Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive542

Request an admin to review

Back on May 15th, 207.108.250.158 (talk · contribs) was blocked for edit warring over the insertion of POV content that relied heavily upon original research and synthesis of sources to attempt to support the biased content. Today, 81.183.101.42 (talk · contribs) appears to be restoring the same content to the article, such as in this edit / revert.

Can an admin take a look at this - first to verify that the edits are innapropriate, then to suggest a course of action if they agree? As the anons have not engaged in discussion anywhere other than on the edit summaries, I don't see where the normal dispute resolution is going to make much difference. I would request page protection, but as it just started again after a two week break, I'm also not sure if that would make much difference. As a result, I'm not certain as to the best course of action (other than to leave it to others at this point). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Barek. I've reverted this user in the past for gross WP:OR violations. As an example, this may or may not be in bad faith, but one of the sources xe is citing as evidence of high crime rates among Roma populations is a website for crime statistics in the city of Roma, Texas [1]. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 20:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Over the last month, I see three different POV-pushing IPs working to slant this article. They may all be the same person. They do not participate on the Talk page. Since the IPs are dynamic, blocks would not be effective. I've semiprotected Hungarian discrimination against Roma people for two months. Other admins may modify this as they think best. Slurs against an ethnic minority need careful monitoring. If these editors would join the talk page, their views would be listened to and we might be able to persuade them to find better sources. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, at least one of the IPs named in this complaint (207.108.250.158) appears static and has a track record. Any admin is welcome to check the individual IPs to see if blocks are appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur that the various IPs are probably the same person. Additionally, the contributions of the IP named in the original post seem to be of a uniformly poor quality, even when they're not inserting racist nonsense into articles, they're usually inserting childish and unsophisticated vandalism into otherwise decent articles. As it appears to be static, I'd support a longer block if it starts with the anti-ziganist stuff again. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC).

Out of control.

User Eshalis went completely out of control on his talk page yesterday. I already brought it up yesterday at Apparition's talk page to see what he thought. Anyway, I reverted his attack edit to Kevin Myers' talk page, which automatically left a warning on his talk page. Well, shortly after the warning, he gets all pissed off at me and starts swearing when I wasn't even the one that reverted the edit on the article he was referring to. Apparently, Kevin Myers reverted his edits here and here and he didn't like it, so he decided to attack Kevin Myers. That's when I noticed an attack on Kevin Myers' talk page while surfing through edits on Huggle (I didn't know what was going at the time), so I reverted it. I really think something should be done. Thanks!

P.S.: If you took the time to read this, you have my appreciation. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A frustrated user acted out. He's seen the warnings, and if he acts up again, then there might be something actionable. AniMate^draw 01:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like User:Matty has already removed the comments. -download ׀ sign! 01:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The user has made only about 100 edits over the last two years and perhaps has at last been startled and angered to learn that on en.Wikipedia, flawed secondary sources can have sway over primary sources which haven't been given as much weight by published writers. A pattern of strong incivility and personal attacks isn't allowed here, but so far, there's no pattern. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Serious IP vandalism.

I think this is the right place for it. A month ago, both Middle Power and Great Power were semi-protected who tried to remove any traces that UK and France are sometimes considered Middle Powers. He even removed France and UK from the list of middle powers. The middle power page was protected for a month. Today, it was unprotected, and the IP changed it's tactics. A new map was added since protection that explained that countries such as UK, France, Germany, and Japan were sometimes considered great powers. However, he is now changing it to often considered great powers, and I told him in the edit summaries that countries often considered great powers wouldn't appear on the middle power page. However, he refuses to stop. I have warned him once today, and he has removed the warning and continued. I have stopped editing the middle power page so I would not break 3RR. I have talked to 2 other users who are familiar with this IP to talk, and he has removed the message I left them as well. IP: [2] warning 1 I gave him: [3]

warning 1 he erased: [4]

Warning 2 I gave him: [5]

Warning 2 he erased: [6]

Warning 3 he was given by another editor: [7] Warning he erased: [8]

Block message he erased: [9]

Phoenix's talk page he erased (both): [10], and [11].

Viewfinder's talk page: [12], [13].

Also, here are the stuff from the past reports.

This was the second report with all the IPs including the one above listed. This was on the incidents board. "

We have an ip editor that has been constantly removing content the user finds objectionable in the Great power and Middle power. The user will not communicate and has caused the pages to be constantly ip protected.

Middle power

1. 13:53, 21 March 2009
2. 13:01, 29 March 2009
3. 14:07, 29 March 2009
4. 06:24, 30 March 2009
5. 16:49, 30 March 2009
6. 09:15, 31 March 2009
7. 13:03, 31 March 2009

   13:21, 31 March 2009 - 1 week IP protection

8. 14:06, 11 April 2009
9. 17:42, 11 April 2009
10. 20:29, 11 April 2009
11. 20:31, 11 April 2009
12. 20:43, 11 April 2009
13. 20:44, 11 April 2009
14. 20:46, 11 April 2009
15. 20:49, 11 April 2009
16. 20:54, 11 April 2009
17. 20:55, 11 April 2009
18. 20:56, 11 April 2009
19. 20:59, 11 April 2009

    21:01, 11 April 2009 - 2 week IP protection

20. 10:34, 26 April 2009
21. 18:42, 26 April 2009
22. 15:16, 27 April 2009

    18:08, 27 April 2009 - 4 week IP protection

Great power

1. 15:43, 22 April 2009
2. 07:49, 23 April 2009
3. 10:25, 23 April 2009
4. 15:37, 24 April 2009

   19:31, 24 April 2009 - 1 week IP protection

5. 14:07, 3 May 2009
6. 18:13, 3 May 2009
7. 18:27, 3 May 2009
8. 07:50, 4 May 2009
9. 19:04, 4 May 2009
10. 20:36, 4 May 2009
11. 12:30, 5 May 2009
12. 13:58, 5 May 2009
13. 15:10, 5 May 2009
14. 17:36, 5 May 2009
15. 05:42, 6 May 2009
16. 06:37, 6 May 2009
17. 06:44, 6 May 2009
18. 07:09, 6 May 2009
19. 07:24, 6 May 2009

    09:19, 6 May 2009 - 4 week IP protection

" Previous IP report available here on this difference, [14].

Please do something about this IP. Deavenger (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• I just did an IP trace and tagged the offender's talkpage, hope this helps. --Dave1185 (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. I think it might. Hopefully, the vandalism will end soon. As this has been going on for 2 months with lots of protection in between, and it has not been working. Deavenger (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• No problem! IF the particular anon IP keeps editing in such a disruptive manner following his/her unban (from the stipulated 48hrs ban just handed out to him/her), the administrator will have that piece of information ready at hand to implement something more drastic since it would have proved beyond any doubt that the IP isn't a dynamic one. Maybe a hard-block, who knows? Cheers~! --Dave1185 (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. And the anon just removed the tag you placed [15] and [16]. I just reverted his latest remove. But he removed that too. Deavenger (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem is dave, the current IP the user is using is blocked. I don't think it can get any worse then that. Deavenger (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• OR so it would seem... he has been stripped of his right to edit his own discussion page now and banned from editing for the next 48hrs. He does that again and the block gets doubled to 96hrs, and so on and so forth. Cheap thrills gets you nowhere, that I can assure you. --Dave1185 (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. But if the user's past history is of any clue, he'll be on a different IP tommorow. The only real solution besides a range block is semi-protecting the page. Deavenger (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on history, I doubt that blocking will do any good here. I've semi-protected Middle power for three months. Any admin may modify this as they think best. Note that this guy reverted Middle power *12 times* on April 11. He returns like clockwork each time protection expires. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Further proof that the offender is using a static IP address, so it is easy to ban! Nuff said~! --Dave1185 (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• No: several different IP addresses have been used over the course of time. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for June 6th since (s)he is going to remove content at Great power the moment that block is going to be lifted... Are you willing to increase the block time for that page also? -- Phoenix (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I request that both pages be semiprotected until august (middle power is already now). 1, three months will be longer then all the previous blocks, so if he still comes back, then way more serious action is going to have to be taken. 2, both pages can be blocked for the same period of time and be unlocked until the same day (plus, Great power is going through a GA review right now, and might be continuing till June 6th). Also, during the months of June and July, I'm will not be able to try to work against the vandalism as much as I will be in other countries touring or visiting family, and my access to the internet will be short and very sparse until August. Deavenger (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. I left a note for the original protecting admin on Great power to see if he disagrees with the longer protection. EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully the length is long enough for the IP to leave and forget about it. Deavenger (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing deletion. On Annabel Lee poem, Edgar Allen Poe.

Ongoing deletion. On Annabel Lee poem, Edgar Allen Poe.

A movie was made by director Michael Rissi. It's called "Edgar Allen Poe's Annabel Lee. It's amazing, and everytime I post it someone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnav310 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Then Talk:Annabel Lee is your next stop, just as it has been for other editors before you. Uncle G (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have contacted this editor on his talk page. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Malcolm Schosha

Resolved

Gonna be bold and tag resolved, as no one beside User:Wikifan12345 appears to be arguing vs. this indefinite block, no admin has come forward to contest the block of Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who is indefinitely blocked, and was a reincarnation of indef blocked Kwork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). The operator of the accounts is therefore indef blocked as well, on any username. No other defense has been offered. It appears to be consensus. rootology/equality 17:43, 30 May 2009 (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.

---

Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have lengthened Malcom's block to indefinite for ongoing personal attacks whilst already blocked for edit warring and personal attacks. Posted here for input and review. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Good block. Attacking large numbers of volunteer editors who sacrifice their time to maintaining Wikipedia should never be tolerated and if someone continues to do so even while being blocked for exactly those reasons, they should be shown the door. I'd even suggest disabling talk page editing for this editor because it's unlikely to become better... Regards SoWhy 12:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. He's basically trolling to get blocked and then claimed victimhood. I think the month-long game at Talk:Self-hating_Jew#Any_constructive_suggestions.3F shows he isn't here to edit the encyclopedia, but just to argue for the sake of arguing. He'll be elsewhere complaining about the users here and his "mistreatment" soon enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• • It is the previous section Talk:Self-hating_Jew#The problem with Finlay where he totally misrepresents Mick Finlay's record of published writings and calls that academic an apologist for Islam that got to me. I was on the verge of posting in another place something asking what Malcolm brings to Wikipedia apart from niggling comments that waste other editor's time. So that's a Support block from me. --Peter cohen (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Long overdue. Has a knack for juvenile condescension against users of different POVs...don't have diffs handy, but he got a kick out of addressing me as Tark for some reason. Plus he has been calling other editors antisemitic for quite awhile now, and was even tossed off an ArbCom case because of it. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Support Pretty nasty ongoing commentary, and obvious from his last few months of article space edits that he's only here to push what appears to be a pretty fringey POV, which is never helpful. Has been pretty much on a rampage of nastiness since people on the same political wavelength as himself were topic-banned from the Palestinian-Israeli topics in the recent RFAR. rootology/equality 13:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Based on discovered additional blocks and apparent socking from his days as User:Kwork, see below. rootology/equality 20:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support I have been following this at a distance and I think indef is now merited. --John (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oh, I don't know him except one encounter at Talk:Porcelain/Archives/2013#Lead image. Before reading this, I'd have suggested that his profound knowledge of fine art is too valuable, so just allow him to write such subjects only. However, the "Empty skulls" comment is way beyond any acceptable range of incivility, so I support.....Caspian blue 13:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Though not necessarily for the precise reason stated in his block log. I think his general abuse of Wikipedia as a battleground is a more accurate summary of his problems.--Tznkai (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Good call. Malcom isn't willing to abide by Wikipedia's policies so this was inevitable. PhilKnight (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support It might have been less inflammatory to have requested another previously uninvolved admin review and act as appropriate - but I am certain the end result would have been the same/ LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcom's way was to strongly attack admins trying to deal with him, then claim they were "involved" and "harassing" or "out to get" him. Hence Malcom said I was involved, but I never was. I always hoped he'd settle down. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why having yet another admin do the review and likely block does not feed into that culture of being accused of having prior bias - but ultimately, it was a good block for the right reasons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If every admin a user encounters is then "involved", sooner or later that user would run out of admins. Better that we just be shut of the user well before that point. ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Better that we actually apply a little common sense to "involved" - warning and attempting to guide an editor, or having edited the same page in the past six months or whatever arbitrary time period, is not "involved" unless one is excessively rules-minded (read, anal retentive wikilawyer.) I for one am getting a little tired of seeing worthy admins instructed to fetch someone who has never dealt with an editor, explain the situation, provide background and difs -- or else ask them to block on the first admins' judgment alone. If the first case, what a waste of time and effort! and if the second, then why the heck get another admin at all? To satisfy those with no common sense? because it is clear in the second case we are relying on the first admin's judgment, just as we would have been had they simply blocked. Enough of this "involved" crap. Don't worry about it unless there is an actual editing dispute or conflict between the two. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That too. :) Well said recap of the broad point. My point was rather narrower... that if it seems there is a real danger of running out of uninvolved admins, it's probably well past the time we should be shut of that particular user. ++Lar: t/c 21:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• No objections, I generally support incivility blocks. It's somewhat amusing that he's blocked for displaying poor social skills by ranting about the supposed poor social skills of others.  Sandstein  19:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like he's amused with us. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Good block. And by all means, let his amusement continue, indefinitely. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think one should be able to blow off some steam on their talk page, and while his comment on 'empty skulls' was over the line it doesn't warrant an indef block in my opinion. Nableezy (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Support based on his continued justifying of behavior on his talk page Nableezy (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• We have granted his wish for a block, as it were, and I think both the wiki and Malcolm will be better off. Support ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The user in my experience does treat WP as a battleground, and has a substantial block history [17]. But none of those blocks were for longer than 72 hours, and occasional flashes of reasonableness meant I hadn't, despite my experience with him, quite given up on hope of productive interaction. Now that he's accepted it, I guess it's moot, but I'd have suggested a longer "think about why and how you're doing this" block (maybe 2-4 weeks) first, rather than jumping to indefinite. Maybe I'm just a softie, but I'm wary of indefinite blocks, especially of users engaged on very political topics. Rd232 ^talk 23:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The admins involved have a long history of blocking/warning Malcolm and have taken a disturbing obsession with the user. The initial problem with Nableezy was one of controversy and typical I/P trick and probably did not warrant such an extreme response. The vast majority of his blocks have been the result of opposing editors in militant-topics reporting him. Outside of that, he has been a very productive editor and seems to be quite knowledgeable on a lot of topics. I doubt Malcolm truly wants to be blocked indefinitely, it seems he just does not want to have his final edits revolving around another fruitless appeal. As R2 suggested, I believe a more fitting "punishment" (if blood is all that is desired here) would be a 2-4 week block. I don't see any precedent where a user is given an indef block like this and for admins to endorse such a punishment is suspect. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support never had any interaction with this user, but one look at the block log is enough to know that this fellow is incapable of turning over a new leaf. Maybe in a year or so.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support At the top of Malcolm's Talk page he all but states that he is unwilling to edit in a collaborative manner. "I'm going to do what I think is right, whatever the consequences." That may be an admirable attitude for a Greek philosopher, but it doesn't bode well for an editor in a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. Malcolm and I have disagreed in the recent past (see Talk:Self-hating Jew for details), so feel free to discount my comments if you think I'm too close to the situation. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Given track record. --Folantin (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Malcolm is one of the few users left who has a good eye for the weaknesses of certain policies. That should be encouraged, not punished. It is furhermore sad to see that, in his corner of WP too, so many users do not understand the concept of consensus. Malcolm does. Finally, it is not possible to collaborate with those that will not give you the light of day. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For those opposed to an indef block, question

Since the I/P topics and civility seem to be what does the user in, would there be any consideration if you are opposed to an indef block, for a topic restriction in regards to I/P or a civility probation? rootology/equality 19:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering the hostilities have mostly taken place at Malcolm's userpage, and that not-so-nice comments came from both ends, I believe the civility restriction is hardly a fitting punishment. Topic restriction is basically an indef-block for Malcolm so that is even worse. I really don't see why there is such a strong interest in nailing this guy. I'm looking through his edits and there isn't anything particularly unique aside from typical user-page fights. If you bait an editor long enough and treat them like a criminal, of course they are going to get angry. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I understanding you correctly, that you think all these blocks including those for edit warring a POV are his being 'baited'? Please back up with diffs where he was "baited". This is a guy who was so lacking in AGF and civility that he was actually barred from even editing RFAR by injunction. rootology/equality 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Under the allegation that the blocks were mostly done by the same-set of admins and some of the blocks were reversed, yeah, I can't say with all honesty that the punishment fits the crime. And yes, Malcolm was baited relentlessly by editors and admins alike. I/Per articles aren't particularly notable for its attraction to good-faith. Do you dispute this? Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In order we have blocks by all these people: Scarian, Scarian, Elonka, Scarian, Gwen Gale, Smashville, Gwen Gale, Sandstein, Tznkai, Connolley, Rootology, Rlevse, Gwen Gale. That is a lot of different admins, but then we see he was also User:Kwork, who was blocked an additional three times[18] by Jayjg, Jossi, and Jpgordon. That is a total of 12 different admins having blocked him. Again, please provide evidence of admins baiting this guy with diffs. Deleted contribs for Kwork here, which show the exact same MO as his turn under the Malcolm handle. In fact, I see that Kwork is indeffed still, so I don't know how we all missed that Malcolm was even editing--he should have been blocked once it was realized he was Kwork. Again, please provide diffs of all these different admins, even Jayjg and Jpgordon, harassing and baiting him. rootology/equality 20:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcom was blocked 6 June 2008 by Scarian for abusing multiple accounts (which is to say, for evading the Kwork block). I had tagged Kwork's user page and he emailed me, claiming he didn't know sockpuppetry wasn't allowed and after a number of emails, I helped him with the aftermath of RTV for Kwork and Malcolm Schosha (deleting his MS user page history among other things). Then Jpgordon unblocked him on 25 July 2008 and he came back from RTV. This is why (and when) I started watching his account. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing my suggestion of a topic ban/civ paroles etc. based on his history across two usernames, that I just noticed. rootology/equality 20:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Geez you really took the time to investigate, eh? I don't know much about Malcolm's previous handle so I rather not comment on it. The degree of action, proportional to the blocks listed, has been extremely generalized and overblown. I'll enumerate and simplify the blocks (though I don't really want to) to prevent confusion:

• Since the sock-violation was in good faith, we shouldn't count those.

• Between June 2008 to May 2009 (we can round it off to a year), 19 blocking-related actions occurred.

• Out of those 19 blocks, 5 were administered by Gwen Gale.

• Out of those 19 blocks, 2 were administered by rootogoloy.

• Out of those 19 blocks, 5 were reversed. 1 block by Rootology was self-reverted, 1 block by Gwen Gale was reversed by admin User:DGG for being "excessive," 1 block by User:Smashville self-reverted, 1 block by Gwen Gale was reversed by admin User:MZMcBride for being "improper," and the last was for sock-proving.

• Out of those 19 blocks, 4 were for personal attacks (one being reversed), 6 were for edit warring (mostly baiting situations), and the rest a mixture of disruption/arbitration concerns.

Out of approximately 5,114 over a span of almost 1.5 years, Malcolm received 15 unreserved blocks. That's 1 block for every 340 edits. But these blocks aren't exactly eye-popping. Edit warring is standard, and blocks are almost solely dependent on who reports who first. Personal attacks etc.. aren't defendable but again words can be miscontrued and Malcolm has laid pretty clear rationales in the past which had led to blocks being reversed. That in itself is a strong reminder of the strong partiality that has occurred throughout this whole ordeal.

