. Someone block my account at my request please, that way this discussion can just be closed and forgotten. I feel I have seriously wasted my time with certain elements of this project. For the record, just because Jessica Selders is a real person doesn't mean she has the right to edit. Are you trying to say that LBHS Cheerleader is a robot? Seriously... PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 05:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As my last request, I would like a full blown sockpuppet investigation on DC; I think more than ever now that he is the same as the Cricket IP user troll. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 05:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you've made my point for me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe they're undoing it because you've continued to push the issue despite it being clear that PCHS-NJROTC really isn't doing anything but defending the 'pedia from rather long term abuse. PCHS hasn't blocked any of these accounts and has used appropriate channels. Laying this on one editor's doorstep with some rather nasty accusations and hyperbole might just be the real problem here. BTW editors interested in playing around rather than contributing have been known to use real names before, even one's that aren't their own (shocking, isn't it) - that's hardly an indication of good will given the contributions of that account. Shell ^babelfish 05:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. What if Jessica Selders wasn't even responsible for that, and she got into some real life "crap" over it all? Wouldn't that just be special? I reverted everything to sastisfy you, which was evidently a waste. No, undoing everything like that right now in order to "hide" something would be stupid, and I sincerely hope you don't really see me as that ignorant. You're probably going to be nailed for AGF among other things. You have this entirely backwards, and you're just mad that I made a big deal about the name issue. Bye. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 05:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I lied that I'm done with this entirely; I'm going to, with approval of the community, try to find that person on Myspace or Facebook and personally and calmly, politely ask her if she was responsible (and may I add she most likely was not), and if not, I personally feel the username needs to be changed and her edits be oversighted. Of course, that will be my last contributions to this project, although I'm having second thoughts if the community isn't going to unreasonable as DC has. But only if. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 05:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In short, I realize it looks kind of silly that I'm leaving this over one person. It's not that I can't handle it, it's not that it's just this, it's that I need a break from the drama. I realize I have a lot of support here, and probably some opposition too. Fact is, I know just being the subject of a report here hurts one's reputation no matter how outlandish (unless it's blatant abuse, where it gets reverted immediately), and I feel it's time to seriously take a Wikibreak or even retire to cool down this stigma that has been brought upon me. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 05:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry about it, anyone who doesn't take the time to look and see what happened doesn't matter. See you later. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed the retirement templates so that the IP troll won't see "victory" and try it with other users. Bascially, I have to continue to contribute now just so the troll don't get his wish. DC wouldn't even satisfy with that anyway. I restored the entry at LTA because it appears consenus that consenus has been in my favor here. But I'm done fighting LBHS Cheerleader. I never lost my cool or anything; I only wanted to settle the dispute. See, when it comes to legitimate users, I prefer to settle issues without getting into a lot of heat. Sigh, guess I'd never pass an RfA, but who needs RfA anyway? Darn, all of this to try to stop baseing everything on a possible link to another banned user, what a misunderstanding this has been. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 06:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Dude. When you start talking in terms of "you" and "them" and using words like "victory", you are getting trolled. Just relax, move on to an area where you aren't emotionally involved and come back in a week's time. It is not important to win. Look at it this way. Your "opponent" has nearly limitless time, resources and entry points. Attempting to resolve the issue through provocative edit notices, formal bans and direct engagement is a fool's errand. The only course of action which will avail you is to drain the emotion out of the issue, limit the time and extent of the impact on mainspace and wait for them to grow bored. No one is served by your flaring up. Protonk (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Restarting serious discussion

There is a real issue here seems to have been lost under a torrent of emotional outbursts. An editor who had made a total of 11 edits (assuming there are no deleted edits) was indef blocked for what is very run-of-the-mill vandalism. That isn't abnormal. Having a single editor -- who seems to be on some kind of crusade relating to the high school which they attend -- decide that they are banned, is abnormal. The "a ban is just a block that no one is willing to lift" argument is a false equivalency, since we don't add all blocked accounts to a page which states "Banning is different from blocking".

From what I have seen of the "cheerleader vandal" threat, it is nothing more or less than simple vandalism and it is unproductive to elevate it to anything more. It seems likely to me that IPs and accounts have been blocked on spurious grounds because PCHS-NJROTC has associated them with this bogeyman. Certainly labeling users such as User:Random Chick236 as "banned" when they are not even blocked is wholly inappropriate (as is the edit summary "Give up kid, you're not funny. Try being contructive for a change"). Can we deal with the issue (unilateral declarations of bans by a single, overly-involved user) now, please? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A user who has edits that solely consist of blanking articles on various high schools and replacing them with a message that praises his/her own school and does so consistently and with several possible alternate accounts after the original is blocked seems to be an indefinite block candidate to me, especially when subsequent sockpuppet accounts deliberately vandalize and attempt delete articles on rival schools. Whether it is right or wrong to label a de facto banned user as banned is besides the point.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Without having confirmed it, I suspect that PCHS-NJROTC personally identified most of those as sockpuppets, just as they decided that certain users were "banned". Take a look at User:Monsterbob234. PCHS-NJROTC added the sockpuppet template and "Hello to you to, here's my welcome wagon unwelcome wagon:" and the edit summary "Go to hell pollywog". The user appears to have made exactly one edit that is at all related to cheerleading. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not suggesting that this particular usage should be unblocked since they appear to be a vandalism only account, but I doubt they are a sockpuppet of User:LBHS Cheerleader and I don't think the message or edit summary were appropriate. Do you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

DC, although some of what you say about being "tag happy" may be true, you must see how holding what happened over a year ago (before my grandmother's death even for goodness sake) is unreasonable. I'm sure there's actions you took as a newbie that you would not take at present because of experience. I have learned a lot since then, but I cannot go back and erase my "renegade, tag happy vandal fighting" past. More recent cases have been blatantly obvious. Jess Selders 2012 was not just blocked because of a random sockpuppetry accusation, but rather because there was a pattern of abuse, and because CheerleaderAgainstROTCFacism jumped in the middle of the discussion, pretty much proving my point. Now lets WP:AGF, say the latter wasn't the same person, the Jess Selders account actually belonged to Jessica Selders, and Jess only wanted to help the project. If that's the case, it should be the troll behind CARF on trial here, not me. If the two accounts are not linked, Jess was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. If JS was indeed responsible for Jess Selders 2012 (and there's a significant chance that she was not), and she wants her name cleared of the sockpuppetry stigma, then she needs to request a username change. If the real person is not responsible, then I imagine she'd want the username changed so that her name is not involved in all of this. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion you have manufactured a false threat of "cheerleader vandals" which you have used to have editors blocked for small amounts of simple vandalism. I could be wrong, but I have seen no evidence that any such group exists, or is a cause for concern if they do exist. Your histrionic message in this SPI case is ripe with speculation (and includes the all-caps "THESE GIRLS ARE RELENTLESS TROLLS AND NEED NOT BE FED!"). In that rant, you again asserted that User:LBHS Cheerleader was banned when you said "So does the "wiki-love" for those who (unknowing of their ban) give them a second chance". Editors can look at the details of the SPI case themselves, I'm not interested in getting sidetracked by going into the details. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that consensus is that DC is making a mountain out of a mole hill here, and I'm sure you can all agree that I've been completely reasonable in the handleing of this case aside from contemplating retirement. Actually, retirement, along with my removal of all references to the user in question being banned, was all no more than a failed attempt to compromise. No emotions, no anger, just an attempt to compromise. Thought if I left just like that he'd have been satisfied. It seems as if I have set DC on fire when I challeged his disclosure of my real life name in a particular discussion, which he claims was coincidental. Is biting a troll really any better than him biting an established user? It should be clear to everyone here that anyone that would continue to persue action at AN/I after an honest user in question has already agreed to cave is seeking punishment, not prevention. We block and ban as a preventative measure, not to punish; it's all laid out at the blocking policy. IMO, consensus is that LBHSC is defacto banned. My only intention in adding LBHSC to the banned list was to stop assuming that LBHSC could be considered banned under User:Bobabobabo as the idea was pure speculation anyway. I see nothing unreasonable about the movement; we can't use such speculation against users suspected to be linked to LBHSC, but since she's been considered banned for quite sometime, I felt that she needed to be added to the list independantly. I was being WP:BOLD, which is encouraged here, and I didn't discuss it first because I wanted to WP:Deny recognition. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoever this LBHSC person is, she is not Bobabobabo. Bobabobabo edit warred over anime episode list articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

PCHS-NJROTC, I got involved in this issue only because I watchlisted User:LBHS Cheerleader's page after you made some frankly bizarre accusations on my talk page and elsewhere. For your sake, I won't link to them directly, but the discussion is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Delicious_carbuncle#WP:VILLAGE here]. I believe you know that what you did was wrong and I believe you lied about it in our initial discussion because you knew that. Your subsequent actions suggest that you are trying as hard as you can to get out of this without admitting that. I think it's too late for that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that PCHS's concerns were not real. I am not saying that you did or did not correctly guess his first name there, but if someone posted MY real first name in an on-wiki discussion about me or with me, I'd be a little disturbed and confused myself. This is beginning to look more and more like a personal battle, and I think both sides need to disengage and return to neutral corners. There does not appear to be much to be gained here, and its getting nasty in both directions. I'm not sure any admin action is appropriate here, but the entire mess looks just like personal sniping, and not much more. --Jayron32 21:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I used a very common male first name in an example of trivial vandalism during a discussion with PCHS-NJROTC (which was my first encounter with them). PCHS-NJROTC claims that it is their first name. I will assume good faith and assume that it is, but I have repeatedly said that I did not, and do not, know their name, so it was not deliberately chosen. That they now believe that I am a meatpuppet of the "cheerleader vandals" should speak to their eagerness to find connections where none are likely to exist.

This isn't personal. I'm not here complaining about possible personal attacks or esoteric content disputes - PCHS-NJROTC unilaterally decided that another user was banned, used that label to influence block on likely uninvolved users, reverted edits of at least one user (who wasn't even blocked) as a banned user based on their mistaken identification as a sockpuppet of the original target. I have absolutely no stake in this or any influence over the actions of any of the parties. At the very least a clear statement from a clueful admin condemning their actions is required, but I would suggest that a topic ban on vandalism would be wise. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban? That's sillyness; talk about "cool down blocks" and being counter productive. No, just let it drop as half of what you're rehashing is ancient anyway, and did I mention that there was a checkuser in all of this way back when? In fact, the very term "cheerleader vandal" was not my invention, but rather that of User:Zzuuzz in a request for checkuser which was followed up by User:Alison. DC seems to be "out to get me" here as if I'm the only one working with this. User:PMDrive1061, who blocked the sockpuppets in the most recent case, has not challenged my actions, neither have User:Fullmetal Falcon who shares my pain in that he was once a quite active editor of the pages that LBHSC has been targeting. I am trusted with rollback for a reason, Lord knows I have not abused it. For the record, User:Shell Kinney, who is becomeing part of the WP:ArbCom, has pointed out that you are in the wrong DC. Perhaps we should topic ban DC from AN/I? I personally think a topic ban on anyone would be counter productive here, and frankly, count me out as a contributer to the project if the suggestion even comes close to being seriously considered. There's a reason why administrative action should not be taken on either side of these kind of heated matters, and it's because such actions make matters worse. I am completely done with this; this is a waste of the admins' time. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Thank you for making my point here for me Jayron. As I was saying... Right, I now agree that it is a longshot that LBHSC is Bobabobabo; the basis behind the speculation was the fact that she was going by the name "Jessica" (in multiple incidents), and begging everybody like Boba, but the modus operandi was completely different. However, I see that some people were basing decisions on this "possibility," so I decided that something had to be done to halt the mistaken specualtion being referenced to as fact. Trying to get out of this? No, I'm not in anything, and I really feel it is inappropriate that you made a subsection implying that arguements against you was not "serious discussion." Do you honestly think you could deal with the trolls better than I have? Note that not all "cheerleader vandals" are LBHS Cheerleader, a fact that I acknowledge. Bizzare accusations? For one, I cannot stand to see you attempt to "stick up" for a blatant troll, regardless of whether (s)he's a sock. Random harassment is not something that I'm used to seeing just "happen" out of no where. Off-wiki, people claiming to be cheerleaders from LBH have behaved in much the same way Mr. Cricket has, which is why I suggested the possiblity. Some of these LBHSC trolls have said off-wiki that they used to be admins/established users much the same way as Mr. Cricket. It's pretty obvious that Mr. Cricket is not a current cheerleader at LBH, however, because Cricket is not a carrier in Florida. To cut to the chase, what do you intend to accomplish with this thread? Revenge? Help for a troll? A name for yourself? Victory? Some kind of punative action towards me? What policies have I violated? What is your point? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Per Jayron, I propose a speedy closure of this fiasco. I'm trying to keep my cool here and make peace; DC needs to do the same. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is somewhat off topic, but I managed to find this "Jessica Selders" on Myspace.com, and the original text that the user added to her user page is a direct copy and paste from the "about me" section of her profile. If the vandal was not actually Jessica Selders, then it was a copyright violation. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not important. Stop looking too far into this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with this discussion anyway; I just thought that would be interesting food for thought for anyone following this issue. I've called for closure of this discussion, and I hereby disassociate myself from this pointless debate. Have a Merry Christmas. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ending discussion

