Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive419

CSD backlog

Just a heads-up that C:CSD is very backlogged. Kelly ^hi! 18:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment

Resolved

 – Page protected, parties warned regarding civility

There is an ongoing ArbCom intervention at the Ulster Defence Regiment page. The admin involved does not seem to be around at the moment. I request intervention on this page against http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BigDunc and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Domer48 who appear to be acting in concert to delete information from the article without discussion or concensus and who are trying to force an edit war and (presumably) a ban against me for defending the article. The user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Domer48 has already been the subject of previous enforcment under an ArbCm decision over the Northern Ireland Troubles.GDD1000 (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Go ask my arse, I'm subject to no inforcment! An ex-URD WP:SPA with an axe to grind, is all this project needs right now. Peddle your lieing crap somewere else, and cop onto yourself. Your a POV pushing editwarrior simple as. --Domer48 (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the sort of abuse I have become used to from this editor with regards to the Ulster Defence Regiment page. Repeated requests for civility have got me nowhere. Despite much frustration I have not resorted to similar attacks.GDD1000 (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh would you get off your bloody high horse, you know exactly what you are doing on this article and improving is not one of them. You are an edit warrior pure and simple trying to defend the article dont make me laugh. BigDunc^Talk 13:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I invite any interested party to my work page at User:GDD1000/UDR which contains the entire rewrite I have been trying to post. As the content is the subject of arbitration it is under review in any case but anyone reading it can see it is a comprehensive rewrite of an important regimental history.GDD1000 (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't issues about articles in which ArbCom is involved be posted at the relevant noticeboard? Incidentally, as an uninvolved admin I'm going to ask for some civility on all sides here. Problems are not solved with heated tempers. --jonny-mt 13:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have protected the article for a couple of days to let consensus form at the talk page (slim chance, but you never know). However, if the editing patterns of the last few days continue after the protection expires, I will enforce the ArbCom restrictions on all the editors involved. Black Kite 14:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'll have to crave your forgiveness on this one. I'm still a fairly new editor on Wikipedia and I've had quite a baptism of fire because I chose to edit the UDR article first. As a result I've had to wade through an awful lot of the Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures to be able to get any edits through at all. It isn't something I was expecting and although I think I'm coping quite well I do make errors of judgement such as this. I felt that, because the ArbCom editor who was handling the article wasn't available that this page was where I should ask for help. If you read the talk page for the article you'll see where the civility issues arise and I hope you'll note that, apart from rising to the bait in my first few days, I have been a model of civility even when provoked. All I want to do is write the regimental history. I'm not interested in their political agendae. If you look at my history page you'll see I have been similarly involved elsewhere but with no repetition of this nonsense. On this one I feel I am constantly apologising for doing what Wikipedia is here for.GDD1000 (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You've got the right idea here - write the article in your sandbox, and then post a link to it on the talkpage of the article. If anyone has a problem with any of the content they can post it there. Then we (hopefully) get something approaching a consensus version. Some of the reverts in that recent history are very suspect indeed, and smack of reverting for the sake of reverting. The appearance of a random BT dynamic IP is predictable, too. Black Kite 14:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite - I've not been previously involved in any of the discussions surrounding the troubles. I don't want to be involved either. I'm on Wikipedia as someone who has a reasonable knowledge of some aspects of military history. I feel like I'm caught up in a situation of someone else's making. If you feel I am in some way responsible for breaching policy or previous judgements I would really appreciate knowing. For my part; I feel I am just writing a regimental history.GDD1000 (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I know - see above. Black Kite 14:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the intervention and your kind words. If you read the talk page for the article however you'll see that I have been asking for input and comment from the others since the 9th of May when the work page was created for me by Scolaire. You can see from the history of the work page when I made various changes to it. In addition to that I posted on the talk page yesterday, some hours before I made the rewrite edit and also had the good grace to post messages on several other editors talk pages, to let them know I was almost ready to make the rewrite. I got no input at all. Not until I had done the changeover then all hell broke loose. If anyone had started a discussion on the talk page with objections to any of the content we could have made changes, much as I'm doing with the ArbCom editor now, but no-one did, they just reverted the entire rewrite without considering any of the excellent information contained within it. Very frustrating indeed.GDD1000 (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you knew what effect your edits would have, and you went ahead a did it. Very frustrating indeed.--Domer48 (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Check the timings. That was posted after RepublicanJacobite reverted the article.GDD1000 (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, not again!

Well, I am sorry, but yes, again: Talk:Augusto Pinochet#Pinochet and Rotarian membership. Our monosubject friend is back. I thought for a while about going to Wikipedia:Third opinion, as I am sick to talk to a wall, but that page does not seem very active. As a reminder, the last AN/I about this resulted in a semi-protection of Rotary International‎ (please note in the linked page the suggestion to block the IP range, which might be a solution).

Do you think there is any dispute resolution step that should be taken (remember there were alreadys Rfc and Rfa on this guy) or what? Bradipus (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I can think of for including this bit of trivia is to try to infer something about Rotary. It reminds me of when someone was pushing the point about some of the Enron guys having been in some particular fraternity. Hence, it's a POV-push and doesn't belong unless the IP address can find a citation that explains why it matters. Also, what's with the "é" on the date? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

User:PierreLarcin and his IP's (although the IP's deny being him, I have some reasons to not believe him) always had trouble editing WP. See here. Bradipus (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As I noted in the talk page, he needs to show relevance. My assumption is that he's trying to smear Rotary by connecting him to this guy. Or, if he's a fan of this guy, he's trying to elevate Rotary. Either way, it's a POV push and doesn't belong... unless he can show relevance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. And if you are curious about his agenda, follow the links from the previous AN/I thread about the guy. It is sometimes hilarious, expecially Talk:Rotary International. Bradipus (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There is another possibility. There is a possibility that Bradipus manipulates Wikipedia admlns to avoid having "bad guys" with Rotary.

Well you know, every other version of wiki mentions that Rotary has Pinochet-dictator and Lindbergh-antisemist for Honorary Members. Why should just en.wikipedia and fr.wikipedia avoid to mention it ? Well, because Bradipus works on both.

You can check also it. and es. versions : there Bombastus cleaned that. BOTH, and just Bombastus....

By the way, Bombastus and Bradipus had both (together) an arbitration on French wiki ABOUT Rotary. For the same subject : Pinochet and Rotary. Do not tell me they are NPOV... And do not tell me that IIIIIIIII have an agenda. Strange no, Bradipus mentions that IIIIIII should have an agenda. Tell me why then he acts on the link Pinochet Rotary, Lindbergh Rotary, Ernest Medina Rotary, etc

You know why they want to blank that ? Because pupils are NOW, in june, making school lectures, whether about Rotary, whether in conferences organized by Rotary. You know, Rotary goes into schools, and that's why they do not allow Wikipedia to mention Rotary, Lindbergh, Ernest Medina, etc. Rotary IS good, no ? And "bad" informations do not have places here for that.

Would you tell me why we, Americans, we would accept a french thesis about Rotary ? Both Bradipus and Bombastus are French, aren't they ?

84.102.229.247 (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability does not equate to relevance. And your comments suggest that you are, in fact, trying to push an anti-Rotary agenda. I don't care one way or the other about Rotary. But POV-pushing is against wikipedia policy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry about rubbing out the semi-protection icon. However, that didn't change its protection status. It's only a visual aid. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There is something very sad in what 84.102.229.247 says: the fact is that this guy did make a tour of a lot of "Rotary" articles on other wikis and did push the same POV. He did meet some resistance on WP:fr and WP:en, but I fear that on other wiki's, nobody really cares enough about Rotary articles. Honestly, me neither, but somebody has to take care of this. Thanks for the help. I just noticed the "we, Americans" part of the elaborate coverup ^_^ ...see why I said there were hilarious episodes? Bradipus (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure dialing long-distance to France will run him out of money soon, so we won't have a problem. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protecting the article seems to have choked off his rants on this matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I resisted commenting on that at first... but since you bring it up... if he's an American, he was apparently out to lunch when they were teaching English. I say again, if he can demonstrate some relevance to the Rotary connection, I would be interested. So far, he hasn't done so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

John Bot III

The bot John Bot III is making minor errors when reporting its activities on talk pages. It's failing to start headings on new lines, resulting in the headings not appearing. See this edit for an example. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked pending resolution. Nakon 18:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed I was out getting ice cream :P Sorry, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Not fixed: the bot still improperly tags everything is sight with the word "genetics" in it, even though many articles have more to do with racism than genetics, such as Race and Intelligence, Dysgenics (people), and so on and so forth.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That's John Bot, not John Bot III. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Afd nomination for Neal Century

A heads up that User:Torratte is disrupting the Afd discussion for Neal Century by heckling and has now resorted to faking posts[1][2]. Would a short block to stop the disruption be in order? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I blocked User:Torratte for being disruptive and incivil. Someone please review my block, and unblock them if you think I was out of line. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. That sort of editing isn't acceptable. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Runaway user

User:Hurlfordkillie has been adding multiple copies of lots of (not very good) images to Wikipedia today, and continues to do so despite numerous warnings on their talk page. Is there anything we can do to stop this, because it's going to result in lots of speedy deletion requests. Furthermore, they seem to be making lots of disruptive edits to the Kilmarnock article, although I'm not sure that this is their intention. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, they replied to one of my comments here. Seems they've been trying to dodge image deletion because they didn't understand licensing. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks to me as though he just doesn't understand that they need to be licensed. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images in userspace

On User:GDD1000/UDR fair use images are being used, I have repeatedly removed them and asked the editor to stop, yet I am being ignored and frivolous accusations of vandalism are being made and 3RR has been breached. Please will an admin enforce image policy, as the images cannot be used in userspace. Thanks. BigDunc^Talk 19:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have already filed a complaint at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR against the User BigDunc for repeatedly vandalising my work page by removing images I have requested assistance with on the copyright page. I have already explained this to him.GDD1000 (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

BigDunc is in the right. Fair use images are not in the userspace at all. However, since what this is a sandbox for an article, we generally make exceptions for this. BigDunc, take caution in trying to see what the images are used for. GDD1000, either start developing the article or get rid of it from your userspace. I suggest no blocking in this case. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we have a bot to remove fair use images from non-article space? Is it still active? Kelly ^hi! 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So are you advising me to leave a copyright violation in place? BigDunc^Talk 20:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

We had a bot. BigDunc, I been asked before to leave sandboxes alone if they are being developed. If it is not being developed, then remove away. Though, there is an image that if not used in the main article, I might have to delete it (points to the beret insignia). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

what could be wrong with using a cap badge? (what you call a beret insignia). It's a British Army unit and is identified, like all other British Army units on this website, by its capbadge.GDD1000 (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This problem all stems from disagreement over the article at Ulster Defence Regiment. I have called in ArbCom and an editor from there is trying to assist. In the meantime, while I'm awaiting an outcome, BigDunc seems to have decided to have a go at my sandbox because I don't know how to properly upload pictures and use the copyright syntax. You will see from the copyright board that I asked for help. You will also note that BigDunc has had a warning from admin today for incivility towards me. I am feeling VERY victimised now.GDD1000 (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Non-free images in userspace are a violation of WP:NFCC#9 and should be removed on sight. Kelly ^hi! 20:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't GDD1000 just insert colons before the image names in the links (e.g., [[:Image:UDRcapbadge.jpg]]) so that the links will be displayed but the images themselves won't, then remove the colons when the material is moved to mainspace? Would that satisfy everyone? Deor (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

nowiki tags and also the comment tags will also work, but I decided to just use nowiki in the locked version. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kelly. Those images should be removed immediately. As well ArbComm will not hear a content dispute. nat.utoronto 20:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree (also) with Kelly. Preview can always be used to see how non-free images work in a user workspace layout but there is no need for them outside of the article space. GDD1000, I take it you didn't understand this policy. Have you tried using the preview button? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I just filed a bot request for a bot to take care of this. Kelly ^hi! 20:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Such pedantry. Deletionists gone crazy. But there is a good compromise: If you're developing the article, put the picture reference there, COMMENTED, and only take the comments off when you're doing a "show preview", and then put them back before saving... until it becomes a real article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What is going on here? Am I not welcome at Wikipedia then? My request for assistance on copyright is ignored but my images are to be deleted?GDD1000 (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

He is still edit warring and has reverted me again that is 7 reverts in an hour is policy going to be inforced. BigDunc (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there are multiple edit warriors, I decided to just lock the damn page. I also hid the images using the nowiki tags, so their placement still exists, they are not being displayed, so the NFCC 9 is being satisfied. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I have now explained the problem to User:GDD1000 on his talk page (I don't think he understood why his images were being removed), and ZScout370 has nowiki'd the images out, thus obviating the need for the usual suspects to start edit-warring again, I'd suggest the article could be unlocked again? Black Kite 20:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is absolute lunacy. My own work page gets locked because people who have done nothing but give me trouble since the day I joined this site are ganging up on me AGAIN. With all you experienced people there I would have expected that SOMEBODY could have given me the necessary assistance to tweak the image tags so that they conform to policy - AS I ASKED ON THE COPYRIGHT PAGE! Whatever happened to Don't Bite The New User?

Deletionists don't care about any of that. All they care about is deleting. They live for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't anything to do with "deletionism". Black Kite 20:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I'd have thought one of the reverting editors could just have commented them out instead of replacing them with "NON-FREE IMAGE REMOVED", but given the subject it doesn't really surprise me at all. Black Kite 20:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, all people are saying is that you can't display the photos when it is in your user space sandbox. Fair use photos or logos or insignias or whatever can only be used in the article space. There is no attack on the content of your article. This has nothing to do with your writing. It is just the policy to not display the fair uses in user space because of legal standards. Is this a little bit clearer now? What is it you're unsure of? Also, where did you ask about this? You keep saying "the copyright page" but I don't know quite what you're referring to. Thanks, Metros (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

well no I didn't know that. when Scolaire created the page for me about ten days ago I just copied and pasted the article and worked away on it after informing everyone on the talk page that I was going to do so. They've left me alone at the workpage since then, it's only today this has started.GDD1000 (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing, they have an issue with the page he's working on, and are using the pedantic rules as a club. If they have an issue with the page, they should address that directly, instead of justifying all this edit warring on the grounds of fair use rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, thank you so much for pointing it out to the others.GDD1000 (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite - no I don't understand why this is happening. The sandbox was clearly identified as such. If anyone looks in at the Ulster Defence Regiment page you'll see that I have had nothing but trouble from these other two editors (and then some) since day one. Take a look at the other articles I'm in the process of rewriting in exactly the same vein, are there any such issues there? No! Quite simply - NO! I'm really perplexed that no-one else can see what's going on here.GDD1000 (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, I appreciate the comment but I really feel the system is being abused here and it isn't about deletionism, it's about ME and what I'm trying to do at the Ulster Defence Regiment page.GDD1000 (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Your best bet would be to (1) write the article on your own PC instead of here and (2) post the article as a real article as soon as you can. That one guy seems obsessed with your user page, and it's not likely to stop, so you have to work around him. I'm assuming good faith on your part, FYI - don't let me down. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In short, focus on the article, not on the drama. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The editor has now uploaded Image:Enniskillen2.jpg and claims to be the copyright holder, when it is a duplicate of Image:Enniskillen1.jpg which is from the BBC. Please take action against this copyright infringement. Image:Deanery1.jpg it's a duplicate of Image:Deanery.jpg BigDunc^Talk 20:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Blatant copyright violation is a blockable offense. Kelly ^hi! 20:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Because I got it wrong the first time AS I TOLD YOU ALREADY. For goodness sake will you please give me time to get my head around all of this and stop harrassing me!GDD1000 (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we please go a little easier on this editor? He clearly doesn't understand NONFREE and copyright yet. Black Kite 21:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Rather than taking this confrontational tone with this guy, maybe BicDunc and/or Kelly, who seem to be obsessed with this user sub-page, could try to actually explain to him the appropriate tags to use, as he has asked you to do. After that, if he demonstrates that he's just jerking you around, you could bring the hammer down. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, stuff your "obsession" teminology and read this entry on one of the five pillars. Kelly ^hi! 21:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Being of a generous nature, I'll overlook that uncivil, vulgar comment, and reiterate that you should show good faith and try to help the user when he asks for help, rather than hammering him. The fair use stuff is extraordinarily confusing and complicated, which is why I generally only upload photos from prior to 1923, which you deletionists can't touch, and which I'm sure vexes you no end. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Please look at my contribs, I have researched and saved hundreds of images with improper sourcing - I provided correct sourcing for hundreds of images with the bad license {{PD-LOC}} and saved them for deletion, among many other non-free images for which I provided rationales when the uploader was long gone. So make your insulting bad faith accusations somewhere else. To call me "obsessed" with this user is idiotic, I've had no interaction with this issue except via this noticeboard. Kelly ^hi! 21:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So why won't you answer his specific questions rather than issuing threats? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make any "threats", I linked to a Wikipedia policy. Kelly ^hi! 21:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So civility is an issue here too?GDD1000 (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

He has uploaded image again Image:Deanery2.jpg BigDunc^Talk 21:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

so what if I uploaded an image again - what part of "I don't understand the copyright tags" do you not understand?GDD1000 (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

They are clearly not interested in helping you, they're only interested in yelling at you. I would help you with the tags, but they don't make sense to me, either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If you don't understand copyright tags I'd recommend you stop uploading images you don't own as public domain images you claim to be the copyright holder to. BigDunc^Talk 21:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're so concerned with it, why don't you try answering his specific questions, like he asked you to do? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much, that image you uploaded is owned by the BBC. Because of that, the copyright holder is the BBC, not you. What I would suggest is not pick a license from the drop down menu and just hand type the fair use tag (there are many, but Baseball will help you on that) and explain why we need it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see anyone actually telling him anything helpful. Either you all don't want to bother with explaining it (i.e. you'd rather just argue with him), or you all don't understand it yourselves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for fuck's sake. Without having a horse in this particular race, I can still quite clearly say that this isn't about wandering packs of deletionists any more than it's about good-faith reports of copyright infringement in userspace. Please see this thread, right here, on this exact same page, which illustrates quite clearly that Mr. BigDunc is in a content dispute of some sort with Mr. GDD1000. Reporting Mr. GDD for fair use in userspace is just a juvenile escalation in the ongoing edit-war about a bunch of dudes in silly garb who killed Catholics. Those well-meaning but unfortunately-mercenary-in-their-execution editors "helpfully" removing the images seem completely clueless as to what the fair-use rule is designed to do (in a nutshell: Prevent User:xXx-MiSeRy-ChIcK-xXx from turning her userpage into a garish Johnny Depp tribute, claiming fair use when none applies), and are completely ignoring the spirit of the law in their haste to uphold the sanctity of the letter. Asking a user to manually re-add images every time they wish to preview, then go all the way back and comment the images out really doesn't seem like it's encouraging improvement of the project. What it encourages is for anyone who wants to do more than copy-edit to get frustrated and get the fuck out of this den of insanity. --Badger Drink (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And the boy wins a cigar! Yes, this is about content, and the image issue is just a smokescreen for the dispute, and the deletionists joined the fray without realizing what the real issue is. Meanwhile, I've got the user asking me for help on tags, but I can't give any help, because they don't make sense. The ones who know how to do tags should help, but for some reason they refuse to do it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OMG - a plain speaker! You don't know how much I want to shake your hand just now.GDD1000 (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The image which has been deleted is not owned by the BBC. It was taken by a friend of mine. It may surprise some people to know that after many years service with the armed forces, some of us do have fairly substantial amounts of pictures of our own.GDD1000 (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Then go to the image page itself and state that you can release the photo in the public domain. Uploading copies of images is usually discouraged, since duplicate images are deleted routinely. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded the copy because I thought the original had been deleted. I'm industrious if nothing else. What's the crack with the capbadge, crest and press pic then?GDD1000 (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Zippycup

Resolved

 – User indefblocked - can always be revisited if they clarify what they are talking about Nick (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Zippycup (talk · contribs)

This user is going on a sockpuppet accusation rampage.
He accused me, Ioeth (who is an administrator), and R'n'B. When R'n'B asked him what he was talking about, he gave a rather cryptic response and veiled threat.
User:Prashanthns asked him to consider his actions, but his comment was summarily dismissed (look under "3" in the diff).
I asked him what he was trying to do, and he responded with the same type of veiled threat that he had originally given. I then asked him to provide evidence to back up his claim, which he refused to do. I brought it here because I have no idea how to properly move forward with this situation. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

User has been notified of this report. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I find Zippycup's actions very surprising indeed. His initial contribs such as this and this were just minor vandal edits. He responded very well to early warnings quite well and in a civil manner. Over the past few edits however, he has gone from misrepresenting himself as an admin, impersonating another editor and pasting strange and arguably funny :) poetry on talk pages, in addition to the above. My warning was given a strange response. If this is indeed a joke from him, it is really bad taste. Prashanthns (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Has this editor ever made any constructive contributions? If not, I think he should be banned as a troll. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. He hasn't made an edit to the mainspace since May 7, and of his mainspace edits, one, [3], has not been reverted. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am prepared to accept the authority of arbitration panel in hearing my case.