Again, can you provide a single diff or evidence that he was "baited"? Especially, how is one "baited" into Edit Warring on article content? rootology/equality 21:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345, I'd also like to know how Malcolm was baited. It seems to me that he has done more than his share of baiting around here. In one instance, he described the actions of editors with whom he disagreed as "gang raping" an article; in other situations, he referred to ArbCom members as schmucks and to other editors as antisemites and anti-Zionists. Name-calling may be acceptable on the playground, but it has no place here. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Read through his talk page. Either Malcolm is nothing less than an angry troll or people really just want to stonewall him out of wikipedia. Malcolm takes the concept of honesty a bit too high, though his remarks tend to come with clear and obvious rationales. He doesn't call everyone he disagrees with as antisemites/anti-Zionists. It's safe to assume many subscribe to that level of thought, however. Do you endorse the belief that all responses to Malcolm have been done in good faith and without prejudice? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What I believe about his justifications or personal views on topics and policies, or external politics are irrelevant. Can you provide a single diff or edit to back up your claims? It should be easy. rootology/equality 22:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems Root has taken the liberty of finalizing the issue and declaring Malcolm a "banned" user per direction of the talk page and ANI. I consider this a bit premature. I don't think it is very fair of us to not give Malcolm a voice. I'm sure he has a lot to say. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was reversed by me as well I believe and some days ago. rootology/equality 21:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right I did not check the date. Apologies. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345: "Edit warring is standard" ??? um, no. ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a standard violation in those kinds of articles. Thanks for taking what I wrote out of clear and obvious context. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The context is clear enough, you seem to be saying that Malcolm spent a significant portion of his time at the kind of articles for which "edit warring is standard" and ... he edit warred. After a certain number of warnings, which he had received, and then some, enough is enough. There is no "kind of article" for which edit warring is acceptable. We have arbcom case after arbcom case that makes that point, including the one that Malcolm was disinvited from participating further in. You appear to have several edit war blocks in your own record. I suggest that you need to internalise that you yourself should not edit war. End of story. That would be the best use of your time, I think. This block is sound. ++Lar: t/c 23:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's standard conduct. And the standard response is blocks and topic bans. So, anything out of the ordinary here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Good God... 1 block for every 340 edits is appalling. "Baiting" presumes that a person is generally policy-abiding, but in a moment of weakness was driven into an uncharacteristic fit of blockable behavior. You can't be "baited" into 15 blocks - at that point, it's your responses to everyday editing stresses that are inappropriate. This isn't "baiting" - it's someone who has a long-term problem contributing here, and doesn't seem to be improving. MastCell ^Talk 23:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, by that 1 in 340 metric, anyone with less than 29 blocks per 10,000 edits is ahead of the curve. I'd be sitting at about 32 blocks now, and I think someone like Charles Matthews or Rich Farmbrough would be around 260-270 lifetime blocks by now. rootology/equality 23:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Still, do you dispute the partiality that has occurred? Does sheer # of reversed blocks and dependence on the same admins to make those blocks not bother you? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is much more to the background of those blocks than that: There were many unblock declines following most (nearly all) of those "reversed" blocks, some of which lasted for most of their set length before they were undone, without consulting the blocking admins. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 is not addressing the concerns that have been raised or answering the questions they have been asked. I think we're done here. Consensus for an indef block seems pretty clear to me. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have. Please don't shove this under the rug. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Rootology asked you for a diff to back up your claim, several times. You went off on tangents. Those tangents have been refuted. But more importantly, this is all after the fact, because the thread above this shows a clear consensus... lots of supports, one weak oppose... and you. It may not be unanimous, but it's a consensus all right. ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In a sea of hostility and bad faith I'm expected to point out the obvious? Ok. There are several sets of baiting that have been confirmed by several users, most notably User:IronDuke, but this is the most recent and easiest for me to find because I am a very lazy person:

Self-hating Jew...this should turn out well. Malcolm attempts to explain why mick finlay bite is POV and does not belong in the lead. That in itself isn't really important. The editors seem to take great offense at Malcolm accusing Finlay of being an islamic apologist. This is then followed by a round of typical noticeboard-threats, one by Peter Cohen (who can be found above) This thread contains a violation of WP:BLP and promises to file a complaint. According to Cohen's history, he has yet to do any noticeboard filing, aside from a friendly confirmation of his support for the lifetime Malcolm ban. :D

Prior to this, User:untwirl considered Malcolm's 1-sentence removal violated consensus policy. Malcolm responds, pointing out the obvious that You confuse majority with consensus. There was never any effort by the majority to compromise with other editors.

Then user Malik Shabazz throws the disruptive accusation and threatens to file an ANI complaint.

Malcolm responds: ake it to the appropriate noticeboard, and we can discuss it further there.

This goes on for about 30 paragraphs. Over 1 sentence that clearly was out of place and did not deserve a spot in the lead. Even considering the islamic apologist comment (which is arguably accurate depending on one's perspective, and there are many in this article), editors immediately threatened to sue and you can clearly see Malcolm's mood switch from thereon. We call that baiting, and it worked quite well. Malcolm seems to expose himself way too much in these kinds of situations so the outcome is not a surprise . People want blood and they'll probably get it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your analysis shows the same flaws in reasoning and misrepresentation of the truth as Malcolm's postings did, albeit in more temperate language. Examples of errors in the post to which I am responding include claiming that I did not post to any board when I did straight after saying I would, misrepresenting the initial tone of response to Malcolm by captioning the three moderately worded responses to Malcolm that you link above as "great offense at", ignoring that Malcolm had less than a month earlier consented to the version of the lead following my revision to a previous version meaning that the version as I left it represented prior consensus and not the imposition of majority rule and therefore WP:BRD should apply. And the "Islamic apologist" slur is not "arguably accurate" but a misrepresentation of the truth as argued by several editors in the thread and by me in the linked post to the BLP board. It also shows that Malcolm was resorting to personal attacks in describing those with whom he disagreed prior to what you claim was us all ganging up and bullying him (and with the added problem that Finlay wasn't there to respond to slurs on his character).--Peter cohen (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I apologize for saying you did not post at the BLP noticeboard. That was an honest error, I couldn't find the edit in your history but it was rather late at night so again I apologize. But posting at the BLP noticeboard in a non-BLP article over a user's reasonable and fair POV that was hardly the main component of his position is far from sincere and constitutes baiting. Malcolm in no way resembled the troll-like behaviors he is accused of subscribing to in this AN/I. You and several others immediately jumped the gun from the get-go and starting throwing the most damaging and threatening noticeboards on wikipedia. That's called baiting. Malcom consented to this version: The term is currently most common in debates over the role of Israel in Jewish identity, where it is used against Jewish critics of Israeli policy. This was promptly changed to the POV version by untwirl without a *gasp* actionable consensus: The term is currently most common in debates over the role of Israel in Jewish identity, where it is used by right-wing Zionists against Jewish critics of Israeli policy. Former versions: The term is currently most common in debates over the role of Israel in Jewish identity, where it is used by some Neo-Zionist partisans against Jewish critics of Israeli policy. That sentence did not belong in the lead and you took Malcolm's arguably accurate assessment of Finaly to the noticeboard in an attempt to reduce the validity of his proposal. That isn't just baiting, that's downright malice. Just because everyone with the exception of Malcolm harbored similar POVs does not mean the vote tallied towards consensus. Malcolm was assessing your actions in a tactless and uncivil way, but so what. You guys baited him to hell and then essentially cried bloody murder when he bit back. Pardon the bluntness, but all of you should have stepped outside and gone in to timeout. But no, you rallied together and stonewalled Malcolm out of the article which simply gave him more ammunition. Look, I gave a fairly strong example of baiting which was requested and your "analysis" was far from persuasive. If Malcolm is given a temporary stay of editing I'm sure he would be happy to include other baiting-situations because he is far more experienced than I am. At this point I strongly encourage dissolving this show trial or admins should start dealing bans to several users here because many are guilty of the same violations Malcolm is accused of washing himself in. Though that doesn't seem to matter when a "consensus" has your back. :D

It seems Malcolm has been watching the discussion. He explicitly refers to Peter Cohen's history and previous actions with Root and Lars. For the sake of fairness, here it is. I hope I'm not violating any rules here:

I made a series of edits on the arbcom noticeboard, pointing out that the arbcom decision removing of some Jayjg's administrative privileges was irrational because he had never misused those privileges. That got Rootology and Lar pissed off, and Rootology blocked me and then reversed his when block when he cooled down a little and realized it was a bad block. After some further argument with Lar and Rootology, Rlevse showed up and blocked me with this.. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

i agree with tarc below. wikifan misrepresents the order of events. malcolm said this, "Although there is plenty in the article, including the lead, that I am unhappy about, with Peter cohen's change to the lead I could live with the article as it is. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)" and here is what the page looked like at 19:53 [19]. "right-wing" is there at that time. this is a red herring. untwirl(talk) 19:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think you know what a red-herring is. And no, I didn't misrepresent anything aside from falsely accusing Peter of not honoring his dubious and blatantly uncivil BLP threat. If you want to talk fallacies we can do that. For everyone else, please refer back to the above post and ignore the derail attempts. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

you are right, i was just being kind when i called it a red herring. it was actually a blatant falsehood, as anyone who looks at the history can see for themselves. untwirl(talk) 01:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to read WP:BLP again. The policy applies to any page on Wikipedia and not just article pages about living individuals. Falsely calling someone an apologist for Islam is libellous on whichever page it is, and breaks WP:BLP when not reliably sourced. And my announcing that I was going straight to a board is not a threat but a notice or warning of action so that anyone in the thread, including Malcolm, can be aware that I am posting to the board. And doing so about a libel is certainly not dubious and is way less uncivil than the initial libel was in the first place. Yes, the boards can be abused; but using them to bring matters to fellow editors' attention is not normally regarded as uncivil.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Finlay is a Islamic apologist! Zomg are you going to report me for slander now? There is nothing inherently sinister about apologist. Malcolm offers a rather poetic rationale: Concerning Peter cohen's strange accusation that my calling Finlay an apologist for British Muslims is a BLP violation, he aparently does not understand that the word apologist means no more than "one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something." The term is not an insult, and the article Finlay wrote in defense of British Muslims fits that definition. I did not say there was anything wrong with his defense of the Muslim community, just that his views needed to be balanced with other sources in the Self-hating Jew article. You took Malcolm's assessment of Finlay and claimed it was libelous, posted it on a friggin noticeboard and even when it is clear you acted out of policy the righteousness still continues. Lars wanted an example, I gave one. He has yet to respond. Peter, feel free to comment on everything else I wrote, or not. I don't really care anymore. :D Editors have invested far too much time in nailing this guy so I doubt even Jesus could save him. Tragic indeed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(Lar, singular... some are glad there are not more of me about). I wanted an example of Malcolm being baited, which is what Root asked you for, twice. I don't see where you provided one. As for the time invested... it's more like there has been a lot of time wasted by this user and it's time to make the investment to put it to a stop. You continue to waste time here as well, because even while you continue this, there have been further endorsements of the indef block. ++Lar: t/c 01:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You asked for examples, I gave them to you. Then I responded to every bogus rationalization and ripped a part Peter Cohen's "analysis." I'm willing to assume you made your decision before the AN/I was already filed. Don't ask for evidence and then deny it exists. I am not disputing people don't want Malcolm gone. I'm sure I could find 20 users who want Nableezy gone. Should we ban him? Of course not. I probably could get a hundred signatures to ban x admin as well, so what. As they say, follow the herd. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• It is simple, really. Malcolm is unable to abide by consensus, and falls back on personal attacks and edit warring to address it. In the few direct interactions I have had with him, that is all it ever was...there is a content dispute on an article, ensuing talk page discussion reaches a general consensus, invariably with a single holdout; Malcolm. He'll skate to the brink of 3RR, lie low for a week or so, come back and do it all again while doing a large WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when others point to the past consensus. One only gets so many chances, y'know. It is more than clear that this user is unable to edit collaboratively. As for the Arbcom antics, that isn't the first time he's pulled the antisemite card on other editors. I am surprised he wasn't blocked then and there. Tarc (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no rule that forces people to agree with a consensus opinion, nor is consensus defined by having only one user opposing. Pointing to past consensus does not fly in the face of new arguments or sources, or when there is disagreement over the existence of a consensus. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure who you're directing that at. As you well know, consensus as the term is used here at WP is rather a wacky thing. But one can have consensus without everyone being in agreement. The normal meaning is that people agree to go along even if they don't agree with the thing being gone along with. The WP meaning (IMHO) is that MOST people agree to go along (there can be some dissent) even if they don't agree with the thing being gone along with. In this case, this particular discussion, we have (WP) consensus. Wikifan12345 is not raising anything new, and not convincing any folk to change their mind. One has to wonder as the motivation for this. This is a simple, routine case. ++Lar: t/c 01:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed Lars. By virtue of not changing one's mind does influence the meaning of what has been said. Your assuming everyone here is neutral, objective, and impartial, when in reality almost all of them have had to deal with Malcolm and the others are simply joining in. I actually posted explicit examples as to how crazy this witch-hunt is and cannot fathom why it is tolerated on an encyclopedia. I can see why Malcolm get's so angry. Banning unpopular users is not simple and routine, especially in an area of WP that is hardly known for its etiquette and good faith. Birds of the feather flock together, man. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

your "explicit examples" were shown to be false. at this point you are just trolling this noticeboard and making thinly veiled personal attacks yourself ("Birds of the feather flock together, man"). i would suggest you quit while you're ahead. untwirl(talk) 17:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not the WP meaning of consensus at all, also I would appreciate it if you would not cast doubts on people's motivation. And while the case may be clear (it is clear to me, but with a different conclusion), banning is not routine. Or maybe it has become routine during my absence? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:05, 30 May 2009 (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.

Edit warring on Europe

Resolved

 – TheThankful has been blocked for 3RR breach by Rootology. Initial review of block has been completed and declined. Sockpuppet (Meat?) has been commented on and should continue to be watched.--VS ^talk 08:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

TheThankful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has started edit warring on the lede of Europe. He has been bullying two other users (one of them me) to include his own sysnthesis and original research in the lede. His content does not reflect what is in the main article and is unsourced (even on the talk page). He has broken the three revert rule in adding his own synthesis to the lede, in particular removing a carefully sourced statement that I produced from one of the main references. He is editing tendentiously without sources and in addition, when he appears to be the cntributor that is edit warring without secondary sources, is issuing warnings as if he is in the right. Mathsci (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is completely untrue. 3 or more days ago, I began a discussion on the talk page about correcting a factual error in the Europe article. One person agreed with me, none disagreed so i made the edit. I have provided a reference/source. It is not original thought at all, but accepted historical/anthropological fact. And I was in fact the one "bullied" with the threat of being blocked etc. posted on my talk page by Mathsci who himself broke the 3RR before I did.--TheThankful (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What TheThankful writes here is inaccurate. I made 2 edits on the May 25 adding an image of a megalithic temple on Malta to the prehistory section in response to the second request in the last six months from a Maltese editor; I made 2 edits on the 27th to clear up confusion about Central Europe in the lede; and two edits today, the 29th, the second a new carefully worded compromise sentence, based on the precise statement in the academic literature that "Ancient Greece is often considered (but by no means always) as the birthplace of Western culture". TheThankful does not seem to understand wikipedia editing policy. TheThankful seemed to be using the talk page as a forum to discuss eurocentrism, without sources. He was not proposing changes to the main article, but was making a WP:POINT about the statement above. Mathsci (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

His changes have now been reverted by a third editor and he has reverted the edit yet again. Please block him. Mathsci (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked him 24 hours for shooting past 4RR 15 minutes after being notified of this discussion. rootology/equality 05:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request now

He's now asking for an unblock. Need some review, thanks. rootology/equality 05:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile a fourth editor has reverted his last edit. Trying to insert material in the lede of the article about eurocentrism with nothing further in the main article is WP:UNDUE. Equally adding a link to an advertisement for a book to justify a self-concocted sentence is not helpful editing. He seems to be ignoring consensus to make a WP:POINT. The article is not about the cradle of civilization, something quite different. Contrary to what he has suggested, no editor so far has agreed with the sentence he has tried to insert, initally with no source at all. Mathsci (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that TheThankful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing for only eleven days on this account. His other use of sourcing (personal communications from church officials in Singapore) is rather bizarre. Here is a list of his namespace edits. Mathsci (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[OD] Unblock request considered at length - declined at this time and note left at editors page.--VS ^talk 08:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but is truth measured by verifiable fact or how bizzarre peoples subject interests are? I was directed to this page by Mathsci by the way. --LemborLembor (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by TheThankful

LemborLembor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This recently created account which supported TheThankful's edits to Europe and Western culture looks like a sockpuppet of TheThankful. In fact, from the timing, this appears to be block evasion. Mathsci (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I will add that as a part of my review of the unblock request I considered this editors contributions. Mathsci may be right but I don't believe I have quite enough quack to act just at this time.--VS ^talk 08:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

But it might be worth a WP:SSP investigation - the timing of account creation is interesting (last edit by User:TheThankful at 05:39, 29 May 2009 first edit by User:LemborLembor at 05:40, 29 May 2009)--Cailil ^talk 15:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but LemborLembor is continuing the edit war on Western culture about the unsourced POV-pushing phrase at the start of the article inserted by TheThankful. These edits have been reverted by three different users (one of them me). In view of this extra edit, could somebody please see whether block evasion is taking place (possibly through meatpuppetry)? The remark above by LemborLembor is also extremely odd. Mathsci (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I filed a SSP request myself. Mathsci (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The request was answered very rapidly. LemborLembor has just been blocked as a sockpuppet of TheThankful; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TheThankful. (The report said that these were different ISPs but location was close.) Mathsci (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Great work Mathsci - TheThankful account reblocked (escalated) for block evasion.--VS ^talk 19:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Will keep an eye on this as well - good work Mathsci--Cailil ^talk 16:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Admitted IP of banned user

Resolved

 – IP blocked by LadyofShalott. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

87.79.172.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please see this edit in which an IP claims to be a banned a user. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

IP Blocked for one week. LadyofShalott 04:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Block is good, but there have been a number of cases recently of users pretending to be sockpuppets. It is not safe to take their activities or claims at face value. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The range of the IP of 87. is consistent with other IPs that checkusers had previously confirmed to be that user. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Catherine Crier

Resolved

As much as it will be any time soon until we get flagged revisions or do something in general about the poor state of BLPs. rootology/equality 17:52, 30 May 2009 (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.

---

Catherine Crier is under constant attack from a persistent vandal. He has a number of sleeper socks and understands the autoconfirmed limit. I've requested oversight of the most recent problematic revisions, and as you can see from the article history, previous, identical revisions have already been oversighted.

One may note from the article that the subject is in the middle of a lawsuit regarding Wikipedia. It is imperitive that more people with buttons watch this article, as the last grossly inapropriate revision lasted for 3 hours and 7 minutes whilst I slept. While Rootology (WHO IS ILL AND SHOULD GO TO BED! SO STOP READING THIS) is quite helpful on the article, some European eyes, especially would be nice. I've already done the legwork on the Abuse Filter and Oversight, so this is just a call for eyes with buttons. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• The article has been put on full protection, and while that's undesirable, I think it's justified for the moment. With any luck the vandal will get bored and go and do something else. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC).
  • I see nothing in the article about a lawsuit connected with wikipedia. Either way, an abuse filter would be the way to go, especially if the vandalism is libelous, as I take to be the situation given that the vandal's edits were hidden. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Ahem! Edit. Edit. Uncle G (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • (ec) That's because it's not worth mentioning in the article, Bugs. Support full protection for now as semi-protection isn't doing the job. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
      • That's fine, except none of the "ahem" diffs say anything about a wikipedia lawsuit either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Ahem! Did you not see the edit summary in Uncle G's first diff? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have indefinitely protected the page. Rootology had already done this, but I protected it myself again because as an Oversight based action, the page must not, under any circumstances, be unprotected without my explicit permission. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 15:23, 30 May 2009 (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.

Threat by User:Petri Krohn

Based on this initial discussion that I've now archived, I blocked Petri Krohn as detailed and linked here. Please discuss the block or possible unblock if any in that lower section. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rootology (talk • contribs) 9:51 am, Today (UTC−5)

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.

---

Petri Krohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a fairly unambiguous threat against User:Digwuren here. I urged him to remove it; he has edited since then and not done so. I think he should be blocked, and I move for an immediate and permanent community ban. He's been given enough chances. //roux   09:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

User notified. //roux   09:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be fair, it doesn't look like an actual threat, more like "MY DADZ A POLICEMAN AND HE'L GET U" — extremely childish, but not a genuine menace (though I'm not familiar with the case, and might have misunderstood it). Therefore, I think that a permanent ban is a bit of an overreaction, and "horrifying" a bit of an exagguration. However, allowing such abuse, absurd as it is, shouldn't happen, so I suggest a block of a week, to be added to any block that might come separately out of the discussion in which the thread was made. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

See further comment below. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This may provide some needed background to this apparently intractable problem. //roux   09:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK, horse of a different colour. Permaban seems much more palatable now, sorry for the ignorance... ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I really did not read the statement as a threat, but (as he himself said) as a friendly piece of advice. I don't know what he was talking about, but perhaps he meant this "agency." At least give him a change to explain himself before jumping into conclusions. Offliner (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Given Krohn's past on Wikipedia, I read it more like "Nice place you got here, shame if anything happened to it, know what I mean?" than actual friendly advice. //roux   10:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"You may get yourself into trouble because of agency X, you should be careful" is taken for "Nice place you got here, shame if anything happened to it" – with the threat of a permanent ban for the user? (What?) PasswordUsername (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The absurdity of thinking that someone would intitiate a threat against another user at ANI is beyond me. PasswordUsername (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the actual edit, it doesn't read like a threat. Petri Krohn is not threatening to take or initiate or cause any action. Warning editors of possible real-world consequences that could follow independently, from the warned editor's actions, isn't a threat. It's wasn't "my Dad's a policeman," which would be a threat to tell Dad. Whether or not it was advisable to say would depend on many factors, but PK's post is primarily a recounting of his history with Digwuren, and to sanction such reports would be chilling. And to propose it here disruptive. That post, to AN, would probably have been seen by many administrators, and if it called for immediate action, surely they would have noticed it. Complaining here is spreading discussion. --Abd (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no request to User talk:Petri Krohn to remove the comment. The request cited above is to AN. AN is very difficult to follow and I often remove it from my watchlist even when I've posted there. No presumption can be made that an editor has read it. Some of the editors commenting here seem highly involved in disputes with PK, that should be considered as well. --Abd (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No request? How about my diff posted above? //roux   18:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• "If he continues his edits, he should make sure his true identity remains secret", plus telling that a Russian Agency will take care of him. Not a threat? Of course he did not tell: "you will be killed for making too much noise" as was said by another user in my case [20], but this is very close.Biophys (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a threat, yes, but not coming from Petri Krohn, if he is correct. If he's not correct, then, of course, blow it off. I see no sign that Petri Krohn himself is threatening. Now, if it could be shown that he's connected with this "agency," then, of course, he should be out of here in a flash. But that's not the story here, at least not yet. More below. --Abd (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have offend someone. I did not intend to threaten anyone. I have removed my offending comment.