My major incivility issues that DC have pointed out are ancient history and have disappeared in the last year. Any incivility I've demonstrated in more recent time have been no more than what is typically demonstrated by the average vandal fighter. Vandal fighters are human; they are not going to by "nicey nice" 100% of the time; you might see the occasional "grow up" or "why can't you just be constructive" comment from me aimed at a vandal, but I've come a long way from telling people "go to hell pollywog." Heck, I've even tried to stray away from telling people "grow up" for fear of controversy. The ancient issues were already addressed. I really find it ironic that DC can't be forgiving of an established users' past, yet he expects us to be perfect angels when it comes to dealing with people like User:LBHS Cheerleader and User:Jess Selders 2012, which general consensus is that they're linked. I've WP:AGFed with DC's posting of my name, but everyone must see the heat my questioning of the post has caused, and that an IP troll saw it as a perfect time to get all of this nonsense brewed. Anyone who fuels this debate fuels the hopes and dreams of an IP editor who calls User:McSly a "flaming homosexual," [17] his own ISP's staff "outsourced sandniggers," [18] and me a "retarded rotc dork" [19] aka Hitler Youth [20] who is power hungry and lives in a double-wide [21]. Why are we discussing this? I cannot help but think that DC is simply mad, and I think the best solution is to just axe this whole discussion now. "Not looking good" as an edit summary? The IP editor, who hadn't edited anything related to me in a while, comes in out of no where and bad mouths me right when DC and I are in a discussion, and DC takes him seriously? DC references to my name (reportedly unintentionally, which I'll accept) about a month after the IP troll did the same? Now DC is on some kind of man hunt to basically get me in trouble after I PO'd him and his IP friend? Put two and two together here AN/I. I'm not saying DC is a sockmaster, but something awefully funny is going on here. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think many people are feeling somewhat uncomfortable getting involved with this. I certainly would prefer not to, but I will say that it seems to me that Delicious Carbuncle asked a fair and simple question. What has transpired after that seems solely due to the manner in which PCHS-NJROTC responded. Delicious Carbuncle has certainly not deserved to be served with rambling, accusatory screeds which seem to fail to address the substance of DC's queries while ascribe to DC accusations which I have not seen him make. And no, what is going on here is not funny by a longshot, awful, definitely. Unomi (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  Without having read everything, This is my view. User PCHS-NJROTC has made some mistakes, the majority of them seems to be in the past, and he has learned from them. I suggest that this AN/I will serve as sufficient "punishment" for his old issues. I agree that it does seem suspicious that DC was pushed the issue, after P-ROTC has tried to resolve this issue, however there is no evidence that the user is in violation of policy. I suggest that this AN/I serve as a warning to both parties, and thats it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

PCHS-NJROTC added a banned user template to User:LBHS Cheerleader on 19 December, so this has little to do with their history of abusive comments although it does show a pattern. You need to read the entire thread before offering opinions such as those above. What is it you think I need to be "warned" about? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement for me to read an entire discussion. IAC, what I did see however, is a user admit that he made mistakes, and indicated an understanding of those problems. When the user became aware that their recent edit was disruptive, as in the discussion here, the user removed the template, without prompting, which shows good faith on his part. What I think you need to be warned about, is that when a user shows good faith in that his actions were not intended to harm anyone or damage the encyclopedia, you should lay off. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement to read an entire discussion? That is enlightening. In that case, having not acquainted myself with the facts, it is quite clearly obvious that you are wrong on several points, for reasons which I do not think it is worth going into here. Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

May I point out, since it appears that one of my comments was misread, that I did not litterally mean any of this is "funny," but rather, I meant "suspicious." Issues at AN/I are always affected by the response from the involved party(s); had I responded with "f*** you losers" as some users have in past discussions I'd have been blocked without question for showing bad faith, so blaming anything on my response is not a valid arguement. I believe that Sephiroth storm's point is that DC needs to assume good faith as I had removed all references to the apparent "ban" as soon as they were questioned here as an offered settlement. I also pledged to disassociate myself with the trolling issue, which I will hold true to aside from reverting blatant vandalism where I naturally see it and issuing standard warnings levels one through four. Is any of this official business really needed? If LBHS Cheerleader apparently shouldn't be officially banned for "simple vandalism," why should a legitimate user be officially topic banned after he has already agreed to disassociate himself? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 16:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Allow me to express myself one last time... I will not have my name here (PCHS-NJROTC) tarnished over some IP troll giving an established user ideas to go looking for "power hunger" in my history of edits. Period. Done. Already decided. Please, speedy closure, please. I will not be topic banned or otherwise sanctioned; anyone seriously thinking of imposing sanctions is going to have to permaban User:Vandal Fighter Killed in Action from Wikipedia entirely if they think this is worth a ban. I do have a right to vanish, and as to go through any kind of "punishment" (which isn't something I believe in on-wiki as actions are supposed to be preventative), I would just assume vanish forever. That's what the talks of retirement were about. Sanctions could be troublesome for me in real life, and it's not worth the risk to go through all of this for a troll. May I add that a ban from this would probably be a quite unpopular movement. Anyway, I don't care; if it's that serious, change my name, and then ban me, but disassociate all of my actions from the name "PCHS-NJROTC" if that's your course of action. I do, however, doubt that this will happen since there's no consensus to do it. This is not "pouting;" this is my true opinion. Have I not made myself clear I want nothing further to do with this or LBHS Cheerleader? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Kmweber blocked then unblocked

Resolved

 – Kmweber's ban has been formally restated. He is not allowed to edit the Wikipedia namespace or Wikipedia talk space. Any continued edits to the said areas will result in an immediate indef block. Kurt is encouraged to edit the article space, and help contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. He is also reminded that the only way to lift this ban is to formally request it be reviewed, or go to ArbCom. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Kurt was blocked earlier by Hiberniantears with the following post to the talk page:

Kurt,

I have blocked you indefinitely for long term abuse. I recognize this will be debated. In light of that, if an ArbCom case is required to determine once and for all whether you should be allowed back with or without restrictions, the community should pursue this. If you feel that you can bring value to building an online encyclopedia, please explain this. However, if you are here to treat Wikipedia like a country in need of a libertarian centered human-rights struggle, you're missing the point. Any one of your actions can easily be viewed as merely annoying or immature. However, when taken in sum, your votes in various areas of the project and your numerous candidacies for every position under the sun lays out a clear pattern of contradicting actions intended solely to call attention to your "struggle", all of which plays out at the expense of well-intentioned users who are simply trying to build a collaborative encyclopedia.

I will not review your block, nor do I endorse the lifting of this block by any other admin without the approval of ArbCom. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally endorse this block, as I had a one hour discussion with Kurt about this on IRC. And from what I gained from that discussion, he doesn't plan on editing in the article space in the near future, because he doesn't feel like it at the moment (which is understandable). Yet he has only made 19 edits to the article space this year. I asked him to make an onwiki statement that declared that he would edit more in the article space, and he refused calling it a game. That shows to me that either he has an ego he doesn't want to hurt, or he doesn't plan on editing in the article space. Either way he shouldn't have been unblocked without more of a discussion.

However EVula did just unblock him:

Block overturned. Dubious grounds with zilch on the evidence front, and pushing it back on ArbCom is weak.

I'm not saying Kurt isn't a jackass at times (though, to cover my ass, I'll also point out that I'm not saying he is a jackass at times), I'm just saying that this block is incredibly poorly thought out. Kurt is not an insiginficant participant in the entire Wikipedia process; whatever your opinions about him may be, he does not deserve to be swept under the rug, which is the chief reason that I have no qualms about overturning this block. EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this needs a bit more from the community at any rate, as it seems that few people are aware of the block. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 10:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

<scratches head> Are we here to endlessly debate about community standards or build an encyclopedia? AniMate 10:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Following the lengthy discussion last year, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber ban discussion, Kmweber was unblocked with a restriction that he could not edit in Wikipedia space. It's understandable that the restriction would be waived to allow his participation as an ArbCom candidate, but was it ever actually lifted? Maybe enforcing or reimposing it would address the problem.   Will Beback  talk  11:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It was never lifted, and I'd argue that the ArbCom elections—or at least, standing in them—aren't exempt; if you're banned from Project-space, it's for a good reason. That said, it's a moot point. He escaped a ban a year ago by quitting Wikipedia. It's evident that Kurt is a master troll, gaming the rules so that he can escape sanctions that would befall other editors. The most obvious being, of course, his minority opinions, which make any attempt to get rid of them to be perceived as getting rid of dissenters. There's also the fact that he's known to harass editors on IRC and WR, saving most of it until his ArbCom run last year so that he couldn't be banned from the only people who can do so: the ArbCom themselves. Of course, any ban by the ArbCom is also "motivated by a desire to stamp out dissent". It's also evident that he has not outgrown this immature behaviour, and show be reblocked. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record: [22]. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I should think a re(in)statement of the conditions per the Kmweber ban discussion - not blocked while he does not edit in Wikipedia space - noted by Will Beback should suffice. I am not impressed by yet another admin acting unilaterally, even in evident good faith, in indef blocking an editor without reference to recent consensus or even discussion. However, in the interests of a quick return to the pre ACE09 status quo I would suggest that this matter is put to bed as quickly as possible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it'd work. When asked last year if there were any sanctions against him, he answered "none that I consider legitimate". Two months into his topic ban. We honestly need to treat Kmweber as having one absolute final chance. He fucks up once more, he's gone. Hell, I want him gone now, for, among other things, harassing female admins, but I'd be willing giving him a final chance as long as it's treated like that. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just told him I will enforce the WP space ban. Viridae^Talk 12:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(Response to Sceptre) I was not including Kmw's viewpoint. I was simply saying we do not block him while he does not edit, per the result of the noted discussion, and we will - per Viridae's notice - sanction him if he does. Whether or not Kurt believes it legitimate is irrelevant. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

EVula, I respect you greatly, but the unblock was incorrect. KMweber is not a "participant in the entire Wikipedia process", he is simply a troll. There is no need for another final chance; either a strict topic ban, or an outright site ban, appears to be the only way to mitigate KMweber's disruption. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A strict topic ban was made back in 2008, that told him to not edit the Wikipedia space. Of course with the ArbCom election, he thought he could start it back up again. Viridae and I have reinstated that topic ban. I did leave a clause that he can discuss the election until January 15. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 13:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I point out that Kurt has supported reasonable candidates at RfA? I personally agree that he's a troll, but I've seen him do very helpful things. He seems to be just a guy with a different opinion then everyone else - that may sound cheesy, but he's referenced it and it seems to be true. ceranthor 13:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A guy with a different opinion, who harasses people to make sure they hear it. The latter part is why he should be gone, not the former. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wheel warring is bad - yes, I know the definition, but hasty unblocks without debate or consensus cause the same damage. They embolden the blocked editor to think they have been wronged and then vindicated, their behavior acceptable, and they make it nearly impossible for the community to enforce its standards in the face of problematic editors. Perhaps it's best that administrators not issue indefinite blocks without some prior discussion except in exceptionally clear cases, but administrators are entitled to enforce policies and standing sanctions without first conducting a poll. As we all know from this board, nearly all proposals to block editors begin to attract a lot of debate and opposition from all corners that does not necessarily reflect the will of the larger community. So whether the block is short or long, if it is not without basis, please hold off and discuss any proposed unblocks. The length and conditions can always be adjusted, but releasing the blocked editor to run amok on the encyclopedia is not a good way to go about things. The default should be to protect the editing environment and the integrity of the encyclopedia against disruption, not process quibbles about blocking policy. In my opinion every admin is entitled to take a stand now and again, but if the same admin regularly overturns the actions of others without discussion I think their performance ought to be further reviewed. I don't know which is the case here. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I always thought it was standard practice and edicate for administrators to only issue an indefinite block to a long-term established user after some community discussion, not semi-arbitrarily. Now, if we're talking about blatant vandals, spammers and trolls (I use this term very strictly), then that's a different matter altogether. While I do not welcome yet an ANI thread about Kurt, that's probably what should have happened. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There was such a discussion, last year: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber ban discussion. Kurt left the project for some time, then returned recently and seems to have resumed the same disruptive behavior that led to the ban originally. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of the previous discussions, as I probably participated in most of them, however, the above link does not show a clear consensus one way or another. Is Ryan's archiving statement binding? Regardless, it's over a year later and it would have benefited from fresh discussion. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• My own two cents: I think Kurt's interventions in project space are unhelpful, and designed to provoke rather than contribute productively. His intentions appear to be sincere, but he is a net impediment and not a net benefit, and I would not think a restriction away from project space would be excessive.