I stand by my accusations of malicious sockpuppetry with intend to cause disruption of harmony within wikipedia. I will only comment on the user J.delanoy as I have maintained from the off I am just giving all users concerned some friendly advise. I never wanted it to come to this, and I doubt the others concerned do so I will not comment on my accusations towards them until they do.

I confirm that I am accusing J.delanoy of the above. I am prepared to, with a democratically voted request from a panel, present a compiled dossier of evidence concerning my claims. I deny intentionally threatening him, or any other users however. I gave J.delanoy a warning about his actions, I have acted in good faith from the off and assumed he wishes to change his behaviour. I have never threatened to expose him if he does not wish. Therefore I consider J.delanoy’s accusations of such completely unfounded and challenge him to present any credible evidence to the contrary.

I also refute the following claim: ‘This user is going on a sockpuppet accusation rampage.’ This is melodramatic, unfounded, uncalled for and assumes bad faith. I also object in part to this: ‘He accused me, Ioeth (who is an administrator), and R'n'B.’ I have not accused R'n'B of anything. Once again I challenge anyone to find evidence to the contrary.

I reject completely the following claim: ‘When R'n'B asked him what he was talking about, he gave a rather cryptic response and veiled threat.’ I have not made anything that could remotely be interpreted as a ‘veiled threat’ there. Once again I challenge J.delanoy to find evidence to the contrary. The quoted history does not to me (the writer) provide such evidence, or indeed any evidence of a veiled threat.

With regards to the following: ‘User:Prashanthns asked him to consider his actions, but his comment was summarily dismissed (look under "3" in the diff).’ The quoted data was unintentionally edited over. Note the time of my following edit on it. This was a complete accident and I have otherwise made every effort to respond to said users advise, have taken it graciously despite disagreeing with most of it and have wished said user the best, always assuming good faith.

‘I asked him what he was trying to do, and he responded with the same type of veiled threat that he had originally given.’ Once again I object fundamentally to this being a threat, it was not or has never been intended to. If the user took it as such I offer my apologies. I do however maintain it IS an accusation.

‘then asked him to provide evidence to back up his claim, which he refused to do’ As aforementioned, if a democratic panel of wikipedians call me to present my evidence I will. Once again I stress that I assume good faith in the accused and hence will not be pursuing allegations against them unless commanded to.

Much wikilove

Zippycup (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikilove much appreciated, and your civility is not at all in doubt. All of the above you have stated does nothing to clarify your accusations. Enough drama zippycup, the onus to provide evidence is on you, not J.Delanoy!If this was a joke, this might be a good time to bow out. Prashanthns (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The following is a reply to Antandrus.

Firstly I want to make it crystal clear that what you point out is not intended as a threat. You can say otherwise all you like but it was NOT INTENDED TO BE. I am not a native speaker of English and whilst I have a reasonable grasp of the language I do not always apply the context of phrases correctly. An example in this case may be ‘you are digging your own grave’ From my understanding this implies that the person ‘digging their own grave’ is getting themselves in more trouble. It does NOT imply anything literally related to a grave/death etc. If that is how that above comment came across then I apologise profusely. Furthermore I was (and am) under the impression that this phrase implies the person digging is getting themselves into trouble. For something to be considered a threat is must surely go along the lines of a second person causing damage/harm/bad rep to a first, in this case it is clear (to me) that it is one person causing harm to themselves via sockpuppetry, the second person is just pointing this out.

I once again firmly DENY any intention to threaten, if ANYTHING I have said comes across as such I DID NOT INTEND IT! I hope that this clears this up.

The following is a reply to Prashanthns

‘I find Zippycup's actions very surprising indeed. His initial contribs such as this and this were just minor vandal edits.’

I admit my edits there were not entirely serious. However I don’t feel they constituted vandalism, damaged or devalued the articles in any real way. My point on said edits was to raise the question of degree of wikification. How much is too much and what is needed? I don’t feel current guide on this is very explanatory, and as the wikiway is to edit first ask question later I thought I would go for the extreme. This often works for me as I get direct feedback on the issue, rather than having to post questions on the large and confusing helpdesk or other such bodies. If that seems bad manner then I cannot really say I am sorry for it as I feel it is completely in the spirit of wikipedia.

‘Over the past few edits however, he has gone from misrepresenting himself as an admin, impersonating another editor’

I have responded in depth to these points on my talk page, if further elaboration is needed just say and I will oblige.

‘and pasting strange and arguably funny :) poetry on talk pages’

It’s not poetry, it’s you’ll never walk alone (: Look it up! Where I grew up it is a fairly common gesture of goodwill and sportsmanship. It was posted to those users as I noticed there persistence in fighting causes they care for, something I think is deserving of praise and encouragement.

As for strangeness, well I admit I possess that quality. You may be wondering about several things, for example the state of my talk page? It was and is an artistic endeavour if you will. The aim? To point out that to a new comer a large proportion of wiki is confusing! Especially when you are trying to find info on policies and guides! Zippycup (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ddduh....Thanks for the polite reply, but that takes nobody nowhere. Allow me to bow out of this. Prashanthns (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Should images that can cause epileptic seizures be speedied under CSD G3 (vandalism)?

I was working the speedy deletion queue and came across an image that caused me dizziness and headache, Image:Girl Spinning A Skull Yo-Yo With Flashing Green Eyes Animation.gif, because it was the original for a duplicate ready for speedying. The problem is the flashing green eyes on the yo-yo skull. I don't have epilepsy, but I strongly feel that such an image could cause someone with epilepsy to have a seizure. Should I delete this as possible vandalism? I don't know if this image was intended to cause an epileptic to have seizures, but images designed to provoke epileptic seizures certainly are vandalism because they are attacking epilepsy victims. Jesse Viviano (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No such image. Bstone (talk) 07:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ugh I hit the delete tab after viewing the image for 3 seconds. This seems to be a copy of identical images that were previously deleted according to the user's talk page.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 07:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

While I can imagine an image such as this would be used mostly in vandalism, deleting an image that may cause seizures in twenty-five percent of the already-small subset of people who suffer from epilepsy leaves me feeling rather uneasy. What's next, deleting pictures of Kate Moss because they may be "triggering" for anorexics? --Badger Drink (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that this has been resolved, but I feel I still need to say this. You cannot compare an eating disorder with Epilepsy. Last time I checked, those things usually took time, quite unlike the rather instant following seizur and twitching on the ground caused by the aforementioned images.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 09:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're unfamiliar with the use of the word "trigger" amongst the eating disorder community. Take care. --Badger Drink (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The way the images were inserted in the article makes me think this might be deliberate vanfalism. However since it all happened in February, I guess the matter is moot now. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As others has stated, there are other valid reasons to delete this image. However, with that said, I don't believe that speedy deleting an image because it may induce an epileptic seizure is covered by WP:CSD. In fact, I would say that such deleting the image using that rational would run contrary to WP:NOT#CENSORED. --Farix (Talk) 18:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In this case the deletion fell under recreation of previously deleted material. The image had been uploaded before.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I love reading the nonsense that shows up on this page amidst the serious issues. Epileptic seizures? Remember the story about Mary Hart's voice triggering seizures? This sounds like it's from the same guy that had people convinced we should put pants on animals. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and we should also censor images of Kate Moss, because she's ugly and gives me a queasy stomach. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly possible. See Vandalism on online epilepsy forum triggers convulsions. As one of the most visible sites around, we really should consider how to stop attacks of this nature. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously if the photos serve no other use than vandalism, then they should be deleted. But just because a photo may cause seizures (so long as it is encyclopedic) is not a criteria to CSD it. No matter how bad this sounds, we cannot censure Wikipedia just because some users may find it objectionable. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.theage.com.au/news/security/hack-attack-designed-to-cause-epileptic-fits/2008/05/08/1210131136956.html

It's a little hard for me to tell, since it got zapped so quickly and I never saw it. But Gonzo is right, censoring something that's otherwise legal, on the grounds it might bother someone, is against policy and amounts to nannyism. I used to know someone who had to avoid flourescent lights for the same reason. But they still use flourescent lights in stores. And I still think this sounds like some kind of urban legend, like the one about seeing Satan in a mirror in a candlelit room. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The above link didn't give me any fits, but it was causing trouble for my PC. Bevare! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for that. That's odd, it doesn't do anything untoward to my PC. Corvus cornix_talk 21:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is any reason any image that could cause seizures is encyclopedic, we should have a placeholder image in the article which shows a warning not to click the image if the reader can get seizures and has a caption which contains a wikilink to the unsafe image's page (e.g. an example image that can cause seizures to let healthy people recognize such images). I feel that images that can cause seizures without having any encyclopedic merit whatsoever are batteries (in the criminal and not electrical sense). Jesse Viviano (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Block review of User:TJ Terry

Resolved

I blocked this user for 2 weeks for diff this personal attack, but since they had been warned a few days previously for this comment, do people think a much longer or indef block would be justified? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I do, yes. Enigma ^message 18:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As do I. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

He obviously has no grasp of even the most basic policy [think WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA] so an indef. block would not be unjustified. Screeds such as the one he left on Tkynerd's user page show immaturity and an inability to work together harmoniously with others. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 19:20, May 18, 2008 (UTC)

Extended to indefinite. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to note...

On the episode of The Simpsons being shown on Fox tonight, Snake Jailbird mentioned that someone was editing his article on Wikipedia, and gave orders to a woman visiting him to kill them. So, we may be seeing vandalism on that article. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may quote Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Semi-protection, "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred" so no measures should be taken yet. However it is good to have a heads up, thanks. Useight (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And that episode, FYI, is I Don't Wanna Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. Also watch Snake Jailbird. Although this is a repeat showing, and perhaps all the vandals got it out of their systems during the original airing. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Dodge viper concept GTS-R and User:Guerrero Lagartija‎

These two editors seem to have spent their entire time here attacking each other. They may be friends, it's hard to tell from their comments, but they seem to have thought that Wikipedia is some sort of dissing site. Corvus cornix_talk 21:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

removed the chat/attacks and warned. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: a user got blocked indef a few weeks ago for picking as his username the name of a discontinued kayak product. Much outrage was expressed and it was asserted that he violated username guidelines on having picked a company name for his username (on the grounds that a product name is equivalent to a company name, since the company name guiideline doesn't mention product names).

Why doesn't that same username logic apply to User:Dodge viper concept GTS-R ? Loren.wilton (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Behavior of Nick

Resolved

Referred to DRV NonvocalScream (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC) link to drv NonvocalScream (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I recently designed a userpage for myself. Nick deleted the page because he thought that "which x, y, and z copied without attribution" was a personal attack and left this uncivil note. Previously, in January, Nick copied my rfa template without attribution for his commons RFA. With my userpage, I am chronologing my contributions on this project, and I want to show to other users how my contributions help this project. First, Nick's deletion is a conflict of interest, and I suggest for him to not contact me, put my userpage on his watchlist, and/or possibly watch over my contributions, because I do not like Wikipedia drama. Second, and most importantly, I would like my userpage restored. Third, if the comment ("which x, y, and z copied without attribution") is uncivil or a personal attack, I will replace the comment with "which x, y, and z modified". Thanks. miranda 02:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Can the page be restored for the context of this discussion? Additionally, attribution can take many forms, for example, sometimes I attribute in an edit summary, example. However, it is going to be hard to comment without seeing the content, history, et cetera. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's virtually impossible to comment if I can't see the page deleted. Although I suppose admins can see it. Or can they? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we can. The deletion, especially a G10 CSD, did not seem appropriate to me. Have you discussed it with Nick? Aleta ^Sing 02:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that for me Aleta. Guess I'll take a step back from this one. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Are Nick and miranda in some kind of conflict? If so then Nick should not have used an admin tool (in this case page deletion) - a better idea would be to have asked an neutral admin to evaluate the page and delete if necessary. Exxolon (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The page was not an attack page. It just pointed out that several editors that Miranda believes copied her work without attribution. The deletion was inappropriate. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I restored it then deleted it after coming to the conclusion that DRV might be more approperiate. I see no "attack page" or "BLP violation" in the userpage, though. This seems to be more of a tit-for-tat crap. seicer | talk | contribs 03:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ok folks. It seems it may be appropriate to move this to deletion review for review of the deletion. I see that Miranda has already discussed it with Nick, and DRV is the next step here. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A question about RFCs

Hello there. I just wanted to ask a question about Requests for Comments. Myself and some otehr editors started an RFC a while back (see here) about an editor whom we feel has been editing disruptively. We've all pretty much agreed on what was wrong with his editing, and we've come up with a proposed resolution, but we don't really know what to do now. The editor in question has written a response on his user page, but then pretty much ignored the RFC, and has seemingly stopped editing. I was always under the impression that RFC's were a "request for comment from an admin" and there was some sort of "ruling body" for these matters. Is this the case, or are they meant to end in some other way? And if it isn't too much trouble, could I ask that one or more uninvolved, neutral admins take a look over the case.

Also, if the RFC then ends up getting closed by default since he hasn't responded in so long, and then if he comes back and continues with the disruptive editing, is the information in this RFC able to be used in a future one, or does it all have to be new? Any help is appreciated. Thanks. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 06:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

RfC is a community thing, not a quasi-court presided over by admins. The purpose of an RfC is to correct the editing behaviour of an editor or editors, if that behaviour is disruptive or without Wikipedia norms. In this case, the user hasn't accepted the results of your RfC, but has announced they won't be editing (or won't be editing in that area any more). Therefore the RfC has ended and you have the result you required. If you were seeking punishment for the editor, you're not going to get that from anyone here. So I'd suggest letting the RfC lapse at this point. The RfC can be reopened should the problem reoccur. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 09:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Maria DiFranco has been a member for four days, and has reverted over a dozen edits and posts.

Resolved

 – Maria is doing nothing wrong

The person mentioned is capriciously deleting edits and threatening to block posters, including on the article "Who is a Jew?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.240.118 (talk • contribs)

What is capricious about this editor's edits? Can you provide specific examples? What threats are being made? A quick look at User:Maria Difranco's edit history does not show any obvious threats or "capricious" editing. Please back up your accusations with specific diffs. Thanks, Gwernol 11:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked also, and I can only see normal vandalism fighting. The only problem I can see is the reversal of one edit where a new user introduces unproper tone [4], and then leaves a uw-test2 warning on the user page without explaining what exactly was wrong with the edit [5]. Probably a small mistake, since the rest of edits look like normal and correct vandalism fighting. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For the lazy (me) - Maria Difranco (talk · contribs). The only concern I saw was the speed of reverts - quite a few in a short span of minutes - but oh, look, that's Huggle at work. I'm not seeing any real concern here at all. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If you look at the complainant's edits, you'll see they were adding unsourced original research into Who is a Jew? and User:Maria Difranco was properly removing it. Gwernol 12:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism only account

Resolved.

Maxkardon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

-- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 14:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User blocked, indefinitely. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Can admins review this Topic Ban please?

After asking appeal and waiting about 3 weeks without any response from the arbcom it turned out that "appeals against topic and article bans imposed as part of an arbitration finding need not and should not (except in truly exceptional circumstances), be heard by the Arbitration Committee itself. They can be determined by consensus among administrators". So I am here to ask you a review about this topic ban. Summarizing (and quoting the beginning of the statement by the user who is appealing):

On April 21, 2008, User:Raul654 topic banned user:Thomas Basboll without warning, referring to the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions in the 9/11 area, and describing this edit as "horrendous POV-pushing" in the face of an alleged consensus that this version is the only one supported by policy (at AE).