As for the "Russian Agency", the story is true – and it will have profound effects on Wikipedia. It remains to be seen what those are. Looks like the time of free speech is over. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Petri, it has always been true, and remains true, that if you exercise your rights to free speech, in a way that offends someone with power, you can be harassed, prosecuted, murdered. Wikipedia hasn't changed the world in this respect. In fact, sometimes you can offend someone with apparently no power, and the end is the same. Basically, human beings have power and sometimes use it, make them angry enough. Some of us will do anything given sufficient provocation, and there are a few who will be provoked simply by their own imaginations. The world is a dangerous place, still. Welcome to it, it's also quite a nice place and usually safe if you don't go around pissing people off. Unfortunately, some of us find it necessary to speak up, on occasion. I'd probably be high on a list if certain people or organizations were to gain more power, or if I were considered more of a danger, and one of my old friends is seriously dead, for exactly the crime of speaking what he believed, there is an article here about him, you could probably figure it out from my edit history. He lived in Tucson, Arizona. Safe place? Not if you become well-known for something that some really don't want to hear. {He was wrong, by the way, but that doesn't make a difference here, he's still dead.) --Abd (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any activity at Joseph Stalin which seems related to this. If the "Russian Agency" was getting involved in Wikipedia, we'd probably see some efforts to rehabilitate Stalin's image. So far, no. --John Nagle (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have clarified my statement in the original thread. What I have now said explicitly is that activity similar to what we have seen on Wikipedia may become a criminal offense in Russia, and by extension in Estonia. I was too vague originally. I took efforts to avoid linking anyone to criminal activity, especially as this activity is not criminalized in the United States. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I now see that User:Digwuren had already started an article on the newly created Russian Historical Truth Commission. The associated Law on countermeasures against the rehabilitation of Nazism, Nazi criminals and their associates in former republics of the Soviet Union threatens imprisoned for up to five years. I too find this threatening. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Please note that whatever I wrote on ANI was not addressed to Digwuren but to administrators in general and User:Offliner in particular. I have presested my {{WikiThanks}} to Digwuren here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you also implied that Digwuren has apparently been singled out for special attention by this committee, hence your original "friendly warning" when you said: "If he continues his edits, he should make sure his true identity remains secret. Things said on Wikipedia do have effects in the real world. If I am not totally mistaken, Digwuren's edits on Wikipedia may have had a small role to play in the creation of the Agency" The question remains who singled Digwuren out and how do you know that Digwuren's activities figure so prominently in the formation of this committee that you felt compelled to give him this additional "friendly thankyou" on his talk page? --Martintg (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Permban, I am not sure, but a few month may be helpful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Support a permaban. Krohn was already banned for a year for this kind of anti-estonian polemic. Krohn's remarks read as a threat that this Russian agency would be notified of Digwuren's identity should it ever be revealed, implying that Krohn would report Digwuren to the agency if he continued participating in editing Wikipedia. This is intimidatory. Wikipedia doesn't need editors with extremist agendas threatening people for the sole reason of belonging to a particular ethnic group. There should be zero tolerance for this kind of intimidation. --Martintg (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What you are in fact reading from my comment, is that I would be willing to provide evidence to law enforcement agencies investigating and prosecuting criminal offenses. This is not what I am saying. Even if I did, I do not think this could be considered a threat. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Support permaban or very long block. Petri Krohn 's warnings are directed only to people who disagree with him, especially user:Digwuren. Someone who says that dire things will happen to people who dare to disagree with him is not giving "friendly advice"; he is using intimidation to attempt to give himself an advantage. This is an utterly unacceptable debating tactic on Wikipedia. Abd's argument that no-one has actually proved that Petri Kohn is "connected with this ‘agency’ " is utterly irrelevant; we don't have a rule that people get a free pass on making threats until someone proves that they are able to carry them out.

Petri has made two "clarifications". They are oddly different from each other, and neither of them is very clear. One is that “As for the "Russian Agency", the story is true – and it will have profound effects on Wikipedia. It remains to be seen what those are. Looks like the time of free speech is over.” The other clarification possibly means that, when Russian law extends to Estonia, Estonians who have disagreed with him are likely to face criminal prosecution. So, possibly this second clarification is "only" a legal threat. Whatever these statements may mean (and I expect there will be more clarifications to these clarifications), in both of them the threatening tone comes through loud and clear. Also, that the threat has now been repeated, and in more than one version, proves that it was not a fluke. Petri Krohn has already served a 1 year block for misbehavior related to his disagreements with Estonian editors; apparently it was not enough. Cardamon (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• I support permaban. This user's list of misdeeds is enormous. He is known for advocating inflammatory 'points of view' that he apparently is fighting for in real life, too. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor should it be battlefield. Petri Krohn's hint that his 'opponent' Digwuren might get Russian secret service's attention in real life был последней каплей for me. --Miacek (t) 08:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose permaban > 6 months? I've actually just had quite a civil chat with this user on their talkpage, and they don't seem to be the complete crank that they come over to be here. I think that they deserve a long cooling-off period, and then another chance, so I'm suggesting 6 months. Sorry to keep chopping and changing my opinion on this subject, but I hope this will be my final word! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that what Krohn regards as Digwuren's POV on Estonian history corresponds to the view of eminent historians such as David J. Smith (who is a Reader in Baltic Studies at the Department of Central and East European Studies, University of Glasgow, and Editor of the Journal of Baltic Studies). This is what Smith writes in his book "Estonia: Independence and European integration". Krohn on the other hand is an apparent member of SAFKA (This has been previously reported to the COI), an activist group that believes the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states is a myth. The activities of the SAFKA have been investigated by the Estonian security police who have discovered some members have links with certain elements within Russia and this has widely reported in the Estonian press. Hence Krohn's "friendly warning" to Digwuren had a chilling effect that was certainly intimidatory. --Martintg (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support permaban - Digwuren and Petri Krohn were both banned for a year, in part for clashing with each other. Since their return, Digwuren has shown good conduct, but Petri Krohn has proven unable to do so. Implying that the Russian government is going to go after you if you don't change your ways is bound to have a chilling effect, especially on someone from tiny next-door Estonia. We don't want that kind of editing environment, and so I propose Petri Krohn should be excluded from the project. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Note to admins – As said before, I find it ridiculous that a particular number of editors who have written above, largely the same group of user who always seek to justify Digwuren's latest pattern of behavior by slinging mud at his opponents, is now seeking to make the claim that Petri Krohn's warning to Digwuren about the latest development on a contested historical issue from the perspective of the Russian government's commission, which he has already amply clarified, is taken for a threat when he posted it on ANI – publicly and under his own name!
Laughable is the assertion of the editor above, claiming that "since their return, Digwuren has shown good conduct, but Petri Krohn has proven unable to do so." As Offliner has clearly demonstrated here (I strongly recommend reading this thread in full detail – Offliner's post, among other things, features a whole compendium of personal attacks and crass incivility against a number of users, including myself), Digwuren has not shown good faith – rather, the bulk of his edits have been constituted by disrupting and making personal attacks against other editors, including against myself. (This new diversion from Digwuren's behavior – a transformation of the issue into an attack on Petri Krohn for supposed "threats" is interesting of itself.) Digwuren is now proceeding to stalk my edits: compare the good work done by Digwuren as far as these unmistakable instances – plainly obvious from the most recent histories of articles such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Moreover, as Digwuren himself wrote on May 11, the day on which within 24 hours of encountering me he laughably accused me of being a sockpuppet of Anonimu or Jacob Peters (he never actually made up his mind as to which editor I was)

"Today, PasswordUsername asking Petri Krohn for help regarding the Neo-Stalinism categories. It is unlikely to help him -- Mr. Krohn has been behaving rather well in the recent months -- but since this is his very first edit on Krohn's talkpage, and they do not seem to have had previous contacts regarding Stalinism -- neo or otherwise -- it raises a question of why he'd pick Petri Krohn out of the thousands of editors." 7.

My explanation for "picking Petri Krohn out of the thousands of editors," of course, is explained fully at the same link provided. What is funny is that even Digwuren himelf (in fact, a SPA, unlike Petri Krohn) has publicly acknowledged the good nature of Petri's contributions (again, oddly enough, this being in the context of an obscene attack against myself), but, having now given a history of his rather difficult co-existence with Digwuren's belligerent editing patterns, Petri is accused of some great malice by Digwuren's loyal crew. Frankly, I interpret this as nothing but the bad-faith insults of a lynch-mob threatening to conduct "punishment" against a user whose productive, if not exactly quite passive, editing history stands in sharp juxtaposition against their own. Between Digwuren and Petri Krohn, I can say in all good conscience that if anybody deserves to be permabanned, it is not Petri Krohn – although given the administrators' reluctance to intervene in the dispute against Digwuren by taking measures more stringent than simply asking both Offliner and Digwuren to "walk away and behave," I strongly suggest that the accusations here simply be dismissed as equally frivolous. (And what has been said about Petri is much more frivolous than the substantial cases made against Digwuren many a time in the past.) I encourage all administrators to examine this issue seriously – claims against Petri Krohn are partisan and blatant character assasssinations which should be observed and analyzed just for what they are. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Krohn has just issued another "friendly warning" on Digwuren's talk page, implying that this commission will take particular interest in Digwuren and ominously talks of Digwuren in the past tense [21]. --Martintg (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That isn't a "friendly warning" in quotation marks – what Petri says is clearly a commendation for the article he himself had wanted to start and the tense is the grammatical feature of language known as the "future perfect" – but thank you for noting it. I should also note that Petri Krohn opposes the commission, if you're still fond of equivocally speaking of the subject. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Simply not true. SAFKA endorses the law and hails it as "a victory for Safka". The connection between SAFKA members and one of the committee members Alexander Dyukov is well known. There are many editors involved in editing articles about the former Soviet Union, yet Digwuren has apparently been singled out for special attention by this committee, or so Krohn claims. The question remains who singled Digwuren out and how does Krohn know that Digwuren's activities figure so prominently in the formation of this committee? --Martintg (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry, you obviously haven't bothered to read what Petri Krohn has written here at ANI/Incidents, at the main administrators' noticeboard, or on other pages. Whatever organization he may or may not happen to be part of, the opinions he holds as an individual are his own personal thoughts – and he has clearly written online that he, too, "find[s] the law threatening." (See here.) I think you should stop throwing in people's real-life identities in these disputes – regardless of one's ideology, opinions, occupation, or activities in real life, the benchmark for judging the conduct of online contributors is simply their online conduct. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Your initial claim was "Petri Krohn opposes the commission", this is a long way from "find[s] the law threatening". Evidently he was hoping Digwuren would find this law threatening too, enough to intimidate him from further contribution to Wikipedia. However this law has absolutely no jurisdiction anywhere outside Russia, except perhaps to those Russian citizens living abroad who may contribute to Wikipedia. Yet this "friendly warning" was not offered to any of these Russian editors, only to Digwuren. --Martintg (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
          • The commission is "the law" being referred to here – I think you're attacking the imprecise semantics, yet doing injustice to the concrete meaning (the proposition) being brought up here. (Perhaps the best way of gleaning this is to consult the informal fallacy trivial objections.) The application of the law is coordinated in conjunction with the work done by the Historical Truth Commission – and Petri's already clarified that his concern related to the law's not being limited in scope to Russia's territory. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: I even misquoted Petri Krohn's remarks – rather than speaking of "the law," he specifically made clear:

"P.S. I now see that User:Digwuren had already started an article on the newly created Russian Historical Truth Commission. The associated Law on countermeasures against the rehabilitation of Nazism, Nazi criminals and their associates in former republics of the Soviet Union threatens imprisoned for up to five years. I too find this threatening. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)" (1)

Whatever else was said by Petri Krohn, it was all in the same vein: nowhere does he endorse the commission (you might want to try asking his own opinion of the commission or gleaning it from what he's written about it before you jump to conclusions). Here's to hoping that this has now clarified everything up for you, Martintg. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the specifics here, because they may come before the Arbitration Committee, but I strongly urge everyone interested in this situation to carefully review and abide by the principles outlined in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This hardly should come before the ArbCom because this user was already banned by ArbCom, and a consensus about his behavior was reached at AE noticeboard [22]. Telling another user "If he continues his edits, he should make sure his true identity remains secret" and reminding about an "Agency" was clearly an attempt of intimidation, as noted by DGG at another board [23]. Biophys (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What I get from the ArbCom case NewYorkBrad refers to are principles in that case concerning harassment and threats, which states: "The making of express or implied threats against another editor is a form of harassment and is prohibited. In particular, any suggestion of seeking to disrupt or harm an editor's off-Wikipedia life (including his or her employment) in retaliation for his or her editing on Wikipedia is unacceptable.", which links to Wikipedia:Harassment#Threats, stating "Legal threats are a special case of threat, with their own settled policy. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely.". --Martintg (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a case of legal threat but of legal risk. The relevant section is Raising good-faith concerns:

“ 5) Under certain circumstances, a user may have good reason to warn another editor that the editor's conduct is putting himself or herself at risk (for example, that he or she is inadvertently revealing personal identifying information or is creating a legal risk). At times, such a communication may be in the best interest of the recipient... ” — Raising good-faith concerns

The text goes on to say: However, the sender should be sure that the communication serves a legitimate purpose and should take great care to ensure that it will not be perceived as threatening by the recipient. If I had felt a need to send communication to Digwuren, I am sure I would have taken great care to ensure that it would not have been perceived as threatening. However my communication at WP:AN mainly served the legitimate purpose of informing the administrators and User Offliner. On the issue of Russian law enforcement we have been in friendly communication. In fact we have collaborated on the article, without a hint of conflict. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

However the tone of your original message was one of frustration: that if the admins weren't willing to deal with Digwuren, this committee certainly will, hence your advice that he had better keep is identity secret. There are many editors involved in editing articles about the former Soviet Union, yet Digwuren was apparently singled out for special attention by this committee, so you have claimed a number of times. The question remains who singled Digwuren out and how do you know that Digwuren's activities have figured so prominently in the formation of this committee, which you also claim? --Martintg (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support permaban From the evidence presented it is clear that this user has exhausted the community's patience. He has been banned before and still has not changed his ways. It is high time to eliminate his disruption from the editorial process. I also support removal of Arbcom review. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Not support permaban I haven't read any of the nonsense contained herein, but one thing that I did not take what Petri Krohn's comments as was a threat. The truth is, Digwuren is an Estonian nationalist; the worst of the worst not yet permabanned (it's ok for User:Moreschi to characterise others as this, so this is fair too eh Moreschi?), There was no threat, and other editors are generally acting like teenage girls, and pack dogs (as is usual), and this is yet more grandstanding by said editors. The new laws being introduced in Russia will make people like Digwuren a target; not for assassination, or other such tripe, but for targetting by these laws against people who try to rewrite history as is seen every day in the Baltics, and right here on Wikipedia. As Petri mentioned, Digwuren best not make his real life identity known, otherwise the web brigades (note its presence in conspiracy theory category) could make his life difficult, and he could be refused entry into Russia, etc, etc. Oh and User:Biruitorul, Digwuren's conduct has been anything but good since his return; his calling other editors pigs (without a single apology), characterising others as neo-Nazis (without a single apology), stalking, tedious editing, disruption of AfDs, etc and generally being a right pain in the ass, is not what one should characterise as good conduct. How about letting the wikidrama subside, stop f'ing around in trying to off content opponents, and everyone gets back to editing? --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

At first I was thinking that the whole Petri's comment was simply an attempt to discredit his long-time content opponent, but what puts it to a different light is "he should make sure his true identity remains secret" - however, Petri Krohn knows the real-life identity of Digwuren and has known it for years. This in effect means "beware, I know who you are and if you don't back down, then...", an obvious attempt to intimidate/threaten, so I am forced to agree that an extended ban is needed. Threats like that have no place in Wikipedia, ever.

Now, as for Russavia's comment above, I think it is worthy a ban of his own. This is pure hate speech, "Estonian nationalist; the worst of the worst not yet permabanned", "other editors are generally acting like teenage girls, and pack dogs", "new laws being introduced in Russia will make people like Digwuren a target", "generally being a right pain in the ass", "rewrite history as is seen every day in the Baltics". I hope that no editor will ever get away with a comments like this anywhere in Wikipedia, especially in Administrator's noticeboard. -- Sander Säde 07:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, that's an interesting diff. Petri tells that Diguwren's name was "listed in the whois data" and that Diguwuren was a former student of the University of Tartu. This is frightening: "keep your name secret to avoid problems with an Agency" and "I know your name". Could be also qualified as WP:Outing? Biophys (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2009 (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.

1 year block for Petri Krohn

Based on the strong concerns and apparent concensus here, I am placing another long-term (but not indefinite) block on User:Petri Krohn. I am placing another 1-year block on him. I was considering an indefinite block, and had this discussion been unanimous, I would have likely done so. However, this sort of behavior--implied or otherwise--is appalling, and he needs to know that's not acceptable. Unlike most of my admin actions, please don't overturn this one without a public consensus, but feel free to overturn if such a thing forms. I'll drop a note on his talk right after this edit. rootology/equality 13:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this block should be logged in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, since this would be in the scope of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions. --Martintg (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest to replace one-year block by one-year topic ban on Eastern Europe subjects, plus civility parole. This user does good work on natural science subjects.Biophys (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Return of Pioneercourthouse vandal

Resolved

 – Everyone blocked and all articles protected. Wknight94 ^talk 16:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The user:Pioneercourthouse vandal is back again. See prior reports:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pioneercourthouse/Archive
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive541#Banned User:Pioneercourthouse resurfaces

The current vandalism appears to be (so far) on

• Pioneer Courthouse Square
• Pioneer Court
• Pioneer Square, Seattle

by the following new socks:

• Felgontroyp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Omarflomar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Ojohnsonbobson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Whichywitch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Eekthecatsa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

An abuse filter had been created at Special:AbuseFilter/175; but the sock has already tweaked their edits to get around it. Requesting admin assistance to review and resolve. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have just asked for page protection, so if someone could take care of it and ban the socks. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Pioneer Square, Seattle and Pioneer Court also need protecting..--Cameron Scott (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

and Pioneer Courthouse‎. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yoza - it's whack-a-sock this afternoon. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

We have a notable vandal that whacks Seattle subjects? Who knew... rootology/equality 17:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

More specifically, any place with the word "Pioneer" in its name. MuZemike 20:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Fake Indef block notice

Resolved

 – Block notice removed and user warned. — Aitias // discussion 19:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ivanhoe610fa (talk · contribs) had just accused me in an edit summary of having a personal vendetta because I removed his links to a radio program whose article had been deleted through AfD, so I went to his talk page to discuss his personal attack and found a fake block notice saying "This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee. See block log." Just ignore it or? Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd give them 24h for disruptive editing, they're just being a bit silly, really. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 19:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Just ignore it, however fwiw, unless you have reason to believe that this is a sockpuppet of User:Mr. Blackout,[24] I think this is probably a request to delete his account[25] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Larsen Sd

Larsen Sd (talk · contribs) - is working on a sandbox of which nothing good is likely to come out. --RCS (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it. Maybe I'm missing something, but their edits seem to be to the main sandbox, which is cleaned any way? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think any admin action is required here. — Aitias // discussion 20:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Say it was just for the record, then. Good night. -RCS (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me at first kind of like a get-ten-edits-to-pass-autoconfirmed thing, but they stopped at 8. Note that the first edit was pure vandalism, reverted by RCS, followed by complaining about censorship. //roux   21:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The Mariah Carey mess

We've got a real problem over on the Mariah Carey articles dealing with dueling sockpuppeteers. Petergriffin9901 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Petergriffin9901/Archive) and JuStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/JuStar/Archive are both blocked (essentially banned) editors that primarily edit Mariah Carey articles. I keep a close eye on all edits related to Mariah Carey albums and all edits related to Mariah Carey songs, and it's a completely unproductive area: Petergriffin9901 and JuStar reverting all changes to their preferred versions, having their socks reverted, reverting each other. We've had JustarR24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was Petergriffin9901 pretending to be JuStar, for reasons that I simply cannot fathom. We've had ChristopherMix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and JornalistaLusitano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who were JuStar socks blocked for being Petergriffin9901 socks. So far as I can tell, there haven't been more than half a dozen productive edits to the entire group of articles in the last two months. There was a brief wave of deciding that Mariah Carey wasn't a pop artist that 93.149.194.206 tried to pull off, but Charmed36 would have none of that, so that pair of edits to each article canceled each other out. Max24 has been fighting hard to clean things up, but the people he has been cleaning up after are Petergriffin9901 and JuStar

What I would like to get consensus for is to take a somewhat drastic action: six week semi protection on every article in the two categories, and full protection on the ones that are hardest hit:

• E=MC² (Mariah Carey album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Music Box (album)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Daydream (Mariah Carey album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Ballads (Mariah Carey album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rainbow (Mariah Carey album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Charmbracelet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

plus semi-protection Circus (Britney Spears album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), because it's a JuStar favorite.