  That being said, his participation in ArbCom elections is a legitimate output for his philosophical and political positions and I think it is imperative that we do not prevent participation in our sole true political process to anyone who has something to say — even if it's marginal enough that they inevitably end up dead last every time. — Coren ^(talk) 15:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  • While recognizing that Coren has much more experience in the WP community, I disagree with the statement that ArbCom elections are the "sole true political process." The Wikipedia community makes decisions through a variety of means, one of the most important being civil discussion. If a user cannot contribute productively in that milieu, I'd say that person has already flunked out of the "political process" of the 'pedia; participation in ArbCom being an adjunct to the everyday, run-of-the-mill decision making process. — æk^Talk 20:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)FWIW, when things get this complex on Wiki, there will never be consensus. "Consensus". The unblock by EVula - someone with some serious clout in these parts - was a de facto (or prima facie) recognition that, well, people are allowed to be this disruptive here. Check his contribs, it's not like we'd be losing one of our top content people, but someone will always be around to defend his use of this encyclopedia for his own personal agendas. It's the way it is, I guess - so it goes. Tan | 39 15:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll see your de facto and raise you one counter-point: I see allowing a rather arbitrary "well, I'm tired of you, and without any true consensus from the overall community, I'm going to block you and say that only ArbCom can overturn it"-type of block as setting a much, much worse precedent. Do I care if Kurt is blocked? Honestly, no, I don't. I do care that any attempt to permanently boot someone out of Wikipedia has community support; a couple of "Endorse Block" tags on a user talk page do not community consensus represent. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying I've "resumed the behavior that almost got me banned last year" is simply false, since I was repeatedly told--in no uncertain terms--that my participation in AfD and RfA was NOT why people were wanting to ban me--rather, it was because I was harassing people ("why do you hate Wikipedia?", "deletionists are an especially fucking retarded subclass of the rest", going after Seraphim and Krimpet for their behavior towards Bedford, etc.) and because the general quality of my discourse was starting to decline. I fully admit I was way over the line there, but I challenge anyone to point out any sort of behavior of that sort on my part since I returned. As far as I can tell, all I've done in project-space since then is, at worst, started some discussions that were carried out peacefully and calmly and ended with a simple "agree to disagree," and at best actually helped others understand me--and me understand others--better.

As for the ban from project space--it was for three months. It's been well more than three months, and since then I haven't resumed any of the behavior that people were (rightly) complaining about. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 15:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Your on-wiki actions are essentially the same before you "vanished" last year. It shows you haven't grown up. And if you haven't grown up, there's no reason to believe you won't start harassing people again once this is all forgotten. And you never apologised to Seraphim or Krimpet, or me, or Majorly, either. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What is that idiom? Something about when you point a finger at someone, three point back at you?--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 22:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What is that idiom? Something about you being a misogynist troll. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

And look--if it is in fact the actual substance of my RfA and AfD contributions, then why not start an RfC? Every time so far, I've been perfectly happy to refrain from the actions in question while the RfC was taking place, and only resumed when (as happened both times) the RfC pretty clearly concluded that I wasn't doing anything wrong. I think my track record is pretty strong on this. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 16:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

. You violated your namespace ban to run for ArbCom, and even worse, you said you didn't consider the ban legitimate (when it was applied by the community). I don't believe you'll adhere to another community request, per my comments above. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Kmweber's on-wiki action also sometimes translates into off-wiki behavior, such as the rather upsetting messages he sent me on IRC. I had to place him on ignore because of it. I realize this is not actionable due to being off-wiki, but it was in response to my recent (failed) RfA that he found the reason to send me private messages on IRC. Basket of Puppies 18:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm about as surprised that my unblock ended up being reported here as I am about a sunrise, but I still find it somewhat odd. The block was endorsed by a couple of people, yes, but it was also questioned by several others; John Vandenberg and MZMcBride both specifically stated that they were willing to unblock, citing the rather weak ground that the block was built upon. The entire thing smacked of "I'm tired of you and so you're gone now", which, I'm sorry, but I don't give a rat's ass what your opinion of Kurt is, that's just plain wrong.

Was this wheel warring? No. Hiberniantears tried to lend false legitimacy to the block by somehow claiming only ArbCom could overturn it ("nor do I endorse the lifting of this block by any other admin without the approval of ArbCom"). As was pointed out at User talk:Kmweber#Blocked, that's not how ArbCom should be cited; it's an attempt to make the block "untouchable". Sorry, no, one person does not make consensus (myself included). Given Hiberniantears' unambiguous position on reviewing or lifting the block ("I will not review your block, nor do I endorse the lifting of this block by any other admin"), there was nothing to discuss. To fluff up this paragraph with lovely shortcuts, this was WP:CYCLE, not WP:WHEEL.

Look, I don't want anyone to look at this as some sort of defense of trollish editors. It isn't (chiefly because I'm not assigning "trollish" or "not trollish" qualifiers to Kurt's actions), and I'm pretty rabidly opposed to the concept of suffering a troll based solely on their contributions. The only thing I'm concerned with here is that an actual attempt at a community-derived decision is made. Hiberniantears' block didn't do that, and there was sufficient consensus that it should be overturned; hence, I did so. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, going to the community first will probably not get a consensus to block him, as editors will be convinced we'd be persecuting him for having minority opinions. Despite the fact he's stalked (at least) two female admins before which, is apparently, the cardinal sin against editors. His opinions effectively give him carte blanche to do whatever he wants. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking a point by EVula a little further, those with a long memory will recall another instance where one admin made a determination in respect of an editor, blocked, and suggested that only a referral to ArbCom would be permitted to undo the block. That action resulted in a furore that echoes even today, and even if a similarly sanctioned account was known to the entire community as being an incorrigibly disruptive influence that is the precedent why we do not allow admins to make unilateral decisions in contentious areas; we ensure that admins are the vehicles of community consensus and not its arbiters. For this reason alone EVula's unblock was appropriate and proper. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Kurt wrote above: "As for the ban from project space--it was for three months." The topic ban was formalized by user:Ryan Postlethwaite.[23] He reminded Kurt of it a month later.[24] While Ryan wrote that it could be lifted in the future, I don't see any mention of a three month duration. Could Kurt or someone else please priovide a diff to support that assertion? Otherwise the topic ban is still in effect and may be enforced.   Will Beback  talk  21:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I am also curious why he thinks he isn't topic banned from Rfa. Since Rfa is in Wikipedia space which he is banned from. -DJSasso (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Because he has a Minority Opinion. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well he's banned from there now. -Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 03:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because I was curious, I looked up Kurt at Soxred93's RfA Vote Calculator. His record of 10-support and 163-oppose is most impressive. Not necessarily good for the community, but impressive in its consistency nonetheless. — Kralizec! (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::He only got 10 supports for the RFA but when he ran for ArbCom, he got 102 support votes. I bring this up just because in Wikipedia article editing, you're not suppose to cherry pick statistics. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)error

I believe the numbers mentioned above by Kralizec! refer to Kurt supporting 10 RFA's and opposing 163 RFA's. Not supports and opposes on his own request.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

His RFA game is moot. Its not disruptive because no one actually takes him seriously. He's basically made himself entirely impotent by being so annoying, so there's little point in using that as justification for any block. I'm not saying one way or another whether he should be blocked or not, but the whole RFA thing is pointless because he's made himself "the boy who cries wolf" there. Everyone knows he has nothing worthwhile to say, so he's self-eliminated himself from being taken seriously. --Jayron32 03:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears weighs in, belatedly

Apologies for my late arrival to this thread. I'm a Christmas baby, and the family chose today to celebrate. I want to clear up a few things, lest my original block statement leads to additional confusion. I really only meant to imply that I won't review the block. I have no problem with Evula or anyone else overturning me. That said, I did believe my block of Kurt was in line with Kurt's ban discussion from last year. The ArbCom comment was a poorly explained attempt to say "I'm blocking this obviously disruptive user. I won't undo the block. If the community wants me to undo it, I want ArbCom to weigh in". I did not intent to say that other admins shouldn't act as they see fit within policy.

As for this ANI thread. It is exactly what Kurt wants. As far as I can tell he is still banned, but we were all too willing to ignore him for a few months as he was obviously returning to his poor form. I'm actually stunned he was allowed to stand for ArbCom, and then I witnessed him pop up over the past week and start harassing RfA candidates again. This was a no brainer as far as I'm concerned. We were simply collectively dropping the ball in dealing with him. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of getting it right

So in reviewing the comments on my block of Kurt, it is clear to me that most of us feel that he is either violating an active ban, or managing to avoid a formal ban by gaming the system with a "retirement". I see him as a banned user who is still gaming the system. Putting my view of the situation aside, can we just have a discussion on what Kurt's actual status is?

Clearly, there is confusion, and I see no need to set us all against each other in arguing over what I now recognize is a highly ambiguous status quo surrounding Kurt. With that in mind, is Kurt banned or not? Hiberniantears (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirm indefinite ban from non-article space. As far as I am concerned, I think his original ban against all non-article edits stands, or at least, should stand from this moment forward. He can edit articles. That's it. --Jayron32 03:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirm I agree. He is banned from all non-article edits. -DJSasso (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirm ban, including the ArbCom election subspace. Now that voting has gone to the SecurePoll option, he can safely vote, while being unable to run. While this may not be popular, anyone who is currently banned from Wikipedia space, but runs for ArbCom regardless, is probably disrupting. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirm ban - Already left a note on his talk page to this nature yesterday. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 04:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirm. The project space ban was placed legitimately following extensive community input. There is no indication that it has expired. He is welcome to contribute to the article space in a non-disruptive manner.   Will Beback  talk  08:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Hopefully we won't contract amnesia about this debate in a few months. I doubt it, though. Protonk (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editing restrictions? "Final warnings" seems to be a new thing there. Rd232 ^talk 12:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Final warnings aren't really new; we give people "final warnings" all the time. The problem is, that they never are. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not confirmed but... When a punishment is imposed, and this is punishment, it should be clear what it is for. There is a diff to 3 months provided by someone else http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKmweber&action=historysubmit&diff=240123704&oldid=240119164 Let's wrap this up by saying that from 1 January 2010 to 31 January 2010, Kurt Weber has no restrictions and that he should behave in the way he thinks all Wikipedian should aspire to. That means not trying to push the limit. In return, others will not try to add restrictions on him. In the period between now and 1 January, everyone should be in a trial period, trying to act like what they will do in 2010. To avoid conflict, Kurt Weber should voluntarily refrain from Wikispace except for this ANI thread between now and 2010. Kurt Weber surprising got 102 supports for ArbCom which means there may be a consensus of 102 active editors in support of him but that those 102 people are afraid to say something, much like people in Iran are afraid to say anything lest they be killed like Ramin Pourandarjani. I do not support Mr. Weber but do support calm and responsibility. To me, this is a confusing mess that could benefit from a clean slate for January 2010. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

... but things could change in January 2010 so a confirm would be clearly indicated then See above comment of 19:59 21 December 2009 Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What "poor form"? What "harassing RfA candidates"? It's not like I'm following people around and saying, "Ha-ha, you suck, ha-ha!" My RfA criteria are just one set of criteria out of many; I'm happy to explain it when I need to (always politely), and if not I'm happy to leave it at that. What, exactly, is the problem here? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 16:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem in my opinion is that you don't seem to see the problem. -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I stayed away from project space--indeed, from Wikipedia altogether--for well beyond the three month minimum required by my topic ban, and when I returned I resumed none of the behaviors that I was told were problematic: I didn't harass other people, I didn't throw insults around, I didn't go apeshit on people who attacked me--I have remained calm, polite, and collegial at all times. So my three-month topic ban expired and I resumed none of the behaviors for which it was imposed. Please tell me, where is the problem, because I honestly don't see it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 16:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying after the 3 month time expired. Yet there is no record anywhere of it expiring after 3 months. As far as I can find and others, the topic ban was indefinite. -DJSasso (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

See below. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 16:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that is not what the link you provide says. It says no less than 3 months and that in 3 months you would be talked to about it. Show me the link to where you were talked to about it and where it was lifted. If you can't show a discussion where it was stated that it was lifted then it wasn't lifted. -DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, time and time again, I was told that the problem wasn't with opposing self-noms for being self-noms, or voting keep on RfAs simply because the subject existed, was not a problem--that those were perfectly legitimate positions, and that I was entitled to participate in RfA and AfD along those lines, so long as I did so in a civil and collegial manner. The problem was that I was being considerably less than civil and collegial about it (which is true). Now, here are the terms I agreed to. Since those three months were up, I have not been anything but civil and collegial--so I can only conclude that what you're having a problem with isn't with the way I'm acting but with the ideas I hold themselves. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 16:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have diffs of any disruptive editing after his block was lifted? Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There was never any long-term block; I simply returned after a several-month self-imposed absence. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 16:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Since it was said that the ban would las no less than three months, then would be revisited, it is clear that the ban lasts until the second discussion determines otherwise. That never happened, so the ban is still in effect. In the interest of resolving this, let's have an unban discussion right now. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Coren's offer was made in September 22. The Ryan Postlethwaite's closure of the community ban was on September 23 and so it superseded Coren's offer. Further, Coren was acting as an individual admin, while Ryan was summarizing a community ban, which obviously has greater weight. The ban was violated on November 18 [25] Ryan reminded you of the ban on November 19. As stated above, the ban on editing Wikipedia space appears to still be in effect. If you'd like to ask the community or the Arbcom to lift it you may do so by placing an appeal on your user talk page, but further direct editing here will result in a block. 19:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)  Will Beback  talk 

FYI, for those interested in final warnings, I've given one to Kmweber on his talk page saying that the topic ban is still in place and it will be enforced if he violates it again.[26]   Will Beback  talk  20:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There are conflicting warnings and bans. Coffee put up a notice saying Mr. Weber is banned from everything, even articles. Will Beback says only Wikipedia space. Mr. Weber says only a 3 month period was in effect, now expired, and that he's stopped some annoying behavior. That's why a clarity period is needed. Everyone should be on their best behavior in January 2010 and should try to get accustomed to that in the 10 days before that. Then there will be a clear period to assess Mr. Weber. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Please review your facts. I placed a formal Wikipedia/talk space ban, I said nothing about all articles. And it's too late for a 1,000th chance, he can either appeal the ban, or accept it and edit articles. There is no point in a "January 2010 test". --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 20:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any ban on editing Wikipedia in general, just edits to the project-space, such as this page or RFAs. The community ban placed on Kmweber in September 2008 is unequivocal. The best thing would be for Kmweber to avoid further confrontation stick to writing articles.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirm the indefinite ban from the WP space as per the discussion Ryan Postlethwaite closed. Viridae^Talk 21:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirm indefinite ban from non-article space as above.  Sandstein  22:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think mine was a newbie question - Wikidemon (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment / question - Please forgive for butting in, and no opinion on the underlying matter, but does "non-article space" include: article talk space? category space? user / user talk space? media files? portals? This may or may not seem obvious, and I do not mean this as a comment about the editor in question, but many people who tend towards the disruptive on process, meta-matters, and civility do so on each others' talk pages, templates, projects / portals, and article talk pages. Others do not. Perhaps it would avoid future confusion to be very specific on this. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Answer - It's non "non-article space", but "Wikipedia space". Basically, any page that has "Wikipedia:" or "Wikipedia talk:" in the front of the name. None of the areas you inquired about above match that criteria, so that still leaves a large number of places to contribute. -- Atama頭 23:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Confirm WP-space ban. If Kurt is going to insist on arguing this, I'll add to the pile-on support for the restriction. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Confirming the ban. Kwmeber has been using the wikipedia space only to fight his ideological battles, he can do that at some other website. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Radical-Dreamer

This came to my attention through vaguely unnacceptable edits at Siemens - [27] Note the title "Support of Iran's Nuke program" - suitable for a newspaper perhaps, not justified in this article at all.