All the statements are here while here is the explanation of the ban. What do you think?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, you are right, you should also be topic-banned along with Thomas Basboll. Guy (Help!) 17:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Guy, please stop these short, unhelpful, drive-by comments. You are prejudicing discussions and poisoning the well, as well as diverting the topic from Thomas Basboll's topic ban to your proposed topic ban of Pokipsy76. If you could present a longer, more reasoned argument, that would no doubt be greatly appreciated. I personally remain concerned at the way Raul instigated the topic ban, left it undefined, and didn't respond when asked about it. If Raul can't be bothered to defend a proposed topic ban, I see no reason why it can't be overturned. I think we should await Raul's explanation of the topic ban, and if no explanation is forthcoming, it should be overturned. If Raul's explanation is satisfactory, then the community can consider endorsing it. Does this seem like a good way to proceed? Carcharoth (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    Shouldn't we assume that the note left by Raul in the talk page of Thomas was actually his "explanation" (even if someone could not really understand it)?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's not a drive-by comment, it is my considered opinion that Basboll's topic ban is amply justified (as I said when it was discussed), and that Popinsky76 is a net drain on the resources of the community, a pain in the fundament, and a POV-pusher, who should also be topic banned. Why waste words? Guy (Help!) 21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm saying that I would like to see Raul actually explain his topic ban and justify it. He seems to have ignored the request for clarification thread. Could someone notify him about this? I'm currently trying to sort out something with BetacommandBot, which has all blown up again. Carcharoth (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    Wow, BC is really testing the community's patience... --Dragon695 (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, User:Thomas Basboll has retired. I would like to point out that most POV pushers scream and rant when they get banned. If Basboll was pushing a POV (and note that editing purely about a single point of view is not POV-pushing as long as you only add stuff about the POV with the correct weight), then he was always clear about this, and tried an appeal, and when it failed, he quietly retired with a minimum of fuss. I only wish other people, like User:JzG (Guy), were as civil in the way they comport themselves. If everyone acted the way Basboll did, openly declaring their biases and behaving as civilly as he did, then the encyclopedia would be a lot easier to edit. Carcharoth (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, civility trumps all. How silly of us to think that guidelines like WP:WEIGHT, WP:V and WP:OR can begin to approach the hallowed status of WP:CIV. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This is another drive-by comment. Do you have anything helpful to say? My point is that those editing with due weight and verifiably and avoiding original research, still need to be civil while they do it, or enforce those standards. It just drives people away if they don't - just as POV pushing does, as does cynical comments like yours, which only serve to reinforce impressions that it is not what you say, but who you know, that matters. Any POV pusher can be tackled purely on the basis of their edits, not their behaviour. There is no need to resort to incivil behaviour or stonewalling after a ban, to discourage them. And if they are not pushing a POV, then a justified sense of injustice is bred. We should sometimes do due process if there has been an injustice done. I don't want Wikipedia to be built on the back of injustices and resentment due to inappropriate blocks and bans. We all have to both defend each other and watch out for incorrect blocks and bans. Carcharoth (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

They are in full-on bunker mode now. All comments they make seem to be about scoring points for the good guys, whoever they think they are. It is sad in a way, since this could be solved by having these editors simply do some work which wasn't contentious. I just get the impression that they cannot bear to admit they are wrong, and would rather scorch the earth then try to fix it. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll explain this in great detail and many words so not to be accused of a "drive-by" comment. I'll waste people's time, make them read more and all so that you can assume good faith of my comment. Or, you could let people make their points brief and succinct without feeling the need to disparage them. Shell ^babelfish 20:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but as far as I can tell you have stopped short of actually making the brief and succinct comment you seemed to be building up to. To make that clearer, what point were you making that was relevant to either the topic ban on Basboll, or the CIVIL vs WEIGHT/V/OR points above? As far as I can tell, you seem to be trying to start a new subthread on "drive-by comments" vs "long posts". Do you think you could, instead, maybe make a "brief and succinnt" comment on either of the first two topics, rather than change topic? I don't mind what the result is, per se, but I do mind if people let this thread get sidetracked. So, Basboll first: what comments do you have about that? What background do you have in relation to the topic Basboll was editing, and how well do you know what was going on there? Carcharoth (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to sympathise with Carcharoth here. So far all the comments have been singularly unhelpful. I mean, WP's not paper, people, but still, that's 30 seconds of your life you'll never have back. If you've nothing to say that's on-point, why bother? --Relata refero (disp.) 21:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) I would like Pokipsy76 to be barred from further forum shopping on this topic. The matter was first discussed at WP:AE,[6] and then appealed to ArbCom. The Committee declined to overturn the decision. Pokipsy76 then came here and to Raul654's talk page further nagging for the sanctions of his editing buddy to be overturned. This is disruptive and needs to be stopped. Jehochman ^Talk 20:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Meh, why? If ArbCom told him to get a consensus of uninvolved arbitators, why shouldn't he ask? Your time would be better served making a case for, or directing everyone to the already made case for, the other chappies' topic ban. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Everybody's time - and I mean everybody's time - would be better spent ridding Wikipedia of the menace of tenacious endlessly polite POV-pushers who endlessly argue the same false points, endlessly revisit the same rejected arguments and in sundry other ways act to drive away through boredom, frustration or exasperation those who would defend Wikipedia from the inflation of fringe views and kook theories. Wikipedia is the number one most important place on the internet to promote mad theories, and most of the Wikipedia community is too busy arguing about the really pressing need for every episode of Family Guy to have at least five articles, to actually get down to it and enforce WP:NPOV in areas where it is under continual assault. And I do mean assault: there are long-term and often co-ordinated campaigns to skew articles on every single fringe subject, be it 9/11 conspiracies, homeopathy, pseudosciences, alternative medicine or whatever. There are organised groups, there are individuals, there are activists, and they are all here, and the good guys are barely holding their own, and often losing. The only reliable sources for much of this twaddle are the completely uncritical websites that promote it; the mainstream treats obvious nonsense with the contempt it deserves, so we have the unedifying spectacle of, for example, the tiny minority of cold fusion - sorry low energy nuclear research - advocates completely dominating an article on a subject which the vast majority of the relevant professional community treats with derision. If you don't give a damn about WP:NPOV then by all means forget the effect and the content of Basboll's contributions and focus on the undoubted fact that he is a terribly nice chap. If, on the other hand, you aspire to build a neutral encyclopaedia, then he has to go from those articles, because he bolsters and supports those whose agenda is to promote conspiracy theories, and by doing so he prolongs still further the never-ending requests for ever more weight to be given to these kooks. So, Carcharoth, was that a drive-by comment? I do seem to recall saying as much before, so I was hoping that my previous brevity would simply remind people of the obvious and well-documented fact that neutrality is under serious and sustained attack. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

They don't have time. They're too busy weeding out uploaded photos for which there is 0 chance of a copyright suit being filed. And keep in mind that wikipedia has an official policy that "any moron can edit". That tends to work against quality of the content, but ya have to cut corners someplace. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To Guy: no, that was a nice general post with a good amount of detail. Thanks for that. Now, would you like to provide actual links and diffs to help uninvolved admins review this topic ban, or has arbitration enforcement become judge, jury and executioner, with no recourse after that? Carcharoth (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Guy: you forget, you're preaching to the converted. Frankly, some days I want to ban everyone with an opinion. The point, however, is that diffs of this behavior which we all agree is unacceptable be provided. Or the previously collated diffs be linked to, and the banning admin make a short statement as to what he read into them. That is nether too much to ask, nor is it more than the least we can do. In fact, we had better do at least that much, to make sure we are getting things right. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ban everyone with an opinion. Now that's sense! Obviously I don't have an opinion on it, of course, but it certainly sounds like a great idea :-) Guy (Help!) 23:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody wants wikipedia to be "taken over" by "fringe theorists" but I think this alleged "menace" is being overemphasized by Guy to promote a "witch hunt"-mentality. I think the behaviour of Guy and all the other "soliders for the truth" delivers a far more serious damage to the enciclopedia than the alleged "fringe theorist menace". In my opinion Wikipedia needs competent and civil people who are able to discuss, explain their reasons and understand the reason of the others (like Thomas Basboll is), not rude sheriffs shooting and beating any suspect.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

To Jehochman: did you read what was said here? Instead of saying "The Committee declined to overturn the decision.", wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the initial discussion took place at AE, that the clarification thread had one (1) arbitrator comment, and that the original admin giving the topic ban has (for whatever reason) declined to comment in any way whatsoever (as far as I can see). From where I am sitting, that looks like insuffient review and stonewalling of requests for review, not forum shopping. Or are you saying that arbitration enforcement decisions can't ever be appealed? Carcharoth (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry the arbitration committee did not issue a ruling with the level of clarity that you desire. Go complain to them, if you feel the need. Wikipedia has many problems and limited volunteer resources. Giving ever last troll and POV pusher tie a full hearing is not necessary. It looks like ArbCom refused to hear the appeal because on its face, the appeal was completely groundless. Jehochman ^Talk 08:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see my reply below at the same timestamp. Carcharoth (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, perhaps this diff and this diff (the first originally filed by User:Thomas Basboll, the second filed by User:Pokipsy76) are more useful metrics; the second link, in particular, has the thoughts of three arbitrators, and the first has the input from another, all four of which broadly support the topic bans enacted by User:Jehochman and other admins on this tendentious topic. Horologium (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell that second diff (filed by User:Pokipsy76) does not relate at all to the issue of Basboll's topic ban, so I'm not sure it's relevant. As has been mentioned by others above, the appropriate approach would seem to be for someone with some knowledge of these issues to provide a link to supporting diffs (I assume these have been gathered about Basboll's behavior at some point considering all of the ArbCom action surrounding the 9/11 articles) and for the admin who administered the topic ban to weigh in here. The ArbCom did not review the ban, and one of the Arbs suggested that cases like this should be reviewed by admins. I seen no reason not to do that, but those of us who don't know the details of this case need more information. If some evidence can be provided and Raul can weigh in with his thought then we have something to talk about. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The second diff doesn't relate to Basboll's topic ban, but it does relate to Pokipsy76's topic ban, and more generally, the topic bans of a bunch of like-minded POV pushers. Unlike Basboll, most of the topic bans went to editors whose behavior was marginally less polite, but all share a commonality of emphasizing minority viewpoints instead of the mainstream and widely accepted views. Basboll has left Wikipedia (again; this is not the first time he has announced his retirement); it appears that Pokipsy76 is willing to champion his cause and convince to return to WP once the forces of evil have been properly chastized. (Yes, that last clause is sarcasm.) I am convinced that Raul's actions would be endorsed, as not a single admin contested the topic ban. Horologium (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's quite likely that Raul's actions would be endorsed as you say (personally I have little to no patience for 9/11 conspiracy theories, though I've never been involved in working on those pages and as such am relatively neutral), however a review of the ban decision is probably appropriate. Before doing that it would be best if Raul could post a comment here and if he or others could link to some evidence that shows why the topic ban was necessary. I'm utterly ready to be convinced that it was. I've heard of Basboll and know about some of the problems brought up with his editing but not much in the way of specifics. Just asking for a little clarity here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Raul654 to address the issue (once again) on this thread (as he has done at several other threads started by the same editor on this subject). FWIW, I had not previously expressed any view on this topic, but now I am explicitly endorsing the topic bans handed out by Raul and Jehochman and others, and would suggest extending the length of the topic ban on Pokipsy76 to an indefinite topic ban; his forum shopping has reached the level of tendentiousness. Horologium (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, User:Jehochman hasn't issued any topic bans related to 9/11.[7] Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My error, I was thinking of User:East718, User:Chetblong, and User:Raymond arritt, who instituted a series of topic bans at the related discussion here, which is about conspiracy theories and 9/11; they're essentially the same topic. (I have struck Jehochman from my previous comment, and replaced it with "others".) Horologium (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm missing something here, because I don't see a reason stated for questioning the topic ban. Surely, if people endorsing the decision can be asked to provide links and diffs to support the topic ban, we can ask those editors who think that the ban was incorrect to succinctly state why the decision was wrong? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you can find the statements of people supporting and oppising the topic ban with all the diffs here, I hope this is enough to figure out what is the point. I think the most concise and complete statement arguing against the ban is the statement by User:Inclusionist in that same page.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 06:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The arbitration committed 9/11 decision says Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (note, Relata, that it does not refer to a consensus of uninvolved admins.) Thomas's edits to the 9/11 articles were highly biased; the edit he made leading to his ban was highly biased. He was well aware that this not acceptable, having been intimately involved in the 9/11 arbitration case from beginning to end. His actions were reviewed at the AE, from which I issued the ban, and the arbcom upheld it. This review here is simply forum shopping on Pokipsy's part. Raul654 (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I agree, that's the point of discretionary sanctions. The point of appeal, however.... --Relata refero (disp.) 07:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You know I've looked at that edit and I find it a little puzzling. The edit does seem to reduce the overall weight provided to the conspiracy theorists in the article, in addition to moving the detailed statement of the theory out of the lead. The only doubtful phrase seems to be "accordingly dismissed as a conspiracy theory." Which is why, as I said, a few diffs indicating a continuing problem, or the location of the place where those diffs have already been collected and which helped Raul make up his mind, would be useful. It's entirely possible that this chap was a POV-pusher, whom we're better off without; but that doesn't mean we seize on random diffs to ban him. Relata refero (disp.) 07:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how that can be described as a highly biased edit. I invite everyone to take a look at it. It seems to be motivated by a desire to elucidate the topic before moving to a characterization of it. This is pretty much best practice for WP articles. 86.44.28.186 (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with Raul, no reasons to question the topic ban Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• It should be pointed out here, I think, that the "bold" edit by Thomas was preceded by a discussion and a straw poll which apparently displayed a consensus involving people having usually different views[8]. After the edit he also immediately specified "feel free to revert pending a clearer consensus. Comments are welcome" (same link).--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• I'd ask Raul why does he think that being "intimately involved in the 9/11 arbitration case from beginning to end" should result in agreeing with him or with other editors about which edit is "highly biased" and which is not and why can't we assume good faith and think that Basbol actually though it was not biased (also considering he had a consensus on the talk page).--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Let's try a hypothetical here, shall we? If I, as an uninvolved administrator, on my own discretion, imposed sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (in this case, let's say, User:Raul654 and User:MONGO), are you saying that they wouldn't immediately appeal this to ArbCom and probably call for me to be desysopped? I personally think that if MONGO was not editing the articles in question, that things would improve (and that is not an attack on MONGO, just my personal observation about how to improve the atmosphere of editing at those articles - it should never be about content, but about behaviour - admins should not judge content issues, but should aim to improve the editing environment so that good-faith and collaborative editors can work together to improve the articles). My point is, that once people start throwing their weight around with regards to POV pushing (and no, I have no intention of actually imposing discretionary sanctions, it is and hopefully always will be, a hypothetical), it starts to look very much like getting involved in a content dispute, and administrators need to steer clear of that. I personally have never (as far as I remember) substantially edited the articles in question, but what I see going on here has discouraged me from ever getting involved as an administrator or as an editor. I see several heavyweights enforcing things, and even if I wanted to try and handle things differently, I would end up clashing with them. Indeed, I already am. Do you see now how the choices get limited at every turn, and how that is bad for the article, especially in a wiki editing environment? And in reply to Jehochman, yes, I have written to ArbCom about this, though whether they read it is another matter. See here and here - I apologise for not having notified Raul and Jehochman of that thread at the time. And this is the last I am going to comment on the matter for at least a week. I said to Raul on his talk page that if he responded, I would drop the matter, and I will. I would also like to thank Raul for having the courtesy to respond after my note to him. I am now going to finish off a bit of article work and then go on a nice week-long holiday away from all this. If anyone has been offended or upset by what I said, I apologise. I tend to get a bit stressed myself just before a holiday. I'll be very happy to discuss specifics or generalities when I get back. Carcharoth (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• I would also ask Raul why did he enforced the discretionary sanction even without being an uninvolved administrator apparently violating the arbcom rules («an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict»).--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• I am wandering how the Raul's explanation here could remotly be thought to be adding any information which was not already been given before. And I am also wandering what was the need to ask him explanations if people think that, in oderd to explain a discretionary topic ban, it is sufficient to say "I think that particular edit was 'higly biased', dot" (which is actually what has been said) and nobody has anything to object.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This may be interesting. I am inclined to agree with Relata and Carcharoth that there are legitimate questions to be asked about the fairness and propriety of this topic ban. Anyone who has blocked a user for "Conspiracy theory POV pushing" should not be considered an uninvolved person on a topic ban related to supposed "POV pushing" in the same subject area. In fact, I am not comfortable with anyone who regularly uses the term "POV pushing" taking admin actions like this. Per AGF we are supposed to judge edits on their merits and not make judgements on the motives of other editors, much as we may disagree with them. I did not follow the discussion in talk that Thomas was referring to in the edit summary of the diff he was banned for, but it seems harsh if he was topic banned for enacting a consensus arrived at in talk, by an editor with a documented strong opposite POV in the area of dispute, and for an edit that seems on cursory inspection to have slightly reduced the POV-ness of the article. I'd welcome going forward any constructive suggestions for making this area of the project less fraught to edit in (I've avoided it myself for a good while because of the bad faith and unresolved conflicts there), but banning those we disagree with from contributing seems like a poor way forwards. If, on the other hand, a better case can be made for the ban (and I would certainly want to see more than that one diff), it may be that a consensus of genuinely neutral admins will support the topic ban. I don't see that at the moment. --John (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR block reviews (Betacommand and Locke Cole)

Resolved

 – Locke Cole unblocked. Will notify Betacommand and inform those who thought he hadn't breached 3RR. Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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

---

User:Locke Cole drew my attention (by e-mail) to his current block (for 3RR at the bot policy page I'm copying material he has posted at his user page, as I think the situation does warrant further discussion. For those who aren't aware of the situation with Betacommand, he was recently indefinitely blocked (by another admin) with allegations of sockpuppetry. After discussion at AN, I proposed and carried out an unblock. At the time, people said that Betacommand had not breached 3RR (I count 5 people who said that Betacommand had only reverted three times, see diffs [Now added below in new section]). However, they all seem to have missed an earlier edit that Betacommand carried out using his other alternate account, User:Betacommand2 (see evidence below).

Betacommand violated 3RR

Betacommand made four reversions to WP:BOT in a twenty four hour period, violating WP:3RR, and was not blocked (two of those reversions using sock puppets, one an unnamed/abusive puppet which he did not disclose). The four reverts are:

Original

• 2008-05-06T00:38:02

Reversions

1. 2008-05-14T23:40:21 (Betacommand2 - 23:40, 14 May 2008)
2. 2008-05-15T13:25:34 (Betacommand - 13:25, 15 May 2008)
3. 2008-05-15T14:15:22 (Quercus basaseachicensis - 14:15, 15 May 2008)
4. 2008-05-15T14:34:04 (Betacommand - 14:34, 15 May 2008)

List of socks used

• Betacommand (talk · contribs)
• Betacommand2 (talk · contribs)
• Quercus basaseachicensis (talk · contribs)

(End copied text - some annotation added)

At the time, if I had been aware of this, I would have reduced Betacommand's indefinite block to an appropriate length for 3RR, rather than unblocking completely. I can fully understand Locke Cole feeling aggrieved that he was blocked for edit warring, while Betacommand was not. What should be done? I think either unblock Locke Cole, or block Betacommand, but am uncertain as to which. Carcharoth (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. The edit war is long since over. I would suggest unblocking Locke Cole, with the proviso that he agree not to edit-war further. Risker (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'd point out that his block expires in about half an hour anyway. Black Kite 00:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Half an hour? Really? I hadn't noticed that. Thanks for pointing it out. Carcharoth (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Any further block to Betacommand would be solely punitive - the violation happened a couple of days ago now, and he was blocked for a short period of time - a further block would be silly. It's important to remember that when Locke Cole was reverting, he did not know he was reverting socks, therefore his edits did still merit a block for a 3RR violation. No action is needed here. Both were blocked (in the end), and any futher blocks would not help things. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily uninvolved here, having warned Locke a few times in recent weeks for edit warring, but Ryan has it spot on. Should just wait the last 1/2 hour of the block out, and note that edit warring isn't helpful. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. From where I'm sitting the block log says: 01:10, 16 May 2008 and "55 hours". I make the expiry time 08:18 which is still 7 hours away. That's not half an hour. If people are going to say "oh, the block is about to expire", please get the times right. And the big glaring point people are missing is that Betacommand's use of an alternate account led people to miss his edit warring, though to be fair, the first revert was a long time before the other three. However, the 3RR is a bright-line rule for a reason, and needs to be enforced equitably, or it loses its force. Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• You're right; somehow I read it as 48 hours. I think Ryan is right anyway though, to be honest. Black Kite 00:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. I assumed BlackKite could tell time . - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Never assume anything is correct from someone who's in a timezone where it's 2 in the morning :) Black Kite 00:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Outrageous that BC gets unblocked quickly and multiple admins decline an unblock without even mentioning it in the AN thread.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This has nothing to do with this thread so please move over to the main Betacommand thread if you wish to comment like that, but I suggest you might be better putting your efforts in elsewhere. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm discussing the fact that LC wasn't unblocked, and the person he reverted was, the other person has a multisection thread, and the refusal to unblock UC happened without even a mention. I disagree with your analysis of my comment.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To be fair, it was me that unblocked Betacommand, and I had at the time been going on what others had said about Betacommand only having reverted three times. It was also me that started this review, after some of the unblock declines had been made. I'm not happy about all this, but let's not assume malice rather than incompetence or ignorance. Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll meet you 1/3rd of the way and only assume the middle option.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Just unblock Cole now, and move on with our lives. --barneca (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• I've already unblocked Cole because of what's come to light since. east.718 at 00:57, May 18, 2008
  • Thank-you, East. Good point barneca. Moving on now. Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  Keep an eye on them both - they've been duking this out for ages. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  Good move unblocking Cole. BC should be blocked again because yet another thread involving him, is disruption of the project IMHO. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 01:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Uh oh... Marking this resolved. Please take this elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Lack of scrutiny of Betacommand's 3RR

Looking through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry, I count 5 people who missed that Betacommand had in fact been edit warring:

• SQL: "After discussing this for a couple hours, we came to the conclusion, that it was likely a sockpuppet, and, was being used at least [here] to participate in an edit war, and skirt WP:3RR." (my emphasis)
• Jayvdb: "If we assume an honest mistake was made, there is no violation of 3RR on Wikipedia:Bot_policy. I count three."
• DirkBeetstra: "though strictly, even in combination, there is no violation of 3RR"
• Lucasbfr: "A block could be in order (even if there is no 3RR violation, which makes me uncomfortable in this case)."
• Gimmetrow: "Between the two accounts Beta did exactly three reverts, same as his opponent."