I know this probably seems extreme, but I don't know another solution. Vigilance and reversion isn't working well, and semi-protection of small numbers of articles isn't doing enough. This isn't an earthshakingly important area: if the information that Carey entered some obscure chart has to wait six weeks to be entered, so be it.—Kww(talk) 23:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As an administrator who routinely deals with this ever growing issue, I would support trying semi protection for a period of five to six weeks. Blocking these users socks has little to no effect, and CheckUser has proven to provide little help. These kind of socks are ones that need to be treated with WP:RBI and WP:DENY, something that protection would help accomplish here. Tiptoety ^talk 03:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Some time ago I decided to work on Mariah Carey articles as they were a real mess. I've started fixing links, formats, peak positions, and certifications, according to reliable sources. I don't know now if the previous peaks/certifications were put there by mistake or was it on purpose, but they were completly fake. And when I started fixind them, all my changes got reverted by Petergriffin9901 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and JuStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) socks. Every day comes another sock and reverts the changes. The most vandalised article is Mariah Carey discography, and all her albums articles. I keep on reporting socks on the Administrator intervention against vandalism page, but just when they got blocked, another sock comes out. This doesn't seem to have an end. Max24 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that if these two are determined to fight it out on the pages, then semi-protect is not going to help; they are simply going to age their socks sufficiently to get autoconfirmed and start over. Perhaps full protection with admins editing per consensus on the talkpage? If we make it really hard for them to effect the viewed page then we may discourage them from logging on... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That was pretty much my reason for requesting full protection on the most troublesome articles. I don't think it's necessary for all 30 of them.—Kww(talk) 14:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it time to invoke WP:SILENCE and claim consensus for doing something? We've had no arguments that doing nothing is necessary. I argued for a mix of semi-protection and full-protection. Tiptoety said "semi across the board", and LessHeardvanU proposed full across the board. Shooting the middle, it seems that my initial proposal represents a compromise. Can someone with the bit act?—Kww(talk) 00:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Firsfon has installed full-protection on the worst group, based on this discussion (I'm a bit surprised that he didn't comment here about it). Anyone up for installing the semi-protection on the remaining articles in Category:Mariah Carey albums and Category:Mariah Carey songs?—Kww(talk) 11:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I tried to post a long message here last night, but lost the post when my connection briefly died. I've fully protected the main vandalized pages, and semi-protected the pages that the socks have been active on. I haven't protected any pages where there were seemingly no JuStar or Petergriffin sockpuppets. If the vandalism moves to the remaining unprotected pages, ping my talk page and let me know. I haven't added any of these pages to my watchlist, which is already huge (and I don't want it cluttered with 100 Mariah Carey articles; I hadn't realized she was quite that prolific). If there are complaints about the semi-protections on the talk pages, I won't see them unless you let me know. Hopefully this will encourage the socks to go elsewhere. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like quite a set. Thanks. I hadn't realized she was so prolific until the troubles started, either. I'm quite grateful that links like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Mariah_Carey_albums work, so I'm able to keep an eye on them without adding them to my already massive watchlist. If this doesn't work, the next alternative is to hard-block Florida and Portugal, so let's hope this works.—Kww(talk) 21:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I'd guess the next step, should 1-month semi-protection fail, would be longer full protection, on a greater number of articles. Thanks for keeping a watch on these, Kww. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible violation of a page move restriction

Resolved

 Deferred to WP:AE. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Caused by the restructuring of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests I'm apparently not able to find the original decision of the ArbCom, however the notice on User_talk:Kittybrewster#Notification_of_motion_relating_to_Baronets_naming_dispute implies to me that Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is (still) indefinitely restricted from moving pages related to baronets and thus the move of Sir James Hunter Blair, 8th Baronet [26] came under this restriction. If I'am right with my assumption, please could then someone take a look at this. Thanks

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 00:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Deferred. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days for violating restriction. KnightLago (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Compromised account?

Please see the most recent edits by JordanITP (talk · contribs), requesting that their account be blocked. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is an odd one. Checkuser perhaps? Or watch to see if the oddness recurs. Maybe a dopey friend got a hold of the keyboard for a minute. Wknight94 ^talk 01:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

See the related WQA alert here. I think rather than a compromised account we have a user who is young, somewhat immature and probably needs guidance. He was corrected (somewhat shortly) for correcting grammar of talk page comments, responded with vandalism of the user pages of the person who warned him, and was in turn given a warning regarding vandalism. He seems to then have gone "asking" for a block, which I think is just an immature response to being chastised. His corrections and stated intentions on his user page show he wants to be constructive so, barring further disruption, I think he would benefit from mentorship if anyone is willing. The Seeker 4 Talk 02:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

revert cquote, please

Resolved

 – — details to be looked into. cheers, Jack Merridew 05:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Template talk:Cquote#Tables, CSS... What are we waiting for?

and see the current state of my talk page, which fell apart due to this change. Someone please undo this while things get sorted out. If it's hosing my talk page, there are surely other usages that are affected by whatever the technical issue is. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. The few pages I spot checked were messed up as well. --auburnpilot talk 04:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Terima kasih; as I said on the talk there, I like the general idea, but there are issues. I will take a closer look at the detail. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I had lost my mind. Law _{type! snype?} 05:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:TDTH

I am raising an incident against this user. He/she first of all created a complete fancruft page called Brown Eyes (Lady Gaga Song). Next the user started adding that page and its information to other Lady Gaga related pages like The Fame (album) and Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song). Naturally other editors reverted such changes including me. However this user has since then continuously reverted our changes to introduce his fancruft. Not only that he/she is using a sockpuppet to revert our changes. I went ahead and requested protection for those pages which I was successful. Since then the user used his profile to revert. Then I gave a warning to the user and nominated that fancrufty page for deletion. It was then that the user started abusing me at my talk page. Please admins take a look at this incident and please do something as soon as possible. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now blocked him for a day for repeated harassment after a final warning. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request is up which seems like a personal attack to me (just a guess). Probably justifies a longer block but that is up to teh adminz. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I declined the unblock (obviously). I'm inclined to reblock indef as I can see no useful contributions from the account. Anyone got any reasons why not? ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 12:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

\(^_^)/ ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 12:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Just an idle thought as I read the above talk page: should we compile the article Wikipedia: Most unproductive unblock requests? Or would that violate WP:DENY? (Still, having read some of these unblock requests, I am strongly tempted.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Is Browy (talk · contribs) a block evasion? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The sheer amount of fancruft being heaped on the article indicates to me that a meatpuppet/fanclub operation is focussed on this and other Lady Gaga articles - determining if any are socks also seems a waste of time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Ryulong's repeated foul language.

Resolved

 – Nothing that needs immediate admin intervention. WP:WQA is the place for incivility issues. Regards SoWhy 09:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

User:subash.chandran007 and User:Scenexcore12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diversity

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

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

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

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

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

Pagemove vandal

Resolved

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Not spam!

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continuing series of unconstructive edits

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Nympho wiki

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

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

User:Guido den Broeder

Resolved

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

User:Guido den Broeder has been unbanned by User:Cool Hand Luke nearly a week ago, with a topic ban in place. His edits since then include a first edit denying any problems[29] (also [30]), removing quite normal posts as "personal attacks"[31][32][33], a claim that he won't edit Wikipedia anymore ([34]). He started being disruptive at [Talk:Global cooling]. He has already twice reverted perfectly normal edits as vandalism[35][36]; When called upon this, he removed this per WP:SPADE[37]. Finally, he posted a copyright violation[38], whihc I removed as such.[39]. When I then explained what he had to do to let it stay[40], he replied with the summary "pay attention pls" that since the speech was given in public, it was now in the public domain...[41]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm quite amazed that someone who owns a publishing house, and who plans on discussing policies here, can claim[42] that "It's a speech held this morning in public, so it's in the public domain now." This is a crucial misunderstanding of what public domain is and the Wikipedia:Copyright violations policy. Fram (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What "trouble" have I caused you? The trouble of posting a "welcome" template on the talk page of an administrator[43]? The trouble of posting and reposting a copyright violation because you don't understand public domain and copyright? It's a bit to easy to blame someone else for your own actions... Fram (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Some issues I see:

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

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

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

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

I have no opinion on CFS and whether it is psychosomatic or not. I have not included any CFS or ME related edits in my post here (the copyvio is ME related, but the reason I listed it here has nothing to do with the subject). I have not edited any CFS related articles for content reasons, only for dispute resolution, vandalism reverts, page protection... This is a weak attempt to change the subject of this section. I have made 9 edits to Chronic fatigue syndrome, the first one on October 23 2008[44], one vandalism revert in February[45], two more in February to protect it for three months[46][47], and five more, immediately after the protection expired and the disruption started again, between May 25 2009 and May 27 2009[48][49][50][51][52]. Fram (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I'm not going to spend any more time on these edits to CFS or any other CFS related topic after this post, but the fact that the edit warring by IPs started again the day after the 3-month protection expired indicates that it was not a "ridiculously long period of time". The IP has been reverted by at least eight editors now (me, Verbal, Crohnie, RobinHood70, Arthur Rubin, Flaming Grunt, OrangeMarlin, Gilliam), and has not discussed this on the talk page ever, despite repeated requests (through edit summaries and on his or her talk pages). The last revert to the IP preferred state, after the page was protected, was done by an editor who had never edited any article before this. I have engaged this editor on its talk page[53], only to get this not very promising response[54]. With your "experience as an administrator, bureaucrat, project lead, etc. on various other projects", it seems amazing that you would think that these IPs indicate "several anonymous editors" when, apart from the obvious evidence, you have even participated in a discussion that showed that they were checkusered and indeed were one and the same (Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome#Guido-s Revenge. Considering that this IP used your name to cause disruption (as Guido-s Revenge), and also uses Angela Kennedy's name to do the same (as Destroying Angela), I wonder what you hope to achieve by defending such an editor. Fram (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Could you please stop making things up? You were wrong about the copyright thing (above), about the B-Class vs. C-Class (below), and aboutmy edits on this page and the IP's involved. You have provided splendid evidence of my initial post: you are a complete waste of time in many discussions you are involved in, since you keep on discussing long after the obvious and correct answer has been explained to you. I have reverted one good-faith anon on this page[55], and I have not insulted him or her. I have reverted one IP who replaced the infobox with question marks[56], again without insults. The other ones I reverted are 87.114.4.66 and 87.114.132.57, who fall clearly in the range of the previous disruptive editing by IP 87.112.34.51, IP 87.115.17.124, IP 87.115.17.165, considering that their edits were quasi-identical. So, which good-faith IP editors have I insulted? The others were not occasional vandals who can simply be blocked, they were single-minded IP-hoppers where page protection is the normal solution. All links to see this for yourself were added in my previous post...Fram (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The article is B-Class now, was B-Class in April, March, February, January, ... The article was judged B-Class in December 2007[57], and I can't find any period when it was C-class (I obviously haven't checked all 1000+ edits individually). Fram (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Comment: I've had no involvement with GdB so consider this an outside view. First off I think CHL showed leniency towards GdB (which is a good thing) but I am opposed to any community banned editor being unblocked without being subject to clear terms of probation - they were banned for good reason. We've seen probation work and IMHO this case illustrates why we should implement it in such cases. It is troubling in the extreme to see the above behaviour from GdB in light of their block-log and the reasons for their ban, one would expect an unbanned account to demonstrate improved behaviour rather than demonstrate similar behaviour to that which had them blocked. There is something deeply problematic about an account with GbD's history being mainly interested in "policy development" while having "no intention to edit WP articles at all at this time"[58]. Wikipedia is not a social or political experiment and is not a bureaucracy - it's an encyclopedia and everyone's first priority should be articles.
  In short I suggest one of three options 1) sending this to ArbCom (which in light of the current list of requests will take a long time); 2) imposing a probation (beyond the topic-ban) to be monitored by uninvolved sysops or 3) reinstatement of community ban--Cailil ^talk 14:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. Disclaimer: I've had interactions with GdB for quite some time now, in quite a few places. Based on that previous interaction, I do not hold his ability to work collaboratively and constructively in high regard, and I don't see his recent contributions as very helpful... they tend to be wikilawyering. If he's not here to help build the encyclopedia, option 3 seems the likely eventual outcome, but starting with option 2 seems a good starting point. Perhaps there is a chance of improvement? ++Lar: t/c 16:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I have no objection to probation. Seems like a normal thing in the case of an unban. I've also suggested for someone in good standing to monitor my actions, which should work a lot better than a whole bunch of users on my tail at random intervals. If Lar is willing to take the job, that would be fine with me. After these first few busy days my actions will be fairly limited. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
      • So long as the topic ban remains n place, fine. Verbal chat 17:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure I have the time to take a mentoring role on... the only way I'd do it is if GdB immediately agreed about the definition of scope of the topic ban is what ArbCom members say it is, because I'm not going to argue that point. As usual I'd prefer to partner with someone or better, two someones. But, to be fair to GdB, I'm not sure I'm impartial enough. And that seems like a show stopper, more than any other challenge. ++Lar: t/c 04:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Just on a quick point of clarification what I proposed above is the ArbCom topic ban plus further conditions. If GbD has agreed to probation then these are the conditions that I would suggest: banned from WP:RFA, civility parole and the ArbCom topic ban (that is from Chronic fatigue syndrome & myalgic encephalomyelitis pages and topics to be broadly defined - that is a ban from editing or discussing anything related to CFS and/or ME anywhere on wikipedia) for 1 year from 00:00 (UTC) June 1st 2009. The ArbCom topic-ban and its definition are non-negotiable and I suggest if GbD cannot agree to it then we go back to my third option. Personally I also think we should include something about wikilawyering in the probation too-Cailil ^talk 16:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Guido blocked

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

• *sigh* [59] we might just have to extend that block per WP:NLT or am I being too 'jumpy'--Cailil ^talk 02:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The "legal threat" is borderline. Of much greater concern is his statement I have done nothing wrong, as I have done nothing wrong in the past[60] i.e., he Just Doesn't Get It. Sometimes when you try and reach out to someone it just doesn't work and you have to write them off. This is one of those times. Indef block, put this behind us and move on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Preparing for General Motors bankruptcy

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

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

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

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

Meghna Rajshekhar

Respected Sir/Madam-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shame!

Please, Go ahead and delete that article.

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

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

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

I've closed the AfD and deleted the article. This topic could perhaps be dealt with in 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake some other, wider article, such as about noted survivor stories or cultural aspects of the disaster. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Actually the article Sang Dhesian created by me do not meet any notability criterea. Only contributor is me. I fooled new page patrollers by writing that 'Gurdwara' in that village is one of the most famous Gurdwara in India. You should have deleted that article instead of Meghna Rajshekhar.

But IQ of some admins like you, users is far lower to figure out which article well sourced.

You deleted that article without explaining how those criminals deserve notability criteria.

Now, go ahead, use your racist admin power and block my account. AbhiJeet (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of attacking everyone, why don't you try drafting an article about noted survivors and/or cultural aspects of the Indian Ocean earthquake? I think that could be very helpful to readers. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

About Sang Dhesian, you didn't fool anyone, most human settlements, even wee villages and hamlets, are taken as notable on en.Wikipedia. Thanks for the contribution. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

AFD needs closing

Resolved.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Wisne (2nd nomination)

I'm pretty sure this discussion has gone on long enough. It has been 7-days time from since it was opened, and I am pretty sure consensus there is pretty clear. Would someone mind reviewing the AFD and salting the article, as, this I believe is either the third or second time it has been recreated after failing an AFD.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Kept, under condition that if the COI continues to add unreliable sources or appears to be self-promoting anymore than he is already, that the article be deleted without prejudice. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a keep? Blimey... – ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Last chance keep. If it continues, just notify me and I'll delete/salt. As I said, the ice is very thin on that one. --Xavexgoem (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you concluded that Mr Wisne meets WP:GNG, but if he does then why would you delete and salt the article if the COI continues? He either is or isn't notable, and that shouldn't be dependent on your opinion of his actions. Delete it now and be done with it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Even though I'm trying to assume good faith as much as I can and even saying that the article should be kept, I am not at all impressed by the user's latest contribs while blocked (see Special:Contributions/Andrewwisne). Andrewwisne also comes off his one-week disruption block within the next day. If the user resumes his self-promotion and disruption, I would then consider an indef block. No more Reichstag-climbing. MuZemike 20:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia page move / Arbcom injunction

Resolved

 – Moved back by Resolute. Horologium (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved administrator please undo this pagemove, in accordance with the Arbcom injunction currently in force because of the Macedonia 2 case? Thank you, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Resolute 19:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Should we do a page move protect, to assist in enforcing the Arbcom decisions? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably not necessary unless there are repeated page-moves. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Further punishment for former admins who lost adminship

Resolved

 – Flagellate yourself elsewhere. No admin intervention required. //roux   21:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

De-facto ban review/endorsement for User:PirateSmackK

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was:

1. Indefinite block endorsed per obvious consensus.
2. PirateSmackK (talk · contribs) community-banned: There is a fairly evident consensus for a community ban of User:PirateSmackK. While a considerable amount of participants was of the opinion that this edit by itself does not warrant a community ban, a vast majority agreed that the long history of previous disruption does in fact justify a community ban.

— Aitias // discussion 00:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

---

{{resolved|1=Ban seems to be endorsed, no suitable mentor has come forward to shorten ban. //[[User:Roux|<span style="color:#36454F;font-size:80%;">'''roux'''</span>]] [[User talk:Roux|<span style="border:1px solid #36454F;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;"> </span>]] 19:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)</small>}}

Roux is not an admin and cannot determine such things. Indef discussions take a long time and involve quite a bit. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. The discussion had petered out as usual into low-level sniping. Nothing productive was forthcoming. And are you seriously saying that the only time anyone can judge consensus is after crats push the magic button? Come off it. The closure was good, Durova agreed it was good, there have been precisely zero complaints until you--shockingly--decided it wasn't okay. Sheesh. //roux   23:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Roux, indefs can be overturned by individual admins, and a community ban can only be determined by the community over an extended period of time, which takes multiple days. We have not yet reached that point. Indefs are a major thing and are not to be taken lightly. Regardless of who thinks it may be good, there are community wide standards already in place. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

PirateSmackK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by Toddst1 indefinitely today (log), reason given that PirateSmackK attempted to trick a crat' into granting sysop/admin rights to him. I'm posting it here for the record, so that the community may decide whether to endorse it as a de-facto community ban (as no other admin willing to unblock) or to shorten/review the block. Editors may want to note the previous threads on AN/I about PirateSmackK : [61] [62] - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Strong Oppose - No steward would have been fooled. It would take you to another page that is clearly marked, and if EVula would have approved it he should have his Steward access removed for not reading things first. Furthermore, he probably wouldn't click on that link to give rollbacks regardless. This is an egregious block for something that isn't even an actual violation. There are far too many mobs at ANI indeffing people without a good reason. This is a disturbing trend. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't you mean bureaucrat? EVula isn't a steward. SUL 21:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, that's right, he made CU and not Steward. I couldn't remember which was which. Either way. Stewards and Crats can both equally use the button (and Founders, if we want to add all three). So yeah, even those lowly Crats wouldn't make that mistake. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, bureaucrats do make mistakes when changing user rights. User:Lar, a steward, has made more than one mistake (see [63] [64]) and he hasn't lost his steward access. SUL 22:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  By the way Zaiger, you do know mr.SmackK from here. He's the one who renamed your userpages to "Pedobear"[65], remember? Apparently "per request in email"... Yintaɳ  14:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  "A good editor"? [66],[67],[68],[69],[70],[71],[72]. Give me a break. Yintaɳ  13:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Not from what I've seen. If you don't create content or help preserve content, you should have no business at Wikipedia in any respect. Those that stay at ANI and spend the majority of there time here only cause drama, inflame situations, and destroy this place. Clean them out first before anyone has the right to say that others should go. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse indefblock. We need editors who will build the encyclopedia, and we do not need editors who use it as a playground to prat about in. He has filed an unblock request; on the basis of the obvious consensus here I am going now to decline it. Any admin or above who didagrees, please feel free to revert me. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban as indefblock. My dealings with this editor indicate that he has no desire to do anything but disrupt the encyclopedia. There are no attempts to contribute effectively, no attempts to mend his ways, and as far as I see it, no attempts to conform to the community policies and guidelines. I'm not normally one to muck about in ANI, RfA, Arbcom, or any of the internal workings of Wikipedia, nor am I a person who lightly picks up a torch and joins the raging mod. But I have no hope for this individual as an editor. In fact, I have some suspicions (no evidence, mind you, certainly nothing to take to checkuser) that Pirate is a sock of a banned user trying to be devious for unknown ends. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

has another mentor stepped forward?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per WP:EARTH, mentorship isn't even worth discussing without a willing mentor in place. When and if one steps forward, the decision may be amended. Those who wish to seek an alternative to indeffing could use this opportunity to seek a mentor, or volunteer themselves. Durova^Charge! 18:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I did volunteer my services but would still say that would only be after a month or two block and authoring an article with 5 reliable sources to be readmitted. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your enthusiasm. Considering that your account has been active for less than two months, it is likely that the community would prefer a more experienced mentor for this difficult task. Durova^Charge! 19:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, y'know, he was under mentorship already and kept fucking around. We are way too lenient here. He very obviously wasn't here to be constructive--we're all still waiting to see all the diffs of constructive behaviour from the chorus of opposers above--and it behooves us to stop mollycoddling people who are merely here to game the system. Move to close this entire thing as resolved. //roux   19:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can come to a compromise: if I write one drama-free article with five reliable sources today, if Roux strikes through one colorful Anglo-Saxon epithet that adds nothing useful to our genteel discourse, then we could all shake hands and mark this resolved? Durova^Charge! 19:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Genteel? Apparently we see different versions of Wikipedia. I choose my language extremely carefully to ensure I get across the precise meaning I intend. The consensus is for PSK to remain banned, nobody is interested in being a mentor, there's nothing more to do here as far as I can tell. //roux   19:50, 1 June 2009 (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.