Looking through the users edits I see numerous potential POV issues eg [28] (I don't know the subject but I suspect a 17th century Islamic scholar is a notable resident).

Similar edit [29]

Edit summary : [30]

Shortfatlad (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• He's obviously lunching a personal attack against me. He kept deleting my addition to the Siemens article. When I told him I'm going to report him for vandalism of the article, he blames me instead ! This guy is a joke. No wonder he got banned 3 times already. Admins - please check the history of the article and see for yourselves. I offered him to change the article but instead he deleted the whole paragraph !!!!! He's doing great by DELETING other people's work.Radical-Dreamer (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

'Lunching'. BEST. TYPO. EVER. HalfShadow 21:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Moreover, he was already warned in the past by User:Geschichte against personal attacks on Wikipedia (see user's talk page). Radical-Dreamer (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Radical-Dreamer you're not supposed to change the title of the section as you did here [31], and you are definately not supposed to delete my post to this page as you did here. [32]. You've already had two editors question your edits [33] Don't you think you might be going in the wrong direction on this.Shortfatlad (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit to Siemens is inappropriate, plain and simple. Radical-Dreamer's behavior here on ANI is even more so. I have now twice reverted attempts to change this report so it's about Shortfatlad instead of Radical-Dreamer. The last attempt also deleted every participation from Shortfatlad.--Atlan (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead of deleting my edit completely, either of you could make the paragraph more neutral (IMO, it was neutral already). Right now, both of you are trying to cover this up and completely remove it from Wikipedia unjustly. Radical-Dreamer (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently awaiting further input (from third parties) at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Siemens_news and am willing to add it in a non-biased way.

You have been removing links to the arabic wikipedia on some articles - which doesn't look good - can you say if there is a reason for this (please note I cannot read arabic)Shortfatlad (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Also your recent edit to Siemens history [34] breaks the "three revert rule" see Wikipedia:3rr#The_three-revert_rule - again this is something you shouldn't be doing. Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring as you should be aware of this.Shortfatlad (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reported the 3RR violation, as it doesn't appear talk page discussion is quite enough incentive not to edit war over this.--Atlan (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Shortfatlad - Now you're stalking me??! I'm pretty sure this is a personal attack. Radical-Dreamer (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like anything close to a personal attack, to me. Shortfatlad is reporting on your behavior in a neutral fashion. Woogee (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

RD: You might want to take a gander at this and see what is considered to be a personal attack, and what is not. Nothing in this thread even comes close. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Restate problem

User:Radical-Dreamer (edit | [[Talk:User:Radical-Dreamer|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is currently under a 24hr block for 3RR, but that was not the original problem. Uncharitably, I see an account used predominately for adding and removing material in a completely non-neutral way - as well as that mentioned above, there is also creaton of articles to make a point [35] [36] (relates to their objection to Israeli Occupation Forces being a redirect I think), as well as already being warned about the problem [37]

Can an admin at least explain to them what the issue is - I would think a final warning would be in order at the minimum, or maybe some sort of pre-emptive Wikipedia:Standard offer? Thanks.Shortfatlad (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Bill the Cat 7

Bill the Cat 7 (talk · contribs) insists on calling Rosemary Radford Ruether "fringe, leftist" in the article Antisemitism in the New Testament, and a "nut job" on the article's Talk: page. When challenged for a source for the "fringe, leftist" claim, he has produced this footnote:

She is a member of Democratic Socialists of America (http://www.dsausa.org/about/structure.html), a self-described ecofeminist, and as a signatory to the 9/11 Truth Statement (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633), she is a conspiracy theorist."[38]

The "fringe, leftist" descriptor has been removed by another editor and me several times, and the description of her as a "nut job" on the article Talk: page has been removed by three editors, but he persists in restoring both.[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] I brought the mattter to WP:BLP/N yesterday, with no response, and I've warned him twice on his Talk: page with little apparent impact. Unless someone has a better idea, I plan to block him for 24 hours if he adds either description again. Comments? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the process of researching how to request mediation between me and Jayjg. This is the first time I've had to do this so it will most likely take a few days. At any rate, I firmly believe that my edits, with sources, justify the wording I used to describe Rosemary Ruether. The sources Jayjg posted above can be consulted, but he left out one which I guess got lost in this edit war. Here it is:

But I am always aware that I reappropriate Christianity from a markedly different basis than do traditional Christians. http://womenshistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=womenshistory&cdn=education&tm=9&gps=130_296_1020_567&f=20&tt=14&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title%3D1753

This last source, in her own words, makes the use of the word "fringe" justifiable. The other sources listed above can be researched and can lead an honest person to conclude that she is indeed "leftist" (which is a fair, non-insulting word).

Also, regarding the phrase "nut job" - I was in the process of removing it but there was an edit conflict and Jayjg got to it first. Here is what I wrote right after:

--------

Ok, fair enough. I removed it (actually, you removed it; seems like we are editing this page at the same time). Note however, that my edits of the article itself are NOT personal opinions; they are well sourced. I also added another one, in her own words. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like an edit war has just begun. I'll be restoring my well-sourced edits soon, but I think we are now at the point where we require arbitration/mediation by Wikipedia since you are deleting acceptable sources and then falsely claiming that I didn't source my edits. Are you willing to participate in a mediation Jayjg? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

--------

Finally, my main point in editing this page from the very beginning was to show that the person being quoted (Rosemary Ruether) about so-called antisemitism in the New Testament (which she believes permeates the ENTIRE New Testament) is not in the mainstream of NT scholarship and has an agenda of her own. The way the article stands now, it is filled with POV and even the title itself (Antisemitism in the New Testament) is biased. It should be called "Perceived Antisemitism in the New Testament", or something like that, since that doesn't automatically assume any antisemitism.

Be that as it may, I am very willing to discuss this with Jayjg (and others) in detail, but since he only seems to want to threaten me and exhibits a "my way or the highway" attitude, I'm going to have to request a neutral moderator. Thank you for listening. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Bill, I'm not an editor of the article, I'm an administrator there. As an administrator I'm charged with (among other things) enforcing WP:BLP. If I see persistent, continued violations, in that article or others, I will block the offenders. If you continue to insist that you will "be restoring my well-sourced edits soon", and in particular if you act on your threat, then you will experience that. I strongly urge you to carefully and slowly read WP:BLP, at least twice. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I would further comment about the label of "leftist"; if review of the various positions taken by the subject tends the reader to consider them a "leftisit" then fine, but it is not something the article writer should place in the article - because then the writer is making the judgement and not the reader (and there is the problem of the implied authority of the writer and encyclopedia). Also, if a reliable source calls them leftist by either their own interpetation or reporting another source then that can be included, but in a neutral manner. This encyclopedia reports the sources, and leaves determination up to the reader. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so. Personal characterizations -- especially ones intended as derogatory, such as these -- should be avoided unless they are completely well sourced (for example, saying "XXX is a discredited YYY" requires very strong and highly credible sources saying precisely "discredited"). This applies to article pages as well as talk pages; our policies are that items breaking WP:BLP must be immediately removed on sight, and are not subject to 3RR restrictions (they may be treated as vandalism.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I assure everyone that I have read WP:BLP. If there is a certain part that I'm in violoation of, then please state so explicitly. Until that happens, I'm happy to discuss why I used the terms "leftist" and "fringe", which are NOT derogatory (see further comments below).

Regarding one of Jayjg's comments: shouldn't an administrator who claims someone is in violation of WP:BLP provide specifice evidence to that effect rather than falsely (in my opinion) accusing someone of it? I mean, I was very willing to discuss the issue with you (Jayjg) in the discussion section and even asked (more than once) to request a neutral moderator, but you declined every time. If I didn't follow the correct procedure, then fine; just tell me specifically where I erred. However, I don't appreciate your "my way or the highway" approach. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it is worth, I've never heard anyone use the word 'leftist,' or seen the word ever used in writing, in any way other than a derogatory way. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's used as a neutral term all of the time. It is only used as an epithet amongst some conservative circles. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The derogatory use of "leftist" is more common in countries whose politics skew right. That said, another problem with labelling someone as "leftist" is that the word does not have a generally agreed meaning. Wikipedia should not be in the business of deciding where the line between leftists and rightists lies: that's original research. Describe what groups the individual belongs to and let the reader decide. In the same way, editors should not call living persons "nut jobs" - there's no justification for that. It's libellous, it's very point-of-view, it's slangy and subject to misinterpretation, and it's completely inaccurate: "holding unpopular or unusual political views" is not a psychiatric condition found in the DSM-IV. --NellieBly (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

FisherQueen, I agree with T-85. There is even a wiki article on the term, leftist, which IMHO is NOT derogatory any more than rightist is, or any more than Democrat/Republican/Libertarian are. My intent in using that term is simply to show that Ruether is not "mainstream". Yet, if the term is still to be considered non-neutral, then I'm perfectly fine with another term - suggestions anyone? Be that as it may, the organization that she is a vice chair of can be accurately referred to as "leftist" (just look here for their perspecitve if you have any doubt - http://www.dsausa.org/about/where.html). Therefore, my description of her is accurate (and for those who don't like the word "leftist", once again, I'm open to suggestions). I'll explain my use of the term "fringe" in my response to the user Amerlioration below. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• If the source (Ruether) is widely considered in independent sources to hold an extremist or fringe viewpoint, it is appropriate to note that in a nonbiased way. Such a note would be in accordance with neutrality. Perhaps User:Bill the Cat 7 would consider clearly indicating what neutral source shows Ruether to hold a fringe view. —Amelioration 01:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Hello, Amelioration. Let me preface my reason for the use of the word "fringe" with this analogy. If someone says to us, "I have an irrational fear of enclosed spaces" or "I have an irrational fear of spiders", then, IMO, it is perfectly acceptable, does not violate WP:BLP, and is NPOV to describe that person as "claustrophobic" or "arachnophobic", respectively. Now, let's see what Ruether says about herself:

But I am always aware that I reappropriate Christianity from a markedly [bold-italic emphasis added] different basis than do traditional Christians. (http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1753)

Notice that she is NOT saying, "I differ slightly" or somewhat or in some cases. Rather she uses the word "markedly" to describe how she approaches Christianity. Therefore, if the word "fringe" is not the right word for that self-identification, then, once again, I'm open to suggestions.

Finally, she claims, according to the wiki article Antisemitism_in_the_New_Testament that the ENTIRE New Testament is antisemitic!! Now, I have no problem with the claim per se, but the typcial wiki reader may not realize how out of the mainstream such a claim is. This sounds to me to be a violation of the WP:Fringe policy, especially (but not necessarily exclusively) the "quotations" portion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe#Quotations).