It seems that this situation arose because people either did not look further back (the first revert was over 12 hours before the other three) for evidence of more edit warring (if they were looking at the page history), or missed it because they looked at the contributions log for Betacommand rather than Betacommand2, or even that they thought it was not part of the edit war. I'm concerned that Betacommand's use of the User:Betacommand2 account is inappropriate in light of what happened here. I am going to ask the five editors above for their views. Carcharoth (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the sequence of edits. Beta made one edit at 23:40, then three reverts. Of course it's edit warring, we just noted it's 3 reverts. Or are you viewing the 23:40 edit as a revert? Page had been off protection a couple days by then. Gimmetrow 02:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am viewing the 23:40 edit as a revert - a restarting of the earlier edit wars. I was assuming that the five editors above had missed it because it was earlier and by Betacommand2. Apologies to those who had seen this earlier edit. Anyway, from WP:3RR: "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." By adding that material back in, Betacommand was reverting to the wording in the version here, dated 00:38, 6 May 2008. But you are right. The exact details of 3RR is beside the point. Betacommand should have been blocked for chronic edit warring, of which he is as guilty as Locke Cole is. See the following sequences: [9], [10] (after this, it is mainly the Locke Cole-Betacommand show), [11], [12], [13], [14]. I count 12 reverts by Locke Cole and 9 by Betacommand (with various accounts). This should be enough for both Locke Cole and Betacommand to be banned from editing Wikipedia:Bot policy, and to let others edit that page instead. Carcharoth (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In the WP:BOT situation I wouldn't have blocked Locke either. Gimmetrow 04:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not see the edit warring and the socking as related. The sock was obviously unintentional, and it was the socking that brought this issue to a head at AN, causing the majority of the initial concern and confusion. The edit warring was silly, but it happens all the time. The 23:40, 14 May 2008 edit could be considered a "revert" of the 01:27, 6 May 2008 Locke version; but there is an eight day break between those, so I considered that to be a fresh edit after a lot of subsequent discussion on the talk page while the page was protected. Beta could be justifiably banned from editing bot policy for a decent duration, but not bad enough to warrant dropping the hammer on him, and I refuse to believe that he intended to use the sock to subvert 3RR - it is very obvious that the new account was supposed to be a fresh start and kept clean of the old debates - the use of the new account was a mistake that ended up snowballing out of control a little, due to the communities latent resentment of the Betacommand fair-use work (I too hated the bot, and have swore under my breathe at the bot operator, but I didnt write a better bot). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My view is that if Betacommand hadn't used the sock, he would have still done all the reverts listed above, even if he had only had one account. In other words, he still fully intended the revert - he just did it with the wrong account. That doesn't excuse the edit - it is still the same human behind that edit. You are right about the discussion though, see here for a diff between those dates. Did that discussion result in any consensus? If not, then the page should have remained protected. Carcharoth (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked again with a fresh mind, and I did indeed miss the 14 May edits (I didn't look past Gimmetrow's edits). After a second look, both LC and BC broke 3RR (23:40 - 13:25 - 14:15 - 14:34 for BC and 05:12 - 14:14 - 14:20 - 00:48 for LC). I'd have supported a block of both editors for edit warring due to this, they both know better. Both should have been blocked for a 3RR length, 55 hours seemed good to me), and an unblock of both if one was unblocked (again, if the thread didn't go into "omg fresh blood" mode, we would have been able to think clearly and remembered that 3RR was broken). However, Locke Cole's usual "The best defense is attack" behaviour (I'm really tired of seeing these two again, and again, and again barking at each other) didn't help seeing things clearly on his talk page either. Conclusion: We were wrong not to treat the 2 users the same way (55 hours block once the sock matter was cleared, no unblock), but the "OMG DRAMA" atmosphere didn't help. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It was mentioned on my talkpage that I did miss that Betacommand was in violation of 3RR, and indeed, I see there are 4 edits in about a day. I do believe that the editors were edit warring, and I do think both editors deserved a block for that. Now, Betacommand and his alternative accounts got their block for 'Abusing multiple accounts'; where, as far as I can see, the only 'abuse' that the unkown alternative account was used for, is for the 'evasion' of 3RR (I want to say here, I do not believe that Betacommand used his alternative account knowingly to circumvent the 3RR: it would be plainly stupid to use an established alternative account whose edits are similar to do the other accounts for that, I believe it was a mistake to use 'the wrong account' for the revert. Still, it was 3RR, it was edit warring). Locke Cole got a block specifically for 3RR. (remark: I have seen the discussion below). I think that from that point, any unblock requests should be handled on their own merits. Whereas Betacommand's situation was brought to AN/ANI and got a lot of administrator attention (and was unblocked after a satisfactory explanation), Locke Cole's block was not discussed there, and administrators handling that block at that point did (apparently) not find the explanations satisfactory (and other things, see discussion below). I suspect/know that Betacommand knows about 3RR, but am not sure if he realised during the reverts that he was performing the 4th revert (probably .. but), Locke Cole showed that he did know he was violating 3RR. Both editors should have stepped back, and discussed the current situation and possible improvements. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Retirement and review of unblock declines

Addendum - I know I marked this resolved, but that was before I was aware that the unblock came three minutes too late. See here, where Locke Cole retired with the comment: "enough, I guess some editors *are above the law* on Wikipedia". Please note that the blocking admin unblocked with the block log comment "although there was a 3rr breach, locke cole was revert-warring against abusive sockpuppets". Now look at the following declines of Locke Cole's unblock requests: [15], [16], [17]. While some of those decline reasons may be technically correct (though "deferring to the blocking admin" is not a vallid reason), they all show one thing in common - it seems none of them contacted East718 (the blocking admin). As it turns out, East would have been perfectly happy to unblock. Does this not worry anyone? I will request the input of those who declined the unblock requests. Carcharoth (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You failed to mention that I retracted my decline of the unblock shortly after I added it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. You are quite correct. See here. Rjd0060 did indeed retract his unblock decline. Thanks for replying so quickly. I hope the other admins who declined the requests will respond as quickly. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to chime in and explain my decline: East718's block message included "you know better". This is the latest in a long series of blocks. I am not very familiar with LC, BC or their pasts, although I am aware that there is a situation ... having uninvolved admins review blocks is the point of unblock requests. In this case I felt that a) as my decline suggests, I take a very dim view of unblock requests that focus on another user's conduct, as the second one did (and I was especially perturbed by this suggestion that BC be blocked for a specific time period. The last thing any blocked user should be doing is telling the admins how to do their job. Even if they are admins themselves.), b) since there was a history there that East718 was more aware of than I, he knew the user better and meant for this block to stay and c) there had indeed been four reverts.

There is as far as I know no requirement or custom that admins considering an unblock contact the blocking admin if they are considering declining the unblock. This is usually done when either more information is desired, or the admin is considering an actual unblock. I assume that when a fellow admin, one whose judgement I personally have no reason to distrust, slaps down a 55-hour block and tells the blockee "you know better", they have good reasons for doing so.

Now I see that East718 has unblocked and accepted Locke's reasoning ... well, again, that was his discretion. Fine. But he certainly had ample opportunity to reconsider his decision over two days before he actually did. I didn't realize we were supposed to be able to read minds over the Internet. I, as most of us do when considering unblocks, based my decision on the information in front of me, which consisted primarily of an unblock request that boiled down to: "Mom, why didn't you send Beta up to his room? HUH? Mom, why didn't you?" Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And yet it's perfectly fine for Betacommand to suggest his punishment for abusively using a sockpuppet in a content dispute. Daniel, maybe you should simply ignore unblock requests because I get the distinct impression you don't understand how to handle them: your role is to look over the block reason and the information provided by the person requesting unblock. It's not to simply check the block summary and say "Looks good to me!". Your childish analogy is also inappropriate: unless you have some problem with equal justice (I recognize that this isn't a court and Wikipedia policies aren't laws, but fairness and equality shouldn't be avoided, and pointing out an inequality shouldn't be taken with a "dim view"). Basically I was blocked for openly violating 3RR. Betacommand violated it abusively using two sockpuppets and he got a slap on the wrist (actually, he got nothing; the block was for the sock puppet, not for 3RR, somehow everyone missed that). Back to the subject: if you plan on handling unblock requests, please use more care and investigate issues more thoroughly before declining it. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Normally I do; in this case when a blocking admin tells te editor in question "you know better" and that admin has made solid blocks before and the history looks complicated, I deferred to his judgement. Selective prosecution is a valid defense in a real court, but it usually comes with an admission, however tacit, that the defendant was wrong or engaged in the same conduct. The issue was what you did to get blocked, not what someone else did. You didn't discuss what you did. Granted, subsequently the blocking admin has decided that you were right to revert and unblocked you. That's his prerogative. But those of us reviewing your unblock requests saw only someone who looked like he was ducking the issue of his own conduct. You take that risk when you post unblock requests for any admin to review. If you want admins familiar with your history to unblock you, email them.

Your tone in this response is not, by the way, going very far to convince me that I did some great wrong to Wikipedia by leaving you blocked. You come across as as immature as many of the vandals and sockpuppet/eers who usually predominate at CAT:RFU (Perhaps you should review that category from time to time, especially if you have frequent need of posting unblock requests, as you seem to. It would be instructive as far as giving examples to avoid when making such requests. Believe me, you see that "but look what he did!" game all the time). You follow up to my post to vent and bawl me out, shortly after petulantly retiring and then unretiring. There's a word for this sort of behavior: tantrum. My ten-year-old son's mostly grown out of that. Believe me, I'm not impressed. You know better. Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Talking down to me isn't earning you any points, in case you have some funny idea that it is. Your argument still lacks merit: the simple facts are this– I was blocked and another editor was not and my actions were far less damning than the other editor (I did not use sockpuppets abusively to evade 3RR). Faced with that situation, it almost demands equal treatment lest an appearance of bias be presented. And yet you chose to decline and take no action to correct the inequality. Why? Enough of your silly "I'm a Wikipedia Cop" attitude and come at me with something logical, none of this "my gut was saying" or "seemed like a solid block" BS, tell me how a logical person comes to an unblock like that and comes to the conclusion you did. It doesn't wash. You dropped the ball, and unless you intend to be more careful in the future, you probably shouldn't handle unblock requests in the future. Oh, and as for contacting an admin "more familiar" with my situation, I'm actually trying to avoid the appearance of forum shopping. But I guess since others do it on IRC, why not eh? —Locke Cole • t • c 07:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And just so we're clear on policy, here's what Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Enforcement says: In the cases where multiple editors violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Locke, speaking of active unblock requests, why don't you go stand up for this user? He's using exactly the same defense as you were, and getting just as far. Daniel Case (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A look at the page history reveals why he might be annoyed. Wouldn't you think the appropriate solution here would be to block both editors? Note I'm not saying unblock the anon, but block the other editor as well, it's obvious they were both edit warring. As you note, this is no different than what I was facing (and in fact I suggested Betacommand be blocked as an alternative to unblocking me, something you seemed to take issue with). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Locke, you're simply taking a long leak into a stiff breeze here. Administrators who resort to condescendingly comparing mere editors to their preteen children usually are not open to changing their views. Daniel is going to continue declining unblocks without trying to unwind a complicated situation. It matters not the facts of the matter. And BC will continue to be treated differently than any other editor would be after doing the same things. Bellwether ^B_C 09:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And editors who act like preteen children are not going to change anyone's mind either. My decline had everything to do with how you framed your request and nothing at all to do with BetaCommand's block or lack thereof. I wasn't the admin who made the block (and later unblocked you) and, as the signs over so many municipal court clerk's offices say, I will not take the abuse for that original block. By constantly shifting discussion to it, you're tacitly admitting you were rightfully blocked.

Really, at this point, shouldn't you be devoting your energies to making sure that BC is properly held accountable (which I agree he should be) or actually editing articles, instead of litigating an unblock request you eventually got anyway. And just in case you think I routinely decline unblocks without looking into them, take a look at this, which also happened last night, after I considered your request. That was a complicated situation that I did look into and unblocked because the user was blocked indef over her imperfect understanding of a complicated (and flawed IMO) policy without so much as a warning. You were warned, and you weren't blocked indefinitely.

To reiterate my position one last time: yes, policy states that both parties to an edit war or 3RR violation are to be blocked for equal duration unless the reverted edit(s) were vandalism or a BLP vio. But, I don't think an unblock request is the proper forum for making the argument that the other person should be blocked too. If you had simply admitted you were overzealous in your reversion, even to the point of admitting you were going over the line (as you had previously) and requested to be unblocked so that you could participate in the thread here, I might have considered it. I once made an unblock on those grounds (although there were some different circumstances there, like the apparent lack of adequate warning. As I found out only later, this was an editor under ArbCom restrictions already). And I caught hell for that (worse than this). If you wonder why you and other editors seem to be selectively blocked in 3RR/edit war situations, maybe it's because some admins learn not to wade into complicated situations where, really, the facts are pretty obvious but the personality clashes are so severe that no one can make good-faith assessments of their actions as truly independent or impartial, even if they were never involved in the whole dispute to begin with. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you knock it off with the personal attacks? As to your belief that you "don't believe an unblock request is the proper forum for making an argument that the other person should be blocked too", where would you have me make such a request while blocked myself? It's not like I can just shoot over to WP:AN/3RR and file a report, seeing as, you know, I'm blocked. AFAIK there's no template (and associated category) for "unjust blocks", though if that's the deal breaker for you, maybe I'll go make something. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If you agree to knock it off with things like "you don't understand how to handle them", which was your opening salvo after I explained my decision calmly and rationally, and remember to assume in good faith that this had nothing to do with Betacommand. Bellwether says you're pissing into the wind, but you're doing a fine job of getting it all over me (and not in the supposedly fun way).

Actually, I don't have a problem with the idea of creating an "allegedly unjust block" category or request template; I think there are some greater issues with how unblock requests are handled, particularly in these instances of complicated edit war/3RR situations (which turn up a lot). But for now the way I suggested seems to make sense to me; it worked for Alexia. (Also, did you consider requesting page protection for WP:B before going off on your edit war? I have often reminded other people blocked for EW/3RR that if discussion fails that's your next option). Again, if your unblock request had read "I admit I was edit warring and I have been blocked for long enough already; aside from when the ArbCom banned me for a month for stalking and harassment this is the longest I've been blocked. I have evidence of sockpuppetry that I'd like to present at the ongoing AN/I thread", I'm not saying I would have definitely unblocked, but the chances I would have declined would have gone way down. That's all I want you to say you understand before we both put down the sticks and walk away. As I also tried to point out I am hardly the only admin who uses this sort of rationale for declining unblocks; if you want to find a way to change this then feel free to start a thread at WT:BLOCK and invite me to contribute; I certainly will. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Locke Cole of this thread and asked him to consider unretiring. MBisanz ^talk 04:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he has. Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out that the ArbComm recently held as two findings of principal "Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of unblock requests are wholly without merit, those who choose to review them are expected to carry out an impartial, evidence-based review. Administrators are specifically cautioned to be on the lookout for confirmation bias in the course of a block review." and "Since administrators are strongly discouraged from reversing one another's blocks, it is of particular importance that blocking admins respond to good-faith requests to review blocks they have made. Similarly, administrators who perform independent reviews of unblock requests are expected to familiarize themselves with the full facts of the matter before marking the unblock request "declined." It sounds as if the declining admins didn't really investigate, or they would have written their declines differently. Thus I recommend that they consider raising the bar themselves as to the amount of investigation they do before declining. GRBerry 15:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Other

What a suprise, Betacommand yet again gets a slap on the wrist for behaviour that would merit an indef block for anyone else. First verbal abuse, next abusing his bot, and now he socks too. Jtrainor (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind focussing on how the unblock requests were handled? Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll choose to view this as part of the larger ongoing saga concerning Betacommand, thanks. Jtrainor (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Locke Cole's retirement comment. some users are above the 'law' here. It is time that we codified just how and which editors that applies to, and it what circumstances. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

Earlier today I AfDed two articles and a template created by User:Taran Wanderer, and CSDed another article. His response has been beyond incivil. He left an invective filled message on my talk page[18], removed the messages about the deletions with the summary of "go suck an egg"[19], then referred to me as a whore in the talk page "hang on" reason for Cristina Cruz Mínguez (the CSDed article)[20]. Reporting here as this seems above just a Wikitiquette alert (and if possible, I'd like the whore thing completely removed). AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked him for 24 hours for incivility and personal attacks. That last one was outrageous, and he shows no sign of slowing down. Someone please review my block, but I don't think this one deserves any warnings. No one should think that kind of abuse is appropriate or allowable in any social situation. Feel free to unblock him if you feel this block was inappropriate. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User responded by saying he doesn't care, the block seems ok to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No one ever comes up to congratulate or thank administrators for deleting articles. We always receive the nasty, blunt end of editors. This is one of the cases. Good call on the block. seicer | talk | contribs 03:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated! I've gotten my share of abuse and tend to be thick skinned, but that's was just outrageous for me. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I have since protected his talk page, as he was just using it to continue his trolling. If he returns to the same behavior when the block expires, he can expect another one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• FWIW, I cannot see how Cristina Cruz Mínguez can possibly have qualified as a speedy deletion under A7, since it asserts she has had a leading role in a notable video series. Not that of course this excuses the user for going about it the way he did, but I see no reason to thank admins for a clear misuse of speedy. (Another admin has removed the speedy tag, and its now at AfD, which is what should have been done in the first place). DGG (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That has absolutely nothing to do with this, and really didn't need to be brought up at all. I thanked the admins for removing the insult, not for anything at all related to the article. If you have a personal dispute with my tagging it CSD and can show me policy to back up your assertion that it was a "clear misuse of speedy", then leave a note on my talk page. It has nothing to do with this AN/I at all. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:ChrisP2K5