Admin needs to gain consensus first before considering to unblock

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's worth pointing out the blocking admin doesn't have an issue with the unblock: [73] --M^ask? 04:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Wikihounding has continued

The IP has contradicted his previous edit by commenting at the Jimmy Wales talk page about another page I edited and has continued the co-founder debate again by claiming I changed something to "misquote the associated press". The IP is testing the patience of admins to see if it is okay to hound me on one or two pages. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things - the ip is correct in that the Talk:Jimmy Wales page relates to a mainspace BLP article and is therefore not an appropriate venue for discussing policy matters unrelated to improving the article (and, if memory serves, the article notes Jimmy as co-Founder per the sources cited) and you do not appear to have edited Mark Taylor. Many Wikipedians consider Jimbo as co-Founder of Wikipedia, many Wikipedian - including Jimmy - consider him the sole founder, and some just go with what the sources say. While the ip would be best served by not interacting with you directly, there appears to be little wrong in what they are doing and again I find considerable confusion and misunderstanding on your part on how this project works. I seriously suggest that you step back from your dispute with the ip, and I will be recommending the ip does the same with you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You claim the IP editor is correct and therefore not an appropriate venue for discussing policy matters unrelated to improving the BLP article but the IP was also discussing another page at the Jimmy Wales talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with LHVU, and further please try to assume good faith QuackGuru - this is not wikihounding. Please follow WP:DR and disengage--Cailil ^talk 21:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop claiming it is not wikihounding. The IP editor intentially reverted my edits numerous times but when other editors made the same edit the IP editor did not revert.

I have edited the Mark Taylor and it is cyber stalking. QuackGuru (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

QG, you made the same disputed edit to another article. This is not cyberstalking or wikistalking it's the same dispute. Take the advice QG and disengage for a while from making these edits--Cailil ^talk 02:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Chopper2cube: Suspicious behavior

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would just like to point out that when someone trolls like this and targets an editor as this one did me and others, it would be appreciated if those responding wouldn't further their goals by repeating their claims. I have no idea who this editors is or why they included me in their statements. If someone wants to suggest I have some connection with them, please present evidence. Otherwise I would appreciate being left out of it as I can assure everyone concerned I have absolutely nothing to do with this individual and it seems likely they are attempting to disparage me at a time when I am party to an Arbcom proceeding addressing the gross incivility, violations of NPOV, harassment, refactoring, and other policy violations that have been carried out across our Obama articles. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It was an obvious troll and likely an impostor, for which the proper solution is to turn them in to WP:AIV and get them dispatched ASAP. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Chopper2cube and User:HannaGetmix followup

Resolved

 – Chopper2cube remains blocked indef. HanaGetmix similarly blocked by another administrator. IP short blocked for Personal Attack.--VS ^talk 02:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This user made this edit to my talk page; this being its first edit. I have not received any email yet. Quite suspicious in my opinion. -download ׀ sign! 22:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've turned the second one in to AIV, as I did the first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, that was "almost too quickly". Are you sure you aren't creating socks like HannaGetmix just so they can accuse you of... wait, that doesn't make any sense. My head hurts! ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you take for a haddock? Sometimes I take an aspirin, sometimes I take a calamel. I'd walk a mile for a calamel. Yesterday was a happy accident of good timing, when I happened to see chopper2cube, either on here or on a user talk page, I forget which now, and I turned him in. As always, it's up to the admins reviewing AIV to determine whether to block or not. P.S. Tonight's sock also now indef'd. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Are these related to your "fan" (the "I, Bugs, have resigned"-guy), or just random stalkers? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

1) Chopper2cube = (Chopper) + (2 to the 3rd power) = (Axe man) + (8)

2) HANNAGETMIX rearranges to AXEMANNATE

Remove attack post by 68.244.252.222--VS ^talk 02:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I found those 2 vandals. Make of that what you will. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is the above statement 68.244.252.222's only edit? This is all extremely suspicious. -download ׀ sign! 01:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Short block given to IP (likely sock) who placed personal attack at this thread.--VS ^talk 02:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It could be useful in linking with the other Axmann8 impostors, if anyone cares to look into that. It might finally give us the link back to the original puppetmaster, which is probably someone from January or so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

DougsTech

Unresolved

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

Resolved

 – Doug has been blocked, had his user page deleted, and his talk page is now blanked. Drama over. Killiondude (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Ambos Nogales

The article creator has ownership problems. [74] When I removed a completely unrelated picture [75] the editor accused me of vandalism [76] [77] and falsely claimed I had given no reason for my edit when I had done so in my edit summary [78] and on the article talk page. [79] I would strongly appreciate some additional eyes on the article and someone attempting to explain things to this editor since they clearly are not listening to me. Edward321 (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thank you for the additional information you have provided. When I came upon the article, the single in-line source was a web page that did not exist. I removed no cited info, in fact I added notations asking for citations to be provided. The article author removed all tags in response. The article creator later added an image that they claimed was of US militia who fought in the battle, but following the image link showed that the picture not of who, where, or when the article creator said it was. I found a weblink to the source you mention [80] and found it disagreed with the article in several points, which I corrected, and did not support others, such as the casualty rates, so I added citation tags - which the article creator removed without adding sources. I did not remove all mention of alleged German involvement, if you read "my" version of the article [81] you would see them mentioned several times. Further, I have not edited the article since I asked for help here. Since then the article creator has removed tags asking for citations, again without adding sources. Their claim that Germans were present and fought on the Mexican side is based on a single source. I’ve found another source [82] which does not accept this claim as a certainty, other Gbooks hits don’t have a preview or don’t preview the appropriate pages. Edward321 (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats on Irfan Yusuf

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

I would suggest you contact Irfan Yusuf directly. Wikipedia is being used to defame him, and he is filing court proceedings in this matter. Would you like his contact details? [83]

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

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

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

There does seem to be an ongoing attempt to defame Irfan Yusuf by a single editor on the article page in violation of our BLP guidelines. It's been discussed extensively on the talk page by myself and other editors. Attention to the BLP issues, rather than just blocking the author and/ or his surrogates would, I think, be a good thing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have just removed a series of 3 edits amounting to a personal attack from this editor's talk page and re-blocked to disallow self-editing.--VS ^talk 05:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Gwen Gale is a partial admin when it comes to this. She had unblocked User:Collect [84]. Collect has 106 (as of 20:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)) edits on User talk:Gwen Gale [85]. Gwen Gale had also closed my previous AN/I thread about Collect [86], I reverted that [87] and that thread got many more answers. [88]

I also reverted her RFC closure but she reverted back [89], despite new input from a new user [90] [91]

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry? What yuks were we making? To me, "partial" meant only having some of the rights. The idea of partial vs. impartial didn't occur to me. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why the term "involved" is used rather than "partial", which is an ambiguous term. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid I vastly misread the tone and direction of this conversation. My apologies to the editors here for my total (not just partial) lack of manners. Flowanda | Talk 22:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the unblock, the closing of an Incident, and the closing of an RFC may demonstrate a pattern of partiality, or may be simply taking an avid interest. But even if we leave a question of cronyism aside, GG's revert of a revert then remains as a needless act of edit-warring out of admin ego. (Full disclosure: GG once absurdly blocked me for "disruption along with some likelihood of block evasion by, or proxy editing for" a different editor.) 86.44.18.14 (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Shnitzled

See this Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deudonic War. There are strong indications that Shnitzled created a hoax article. Now, in the deletion debate he is personally attacking me [92],[93].

There also seems to be a secondary account of this user involved in the deletion debate. UNIU is also attacking me [94] and supports Shnitzled in the debate. Looking at the history of UNIU shows almost no contributions, and all are in connection with Shnitzled. Both users seem to be identical.

Furthermore, Shnitzled also vandalized my user pages [95] and [96], although he reverted it quickly. Stepopen (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems that he is now stalking me [97]. Stepopen (talk) 06:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Get off it, Supporting a delete nomination is not stalking, just like you did to me...I honestly have no idea who UNIU is, this debate has happened before and the last person to make that very same statement wound up blocked...Those weren't personal attacks, I was being honest with you, life is beter when people are honest. Shnitzled (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Now using his IP address to vandalize my user page [98] and to attack me again [99]. Stepopen (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can prove that IP is mine, then I'd leave those accusations right there. Shnitzled (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah right, this IP is someone else. Stepopen (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hardblocked the IP address. Nakon 07:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Also blocked Shnitzled for harassment. Nakon 07:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And more incivil comments on his talk page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone else explain this besides venting? MuZemike 07:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nakon. Maybe someone should also look into UNIU, who does not seem to be legimate given the edit history which blatantly overlaps with Shnitzled's edit history. I am also wondering what will happen to the hoax article, I frankly do not see that someone who creates hoax article should be allowed on this project. Stepopen (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I blocked him as a likely sockpuppet of Schnitzeld. Same edits; account dormant since February, only to come back to make a personal attack on the AfD. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Outside opinion requested

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with Jennavecia and SarekOfVulcan.  Sandstein  21:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yes, regardless of the genocide, coupled with the fact that Stalin numbers make Hitler look like a rookie, let's celebrate the fact that some Nazi Political Party members may have been killed. Neither dictator has any redeeming qualities. None. Law _{type! snype?} 18:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that Uncle Joe was on a par with Hitler, then you need a T34 rolled over your head - Hitler advocated the systematic murder/enslavement of all Slavs (including Poles), as well as Jews, Communists, other "political enemies", and killed almost as many Russian non-combatants as did Stalin in his purges and economic failures. If Stalin was a blood thirsty tyrant (and he was) he was at least an equal opportunity murderer and if you played by his rules you had a chance of advancement through the system; with National Socialism if you were not part of the Master Race then you were either "ubermensch" with a future of slavery or you were removed from the human gene pool. Why do you think Roosevelt and Churchill were able to make Stalin an ally? Because, terrible though he was, he was not the monster that Hitler and his ilk were - and Nazism was a far greater threat to world peace than Communism. Do not patronise me with your prattle regarding the modern revisionist view of Stalin - if not for him there may not be an Eastern Europe that appears so keen to disassociate with their recent history... or at least one with no Slavs. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that this is not the appropriate forum for comparing the relative merits of various tyrants? That line of discussion is unlikely to resolve the user conduct problem presented here.  Sandstein  21:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I logged off and did something else after that little outburst; an action which was prompted by a few opposes in my recent RecFA. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

As an aside, I try not to attach too much importance either way to phrases such as LOL. It could mean "do not take this remark seriously / please laugh with me" or "I do not take X seriously / I laugh at X". SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to note, in reply to Duchamps_comb's post, that no number of guidelines quoted to me will prevent me from removing such statements in the future, nor blocking for repeated offenses from the same user. لennavecia 17:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to Duchamps_comb: WP:IAR "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Wikipedia was improved when Jennavecia removed the disgusting personal attack. So quoting other policies doesn't matter. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, لennavecia try to quit playing God [100] and aspiring to be Captain Omnipotent [101].

DGAFThis user can't be arsed, and hopes some day you will join them.

--Duchamps_comb MFA 19:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And there we have it. Could someone with the right buttons disinvite Duchamps_comb from future posting? Kthx. //roux   19:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There we have what? I was not being uncivil or calling names merely commenting on behavior; stating that I do not care. The way I see it Jennavecia has repeatedly tried to bait me into posting in anger and letting me know/trying to put me in my place or I will be blocked or banned (possibly by her). It goes both ways.--Duchamps_comb MFA 19:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I must disagree: whether or not you were engaging in incivility or making personal attacks is something for others to decide. However, I do agree that "it goes both ways". If I see any post that looks like an attempt to bait another user, I'll consider a block. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Telling someone to "quit playing god" or aspiring to be omnipotent is incivil. If you don't care, then don't respond. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips all on being civil. I'll try to keep my ego and my comments to myself. However I do not like how WP allows users to be: curt, snide, condescending, or to use double entendre in a negative way (and still be civil). It seems to breed users that can be covert, passive-aggressive, or just down right pricks/douchs gaming the system. I think users forget to talk to one another; usually it is just at each other (I think). --Duchamps_comb MFA 01:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes and editors have many and sundry takes on what's civil and what's not. We do what we can, the easiest way to skirt these worries throughout a disagreement is, don't comment on the editor, talk only about content and sources. Even mildly snarky remarks online will almost always be taken about three times stronger than how you meant them and brew more kerfluffle, not less. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat.

An IP has expressed the desire to take legal action concerning "wikipedia not allowing free speech." Until It Sleeps 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)X4 Editor has been notified. Until It Sleeps 16:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Saw that just now. It was explained to the IP that it was legal as only the goverment can't supress freedom of speech. YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 16:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on the IP's talk page. I don't think there's much to worry about unless the IP keeps on about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Diffs are helpfull when reporting here, has tha tperson retracted their threat? If not that should be a block uintil they do. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[102] is the original threat, and he has not retracted it as of yet. Until It Sleeps 16:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) 'ere you go! I don't think (speaking as a non-admin) a block is necessary; I suspect the IP just needed to have a few things explained. I'd agree, though, that if the threat was repeated then they should be blocked until it's retracted. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked him to retract it. Strongly suggested to be precise. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Very likely related to 70.20.235.191 (talk · contribs) and 70.20.242.16 (talk · contribs). Not sure if there was an earlier version prior to yesterday or not. --Onorem♠Dil 16:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I can feel my good faith slowly oozing away. "BLOCK ME..... I DARE YA I can just restart my rotur and start again! I WILL SUE" Sometimes I honestly think the best thing is to gently steer the free-speech trolls towards the most expensive lawyer they can find. It won't help with the spelling, but at least they'll learn a wee bit about the US constitution and legal framework. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazing how often people confuse the right to free speech with the right to use someone else's servers and website as a megaphone. I assume it's just a failure of the educational system. MastCell ^Talk 16:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe his bluff has been called. Blocked for 31 hours by J.delanoy. lifebaka++ 16:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The WHOIS reports that all of these IP's are from the exact same location, and their editing patters are very similar. Both 70.20.235.191 and 70.20.242.16 edit Alexius08's talk page, and 70.20.242.16 and 72.81.31.44 edit J.delanoy's talk page, with the former stating that he can simply restart his router and come right back... Until It Sleeps 17:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess a range-block might be possible here, but what might be worth considering is creating an abuse filter for the phrase "i will sue". Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe it would be more appropriate to create a request down here. Until It Sleeps 17:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I already rangeblocked one of his nodes, but as he appears to have stopped (?), I don't see the point of more blocks. It is very obvious, at least to me, that this person does not really intend to pursue legal action here, and even if he did, there is no court in the world that would hear his case. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Another IP has made some similar statements [103][104]. And another has reverted my deletion of the statements [105] Is it the same person, or is this unrelated? Dawn Bard (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

sorry for inadvertently removing your comment, Dawn //roux   19:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

<---(undent) 72.81.41.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made 6 edits in the past few minutes, restoring the legal threat (or, actually, saying that they have already sued) here, at J.delanoy's talk page and at my talk page. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• With an amazing sense of timing, I created this abuse filter request at exactly the same time that the free speech troll posted this on my talk page. Damn troll must have reset its rutar [sic] again... Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No court would hear a case of Wikipedia denying freedom of speech. It is safe to completely ignore such legal threats. Kingturtle (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The "we'll look into it" thing sounds a lot like what I used to tell the nice people who would call the paper to be sure we knew about the government/alien/Masonic/church/funny cow conspiracy and encourage us to put their information on the front page. "Thanks for letting us know. We'll look into it." *click* Tony Fox (arf!) 21:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• And another IP - 72.81.34.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - making the same edits[106], [107], [108], and more. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone considered going to WP:ABUSE on this range so this can be reported to the ISP? They're all Geolocating to the Delaware Valley by Philadelphia, obviously all under Verizon. MuZemike 20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Let the legal threat stand. Why exactly waste your time on this?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, has anyone told the IP in no uncertain terms that Wikipedia is not Congress? Maybe reduce their ignorance on the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and calm him down at the same time. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 22:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Has no one understood that the free speech and legal threat stuff here is a Macguffin for this troll. He's just interested in taking up as much of our time as possible and has found a way to keep us chasing him around Wikipedia. Don't reason with him. Don't explain anything to him. He isn't really interested in free speech. He just wants to fuck with us. Revert...Block...Ignore him. Set up the range blocks and the abuse filter, and move on. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Just egging everyone on. Like an Egg Macguffin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarek slaps Bugs with a large WP:Trout for thinking of that line first.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

At least the uranium ore filled wine bottles in Hitch's Notorious had corks. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and disruption on passive smoking: request outside administrative eyes

Can I ask for some outside admin attention to Passive smoking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? A single-purpose agenda account, SonofFeanor (talk · contribs), has been active there. Having become engaged in an edit war, two new obvious sockpuppets have shown up to support SonofFeanor:

• Pcpoliceman (talk · contribs)
• NappyJohnson (talk · contribs)

Together, these socks have violated 3RR; additionally, SonofFeanor has been canvassing other agenda accounts to help him edit-war. I brought this here, rather than to WP:SPI, because I think these are obvious, disruptive socks and do not require a drawn-out process (for example, one of the socks, Pcpoliceman, has edited our article on Fëanor - not exactly subtle).

There are also some conflict-of-interest issues with the SonofFeanor/sock accounts, but I think those are secondary to the sockpuppetry, edit-warring, and canvassing. Anyhow, I'm involved at the page and would like to request review from an outside admin or two. MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Just in case there was any doubt, SonofFeanor will "not say that I am not in contact with PCPoliceman or NappyJohnson". So let's call it disruptive (and admitted) meatpuppetry, but I'd still like an end to the madness. MastCell ^Talk 17:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of PcPoliceman and NappyJohnson and have spoken with them. We agree on this issue. We are not the same person. One is in Chicago and I am not sure about the other, but I doubt he is in Philly. We have each come to our conclusions freely. There should be no reason that we cannot each edit the article. Dessources and Yillowslime obviously are of like minds and between them have reverted the article many times in a short period. I do not accuse ttme of "sock-puppetry." I have not "canvassed" accounts but did send a message to Chido asking if he would like to get involved as well. Many editors have mentioned that it seems we are opposed by a group that is acting in concert against all changes to this article. I was hoping we could also work together. I don't see anything wrong with this. If my reverts (which are very minor and well-reasoned) are going to be struck than so too should the instantaneous reverts of Dessources and Yilloslime, which many times come without even an explanation.SonofFeanor (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing looks kinda' silly to me. I'm asking them to stop on the article's talk page, and I'll keep an eye on it in case they don't. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I agree with MastCell that the new accounts seem somewhat... Fishy, to say the least. SonofFeanor, if you are indeed in contact with these accounts (which seems highly unlikely, as neither you nor either of them have the email option enabled, et cetera), I urge you to explain to them how this appears. It'd be a shame to block potentially constructive editors, eh? Cheers, man. lifebaka++ 18:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what is a sockpuppet and why do you think I am one? I know SonofFeanor from discussions about Tolkien on IRC, and yes he did introduce me to this debate when we were talking wikipedia. So? Am I not allowed to edit?Pcpoliceman (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read the page on it here. As it is now, you do look suspicious. But, as long as you are not in fact a sock- or meat-puppet of SonofFeanor, you shouldn't have anything to worry about. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, this is the textbook definition of meatpuppetry: recruiting an editor to Wikipedia specifically to take one's side in an edit-war. MastCell ^Talk 06:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Pcpoliceman said above: "I know SonofFeanor from discussions about Tolkien on IRC, and yes he did introduce me to this debate when we were talking wikipedia." As both Pcpoliceman and SonofFeanor are pseudonyms with no other identifying information, how is it feasible technically for them to meet on IRC? This puzzle me. Does IRC offer a space where anonymous users can share information and decide on editing strategies in a way which is completely hidden from the rest of the Wiki community? I'd be grateful if some one could explain this to me. --86.197.108.243 (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read our article on IRC. It's a completely separate communications system from Wikipedia; it's more like an instant messaging chat room. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI User:DAFMM

Just coming across a set of unusual edits from this editor, see difs: where he made an article an A-class, claiming to be Review Department coordinator of Wikiproject Aviation and campaign to put periods on non-sentence form captions. Can an editor please check some of the dubious claims made?