And speaking of the WP:Fringe policy, the entire wiki article (Antisemitism In the New Testament) is an exercise in the violation of that policy, but that's a different story. At any rate, that's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say that both the 'Truther' and Antisemitism portions should be in the article. You don't have to use descriptors in the intro of the biography, but you can put in subsections that describe the actions. Find reliable sources that cite the fact that she signed the 'Truther' petition and the descriptors they use. You can't link to the truther petition yourself and use your own descriptor, that's WP:OR. But if the NYT or another outlet point this out and they use the words 'fringe', then you can put in "Described as a fringe leftist by the NYT for both her signing of the 9-11 truth petition and her claim that the NT is antisemitic". Or something like that. DD2K (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Bill the Cat 7, this is pretty simple. Do multiple, reliable sources described her as a "fringe, leftist" Christian theologian in relation to her view on Antisemitism in the New Testament? Not your own analysis of her views, but sources specifically describing her this way, in this context? If the answer is "no", then the article can't describe her that way either. That's all that matters here. Don't explain why you think she is a "fringe, leftist" theologian; instead find reliable sources that do, in the context of her statements on the topic of the article. No more arguing, just reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Reliable Sources" here is particularly problematic. An organiztion such as Fox News would likely have no problem calling her a fringe leftist, whereas The New Yorker likely would. How do we determine what is or is not a reliable source given the circumstances, without introducing our own opinions as to what is a biased source and what is not? Throwaway85 (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Despite your statement, it appears that "reliable sources" here are no more "problematic" than anywhere else, as there don't appear to be any reliable sources describing her as "fringe, leftist", much less using that descriptor in relation to her beliefs about the New Testament. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to ask everyone a yes/no question. If someone says to us, "I have an irrational fear of enclosed spaces" or "I have an irrational fear of spiders", then does that mean we cannot use the descriptor "claustrophobic" or "arachnophobic", respectively, without violating WP:BLP? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to back people into a yes/no answer is seldom a good way of convincing them of the merits of your argument. You may think you have "won", but they will think you a fool, and an arrogant one at that. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

T-85, sorry if I gave you that impression, but that was certainly not my intention. Perhaps I'm wording the question wrong, but it is a sincere one. Also, I'm a loooong way off from "wining" anything. Besides, I'm not in this for a "win". I just want to know if using a single-word description is acceptable in the example I gave above (i.e., "claustrophobic" or "arachnophobic"). Yet again, I'm not emotionally committed to the inclusion of the words "leftist" and "fringe" (as some may be to their exclusion) if other words would be better alternatives - I mean, that is why I have repeatedly asked for single-word suggestions that would sum up Ruether's own self-description. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not a problem, and I apologize for any offense my post may have caused. It's simply too often that people come on AN/I trying to "win" the argument through such childish rhetorical tools. As for your question, I glanced over the article you linked, but couldn't find a passage that seemed relevant to the case you are making. Could you provide a lazy editor with a more specific link? As for the (edit conflict), we would need a secondary reliable source, or her herself, to label her a 'leftist' for it to be includable. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

T-85, which link that I provided didn't seem relevant? Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question, but it's almost 2 in the morning right now and the only word that seems to be popping up in my mind is "pillow". Did you mean the one where Ruether says, "But I am always aware that I reappropriate Christianity from a markedly different basis than do traditional Christians"? Please let me know and I'll comply. Regarding the word "leftist", please see my response to Dayewalker below. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm simply not seeing where she says she has "an irrational fear" of anythig, or anything else that might justify such a label in the absence of a reliable source outright saying it. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

He's not saying Radford Ruether has an irrational fear, he's saying the words she uses to describe lher position (from a markedly different basis than do traditional Christians) equates to Fringe as 'irrational fear of spiders' equates to arachnophobia.

"Arachnophobic" has no negative connotations, whereas "leftist" in this context is a personal opinion, based on interpretation of the subject's position. Dayewalker (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

When I use the word "leftist", I mean it in the context described by the wiki article leftist, and thus has no negative connotation and nor is not my personal opinion. Remember, she is the vice-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. But if you would like to suggest another word that is a synonym for "leftist", yet lacks the perceived negative connotations, then I'm all ears. How about "progressive"? As a side note, I was reading one of Ruether's articles earlier and she very plainly states that she is a "religious socialist" and is on the "religious left". I can find it again and provide a link if anyone thinks it would be advance this discussion. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I am going to write this very slowly but loudly; You cannot describe someone in an article as "leftist" to describe their viewpoint or political stance. You can quote someone else so describing them, provided it comes via reliable sources. It wouldn't matter if the entire editing faculty of WP agreed with your assesment, because the majority are aware that WP:OR does not allow us to place our own interpretations in article spacde. The end. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely the best bet is to utilize Radford Ruether's own statement, and avoid using singe word interpretations. "Radford Reuther herself has said that she approaches Christianity from a markedly different basis than do traditional Christians (cite). Then if Fox News refers to her as fringe, we can say "this has led to her being refered to as Fringe by sources such as Fox News (cite). You could contrast her view with those of others "this stance is not supported by any mainstream Christian denomination (cite). It's trying to cram people into pigeonholes in the first sentence that causes the problems. Let the text breathe a bit.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Leave her political orientation out of it entirely. Most of the opposition here is driven by your intent to add a political label upon her, when there is no source which explicitly cites it in context with her religious values. It really isn't relevant in this case, because I know people who share my religious values who are rampaging right-wingers, flaming lefties, and all points in between. Elen of the Roads has a good idea (the post immediately above mine), but I don't think it's necessary to identify her politics at all in this case. It *is* important to note that her religious views don't jibe with mainstream Christianity, but you've identified relevant references to cite that. Horologium (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In regards to her religious views, use the quotes elen provided. As for her political views, we can't say anything without a reliable source explicitly saying it for us. She is a self-described "Liberal Cristian", so you may be able to include that quote, but anything else has to be straight from a secondary source. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly right, Horologium. Jayjg ^(talk)

FYI: I'm extremely busy for the next day or so. I'll comment again soon, and I think we are very close to a resolution. Jayjg and others have made excellent points, but I'm not able to repsond in depth right now. Once again, just FYI. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Failure to explain rationale for declining unprotection

Resolved

 – Article unprotected. (X! · talk)  · @288  ·  05:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see this section. Thanks. 87.23.5.174 (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You indicate that you are a registered user, and that your problem is not with this specific article, but with semiprotection in general. It seems like it would be more effective to log in and discuss your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, wouldn't it? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have already done that, to no avail. Besides, I have no problem with the current policy. My problem is with the randomness and confusion surrounding its application. Please help with this specific case. Thank you. 87.23.5.174 (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to edit semiprotected articles, just register an account. I don't see why that is so hard... --Jayron32 02:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, but I think you are missing the point of my request. 87.23.5.174 (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I just don't think your concerns are all that merited. There are avenues for editing semiprotected articles. Either you wish to edit them, or you don't. If you just want to debate the semiprotection policy or its application, you can do that at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy. If you want to edit semiprotected articles, then register an account. I don't see why this thread is here otherwise. --Jayron32 02:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case, please explain the reason why this section exists. I cannot see any pre-requisites for filing a request for unprotection, specifically having an account or wanting to contribute to the article. As I see it, the article has been unprotected indefinitely (and has been refused unprotection) in disregard of current policy. This is the issue. Thanks. 87.23.5.174 (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, after reviewing the Beryllium article, I think that indefinite semiprotection may have been hasty. I think unprotecting may be OK, but I would not be willing to do so over the objection of two admins who have already declined it. I think the greater problem was your approach. walls of text which quote copious policy obfuscate your point here. Had you made a simple, short request explaining that it had been long enough, you may have had better results. I will invite the two admins who declined your request to comment on this ANI thread. If they acede, I will unprotect and monitor the article myself for potential problems. --Jayron32 02:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have contacted the two admins in question. We now await their response here before proceeding. --Jayron32 02:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense, thank you. I will heed your advice in any future requests. 87.23.5.174 (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Indef semi-protection for a chemical seems a bit steep to me. We don't give William Golding or Walter Ralegh indef, jsut lots of short bouts of it. DuncanHill (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there was some nettlesome, bored schoolkid vandalism many months back, which more often than not comes in waves, rather than steadily throughout the year. Since IPs do make helpful edits to articles like this, I'd think indef s-protection would never be called for here. S-protect for a few months, maybe, then let it lapse and see what happens. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I would also endorse unprotection. Whatever seems to have happened way back probably will not occur again in the near future. Any cases that do pop up should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. (X! · talk)  · @253  ·  05:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As the original semi-protecting admin, I have unprotected the article. I don't understand the rationale for a registered user to log out and complain about the inability to edit the article. Nor do I know why a second registered account, named Soque1, was created. But I have no stake in the article; it was semi-protected by user request, and can be unprotected at same. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Firsfron, thanks for unprotecting. I've unprotected many articles through RFPP, but generally only with some sort of rationale for unprotection, such as "it's time to try unprotection", "I want to add information on A and B". tedder (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

My main rationale for declining unprotection was that before the protection their was vandalism daily that was disrupting the building of the article as well as Firsfron's decision less than a month ago to keep the article protected. Now that Firsfron has unprotected I'm fine with the unprotection. Malinaccier (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Troublemaking Account At Last Exposed

Is there any way that this account can be deleted? Over two years ago this account was part of a very nasty dispute in which I was involved and, after some time, I finally got confirmation of who exactly this was. The answer was an IT specialist at the United States Embassy in Dubai, connected in some way through the Naval Attaché office, From what I have gathered, one of the original disputes between either Durin or Morwen and myself was bookmarked on some public computer in Dubai, and this individual created an account to “aide me in my defense” but in fact had the intention of flaring up the conflict even further. Why I am telling the community this now is that a) you all deserve an explanation and b) This account is still linked to my name in some ways and creates a very bad image even nearly three years later. I think Wikipedia admins should delete that account since it was created for no other reason than to deceive people.

I should also add that no doubt many people will always believe that I was behind that account but it just isn’t so. The ip traces of that original account – from Dubai – are a dead giveaway since my time in the Middle East was several hundred miles away in a different part of the region. That account was also making edits from the Middle East after I departed – all of this is provable by official records which I can share via private e-mail.

So, I ask that this account be deleted since it connects to a dead dispute, was created to fool people, and still serves to discredit me should anyone dig into the links to that page. -OberRanks (talk) 07:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted. Sorry. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 08:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You could ask for the user page to be deleted or blanked, so it doesn't show up in search engine results. Aiken ♫ 18:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the good tips here. I recall now I was told before the account cant be deleted. Can I simply blank the page myself? Or is there a tag we can place that the account was created to impersonate another user? I also wasn't "blameless and pure" back in those days and the original dispute that drew this other user was 90% my fault. I apologize to the community for that and thanke veryone for their help now. -OberRanks (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I notice that, even though the account has not edited in more than two years, it's still required that somebody report to the User involved that they're being discussed here. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedldia!

Resolved

 – All of the IPs have been blocked, for 1 year. -Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 09:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone here remember the "Welcome to Wikipedldia! Dont hesitate to ask for helP!!!!" messages from a week or two ago? He's ba-aack... See [48]. There may be more...look for a gibberishish edit summary, in this case "dfgdfgdgdfgggfdgdgfgddggdf" Drmies (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Now it's in mainspace: seethis edit. I hope a bunch of Wikipedia's hottest geeks are on it! Drmies (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The vandalizer left me a message on my talk page: [49]. Drmies (talk) 07:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been all over. WTF is going on? It's coming from all sorts of IPs. tedder (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been instablocking as vandalbots. Haven't yet seen a pattern that a rangeblock would do any good for. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the same thing that happened a while ago--someone here had a very smart, very technical explanation, but it didn't end with someone getting the shit kicked out of them, unfortunately. For laughs, look through my recent contributions. Drmies (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't currently have abuse filter privileges set up, would anyone like to add the edit summaries "bv3dsxcssdq" and "dfgdfgdgdfgggfdgdgfgddggdf" to it? That seems to be a recurring motif, probably stop a good lot of it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have AF turned on, but no experience, so I'm not going to do it. There is some text in the message that could be checked against too. ("anomtalk", for instance) tedder (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be the anontalk spammer: see the contribs of User:69.138.40.159 -- The Anome (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm blocking individual IPs as I see them, haven't identified ranges yet. IPs appear to be dynamic mostly, so long blocks won't be helpful. -SpacemanSpiff 07:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'm just anonblocking for a week, because it's an easy setting to use. tedder (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Currently playing with a filter, number 276. It is a log-only filter. tedder (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

A search for "Wikipedldia" finds lots of earlier vandalism from the same source: as well as being a way to find edits to undo, this may also be a useful way of finding other IPs to block. -- The Anome (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Go through the ANI archives--this happened before while I was watching (same message, different edit summaries, I think), and I'm sure it's happened lots of times before. Drmies (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is a related case, but registered user Sky hook hanger (talk · contribs) recently exhibited similar repetitive behavior. (On further reflection, this is a different MO, so probably not.) -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 08:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on a scan of recent changes, I've identified 80 distict IP's. Would anybody like that list? -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 08:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI - From a scan of recent anon edits to user talk [50] between 07:06 and 07:51, I came up with the following list.