User is putting sock tags all over hell's half acre, without any substantiation on all requests. Paranoia is the name of the game, has nothing to do with reporting any vandalism or such. [21]. His history in that link clearly shows that he is a vandal, if anybody is. Thank you. 71.64.155.151 (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you possibly explain how the first thing you did was to find this user and start reverting his edits? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's perfectly clear this is not the "first thing" the user has done, so what's your real question? Unit56 (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure it is. Why would anyone assume otherwise, since his contributions list clearly shows that his only edits have been to find and revert things that ChrisP2K5 has done... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Jayron, this is exactly what I was telling you about on your talk page. THIS MAN IS A LUNATIC, and if not controlled he will continue to make this Wiki moot. This man has an arrest record for stalking in the actual world, so it shouldn't be surprising that he would resort to cyberstalking. He's done it to hundreds of people over the last ten years, including at least two other Wiki users besides me, and he needs to be dealt with SEVERELY. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Calm down man. We have this under control. No need to get all crazy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Calm down please? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It was easy to find this page, since it was in the troll's history(Chrisk2p5)...anyhow...he vandalized my talk page also this morning. Looks like there is a pattern forming here, you are allowing an established user the right to troll the hell out of this project. 71.64.155.151 (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just speaking the truth. As long as he can, he'll find ways. He keeps doing it. I mean, isn't it just a little odd that he'll go to other IP addresses to revert edits made on another anon IP address' user/talk page? Seems that if you were trying to persuade someone that you're not who they say you are, you wouldn't do anything to make them think they were right, right? That's what he's doing. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:81.130.223.198

81.130.223.198 (talk · contribs)

This IP address has sent 13 attacking messages to various users, some with whom I have had disagreements in the past. This is a blatant aim of making Wikipedia a battleground and sowing personal enmity.[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]

I am not a vandal. I have been increasingly constructive. And User:Paerduag is not my sock-puppet as implied in the above diffs. He/She sent me an invitation that I copied and rewrote. Ultra! 14:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This is what 81.130.223.198 points out as sockpuppetry.[35] and [36] I made both edits, not Paerduag. Ultra! 14:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have copied a notice left by Paaerduag here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is that one. But is copying such things wrong? I suppose GFDL permits this. Ultra! 15:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; my point was that you didn't sign a comment with the wrong signature (and date), but that you copied a comment from another user (who actually made that comment on that date), and forgot to change the signature. Sockpuppetry, it's not. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Whast about the IP's attacks? Ultra! 15:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. It's an IP that stopped editing three days ago, so I'm not sure what can be done beyond a stern warning. It's clear that the IP is in disagreement with you, and that the message is intended to get other users to assume bad faith wrt your edits. I'd like some more eyes on this, if possible. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Note also that, despite the similarity in name, Ultraviolet scissor flame (talk · contribs) is not related to me or my username in any way, shape, or form. Just wanted to get that out of the way, since I was getting a little schizophrenic reading this conversation. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What does "some more eyes on this, if possible" mean? Ultra! 15:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It means that, while I think some action is in order, I am unsure as to what course of action to take. I am requesting that more of my fellow administrators (most of whom monitor this board) have a look and provide their input. Sometimes, admins will see a thread has been responded to and presume that the situation is in hand; I wanted to indicate that no action has yet been taken. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Domneez

Will an admin watch this guy for me?I have a feeling, and like my favorite actress from "Mad Money" says,"Trust my feelings".Look at his first couple contribs.You'll see what I mean.Hes gonna be bad news. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 17:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That's as may be, but - per WP:AGF - we generally give all new users the benefit of the doubt, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. I've welcomed this user, as I see you had as well. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I iunderstand that, but I happen to know this guy personally, and I know that he isn't going to be doing any editing.But maybe your right.Maybe I should give him the benefit of the doubt.You never know.... Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 18:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Deucalionite

Would somebody be so kind as to deal with this little gem of a personal attack; also see talk page and his prior block log. Thanks -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the attack and warned the user. If there's any other incivility or shenanigans, I'd recommend a block. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a bit reluctant to deal with this editor myself, as there is quite a long history between us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So it would seem - good times. I'll keep an eye on things, just in case. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Good times" indeed, if all you remember is speaking to a chestnut. Ha! Deucalionite (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Evrik

I direct your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epicaricacy‎ where users have come forward to admit that their participation was the result of off-wiki canvassing by Evrik (talk · contribs), who appears also to have solicited the support of a sockpuppet of his indef-blocked pal South Philly. It seems to me that some sort of sanctions against Evrik for his crude attempts to game the system are in order, but I leave that to you folks. What to do about the AfD, which appears to be irredeemably tainted, is a whole other question. Deor (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I asked people to weigh in, but I did not ask anyone to vote in any way. I did not ask anyone to create sockpuppets, or meatpuppets, to participate. In fact I notified a couple of admins of South philly's sock puppets. Which I can document. I have tried my best to remove myself from this discussion and have in not participated in a couple of days. As for the AfD, I think it was done in bad faith. I'm going back on wikibreak. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 16:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

* I don't understand in what sense this AfD, which I filed, was in bad faith. I filed it May 12 at 15:19, and admittedly I am no expert at filing AfD. [37]. At that time, the article consisted purely of dictionary-type info and material lifted from schadenfreude [38]. On Talk:Epicaricacy at that time, three users besides me were arguing with Evrik that the word should re-direct to Schadenfreude. He gave flip answers, and reverted a re-direct all but him thought was agreed-to. On Evrik's own talk pages, which he has deleted since this notice was filed, he gave similarly flip answers to other editors who were asking him why he was changing links that used to go to Schadenfreude so that they went instead to the stub he was creating. Since I thought Evrik was ignoring consensus about his new article, I filed the AfD in the hope that a wider consensus would persuade him. I never before encountered Evrik on Wikipedia and had no personal reason to get into an argument with him. I noticed his actions after this edit to Internet troll, which is on my watchlist. [39]. At the time he made that edit, he had not yet created the article, so it was a red-letter link. I deleted the link [40], he created the article and reverted my delete. At this point I went to his talk page, found the upset messages from other users and his offhand answers, left a message saying he shouldn't link to non-existent articles. Rather than saying, "I have now created the article", he came to my talk page and left a message "How would you define non-existent?" [41] If an AfD was the wrong way to approach this problem, I apologize. It was done in good faith. betsythedevine (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Record of canvassing friends and/or sockpuppets

• Evrik has now deleted his recent user-talk, which would document his recent actions, and replaced his user page with a display of his barnstars (including one given to him by his suspected sockpuppet South Philly.
• Evrik was investigated for having South Philly as a sockpuppet. [42] It seems to me that the first investigator had pretty solid evidence the Evrik was in fact the same as South Philly, even though they used different computers, noting that over a 20 month period they never once overlapped their editing sessions, which seemed quite unlikely. But the second investigator, citing what a good contributor Evrik is, gave a tortuous explanation of why they might not be the same person, giving Evrik the benefit of the doubt as an established editor. His conclusion: "In the best-case scenario, it looks like Evrik drafted a friend to help revert-war with Boothy443, then this friend went on to do some editing independently, always staying loyal to his teacher in various disputes, big and small. "
• Evrik was also involved in a January, 2007 sockpuppet investigation for the same kind of apparent vote-stacking [43]. The suspected sock English_Subtitle returned to Wikipedia on May 12, after a 4 month absence, to take part in the epicaricacy AfD as well as other edits. w:Special:Contributions/English_Subtitle.
• It seems like more than a coincidence that of the 10 Keep votes for "epicaricacy", 6 were apparently from Philadelphia, based on information on their talk pages: Evrik, plus Sur_de_Filadelphia, Marketstel, Raider.adam, Eagleapex, and LBlanchard. After the topic of canvassing was introduced on the talk page, a 7th participant came forward to say that Evrik had recruited him. [44]. And so did an 8th person, who had not taken any part in the discussion. [45].

Now it is clear that Evrik is a hard-working and productive editor of Wikipedia. It is also clear to me that his past encounters with admin reproaches for edit-warring and vote-stacking have not made much impression. I would like to see the "good" Evrik continue to edit here but the "bad" Evrik has wasted a lot of other people's time over this already. betsythedevine (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

n.b. I had originally deleted User talk:Evrik/Archive 12 after a speedy deletion request, but Betsythedevine informed me that it was relevant to this ANI discussion. I've restored the page. Also, User talk:Evrik/Archive 11 doesn't appear in Evrik's archives. I'm noting this for purposes of the discussion; otherwise, I haven't checked out the case. (I'm more interested in checking out the IUCN database against lists of state parks and National Register properties at the moment.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• FYI, I just added the link to my archive 11 for the discussion here. What evil thing did I do? --evrik ^(talk) 18:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Relevant material from Evrik's deleted talk pages

Thanks to Elkman for restoring this material, but in case it gets deleted again somehow I want to put the relevant parts here.

• From May 16 I just now became aware of the guideline on canvassing, and I think it makes good sense. In the future, if you want to discuss Wikipedia disputes with me, please contact me through my talk page, for the sake of transparency. ike9898 (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• From May 9 :

Hi, I don't understand why you have altered many links for schadenfreude, which has an article, to Epicaricacy, which doesn't, and is a practically unknown word. Please would you explain this? Someone else has already reverted your edit in template:suffering, and I think the rest should likewise be reverted. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fayenatic. Epicaricacy seems to exist only in lists of curious words, whereas schadenfreude is in everyday usage. I can't see any reason why Wikipedia should use the former. Can you explain? Otherwise, I am inclined to revert. Grafen (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree. --evrik (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I came here to comment on your repeated addition of a link to the non-existent article "epicaricacy" to Internet troll. I see that you have made similar edits elsewhere. It isn't good Wikipedia practice to persist in edits that others question without giving some explanation of why your edit makes Wikipedia better. betsythedevine (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-existent? --evrik (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I made this comment based on the article's non-existence yesterday. I see that today you have created it. You still haven't explained why you think this article's existence (it used to re-direct to Schadenfreude) is a benefit to Wikipedia users. betsythedevine (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume good faith as Evrik is a solid editor here on Wiki and I have great respect for him. But I wanted to ask a similar question. Why wouldn't the term "schadenfreude" link to schadenfreude? --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

that was a mistake. --evrik (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you can see from this (as well as from early discussion at epicaricacy) that before the AfD other editors tried to engage evrik in a respectful discussion of his actions but without success.

Added by betsythedevine (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that Evrik has now asserted (on what basis I don't know) that User:English Subtitle, another !voter in the AfD, is a sock of someone unnamed—though I assume that the section heading "SP" indicates "South Philly". I guess my question is, If Evrik was aware that socks were improperly supporting his position in the AfD (including double !voting), why didn't he divulge it in that discussion? Deor (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrap up

Here's what I think happened, and note I've been familiar with these users from way back. I think Evrik and South Philly know each other IRL. So, they talk to each other and support each other. I do not think they are socks. Then some falling out occurred, like maybe Evrik got tired of SP's socking, but could be all sorts of things. So Evrik reports on SP's socking. SP retaliates by reporting Evrik's canvassing. Now what I find really odd is these socks: English Subtitle, Stonewall Revisited, Amnesia grrl, 216.185.29.69 reporting themselves at SSP. I've indef'd the names and 3-month blocked the IP. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/South Philly (3rd). That leaves Evrik. He's posted a "retired" note on his pages, but maybe he'll come back. So, I'll leave a note about the canvassing there. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there's probably nothing else to be done at this time (though I pity the admin who chooses to close the AfD in question). I'd like to point out, however, that it was not any South Philly sock who reported Evrik's canvassing. It was other users who he canvassed—even though the canvassing was already fairly clear, albeit unprovable, from the evidence in the AfD itself. Deor (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I really am sorry that the outcome of all this has been for Evrik to "retire" but I hope it will be temporary. Nobody is claiming -- I certainly am not --that Evrik is wicked, but I do think he got carried away by his enthusiasm into doing a number of inappropriate things. I complained about the actions (so did others). My complaints weren't meant as a personal attack. Everybody, in Wikipedia or elsewhere, sometimes does stuff others think they shouldn't. I think that Evrik must be a very good person on the evidence that he has so many loyal friends, quite apart from the good work he has done in Wikipedia.

On a less friendly note, if Evrik's ally South Philly had defended Evrik by citing Wikipedia policy instead of insulting and wikistalking me, he could have helped to calm the discussion down instead of heating it up. I am sorry that my annoyance about what I saw as inappropriate tactics caused me to waste my time (and other people's) with excessive posting about these issues.

I am going to try to change the AfD to a Merge and Redirect, and I will make sure the ultimate Wikipedia article has a section mentioning "epicaricacy."betsythedevine (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have closed the AfD as Merge and Redirect anyway. Black Kite 11:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I still believe South Philly was Evrik's Bad Hand sock. I went over the logs during the linked investigation above, and remain convinced that two computers were involved, at either work and home locations, or home and cafe, etc. No overlaps, ever; long sessions on one computer, then logged out, then twenty minutes later the other would start up. Like clockwork. SP always turning up to attack whoever had disagreed with Evrik, often twenty minutes after Evrik's last edit, *never* online at the same time. The logs were pretty much statistically impossible for two users in the same time zone, imho. Even if by some bizarre confluence of events SP was actually a meatpuppet, Arbcom "has ruled that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity." - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've pretty much shut down my account. I may come back to deal with a couple of issues in the future, or I may even start editing again. Most of the accusations here are baseless. In fact, I was working with a couple of admins to try and deal with South Philly and his socks. Oh, and as an FYI, I was one of the only people to oppose the adminship of User:Kathryn NicDhàna as I thought she tended to be partial. --evrik ^(talk) 17:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Epicaricacy problem not really wrapped up yet

This appears to still be open, so I think that it's worth adding a mention of today's contributions by 151.197.116.67 (an anon IP from Philly? Who'da thunk it?). Can an admin please block that IP for (at least) WP:NPA? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 02:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, the insanity continues today via this Philadelphia IP mentioned by DoriSmith above but not yet banned, who left an angry message on my talk page saying that epicaricacy was not a content fork, and ending with "Cunt. Stop spreading your lies." Other Evrik-opponents in the AfD debate got similar though less obscene messages. betsythedevine (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

He didn't leave me one of those. Do I have BO or something? I feel so neglected. Deor (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how he missed you, Deor.As I said, I'd be happy to see the "good" Evrik back at work on Wikipedia, but some of his friends or his socks or the socks of his friends are just ugly. betsythedevine (talk)

• Don't feel too bad; even though I put my 2¢ in on the AFD, I didn't get one of the nastygrams either (thankfully!). Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Don't look at me. --evrik ^(talk) 22:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of Twinkle

It has been brought to my attention that Tylerpuetz is abusing Twinkle.1, 2, 3 He has been warned by admins to stop and he still persists. He also tried to "block" an IP user I guess. 1 Could someone over here look into it? Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 15:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a clear case of abuse, if he has been warned prior to this thread, chances are that he will have his rollback removed and Twinkle removed temporarily. Qst (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

He was warned by me a few days ago and promised he'd be more careful. If these diffs are from after that promise (I haven't checked), then support revocation of Twinkle, rollback and Huggle. — iridescent 16:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

On closer look, while he hasn't made any invalid rollbacks since my final warning, he has inappropriately posted block notices on multiple occasions since. (1, 2, 3). It appears that he has already been warned about this as well, and doesn't seem to have done it since. I think what we're dealing with here is someone who doesn't understand how things work, rather than deliberate abuse; that said, I'd support revocation of all automated tools if there's any further abuse given the number of warnings he's received. — iridescent 16:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

However, if somebody doesn't understand that typing {{uw-block1}} on a talkpage doesn't actually block the user concerned, do we really want them trying to deal with vandals? Good intentionals are without doubt; it's just the fact that they are likely to inadvertantly cause trouble.

I would suggest withdrawing automated vandalism tools and rollback, and give him/her a reading list; when they indicate that they've read up and understand the necessary facts, then restore and see how it all goes. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c with above) Unfortunately, he seems to be using TW thru gadgets; it can't be removed. Blocking right now isn't necessary; appears he may be talking to TheHelpfulOne on IRC. However, any further abuse should result in a warning that he needs to remove TW from his gadgets, and that he will be blocked if he uses TW again. In any case, removing rollback seems reasonable right now, until he demonstrates a better understanding of how things work, but I won't do so myself since I'm about to leave and can't deal with any fallout. This is another example of why TW shouldn't be in gadgets; so that blocking in order to put a stop to TW abuse isn't our only tool. --barneca (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've revoked rollback privileges and HUGGLE, as misuse of either of these will cause more damage than Twinkle due to the speed of editing. I agree that complete blocking at this stage is undesirable (and, again, urge the developers to remove Twinkle from gadgets so we can disable it in these instances). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iridescent (talk • contribs) 16:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Any sysop can remove Twinkle from Gadgets, we don't need to file a Bugzilla request and wait for a sysadmin to edit localsettings.php. FunPika 16:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Unilateral action probably not appreciated/advisable ;) Alex.Muller 16:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

←Last time it was removed following discussion it was re-added within 24 hours. Personally I don't think it should be there (or that the Gadgets section should really exist for anything remotely controversial) but short of a ruling by Jimbo, I suspect Twinkle's on it to stay. — iridescent 16:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest we try to again to get it off and keep it off. People ask for it tot early and use it too carelessly. It should require at least a certain degree of deliberation and sophistication & putting it in gadgets is making it appear too easy. DGG (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This was proposed recently at WP:VPR#Twinkle. Methods were discussed there for disabling Twinkle per-user, even for those who have it enabled through gadgets. The discussion seems to be at a standstill right now (interestingly, just after a user asked for "multiple examples of misuses of Twinkle that justifies changing the requirements"). It might be best to comment there -- removing twinkle from gadgets is one possible solution, but there are others. I personally feel that in the vast majority of cases, twinkle edits should be treated as any other -- inappropriate edits deserve warnings, and too many warnings leads to a block, despite what was used to make those edits. The only time I can really see removal of the tool being necessary is inadvertent misuse by a good-faith editor, and I think even in that case the user can simply be asked to stop clicking whatever he or she is clicking. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an issue with the tool. It's an issue with the user. This would better be filed under "Misuse of editing priveleges". He could have done the exact same thing without the use of Twinkle, so I don't really see what the controversy is here. The solution is to deal with the problems that the user has, not the fact that the tool lets him do stupid things faster; if he keeps it up, block him until the admins are satisfied that he isn't going to misuse the ability to edit any further. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't I say that? :) Equazcion •✗/C • 20:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:majeston

This morning I was removing some links from articles that clearly fail as reliable sources, plus some trivia, etc. These are Nephilim (role-playing game), Nephilim, Paleolithic Continuity Theory, Lemuria (continent) and Mu (lost continent) user:Majeston, who may be upset with me because of edits on the the Urantia book article, quickly reverted them giving no reasons and marking the reverts as minor (he seems to mark everything as minor) - see [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] I thought that he was just watching these pages, but then he reverted an edit I made on Paper folding [51], a very different type of article and one he has not been editing. He has just made a big reversion at the Urantia book article [52] of edits by 3 different authors, calling them vandalism, which they were definitely not (well, not sure about the IP edit). He seems to have little interest in Wikipedia guidelines or entering into discussions, which makes even more difficult. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place, and if not, apologies.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine here for now. Notified him of this discussion. It is highly inappropriate to revert with no edit summaries marked as minor, but let's see what he says. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

i have my preference box set to minor automatically —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majeston (talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC) user dougweller as well as others have been stalking and rv my entries on wiki with no discussion and only with the intent to turn positive entries into negative ones or to suppress any positive entry at all. Majeston (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC) example:

• Dougweller (Talk | contribs) (73,697 bytes) (adding POV tag because of recent edits (esp the one that carefully left out McMenamin's critical words)) (undo)
• Dougweller (Talk | contribs) (73,689 bytes) (→Criticism of science: replacing a bit of the quote left out by editor (naughty to leave out the critical bit and just leave in the praise))
• 65.78.13.238 (Talk) (67,196 bytes) (rv biased edits by Majeston. It's doubtful this material even belongs in this section, since it isn't "criticism of [by] science"; don't try to inflate its importance.) (undo)
• Dougweller (Talk | contribs) (67,633 bytes) (→Criticism of science: let's have a bit of context about Mullis) >>>>>>>>>>The Nobel-laureate chemist Kary Mullis (who also defends astrology, denies the role of HIV in AIDs, and describes having spoken to a glowing racoon in his book Dancing Naked in the Mind Field,

the previous article was, by my reading, biased strongly towards trying to make him look bad. I happen to personally disagree strongly with his approach to AIDS and therefore am not his biggest fan, but my sides of those arguments can be made on their merits–-not by denigrating him personally. Joewright

This page spends very little time referring to the accomplishments of Kary Mullis, and it is his accomplishments which make him encyclopedically notable, whereas it spends a great deal of time trying to make him look like a raving lunatic. I feel the present article is highly unbalanced against the man, and if there are controversies that deserve treatment, they ought to be included, but if the primary purpose of the article is to discuss those controversies, this is not encyclopedic at all. Whig

Majeston (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with and amplify Doug's observations; it seems clear that Majeston has been combing through the contributions of editors that he disagrees with and reverting changes that they made, without any consideration whatsoever about the quality of the edits. Obviously, there was no legitimate reason for Majeston to undo the correct formatting of the title of a movie except, as his edit summary states, "Undid revision 213286446 by 65.78.13.238 (talk)". Neither was there any legitimate reason for Majeston to go back at least four edits and two months into the history of Misha: A Mémoire of the Holocaust Years to find the last change I made and undo that specific change; any well-intentioned editor who studied the change for even a second would realize that there will never be an article with the title "the existence of a compass allegedly used by Misha" and therefore no reason to restore a wikilink to that non-existent "article". Majeston is clearly wikistalking.