He's a rather eccentric editor in some senses. His grasp of policy is somewhat...limited, and occasionally he sets off making edits that he thinks are in line with the MOS, but in some cases are directly against it (undoing redlinks to 'tidy up' pages was another). He also seems to dislike it when talkpages don't exist for articles, so he edits something in and then immediately deletes it, as here for example. He has a sockpuppet called User:HandyTips (and had one called User:UniversityofOxford until that was pointed out to him as probably being a bad idea) that suggests he hasn't grasped the use of socks, or subpages, or the utility of wiki's own help pages. He also makes a lot of small edits to articles, to link and unlink terms, make small stylistic or punctuation changes. But I think he acts in good faith most of the time. In this instance I think he recently joined WP:AVIATION, saw a request to review Boeing 777 and did so, not realising that there was a process to go through, not realising that that signing in some sort of semi official capacity was a bad idea, etc. I don't think any administrator action is needed, perhaps just some firm and maybe intensive mentoring. Benea (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree and that is why I brought the issue here and thought that rather than an admin, maybe an experienced editor would be the best person to sort out some of the odd submissions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

I think a couple of users now have started to pick up on his activities. As you're a member of WP:AVIATION perhaps you could help him through how to review things properly (and why perhaps its best not to try to claim specific status in a wikiproject), or give him pointers as to areas he could help out in? I'll keep an eye on the contributions too, but I think he's genuinely keen to learn, even if you do have to reinforce the points sometimes. Maybe we could suggest to him that he consider Wikipedia:Mentorship, and direct him to try Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area if he feels so inclined. Benea (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think DAFMM would certainly benefit from wiki-adoption or something similar. You can see from my talk page and his talk page history (he usually deletes comments from his talk page) I have had some interaction with DAFMM, usually concerning minor MOS issues with his edits. He gets a little bit defensive and it often takes several messages to get my point across but I believe his edits are made in good faith and he is keen to help improve wikipedia. He just needs to start making use of wikipedia's help pages and take on board the advice given to him by other editors. BarretBonden (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting block of User:Mita8 for persistent addition of copyright material

Resolved

 – Blocked 1 week. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Mita8 has been repeatedly pasting copyright text verbatim to the Ricardo Bofill article (diffs: [109], [110], [111], [112], [113]) despite repeated warnings. The user has also now twice created the Walden 7 article (speedy deleted on both occasions) which was a copyvio copy/paste job related to Ricardo Bofill. --DAJF (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Block may be reduced without consulting me first.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User:My grandpa used to drive an '88 6000

User:My grandpa used to drive an '88 6000 has shown up, and has a very similar name to User:My sister drives a '98 Sunfire who is a sockpuppet of User:My grandma used to drive a '65 Catalina, and vandalized the same article (Pontiac) as 98 Sunfire did. And performed the same sort of edit, an open letter to Obama.

70.29.208.129 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Report from ThuranX re: Joker "threat" emails

[114]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey, Slavs

Will someone please have a look at the Hey, Slavs article and do something about the chaos? I don't care if everyone including me gets blocked, I'm so sick to my stomach of this petty issue I'd block myself just to have an excuse to get out of this. Pardon the outburst and regards, --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who has a position on this article may add their name and describe what concerns you at Talk:Hey, Slavs#Informal Mediation, where User:Dottydotdot has offered to help mediate the open issues. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I... I'm not going to get blocked...? blast! :) Well then the article at least needs protection tout de suite, the edit-warring shall certainly recommence this evening (within four hours, CET). As it does every evening like clockwork. My primary goal with this report was to essentially prevent that. (Do not get me wrong, mediation is also very appreciated.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

k, thanks a lot. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Repeated deletions of my content without explanation or communication

Resolved

 – Not appropriate for ANI Toddst1 (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

On the page "United States Ambassador to the Holy See," two users have repeatedly deleted my original content without adding anything constructive, indicating their grievance about the material, or communicating with me. The contributors are ADM and PassionoftheDamon. They keep reinstating various versions of the original article, which is itself erroneous. The current version states, "In 2009, the seat of ambassador had remained vacant for several months because of alleged tensions between the Vatican and the White House over the issues of abortion and marriage.[3] Three candidates were mentioned, including Caroline Kennedy and Douglas Kmiec, but they were ultimately not selected because of disagreement on these matters.[4][5][6]" This version does not state who the third person is, and the supposition that they were not selected because of disagreement on abortion and marriage has been repudiated by the Vatican in a reference they have repeated deleted.

I would like to request that these kinds of destructive edits be blocked.

With my thanks, Patrick Whelan MD Patrick Whelan MD (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You might've tried talking to these users first, which it appears you haven't done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; please discuss on article talk page and/or with the other users first. I don't see any need for admins to get involved here yet. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Krishna Vyas AfD page vandalism

User:Oa012585956 has removed two delete votes from the AfD page. This user and User:Phsozzyosborne appear to be acting in tandem, neither of them with any significant edits outside of this topic. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting secondary admin review, indef block

• Blackknight12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am reviewing the contributions of this user for copyright infringement, as he made his second appearance at WP:CP yesterday, with text added months after he was given notice of our policies and a block advisory. (Also worthy of note, he removed the copyvio template blanking pasted text here without comment on May 31]. I blocked him for 72 hours to drive these policies home, but my subsequent investigations are showing that he has a history of this, before and after that advisory, from sources as diverse as the Sri Lankan Ministry of Defence (which does not allow modification) and CD baby. So far, I have identified 10 articles into which he has introduced copyright infringement (again, before and after that advisory), including reintroducing part of the copyright infringement for which he was warned in March of this year within days of receiving that warning. He is a native speaker of English and so has no reason not to understand our policy or that caution. Given his reintroduction of some of the same text into that article and his removal of the copyvio template, I do not believe we have reason to trust him to continue to edit with policy. Accordingly, I have blocked him indefinitely pending some plausible showing that he understands and intends to comply with WP:C. I don't believe this is excessive, given the seriousness and severity of copyright concerns.

Since some of his edits (including adding tables and templates) seem constructive, I am requesting additional review.

And while I'm here, please weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_violations#Policy on massive infringers: cleanup and Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations/Archive_1#Policy on massive infringers: rehabilitation if you have interest in helping to clarify policy for such situations. Help much appreciated. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And oops on the inadvertent page transclusion. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not half embarrassing, is it? :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

At first I thought you might be trying to be showing something untowards about all those userboxen but... nah! : D Gwen Gale (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Whether it's willful or just blockheadedness, we need to prevent that particular form of damage until we can engage the editor in meaningful conversation about it. I wouldn't unblock until they display understanding of our copyright policies and willingness to abide by them. --Laser brain (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, and indefinite blocks last for precisely as long as there is potential for disruption = endorse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. :) I appreciate the feedback. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Persistent disruption by Mr Taz

Resolved

 – blocked for 3 days

Mr Taz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is persistently adding nonsense to the Foundation Day page. Mr Taz believes there are real days called Foundation Day (Great Britain) and Foundation Day (United Kingdom), and has three times created these as redirects to British Day (while there is a proposal to have a "British Day" on May 1, it is one of many proposed dates and there are no sources calling this proposed day "Foundation Day"). After the second time I nominated them for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 8, and they were deleted. When he created the redirects again following their second deletion, they were deleted for a third time and protected from being created again. Today he has again added the links to the disambiguation page, for the fifth time overall. And now, to get round the protection of the previous two deleted redirects he has created them at Foundation Day (GB) and Foundation Day (UK). I feel that his persistent disruptive violations of Wikipedia is not for things made up one day require administrator intervention. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him to alert him to his erroneous ways since he obviously wasn't heeding the intent or context of the warnings decorating his talk page. —EncMstr (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Mr. xaradnaM

Just wanted to report that this SPA created yet another in a long string of articles about an imaginary television programme -- something to do with Martinez and Caldwell. Since I've seen at least three of these go by in the last month, all from different user names, I blocked the user immediately; I know this must be a part of some sockpuppet investigation even though I can't find out exactly where. I'm also very inexperienced in the ways of sockpuppet investigation. Any information or direction that anyone cares to provide would be most welcome. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Jean Girard, as I believe this is the ongoing and long-term investigation. I'd like to be as helpful and useful as possible; if I've neglected to do something of which I'm unaware, I'd appreciate hearing about it. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That avalanche of article clones was slowed considerably when some of the anonIPs listed at the checkuser and sockpuppet pages were blocked last year. All but perhaps one of the blocks on the anons have expired since then, which may be why the frequency spiked again. — Athaenara ✉ 22:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Issue with user escallating - requesting review of the situation

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked. MuZemike 23:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Late last week, MikeyCMS (talk · contribs) created the M3 Rock Festival, which instead of going through db-g11 was submitted to an AfD.

Since then, the user repeatedly attempted to remove the AfD tag from the article. Then yesterday, he did a NPA violation against the one of the commentors on the AfD [115]. When I warned him about NPA, he has now done another towards me [116] and released a bit of a rant on the AfD page as well [117].

As his anger is directed at me for the moment, I would rather someone else (non-involved party) take a look to see if they can either get him to relax a bit, or if necessary perhaps an admin could temporarilly block him to encourage him to release his frustrations elsewhere for a while. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

With this edit, I'd say a block is in order. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 23:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and blocked indefinitely. Childish personal attacks from a single purpose account here solely to promote a music festival that happened two days ago doesn't do us any good. --Leivick (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Tryde

To Whom It May Concern: Recently User:Tryde has been reverting (see [118]) numerous pages related to the British nobility from individual pages to generic family name genealogy pages (see [119]) with no notification to last editors. I would very much like to know under whose authorization this user is entitled to do this.

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

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

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

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

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

Auto-notability here is easy to define. If they had a seat in the Lords, then as representatives of their country they are notable, some Irish peers didn't so that is negociable Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Should I not be given notice that my edits are discussed here? Tryde (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• comment some of these redirects involve baronets, about whom there is a general view that they are not necessarily notable; some involve earls, where the consensus is probably otherwise. The test of pointy editing is it being indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

User S._M._Sullivan making a number of suspicious edits to Scientology articles

S._M._Sullivan (talk · contribs) has started nominating Scientology related articles for AFD and raising notabilty issues over clearly notable articles concerning Scientology. I find this highly suspect considering recent events. Ridernyc (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering the recent Arb Case, I also agree this is suspect and a strong warning should be issued (or even a block, the case was quite hard on this behaviour) to curb this. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• On first glance it doesn't look like he has had a chance to respond to the concerns on his talk page. Looks like he's been editing a couple years, and I see prod with discussion, another discussion for a nominated article, a notability tag with discussion, and even some support for a scientology article. I am just an amateur myself but it doesn't look like anything intentionally wrong here. What ArbCom case? 'ZabMilenko 10:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't find it strange that he is editing only articles about people who have negative views on Scientology and this behavior started a few days after the CoS was banned for making these type of COI edits. Ridernyc (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, after reading the arbcom case I feel even less qualified to answer that than before. That was deep. 'ZabMilenko 11:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The relevant remedy is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas. From my quick analysis they have a very high percentage of Scientology edits and the unrelated edits are not consequential. I think this warrants a much closer inspection, but would like to ensure that the user is given an opportunity to comment. I will alert the committee to this thread. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There's also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Review of articles urged and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Editors instructed. We'll see. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for his comment here. -- FayssalF

- ^{Wiki me up®} 11:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It is worth bearing in mind that many Scientology articles are among our most abysmal and there's nothing inherently POV about nominating them for deletion. This editor's comments on the Talk:L. Ron Hubbard article are reasonable and well argued. I have frequently been surprised by the depth of cover we have given (sometimes based on distinctly dodgy sources) to relatively obscure people on the fringes of the topic and a good shake up of them would do the encyclopedia no harm. 86.149.58.114 (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to direct the single edit IP to my case evidence which demonstrated that the topic of Scientology has nearly four times the rate of good articles and featured articles as the military history project. WP:MILHIST is one of this website's most respected Wikiprojects. This comment posted by one of only two female recipients of the MILHIST project's highest service award; I do not edit the topic of Scientology. Durova^Charge! 20:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My take on this matter is that anyone working on Scientology articles ought to take regular breaks from them, preferably after a day -- unless one is involved in an ongoing conversation. If you're not a Scientologist, you'll need the break; & if you are a Scientologist, then you shouldn't be editting only Scientology articles. -- llywrch (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The pattern of contributions of this account is curious. The editor was inactive for over a year, from 2 October 2007 to 3 November 2008, prior to which he was heavily focused on Scientology-related articles. From 3 November 2008 to 23 November 2008 the editor made some edits to a number of archaeology-related articles, then went back to a long period of inactivity. He's been active again since 23 April 2009, intermittently during May and heavily since 31 May, as before focusing almost entirely on Scientology-related articles. This period of activity began shortly before the recent flurry of media coverage, so evidently wasn't simply in response to that. I'm not sure what to make of it all, to be honest. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If someone is suspicious of me or my edits, shouldn't they make it known what they suspect? Am I suspected of being a single purpose account? Looking over my contributions would disabuse you of that idea. Most of my articles have been brief biographies written to assist the bio project. I left after an edit war with people who are now inactive. Finding out that they were inactive, I returned. Now I'm working on the notability project.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Your prior interest in Scientology is a point of concern with the recently decided arbitration committee case, yes.

We have a legitimate suspicion that the people behind that problem may return with new accounts, reactivate old sleeper accounts, and so forth.

If you were to stick to non-scientology related articles it would avoid any need for concern.

If you plan to continue editing those articles, at this point in time, you need to be aware of the heightened scrutiny being applied to editors focusing on that area. We might have to ask you to provide proof of identity in private to the Arbitration Committee to confirm that you're not one of the individuals in real life who were subject to the editing restrictions.

This is not particular to you - I believe at this point, any new or returning activity focused in that area will be subject to heightened scrutiny and possibly requests to identify people.

If you are not associated with Scientology or any of the other named parties in the arbitration committee case, I apologize for the extra attention here. But I think we owe you an honest answer - yes, due to the timing it's suspicious, and inconvenient. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Georgewilliamherbert, I am willing to provide proof of my identity to the Arbitration Committee should they request it.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 06:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Userpage strangeness - this is making my head hurt...

Could someone please take a look at the contribs (deleted or otherwise) of the following users (who appear be the same person) and give their opinion on what exactly is going on here?

• Alex Curran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alex Curran Discography (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alex Curran (Singer) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sugababes_(Girl_Group) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Sugababes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Atomic Kitten: The Hits Tour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Atomic Kitten (Girl Group) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It would seem that someone really wants to get their name into WP or perhaps onto the first page of Google hits - by copying WP articles to userspace and replacing the names of various pop singers with 'Alex Curran'. Whether it's some kind of roleplaying game, or an attempt at self-promotion, I honestly have no idea. I notice that User:Sugababes_(Girl_Group) has already been blocked as a username vio and I'm tempted to block the rest and speedy all their contribs myself. Thought I'd bring it here for input first to avoid making a mess on the carpet. Any suggestions as to how to proceed here? None of these accounts appear to have any contribs outside of userspace. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• (non admin response) - I would recommend a checkuser to make sure that all are the same user, if they are a final warning that they need to edit something other than userspace...that Wikipedia isn't MySpace or Facebook. If they don't get it, blocks for all. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kurt. All of them could probably be blocked as impersonator accounts. I can't quite work out the motivation for this, though I would propose that Alex Curran is not the name of the individual behind the account, but a reference to Steven Gerrard's wife, Alex Curran (though why she is deemed notable enough to have her own article, God only knows). I'd say go ahead with your suggestion. Rockpocket 01:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've found several more accounts in the same vein with interconnecting edits (see deleted contribs). Curiouser and curiouser. I think that a checkuser may be warranted here, just to see how deep this particular rabbit hole goes. I don't doubt that there's more.

• Thankful (Album) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jason James Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sony Music Entertainment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• V Festival (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

<- I was going to list additional accounts I'd found so far (via CU).. but the list got too long.. they've been at this for quite some time. I'm going to start blocking in bulk for abusing multiple accounts, if someone has time - pls check my blocks and clean up the debris as needed. --Versageek 01:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually thinking about it a little more, I bet they are probably good faith attempts by an editor to create an article of the same title of the account (see for example, Atomic Kitten: The Hits Tour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). The copying of WP articles to userspace was probably just a way of getting a template for the structure of the article (copying the Beyonce article across as a template for the Alex Curran article, for example). However most of them do not appear to have got past the swapping of name in the opening sentence. All their attempts currently have articles anyway, with the exception of Atomic Kitten: The Hits Tour, and I don't really think that is sufficiently notable. I would still recommend blocking the accounts per WP:USERNAME, as creating a new account for each article title is not to be encouraged. But I don't think there is really any malice in this and its pretty obvious from contribs that they are likely the same person. Rockpocket 02:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

All the accounts I listed have been blocked as either username vios or for abusing multiple accounts, per Versageek's comment... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Man, you weren't kidding! --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• I listed all of them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jason James Scott so we have a record of them. I blocked them all with a message which suggest that the person stick with a single account, although I suspect they've been given this advice in the past (see comments in the archived SPI report). Some of these accounts were editing today, so apparently they didn't pay attention.. --Versageek 02:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• I've deleted the one(!) page that Kurt Shaped Box apparently missed. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

User:FresherFreshStart

Resolved

 – VOA, indeffed.

This appears odd... anyone know if this is just in bad taste, or a real issue? (It appears to be from IRC.) --'Ckatz^chat_spy 03:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

the rest of the users edits besides that one do not hold out much hope for his becoming a positive contributor to the 'pedia. If I were a betting man, I'd say the over/under on his being indef blocked could be measured in hours, if not minutes. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please proceed to the window and collect your prize. (Indef-blocked as a vandalism-only account.) I had a feeling it would go this way, but I brought it here because of the WoW/IRC reference. --'Ckatz^chat_spy 04:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Class project/meat puppetry/something big on serial killer

Resolved

 – I think we have this sorted out now. DreamGuy (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am bringing this here as I'm not exactly sure where to discuss a concern like this. Recently the serial killer article has undergone many drastic and extensive changes by a whole slew of brand new user accounts. The kinds of changes aren't typically changes in punctuation or adding of a see also or so forth that is typical of new users but adding huge sections of new material without discussion. The first example I ran into had obvious WP:OR problems (speculating at the reasons for the alleged differences between U.S. and French serial killers), and when it was clear the account was going to edit war to put it back I filed a WP:3O, an either through that on his/her own another editor came along and agreed and removed it again. Since then, which was not even two days ago, 13 different new user accounts jumped on the article (and occasionally a related article) and made extensive additions that were clearly written up beforehand and just waiting to be added. Some of these may be acceptable edits with some clean up, lots of them simply are not (one of the new sections was largely sourced to an online senior thesis paper by some student, for example). The actions of the accounts and wording of the edit comments at first made me think maybe this was a series of sockpuppets, but now I think it's some group of students somewhere. Some of these accounts were active for one or two edits a months back, and in one a person mentions "Cut words - class project don't be mad I am sorry :(".

I've left notices on the user talk pages asking for clarifications, but the ones I left yesterday have not been responded to yet even though some of them have continued to edit. I also left information about our WP:BRD cycle to hopefully get them talking on the talk page.

While certainly we should encourage new users, and some of these edits will be quite valuable once they are discussed and tweaked (while others will simply not be acceptable), I am concerned about the implications for being able to check new content and dealing with WP:CONSENSUS issues when masses of new accounts make such drastic changes all at once, seemingly as part of some organized outside project. Overall there's some great potential here, but some small scale edit warring already started, and I don't want people to think they can just take over and make changes as some fait accompli without discussion on Wikipedia instead of just offsite somewhere.

Surely something like this has happened before and people have suggestions on how to handle this -- or if this somehow hasn't yet we should probably devise some sort of standard response.

Suggestions? Anyone else want to wade in? DreamGuy (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• (Non-admin) I can't see any that have edited since your warning, to be honest, though that's not really the point - just a small crumb of comfort...! They all seem to have edited in early April (typically one or two edits) and then again between 31 May and today (twice as many edits, roughly). I'd tend to go with the "class project" idea at this stage, at least until anything untoward happens. With that in mind, I do remember similar cases before - but on a larger scale, where it was possible - eventually! - to contact the teacher responsible. I'm not sure that that will necessarily be possible this time, since there seem to be very few edits from each user, but that may change - it's possible that we'll see another flurry of edits from these users in another couple of months?

  Anyway, at this stage I'd continue to welcome/warn the editors. Personally, I'll watchlist serial killer - shout if I can do any more.

  Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:School and university projects is the place to go, for both instructions and coördination with other editors. Uncle G (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This was posted at the talk page [120] Thanks, I too was concerned by the new attentions that DreamGuy mentions. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I also got a comment on my talk page about it. I've pointed the professor to the link Uncle G provided above and will see what we can do to take advantage of the good aspects of having new blood on these articles while minimizing any potential downsides. DreamGuy (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry to attain consensus

Resolved

 – Saviour09 blocked for 24 hours by Redvers

I have a feeling that this IP and this new user are sockpuppets of each other and maybe of User:Rub rb. My suspicions were triggered since all of them started writing at the same time at the Talk:Lady Gaga discography page regarding a matter of consensus and started reverting the article regarding some change which involved removing a country's chart being a minor market. Please administraters have a look. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP blatantly posted on my talk page when warnings were given regarding WP:NPA. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

 Deferred sockpuppet investigations -- Luk ^talk 11:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP and its sockpuppet are now resorting to vandalism on the page even when being reverted by an admin. Please help. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

And is now continuing vandalising other pages like The Cherrytree Sessions (Lady Gaga EP). --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP is blocked for 3RR and SoWhy has protected the disco. Law _{type! snype?} 12:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but the IPs sock is continuing the vandalism in the above mentioned article. Its clearly a sock. Please look into it. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Proof of sockpuppetry. The user is removing content from the above article even though a consensus had been reached before regarding this. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I donot want to revert anymore for fear of 3RR but this is getting out of hand. Clearly a consensus has been reached at User talk:Kww regarding the changes this user is making but isn't any admin going to take notice? How long will this vandalism continue? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I took it to WP:AIV. An admin will take care of it shortly. MS (Talk|Contributions) 13:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

POV tag and editing on Ruhollah Khomeini

User:Mitso Bel has been undertaking quite a few POV edits lately, including page moves and mergers where there has been no consensus, and which indicate his POV (see History of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran and Stop Child Executions Campaign). Recently on Ruhollah Khomeini, User:Mitso Bel has been putting a POV tag at the top of the article because in the lead section it states that Khomeini was Time Person of the Year in 1979, and it lists why they chose him; it is not particularly flattering. Mitso thinks Time magazine is inherently POV, since it is American, and America's government did not get along with Khomeini's. He originally put the POV tag on May 19, and then did not return until today, griping the tag was removed while the discussion was still "open". A small edit war over the tag and the reasons has ensued between he and I. Could we get a few more eyes/voices on this "American media is inherently POV against Iran" issue? -->David Shankbone 17:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

He is also removing the reliably-sourced information, and inserting his own from an unreliable source. -->David Shankbone 17:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It is helpful to have admins involved in this story. The User is choosing one sentence from one paragraph in Times magazine and another book and is trying to give the impression to the reader that this is the reason behind the title "the man of the year". The User as well deleted my sourced information. For further discussion, please see the articles talkpage. The User also refused to discuss the issue in the talkpage and instead kept deleting my pov tag. Mitso Bel (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Docu and AFD closes against consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Docu (talk · contribs) is now restricted from closing deletion debates, which are related to the topic “x and y relations”. — Aitias // discussion 18:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

---

User:Docu, a long-time admin, has now twiced close AFD's of the x-y relations megillah variety, against what appears to have been clear consensus. The first time was a few weeks ago, in which he elevated 1 keep argument against 5 arguments for delete to keep yielding this rather solid trout-slapping of a DRV for his action [121]. Today he closed another in this category as "no consensus" (though his edit to the talk page in question says "the outcome of the discussion was keep [122]) despite 8 arguments in favor of deletion and 3 in favor of keeping (one a "weak keep" though i've never understood either the force of "weak/strong keep" or "weak/strong delete"). I've opened a DRV on the close here [123]. All well and good. However, a reasonable presumption would have been after the last DRV that he would either avoid closing in this area entirely, or be careful about abiding by clear consensus if he did close. In this case, he just flaunted consensus. As an editor in good standing i'm expected to abide by community outcomes when i personally disagree with them and I try to. Docu, in my opinion, has now twice simply substituted his own judgement over the will of the community's because of his opinions on the matter. The admin intervention i'm seeking is to either get a consensus to tell User:Docu to leave AFD's alone, or strong reminders about what it means to abide by consensus, with an understanding that if he flaunts consensus again community action will be taken. He appears unable at this point to divorce his opinions from his duties as an admin in this area. To allow an admin to run roughshod over a community process like this (and it would be just as bad if an admin ignored consensus to come down on the side I favor) reduces faith in the AFD process.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with this assessment by Bali ultimate (talk · contribs). User:Docu should refrain in the future from closing AfDs of the x-y relations nature. Cirt (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• If AfDs are indeed note votes and we went by strength of arguments, I could not imagine any neutral, objective admin closing as anything other than "no consensus" in this case. In addition to the sources found during the discussion, I even found and added at least one afterwards. The two countries do indeed have bilateral relations and to suggest that agreements and contacts between countries with millions of inhabitants whose relationships affect a number of these inhabitants' jobs and well-being is "non notable" is absurd. The three keeps address specific aspects of the article and specific sources. While a couple deletes do so as well, a number of deletes falsely claims "no" reliable sources exist, which is just not true. So, using administrator's discretion, any reasonable admin would be able to read that discussion and determine that the three keeps (also the only participant in the discussion who actively improved the article in any manner was one who said to keep) carried more weight. Given the numbers, I can see a "no consensus," but given an objective read of the validity of the comments, it would not have been deleted. If Docu does have a strong opinion on this subject, then he might consider recusing himself from closing them to avoid any controversy, but that aside, his close was correct at least. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Docu (talk · contribs) is most certainly not a neutral, previously uninvolved admin on these particular x-y relations articles, and should not close AfDs related to them. Cirt (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't be churlish, cirt. I can't imagine any neutral, unbiased admin disagreeing with me either. In fact, all the admins that agree with me are even more handsome and humble than i am. Those that disgree with me are ugly, twisted trolls. Poor dears. This line of reasoning is the one thing nobody and i have in common.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC) (bali ultimate in his preceeding comment was using irony to point out the absurdity of "clearly unbiased, neutral admins agree with my view" in the preceeding comment, which was not directed at cirt, who has in fact been far from churlish here.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

You misinterpret what I have said. Administrators should not close AfDs on topics where they have a vested interest and regularly particiate/advocate for a certain POV, which Docu (talk · contribs) does often on this topic. Cirt (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Has any other admins who closed these discussions also commented in them as well? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

They should not be closing them if they have. Cirt (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to list all of these to see? On a side note, something should be done about disruptive renominations of ones that were kept only a month or so ago. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I strongly support Bali ultimate and Cirt on this one. It should be noted that following this deletion review, Docu not so subtly tried to restore the article, circumventing DRV, AFD and not actually consistent with WP:DAB. see [124]. This is echoed by [125] and [126] and [127]. Docu's behaviour in closing bilateral articles is unacceptable and should be left to the many other admins who are already closing this. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - given this recent AN thread, where several users suggested Docu recuse himself from closing such debates in the future, and given that he lacks the confidence of a number of editors in his ability to act impartially when making such closes, it seems high time for Docu to formally cease doing so. We want to be able to trust administrators' impartiality, and that is not possible in this case. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed and seconded. seicer | talk | contribs 02:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed I think it would solve the problem if this admin voluntarily stopped closing AfD's, at least on this "x and y relations" topic. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

• • Can somebody do a count of this admin's closings on the subject, in comparison to those of other admins who close on this general subject? I do not support non-neutral closing, but I wonder just who is neutral. DGG (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

the only AfDs I've ever seen Docu close in the past month or so is bilateral articles... this is unlike other admins in AfDs who close a large variety of AfD topic areas. specifically closing 1 topic (and no others) always as keep is not neutral. LibStar (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree with this comment by LibStar (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Have any other admins who have closed any bilateral relations AfDs typically "voted" to keep or delete in them and have closed ones as such as well? We need to be sure we are not targetting Docu unfairly here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

More or less been done here [128] with this thread as your update. There is no admin who has been this out of step with what's going on in the actual AFDs.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's go through User:Pixelface/AFDs bilateral relations to see if there has been other potentially biased closes. My take is that 1) those with bias should recuse themselves, but 2) even if Docu did not close it, other reasonable admins could/would have closed as "no consensus" as well as one has already said, i.e. the close itself was correct, although I agree that unbiased editors should not close AfDs (after all, you don't see me closing AfDs!). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing this situation and the relevent AFDs, I would completely agree that Docu should not be closing these AFDs. He does not give the appearance of an uninvolved administrator; that he selectively and only closes the x-y relations types, and only closes them as keep, seems a particularly troubling pattern. Its like he's decided these should all be kept, consensus be damned. Certainly, I may have also closed some of these as keep as well, or possibly no consensus, but the compelling issue here seems to be the pattern of behavior. I would hope that reading this discussion, he would recuse himself from this issue in the future, as it does not reflect well on him in particular, nor on admins in general, to have one behave in this way. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed Docu should not be closing these. There is no room for the appearance of bias in the closing of AFDs. Edison (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Consensus seems to be that Docu is no longer permitted to close these AFDs. Could an admin please notify Docu of the restriction and wrap this up? //roux   18:00, 3 June 2009 (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.

User:Bert Schlossberg

I tagged KAL 007: How it went astray until attack as a copyright violation of this. Bert has since pointed out that he is the author of that article, and has claimed to be the author of this book. There are a few potential WP:OR and WP:COI issues that need to be addressed, among others, and I was hoping someone a bit more experienced in this area could lend a hand. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Assuming the user Schlossberg's claim is true (and how could we tell if it were so?) and if he posts his own writing here, then he is relinquishing his own copyright on it, I would think - he is making it public domain. Why would an author do that to his own book? Sounds fishy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

GFDL/CC-BY-SA 3 is not the same thing as the public domain, Bugs. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the correct procedure to get this material included in the encyclopedia would be for Bert Schlossberg to prove his identity to OTRS. Since it seems to be completely unsuitable in the first place, the question doesn't even arise. It's often easier to get rid of such obviously inappropriate texts by proving they are copyright violations than by arguing with the editor who added them, but as we have no reason to suppose he is lying about his identity that doesn't seem to be the case here. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to see what he has to say about relinquishing his copyright. That consequence might not have occurred to him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the answer [129] and he says he "wants to bring this matter to a greater number of people". That is not an appropriate use of wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that User:Bert Schlossberg also created KAL 007: The Search in International Waters. I haven't evaluated it for copyvio, but it does read like an essay full of original research. These articles deal with issues covered mainly at Korean Air Lines Flight 007. User:Bert Schlossberg has been politely cautioned about WP:COI by others. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 16:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Administrator Abuse (Impartial Help Needed)