IP user list

• 123.125.156.132 (talk · contribs)
• 123.125.156.135 (talk · contribs)
• 123.125.156.142 (talk · contribs)
• 123.125.156.151 (talk · contribs)
• 123.125.156.194 (talk · contribs) - Added
• 123.125.156.195 (talk · contribs)
• 123.125.156.196 (talk · contribs)
• 123.125.156.197 (talk · contribs)
• 202.108.50.69 (talk · contribs)
• 202.108.50.70 (talk · contribs)
• 202.108.50.72 (talk · contribs)
• 202.108.50.73 (talk · contribs) - Added
• 202.108.50.74 (talk · contribs)
• 202.108.50.75 (talk · contribs)
• 202.108.50.76 (talk · contribs)
• 202.108.50.77 (talk · contribs)
• 202.108.50.77 (talk · contribs) - Added
• 206.255.77.163 (talk · contribs)
• 207.181.235.231 (talk · contribs)
• 207.228.61.168 (talk · contribs)
• 216.82.160.142 (talk · contribs)
• 221.130.13.89 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.130 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.131 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.132 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.133 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.134 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.135 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.137 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.138 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.139 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.140 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.141 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.142 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.142 (talk · contribs) - Added
• 60.217.248.143 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.144 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.145 (talk · contribs)
• 60.217.248.146 (talk · contribs)
• 67.213.199.145 (talk · contribs)
• 67.243.149.178 (talk · contribs)
• 67.49.21.231 (talk · contribs)
• 67.82.88.83 (talk · contribs)
• 67.83.121.121 (talk · contribs)
• 67.86.179.189 (talk · contribs)
• 68.111.101.75 (talk · contribs)
• 68.13.94.110 (talk · contribs)
• 68.191.141.11 (talk · contribs)
• 68.191.141.11 (talk · contribs) - Added
• 68.192.47.198 (talk · contribs)
• 68.38.220.104 (talk · contribs)
• 68.41.212.69 (talk · contribs)
• 68.47.99.249 (talk · contribs)
• 68.48.133.254 (talk · contribs)
• 68.49.173.147 (talk · contribs)
• 68.49.173.147 (talk · contribs) - Added
• 68.55.245.72 (talk · contribs)
• 68.58.137.224 (talk · contribs)
• 68.58.17.50 (talk · contribs)
• 68.58.17.50 (talk · contribs) - Added
• 68.60.22.128 (talk · contribs)
• 68.80.96.238 (talk · contribs)
• 68.81.101.87 (talk · contribs)
• 68.81.86.207 (talk · contribs)
• 69.114.238.174 (talk · contribs)
• 69.114.246.213 (talk · contribs)
• 69.117.157.4 (talk · contribs)
• 69.122.111.146 (talk · contribs)
• 69.126.223.20 (talk · contribs)
• 69.127.133.234 (talk · contribs)
• 69.138.40.159 (talk · contribs)
• 69.140.75.15 (talk · contribs)
• 69.24.162.214 (talk · contribs)
• 69.24.162.214 (talk · contribs) - Added
• 69.244.81.7 (talk · contribs)
• 69.246.108.62 (talk · contribs)
• 69.247.78.107 (talk · contribs)
• 69.255.220.42 (talk · contribs)
• 72.51.213.1 (talk · contribs)
• 74.193.134.220 (talk · contribs)
• 74.196.187.36 (talk · contribs)
• 92.32.116.150 (talk · contribs)
• 92.32.116.157 (talk · contribs)
• 96.19.211.242 (talk · contribs)
• 96.35.242.104 (talk · contribs)
• 98.145.232.24 (talk · contribs)
• 98.145.232.24 (talk · contribs) - Added
• 98.245.81.132 (talk · contribs)
• 99.190.38.47 (talk · contribs)

Not sure if this is all of them, but I thought I'd pass it along. (Need sleep now.) -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 08:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I added a few more IPs in the list above that targeted article talk rather than user talk. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 09:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice work to all involved in dealing with this! Good job with all hands on deck! Just for my own information for next time... he normally uses proxies for all of his spam, correct? And the normal blocking length for blocking his proxies is a year, two months, a month, a day? I notice admins are blocking for differing lengths of time. Just like to get a little clarification. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked at recent changes, filtered to show the last 5000 edits made by IPs, (which covers the entire raid) and can confirm that all of the actual vandalism this raid is accounted for, and all the IPs are blocked. I don't know what to do about all the page creations, as they are not obviously vandalism. In any case, based on past experience, it is virtually certain that all IPs in this raid are open proxies, so anyone who participated in blocking these should go through and hardblock the IPs you took care of for at least several months to a year. I will take care of the ones I did later, as it is 20 minutes till 04:00 a.m. where I live. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 08:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm on it. Blocking the IPs for 1 year. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 09:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Changed my blocks; for the next time, when there are anomalies, would ProcseeBot be able to handle it? -SpacemanSpiff 09:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed a problem when reverting edits last night... This person doesn't sign the garbage. So, the sinebot quickly signs them. Then, it isn't possible to go to the IPs contribs and click revert on each one. Is there some other easy way to revert or is it possible to tell sinebot not to sign junk with that bgbf... edit summary? -- kainaw™ 14:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Kainaw, I meant to add that same note last night. As soon as I noticed it I went through (via Recent Changes) and manually replaced all the "welcomes" with the standard welcome template; I did this by hand since I don't know of any other way. The problem is that I often got into edit conflicts with Sinebot if I was a few seconds too slow; if Sinebot beat me to it I obviously couldn't use rollback, which made it even more tedious. After I turned in it occurred to me that I should check if Sinebot has an "off button" (my kids don't have one...) that I could push. If not, it should be our standard procedure to turn it off one way or another while the attack is taking place; that will make dealing with it a lot easier, at least my non-automated way of dealing with it. Later all, Drmies (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've now removed all the instances of "Welcome to Wikipedldia!" vandalism that I could find using the in-wiki search tool. -- The Anome (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

User: Philip Baird Shearer

I feel the conduct of this admin on the Terror Bombing and History of Terrorism has been inappropriate for an admin. On terror bombing he frequently deleted any additions that didn't fit his personal perspective despite overwhelm consensus for such edits on the talk page. On History of Terrorism he has recently presented himself as a neutral admin however he has previously supported the disputed version that he seeks to lock down, As such I feel he is not approaching the issue with clean hands. Similarly I find his attempt to block anonymous editors who have made substantial and useful contributions to the page also very dubious as it seems simply trying exclude those he disagrees with. I am extremely concerned by his conduct and would appreciate a more expert eye applied to it. Sherzo (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

PBS notified. Unomi (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sherzo, please provide diffs of what you see to be problematic behaviour. Unomi (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the article Terror Bombing or anything like it on PBS's contribution list. Which article are you referring to? GedUK  11:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It would seem to be Terror bombing which is now a redirect. Camw (talk) 11:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've created another redirect at Terror Bombing.   pablo_hablo. 11:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sherzo, whatever happened to discussing the incident and trying to resolve it directly with the other editor first, whether or not they are an admin. The only recent post I see at Philip Baird Shearer from you is 5 minutes after submitting an ANI request. This is not the way things are done on Wikipedia, and you know that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The redirect Terror Bombing will not help much as to understand what Sherzo is commenting on is to look at Talk:Terror bombing and the history of Terror bombing. Nothing that I did in the article Terror bombing involved administrative powers.

The second page History of terrorism does involve the use of administrative powers. I have never edited the content of the page all the edits have been used to stop edit warring and uncivil behaviour. The core of the accusation here is "On History of Terrorism he has recently presented himself as a neutral admin however he has previously supported the disputed version that he seeks to lock down". This allegation is made without a history diff to show were I have expressed support for either version. What I have said is "Without getting into the pros and cons of the specific edit, deleting 11,000 bytes from this article is neither here not there as it is so badly written at the moment it is like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. --PBS (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)"

I suggest that anyone interested reads the sections Three month edit block on new accounts and IP addresses and One month block 2009-12-12" on Talk:History of terrorism. Also consider that two other administrators have tried to sort this out over the last few months without success, and all I am trying to do is make the two main protagonists use the dispute resolution process so that the long running edit war stops.

That Sherzo (contributions) reverts History of terrorism, starts this thread and has not placed a comment on the talk page of the article or used Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-10-21/History of terrorism tells its own story. -- PBS (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree, there seems a severe lack of talk page engagement on the part of Sherzo. There also seems to be a willingness to involve SPI and ANI. A summary of the environment as assessed by QuantPole as of 2009 July is here. Unomi (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm involved in this dispute, only as much as I took interest in the previous mediation request (which I closed for lack of interest) and was recently asked to consider reopening it. Sherzo left a troubling comment on my page, where they stated that their only interest in Wikipedia was to "edit rarely nowadays and just generally revert haberstr vandalism to history of terrorism", because "haberstr action have been recognised as vandalism". Haberstr is the other editor with a primary involvement in the dispute that led to the mediation request. I'd like to note that Haberstr has a clean block log and no legitimate vandalism complaints (only one complaint from an anonymous editor who was in a content dispute with them). I'm concerned about Sherzo's declared lack of interest in improving Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 22:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of userpage User:Pbalajula?

This userpage seems to violate the normal purpose for a userpage. The editor makes no edits to Wikipedia and has created this autobiography, including external links and categories. It has been edited by these accounts:

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

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

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

The page only mentions Peter Balajula once and spends the rest of the space dealing with Ted Failon, who is apparently under investigation for shooting his wife, and this is unsourced information.

If this user (or Ted Failon) is currently in Saudi Arabia and is trying to bring their userpage into compliance as a normal userpage, or to fix a BLP violation, then they should probably be allowed to do so. Since they make no edits to Wikipedia, it might even be better to delete the page completely.

This actually brings up a related issue. If someone doesn't edit here, they have no right to host a userpage here. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is why WP:MFD exists. Collect (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a custom to notify users of an ANI discussion? Otherwise, they may find their page deleted suddenly. The user page use of categories at the bottom is questionable to me. I thought categories were for articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice given. Cirt (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and removed the categories and interwiki's that are intended for articles only. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

While the shooting of his wife is unsourced on the user page it is sourced in the Ted Failon article. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 07:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Gandev88

Resolved

 – Solved - user adding ref's from here on out. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 22:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I hope this is the appropriate place to raise a concern about an editor who has repeatedly ignored warnings to stop violating WP:BLP by creating new articles about Bulgarian football players that are completely unsourced. I have personally advised he or she three times on his talk page to add references to these new articles, and several other editors and bots have left him dozens of similar messages. It's quite possible that the editor doesn't check his talk page, so I'm at a complete loss on how to get him or her to stop. By my count, this editor has created at least 200 unreferenced BLPs in his or her time on Wikipedia (almost all of them after receiving many warnings not to do so). Please let me know what if anything can be done to either get this editor to follow the rules or to give him or her some kind of block to get the point across. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but WP:V only requires that "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations" be sourced. Obviously, we'd like everything to be referenced, but I'm not sure how creating un-controversial articles on professional football players is problematic. I can't read Bulgarian, so I can't speak to whether sources are likely to exist (and WP:GNG would be met), but nothing I've seen comes across as a violation of WP:BLP. Stating that someone is a football player doesn't seem to be a contentious fact. (Or is the concern that the articles aren't about professional footballers, and are hence unlikely to be notable?) -- Bfigura ^(talk) 17:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of the articles are getting sourced [51] [52] [53], at least to some degree. (Again, not familiar enough to know if the links cited would be reliable, but on first glance they seem reasonable). I'll leave the editor a note asking him/her to make sure to continue to include refs. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

BLPs without a single reference are certainly unhealthy for Wikipedia. I think the articles should be brought to AFD, or perhaps PRODded, to see if they are really notable. If people find they are, they may come up with suitable sources. At the moment though, the articles don't appear to be written negatively, nor are they obviously not notable, so they don't really appear to violate BLP. So I don't think a block is appropriate yet, but as they seem to have never edited a talk page, they may have A communication problem. If they continue to create unreferenced BLPs, you could come back here. Regards, Aiken ♫ 18:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for the input. I can certainly reference many of the articles for this editor, but it is unfortunate that he or she continues to add to the amount of unreferenced BLPs (I realize these are harmless articles, but they detract from Wikipedia as the information is potentially inaccurate and notability is unclear) and ignores the many warnings he or she has received. I'll try to source as many as I can and leave another message with the editor to see if he or she can help improve some of them. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I;m the one writing articles on bulgarian footballers and I'm terribly sorry if I have caused any trouble.I would like to make everything clear, so in responce to the first post - I have tried to respond to you, but I coulnd't because wikipedia is not that easy to work with.However after I received the second message from you I started to put external links field in all my articles and I'm puttling links in there.And something I'd like to ask is if there is a difference between External links and references, because there is a external links page in almost all mu postings.Once again sorry for the trouble and I want to assure you that all the articles are based on real people and as a football fan I'm glad to add them to wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandev88 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind message Gandev88. I appreciate your help, and wanted to point you to the Wikipedia Football Project page where there are other editors interested in football that would gladly help you with questions about editing footballer articles and other topics. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Hibe3000

Resolved

 – Page move vandal blocked. TNXMan 19:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Series of vandalisms this morning from Hibe3000, such as changing Toosey First Nation to Roland First Nation and doing similar "Roland" name changes to other articles, and who knows what else is to be found in their user contributions (I note a bunch marked "minor" which are probably anything but). In response to a warning from User:Strafpeloton2 I made a post at User:STrafpeloton's page, to which this user protested that I used quote-marks "his" to refer to him; his response of my talkpage and ensuing comments make it clear that this person is not interested in being a wikipedian, but only with being a nuisance. IMO should be immediately blocked, probably permanently, and all his/her page-moves and edits reversed forthwith.Skookum1 (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism can be reported to WP:AIV. Regards, Aiken ♫ 18:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

User admits sockpuppetry

I'm still fairly new to Wiki, so I don't even know if this is the right place to post this, but this edit appears to be an open admittance of WP:SOCK. WossOccurring (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Open admittance kinda runs counter to WP:SOCK violations. Publicly acknowledging multiple accounts is what we want people to do. Maybe him and a friend were sharing an account (which is a violation) but he's realized that's not supposed to happen, and is now doing it right. We don't really punish people for correcting their own inadvertant rules violations. Unless, of course, one of the accounts is actually blocked, there's not much to do here. --Jayron32 21:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Another user admits sockpuppetry