I further agree with Doug's observation that Majeston doesn't display any interest at all in being a sincere participant in Wikipedia. I would call your attention to a pair of Majeston's edit summaries on The Urantia Book (a look at his contributions will quickly suggest that this subject is his single purpose for editing Wikipedia.) In this edit on May 17th, Majeston reverted to his preferred version with the cryptic edit summary "wiki policy is to discuss and reach harmony b4 rev-not drop mypov and then rev with no ~~~~". Majeston has hardly done anything to "discuss and reach harmony" before making any of his many, many revisions -- his two most recent edits to Talk:The Urantia Book were on 13 May, 2008 (nine KB of text copy-pasted from elsewhere) and prior to that, 27 August, 2007.

The conflict between Majeston's own disuse of the talk page and his insistence that others "discuss and reach harmony" before reverting his changes is already a red flag. But when it has been clearly explained on the talk page why the material Majeston has been adding is original research and must be removed, and Majeston has been advised to join the talk page discussion he called for before attempting to reinstate the material -- Majeston's reversion straight back to his preferred version is made with the edit summary "yeah, sure thing....like i've got nothing better to do......i'll jump right on that ~~~~". I think you have Majeston in a nutshell right there -- the only interest he has in the policies of Wikipedia is to insist that others should be constrained by them. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The above 2 editors only interest in the article is negative. Neither have contributed anything of a positive nature to the article and their only intent is quite obviously to either ridicule it or to turn any entry into a negative pov even to the extent that if they cannot find fault with the material they then attack the authority. In this case A noted professor of Geology and a Nobel-Laureate. If that doesn't work they try to suppress the material with any WIKI loophole they can find. My entries are well researched; cited and valid. There is no entry by either one of these editors geared to improving the article in any way. I personally do not appreciate putting in hours of work and research before I make an entry and then having it deleted or turned into a negative attack simply at the whim of a stalker who neither has read the material nor understands it. Example I have put a request on the page for WP Protection which was just removed by User talk:65.78.13.238 I am not sure but I do not think the removal of a request for protection from this edit warring is valid. Please advise and Protect the page and block both of these users from any further edits. Thank You Majeston (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify about my alleged attacks on 'the authority' It is true that I pointed out that Kary Mullis was not an authority on the issues where he says science agrees with the Urantia book, and that I also said that Mullis's private web page with comments about the Urantia book was not a reliable source. I made clear on the talk page what I was doing: [53]. Majeston did not respond, he simply reverted with no edit summary. I certainly did not attack McMenamin, what I did when I saw the quote that Majeston used was attempt to put it into context, here is Majeston's revert: [54] this time with an edit summary saying "unsupported off-the-cuff general remark-no examples" - I have no idea what that means as there is no reason to think the 'comment' " "Of course I am being selective here in my choice of quotations, and there are reams of scientifically untenable material in The Urantia Book" was off-the-cuff at all, and just because McMenamin gave no examples is surely not a reason to remove his comment. All editors need to learn to put up with having hours of work removed, and I believe that I read his edits and fully understood them. Doug Weller (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Balkans

Resolved

 – Article semiprotected for a week

Could someone please have a look at the history of the article Balkans. An anonymous editor has been constantly changing the data without any comment even though I have left a message on his talk page[55] not to do so. Does this qualify as vandalism for which I may simply block the anon? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like POV edit warring, not vandalism. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, to be fair all around, when I further checked the page history to see if the anon violated 3RR, I noticed that Eleassar actually did. I see 4 reverts in under 24 hours. Unless I'm mistaken, the reverts that were made were not for vandalism or BLP violations. Now it looks like the anon is back at it and likely also violating 3RR. Have to be careful here, would be tough to block him for 3RR when others have also violated it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the IP's latest edits, which do veer on vandalism. No one need worry about 3RR when reverting this guy. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Supporters of Barack Obama are getting the article censored to help Obama

Resolved

 – Socks blocked

Supporters of Barack Obama don't care about NPOV or non-bias. They are out to censor the article. They have a new method.

Anyone they don't like, they call them a sock. Easy way to ban people. In Wikipedia, if someone calls you a sock, a lot of juvenile administrators will rush in and ban the person.

They don't care if the edits are fair. Just whack anyone that someone calls a sock.

This is just terrible. Administrators who are fair should try to help.

One ploy is called Derekx1s. According to RFCU, as long as you use a certain ISP, which is used by several million people, you will be banned. That's really cunning of the Obama supporters.

I see that DianeFinn has been banned. The edits are ok to me from what I have seen in the talk pages of the articles, it's just that the editor is not a diehard Obama supporter. Ded2839485832456 (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[citation needed] - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, helping Obama is a perfectly commendable cause. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed as yet another-other-other sock of banned editor, User:Dereks1x - Alison ^❤ 18:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The user apparently labeled himself a sockpuppet on his userpage. The only time I ever dealt with that article was when I blocked a guy who was repeatedly edit warring to try to insert "zomg, he is really a muslim" type nonsense into that article. Smears against people violate BLP and should be removed immediately I suspect that the situation is the same here.--Jersey Devil (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"The only time" wrote Jersey Devil. Well, that shows that this is different as DianeFinn edits are not nonsense, but NPOV and sense.

This also shows that checkuser Alison lacks ethics. An ethic person does not block someone that registers a complaint against your own actions. Big conflict of interest on Alison's part.

Look at what the checkuser wrote "I can confirm that all these edit from the same IP range. It's a /12 network, however, which means that there are 1,048,576 IP addresses there...Could be coincidence, could be nefarious behavior, could be nothing at all" or it could be Obama supporters cornering Wikipedia for their personal gain.

Neutral administrators should wake up and stop collaborating with these bad apples in Wikipedia or those who act with ethical conflicts of interest, like Alison.

Those who attack me are just like the Nazi prison camp guards, they think they are doing the right thing but they aren't. If you say I am a sock, then have you really studied the early Derek history? Derek was upset with John Edwards, not Obama. Ded08 (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't take long for Godwin's Law to come into play here. Derek, please stop trying to game Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm -  Confirmed yet again, as well as two others. Rather obvious - Alison ^❤ 19:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Users such as this aren't blocked because of their politics, or their beliefs, or their names - they're blocked because they are run by a user who has been banned by the community from editing. Blocks are used to enforce this ban. There's no conflict of interest, unless you count a distinct aversion on the part of Alison, myself, and other admins who hate having to waste their time with shenanigans from this user. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruption and time-wasting is the order of the day for Dereks1x. Last week, it was legal-threat sockpuppets threatening to bring down the WMF in 5 days. He's a massive drama-magnet. Remember this guy, anyone? - Alison ^❤ 20:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Moar Mediation Wanking

I need some eyes at Xan Yae to keep an eye on it; as it sits I had to breach the mediation injunction to restore the tags as I did not see any sources or such added by CSHunt68 (talk · contribs). Apologies. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 18:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Thingg; I've filed an RPP request. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 18:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

BLOCK ME

Resolved

Let me help you. BLock me! I don't believe it's right but you are going to do it anyway so I will alert you to make it faster. Bamarack (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What we need is a mediator to stop this. More than 1 person has been blocked so I can't control the others. Sit down with me and I will stop. Shoot me and I wake up like a zombie. Bamarack (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

denied _→AzaToth 19:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Alison, is this Dereks, or is it someone else entirely? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 19:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's Dereks1x -  Confirmed - Alison ^❤ 20:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

New account declares themself to be sock of banned user

Resolved

Blocked, sockpuppet.

Take a look at User:Vios1Per. This was reported by another editor at WP:AIV. Um....? If he had not advertised he was the sock of a banned user, I'd be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt that maybe he was back to be productive. But, uh... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As a totally uninvolved party, I still must say that this was absolutely hilarious! -OberRanks (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny? Maybe. Blocked as sockpuppet? Yes. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What the...? Uh, block him, I suppose. If they assert themselves to be a sock, it is likely that they are [if it quacks like a duck...] RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 19:45, May 19, 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I have to admit I just laughed pretty hard at that message. Block was appropriate. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A change in tactics from dear, sad old Dereks1x. Disruption by revealing himself. RBI time. Any CUs about to find the underlying IPs? ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 19:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an open proxy. All accounts are already blocked - Alison ^❤ 20:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Always on the ball, Alison! Thanks! ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 20:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(four or five edit conflicts at least)Maybe, just maybe, he really wants to help out. He may say so so that if someone later found out he don't get blocked. Let's wait for more edits. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If he were to edit productively and silently for a few months without making such an egotistical song-and-dance routine of it, I for one would support his return when eventually the truth came out. But he doesn't want to. He wants everyone to notice him, focus on him, pay him lots of attention as he ostentatiously edits. And eventually we would stop noticing; he would get bored; and he would go on a rampage to get the attention back. This is standard behaviour of this type of banned user (see also Wonderfool amongst many others). Nah. WP:RBI applies. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 20:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who was almost banned (long story behind that), R.V. speaks the truth. The best way to fix such a bad situation is to quietly apologize and then go about one's business and stay away from articles that in the past caused huge fights. If another account is created to distance from past sins, the best idea is to just admit everything, start again, and be a good user editing articles that aren't controversial and avoiding topics and other users who had issues from before. Of course, if you are already banned, then the policy is very clear that you can *never* come back. For instance, I doubt if this guy showed up asking for a clean slate anyone would listen. That's why its best not to get banned in the first place and listen when others give fair warnings. -OberRanks (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:64.185.61.13

Resolved

 – it's oh, so quiet... --Rodhullandemu 21:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin block this user from editing their talk page (disruption)? The AIV helperbot is not so helpfully removing reports as this user is already blocked from editing mainspace. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu sprotected the page after you had reverted it (I also reverted it after the sprotection, to the pre 19 May version...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In cases like this, you can always request protection at WP:RFPP. Corvus cornix_talk 21:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet, canvassing and COI

Rosencomet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has apparently once again solicited off-wiki for people "to open new Wikipedia editor accounts" to come support him and help protect "his" articles. See the "Attempted Vote-Stacking, Again" section here. This is not the first time he has broadly appealed for help off-wiki on a large scale. I have confidential but trusted info that he did this kind of canvassing with an email to 30 people in the Fall of 2007. He has been repeatedly warned about engaging in canvassing, by multiple admins.[56][57]

Despite consistent warnings from a wide variety of editors (dating from the very beginning of his time as a Wikipedia editor in August, 2006) about his conflict of interest in promoting the Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration (ACE), and people he hires for these events, he has continued to engage in this behaviour. These comments and warnings are so numerous, I'm just supplying a link to his archived talk page and letting the TOC there speak for itself rather than citing specific diffs.

User:Rosencomet has been reasonably found to be [*OUTING INFO REMOVED - NO OUTING PLEASE *] (see the Starwood Arbcom finding of fact.) [ * OUTING INFO REMOVED *] "...is the conceiver and a founder of ACE, the Chameleon Club, the Starwood Festival, and the WinterStar Symposium, and is both the primary event organizer and product manufacturer for ACE." (from the ACE website) He is also the executive director of ACE[58] and he handles public relations/communications aspects of the organization. (see paragraph #4 here and the ACE website link above in this paragraph.)

Please note also that [*OUTING INFO REMOVED *]/Rosencomet personally sells books/CDs/DVDs/items at the ACE website and store. If any doubt exists about his COI, see this book excerpt with Mr. Rosenbaum's photo and compare it to this ACE CyberCatalog page. Note the caption saying "When you phone A.C.E., ...you'll probably be talking to THIS MAN" (emphasis in original.) Interestingly, since I referenced this webpage in my COI Noticeboard posting in mid-Dec. 2007, Rosenbaum's picture is no longer featured on the current version page. I had to go to the Internet Wayback Machine for a cached version from July 2007. (Unfortunately the picture doesn't seem to be in the archive cache anymore although the element properties clearly show the link to www.rosencomet.com/catalog/images/biopix/jeff.jpg.) The picture was the same in all versions of this webpage available on the Wayback machine from Dec. 2003 through July 2007 and to 20 Dec 2007 when I last accessed it. In other words, the picture of Rosenbaum (which was on this web page for at least four years previously) was changed within the month after I made reference to it in my COI statement (which Rosencomet was aware of), a strangely coincidental occurrence.

As I indicated at the top, Rosencomet's level of ownership of articles he has started or contributed to is quite high and readily apparent. Changing or deleting info in his WP:OWNed articles usually calls forth aggressive challenges from him and sometimes wikilawyering. He continues to assert that his judgment is sound concerning inserting references to his organization and events into articles.[59][60]

AfDs for any articles in which he has a vested interest invariably results in new SPA accounts voicing opinions and the re-emergence of the Ekajati sockdrawer, resulting in a time drain on editors, admins and checkusers. Now he also admits that he is canvassing [61] to affect AfDs for articles he wants to save.

Despite being warned exhaustively by editors, admins and Arbcomm, and in defiance of COI admonitions by all of the above, he rarely ventures outside his walled-garden area of interest: promoting the careers of those who appear at the Starwood Festival, or whose books and tapes he sells on the rosencomet.com website. Over his time on WP, he has has proven to be a tendentious and disruptive editor.

I have ideas about actions I'd like the community to take but I'd prefer to hear feedback and suggestions from others before I voice them. Pigman☿ 04:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet says I misrepresented his letter asking people to become editors to vote with him. I reprinted the letter on his User Talk page in dispute of his claim of misrepresentation. He has deleted it. So, reluctantly, I reprint it here:

(letter posted without permission blanked for copyright concerns)

This is a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger situation for me. I have nothing against him as a person, and I think he has done some good work here on Wikipedia, as well as for the Neo-Pagan community in general. I just wish he would listen more carefully to those who've tried to reason with him with regard to appropriate Wikipedia practices and manners. -- Davidkevin (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I’m afraid this will take a while to respond to, so I will ask you to bear with me. I am also not nearly as experienced and skilled as Pigman in diffs and retrieval of text, nor can I compete with his wikilawyering, but I will just have to say my piece and improve it later as I have time.

First, the e-mail that Davidkevin posted here was a PRIVATE one to friends that was not addressed to him, and I feel it is improper for him to print it ANYWHERE without my consent. Unfortunately, someone forwarded it to him and others without asking me (for which he has apologized). It cannot be judged out of the context of numerous conversations I have had with the people it was actually sent to. I think it is unfair to include it here, and wrong of him to have posted it at all, with full knowledge that I opposed his doing so.

Second, the above statement by Pigman contains several misrepresentations. I do NOT personally sell anything. To do so, I would have to profit in some way, which I do not. I sell nothing I own, and I’m not an employee of ACE, nor am I (or anyone else in ACE) paid for the work I do. We are all volunteers. Even if I took an order over the phone for a book, to say that disqualifies me from writing or editing an article by that author would be like saying a clerk who works at the desk of a Borders or Half-Priced Bookstore can’t edit an article about any author who’s book is sold there, or artist whose CD is sold there. Worse, in fact, since he IS paid. I get nothing from editing these articles. I also do not hire speakers or acts; ACE does, by general vote of its members, one vote each.

Third, I don’t see how my e-mail can be called canvassing according to the definitions on Wikipedia:canvassing. It says: "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple ‘’’Wikipedians’’’ with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." It doesn’t even forbid canvassing; in fact, it has a section about how to do it if you DO canvass. The page discusses conversations with ‘’’Wikipedia editors’’’, not encouraging new people to become editors and get involved. Yes, I may have gone a bit far by giving specific examples of deletion nominations I disagreed with and thought my friends who I had prior conversations with would also be interested in. However, I specifically said "Please feel free to read the articles as they presently exist first, and see if you agree that they are worthy of inclusion; I am not trying to twist your arms on any of this. I'm just trying to make sure our community has some folks looking out for our interests on Wikipedia and expressing their opinions." This was a private conversation with people I was encouraging to become involved in Wikipedia, with examples of why I thought they should, and was part of a larger discussion which should NEVER have been posted without my permission on Wikipedia. (This is the reason I resisted being outed as to my identity by Pigman and wished to remain anonymous; I’m sure anyone aware of Newyorkbrad’s recent problems would sympathize with that, and understand why I recommended any new editors use a nickname.)

My intent, which would be clearer had this e-mail not been posted out of the context of the larger conversation I was having with the individuals I sent it to, was not to vote-stack but to get more people in the communities I relate to (such as the Neo-Pagan, magical, multi-cultural and consciousness exploration communities) involved in Wikipedia. I think more people in all sorts of smaller-interest communities should do so: Native Americans, Santerians, Voudon, the polyamory community, those interested in entheogens, etc etc – communities where under-representation, misrepresentation and misinformation are a problem. I felt that in this case there was a small group calling all the shots, and more people with experience and knowledge in the fields would help matters. But I did NOT want them to simply support my votes or opinions, and I told them so emphatically when I first broached the subject with them; I trusted their judgment to edit responsibly.

Fourth, I disagree with Pigman’s opinion that I should not edit any article either of an individual that has appeared at an event I have worked on, or insert a mention of a Starwood appearance or connection where it is appropriate. The arbitration did not come to that conclusion, and when I specifically asked one of the arbitrators, Fred Bauder, to "state for the record that I am not violating the arbitration, and am not disallowed to edit articles by either speakers or entertainers simply because somewhere in their appearance history there was one or more appearance at the Starwood Festival or WinterStar Symposium, events run by an organization I am a volunteer with and neither receive payment from nor hire for. I also need a statement that there is no reason I can't edit an article about a Llewellyn author." His reply was "You are welcome to edit any article, including articles about associates, provided you cite reliable sources. It is best to not rely on personal knowledge."

Fifth, the history of my interaction with Pigman shows, IMO, that he has his own POV issues with Starwood, and that while he invokes the specter of the "Ekajati sockdrawer" (none of whose actions I am responsible for), he recently went on a tagging spree with help from Mattisse, who’s many sockpuppets [62] don’t seem to bother him in the least. Mattisse, if you recall, was a primary cause of my problems in the first place. Most of my links to the Starwood website were in response to her citation request tagging spree just days after I began editing on Wikipedia. She not only used sock-puppets to multiple-tag and vote-stack, she actually created fake articles and blamed them on me! (For instance, Anne Hill, Musart, and Children of Earthmaker) So Pigman called her out of retirement, so to speak, as it relates to my editing, and along with Kathryn they tagged, edited, and deletion-nominated dozens of articles I wrote in a few days. My reaction was NOT to engage in revert wars, but to ask three different arbitrators for help. (Here’s a link to the letter I sent Fred Bauder at that time. I also contacted Thatcher and Newyorkbrad)

As an example of Pigman’s POV issues concerning Starwood, he has made statements about Starwood concerning his opinions of its connection to drugs and sex (made under the guise of discussing whether mentioning youth programming was "promotional"), implying dangers to children, offering no factual material to back these slurs up. (Kathryn agreed with his statements, and she offered to pass on "info" about the same to an editor privately, away from the sight of Wikipedia editors observing the conflicts you two have had with me. In fact, she claimed to have "a bunch of info about this", which she characterized as "the unpublished reports of multiple friends and acquaintances over the years". She evidently doesn't mind going off-Wiki to promote her positions.) All this can be found on the Starwood Talk Page [63]

I realize I am far from a perfect editor, but I feel that I am being judged by someone who has set himself up as if he were my parole officer, watching me all the time, and creating a hostile environment in which I sometimes overreact and beg for help from wherever I can find it. Whether it's an occult author that’s never been to Starwood or something as innocuous as Marvel Comics mutants or Turkish Taffy, I can expect an edit from Pigman or Kathryn immediately after mine. Pigman has actually set up a watchlist User:Pigman/Starwood-Rosencomet Watchlist on my editing! They still act like all I do is promote my events, when I have hardly written a new article about anyone who has been to Starwood in nearly a year. They set the bar so high, that they claim that since ACE got permission from Llewellyn Worldwide (the world’s biggest and oldest occult publisher) to reissue a few cassette tapes back in the eighties, I should not be allowed to edit any articles by ANY author who’s ever been published by Llewellyn. He deletes any mention of Starwood wherever he finds it as undue weight, even if the subject of the article posts his disagreement, as with Paul Krassner (who has been at 6 out of the last ten Starwoods, and written articles about his experiences there in The Nation Magazine, Ariana Hufington’s Blog, and High Times). Also, he treats guidelines as laws and disagreement as aggression, and ignores it when an arbitrator supports my side of a disagreement. On some complaints, Thatcher has told him more than once that what I edited was not a violation of any policy, and he has ignored it. He has even warned me against disagreements discussed on talk pages, when that’s exactly where the arbitration told me to have them.

In December I created an alphabetical sample of the kind of editing I have done since the arbitration [64]. I include it here to show that I have NOT been aggressively editing, revert-warring, or limiting my edits to Starwood-associated articles. I will provide an update soon, showing that aside from some disagreements on certain existing Starwood mentions (mostly resulting only in discussions on talk pages and deletion nomination pages), I have not been creating new articles linked to Starwood or inserting them into articles. I have mostly been creating new articles about occult authors who have NEVER been to Starwood (like Nicholas R. Mann, Al G. Manning, Vivianne Crowley, Ed Fitch, Prem Das, Laura Huxley, Sally Morningstar, Gabrielle Roth, Dorothy Morrison, Luisah Teish, Nevill Drury, Chas S. Clifton, Morwyn, etc), and adding material to beef up articles threatened by deletion. Pigman keeps characterizing me as a big problem, aggressively and contentiously editing and disrupting Wikipedia. I deny that; I have had few conflicts, almost all reactions to his (and Kathryn’s) behavior towards me, mostly kept on talk pages. I have also sought help from arbitrators whenever possible, and would very much welcome any further help to deal with conflicts when they arrive. -- Rosencomet (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break after really long posts

It is hard to make a single comment on all of this, but I did spend a good while reading this so I'll at least start out with something. If Rosencomet actually believes that that email is acceptable in regards to wikipedia policy, then that is problem #1. It effectively becomes a message to wikipedians because you are encouraging them to become editors, then telling them exactly how to vote in your favor. It is the ultimate bypassing of consensus. I see on the AfDs that meat puppets have arrived in response. Rosen may choose to continue doing this in the future, maybe more discreetly so we don't find out about it here...oh well. However, if you are actually defending such a thing, then this becomes a blockable offense. I will comment more later, this is just a start. I also encourage both Rosen and Pigman to condense further responses so people can actually read this. -- Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing via private email communications is definitely sanctionable on-Wiki. See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying. -- Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to defend it. I simply ask where in the canvassing rules it mentions anything about conversations with people who are not editors when you talk to them? A technicality, perhaps, but when can you forbid conversations with non-wikipedians, or sanction for them? In any event, I will certainly be more careful in the future about anything that seems to push anyone, even a non-editor, to edit in favor of a particular position. However, in the context of the prior conversations I have had with the specific people this private e-mail went to, they would tell you that I made it clear that I wanted them to edit as they saw fit and vote their conscience, not follow my direction. And I hope you are never called to task for the content of your private mail. -- Rosencomet (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It is wikilawyering to suggest that by mailing people who are not then contributors to become editors and to vote or edit in a certain manner is not covered by WP:CANVAS. The intent is to vote stack or otherwise disrupt the usual WP processes, and might be considered more serious as you are seeking both accounts previously unknown to the community and also suggesting how they may appear to be more neutral in their contribution history - a clear attempt to promote an agenda over the process of consensus. My opinion is that you should be indefinitely blocked for these serious matters. -- LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't sanction for talking. I can mail all my employees right now to say, "Hey check out this cool article on Wikipedia," or to discuss Wikipedia issues. But as soon as I send the email that says or implies "Also, check out this debate(s) to support me or our interests", I lose in epic fashion and should be banned. You did just that--in my opinion, this is a blockable offense. We have no way of knowing now how corrupted consensus and integrity of the articles may be now, but we do know that you have at least once done this. See again: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying. You did the same thing that CAMERA did, essentially. -- Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

When Rosencomet says he has had few conflcts on Wikipedia, please see [65]], during which Rosencoment ongoing supporters User:Hanuman_Das, User:Ekajati, User:999 and subsequently others -- see: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati -- were found to be sock puppets. I realize that by bringing this up, Rosencoment will accuse me of sock puppeting because of a screwed up episode that lasted two months some two years ago involving some of my family, never repeated. I learned from this and paid the price, including over six months of daily harassment from Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati that continued even after the Starwood Arbitration. -- Mattisse (Talk) 21:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

* Addendum: Nearly all the above mentioned sock puppets were almost exclusively editing Rosencomet/Star Festival articles, voting in those articles' AFD's, etc. -- Mattisse (Talk) 16:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Go here, click here, vote keep...lose in epic fashion, indeed. I'm tempted to make a joke about the email being a copyvio - it certainly is a textbook example of canvassing. -- SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Since some opinions have been expressed, I might as well say I also consider it a blockable offence as well. I have to say even I am surprised at the specificity of Rosencomet's letter above concerning actions to be taken. I suspected as much but didn't have that info when I brought it here. I also see that Rosencomet's real world identity has (mostly) been redacted above. Since this info was already explicitly established as part of a public Arbcom case and is extremely pertinent to COI issues, I didn't see it as an issue of "outing" but perhaps my judgment is flawed in this case. In any event, I don't think I can block Rosencomet due to my lengthy and extensive interactions with him. If there is a general consensus for blocking him, someone else will have to push the button. Cheers, Pigman☿ 23:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

After viewing the input of editors so far, I feel that enough have expressed their opinions that what I did was a violation of the policies against canvassing. I must apologize for having done so. I can only say that I did not read it that way, and was unaware of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying case (though I've got to say that comparing that case to what I did is like comparing a war to an argument). I truly meant to encourage friends of mine that had expressed an interest in my stories about my work in Wikipedia (of which I am proud, despite my stumblings) to get involved and help improve and support articles about people and subjects important to the communities we share. I see that the way I went about it, and particularly my specific mention of articles nominated for deletion that I hoped would be kept (even though I specifically told the folks I contacted to review them and vote according to their own judgement), evidently crossed the line. Both articles have been deleted; ironically, Nicki Scully probably would have survived if not for my blundering.

I am contacting each person I sent my e-mail to and asking them to ignore it, telling them that what I did turned out to be a violation of Wikipedia policy, and that there is a case against me for having sent it out. I accept that I owe the Wikipedia community an apology, and offer one sincerely. I can only say that I felt that an undue number of articles I had created, mostly NOT related to my personal activities, were being tagged and/or nominated for deletion on notability issues, including several I thought were extremely notable, and I thought this was once again a campaign by an editor with a history of conflict with me to attack articles not because they were actually non-notable, but because I had written them. In the past, I have tried to ask arbitrators for help in such cases, and either gotten no response or, in some cases, been told that my editing was acceptable, but the editor(s) in question simply ignored the arbitrators. When I tried to get help from other editors, I was accused of canvassing. For the sake of fairness to the subjects of the articles, I had hoped that more eyes on the issue would be a help, and I have always wanted more involvement in Wikipedia by people from the communities these subjects are important to, so I thought sending out this e-mail was a good thing all around. However, I accept that my actions were improper, and I can only apologize, retract my e-mail from those I sent it to, and promise never to do it again.

Over the past many months, I have written many articles about individuals who are unrelated to the events I work on. I have created little or no new links to the ACE or Starwood pages, and no external links, though I have vigorously discussed the merits of deletions of existing mentions and wiki links on several talk pages and deletion nomination pages. In a very few cases, like Firesign Theatre, I followed up such a talk-page discussion with a revert of a deletion, but not more than one revert. An examination of my work since the arbitration last year will show that aside from talk pages and deletion pages, the vast majority of my work has been to either add to and improve articles (especially ones tagged or nominated) or to write new ones unconnected with my personal work. I can supply records of this if asked (and given time).

I can only hope that I will be allowed to continue to edit here. I truly believe I have been an asset to Wikipedia in the fields of my interests, and occasionally elsewhere. I have spent hundreds of hours just adding to bibliographies and discographies, finding citations and references, expanding and wikifying text, turning in-text notes and links into proper references, and other just plain work. I have never visited the articles of those I've had conflicts with and tagged them or treated them the way I saw myself treated; and I realize that articles don't belong to anyone, but I'm just saying that when I have had a problem it has been reactive, not proactive. I am not here to cause trouble or vandalize or disrupt, just to write and improve articles. With very few exceptions, I think my editing has improved a great deal over the last year. I sincerely hope I can continue to contribute, and I will seek to get a better understanding of Wikipedia policies. I hope I can get the help I need to operate appropriately and find the resources I need when an honest disagreement exists about good-faith edits, and I will refrain from ever violating canvassing policies either on or off Wikipedia. -- Rosencomet (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Recommended actions

By my reckoning, no one has defended User:Rosencomet's actions, four editors have clearly recommended a block, one editor has less clearly stated what Rosencomet did was "a textbook example of canvassing" without specifics of action and one edtitor's opinion seems unclear on actions to take. While Rosencomet's apology above is a consideration, I also note that here, Davidkevin says that Rosencomet's letter was posted to 4 Yahoo groups. This genie doesn't go back in the bottle that easily. This is not an isolated event and his actions over the past two years have generated a number of RfCs, mediations and an Arbcom case. My recommendation is a minimum three month block and if I had my druthers it would be for much longer or permanent. -- Pigman☿ 18:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you link to the arbcom case? -- Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. The evidence page is here. The main page is here. I'll save you the trouble of going through this rather lengthy and convoluted case and say the proposed remedy in relation to Rosencomet was the following: "Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages." -- Pigman☿ 18:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, it's probably worth mentioning that I was the one who brought the case to Arbcom in the first place although you can see that many other people participated. Please also make a note of the Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati to be clear who was defending Rosencomet's actions in this case. -- Pigman☿ 18:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I only sent the e-mail to a few friends. Only a half dozen received it, and none have expressed an intention of becoming editors. Unfortunately, one of my friends didn't understand that it was not meant for the general public, and HE forwarded it to the yahoo groups without my consent (and he has apologized), where Davidkevin read it. I have sent an e-mail to the people I originally contacted saying that my e-mail had violated wikipedia canvassing policies, and that I had apologized on wikipedia, and urging them to ignore the first e-mail. -- Rosencomet (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment having no one to advocate for me, I would repectfully point out that this case involves this e-mail and it's violation of wiki canvassing policies; at least, that's the only current evidence being considered. It has nothing to do with an Arbcom on activities that took place in 2006 during the first 4 months of my editing which doesn't mention canvassing once. Also, I had no knowledge of Ekajati's sockpuppets, nor were they the only editors in support of my position in the Arbcom or the two mediations that preceded it. Within days of my first edit, I found myself to be in the middle of a war between two people using an army of sockpuppets: Ekajati and Mattisse (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse. I didn't even know what the word meant. If you read the decisions, you'll see that it also said:

"Rosencomet was initially unaware of important Wikipedia policies and guidelines like reliable sources, verifiability, autobiography is discouraged, notability, and others.[66] He has made good faith attempts to understand policy [67] [68] and particpated in a MEDCAB mediation over the issue of links. His editing has improved significantly and his range of editing has broadened.

Passed 4 to 0, 16:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)"

Pigman's right about one thing; it was a convoluted case decided at the end of March 2007 that covered activities starting from August 2006, and I don't think it can or should be re-tried via a snapshot now. I don't think this decision should be about everything I have ever done or been accused of doing since becoming an editor, or whether Ekajati or Mattisse had more sock-puppets, nor should that Arbcom be selectively re-hashed by the one who brought it as part of this case.

I made a serious error in sending this e-mail out. There is no question of that. But unless some objective analysis of my editing since then is conducted, I don't think the Arbcom should be mixed in here. -- Rosencomet (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Your editing has always been borderline tendentious and tending to promote your own interests, so that at least has not changed. -- Guy (Help!) 21:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I mediated (for a while) the case that wound up at the ArbCom case.

I think a block would be, at this point, needlessly punitive. Pigman is right -- the genie doesn't go back in the bottle. Blocking Rosencomet, for any length of time, is not going to undo the damage, both realized and potential, in this incident. But it's also not going to teach Rosencomet anything that he isn't already being told by a flood of editors -- myself included -- in varying degrees of detail and empathy. And since the incident in question is one that is off-wiki in nature, a block inherently cannot be seen as preventative.

An indefblock, as suggested by Pigman above, I think is grossly inappropriate, since Rosencomet does seem to actually want to do better. Does he fall (far) short of the mark at least some of the time? Obviously, as this incident evidences, yes. But his apparent desire to be a positive Wikipedian, no matter how misplaced his efforts, makes an indefblock inappropriate.

That renders any block levied at this point in the process, after the incident is by and large over, purely punitive. And I would like to remind all involved here that we don't do that here and we shouldn't do that here.

Here are my suggested constructive solutions which would both be in keeping with policy and would help Rosencomet grow as an editor:

1. topic ban, either for a defined length of time or until marked improvement is evidenced.
2. mandatory mentorship, either for a defined length of time or until marked improvement is evidenced.

I suggest specifically that these two be simultaneous.

I, of course, welcome comments on this proposal. -- Revolving Bugbear 21:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I need to make it clear (and I apologize for not having made it clear already) that I am only a member of two of the four YahooGroups to which the letter was posted, and that in the two in which I saw the letter it was in fact Oberon Zell-Ravenheart who re-posted it, not Rosencomet himself. It very well may be as Rosencomet says, that it was Oberon's idea to do the reposting, not Rosencomet's -- I've known Oberon personally for 36 years and he is both a man of immense good will and also occasionally a man of impulse. I have no doubt that he thought he was doing a good turn.

Even if it was originally addressed to specific individuals and not intended for group publication, however, the letter as it is written, seen out of the context of being part of a chain of correspondence, still thoroughly appears to be an attempt to "ballot-stuff" in an edit dispute, and inappropriate by the rules under which we all are supposed to work as Wiki-editors.

Having occasionally corresponded with him, and seen some of his interactions with other editors, I don't think Rosencomet had evil intent. It appears to have been a "doofus" kind of action, something of which I don't doubt we all have been guilty at one time or another in one context or another -- Goddess knows I certainly have, both here in Wikipedia and in plenty of other places, too.

I agree that banning is merely punative and only grossly instructive at best. I think, with no intention of being patronizing, that mentorship is a much better solution for Rosencomet -- if I had had such, perhaps I wouldn't have made as many mistakes as I did when I first took up here.

I don't think a topicblock is appropriate as there are subjects about which he is knowledgable, where he can greatly improve articles. Under active mentorship social errors such as this current situation can be avoided, and we all win.

I wish him nothing but well. -- Davidkevin (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to dropping to topic ban suggestion if there is agreement that Rosencomet can trim the things that have been getting him in trouble. My suggestion for a topic ban was more out of caution than anything else -- there are some people whose patience is running extremely thin, and it would be disastrous for a boneheaded but well-intentioned move to wrench an otherwise positive mentorship. But like I said, if it's not necessary, that is of course fine. - Revolving Bugbear 23:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(Response to Revolving Bugbear's 21:32, 16 May 2008 post above which I took far too long to write.)

With all due respect, Revolving Bugbear, I think you are wrong. Yes, a punitive block/action is never appropriate. We do not block punitively; blocks are only to protect the project, not to punish. However. I know I also weigh the editor's history (if any and if I can) leading up to any incident. This is not Rosencomet's first incident of canvassing (see [69] from Dec. 2007). I also have concrete evidence that he sent a different email to 30 recipients (in Dec 2007, IIRC), again canvassing off-wiki for support. I can quote from that email if requested to do so but my source has requested confidentiality.

Over the many months of my interactions with Rosencomet, I have consistently provided him with polite help, links to appropriate policies and guidelines, explained situations when he was unclear about WP process or protocols, etc. I briefly explained how to provide a statement in the request for arbitration, an arbitration case I myself brought against his actions, particularly reminding him to keep it under 500 words because I was aware of his tendency to write at length. While certainly not a mentor to him, I've done my best to educate and tutor him in the mysterious ways of Wikipedia during our exchanges. While Rosencomet and I have often been in conflict and at odds over these months, I've always hoped he would eventually shed his ownership issues with articles and develop an understanding of WP:V and WP:RS as well as other policies.

Instead he has developed an ability to wikilawyer: to disregard policy, to ignore or creatively "reinterpret" well-established WP guidelines to serve his goals, to claim community consensus is actually a cabal organized against his work here. To put it plainly: He doesn't play well with others. That is not a blockable offense. But serial violation of the same policy, particularly when blocked for it the first time, is. Pigman☿ 00:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Pigman, you were not a mentor to him. That's what he needs -- focused, exclusive, intense guidance. With all due respect to you, and without calling your actions into question at all, you can't really expect to be instructive to someone when you are in conflict with them. Rosencomet has expressed to me that he feels that "no one is in his corner". That may be a situation of his own making, but he realizes that he needs to change the way he does things in order to be accepted and productive. That can be shown to him, but not, to take your example, by a party to an ArbCom case essentially filed against him.

What are you trying to accomplish pushing for this block? Whether or not you think he's any good at it, he clearly shows a desire to improve and to understand, so this is definitely not an indefblockable offense. So what, exactly, will this block accomplish? There is no instructive or corrective merit to a block here. What good will it do, other than to satisfy a few users who are irritated? - Revolving Bugbear 12:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I take your point. At best, I've just been courteous and occasionally helpful to Rosencomet; this is not, in any imaginable way, equal to mentorship. I can, however, take issue with "he clearly shows a desire to improve and to understand." (my emphasis) I'd say he expresses a desire to improve right here, right now, on ANI, faced with a block. Is this a failure of WP:AGF on my part? Perhaps, but as I said above, I also look at his history and explanations in relation to the canvassing. He was brought up once here at ANI for doing it on-wiki. If that was the extent, I'd be more lenient. We now have two separate instances of canvassing off-wiki that we know of. Above in this thread, he tries to wikilawyer and split hairs about whether he was really canvassing. While the CAMERA incident isn't close in scale to his known canvassing violations, it is related.

As Guy mentioned above, Rosencomet has also been a tendentious editor during his 20+ months on WP. I believe this is related to the tactics he then uses (canvassing, for example.) I agree an indef block is extreme and not appropriate. My suggestion was three months because I see such canvassing as quite antithetical to consensus on WP. His record of policy violations on WP, which includes letting others use his account, has been remarkably consequence-free for him. When caught on one thing, he stops that thing but, lo and behold, he's caught on a different violation a few months later. This is my point: He games the system by playing at being the ignorant victim. What editor of 20 months and fairly extensive WP experience doesn't know such canvassing is a policy violation? After being warned once before, four months earlier? Pigman☿ 19:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction In December Rosencomet was warned three times about canvassing, and referred to the relevant policies: [70] [71] [72]. He then says "I have looked over the material about canvassing. ... I do not see this as canvassing, and I certainly don't see it as a "blockable offence".[73] Then once again he was reminded that he's been warned, and given the policy: "Wikipedia:CANVASS#Responding_to_disruptive_canvassing. The relevant section is this: 'Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary.'"[74] - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment These are all about the same incident. You are making it look like this is a record of three incidents of canvassing, which is not the truth. Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree with Pigman when he says that he has been civil and polite to me. On the contrary, I have felt that he has treated me as if he were a parole agent, constantly watching, watchlisting, and commenting on my every edit. He, Kathryn and Mattisse have gone on two sprees of tagging and deletion nominations in the last few months on articles I've written, once tagging about 35 in the space of a few days. I have NOT engaged in revert wars or contentious editing; in fact, I have reserved myself to the talk pages and deletion nomination pages, and asked for help from arbitrators. Over the past six months I have written almost entirely articles that are NOT related to Starwood or ACE, but because they are mostly associated with Pagan and Magical people and subjects, Pigman has treated my editing as if they WERE Starwood related. I have not inserted new Starwood mentions into articles, and in most cases I haven't even argued, as mentions from before the Arbcom have been stripped from article after article, even though they were IMO appropriate in several cases. I either discussed it on talk pages or provided citations to support their inclusion; and if they were still reverted, I did NOT reinsert them. It seems to me that my editing has approached the norm in wikipedia, except for the constant pressure Pigman, Mattisse and Kathryn insist on exerting.

My editing HAS changed drastically, but these three not only refuse to see any of it, including the dozens of new non-Starwood related articles, but they are trying here to re-try me for activities that have already been settled in the Arbcom that ended in March of 2007. This is like double jepardy; except they are selecting particular one-sided pieces of that case without anything from the other side, and acting like I'm editing the same as I did back then, with no defense for me. And they are ignoring the fact that the results of that Arbcom were that my behavior was at least partly due to the fact that I was plunged into a contentious battle between two multiple sockpuppeteers starting when I had only been editing for a few days, that my editing had improved since then, and that I was free to keep editing as long as I don't do it aggressively; which I have not. My only real conflicts have been with these three editors since then; they refuse to let me be, refuse to recognize any improvement, refuse to stop trying the same Arbcom that they were dissatisfied with the results of, and they are hooking a lot of you in by presenting just parts of their side of that Aerbcom. I would ask you; if it is so clear cut, then why was the decision what it was? Please ask the arbitrators who voted 4 to 0 if this rehashing of that case is fair or balanced.

He and Kathryn have consistently claimed that I should not be allowed to edit any article by a Llewellyn author or anyone ACE's bookstore has ever had a book for sale by, even though an arbitrator, Fred bauder, has explicitly said that this is not true and that I am free to edit any article, even those of associates, as long as the edits themseves are responsible and not original research.

I am placing in Revolving Bugbear's hands an assessment of the editing I have done since the Arbcom. I've given him a sample of every article I've written alphabetically from "A" to "J" (the first ten letters). It includes 37 articles, 4 that have been deleted, 3 within the last couple of weeks. I will supply a similar assessment of ALL my edits if need be. You will see that all the new articles since March 29, 2007 are not Starwood or ACE related, and that I have not inserted any new mentions of the same into any old or new articles in the list, or revert-warred on any of them. You will find vigorous dialogs on talk pages and deletion nomination pages, but that's any editor's right.

I am asking for time to present you all with a better picture of my editing since the Arbcom, to show you that I have improved and want to improve, and that I have at times been provoked into reacting against uncivil behavior done with a polite note and a smile. I mainly want to show you that this should not be a case of evaluating everything I have done since I began editing, but I should be judged as someone who has tried hard to change and has done a lot in that area (don't take my word for it, let me document it for you). But I blundered badly about this canvassing thing; I realize that and I truly apologize, and vow not to repeat it. And I certainly need mentoring in how to react when I perceive myself to be treated unfairly without violating policy. I feel like for the past six months I've been harassed, and I am only told what I should not do or should not have done about it, but never what I CAN or SHOULD do about it. Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Support block

I have experience of trying to work with Rosencomet. He may mean well, but in practice he wears out any and all opponents by attrition. He wore me out. As long and as copiously as he has edited here, he still seems unaware of, and uninterested in, the practice and culture of the place; the meatpuppet e-mail posted above is a good example of his methods, but far from the only one. I read with interest his post above, which sounds rather like this is the first time anybody's ever tried to explain basic policy to him: I hope I can get the help I need to operate appropriately and find the resources I need when an honest disagreement exists about good-faith edits. This elicits benevolent assumptions of good faith from many who have posted above. However, my experience of his editing techniques is not "an honest disagreement about good-faith edits," I wish it were. Instead it resembles that of Pigman: I've done my best to educate and tutor him in the mysterious ways of Wikipedia during our exchanges... Instead he has developed an ability to wikilawyer: to disregard policy, to ignore or creatively "reinterpret" well-established WP guidelines to serve his goals, to claim community consensus is actually a cabal organized against his work here.

I support Pigman's proposal for blocking Rosencomet for at least three months. Revolving Bugbear asks what good a block will do. At a minimum, it will free up the time and energies of good editors, which Rosencomet uses up. These people could and should be writing articles, rather than struggling to contain his tendentious editing. (Please read Pigman's post immediately above carefully.) Bishonen | talk 22:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC).

If you feel that saying he "expresses" a desire to improve is more appropriate, I will concede that point. However, the distress he has expressed to me seems rather genuine, and I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on that. Maybe he's struggling with some of the policies, maybe he really never got around to reading most of them (you'd be surprised), or maybe he really does think he can weasel his way around them ... in any case, I think a focused effort to make him aware and respectful of these things will show improvement. I could be wrong, but I think it's worth a shot. - Revolving Bugbear 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I support a block as well--and to my mind, the only course here is indef. In light of the fact that a) he previously was blocked for sharing an account and b) he's been warned before for canvassing, I'm of the mind that it's time to close the door. Blueboy96 22:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

--Support Block: Short list of Wikipedia attempts to educate Rosencoment--

Coflicts arose around the large number of articles associated with Rosencoment's Starwood Festival and his apparent control of other Wikipedia articles listed on the Starwood Festival and related pages. At one point, there were over 145 links from Wikipedia articles going to Starwood Festival commerical links selling CDs, tickets etc.. Rosencoment and those later found to be socks repeatedly replaced these commercial links when they were removed. There were also other problems such as WP:COI. Regarding attempts to reach an understanding with Rosencoment over policies and guidelines in editing on Wikipedia, please read a sample of energy of editors that has gone into such attempts:

• Starwood Festival Talk Page [75]
• Starwood Mediation 1 [76]
• Starwood Mediation 2 [77]
• Starwood arbitration (December 2006) request[78], Evidence [79], Workshop[80],Proposed decitions[81]

It was during the Arbitration that it was revealed that major supporters of Rosencomet at that time were Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati

If you want to see the scope of the number of articles that Rosencoment and supporting socks were WP:OWN at that time, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse where many (but not all) of the articles covered by Starwood Festival are listed. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It was also revealed in the same Arbcom that the problem began when Mattisse, using a host of sockpuppets herselfCategory:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse, tagged almost every article I had written in my first few days of editing with requests for citations. I did not know at the time that links to the Starwood website to support what I had written were not acceptable, and I was being told by Ekajati and Co that they were correct and that Mattisse was the problem. It was easy to believe, especially when it turned out she had written additional dummy articles and attributed them to me on various editor's talk pages! Some still exist today. I didn't even know what a sockpuppet was when this was happening; I thought these were all different editors, and that there was nothing clear at all about what I should or shouldn't be doing, since all these people who had been there before me disagreed with each other about what was a good or acceptable edit, source or citation. And whenever there was a RfC or a nomination for deletion, there was vote-stacking going on from both sides that I had no clue of; it turned out that Mattisse often voted on BOTH sides of the same issue? (I'll be happy to dig up some examples if you like.)

Please don't allow Mattisse to make this case about a re-vote on the Arbcom that involved activities nearly two years old now, especially by only introducing the parts she likes. Either read through the entire two mediations and the Arbcom, or ask the arbitrators to comment on this; ask THEM if there wasn't plenty of blame to go around for that fiasco. And allow me to document how different my editing has been since then, despite the fact that Pigman, Kathryn and Mattisse, refuse to see it. And let me demonstrate that I not only want to improve, but that I have been working on it. That's all I ask. Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support block. Mattisse's links are quite illuminating, and I well recall my interactions with this editor... The purpose of the encyclopedia and that of Rosencomet are at odds with each other; Rosencomet views the project as a means to publicise his endeavours without regard to WP standards of impartiality or conflict of interest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support indef-block. Rosencomet's actions, and the diffs provided by other editors, speak for themselves. I have also attempted to educate Rosencomet about policy, repeatedly, for almost two years now. I believe he simply does not care about the Wikipedia community, nor the quality of content on Wikipedia, and is only here to promote his own interests. His canvasssing e-mail of December offered suggestions to 30 people of how to game the system and subvert consensus. He was warned three times by two admins, briefly blocked for it by another admin, and now has done it again. What I have seen is that, when caught, he often expresses remorse and promises to change; then when people have moved on to other things and he feels he's not being watched, he returns to violating WP:COI, WP:RS and WP:V and lashing out at those who remind him of WP core policies. I do not believe he will change; I do not believe he wants to change. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Both Pigman and Kathryn have alluded to a December e-mail that only they know of from a source they refuse to disclose. I really don't think that's fair, and I think I should be allowed to face my accusers. This sounds like something that may have been trumped up by someone who doesn't like me, perhaps even among the folks I work with. One or two of them have issues with me, and one of them is in complete control of our yahoo groups and outgoing mail; and my only email address is associated with a website he can alter as he wishes. I ask you to discount any discussion of some e-mail they refuse to produce or source, and which may even (through no action of theirs) be bogus. And in point of fact, though I have in my geek-like way bent many an ear about what I've been doing on wikipedia and how much I'd like some help with it, I know of none who has shown an interest in giving up any of their time to work with me. They just don't see what I find so interesting about it, or why I'm willing to take the stress and keep at it. Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support indef-block. The assumption of good faith gradually dwindles over time if the editor concerned keeps up the same behavior. It had seemed to me that he was mellowing out in January, 2008 around the time of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenbaum (2nd nomination), but evidently this did not continue. We have to assume that people *know* when they are using Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion of their business enterprises. Nobody should be surprised when such a thing is pointed out. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me demonstrate to you that I have not been using wikipedia promotionally. Let me show you all the articles I've written since the Arbcom that have no relation to Starwood or ACE, and the dozens of deletions by Pigman, Kathryn and Mattisse of such mentions dating from before the Arbcom closed that I have simply stood and watched, or only commented on from talk pages. Instead of simply accepting their claim that I'm as bad as ever, let me document the truth. Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Summation 2.0

Current opinions are: 9 in favour of some form of block, most seem to favour an indef block. 2 opinions in favour of no block with Rosencomet entering mandatory mentoring. Is this an accurate representation of the opinions? -- Pigman☿ 04:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain if you're including me in that vote or not, but if you're not, I am Against Block, Against TopicBlock, and For Mandatory Mentorship. As the person who first reported this current incident, I never meant that he would or should be blocked or banned -- in fact, I warned him that this might happen and was trying to get him to pull back before it did, never intending for this to snowball the way it has. (Perhaps I was naive.)

I think a block will only increase the feelings of persecution Rosencomet already exhibits. That solves nothing and helps nobody.

Regardless of that, if consensus is for a block, at least make it temporary, with the mentorship attached to it upon his return. Very few actions are unforgivable, and this isn't one of those; very few habits are unchangable, and this isn't one of them. Err on the side of mercy, please. -- Davidkevin (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I forgot to list User:SheffieldSteel's comment calling Rosencomet's actions "...a textbook example of canvassing." While that isn't explicitly a call for a block, I'd say it falls closer to the "block" end of the spectrum than the "no block" end. -- Pigman☿ 05:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC) I've struck through this comment. I specifically said he didn't voice an opinion on blocking but adding my interpretation was uncalled for. His words speak for themselves. I apologize. Pigman☿ 17:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I object to putting words into SheffieldSteel's mouth, as it were. If he/she has a vote, let her/him express it rather than anyone make an assumption. -- Davidkevin (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Davidkevin -- I myself agree that it was "a textbook example of canvassing", and I am obviously against the block. Intuiting votes from people who haven't expressed them is not a good idea. - Revolving Bugbear 12:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this phase II of votes for banning? -- Badger Drink (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

* Beaver Drink, if you have a point, please make it. I wrote above that I support Pigman's proposal for "at least a three-month block." That was because it felt strange to explicitly support indefinite blocking when Pigman, who opened the thread, called it too strong a remedy. But I've changed my mind: I, too, support an indefinite block. I don't believe Rosencomet wants to change, either. I believe he's gaming our good faith. -- Bishonen | talk 08:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC).

• Has Bishzilla hacked your account again? My point is that this whole thread seems to be dominated by one editor and his dogged pursuit of a certain accomplishment - in this case, getting Rosen banned. It reminds me of the Gordon Watts days of old. I'm not informed enough to make a "vote", but this leaves a slightly odd taste in my mouth. Maybe Pigman should take a break and let other editors catch up on this. --Badger Drink (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• [Proudly.] Bishzilla admin,[82] wienie 'shonen not admin. Little beaver have point in referring to Zilla? [/me direct educational puff of atomic deathray at little badger. User burst obediently into flames. ] bishzilla _ROARR!! 11:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC).

Pigman, you are coming off as rather aggressive in this matter. I think it would be good of you to take a step back from leading the charge. This thread does not need to be pushed along by the person who initiated it -- whatever your intentions (and I am willing to extend you a thousand times good faith on this), it gives a very inappropriate appearance. - Revolving Bugbear 12:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not trying to rush a decision or stifle discussion. If I seem aggressive, my sincere apologies. I did not think summarizing opinions was a call to end discussion or take action, only a helpful recap of discussion to this point. And, yes, I was including Davidkevin in my summary. I did neglect to note that Davidkevin and Revolving Bugbear both seem to be against a topic ban as well as being for mentoring. Now I'll take Revolving Bugbear's sensible suggestion and step back from this discussion. Pigman☿ 17:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not against a topic ban -- I think it may be an alternative to a block, but am not committed to the idea. - Revolving Bugbear 17:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that anyone particularly wants to hear my non-admin opinion on this, but here goes anyway. With Rosencomet's tenure on Wikipedia, many editors would have had time to gain admin or even bureaucrat status, yet this one still doesn't seem to understand that canvassing is bad. My good faith interpretation, after reading the discussion above, is that educating this editor as to how Wikipedia works is taking too long, since it is apparently necessary to run through every rule in the book, explicitly telling them "do not do this", and even then the lesson does not always sink in the first time. Stating my bad faith interpretation at this point would be doubly redundant, since you can guess what it is, and since I believe that the good faith disruption by this editor is causing more trouble than their contributions are worth. Whether that justifies a ban or a block is for the admins to decide. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet denies knowing that this is against policy- obviously anyone with common sense might think it is, plus Rosencomet has been here years so can't claim to be ignorant of policy, and has been advised about canvassing before. This is WP:MEAT and he will have heard of meatpuppetry before. I would suggest at least a ban on editing articles about which he has a WP:COI, we will then see if Rosencomet has it in him to be a keen editor on other articles. Or maybe then Rosencomet will suddenly be less interested in wikipedia. Sticky Parkin 01:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Support immediate ban on editing all articles where Rosencomet has a COI in addition to mandatory mentorship. If the mentor feels Rosencomet should edit talk pages per WP:SCOIC, then this should be allowed but watched carefully. And, if after three months, Rosencomet has shown a significant improvement in his editing and understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then he should be allowed to appeal the ban in order to edit articles based on the "non-controversial edits" clause in WP:COI, but only after an editor review subject to discussion by the community. But, if Rosencomet engages in any bad behavior outside of his mentorship, then an indefinite block should be on the table. If Rosencomet cannot agree to these simple, fair, and equitable terms, then I support a three month block. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Is Rosencomet three times faster than a regular user? Jtrainor (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite: how "fast" is the average user? Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a joke only a Gundam fan would get. Look up Char Aznable. =p Jtrainor (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)