Resolved

 – Issue appears to be sorted. >David Shankbone 20:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm writing to file a complaint that the Administrator known as Ckatz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is violating their status as Administrator on Wikipedia. On repeated occassions, I have edited an entry on the Knight Rider 2008 TV Series page where other users keep posting that the Knight Rider TV series has been canceled. IN an effort to clarify this problem, I have edited the entry on numerous occasions to reflect that NBC/UNiversal has yet to release a press statement indicating that the series has been canceled. In effect it has not. Because I had been doing these edits without logging in, Ckatz had blocked my IP Address from editing the page and he's been the one who has been placing this incorrect information into the Knight Rider 2008 TV Series page/entry. He keeps posting links to websites that report 'rumors' and 'speculation' and even the Moderators have informed me, on the discussion page for the Knight Rider 2008 TV series page that they can't catch everything and they've actually edited the page a few times. The incorrect information involves this: 'On December 3, 2008, NBC reduced its season order to 17 episodes. The series finale aired on March 4, 2009. On May 19, 2009, NBC announced that they would not renew Knight Rider for a second season. I had replaced the incorrect text with this: On December 3, 2008, NBC reduced its season order to 17 episodes. The season finale aired on March 4, 2009. It hasn't been decided what Universal plans on doing with the series. To date, no official press release has been issued regarding the show from NBC Universal. However, the Knight Rider page still contains false and rumored information and Ckatz has personally targeted my edits for this page because of this. I have posted in the discussion page that someone needs to provide a link to any press release from Universal that lists the show as being canceled and, to date, nobody has posted one. Posting links to Entertainment websites aren't official as they don't speak for the studio and none of these sites even posts anything referencing that NBC has officially canceled. They're just reporting that, since it doesn't appear on the broadcast schedule for Fall (September schedule) that the show has been canceled. This merely means that the show is on Hiatus. Studios do this quite frequently. Especially if a new show doesn't do too well and they end up bringing the show back as a mid-season replacement. Even NBC/Universal's packaging for the Knight Rider 2008 TV Series Season 1 DVD release announces the set as "Season 1" and not as a "complete series." When a studio has canceled a TV series, they will release the DVD set that is printed on the cover of the DVD packaging as "the complete series." When NBC canceled Surface, they released the DVD set as "The Complete Series" indicating the series had been canceled. With Knight Rider, NBC has not canceled it otherwise the DVD packaging would read "the complete series" and not "Season 1." (See Links Below) Knight Rider DVD Packaging: http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Knight-Rider-Box-Art/11919 Surface DVD Packaging: http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Surface/5855 Since both sets had the same type of release schedule after the season of each show ended, it just shows that NBC still has hopes for the Knight Rider series as seeing that they are retooling the second season of the series with the return od David Hasselhoff, who appeared in the original series as Michael Knight, the main character. I would like the abuse of this page to stop and for someone to inform Ckatz of his personal vendetta against my edits of this page.Wolfe426 (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Entertainment Weekly - which is considered a reliable source for such matters says it's officially cancelled. I see nothing to discuss. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) further - it seems the article already has 4 reliable sources about this matter. we don't actually require an official statement from NBC - those work fine. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I'd say Wolfe426 is likely 68.41.246.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) posting from another account since their IP is blocked. Syrthiss (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC) (ec)Even NBC/Universal's packaging for the Knight Rider 2008 TV Series Season 1 DVD release announces the set as "Season 1" and not as a "complete series." - that would be what we call original research - looking at a primary source, comparing it with another primary source and asking our readers to come to the same conclusion you have, Wolfe426. We don't do that. ➲ redvers throwing my arms around Paris 13:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I wasn't replying from a new account. I was just correcting the information that is inaccurate. Wikipedia is supposed to be about factual infomration and not rumors or speculation.Wolfe426 (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Also, I would like to add that it was my attempt to post correct information. Isn't that what Wikipedia is about? Instead, links are posted that rouse rumors of the show's cancelation and I thought that wasn't allowed?Wolfe426 (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) The sources used in the article are what we consider "reliable" - if they say it's cancelled, then that's good enough for us. We don't actually need NBC to confirm it (and in many cases, the TV companies never release such statements, shows just disappear). --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Excuse my instance on this, Cameron, but if that's the case, then Wikipedia is nothing more than "rumors and speculation." And studios always release infomration or press statements saying that a show has been canceled. IN any event, UNiversal's own packaging for the Knight Rider upcoming DVD release indicates that the series isn't canceled.Wolfe426 (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC) This is why I don't take Wikipedia seriously and why I've banned members of my own website community from posting links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia.org isn't interested in providing factual information about something and insists on referencing speculation about a subject.Wolfe426 (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Well if you don't take wikipedia seriously, there is no big lose for you. Goodbye. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Actually, you're wrong. Why nobody trusts Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC) That wasn't my point. I just think that Wikipedia should make th effort to make that information is as factual as it can be. Ckatz abused his right to the page since the issue had already been resolved by a Moderator, determined that the series had not been officially canceled. If users make the attempt to make sure that the information posted is factual then why highlight the fact that Wikipedia doesn't make the effort to make sure that Wikipedia entries are correct? Cameron, you said it yourself that Wikipedia doesn't need confirmation. The whole point of Wikipedia is to ensure that information is as factual as it can be. This isn't served when users and administrators continue to post misleading and incorrect information.Wolfe426 (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC) It is factual the statement uses multiple reliable sources. As others have stated move on already. Ridernyc (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) We have multiple rulings from ArbCom regarding administrators using their powers in content disputes. There has been recent discussion regarding the status of this series at Talk:Knight Rider (2008 TV series). Yes, the IP in question has been involved. Ckatz has been active on the article since April 4, 2009, editing more than a dozen times. He's also been directly involved in the content dispute, but has so far refused to engage in discussion on the talk page. Despite this, Ckatz blocked the IP. ArbCom has made past decisions regarding the use of administrator privileges in content disputes. Quoting from Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Past_decisions#Administrators, "(administrator) abilities must ... never be used to "win" a content dispute." Further, Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used notes "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute". Ckatz made a serious error in judgment in using his admin privileges. The IP that was blocked may have been on the wrong side of the content dispute, but that did not give Ckatz leave to act as he did. Ckatz has been an administrator for more than a year. He clearly erred, and he should have known better. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC) That's all I'm saying, Hammersoft. Instead of making a reference that while "many websites report the show as being canceled" that maybe an indicator such as "neither the NBC nor Universal have verified the cancellation of the show" in addition to the other information posted about the show. Wolfe426 (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC) In a casual review of Ckatz's blocking history, it appears this may not be an isolated case, but that he has at least on a few other occasions used his blocking privileges in content disputes. An RfC regarding Ckatz's conduct may be in order to help clarify to him that this behavior is unacceptable. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I'm hoping that some of the other Administrators or High-Level Management can review this issue with Ckatz. While I realize that there may have better ways to go about it, which I have tried a few, Ckatz could have gone about a better way instead of just telling me "to stop editing the page." That's the only message he sent me and it wasn't a polite message. If he had bothered to read the discussion page, he would have realized what the issue was about instead of abusing that right. Considering that he's an Administrator of Wikipedia, he should be setting the example instead of just issuing directives or abusing his authority. Ckatz obviously made it personal because there was very little communication except for one message telling me to stop editing. He just didn't act like an Admin.Wolfe426 (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC) People are edit warring over this? Here's the full NBC fall lineup. No "Knight Rider". The Hollywood Reporter in 2008: "The revival of "Knight Rider" on Sunday night should gladden the hearts of viewers, at least those employed by Ford. For the rest of us, the two-hour film -- really, an elaborate commercial around which bits of story are sprinkled -- was an exercise in prolonged car sickness." With reviews like that, the industry usually prefers to let the show disappear quietly. A press release isn't necessary. --John Nagle (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC) The issue isn't whether the series has been canceled. The issue is that an administrator used their admin privs in a content dispute. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Hammersoft, I've replied in greater detail below. However, I would say that it is grossly unfair to make such sweeping (and serious) allegations without a) having the courtesy to ask me about it; and b) without providing any proof to support your accusation. If you can justify your claims, please do, so that I can fairly defend myself here. Otherwise, I suffer the distinct disadvantage of being publicly accused without proof or detail of the supposed "crime". I'll stand behind any actions I take on Wikipedia, and furthermore I will take full responsibility for them. I do, however, expect the discussion to be fair and open. --'Ckatzchatspy 21:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC) John, that's only speculation and not verifiable by the studio. Also, it seems that Ckatz has gotten really personal about it on my IP talk page. Here's what he said: If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read our guide to appealing blocks first and use the {{unblock}} template again. Abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected. I appealed my IP block one time and he's already warning me against abuse of the unblock? I can see where if I had filed unblock request after unblock request but he warns me after one request? Somebody really needs to reprimand him. He's gotten personal over this.Wolfe426 (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Slow down Wolfe426. I don't see the diffs you claim Ckatz made. I see a warning template [130] and later a block template [131]. What are we missing here? Diffs please. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) The unblock language is standard template stuff, he didn't write it. The cancellation news is unlikely to be only speculation, Wolfe426, I think you should think about going with consensus here (do what you please on your own website, since you brought that up). There does seem to be a worry about Ckatz's use of the admin bit in a content dispute, but let's give him a chance to say something about it himself before taking this further. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I have no problem with abiding by whatever an impartial Admin determines but I do believe there is a problem that needs to be addressed. My main contention is that the edits I committed to the page were accurate regarding the Knight Rider series and I end up getting my IP Address banned from editing with no warnings whatever and without the Admin involved looking at what had transpired in the discussion page. If Ckatz wants to keep it in that the series has been canceled, then, at least, include some kind of notation that the infomration has not been verified by the studio producing the series. Is that so much to ask? As far as the warning goes, there was no reason for Ckatz to post that since this was the first time I filed the unblock request. It was a deliberate attempt to intimdate me from filing further unblock requests. This is noit how a Wikipedia Admin should be acting. If I had filed multiple requests, I could see the reason for the warning, but he made this an issue.Wolfe426 (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I can find no evidence that Ckatz warned you not to make further unblock requests. Would you please provide a diff showing this? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC) The only worry I see here is that an admin may have been using the admin bit in a content dispute. Again, let's please wait to hear from Ckatz now. So far as the content goes, there is nothing untowards about saying the studio has not announced any cancellation, but only if you can find a reliable source to confirm this. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC) That's attempting to prove a negative. Rather hard to do. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Truth be told, it's not proving anything, it's citing a wholly verifiable assertion ("the studio has not announced X."). If the assertion goes into the text without a citation, it can be removed as original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC) If an announcement has not been made by NBC how do you cite something that doesn't exist? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC) How do we know NBC hasn't made an announcement? en.wikipedia is not truth, but uncited assertions can be removed. I mean, I know you know about all this, I'm only sayin'. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Put it this way: Writer for Variety calls someone she knows at NBC, asks if they've made a cancellation announcement, confirms they have not, publishes a blurb, blurb is cited on en.Wikipedia, no more WP:OR. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Hammersoft, regarding the warning, you can find it here on my IP Talk Page: [132] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfe426 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC) That's a standard footer for that unblock declined template, which was placed by another administrator, not Ckatz. –xenotalk 18:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Concur with Xeno. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Yep. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC) As an impartial observer (I have not worked on the page in question), it seems to me that the only issue for discussion in this topic is: Did the admin violate the rules governing the use of admin tools? Other admins should be able to determine that by looking at the admin's editorial involvement on the page and how the admin used the tools. The particulars of the content disute, other than the admin's editorial involvement if any, should have nothing to do with deciding whether admin tools were used improperly. As to the content dispute (which, as I say, is not the issue to be decided here), it as obvious that the full situation could be concisely described in the article without saying flat out that the series was or wasn't cancelled; NBC's press releases page would be a WP:RS for the fact, if it is a fact, that NBC did not announce cancellation. For example: According to so and so it was cancelled. The show is not in the lineup for the fall 2009 season. However, NBC has not announced cancellation of the series.[Citation to NBC press release page, if it shows that there was no cancellation announcement] Finell (Talk) 19:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC) There are so many reliable sources that say this series has been canceled, that I agree - the only question is the admin's actions. We shouldn't be wording our articles based upon the hopes of forlorn fans that their show might, possibly, still magically appear in the schedule. -->David Shankbone 19:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks, Finell, that's all I'm asking for. Wikipedia, at least, should be able to identify in an article or entry, that if a series is affected in some way, to have it included in the entry that something is official and unofficial. While, in this case, many sources suggest that the series has been canceled, that it should also be noted that the studio hasn't officially canceled the series. Ckatz edits for that page suggests that it has been officially canceled. My dispute isn't with the edits but how Ckatz acted. I'll concur with Gwen on the issue on the Admin abuse situation, but I think it's unfair for Ckatz to edit out remarks to the page that NBC hasn't officially canceled the series. Finell's posted remarks about what to add to that page would be sufficient but I know if I were to add that in that Ckatz would simply remove it.Wolfe426 (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I'm not saying that we should word the articles to satisfy fans of the show but we should make every attempt to make sure that the entries are as accurate as possible and not misleading.Wolfe426 (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Your premise only works if NBC announces any cancellations. Can you produce a press release by NBC for any series you know is canceled? When I looked at their press releases I saw nothing but the announced schedule. They don't appear to make those kinds of announcements, so WP:RS kicks in, and here, multiple RS are stating its canceled. So, Ckatz appears correct in the issue of the content dispute, and what is being decided is whether he was correct in his use of admin tools. The series is canceled. -->David Shankbone 19:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC) David's wording isn't the same as mine, but I'd say we agree. Perhaps another way to put this, Wolfe426, is that uncited assertions can be removed in good faith by any editor (lacking pointyness), even if they're followed by a {{fact}} tag. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I do understand the reasoning behind that Gwen. At the same time, is there any harm is posting for that entry that the cancelation hasn't been confirmed? All I'm saying is that, even if NBC doesn't issue a press release or a statement, that there should be an indicator that because the show hasn't appeared on the Fall/September listings that it doesn't mean that the show has been canceled. NBC had announced earlier this year that they were retooling the show's second season to resemble that of the original series and that David Hasselhoff would be appearing in the second season. According to their own website, to NBC's own website, as of four weeks ago, NBC has not canceled the show: [133]. The user, cotton777 posted that the studio had not canceled the show yet. This can be taken as meaning that the show is just on a temporary hiatus.Wolfe426 (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC) While the topic may be innocuous, your hope might fall under WP:FRINGE. How long are we supposed to keep it uncertain, when certainty in the sources we rely upon (we are only good as our sources) abounds? Why should Wikipedia be the hold-out? How much time do we wait before we decide, 'Okay, it's been canceled' since they don't formerly announce cancellations? Regardless, your turning the thread into a content issue and not an admin issue. Please try to stick to the discussion about the improper use of admin tools, which is the only thing this board will deal with here. This isn't a place for content disputes to be decided. -->David Shankbone 20:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Users posting to comments sections on entertainment websites are not reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Comment A fun thing to wake up to, indeed. I'm really irked by some of Hammersoft's unfounded and unvalidated allegations, so I'm going to take a short break to cool down before fully responding, if that is OK. However, I do want to post a few quick points in regards to this so that the discussion can continue: The notice I left on the talk page is the standard block notice; it wasn't in response to the IP, but just part of the standard notification process. The IP posted their comment before I did, hence their confusion. The IP (one and the same as "Wolf426 based on contributions) has been disrupting the page for some time, as seen through their edit history. He/she has acted as a single-purpose editor who has repeatedly reverted several editors (not just me) to retain their POV, removing referenced material in the process. This is not a content dispute, it is disruptive editing bordering on vandalism. It's hardly "personally targeting" the IP if he/she is the only person making the disruptive edits. As an aside, I'd also point out that this sort of behaviour is not isolated; it is very common, following the demise of a series, for devoted SPA fans to refuse to accept the end. I can point out numerous other articles where this has occurred, especially in sci-fi related topics. Statements like what the IP posted on their talk page ("I will continue editing out 'rumors' about the series being cancelled." and "I'll keep editing the same remarks") clearly indicate their attitude towards this matter and the idea of consensus. As far as the alleged "admin" factor, I'm not aware of when we redefined "being part of a content dispute" to mean "reverting the deletion of cited material by an SPA IP". Have I edited this article in the past? Yes, along with thousands of others. Was I an "active editor" on this page? Well, let's look at the actual edits: removing spammed links (as part of a wider series of edits on multiple articles); correcting tense-related errors (as I do on dozens of series articles, especially with regards to the "is"/"was" problem); removing minor vandalism (since it was on my watchlist, along with 6 000 other pages); and dealing with a repeated series of POV reverts and changes by a single-purpose IP. If that makes me an "active editor", then we have a real problem in that most of Wikipedia's admins will have to recuse themselves from any of the articles they actually monitor. As an addition to the above, please note that the first time I reverted the IP's edit was on May 22nd, his/her first edit to the article, which involved removing properly cited material. Finally, I'm really bothered by Hammersoft's statements (about content disputes and supposed "abuse" of the bit), especially without citing actual events. I can understand checking edits to see that all is OK, but making broad statements without even the courtesy of discussing it with me first is very annoying. I'll elaborate more about this later, but I really take issue with unfounded accusations about supposed misuse of the bit. (Sorry if I sound frustrated, but I've had enough of this sort of behaviour from a supposed "senior" editor in the MoS dates dispute who has repeatedly made accusations against fellow editors that fall completely flat when one actually looks at the facts.) Hopefully, this helps with your discussion. I'll keep reading here, and will pop back in later to elaborate further (and hopefully address any concerns that may still exist.) Cheers. --'Ckatzchatspy 21:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I figured this was the case. I don't see any abuse of admin tools here. Ckatz's reasoning for reverting continually replicated edits by an SPA, albeit one who sounds reasonable, is standard. I see little merit in Wolfe426's reasoning for removal of the text to judge that both sides are equal; the show is canceled. Wolfe426 simply wants NBC to say it plainly, and they don't appear to do that for any of their canceled shows. EntertainmentWeekly doesn't pull their stories out of thin air, and Wikipedia is little more than a parrot, per WP:RS and WP:OR. We say what the reliable publications that cover those topics say. It's not a gray area, Wolfe's arguments sound like WP:FRINGE to me, and Ckatz was justified. If Wolfe had an RS stating the show was on hiatus, or something besides just hope, it might be a different story. -->David Shankbone 21:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Having read Wolfe426's input on this topic at length, I don't see any admin abuse here. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC) There's nothing stating either way that the show was canceled or put on hiatus. Even Michael Ausiello, writer for EntertainmentWeekly has retraced his remarks on shows because he was wrong in what he reported. I'm not saying either way where the show has gone but it's not too much to identify the information as reliable. Not even EW has posted anything that the series had been canceled. They simply put it on their so-called list simply because the show didn't show up on the Fall schedule.Wolfe426 (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC) It's not too much to ask that a comment or remark be posted to the page indicating that the information about the future of the show hasn't been acknowledged. If it had been canceled, NBC/Universal would have posted it to their site in the 'news' section. Websites aren't what I would call verifiable sources. 100 different websites could post tomorrow that 'this television series' or 'that television series' has been canceled and report it as official but if the studio doesn't acknowledge it, it doesn't make it any less true. What's the harm is indicating what Hammersoft posted? Just because the EW website posted something doesn't mean they never get their information wrong. It's just merely speculation. Instead of remarking that 'many websites report the series as being canceled but remain unverified by the studio' the Wikipedia entry leads everyone to falsely belief that the report is official, citing website sources that cannot be verified. The Wiki entry just perpetuates rumor, speculation and innuendo about the series.Wolfe426 (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC) And, if the series had been canceled, the DVD packaging for this new Knight Rider series would say "Knight Rider: The Complete Series" and not "Knight Rider Season 1." That seem to indicate an official response from the studio that they have future plans for the series to continue. Since the DVD release is from NBC/Universal, this would tantamount to an official statement.Wolfe426 (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC) This project page is not meant for ongoing discussions about sourcing and content. Please take this back to the article talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Is this still an ongoing concern? I've been semi following it since it started, and completely agreed with Ckatz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)s reasoning. User:Wolfe426 needs to pack it in and call it a day. This is not the place for content discussion. And even if it were, in many off topic discussions his position has already been explained to him as being untenable, numerous times by several editors. In my opinion he's now crossed the line into disruption. Go write an encyclopedia and stop with the nonsense. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC) I've responded to CKatz's concerns at his talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC) At the risk of sounding like a "bastard admin" (think rouge but less funny) I have to point out that Wolfe426 is technically evading a block by posting here - they effectively admitted that by describing User_talk:68.41.246.248 as "my IP talk page". I'd also like to add myself to the list of editors saying paradoxically that on the one hand, Wolfe426's position in the content dispute is at odds with our No Original Research policy, and that on the other hand, this isn't the venue for a content dispute. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC) I'd thought about a block the other day but didn't see how it would help him understand what was going on (as to sourcing and OR), I've left a note about this for Wolfe426 on their talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Perhaps Wolfe/IP did need to be blocked; or not. Perhaps there's a violation of NOR; or not. Perhaps there's an evasion of a block by posting here; or not. Perhaps Wolfe is right about the content/verification; or perhaps Ckatz is. These are irrelevant, and we do this process a disservice by writing a metre of text that skirts around the only issue that matters: whether Ckatz was involved in his use of the admin tool to block, and whether he should have asked an uninvolved admin (such as Gwen) to quickly assess the situation and judge for herself whether to block or to take other action or simply to talk it through. I haven't been to the page, so I might be wrong, but it does look like a prima facie case of a breach of the "uninvolved" policy. To Wolfe, I say three things: (1) Acting through an IP account is not a good idea when there is tension; you can expect to be treated less well if you don't make the basic commitment to WP by logging in—it's not a condoned attitude, but just human nature. (2) I trust that there are no conflicts of interest in your association with the other site. (3) A less emotive title to this section would have been welcome. Ckatz, you have not addressed the "uninvolved" issue and you need to. If you have breached the policy, please just say so, apologise, and we'll all move on (perhaps the user should be unblocked just this time, with advice to ask for assistance earlier if such an issue arises again—I'm unsure); if you believe you have acted in accordance with it, please justify, keeping strictly to that issue rather than the nature of the content issue. Tony (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Tony, (for the fifth? sixth? time), please properly and fully review incidents before assuming the worst'. For that matter, please read this page, seeing as how I've already written in detail about my role, and two admins have already said there was no breach. --Ckatzchatspy 17:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Tony, Ckatz addressed his position pretty clearly. He has edited the page. The page has sourced information. IP came along and removed sourced information with only circumstantial evidence for why it is wrong, supplying no sources. Ckatz restores, and IP reverts, repeatedly, giving no sources to back up their claim. Ckatz blocks for repeated removal of sourced content. IP registers, evading block, and comes here saying "Admin abused tools in content dispute." There is no content dispute, as the IP has no WP:RS to back up claim. That's not abuse - this happens routinely. -->David Shankbone 17:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, he did, but it was all about who was right and who was wrong in the content dispute—not whether he should have asked Gwen a favour of quickly reviewing it and deciding herself whether to use the tools. The result may have been the same, but the process would have been critically different in terms of maintaining the trust of admins by normal editors. We're all keen for that, aren't we? Tony (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC) My response above would have been very different if I hadn't believed the central question to have been resolved by Ckatz's response of 21:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC). As far as I'm concerned, the only issue that might need admin action is Wolfe426's conduct, and per Gwen's reponse above I'm not sure any action is needed there either. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry to say, I've blocked User:Wolfe426 for legal threats against Ckatz. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Endorsed. Unambiguous threat + Wolfe's complete inability to get it = goodbye. (Well, just the threat does it, but the rest doesn't exactly help). ➲ redvers throwing my arms around Paris 18:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Ah, well the matter of uninvolvement has been superseded by this, fine. But the original issue, Shankbone, is that admin tools should not probably be passed to another admin to use if you're involved in a tense situation in an article you've been editing. It's just too easy for others to see it as gaining advantage in a content dispute, even if Ckatz didn't see it that way. Better to be sure—the policy says something like that. It means just the oversight of another admin, for the sake of a very good protocol. `Tony (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC) PS and it's just a pity that now we've got a resentful editor who thinks he's in the right. Success would have been to have stopped it escalating, although I appreciate what you admins are up against often. Tony (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC) An IP SPA removing content to multiple reliable sources, while not furnishing any of their own, is not a "tense situation" in an article, but cause for reverts and, if necessary, a block. Ckatz didn't do anything wrong, and there was no on-going issue that this was a part of. The SPA had/has a personal POV agenda - to use Wikipedia as a cause for hope that his favorite show was not canceled. That agenda was frustrated, so he complained. If every admin had to get another admin to issue blocks just because he or she was the initial "reverter" of problematic edits, then it would be slow going to stop vandals. -->David Shankbone 19:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Arbitrary break (Now that Wolfe426's been blocked for legal threats) There's a central question here on what constitutes involvement and/or use of tools appropriately depending on the circumstances. Ckatz views his involvement on the article in question as negligible, and further sees his actions as preventing damage to the encyclopedia by an editor who is removing cited material. So a few questions come to mind: Does having a cite to a secondary source where the secondary source has no primary source constitute a reliable source? If so, then it essentially boils down to "I found it on the web. It must be true!" Do we really want that? What constitutes vandalism? In this case, there was an ongoing debate about the cancellation, and Ckatz acted despite the debate, and without contributing to it. My concerns here are; This wasn't blatant vandalism. It's not as if Wolfe was posting "this series is gay" or some other equally obvious vandalism. Ckatz claims it was blanking vandalism (see warning made by Ckatz in point 4 below). Looking at Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism, blanking vandalism indicates a predicate requirement of there being no reason. Wolfe, editing as the IP, never supplied a reason in the edit summaries [134], but did provide ample reasons (whether you agree with them or not is not germane here) at his talk page and the article talk page. Ckatz himself was in an ongoing edit war with Wolfe over the edits [135][136][137][138] damn near violating WP:3RR, conducting 4 reverts on that specific content in ~26 hours. The IP was clearly involved in edit warring (regardless of whether it is thought of as vandalism or not), but was never warned for it. Ckatz had multiple opportunities to shut down the problem by raising the issue of edit warring, but never took the opportunity. Instead he chose to continue the edit warring. This is hardly helpful. Ckatz should have taken the opportunity of requesting assistance from another administrator, but did not. Ckatz placed only one warning [139] on the IP's talk page, that a {{uw-delete2}}, without engaging in any discussion with the IP before later blocking the IP [140]. If this were vandalism, and reported to WP:AIV, it would have been rejected for lack of a final warning. Blocking after just one warning, especially when there was discussion happening, was out of line on its own, regardless of whether we think Ckatz was out of line for using his admin privs in a debate he was involved in. I'm not interested in raking Ckatz over the coals here. But, I am disappointed with the responses I've seen from him to date on this subject. There's no acceptance of culpability in extending this debate, or any sense that Ckatz feels he acted out of line. There's plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise here. On just the one point of using admin tools in a debate in which he is involved, I posted a lengthy comment on his talk page regarding this issue [141]. His response [142], he sees no parallel in his behaviors to the issue of admin privs used in a content dispute and disavows any wrondgoing. There's four distinct areas here in which Ckatz failed in his administrative duties, not just one. I think Ckatz needs to step back and take some accountability for his actions as being negative and non-contributory to this situation. I don't think we need to apologize to Wolfe (that legal threat was way out of line). But, I most sincerely do not want to see Ckatz walk away from this thinking that his actions were proper and seeing a repeat in the future. Admins are not expected to be perfect, but I think it reasonable to presume they should take lessons from their mistakes. But, if Ckatz sees no error in his actions there's no lesson that can be learned. That's disappointing, and I think we can expect to see this behavior repeated. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Hammersoft, I replied to your comments at length, after carefully considering the information you provided. I'm sorry if you don't approve of my response, but I cannot just parrot back what you seem to want to hear. You keep insisting that I was an "active" editor on the page, despite the fact that the page history disproves that assertion. You insist that I was "edit warring", despite the statements from other admins here that the actions were appropriate. You've also attempted to draw parallels between this and several recent ArbCom cases involving admins, despite the fact that each of those cases appear to involve admins who had been, and remained, directly involved in the articles in question. Based on the links you provided, they had participated in the pages, they were content contributors, and they used their bit to their advantage. By comparison, I had no stake in the edit, no prior involvement, and no involvement at all other than the reversal of an improper deletion of sourced material. If I were to go by your apparent interpretation of "active", I would have to recuse myself from literally thousands and thousands of articles merely because I had hit their "edit" button on some occasion. That is, of course, completely unreasonable, completely unworkable, and out of line with any interpretation of WP:INVOLVED and the role of an administrator. --'Ckatzchatspy 20:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC) You most certainly can act in line in your role as an administrator in every single article you edit. That's not the issue, as I've explained before. If a vandal sticks "this actor is gay" into an actor's article, you don't have to find out first if you've ever edited the article before. You claim you weren't involved but the issue is whether you were involved in a content dispute. I've laid a case out that this was a content dispute, and not vandalism. You engaged in edit warring when you could have chosen not to. You didn't take ample opportunity to involve another administrator. You blocked after a mid-level warning, and ignored discussions on the content. Do you not see that you have erred? Are we to expect this behavior will continue? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC) I really don't know what more to say to you to resolve this, as you seem determined to continue it both here and on the IP's talk page. ("hail storm of criticism for the actions of Ckatz and perhaps others...") Per others above, however: "I don't see any abuse of admin tools here." (David Shankbone) "I don't see any admin abuse here." (Gwen Gale) "There is no content dispute" (David Shankbone) "As far as I'm concerned, the only issue that might need admin action is Wolfe426's conduct" (SheffieldSteel) "Ckatz didn't do anything wrong, and there was no on-going issue that this was a part of... If every admin had to get another admin to issue blocks just because he or she was the initial "reverter" of problematic edits, then it would be slow going to stop vandals." (David Shankbone) Note that those are not my opinions, but those of independent editors who have reviewed the events.--'Ckatzchatspy 21:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC) In this section I've raised three additional points on which I feel you erred, which were not previously discussed. I'm content to wait for the opinions to be voiced by others regarding these issues. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC) There is a large conceptual space between (A) reverting vandalism and (B) being involved in a content dispute. Hammersoft's position seems to be based on the view that Ckatz's actions were not A, and Ckatz's position is based on the view that their actions were not B. Given the difference between the two, I think that there is plenty of room for Ckatz's reverts to be neither A nor B, particularly considering the consensus here that Wolfe426's edits were against WP:V/WP:OR policy. This wasn't a dispute over whether a particular source was reliable, or whether combining two sources constitutes synthesis, or whether a reasonable number of sources offering not-quite-trivial coverage is sufficient to demonstrate notability - this was a question of whether we should include a viewpoint based on the absence of verification and despite contradiction by multiple reliable sources. Wolfe426's edits weren't vandalism, because they were made in good faith, but they were still against policy. I don't think that enforcing (or advising editors about) policy ought to prevent an admin from using their tools. I realise that this is in a grey area, and others may see this differently, but this is my view: Ckatz did what was best for Wikipedia, though not for their own reputation - which would have been better served by dropping a note here or directly to a more clearly uninvolved admin. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC) I think Ckatz saw what was coming from the IP and restored the sourced content in good faith. Was it edit warring? I think Ckatz likely thought about that, and admin actions like this are indeed edgy, but from the outset the IP's behaviour looks more like disruption than neutral, encyclopedic editing. Given the IP's ongoing behaviour, unwillingness to heed other editors and (it seems to me) even read the policies, ending with a block for a rather chilling legal threat, I still don't see any admin abuse here, but helpful foresight. I do agree Ckatz could have saved himself some woe by taking the time to ask another admin to have a look, but how could he know the IP would evade the block with a user account and claim admin abuse at ANI? Truth be told, I think Wolfe426 should have been blocked for block evasion 2 days ago (if we want to talk about policy, that's what policy says), but many of us do think a little IAR in assuming good faith is ok, even if we wind up wasting time, as I think has happened here. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)