I've blocked User:DRC1976 as a sock of User:Sithrathien based on DRC's creation of Sithrathien with the text of "A user name I previously had under my real data for www.wikipedia.org." Sith was indefinitely blocked by Jdelanoy over a year ago as a vandalism-only account. Per WP:EVADE, I'm confident that I've done the right thing, but I'd like to let others know in case this user protests. Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, has DRC1976 done anything wrong in the intervening year? A reformed user who's been "clean" for over a year after starting off "on the bad foot" after a short spat of vandalism probably doesn't deserve a block. Is there more than this? --Jayron32 21:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

They've created 9 new articles in less than 30 minutes, 7 of which were speedily deleted. The remaining two were turned into redirects. It looks like they've evaded the original block to add nonsense to Wikipedia, which leads me to strongly support this block. -- Atama頭 23:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I would note that the deleter of the 3 articles I reviewed was Nyttend, but have no argument on the basis of the deletions. Per Jayron32 I might have extended AGF a little in that I might have issued an "only" warning, but I don't think the block by Nyttend is inappropriate. My only slight concern is that in a years time a new account will start adding nonsense stubs without referencing a previous besmirched identity - but then they may do that without this account being blocked anyway. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that we need to assume any good faith on the part of an indefinitely blocked user who is attempting to evade a block; if the user had filed an unblock request, or had created this username to do nothing except file an unblock request for the first username, I'd be more willing to look kindly on the question. In my mind, the big thing is block evasion — the person formerly known as Sithrathien has been prohibited from editing Wikipedia indefinitely, so — in the absence of consensus to the contrary — I think it best to ensure that this person is unable to edit Wikipedia. Thanks for the input. Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:98.237.250.200

User talk:98.237.250.200 is repeatedly disrupting Omerta, removing referenced material, a template and adding information that is already dealt with on Omerta (disambiguation). He is also attacking other editors, see here. - DonCalo (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, he has not edited since his most recent warning. Should we perhaps wait until he edits in violation of that warning? --Jayron32 01:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Too late, I've blocked him for a week for making death threats; even with warnings, that is utterly unacceptable behaviour. There are times when blocks need to be imposed not as punishment but as preventative, not only of a particular editor, but of editors in general, since such behaviour is completely contrary to our principles and should be, and be seen to be, intolerable. Time to stop pussyfooting around here, I think. Rodhullandemu 01:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't check that diff. Absolutely, no warnings for that shit. Completely appropriate block. Fully endorse. --Jayron32 02:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The threat is terrible, threat of bodily harm. Given the block duration of other editors, one week seems rather short. Even legal threats result in indefinite block. Consider a longer block, such as 30 days. Since it is an IP, allowing current account holders to edit after, say 31 hours or 7 days is acceptable. Anyone wish to reconsider? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

COI etc. at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin R. D. Shepherd

Resolved

 – AFD was closed as delete: "The result was delete. I'm deliberately closing this soon after a relist, as I see little hope of gaining a clearer consensus than already exists. The arguments for deletion are well grounded in that reliable coverage of either Shepherd or his work must have been the subject of independent, reliably published material. This has been clearly articulated, particularly by DGG, and the lack of such coverage has not been refuted. The extremely lengthy arguments to keep provide some interesting commentary, but no substantive argument that Shepherd passes any of the notability criteria. Kevin (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)" --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I just tried to close the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin R. D. Shepherd, and ended up having to relist after spending an hour on it. I believe more uninvolved eyes are needed on this AfD and its participants (I don't mean Smartse, the nominator).

Kevin R.D. Shepherd is an apparently self-taught British scholar who writes self-published books on philosophy, including criticising certain groups, gurus and sects, e.g. Sathya Sai Baba. There seem to be issues with COI on both sides: some editors supporting deletion may be associated with the sects he criticises, and some editors opposing deletion may be closely associated with Shepherd or otherwise be opposed to this sect. Note that there has been arbitration in this area before: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2.

If this was a simple judgement of the WP:GNG, WP:PROF, or WP:CREATIVE, Shepherd would undoubtedly fail. The only coverage I can find is in a book by Marianne Warren, excerpted here. His work has been cited a handful of times over the decades, certainly not enough to say he has had an impact on his field. But it is not that simple. Editors are supporting inclusion despite the apparent failure to meet notability guidelines. The arguments to keep are lengthy but weak: appeals to OTHERSTUFF, JUSTNOTABLE, IKNOWIT, GOOGLEHITS, COMMONSENSE etc. DGG's deletion argument is a good barometer - if he agrees with deletion, there's usually no hope for an article. And yet, I am wary of closing as delete and having this explode in my face. Maybe I should grow a pair, but here I am.

User:Dazedbythebell has linked to a blog that is critical of Shepherd, there appear to be two or three such attack blogs against Shepherd that chronicle the activities on Wikipedia to do with him, so I am concerned about off-wiki goings on. Just Google 'kevin shepherd wikipedia' to get an idea of the material out there. There seems to be a vendetta between Shepherd and someone called Gerald Joe Moreno.

User:Simon Kidd and User:Alex jamieson are new SPAs that wrote this bio, though Simon Kidd says they have previously used another account (which they say has been disclosed in ArbCom). Alex wrote it and Simon gave it a Good Article Review three days after his first edit. Both deny being the subject of the article. Alex jamieson took the photo of Shepherd, so must know him. Being suspicious, I note that there are behavioural similarities between these two accounts, in particular their lengthy style of writing, and I wonder whether checkuser should be used? There's at least some tag teaming going on with the GAR.

I was perplexed by the keep !votes from User:Ombudswiki and User:ProEdits, but ProEdits has frequently added criticism to Sathya Sai Baba, and that article was one of the first that Ombudswiki edited in 2006, so neither are neutral in this area.

Thoughts? Advice? Fences&Windows 02:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
p.s. Two related threads on the COI noticeboard:[54][55]

I had spent the past hour or so reading that lengthy screed also, but came to the conclusion that there was a strong guideline based consensus to delete. Regardless of the identities or motivations of the accounts you mention above, I felt that the keep arguments were extremely weak, and definitely outweighed by the delete arguments. Kevin (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy with that close. You've got my thoughts above to point to in support of that decision. Fences&Windows 02:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Spiffyismetodeath

Resolved

 – He's dead, Jim. And I'm hungry. HalfShadow 02:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This user is making Attack comments to editors who have flagged his article "Crafty culture." it have been deleted at least 3 times and has inseted the diatribe on at least one other page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icelandic_horse&diff=prev&oldid=333173455 In addition to his user main page. This is leading me to believe this is a vandalism only account. I apologize in advance for the improper formating. Avatar 06349 (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE Kuru has blocked him indefinitly(sp)Avatar 06349 (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, hands up anyone who wants to discuss.....

[Link removed see below]. In October while I was told about this website as a place where concerned editors were discussing what to do about BLPs, and that the board was private and pseudonyms were being used, and that there were a number of people using it (24?). Rather than detail all the rumours I was told, I thought I'd throw it up here and see what folks thought. At the time, I told the arbitration committee and left it with them. However, upon thinking about it, I am not comfortable with the idea that there is another secret board which I have on idea about whether it is wound up or...what? How do folks feel? Discussing this may highlight to WMF how frustrated some folks are with the BLP issue. I was tempted to make an RfC but there was no dispute as such so....do other editors want the board made not-secret? or what? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Who's in charge? Can we trust them? I've heard of certain external forums where the IP addresses of participants were used in less-than-admirable ways, so I'm loath to buy a pig in a poke as my people would put it. The BLP mess needs fixing but let's be sure what the nature of this forum really is. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Empty forum ... I registered, and still nothing there. Still no permission to view anything. Perhaps they're just looking for people who will stupidly give them their wikipedia account name and password. oops. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 05:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that some kind soul "in the know" could tell the rest of us what this is about? What website, who is private, what pseudomymns, what is the other "secret board", and what has any of this to do with WP:SOFIXIT transforming itself by some untraceable magic into goatse? Oh yes, and what does this have to do with the usually quite coherent Casliber?

Err, nearly all decent forum software will salt your password so that it's impossible for even those with database access to retrieve it. (Obviously it could be recorded on submit, but my God what a waste of time. Why would I want your password? Mine is far more useful!) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If you ever read my password, you'd understand why it's the top selling password on Amazon. ;-) Proofreader77 (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Err. What. Why would arbcom or anyone on wikipedia need to know about a site like that? And what's wrong with the current "forum to talk about wikipedia's BLP problem". The EEML thing aside, we don't live in a vacuum. Like minded folks are going to coordinate outside the confines of the project. Frankly the less intertwined wikipedia and the "BADSITE" are, the healthier each is. Protonk (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is just me, but Casliber's link sends me to goatse. ÷seresin 06:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

WTF, me too. Something I never wantred to see. Heironymous Rowe (talk)

Me three. I have an odd suspicion the board admins have seen this discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha. It now redirects to the goatse.cx pic. No I probably do not want 'them' to decide what to do with BLPs. Unomi (talk) 06:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Could one of the "in" crowd tell those of us who haven't a clue just what this thread is about, and how it all relates to secret boards whose board admins have now "seen this discussion", and all explained in plain (or even fancy) English? How did sofixit become goatse and what has all this to do with external forums, BLPs and Casliber's usually quite coherent proposals? It would be a very kind gesture to enlighten the rest of us. Bielle (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

why is this an incident requiring admin attention. Personally I've discussed BLPs and associated problems off-line (you know not using the internet) and there is no problem with this. If there is such a forum, how is that different from a phone conference, meeting over coffee, or any other way that Wikipedian's meet to discuss things? Unless there is some evildoing to point to, what is the problem ? - Peripitus (Talk) 08:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Do you have any proof that what you say is indeed happening on that site? If not then why are you bringing this up here? --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Ok, there seems to be a fundamental problem with this thread. Wikipedia does not have any control over other websites. They can close their doors and discuss Wikipedia all they want, and there's not a damn thing admins, ArbCom, or even Jimbo can do about it. Also, I am personally a strong believer that any off-wiki activity except outing someone is irrelevant as far as on-wiki activity is concerned. So, I don't see any need to continue this conversation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeblebrox (talk • contribs)
  • Agreed. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have seen it again and again, when veteran editors don't support an initiative, they will use procedural grounds, such as "wrong forum" to close the topic.

Casliber, a former arbcom, has a link showing possible evidence of a new secret mailing list. I suspect there is probably more evidence too?

Beeblebrox, ARK, Peripitus are you members of secret mailing list?

Casliber, if you don't start a RFC, I will. Will supporters of the flagged revision attempt to procedurally close the RFC too? Ikip 12:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The link is: [link removed] I suggest the community decide for themselves. Per talk page rules, please not delete this link again. Ikip 12:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this some kind of crude joke Casliber? The link goes to a really crude picture now. If the site existed, I hope you scrapped it, before you made this public. Ikip 12:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The most likely explanation, as per above, is that the site admins redirected upon learning of this thread. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ikip, did you read the thread before posting? For future ref don't click on any links where "goatse" is mentioned.   pablo_hablo. 12:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Banned user from ja.wiki

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

---

Resolved

 – Please discuss further at the SPI case. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 07:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember when I brought up the "AZLUCKY" individual? Well, it appears that the user is indeed disrupting this project in the same fashion that he was disrupting the Japanese Wikipedia. For unknown reasons, he has abandoned the 姫宮玲子 (talk · contribs) account and moved onto ネコミ (talk · contribs) and on that account has created a bunch of esoteric categories (some on the old account). It also appears the user was in control of the 美奈 (talk · contribs) account (edits to include Western animation in Category:Anime spin-offs) and may have used the also abandoned Sailorsaurus (talk · contribs) account. I may have also found his IP: 210.237.109.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (which is blocked at ja.wiki as seen here). Ultragarrison (talk · contribs) is also a possible sock account. All have edits relating to creating superfluous/esoteric categories, the Ultra Series, and Godzilla.

Now, can we show this user the boot just as they have done at the Japanese Wikipedia? And yes, I have not bothered to contact the individual because he does not respond to talk page messages anyway and will simply move onto another account.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Ethnic insult

Ethnic attack by Meowy (talk · contribs). The advocated account turned to be another sock. Brand[t] 07:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my naivete, but what part of that was an ethnic insult? Is it the "Azeri" bit? If so, could you elaborate on how that is ethnically insulting? Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"A silver bullet for Azeri wolfishness". This is a subject of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 in particular. Brand[t] 10:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the further explanation. Perhaps it's simply due to my unfamiliarity with the conflict, but I don't see the comment as being overly offensive, certainly not moreso than other comments that routinely fly on Wikipedia. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that someone were to say that uti possidetis is the silver bullet for Irish Nationalism, something I'm much more familiar with. While I could see the comment being inappropriate and inflammatory, I can't really see it being actionable in and of itself. I'm aware that Meowy has a history of being blocked for personal attacks, but I think this particular instance would have to be part of a larger pattern of anti-azerbijani comments from Meowy for it to warrant anything more than a warning. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it warrants an administrative warning, given the unveiled groundlessness of the comment, in compliance with both general and arbcom principles. Brand[t] 10:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's fair. If any admin would like to issue a warning, then please feel free to do so. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, excuse me for being too literate. "Silver bullet for Irish Nationalism". Why would you think silver bullets would be effective against Irish persons? Well, obviously you are making some allusions as to the only effective way to stop werewolves. I could nit-pick and ask what have wolves to do with Ireland? Not so with Azerbaijan. As you say, you are unfamiliar with the subject. Wolves are used as a symbol by those at the extreme end of Turkish and Azeri nationalism (see Grey Wolves for example, and Azerbaijan National Democrat Party). Those same wolfish Azerbaijanis go tediously on and on and on about the "de-jure" status of Nagorno-Karabakh (and certain editors want that phrase to appear on every Wikipedia article that mentions anything connected to Nagorno-Karabakh), but "de jure" is quickly shot down by "uti possidetis". My comment is thus not groundless, uses a completely acceptable metaphor, and would be well understood by those who know the subject. Meowy 16:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say any metaphor that involves shooting is borderline from the start. I'd certainly consider it threatening. I'd suggest you withdraw the statement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You ask "Why would you think silver bullets would be effective against Irish persons"? Well, contrary to common belief silver bullets will hurt non-werewolves as well and is not a recommended method of distinguishing between Irish and werewolf. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Slow edit war at 1102

Resolved

 – Toroko was indef blocked by Ricky81682. Admins are welcome to unblock if Toroko "shows an interest in getting along here". --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Toroko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is apparently a self-designed defender of the Wiki from "Croatian falsification of history", and, among other things, he WP:OWNs the article 1102 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (that's right, the calendar year) where he defends the WP:TRUTH against all good faith participants. On the said year, Croatia lost its independence to Hungary by signing a forced treaty (Pacta conventa (Croatia)) whose terms are controversial. Rather than to participate in the Pacta conventa article, he choose to "defend" 1102, and this is his version of the article [56] (note 24 references for a single "paragraph" which smacks of WP:SYNTH and POV-pushing).

Myself and Joy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) tried to reason with him at Talk:1102, attempting to find a brief compromise formulation, however he undermined all the attempts at dispute resolution, reverting all the attempts to mention the event, wanting his way or the highway, and producing toxic atmosphere all around. Please pay attention to his contributions, particularly edit summaries, which reveal battleground mentality, assumption of bad faith, and accusation of other users of nationalism and vandalism. Particularly, please check out this outburst [57].

I think that this went beyond normal means of dispute resolution, and I don't think that an article WP:RFC would be worth the effort, because Toroko has refused any good-faith attempt to resolve the issue, and resorted to aggressive name-calling and edit-warring. So, I request an administrative intervention, and possibly a topic ban for Toroko per WP:ARBMAC. Of course, my edits are open for scrutiny as well, though I don't have an axe to grind in this issue. No such user (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just blocked him indefinitely. I asked him in November, got a response and while I should have followed up, he's been plain disruptive for too long. Feel free to unblock if he shows an actual interest in getting along here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that he has been pushing that view of his since his first edits in December 2008. I really don't think he's a net gain to the project. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Legendary Sky Attacker

Resolved

 – The police are looking into it, hopefully they can take care of this. —Coffee // have a cup // ark // 14:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please take a look at User talk:The Legendary Sky Attacker. My actions there are on advice from the Samaritans who I have been in contact with by telephone. If there is anything else I should be doing, please let me know, by e-mail if necessary. SpinningSpark 10:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Er, it says he has a heart condition. There's no suggestion of suicide or anything, why lock it down and/or contact the Samaritans? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"I am going to end it here".  GARDEN  10:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, where I come from that means "I'm going to stop posting on Wikipedia", based on the context. Those suggesting suicide say "end it all". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that he knows he "won't see another Christmas Day"... but whatever. I'm not going to threaten his dignity by continuing this discussion.  GARDEN  10:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think what's more of an indignity is if someone was told by their Doctor that their heart is not going to make it (as per the same talkpage), and someone assumes their parting message (although possibly cryptic) is one of suicide and locks their talkpage down. That's a long-lasting tribute, isn't it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever.  GARDEN  11:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk page, that gave him condolences if it is something he can't prevent, and if he's thinking about suicide to call me. I think this is a rather dignified way of trying to help out. —Coffee // have a cup // ark // 11:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any way to contact the local authorities? Do we know where he lives? --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to contact a Checkuser at the moment. It's best if we take this as a possible suicide threat, just to be safe. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 11:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I am tending to interpret this as terminally ill and not suicidal, however, I see where people are concerned about ambiguity. The best-practices essay at WP:SUICIDE basically says that if anyone feels it may be suicide, they can act by reporting to authorities. If this concerns you, report it. I would recommend contacting the user in email to ask their side of the story, if you're also contacting authorities. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
      • The only problem we're running into right now is contacting him. He doesn't have email set, and there are no checkusers to get a hold of his IP. I'm well aware of how to try to handle suicides, per the Air Force trying to give us a lot of training on that. —Coffee // have a cup // ark // 11:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, this is a person who is either school-aged or who has at times edited from a school. He's not in the US or UK. I would be willing to release the country and city to a trusted admin who is willing to contact the authorities, but the IP itself will only be released to the proper authorities. You can email me via special:emailuser. Thatcher 12:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm currently contacting the authorities. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 12:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

User:A Quest For Knowledge

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

---

Doesn't appear to require sysop intervention. Discussion on this can take place on user talk pages. Please be nice.

---

A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

A Quest For Knowledge has deleted talk page commentary by User:ChrisO in two separate instances on Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. The first time the user removed the material at 03:30, 22 December,[58] ChrisO objected and restored it at 08:42, 22 December.[59] I contacted A Quest For Knowledge at 09:22, 22 December,[60] and explained that ChrisO disputed the deletion, and politely asked A Quest For Knowledge to take this up with ChrisO on his talk page or on the appropriate noticeboards. The user ignored my request to discuss this with ChrisO or to file a report on a noticeboard for assistance, and once again, removed the material at 12:08, 22 December.[61] I don't know who is right or wrong here, but to avoid edit wars on the talk page, I feel that A Quest For Knowledge needs to open a line of communication with ChrisO or request outside assistance, and towards that end, I have contacted him for a second time.[62] Could someone uninvolved with either of these two users take a look at what is going on here? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, I removed material where ChrisO was making accusations against living people. I only have an hour or two a day to devote to Wikipedia so I won't be able to participate in this discussion until tonight, or if I have time, on my lunch break. However, according to WP:BLP, editors who re-insert the material should be blocked. If ChrisO continues making unsourced accusations against living people, I suggest that he be blocked from editing the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that Chris Owen could restore a version of his statement that omits the attack on Solomon. Chris's argument seems unexceptionable, it's just the extraneous material that seems to be causing the problem. --TS 12:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an attack on Solomon, at most on "his gullible followers". That does not create a BLP situation - it's not the most polite phrase, but no more an attack on any particular person than "humans are destroying the Earth", "Europeans are snobs" or "Christians are stupid". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

What's the controversial bit? " venom being aimed at him by Solomon, Ball and their gullible followers."? I'm still flabberghasted by Solomon's claim "How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles" when at the time Solomon retrieved that figure it would have been the total number of articles WC had edited. I can think of a good word for this misrepresentation. Dougweller (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Persistent personal attacks by 71.125.130.14

An IP user 71.125.130.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (who I strongly suspect to be a previously blocked editor) is posting a series of vitriolic personal attacks against various editors on a number of pages, including his own user talk page:

• [63]
• [64]
• [65]
• [66]

He has been asked by another editor to desist from personal attacks, but his response was to call that editor a "WikiNazi Watermelon prevaricative putz". I suggest a block, since he clearly has no intention of being civil. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You gotta admit "WikiNazi Watermelon" has a nice surrealistic ring to it, but... yeah. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

What the heck is "watermelon" supposed to mean as an insult, anyway? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect its green on the outside, red on the inside. And I disagree with Boris - for proper surrealism, it would need a double alliteration ("WikiNazi WaterNelon" - again, we see the failing of the English language...) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That would end up in some ways as a triple alliteration ... I assume they were going for the WikiNazi Watermelon prevaricative putz double play. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a winner for "least persuasive unblock request of the year"... [67] -- ChrisO (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

National socialism combined with green socialism? That makes absolutely no sense! –MuZemike 17:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Experting and East London Bus Group

Hi, sorry if this is in the wrong place. I have left it a bit since it happened, but it still needs sorting out.

User:Experting has decided that East London Bus Group needs a list of bus routes. For a start it is in the wrong place, putting it smack bang in the middle of the "Operations" section, and getting in the way. Background information is that East London Bus Group is the parent company of two (more recently three) bus companies, Selkent and East London (bus company). These both have articles themseleves, and the relevant articles give information about which routes they run. I feel that the article on the parent company doesn't need information about which routes they run, 1) because technically they don't run them, and 2) because it is duplicated information which is already covered in a better place. Also, it is just a mass of numbers with no explanation.

I first reverted User:Experting on 11 December, fully explaining in the edit summary my reasoning. Experting, though, just reverted. I reverted a couple more times the following days, again explaining my reasoning, but Experting again just reverted, either without an edit summary or with a useless one like "Yes there is".

I then went to look at Experting's contributions. It would seem that they are an aggressive editor, so I decided not to bring up the issue with them, as it wouldn't get me anywhere. Some evidence of the user's behaviour is:

• Tagging the edits as a minor edit when reverting ( [68] )
• Going straight in and issuing warnings at the highest level ([69], [70], [71])
• Reverting without an edit summary ( [72] ) (not too bad but they know what they're doing)

The user's contributions show quite a lot of shouting, arguing and reverting. There seems to have been a rather heated discussion with User:Ianmacm. This includes:

• Not signing what they say [73]
• Pretenting they are an adminstrator, and saying that they have blocked Ianmacm [74]
• Removing Ianmacm's replies [75]

I hope something can be done about this. I won't revert East London Bus Group again, as it will only start an edit war. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 15:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the user and wow, yeah, talk about completely inappropriate warnings and warning levels. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've encountered him before. He created the Candy King article as a blatant copyvio of the Candy King website, and insisted that the article be retained (to the point of removing speedy deletion templates) because "i need it for my school work and cannot access the candyking.com website in school because its apparant "Entertainment"." [76] He seems to take any criticism of his edits as personal attacks, and doesn't seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia very well (i.e. Believing it is acceptable to mirror websites needed for schoolwork). —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 16:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there an offence of impersonating an admin? I'd say that was worth a short block of its own. Mjroots (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Experting (talk · contribs) has made a grand total of 119 edits, I'd say there's a good chance Experting doesn't understand how blocks work. A warning would not to impersonate admins and to engage in discussion rather than threaten people should suffice. If it persists, then a block would be warranted. Nev1 (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Outing by 89.101.230.52

After removing an external link from the Athlone wikipedia article in line with wikipedias external links guidelines I recieved the following from tthe IP above.

Leave the Athlone Live link forum intact if you don't mind. It has 400+ registered members, all of whom have an interest in Athlone. The link has been there a lot longer than you have been on Wikipedia. In fact, several of the forum members wrote much of the entry for the town of Athlone itself on Wikipedia.

I moved this from my user page to my talk page and responded in a civila manner and was willing to discuss it but have had further edits to my page from this user. They have hunted online for my identity and posted my name publicly on my page and later threatened to "go down to xxxxxxxxxxx to make you stop" and finished by stating "Now, quit while you're ahead.".

I think you will agree that such behaviour is intolerable and I request that something be done to stop this (Mremeralddragon (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

Are you willing to provide the appropriate diffs to an admin (I'm not one), if so, then please be prepared to do so because this sounds like a simple case of outing and this user needs some time to sit in the corner and think about what they've done. This isn't possible though without an admin (or more likely someone with higher privileges who you trust with your personal info) actually seeing the issue. As much as sometimes we would like to, Admins can't just act on our word alone. Frmatt (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem supplying info thats needed and the difs are obvious in my page history anyway as there has been little to no activity on it since joining wikipedia. I just want this nonsense to be done and dusted. (Mremeralddragon (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

Would you be okay with the diffs being posted here so that the poor overworked admins don't have to search through your page history? I ask because of the possibility of your actual identity being revealed... Frmatt (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Here they are (all from 89.101.230.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)):

[77], [78] [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85]

I have also changed this thread title to make it obvious that this is more than just incivility -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has notified the IP user of this thread. Oh, and BTW, this isn't "threatened" outing, they've posted Mremeralddragon's supposed real name already. That's clear outing, not threatened. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have notified the IP user of this thread. I have also removed the "threatened" from this thread title -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks PhantomSteve and IP 99...I didn't want to do anything without Mremeralddragon's permission, including searching the diffs. I know that I wouldn't necessarily want my information available to just anyone, so figured it was safer to not do anything without permission. Now, all we need is an admin to look into this! Frmatt (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm also going to send a message to the Oversighter list, asking them to look at this thread. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Incidently, I took the No problem supplying info thats needed and the difs are obvious in my page history anyway statement as meaning that the OP has no objections to them being here. I have mailed the OS list, hopefully one will pop over and look at these diffs. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• The user appears to have a dynamic IP but I have blocked the most recent IP for a week and semi-protected the page for a month. CIreland (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Outing edits have been suppressed. -- Avi (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, CIreland and Avi. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for everything guys. And no i didnt have any problems with the diffs being added. I was actually adding them myself and noticed via an edit conflict warning that they had already been posted. Its all good. Im just happy things have been sorted out now. Thanks guys. (Mremeralddragon (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC))