Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive582

User:Guitarherochristopher evading block?

Resolved

 – IPs blocked for evading ban, MfD closed and all project pages deleted (I think) Bencherlite^Talk 13:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm really not sure, but this message on my talk page was enough to arouse suspicions, and 75.101.66.46, 75.101.66.82, 75.101.66.106 and 75.101.66.92 all seem to be taking an interest in Guitarherochristopher's Wikipedia:Wikiproject The Prodigy, a project with no other members. I'd rather not file an SPI based on circumstantial evidence alone, but someone here may be able to shed a bit more light on it. PC78 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The IPs appear to be in the same state as GHC was... FWIW... And The Capitalization Of Inappropriate Words Is There Too [1]. –xeno^talk 00:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Project sent to MfD. You can file an SPI if you want in order to find sleepers, but they fit the DUCK test pretty well. Protonk (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No one marked that project for deletion originally? Blah. Well, actually my fault since I'd asked here and then it kind of disappeared without reply and I was way too terrified to do it myself at the time. This all saddens me given the time I spent looking over the pages edited in his last few days as he was blindly adding templates and other things everywhere. Thanks for the MfD, xeno, and I can't recall if he created any categories either related or unrelated that could be speedy'd now since they sh/would have been empty for weeks. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:203.45.210.58 vandalising pag. This is not Encyclopaedia Dramatica.

Please block user 203.45.210.58 from editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Thorne_(writer) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Dempsey (talk • contribs) 03:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks more like a content dispute to me (unless I missed something here). Full-protected 2 days. Please duke it out discuss civilly on the talk page. MuZemike 03:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree; it looks like Simon is a fan/friend of David's (note his name fourth on http://www.27bslash6.com/breedtofeed.html) and wants to control the article. David doesn't really seem notable, and so deletion might be the best course of action. (Simon: it would also keep him from having a biography that he can't control, so isn't necessarily a bad thing for him.) --NE2 03:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Again with the besmirching of ED and the *chans. Some of us are very lovely people, you know. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats by annon IPs against Nirvana888

Resolved

 – Both IP's were blocked by NW about 2 hours before this thread was started... --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Two annon IPs (but one user) have posted legal threats against Nirvana888 [2] [3] [4] [5]

• 67.246.40.144 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 68.236.155.30 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

This is due to a recent sockpuppet investigation -- Phoenix (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The second diff contains evidence of awareness of WP:NLT and a purposeful disregard of that policy. Recommend blocking as soon as possible. However, all the diffs are from a few days ago; perhaps a "strict final warning" would be most prudent, followed by a block if any further threats are made. GlassCobra 13:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Harassment directed at User:Wknight94

This user was recently blocked for what seems like a case of wikistalking Wknight94, and reverting all of his edits using a edit summary that constitutes a personal attack. I believe I have seen this harassment before, and I'm wondering if this is an ongoing problem. The thing that should not be 17:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The theme of "deviant sexual" attractions and practices has been rather prominent lately. @Kate (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should give this issue more attention than absolutely needed. Tan | 39 17:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry all, it's General Tojo (talk · contribs). I mentioned that his infatuation with children might merit contacting the authorities - and apparently that hit a nerve. Anyone want to look into that, let me know and I'll be happy to provide evidence. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 17:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

General Tojo (talk · contribs) is still around, wow it been years, when is he going to stop. Secret ^account 16:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Guitarherochristopher evading block?

Resolved

 – IPs blocked for evading ban, MfD closed and all project pages deleted (I think) Bencherlite^Talk 13:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm really not sure, but this message on my talk page was enough to arouse suspicions, and 75.101.66.46, 75.101.66.82, 75.101.66.106 and 75.101.66.92 all seem to be taking an interest in Guitarherochristopher's Wikipedia:Wikiproject The Prodigy, a project with no other members. I'd rather not file an SPI based on circumstantial evidence alone, but someone here may be able to shed a bit more light on it. PC78 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The IPs appear to be in the same state as GHC was... FWIW... And The Capitalization Of Inappropriate Words Is There Too [6]. –xeno^talk 00:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Project sent to MfD. You can file an SPI if you want in order to find sleepers, but they fit the DUCK test pretty well. Protonk (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No one marked that project for deletion originally? Blah. Well, actually my fault since I'd asked here and then it kind of disappeared without reply and I was way too terrified to do it myself at the time. This all saddens me given the time I spent looking over the pages edited in his last few days as he was blindly adding templates and other things everywhere. Thanks for the MfD, xeno, and I can't recall if he created any categories either related or unrelated that could be speedy'd now since they sh/would have been empty for weeks. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:203.45.210.58 vandalising pag. This is not Encyclopaedia Dramatica.

Please block user 203.45.210.58 from editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Thorne_(writer) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Dempsey (talk • contribs) 03:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks more like a content dispute to me (unless I missed something here). Full-protected 2 days. Please duke it out discuss civilly on the talk page. MuZemike 03:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree; it looks like Simon is a fan/friend of David's (note his name fourth on http://www.27bslash6.com/breedtofeed.html) and wants to control the article. David doesn't really seem notable, and so deletion might be the best course of action. (Simon: it would also keep him from having a biography that he can't control, so isn't necessarily a bad thing for him.) --NE2 03:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Again with the besmirching of ED and the *chans. Some of us are very lovely people, you know. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats by annon IPs against Nirvana888

Resolved

 – Both IP's were blocked by NW about 2 hours before this thread was started... --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Two annon IPs (but one user) have posted legal threats against Nirvana888 [7] [8] [9] [10]

• 67.246.40.144 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 68.236.155.30 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

This is due to a recent sockpuppet investigation -- Phoenix (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The second diff contains evidence of awareness of WP:NLT and a purposeful disregard of that policy. Recommend blocking as soon as possible. However, all the diffs are from a few days ago; perhaps a "strict final warning" would be most prudent, followed by a block if any further threats are made. GlassCobra 13:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:66.135.109.66

New IP user 66.135.109.66 has four times now restored changes to Kim Ok-bin that were previously made by multiple socks of InkHeart, and has reiterated the same arguments made by that user in edit summaries. While on the one hand this could be construed as a content dispute, I don't think it's unreasonable under the circumstances to suspect that this is yet another block evasion by InkHeart. Can someone look into it please? PC78 (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have explained my reasons. According to the policy in Korean naming there should be hyphen between the first and second name. Kim Okpin should be Kim Ok-pin. Ok-bin's martial arts status was placed at the very bottom of her Career paragraph which should be included at the top, before her filming career began. Critcism and other pursuits doesn't seem correctly used because the paragraph only talks about her criticsm statment that she said on television. There aren't any other pursuits for the title "and other pursuits" to fit. As for the filmography, her film status is very short. So why is there a chart and I have noticed in other articles as well that there aren't any charts. So why should this one be any different. That's just my two sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.135.109.66 (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems rather telling that you have not addressed the more pressing issue of block evasion. I won't discuss content issues here because this isn't the place, except to say that I have already previously cited multiple guidelines which these changes contravene. PC78 (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

deface

someone has written "poo face" on the article please fix thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.66.170.111 (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Which article? --Decepticon Shockwave, signing off. (talk) (contributions) 17:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it was the Tico-Tico article which was vandalised by an IP. Vandalism reverted and warning issued. Mjroots (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Rotational

Rotational just returned from a two week block for violating his editing restriction against edit warring over image positioning and heading levels, and has immediately returned to edit warring over the same issues. He has stated that he will revert on sight any changes made to his articles by Jeni, Rkitko or myself.[11] Can anything be done to prevent this promise of disruption? Hesperian 23:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere have I suggested that they are my articles - as usual, Hesperian, in order to bolster his flimsy case, is not above distorting the facts. Can anything be done about Hesperian's continuing harassment? Rotational (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverts were promised for any edits made to "the articles I start".[12] Does this imply ownership any less than my employment of a possessive pronoun? Or is this merely obfuscation of the key fact, which is that Rotational was placed under a formal editing restriction back in May, and six months later the edit warring continues unabated, and still nothing is done.

As for harassment, I doubt if I have ever edited an article created by Rotational; I'm unsure if I've ever reverted him on any article; and I certainly have never engaged in an edit war with him. My role in this sorry affair is solely to report violations. If Rotational doesn't like that, he might consider changing his behaviour. Hesperian 04:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The key fact is that you have chosen to target and harass me. Your role in this "sorry affair" has been to drum up support for your rather wobbly point of view, to orchestrate a kangaroo court editing restriction and to run whining to the ANI when I don't kowtow to you. Trouble-stirring and ramming your version of the MoS down other editors' throats are a major entertainment for you. Rotational (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Final warning given. Black Kite 23:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not distorting the facts if that's what you said: [13] suggests you don't understand the concept of ownership on WP (i.e. there is none) which is a real concern. Your continuing threats ([14]) are more of an issue than any 'harassment' right now.raseaC^{talk to me} 04:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

My "threats", as you term them, are a direct consequence of harassment - I don't see how you can assign them priorities. Is there a scale of values of WP issues that I am unaware of? The real issue here is that Hesperian would like us to regard the MoS as a holy document handed down by God himself with Hesperian as the chief interpreter. Instead the MoS is a "work in progress" and nitpicking arguments about the meaning of commas and priorities do nothing to improve WP. Rotational (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We've been through all this many times before. Rotational thinks years of edit warring against clear consensus is okay, because he's bringing fresh new ideas; if we don't like his ideas, that's our fault not his: we are "totally unreceptive to new ideas".[15] And so the edit warring continues.

I remember it was eight against one at Talk:Walter Hood Fitch, but Rotational still reverted to his preferred version six times.[16] Why? Because he was right and we were wrong, of course. Because he was the only one of nine with any aesthetic sense. And somehow the whole thing became an example of Hesperian harassing Rotational—Hesperian, who was at that article a year before Rotational, and who made zero edits to the article during the edit war, was harassing Rotational by virtue of daring to disagree with him. And still the edit warring continues. Hesperian 11:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right - we've been through your arrogance and rabble-rousing many times, except you don't see it that way. Let me repeat for the umpteenth time - if I'm truly such a threat to the calm and serenity of WP, then step back and let others take care of the so-called "disruption" (according to you there must be many who are converts to your preaching, so that there would be no shortage of volunteers). If you don't accept this suggestion, I for one will not faint with surprise. Your disagreeing with me is not harassment, but your refusal to get off my tail certainly is. Rotational (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Apparently if I stop reporting Rotational for edit warring, then the edit warring will magically cease. Okay, I'll give it a go. I promise not to report Rotational for edit warring until the next time he edit wars. Hesperian 23:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

On your talk page I count five editors 'taking care' of your disruption (either through warnings, ANI or blocks) in the last month alone and you were blocked for half of it! You do a good job of introducing new pages to WP, don't ruin it by getting blocked for being a WP:DICK. raseaC^{talk to me} 15:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Do some more research - you'll find that a lot of warnings are given by editors new to the fray - like yourself - and probably manipulated by those who scream "disruption!!" and then remain in the background while others do the dirty work. Let me repeat - I can live with alterations or even warnings by casual passers-by - it's the chronic harassment by Hesperian and his buddies that gets to me. Rotational (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I warned you because you were disruptive and, like any other disruptive editor, you have a knack of making yourself stand out like a sore thumb. If another editor(s) is playing by the rules and it 'gets to you' then I think the problem lies with you, and not the others. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that Hesperian so much "plays by the rules" as "plays the rules". If the rules allow chronic harassment, then the rules are inadequate and should be changed. You and Hesperian use the catch-phrase "disruption" a lot, but what exactly am I disrupting other than Hesperian's complacency? As for "standing out" that is the last thing I want - I am here because Hesperian has turned my persecution into his personal crusade. I have repeatedly stated that I would like nothing better than to contribute without the Hesperians and Jenis of this world acting as my personal gadflies. Rotational (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Rotational, as someone whose only experience of you comes from this thread, I humbly offer the following advice: People are much more willing to listen to you when you are calm and considerate. Take a break, go unwind, then come back and state your case in a calm and methodical manner. You will find people much more amenable to your point of view. Once again, this is friendly advice, not criticism. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

He is still at it.[17] Jeni ^(talk) 16:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That was a good revert. Per WP:EL#External links section what Rotational did was just incorrect. If that is an example of the kind of contributions that Rotational is intent on making then perhaps they shouldn't be contributing. I also see on their user page: "I have been reduced to making trivial edits and deterred from making contributions of new articles by the chronic and wilful misinterpretation of the Manual of Style by a small gang of Pharisees posing as editors." This looks like someone with their own personal manual of style and willing to enforce it with edit wars. -- Atama頭 19:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And I was naive enough to think that the "in use tag" meant something. Quite soon you're going to have to decide between whatever value my contributions have and Hesperian and Jeni's plaintive bleating and their perversion of the MoS. I'll be happy either way. Rotational (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"In use" doesn't mean that you are given free reign to go against Wikipedia guidelines in formatting articles to your personal whim. Intentionally going against style guidelines and engaging in edit wars to maintain such formatting is disruptive. -- Atama頭 21:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Enough of this. The edits [18][19][20][21][22][23][24] show somebody who doesn't care to work with others. WP:POINT violations are enough for me. He can come back when he learns to play well with others. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Alison and SirFozzie abusing privledged status

Resolved

 – Protecting user talk pages is not against policy. Also, this was reported by a blocked proxy — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 09:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please someone investigate user:Alison and user:SirFozzie. they are abusing privledged status by protecting talk pages against POLICY. i reccommend EXTREMEME action of revoking powers to HAPPEN so very soon now! i cant tell them of this because of the BAD PROTECTION so please forgive me! 85.230.120.93 (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

*coff* - blocked proxy - *coff* - also, errm this - Allie ^❤ 08:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If EXTREMEME becomes a new meme I will quit and become a serial socker. --NE2 08:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't make Alison use her EXTREMEME CheckUser on you. Brandon (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The EXTREMEME is OVER 9.. naw, never mind. SirFozzie (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Where's Baseball Bugs when you need him to shout "Plaxico"?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

←I took a screencap last night. You can see it here, FWIW. I've redacted Foz's personal info, though it's still NSFW :-O BTW, I'm a proud on-and-off /b/tard myself & can tell you that most people on there don't care for that 'Personal Army' nonsense - it's really only n00bz and the really, really bored that care about these things. I'll probably write up an essay on it at a later date, so people know how this stuff works - Allie ^❤ 21:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Northbreed1: Personal attacks, edit warring, general refusal to conform to standard policies/guidelines

This user appears to have a significant history of edit warring against consensus and repeated personal attacks against contributors who disagree with him, to the point of embedding repeated personal attacks in edit summaries. This morning I removed various unsourced content from Veronika Zemanová (replicating the deletions made by at least two other editors), only to have the content restored with uncivil edit summaries and related talk page comments removed with personal attacks in the edit summaries. This appears to standard behavior for the editor, particularly when removing talk page warnings; note these examples in talk or edit summaries

• HW is an "irrational fool" [25] [26]
• Xihr attacked as "not being rational," "emotionally driven," not being helpful, etc [27]
• Users who disagree with him are "not intelligent" (among other things) and should not contribute to Wikipedia [28]
• Admin on commons who deleted one of his uploads as a copyvio is a "dip" [29]
• Animate is "presumptuous" for placing a 3RR warning on Northbreed1's talk page [30]
• "RUNT is an irrational "contributor" who seeks to be provocative, rather than helpful" (repeated) [31] [32]

Northbreed1 has also been caught uploading non-free images with inaccurate descriptions/inadequate licensing claims [33] [34] [35].

Given the user's failure to respond appropriately to talk page discussions by other editors, his general disregard for consensus, policy, and guidelines, and his uniform removal of talk page warnings from both editors and admins, accompanied by hostile and uncivil edit summaries, I think adinistrative intervention is required to prevent even greater disruption. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. MuZemike 17:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

...and extended to a week by User:Jayron32 after some block evasion. MuZemike 21:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

help me

Resolved

 – DCEdwards advised of WP:UP#CMT, Tintor11 blocked. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

i am being harassed on my talk. can someone please save me from this devastation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintor11 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

the user has been asked to stop reverting your edits. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Tintor11 is the latest in a string of vandals (see User:Tintor9 and User:Tintor10 for example) who are harrasing User:Tintor2. I'm not sure why he hasn't been blocked yet. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make it alright to revert those edits on their talk page. Report him/her to AIV if you want a block. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I'm concerned, it is alright. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice how policy doesn't say: "feel free to ignore all policy in your interactions with vandals". WP:UP#CMT is a part of policy that is specifically aimed at interactions with vandals. Kind regards Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Could we possibly not argue about this? It makes trolls happy when their ANI trolling works. Tintor11 will be blocked as soon as an admin sees him on WP:UAA. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Sure, Lets just all edit war at User talk:Tintor11 instead Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

La Salle Extension University

There's a brewing edit skirmish at that article, over a number of issues, between Dmadzelanedgov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who represents himself as a U.S. government employee in the Department of Education; a user calling himself LEU Truth Squad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose point of view is obvious from his name; Jokestress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who first edited the article long ago and has been dragged back into it; and myself to some extent as I did one reversion to Dmadzelanedgov's unexplained reversions today, and have had talk page discussions with the other three. This apparently has something to do with a political figure (connected with Obama) who is citing LSEU as part of his educational background, but I don't think LEU Truth Squad (who raised the issue) has actually come out and named the guy. In any case, while there has been talk on the talk pages, there is also frequent reversion going on, primarily over the validity of sources. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified all three users about this discussion. GiantSnowman 20:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

So have I. I'm thinking of creating a second user. I'll call it "Redundancy Squad of Redundancy". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And I'll change mine to Speedy Gonzales ;) GiantSnowman 20:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not changing my name at all, because its so much cooler than yours. HalfShadow 01:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I can gather, there's an off-wiki dispute over a Virginia healthcare executive claiming to have a Ph.D. from LSEU in 2000, but according to the Bear Guide, LSEU closed in 1982. According to ads and actions by the Federal Trade Commission, LSEU offered Associates and Bachelors degrees, but no ads found to date mention Masters or Doctorates. Unsourced information has been repeatedly added to the LSEU article that supports the claims of the person who says his doctorate came in 2000. Both User:Dmadzelanedgov and User:LEU Truth Squad are using problematic usernames. Someone also created User:LEU Truth Fairy Squad. User:Dmadzelanedgov's name (D. Madzelan at ed.gov) suggests the real name of a real government official, but there is reason to believe this editor is not that government official and may in fact be the Virginia healthcare executive. User:LEU Truth Squad claims to be a consortium of people trying to add the "truth" to the LSEU article. Both are WP:SPAs, both have been warned about usernames, and both appear to have a conflict of interest. Both keep trying to add citations that are not reliable, such as phone numbers or web pages that do not support the statements they wish to add. I recommend blocking those usernames if they are not changed, or if they continue to revert reliably-sourced information. As a veteran of the Pacific Western University WP:OFFICE action, I know that these distance learning articles often attract highly partisan SPAs. These users are bordering on disruption at this point. Jokestress (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: usernames involved in the same series of edits:

CRITICS

• LEU Truth Squad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - who claims to be speaking for a trio - started Oct. 20
• Grr8-1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - June 11 only

SUPPORTERS

• Dmadzelanedgov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - who claims to be a govt. employee named Madzelan - started Nov. 6
• Lesson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - only edits were Dec 7, 2006 - yes, three years ago
• Garykuta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - who claims to be a historian for the school - only edits were Apri 9, 2007 - 2 1/2 years ago
• Drptrgnm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Aug. 10-12
• 74.127.73.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Nov. 5 only
• 74.127.72.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Aug. 10 only
• 74.127.72.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Nov. 4, 26, 28

VANDALS

• LEU Truth Fairy Squad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - an obvious troll - Nov. 26
• Lapneth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - wholesale blanking, today

My guess is that a Checkuser would show that a number of these accounts are connected with User:Dmadzelanedgov, with the rest connected to the opposition. Jokestress (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of reconfiguring your list to allow easy reference to their activities, and separating by apparent supporters and critics. The IP's geolocate to Monterey, Virginia. LEU Truth Squad stated that that would be an expected location from a person claiming to have an LSEU Ph.D. issued in 2000, when LEU Truth Squad says the school closed in 1982. Also, LEU Truth Squad said he would rename his user ID, but I don't think he has done so yet.[36] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And I took the liberty of notifying the listed users that they're being discussed here in the Thirty-Eleventh Circle of Hell. GJC 23:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

...at least for the ones Bugs didn't get on the first pass. Clearly I am not on today; I didn't realize Turkey Coma could be a chronic disease.GJC 23:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't bother notifying the others because they're just drive-bys, some of which have not edited for some time now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser won't likely be able to do anything with the ones from 2-3 years ago, and maybe not even the ones from this past summer as the data is not kept indefinitely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, GiantSnowman - thank you for the alert of this discussion.

First - because of the dust-up over the user name "LEU Truth Squad", a change of user name will be done as soon as possible. There have been intervening time-absorbing issues involving the holiday and other responsibilites since that was action was promised. Please be advised that no additional posts under the user name "LEU Truth Squad" will be entered and the change will be done as just stated as soon as possible (and the instructions on how to do it are read through).

Without being redundant in explaining the reason for the styling of the user name as it has appeared, it was to represent that three individuals who are very familiar with LaSalle Extension University who collaborate on responses (but only one accesses the site and enters text) had the motive and intention of providing verifiable information from the Illinois State Board of Education that the school never offered any degree above a Bachelors (notwithstanding LL.B [law degree] which is at a different strata than an academic degree in say history, math, or other subject.

Why? Witnessing first hand the struggle to locate information about LEU/LSEU that could be thoroughly researched pursuant to degrees offered (or not), to try and help anyone (such as potential employers like schools or legitimate universities interviewing to hire an academically qualified teacher, medical and industrial organizations hiring for various positions, etc) wanting to verify claims they are being presented with by a candidate claiming an advanced degree. The problem any such organizations face is that there are almost NO internet-based resources available to any such potential employer to research - other than a very few such as like Wikipedia which as you, Baseball Bugs, described as not reliable (because of the open-edit availability to anyone wishing to do that). There are many wonderful sites of information that present accurate information throughout Wikipedia and "our" thought was to add that very tiny bit of information regarding the degrees LEU/LSEU was allowed (and not) to convey by the ISBE to make the site more reliable in the depth of its description of LEU/LSEU.

Continuing - what if such a potential employer simply does not know (or think) to contact the entity that oversaw the school's degree programs and has actual transcripts? Sounds simple, background-check 101 right?, yet you would be surprised at the number of sophicated "vetting" organization for hire to potential employers that never bother to contact the State of Illinois Department of Education regarding LEU/LSEU ("we" know because "we" asked). In addition, apparently a Washington DC-based "vetting" service as well as a "Certified Recruiter" never bothered to check with the ISBE regarding the claimed Ph.D. in 2000 from LEU/LSEU being made by the Virginia-based health care executive mentioned elsewhere.

If you do an internet search for information about LEU/LSEU - the Wikipedia site is just about the only one that comes up that has any extended information about LEU/LSEU that attempts to provide definitive information about the school - so that situation which so limits attempts to research information about the school reinforced the decision to add the one bit of information we attempted to do about what degrees the school was and was not certified to convey by the ISBE.

C.V. fraud attempting to take advantage of hard-to-verify information because a LEU/LSEU is now closed is apparently a more widespread problem that perhaps many are aware (and although down for the moment, the site Ebmnet [37] is down) the site for years provided a "list of graduates" that (a) required no verification of actual graduation from LEU/LSEU to be listed thus providing a claimed list of graduates and (2) showed a number of "graduates" claiming degrees from after the school closed. (Note the other "lists" they offer such as "Directory of Haitian Churches", Directory of University of Montreal Graduates", and of course, the currently "..page is not accessible now pending internal review" for LaSalle Extension University. This site was never a "real" list of LEU/LSEU graduates (such as maintained and microfilm transcripts available through the ISBE) although no doubt some legitimate LEU/LSEU graduates were in the Ebmnet list mix).

So because "we" had once become involved in the impact a major employer was experiencing from the hiring of an unqualifed candidate (claiming an advanced degree from LEU/LSEU) we decided to add the information accumulated from that process and the ISBE for the benefit of ALL to the Wikipedia LEU/LSEU site as well as to any other such site that allowed for such information to be entered.

This now moves to the issue of requiring a "published source" before Wiki will recognize comment and/or citation of which Baseball Bugs and Jokestress has made "us" not only aware but stated in no uncertain terms that the entry of that information although backed by direct correspondence from the ISBE (considered "personal research") was not sufficient to be allowed to remain in the article.

If you check the History - you find "we" have not re-entered anything on the site basically since that alert was received.

Next - there is a problem with the Wikipedia "vetting" process of what can be recognized as "allowable" material from which to quote.

Bear in mind that no state agency such as the one that oversaw LEU/LSEU publishes lists of courses it has authorized a school to offer - leaving that job to the school in their promotional material - but the State Agency will respond to inquiry about what the school was authorized and was not authorized to convey.

The insistance therefore that the ISBE has to have published that LEU/LSEU was not authorized to offer Masters or Doctorate level degrees before it can be referred to or quoted from (documentation responding to inquiry) set up a standard that falls entirely beyond the purview of what a State Agency does and thereby rejects out-of-hand the highest level of authority available.

An example to illustrate the problem this arrangement causes - if LEU/LSEU entered an ad in a 1946 Popular Science wherein nothing about the type of certificates/degrees was even mentioned - WHATEVER they said in the ad would be accorded more validity from which to quote than a letter from the ISBE on State stationery specifically stating (1) the school could not have ever conveyed any Masters or Doctorate degrees because (2) they were not certified to do so by the State of Illinois.

This protocol of barring high-value resources because they have not "published" relative to an article's topic does, with all due respect to those dedicated volunteers forming needed protocols, deprive ANY Wikipedia site (potentially) from containing the most accurate information that is available but not allowed to be viewed by anyone attempting to research a topic through the service and most specifically in this instance, the highest level of authority available to verify what the school was authorized by the state to convey and what it wasn't.

Given that such a scenario (a State agency that does not publish and should not be expected to do so compared with commercial and other organizations) the Administrative Staff of Wikipedia should consider how to accommodate information provided by a State in writing to address such a topic as that of what LEU/LSEU was allowed to convey upon the completion of course work.

Perhaps even though there is no "heirachy" at Wikipedia, some arrangement can be found wherein correspondence from a legitimate and best source that is a non-publishing entity but which will provide printed correspondence in response to a topic such as being discussed here - and that stored correspondence held by an approved Wikipedia site could then become the "published source" sufficient for the "vetting" process required by Wiki for insertion into an article as a solution to the current vetting process involving a non-publishing but high-value entity such as the ISBE.

The Illinois State Board of Education, Closed Schools Department, will absolutely confirm that their records show the school actually closed in 1981, that they maintain the only certified transcripts issued by the school, and that no one could have earned any degree above a Bachelors because the school was never certified/authorized to convey a Masters or Doctorate level degree. All anyone has to do - is call and request written confirmation of this fact or write and request same. That is as close to a "published" document that can be expected from a state agency such as one that oversaw a school like LEU/LSEU and continues to oversee every school in the State of Illinois.

Just "for fun" - why not contact the State Board of Education where any of YOU live and inquire if they publish a list of degrees any of the schools they oversee for the general public to read (or if they leave that job to the school itself in their promotional materials) - and report your findings in this forum.

Sorry this is so long - but seemed appropriate for a full explanation of the issue, the "vetting" problem of a high-grade source that does not publish as a standard part of its function along the line currently required by Wiki, and a recommendation for a possible modification/arrangement by the Wikipedia Administrative Staff to effect a solution.

Regards to all - and "we" (usage soon to disappear pursuant to the pending user name change after this exchange has concluded just to be sure it can still be accessed under LEU Truth Squad login) hope this helps understand the issues that have been raised concerning entries by "LEU Truth Squad". (Recent edit this date and time to correct a few typos and hopefully improve structural reading clarity) LEU Truth Squad (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Article full-protected for one week--surprised it wasn't full-protected sooner, this has been going on for almost two months. Blueboy96 03:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yikes... is this a candidate for mentioning Durova's WP:WallofText essay? Or just WP:TLDR? I seriously could not make it through 1/4 of the novel posted by LEU Truth Squad. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could take it as a correspondence school course. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm, should the response to the discussion between Baseball Bugs and GiantShowman on this subject be receiving such derisive treatment ("Wall of Words", or "...take it as a correspondence school course", etc.) when it only contains 503 words more than THEIR textual exchange? - especially in view of the fact that there is not one word by those commenting so far in continued discussion on the points raised and possible solutions proposed?

If an Occam's Razor version is desired without the supporting detail provided in the initial response - then:

Wikipedia should review and revise it's "Published Source" vetting protocol for deciding what can and cannot be entered into an article because in many instances, the most authoritative "source" (such as the ISBE) will be barred from being referred to, quoted, or cited in support of a statement because it does not "publish" information as does a magazine or newspaper to conform with the narrow guidelines for being cited now in place.

Case in point - the state agency overseeing the academic credentialing of LaSalle Extension University did not "publish" the courses and degrees offered by LEU/LSEU then - nor does it publish that kind of information today - for any school it oversees. The Illinois State Board of Educations leaves the business of publishing courses and degrees offered to a school in its own promotional materials.

What a state agency such as the ISBE WILL do, is respond (on state and responding department letterhead) to an inquiry of what a school is and is not authorized to convey.

Without a protocol to recognize and archive such definitive (and "iron-clad") information from a high level source that does not routinely "publish" information such as the courses/degrees offered for every school it oversees - then Wikipedia's current vetting protocol deprives any article (such as the one for LaSalle Extension University) from containing the highest level of authoritative source available for its historical and/or descriptive narrative.

There now, 777 words +/- less than the initial discussion between Baseball Bugs and GiantSnowman :) LEU Truth Squad (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The entire point of using published references is so that other people can read them and review them, to ensure their accuracy. We cannot take information passed by "call their office" or "email them" as those are not verifiable sources without every reader of the page contacting the individual/office. It simply won't work. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Moving on - if left in its current form (and not allowed to continue to be raided by those seeking to hide information specific to what LEU/LSEU was authorized by the ISBE to convey), the site contains sufficient information so anyone wishing to further research that matter can do so. The user name of "LEU Truth Squad" will be changed to satisfy those who have considered it offensive (even though nothing but the truth was ever entered into the site's information) when this particular discussion concludes. LEU Truth Squad (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

LEU Truth Squad, could you please stop creating all these bizarre redlinks. It's not an acceptable form of highlighting. Thanks Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds - the "Source" vetting protocol is understood but therein is the problem.

As a high informational value, non-publishing source, the function of the Illinois State Board of Education in overseeing LSEU was not to act as the school's advertising department by publishing what it certified the school to convey as certificates and diplomas. It left that function (as it does today regarding ANY school it oversees) to publish such information in its promotional and student recruitment materials.

To block quoting details about the governing agency's protocol for the school because it does not publish that information creates a situation, as an example, where if LSEU bought an ad in a 1947 Popular Mechanics claiming someone could earn a Ph.D. (which it was never authorized by the ISBE to do), that ad would be accepted as citable material because it was "published" but quoting from or citing a written statement from the ISBE stating the school could not and never did offer a Ph.D. would be rejected because that information was never published in some form (say again in a Popular Mechanics magazine just to keep a comparison equal).

Any Wiki reader of the site, therefore, would come away with entirely incorrect (or at least incomplete) information about LSEU because only the claim in an ad of being able to earn a Ph.D. could be cited whereas the denial that no Ph.D. was ever offered by LSEU issued by the higher authority, the ISBE, would not be allowed in the article's information because it never published (in a Popular Mechanics just to keep the example the same).

So is to reject a higher value source in favor of a lower value source based solely upon a "publishing" requirement ever going to result in Wiki articles being as accurate and complete as possible - surely everyone's wish - or should the current narrow "vetting" criterion of being a "published source" be reviewed and a way found at an Administrative level to receive and archive information from a high value source from which quoted or cited information can be entered?

Is there not a way to resolve this issue at an Administrative level? "Edit skirmishes" such as have been occurring at the LSEU site could be resolved quickly and simply if archived "original information" (direct written correspondence) from a high value source such as the ISBE that does not routinely "publish" the type of information being discussed was available - or can such an archiving arrangement not be accommodated because of Wiki's organizational structure? LEU Truth Squad (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads - sorry about the incorrect emphasis coding (resulted from a misunderstanding of Wiki coding from one of the sites that compared [[ ]] with HTML resulting in a color change.) Tried to take out all the [[ ]] from the previous entries to correct the mistake but didn't work. Will use HTML. LEU Truth Squad (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ford GT

TheBalance has been engaging in an edit war with me in the Ford GT article.

I made my first [38] edits to the article to give a more accurate representation of the car's capabilities. The single listed 1/4 mi figure in the article was by far the very best recorded by any magazine and a known ringer car. Ford delivered that specially prepped GT to compete with the Ferrari Enzo and Porsche Carrera GT. I also made a joke about page ownership modifying "Please do not modify this list. It WILL be reverted." to "Please do not modify this list. No room for fair representation only the most extreme times of obvious ringer models. It WILL be reverted."

TheBalance reverted my edit assuming bad faith and also moved "Please do not modify this list. It WILL be reverted." to the 1/4 mile section essentially declaring page ownership. [39]

I reverted that edit [40] and removed a copyright violation. I explained this edit on his talk page. [41]. With nothing to say he reverted my edit again. [42] This goes on and has turned to edit warring. I've warned him twice more on his talk page. [43], [44]. Mr.Sakaki (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is the place to report edit warring. Is there a source noting that the 1/4 mile time was from a unique vehicle and not representative of the line? Surely there are other car enthusiasts who can weigh in on where consensus lies. Have you tried the car project discussion page? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not famliar with this part of wikipedia so I don't really know where everything belongs, if someone wants to move it to its proper location I'd appreciate that.

There is no singular source to prove that's the best recorded magazine time, however anyone who regularily reads the major American car enthusiast mags (Motor Trend, Road and Track, Car and Driver and Edmunds.com) would know it is an extreme outlier and that the Ford GT would have to be modified in order to post those sorts of numbers. Since the FGT is supercharged all it takes is a smaller supercharger pulley which will increase the supercharger's capabilities adding 100+hp to the engine's output. During that comparison the fastest production cars in existance were the Ferrari Enzo, Porsche Carrera GT (and discontinued McLaren F1), cars which are many times more expensive, that's likely the reason Ford decided to send a ringer.

All I did was add three other properly sourced times which are more representative of the production car's actual capabilities. I don't see what needed to be discussed since I never removed anything besides copyrighted material and the hidden "Please do not modify this list. It WILL be reverted." comment which sounds a lot like page ownership. Mr.Sakaki (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

TheBalance just reverted my edit again [45] without bothering with an explanation. I'm pretty sure this third edit is in violation of the 3RR rule. Mr.Sakaki (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well as suggested earlier I'm going ahead and posting this on the 3RR noticeboard. Mr.Sakaki (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I notified TheBalance about this thread. Mr. Sakaki, I would suggest that you let things cool off for a little bit and try to take things to the talk page. The article might be in a state that isn't perfect for the time being but some discussion with other editors, with the aim to build consensus, will take some time. --Adam in MO Talk 10:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'll step out of this dispute for now, but I already put this up on 3RR noticeboard. [46] Mr.Sakaki (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I blocked TheBalance for 24 hours, it's clear that he won't compromise, his last edit confirmed it. Secret ^account 13:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced the copyrighted source with the free version[47], and removed the "There is no need for performance stats from multiple sources[48]. Please do not modify this list; It WILL be reverted." since that really does nothing more than create a POV supporting only the most unrealistic times and is a form of page ownership. You won't find that sort of nonsense on other super car pages. Mr.Sakaki (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked through MotorTrend's website for all Ford GT tests and found these, the problem with the FGT is its trap speeds vary widely and are very inconsistent because Ford kept sending cars in that are tweaked to perform better than the cars they sold to the public.

• [49] 11.2 sec @ 131.2 mph
• [50] 11.6 sec @ 126.2 mph
• [51] 11.78 sec @ 124.31 mph —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Sakaki (talk • contribs) 22:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I added the two other times tested by MotorTrend.[52] Mr.Sakaki (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

From Car and Driver [53] 11.6@128 Mr.Sakaki (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Road and Track [54] 11.7 seconds @ 125.8mph (I had previously added this one)

It's hardly a coincidence that only the 1/4 time in that article is the very best time for the FGT, an extreme ringer car sent by Ford to compete with the fastest Ferrari and Porsche road cars ever built. Mr.Sakaki (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Granted right/Revoked right" cruft?

Is the "Granted right/Revoked right" stuff dangling at the bottom of Special:ListGroupRights cruft? Jason Quinn (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

How it even got there is a better question.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it a bug in the media wiki software then? Should I report it at Media wiki? I was assuming that an admin can edit the page but maybe not. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The answer is simple though obscured by the fact that the feature isn't used. It's possible for a user group to revoke a right rather than grant them. Those would be shown struck out like so, and the two notes at the bottom are the legend to that convention. It turns out we don't have groups that remove rights on enwp, so that's less obvious.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 00:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Listgrouprights-key is the page to edit to change this. Algebraist 00:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent massive use of RevDelete (oversight)

Some may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee#Recent use of RevisionDelete related to David Gerard (it's a bit off the beaten path, so posting here and some other places). --MZMcBride (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Ikip community banned from discussing Jack Merridew

Resolved

 – Giving everyone the opportunity to take a deep breath, take a step back, and decide if this kind of activity is something we really want to continue with. I am being WP:BOLD, but if someone who is uninvolved with this situation wants to go to the Revert part of Bold, Revert, Discuss, please go ahead SirFozzie (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm sick to death of this obsession. It is a cancer. Let us excise it.

Proposal: Ikip (talk · contribs) is banned from discussing Jack Merridew on the English Wikipedia.

• Support. Hesperian 01:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • My question is Hesperian, why didn't you go to the clerks in the arbcom, as I have before with other concerns? Have you ever attempted to silence editors you disagreed with in arbcom before? Daedalus969 posted the above ANI notice, and he is a central figure in this ongoing arbcom, are you going to file a community ban for him next? Ikip (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Ikip (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support. Far more than half of the last 250 edits he has made are about or related to Jack. It's ridiculous. AniMate 02:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Animate, didn't you say I was hounding? "Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly." Should I post an ANI community ban for this? Ikip (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • If that's what you think is necessary. AniMate 02:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Close as moot this is the responsibility of the clerks to decide who can comment and who cannot in an ongoing Arbcom. Hesperian and Animate should know better. Ikip (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Horologium (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse ;) and the sig non-issue can wait. I'm having my morning tea, so I'm not here, yet, today. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 02:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• w00t epic lulz!!! Seriously, when the hell did this become Encyclopedia Dramatica? Please can you all just step away from the computer and doing something else for awhile? Soxwon (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Archiving this was utterly improper. Hesperian 02:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Can we please just let this die? Or at least keep the insanity to 1-2 project pages? Protonk (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Will it die? Really? That would be great. But if it doesn't, it would be because some of you refuse to kill it. Hesperian 02:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • It just doesn't need to be inflamed. AN/I is the absolute worst venue for this non-discussion. My suggestion is that you file an RfC on Ikip, as there is more than ample fodder. Protonk (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Gosh, what a great idea! Don't want drama? Start an RFD then. Something that bring everyone with an axe to grind together for a huge dramafest. And result in absolutely nothing. That'll fix it. That's a much better idea than just banning the drama. Now why didn't I think of that? Hesperian 02:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

..Ok.. maybe it's for the best that we stop this here, and take a breath for some sober reflection? SirFozzie (talk) 02:33, 2 December 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.

Proposal: Jack Merridew is community banned from following the edits of Emmette Hernandez Coleman, A Nobody, Daedalus969

Resolved

 – Being Bold, this and the other section I am "resolving" does no one credit. Please take the chance to take a step back, take a deep breath and reflect if this is a way we really want to go. If someone UNINVOLVED wants to go the rest of the way in Bold/Revert/Discuss, go ahead, but consider if this discussion is really helpful

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

User:Jack Merridew agrees to completely avoid Emmette Hernandez Coleman, A Nobody, Daedalus969 on Wikipedia English pages. No editing the same pages, no comments about Emmette Hernandez Coleman, A Nobody, Daedalus969 by name or innuendo. No harassment of Emmette Hernandez Coleman, A Nobody, Daedalus969 in other venues. This restriction will be interpreted in the broadest way with no allowance for any attempt to skirt the restriction in any manner.

From the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page#Indefinite block lifted with editing restrictions I didn't know we could decide on ANI what should be an arbcom's and clerk's decision....

• Support Ikip (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Way way way way way too broad. Hesperian 02:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

• • • 'Opposal in big black letters. Counterproposal -- Ikip stops hounding Jack. If Ikip continues spending all of his time playing games (with his ever so handy log of diffs going back decades it seems, even before he was born, let alone on pages he ever edited) Ikip will then be put on double special secret probation. Bluto, at least, would approve. Or counter-counter-proposal Jack is restricted to one cogent remark a month, in exchange for which Ikip is restricted to only two ARS template edits a month. Or A nobody goes away for ever. Whichever. Fair is fair. (Wait. I didn't realize today was get your opponents day. There's a guy I really, really didn't like when i started editing here. If you give me a few hours, I can figure out his name. I'll come back. Can you promise me preemptive restrictions on him too?)Bali ultimate (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Archiving this section as well, trying to defuse tempers. See my resolved notice for more. SirFozzie (talk) 02:35, 2 December 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.

I have a report on user "BWCNY"

Resolved

 – Thenovabus blocked for NPA and CIVIL issues, BWCNY warned Toddst1 (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I got a report on this user: BWCNY He keeps he keeps vandalizing most pages on Wikipedia and keeps posting false information. Also he accused me of stuff

here's prrof for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MTA_Regional_Bus_Operations_bus_fleet&diff=328534832&oldid=328530486 and he called me stupid and accused me of putting false information when I didn't,that user is rude

Also look at every of his edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MTA_Regional_Bus_Operations_bus_fleet&offset=20091129053506&action=history

look at his last edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Retired_demonstration_Metropolitian_Transportation_Authority_%28New_York%29_bus_fleet&action=history thats false info

look at every edit as an matter in fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BWCNY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenovabus (talk • contribs) 02:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he should be banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenovabus (talk • contribs) 02:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Warned user for calling you stupid. Toddst1 (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Bot block needed for User:EmBOTellado

Ezarate acknowledged on 3 November 2009 that he was aware of the restrictions on editing by unapproved bots detailed at WP:BOTPOL#Approval, and apologized for a "mistake" in letting the bot edit again on 6 November 2009. None the less, User:EmBOTellado has continued to edit since then. I am denying the bot request, and I request that the bot account also be blocked to prevent further unauthorized editing. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 03:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Bot blocked. I was sure not to autoblock or prevent account creation. ^Chillum 03:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Hoodatdat, Ownership and edit warring

Resolved

 – user blocked as a sock, I filed an SPI here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jojojohnson2 to see if anything was missed.

In his very short and beginning career here, Hoodatdat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is showing a rather obvious tendency to edit war and attempt to own articles. I first encountered him over at Asian fetish, a controversial article, where he was removing sourced content without explanation. After 2 reversions, and a note on his talk page he claimed the statement was unbalanced [55]. Another editor restored it a third time and explained that if he felt it was unbalanced, he should provide sources to counter it [56]. His next response was to assert ownership over the article [57]. I warned him on his talk page about 3RR at this point as well as WP:OWN and WP:BRD.[58] his response was to yet again assert ownership over the article and violate 3RR. [59]. This behaviour is also mirrored at Continuation War, where he asserted ownership [60] and Dave Zirin, where he's engaged in a slow edit war. Its a disturbing amount of edit warring for someone who only has 14 article edits. While I Was writing this he asserted further ownership on my talk page with this message [61].--Crossmr (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the account as as sockpuppet. I've seen that pattern before with the David Zirin article. They are reverting back to revisions by other sockpuppet accounts Kingroodney (talk · contribs) and Enabling others (talk · contribs). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we maybe run a CU to see if there are any sleepers?--Crossmr (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion, vandalism

User:Northbreed1, given a short-term block earlier today [62], has apparently reappeared as User:Beameup and is wholly or substantially blanking articles to which Northbreed1 made significant edits. [63] [64] [65]. If the editing and style of the edit summaries isn't enough to demonstrate socking, it's still a vandalism-only account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Beameup (talk · contribs) about this discussion. GiantSnowman 21:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You're faster than I am. I tried to do the blanking warning and the ANI template in a single edit, but you finished ahead of me. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked User:Beameup indefinately per WP:DUCK. Extended the block of User:Northbreed1 an additional week for block evasion. --Jayron32 21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The block isn't long enough to ensure this. One month should be enough. I've seen an account with the same accusation (User:Das Ansehnlisch) and he was banned for a month. - _{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 12:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

IP sock copyvio

Resolved

 – Edits reverted and IP blocked AniMate 06:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

User:75.65.176.25, IP sock of indefinitely blocked User:Montaj13 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Montaj13/Archive#Report date November 25 2009, 04:42 (UTC)), has once again added copyrighted material to an Aaron Spelling-related article here, despite many past warnings to his/her various socks and IP socks. Aargh.— TAnthony^Talk 05:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR and then some

Resolved

 – There are separate notice boards for all of the concerns raised below. ANI can't do anything they can't and won't knowingly without more attempted dispute resolution ♪ daTheisen(talk) 11:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Canadaman1960 (talk · contribs) has transgressed WP:3RR at Kevin Trudeau despite numerous editors trying to get this new, single-purpose user to stop editwarring. User is pushing a virulent PoV position in an article on a living person. Has also made some of these edits using an IP address or two, so WP:SOCK is at issue as well, perhaps. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you offer diffs or at least some kind of "where" on the RR violation? Actually scratch then. Either deliberately or not, the user manually went through it all. Even if I assume all the -size edits... hmm. Okay, there are 4 instances where only changed or previous-changed content was placed back. 5 of "some" changes? They did mix it around pretty well. Not to say there isn't serious evidence of deliberate disruption-- or at least doing so without any explanation or edit summaries-- taking a look at this, being the comparison of all edits since this new user had at it, the net results of the edits are actually against the SPA editor. That's really the only thing working in their favor, and it's impossible to deny the pattern. I'd say any further inexplicable edits and that's it, since it'd have been after warnings/ANI so they'd have shown no interest in an improved attitude. The POV and BLP matters are just icing. You could ask for a CU on the IPs now but this looks like it'll probably end in self-destruction already. I'd ask if there were a prior version a revert to would be good, but since it's garbled somethings might get missed. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I move close this as I don't think this is an issue for this noticeboard. Several warning templates on their talk page is not trying to resolve a dispute. Note that 3RR or edit warring reports should be made at WP:AN3, and BLP and NPOV issues also have their own distinct noticeboards (see this pages' instructions and header for links to these boards). Nja²⁴⁷ 10:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No reason to argue with that. Same for socks. Just attempting to be detailed since the alleged violations were some odd "combination". ♪ daTheisen(talk) 11:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Can someone take a look at Gibraltar for some time we have had Spanish editors trying to make the article 'more Spanish' involving long discussions which are currently stalling in informal mediation;

Today we have a repeated attempt to include a long list of allegedly notable Spanish people under the heading who are most certainly NOT Gibraltarian people, as these are by definition British Citizens.

• Here

• Here

• reverted again here

The editor responsible for this is user:Ecemaml who has previously been blocked for misbehaviour on Gibraltar related issues. User:Cremallera may be a sock of his - can someone check this.

This looks very much like an attempt to start an edit war. --Gibnews (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm involved in trying to help mediate the disputes at Gibraltar. As I'm involved in the mediation and I've been an admin for less than a week I hesitate to use any tools but I've been watching over the situation. The only person who has violated 3RR at this point is User:Justin A Kuntz, but he informed me that he is taking a 2 day Wikibreak so I don't think there's any point in a block. Anyone who wants to help out and intervene, however, is more than welcome, as the heat on this article (and History of Gibraltar) seems to be rising. -- Atama頭 02:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Although you are doing a good job in trying to mediate in the Gibraltar article, it looks like there is an orchestrated attempt to disrupt that and other articles on Gibraltar and set up Justin and myself. Its very unproductive but frankly typical of the sort of harassment tactic continually used by the Spanish Government against Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've fully-protected the article both articles for one week while mediation is ongoing; it might take the heat out of the situation if editors can discuss things without needing to worry about what others are doing on the article. FWIW, I see no immediate reason to think that Cremallera and Ecemamlare are sock accounts, although an WP:SPI might be helpful to settle that. EyeSerene^talk 11:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad move. Loosmark (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? EyeSerene^talk 12:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well what if some other serious editors who are not involved in this dispute want to make some good edits? Loosmark (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}... I hope you don't mind me asking, but you're not a new editor. Is this a serious objection to what you must be aware is standard procedure in hot content disputes? Your userpage notes that you retired a couple of days ago; I can't avoid the impression that either you're making some kind of point, the reason for which is lost on me, or I'm being trolled. EyeSerene^talk 13:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Trolled!? I simply wasn't aware it's a standard procedure. Loosmark (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, no worries :) I just thought it was a strange objection. I apologise for misconstruing your post. EyeSerene^talk 14:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. So now pointless personal attacks, Spanish bashing, attributing "orchestrated disruptive intentions" to other editors, unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry and vilifying the Spanish Government is considered fair play in the Administrators' noticeboard? Still can't believe it. PS: actually, protecting the articles isn't a bad move given the current climate, in my opinion of course.Cremallera (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with protecting the articles. The contentious edits refer to events 300 years ago so there is no urgency. --Gibnews (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this is Ecemaml, the man who seems to have shot Liberty Valance. Well, I see this is not the place to discuss on the content of the blocked article, but I'd like to make it clear some of the accusations I've received:

• I've done an only semi-reversion (explaining why, dropping one of the persons in the list and including references to justify notability in those who didn't have an article yet). BTW, the edition summary in the removal of the information I had created was as explanatory and related to the Wikipedia policies as "ridiculous entry". No further information was provided in the talk page (I'm supposedly the disruptive editor).
• Examples of those that are not deemed as notable are Diego de Astorga y Céspedes (just created).
• There are solid explanations to my editions in the talk page. You can agree or not with them, but my editions are far from being arbitrary. To sum up, I argue that, as long as there is an only article for Gibraltar (that is, there is no article for the town of Gibraltar and other for the British territory of Gibraltar, much in the like of Taiwan and the Republic of China), it's valid to include in a section named "Notable people from Gibraltar" any notable person from Gibraltar from whatever period, either Roman, Visigoth, Vandal, Moor, Spanish or British. If a list on "Notable Gibraltarians" is wished, its place should be Gibraltarian people. Moreover, from the 13 people currently listed in the section, only 4 or 5 may qualify as Gibraltarian (the rest being British subjects accidentally born in Gibraltar as their parents were military garrisoned in Gibraltar, none of them known to have asked for "Gibraltarian nationality", quite sensible since they're are full British people.
• An odd sign of what's going on can be seen here. It seems as if any person in the phone directory in Gibraltar is more notable than any Spanish person born in Gibraltar.

That's all, I'll wait until next December 3, although given the long quarrel in the talk page, the section we're talking about should carry an obvious {{NPOV}}.

On the other hand, may I ask you which further step I should take. Should I ask for a RFC? Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there is precedent elsewhere. Notable members of the British Empire, such as Kipling who were born in India are not described as being Indian, although when listing their birthplace one should correctly say that Kipling was born in Bombay. It follows that Kipling could be included in a list or category of notable people whose birth occurred in India (or even in Mumbai), but not in a list of famous Indians. This would suggest that notable people of any nationality who were born in Gibralter should go in the list or category of people born in Gibralter. To exclude notable persons who are or were not citizens of the current regime in Gibralter would be unreasonable and incorrect.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you've seen my point. The most weird issue is that in the current list most of the people listed cannot be described as Gibraltarians since that term applies only to what was/is the civilian population of the town and not to the members of the garrison and their families (which are obviously only British, even if they could apply, if they had wished, to the Gibraltarian status). That is, in its current status the list only comprises people (either Gibraltarian or not) born in the city since the 18th century, when it was transferred to Great Britain (now UK), but notable people born before are simply "banned". Nobody intend to list Spanish Gibraltar-born people as Gibraltarians, but just as Gibraltar-born notable guys (of course that notability may be discussed in a case-by-case basis, but it has been excluded since the beginning). --Ecemaml (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Reinserted reply to HotR after WP helpfully blanked it. EyeSerene^talk 12:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC):

That sounds eminently sensible to me. Perhaps splitting the section into "Notable Gibraltan citizens" and "Notable people born in Gibraltar" (or something similar) might also be worth considering, if it's felt necessary to make a clearer distinction? EyeSerene^talk 11:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal also sounds sensible to me. The issue here is that there is no an equivalence between periods in the history of Gibraltar and nationality (that is, although all the notable Gibraltar-born guys in the Spanish period happens to be Spaniards, notable Gibraltar-born guys in the British period may be, usually, either Gibraltarian or British), so that option might be sensible. Other alternative could be including an only list, alphabetically ordered, including the nationality of the notable guy (for instance: "X (1850-1900) - British military engineer", "Y (1900-1950) - Gibraltarian painter", "Z (1600-1650) - Spanish cardinal"). --Ecemaml (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The very concept of "notable people" in itself could raise new issues, I'm afraid. Like this one, for instance.Cremallera (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed PROD (reason given "Not notable for English encyclopaedia"). I hold no brief for the Spanish, but there is no way this deletion would be non-controversial. Advise Gibnews to use AfD if he wishes to delete any more Spaniards from Gibralter (as none would be non-controversial) and to consider the content of WP:POINT before making any nominations, particularly of figures who were of any significance in the history of the Catholic Church - which is very much a subject for the English encyclopaedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Good move; that article is in no way a PROD candidate and would certainly get kept, and most likely snow-kept, at AfD. There's also no such thing as "Not notable for English encyclopaedia" outside the normal GNG; Gibnews might like to look at El Señor Presidente, Mario Vargas Llosa and The General in His Labyrinth, to name but three FAs off the top of my head. EyeSerene^talk 17:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know that I've reverted the PROD template (which were not removed when Elen explained to Gibnews that his attempt to make Diego de Astorga removed was inappropriate), on the same grounds, in Juan Romero de Figueroa and Gonzalo Piña Ludueña (both, as Diego de Astorga y Céspedes, created by me). I don't know the inclusion of the PROD template is a disruptive action or not in itself. I simply want to let you know that the former, Juan Romero de Figueroa has been in wikipedia for more than a year (I created it in September 2008). The latter, [[Gonzalo Piña Ludueña], had a {{underconstruction}} template as I created it yesterday. In none of the occasions I was notified as the template requires. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. If Gibnews continues to feel the articles are without merit, he can try AfD - but it would be worthwhile reading Eye Serene's comment's above before he does. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

These been created by Ecemaml to provoke a dispute by including obscure people from prior to 1704 were born in Gibraltar on the Gibraltar main page. There are a number of articles on Wikipedia about Gibraltarian people however, the list on the Gibraltar main article does not include all of them, just a handful of the more prominent ones.

Inclusion of obscure people like Gonzalo Piña Ludueña who does not (currently) merit an article in the .es wikipedia simply for the purpose of starting an edit war is something I think deserves looking at carefully. --Gibnews (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If you believe it is of no value, WP:AFD is thataway. Also, per your note on my talkpage - Gibralter is a bloody great rock. Attempts to argue that it did not exist before the Brits arrived is ludicrous. As there is not two articles, one on the current situation and one on the rest of history, or one on the current regime and one on the geographical location, it follows that the article ought to be about the whole history of the rock. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point, the article IS about Gibraltar the whole history of the Rock, including periods of occupation by the moors and Spanish is in History of Gibraltar. However the section in the main article on 'notable people' is very restricted and creating nonsense articles to justify adding obscure people of no consequence in the history of the territory is only done to provoke a dispute. And that is why its mentioned on this noticeboard. --Gibnews (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you miss the point. I'll assume this is down to my phrasing it badly. The article Gibralter is about the bloody great rock. It's not about British-Ruled Gibralter. It includes information about the current regime, a summary of the history (for which there is a longer article), the geography, the climate etc. By that definition, you cannot define people from Gibralter only as citizens of the current regime. See also the notes above about Kipling - its anyone notable of any nationality who was born on the Rock. I also recommend that you stop being WP:POINTY about people born on the rock before the Brits arrived. Again see the notes above - if you think they are truly not notable, go to AfD. Otherwise, I strongly recommend you let the matter drop. Now I am going to the talk page to recommend that we put the pre British persons back into the article, perhaps using subheadings to distinguish some time periods. Given that I am a Brit and have (as far as I know) not a drop of Spanish blood, nor any political view on Gibralter, nor any reason to advance a pro-Spanish viewpoint, I would appreciate a cessation of the personal attacks. Thank you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I think you're missing the point, adding a whole bunch of obscure people to the Gibraltar article purely because they are Spanish is being pointy. The purpose in doing so was being pointy and to provoke a dispute, the next stage of which when the people are suggested to not be notable enough to be included in what is an overview article, will be to scream that the Brits are censoring the article. Why else do you think that the editor added a stack of redlinks, how many other articles think a goat herder is of sufficient merit to be included in an overview article, or perhaps the local parish priest of a town with less than 4000 people. Notably there was nothing to even say many of the proposed additions were even born in Gibraltar.

The same editor who added 5 obscure people to the article, was edit warring the previous day to change the start of the second world war from 1939 to 1940, for an entirely specious reason. That is being pointy. The pointy edits are continuing see this diff [66] and this diff [67], the second is purely intended to be provocative.

To also make a point, this occurs during mediation at the start of which all of the editors involved agreed to an undertaking not to disrupt the article. They also agreed to discuss any changes in the talk page first. This isn't happening.

I'd also make the point, that on the British side, the editors involved made a offer to draw a line under any possible misunderstanding from the past and to work together in the future. That offer was flung back in their faces. There seems to be a tactic of disruption, edit warring, talk page posts to escalate tension, then turning round and expecting things to be discussed reasonably.

And whilst I am a Brit, I'm also half-Spanish my mother being one of the 3000 Spanish refugees who fled Franco's Spain to Britain. You suggest on the article talk page that there should a consensus discussion about who to add, the people suggested might be notable enough to justify a stub article, they're not notable enough to suggest inclusion in the overview article on Gibraltar. Now I would suggest that if you're planning to intervene, you stick around, because when the personal attacks accusing people of censorship and suppressing the truth start I would hope you'll intervene. For me, I've had a gutfull of being attacked as censoring the article because we respect NPOV and refuse to allow the article to be edited to favour a particular viewpoint.

The second reason I hope you stick around, is that I have a very strong suspicion that there is collusion off-wiki on these articles, because the actions of the editors involved is just too co-ordinated to be co-incidence. There is also an entry on the talk page that alludes to communication by email. I would really appreciate a neutral admin sticking around to ensure fair play. Not a personal attack but for me, writing was the "view of AN/I" on the talk page is questionable.

Purely for the record, Gibnews use of PROD was pointy and I don't support it. It doesn't help to adopt the same tactic of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. I do support locking the article, I would suggest it continues until ALL OF THOSE involved respect the undertaking they signed at the start of mediation, stop the personal attacks and work toward improving the article, using the talk page to discuss edits and adding consensus material to the article. Justin talk 13:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, my only accusation relating to WP:POINT was Gibnews's attempts to PROD the articles in order to get them out of the list. This is the very essence of point - it is disruptive because it fails to follow Wikipedia's own rules. Given that as it currently stands neither the short nor the long list contains any Spaniards, the concern that there is a deliberate effort to remove all evidence that Gibralter has ever had any connection with Spain has prima facie validity. A (well conducted) discussion on who belongs in the short list would not be pointy, but should not include "Spanish" or "from before the British arrived" as a category for exclusion. I am not sure that Gibnews would agree to this, but a fruitful discussion could be had by others with knowledge in the various areas, to allow us to compare say Penney with the Spanish Inquisitor - neither of whom I've ever heard of, but at least the Inquisition is something I have heard of, so that's probably influencing my decision at the moment. Personally, John Galliano is the only person on the list I'm familiar with instantly. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Prior to 1704 Gibraltar was a small town of a few thousand people, it wasn't exactly a pleasant place to live and the Spanish monarchs had to compel people to live there. To be blunt it was the arse end of the universe. That there may be few Spaniards to go on that list might have something to do with that. Thats a more rational explanation than to assume bad faith and that they've been deliberately expunged.

A rational discussion on who should be included is perfectly possible but not I fear with the editor who made these changes. They were introduced purely for the reasons of being pointy. Gibnews can be stubborn when his back his up but he is amenable to discussion otherwise. And having Ecemaml tell him that Gibraltar doesn't exist was intended to do precisely that. As I've suggested, any discussion that concluded that some or all of those do not merit inclusion would result in accusations of suppression and censorship.

Stick around, you might find it interesting. May i suggest that the article remains locked until there is a consensus on the edits under mediation. Justin talk 19:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for more input from mediator I think. And it's very well known that Birmingham is the arse end of the universe. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Not if you happen to be an engineer, then its heavy engineering Nirvana. Ciao. Justin talk 20:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

unindent

Would an uninvolved admin please take a look at Spain – United Kingdom relations, history here and Talk:Spain – United Kingdom relations. The same bad tempered exchanges are breaking out there as on Gibraltar. Justin talk 22:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the point we're discussing, I'd like to say something:

• With regard to the mediation process, it was always understood (at least by me) that it applied to a specific disagreement (how the capture and exodus of the Gibraltarian population after the Anglo-Dutch takeover in 1704 has to be described). For me, introducing five "notable" guys that happened to be Spaniards in a list already containing 13 people, was not intended to be controversial. Upon my only reversion I explained carefully my edition and provided references for the articles not created yet.
• With regard to the five "notable" guys (described as "obscure"), I'll list them just to highlight why they're notable (more verbose explaination can be found in their articles):

1. Simón Susarte: lead one of the attacks over Gibraltar during the first Spanish siege. He's notable for two matters: it's the only Gibraltar-born guy that lead an attack to the town and the only that did it over the top of the Rock. It fulfills the criteria listed in WP:NOTABILITY. However, as the section under discussion seems to list people that were notable "outside" Gibraltar, I have no problem (and I've said that above) if he's not included.
2. Juan Romero de Figueroa: the "local parish priest of a town with less than 4000 people". That town happens to be Gibraltar. That town happens not have reached again 4,000 people until the 19th century (that is Henry Francis Cary, John Beikie, Don Pacifico and John Montresor were born in a town smaller than Spanish Gibraltar). That parish priest happens to be one of the 60 people that remained in the town after the Anglo-Dutch takeover. That parish priest happens to be the only eye-witness of the siege and takeover from the inside. That parish priest happens to be the primary source of what happened in those events by all the historians of Gibraltar (yes, including William Jackson, the British Governor of Gibraltar) That parish priest happens to be the responsible of that the current Cathedral in Gibraltar stays where it stays and has kept Catholic worship for five centuries. That parish priest was the first Vicar General of Gibraltar (that is, he was no longer a parish priest). That Vicar General happens to be especially respected by the Catholic Dioceses of Gibraltar and buried in the Cathedral (here). However, same comment applies.
3. Diego de Astorga y Céspedes: Archbishop of Toledo, Primate of Spain, Grand Inquisitor, sponsor of one of the finest Baroque artworks in Spain (the Transparente). It fulfills the criteria listed in WP:NOTABILITY. I don't think further comments are needed.
4. Gonzalo Piña Ludueña: Spanish conquistador, governor of the province of Venezuela, founder of several colonial cities in nowadays Venezuela. Founder of the only other town in the world which shares the same name (as it was given it by Ludueña). Same comment as before.
5. Juan Asensio: General of the Mercedarian order, president of the Council of Castile, bishop of Lugo, Ávila and Jaén. At the moment, as he has no article, I don't object to include it.

So, to sum up, two guys from the Spanish period (in which, BTW, the statement "it wasn't exactly a pleasant place to live and the Spanish monarchs had to compel people to live there" is plainly false, since it happened only after the first Christian capture of the town in the 14th century). I can't see how such an inclusion may be controversial. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, I'm beginning to feel really unconfortable about the constant personal attacks and defamation I'm receiving. I'm trying to stick to a strict "no personal attack" behaviour, but the way I'm being defamating, as if I were a putching ball, seems to be far away from the Wikipedia principles. We can discuss about NPOV, strongly and fiercely support our positions, but personal attacks again and again are simply outside the usual behaviour in Wikipedia. Only in this discussion it's been said that:

1. "it looks like there is an orchestrated attempt to disrupt that and other articles on Gibraltar and set up Justin and myself" (Gibnews)
2. "Its (..) typical of the sort of harassment tactic continually used by the Spanish Government against Gibraltar" (Gibnews)
3. "[Articles have] been created by Ecemaml to provoke a dispute" (Gibnews)
4. "[Articles have been created] simply for the purpose of starting an edit war" (Gibnews)
5. "[Ecemaml is creating] nonsense articles (..) only done to provoke a dispute" (Gibnews)
6. "The purpose in doing so was being pointy and to provoke a dispute" (Justin)
7. "the next stage of which when the people are suggested to not be notable enough to be included in what is an overview article, will be to scream that the Brits are censoring the article" (Justin)
8. "The same editor who added 5 obscure people to the article, was edit warring the previous day to change the start of the second world war from 1939 to 1940, for an entirely specious reason" (Justin)
9. "There seems to be a tactic of disruption, edit warring, talk page posts to escalate tension, then turning round and expecting things to be discussed reasonably" Justin
10. "I have a very strong suspicion that there is collusion off-wiki on these articles, because the actions of the editors involved is just too co-ordinated to be co-incidence" Justin
11. "A rational discussion (..) is perfectly possible but not I fear with the editor who made these change" Justin
12. "[The notable Spanish Gibraltar-born guys] were introduced purely for the reasons of being pointy" Justin
13. " And having Ecemaml tell him that Gibraltar doesn't exist was intended to do precisely that" Justin

Most of the items are IMHO at least blatant assumptions of bad faith, but I'd like to highlight items 8 and 13.

In item 8, Justin claims that I've intended to change the start of the WWII from 1939 and 1940. Here you have my edition (explaining in the edit summary that it intends to talk about the "Gib[raltar] involvement in WWII") and my explaination ("stating that there was no active involvement of Gibraltar in WWII until 1940 is a "disruptive edition" (..) You possibly know about the Phoney War, that conscription was introduced in Gibraltar in 1940, that evacuation plans were drawn up and implemented in May 1940, that Churchill considered the evacuation of Gibraltar in June 1940 or that the City Council was suspended in 1941"). It could happen that, as long as my explaination was in Gibnews talk page, Justin sincerely thought what he misleadingly describes. But I did explain it to him ("Stating that the active involvement of Gibraltar during the WWII started in 1940 is possibly something that could be denied, even if it's true"). Yes. All this seems really stupid, but it's really disappointing to listen to the same misleading description of something that has been already clarified.

In item 13, Justin claims that I've told that "Gibraltar does not exist". Well, the problem here is that he fails to quote the whole sentence that says "Gibraltar does not exist from the Public International Law point of view, so a sovereign state cannot dispute anything but with other sovereign state)". I clarify that the discussion was about a dispute on territorial waters around Gibraltar. In order to clarify that such waters are British and not Gibraltarian, since only a sovereign state (the only subject, along with supranational organizations, in the Public International Law, the branch of Law dealing with international relationships between states) can "own" territorial waters, I simply mentioned Public International Law. As the statement was shocking (I didn't intend to), I duly provided a verbose explaination in here. Possibly Justin is not aware of this, but anyway, my edition has been misquoted.

Sorry for the verbose message, but really, I feel upset. May I ask for some shelter from this? Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC) PS: Elen, I'd be really glad if you'd stick around the article

Actually the above in many ways the above summarises the problem. See [68] you could have just explained, instead you choose to respond with a bad faith presumption. That your edits were reverted might have something to do with the fact that the previous day you changed the date of the start of WW2 and then edit warred to keep it. I find the explanation above less than convincing, particularly when after being reverted you never chose to give it, edit warred to keep it and it only became apparent after it was pointed out as needlessly disruptive. Given your history of a negative interaction with Gibnews, not even a charitable interpretation would assume you were simply misunderstood in your comments about Gibraltar being a none entity. Noticeably you can suddenly become very eloquent when you want to be.

Seeing as we're listing examples of edits that apparently "upset" you:

• Talk:History of Gibraltar#Unsupported and POV edit on the closure of the fence An outrageous POV accusation for simply pointing out the problems of congestion at the border crossing.
• Talk:Gibraltarian people#Page numbers Funnily enough I get upset at being called a liar.

So yes I would appreciate someone sticking around to get the full picture and not the carefully edited highlights. Justin talk 23:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, just for information, I'm quite fed up of Justin's personal attacks as well. Some of them can be seen here,here or here. Cremallera (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If you ask me, everybody needs to stop attacking everybody else. Lets leave all the nationalist viewpoints out of this - the rock was once run by the Spanishes, currently the Brits are in charge, perhaps in the future, it'll belong to the Chinese. Our role as Wikipedians is to record the current state of knowledge about the subject.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

All of those carefully highlighted diffs were in response to other's comments, just to put things into perspective. I would prefer to concentrate on articles but it feels like being backed into a corner under a number of editors who want to skew the POV of articles for nationalist reasons. I've simply asked for a neutral admin to look at the articles, with no attempt to pre-influence them with diffs. Justin talk 09:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• This thread is getting into tl;dr territory. You're not going to get more than a few, if any, uninvolved editors to read so much verbage and make a thoughtful comment. I suggest you do two things:
  1. Consider recourse to WP:SPI. I think I remember investigating a very tenacious sock puppeteer who was disrupting Gibraltar articles in the past.
  2. If there are disagreements among editors over content, try third opinion, neutral point of view noticeboard, or mediation. This board, WP:ANI is only for issues where administrator intervention is required. I don't see that resulting from this thread.

  My thoughts; yours may differ. Jehochman ^Talk 01:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does verge into tl;dr territory, the point raised at AN/I is quite simple, that an ongoing mediation attempt is being disrupted by editors who agreed not to make ANY contentious edits during mediation. That is now spilling onto other articles, see here for example, while the disputed article remains locked. I suspect when the lock expires we'll see more of the same. So I was suggesting the lock remains until everyone calms down and agrees to work constructively. I'm leading to the suspicion that if this isn't dealt with now its only going to escalate. I would also suggest locking other articles until people stop the bickering and edit constructively. Is there any objection to that simple proposal? Justin talk 09:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest, Jehochman. Let me just point out that there is an ongoing mediation process already. Recent complaints refer to uncivil behaviour, which is quite one-sided in my opinion, not to content disputes. As for "our contentious editions spilling onto other articles", sorry but I can't see the contentiousness in the Spain – United Kingdom relations talk page albeit being one of the editors involved in the current discussion. And I don't think of myself as being a particularly insensitive person. However, I do apologise if some comment of mine has been offensive to any editor. Finally, Justin please notice that I do not really enjoy the accusations of sockpuppetry, nor being described as a wind-up merchant to the mediator, neither being systematically labeled as disruptive and the like, the last time in a row being the above comment. Have a nice day. Cremallera (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Meat puppet, as in co-ordinating activities off-wiki, it was expressed as a suspicion not an accusation. Noticeably I did not specify any particular editor! I'll resist the rather obvious inference that could be made there. If you don't wish to be described as a wind up merchant, then cease the provocative postings in talk pages. Simple. Justin talk 12:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No. You didn't specify. You blamed all three editors you didn't agree with instead ("All of sudden, three Spanish editors are all ganging up together, rather like they're co-ordinating off-wiki. This screams meat puppet to me"). Sorry if I consider myself alluded, as one of those three persons. As for the inmediately prior sentence ("not to mention an editor we haven't seen in months suddenly turns up stoking tension"), tell me who is he?

I'd like to know as well if, when you said "Forget it, from past experience Cremallera is a wind up merchant" to the mediator you were referring to me or to another "Cremallera"? A simple apology would have been the sensible approach here, if you ask me. Cremallera (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If an apology was in order you'd get one but having admitted to be on a wind up, see [69], your demand for an apology seems contrived. Justin talk 20:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry? I can't see how exactly having to ask you up to four times to stick to the content of the discussion instead of attacking the editors can be interpreted as "admitting to be on a wind up". Whatever. What strikes me most is that you are still trying to justify your resorting to personal attacks by blaming me for it. Please, stop. And I genuinely mean it. Cremallera (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A simple example, I admitted to an error in naming a source, your response "Yeah. Right. Of course." So can you please explain to me how that wasn't intended to raise tension? What actually strikes me most, is that so often your posts are intended to stoke a dispute, yet you try and blame others for it. Please stop, given that agreement is apparently so close in mediation. Justin talk 23:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. And that's how you rationalize your constant violations of WP:NPA for 12 days already? How exactly is that my fault? Just in case I've not made myself clear enough earlier: personal attacks are not allowed, and you are responsible for every word you have written. Period. Cremallera (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever in accepting responsibility for what I have written. I would be perfectly content for some neutral admin to look over the talk page history. Somehow I doubt anyone would come out of it with any credit, given the bad tempered discourse that has taken place. However, I'm not asking for people to only consider the carefully edited highlights. And as I don't see this going anywhere productive, I'll draw my participation in this particular discourse to a conclusion with the suggestion that you should listen to your own advice. Justin talk 00:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Again as it keeps being hidden by verbage, the suggestion is to keep the lock on those articles until an agreement is reached in mediation. Does that not seem sensible? Justin talk 12:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've extended the protection indefinitely on Gibraltar and History of Gibraltar; I think the above suggestion is a good idea and I'm seeing signs in this thread that resolution is still some way off. I further believe that edit-warring is likely to resume once protection has expired. This is slightly unusual in that we don't normally protect pre-emptively, but I think if it's made clear that there's no choice but to resolve this content dispute peacefully, hopefully all parties will be motivated to do just that. I think it's also worth making clear that, should the edit-warring widen to other articles (such as Spain – United Kingdom relations noted above), blocks will be forthcoming. The spirit as well as the letter of WP:3RR is expected to be adhered to. EyeSerene^talk 12:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, EyeSerene, I must say that I strongly disagree with such a measure and I'll explain why. My main concern is the double standard that might be deduced of the indefinite block of both articles. In the first one, there was a disagreement about the interpretation of a given part of the history of Gibraltar and the text was removed while a consensus was made (sorry to consider the inclusion of Spanish guys in a list of Gibraltar-born guys as controversial... it would be as if someone considered controversial to add a notable woman to a list of notable men from a given place). In History of Gibraltar, as far as I've been involved, it has happened just the opposite. Justin has introduced a controversial text (which was reverted and explained by me once) and duly restored by Justin. Your block leaves it. As the block is indefinite, there is no possibility to include a proper {{disputed}} template (as there is a strong disagreement about the factuality of what Justin has introduced). Therefore, the indefinite block leaves the article such is. Obviously, it's up to you. I just wanted to object :-) --Ecemaml (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I presume that the edit referred to is this one, explained here and here. If someone could explain how traffic congestion is controversial, they'll have my gratitude. Justin talk 00:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, EyeSerene, this is Cremallera. I was previously for the temporary full-protection of both articles as it is a standard procedure intended to cool down a little a heated debate, and also to avoid the possible (albeit brief) unbalance between the pleading parties as a result of an editor deeply involved in the discussion deciding to take a short break from wikipedia the night before the blocks.

However, an indefinite protection of the articles is another kettle of fish, as I see it. I acknowledge that the intention is to motivate the parties to settle the content disputes peacefully, but I do think that the parties are not in equal positions here as can be seen in the reversion history statistics of Gibraltar's article (editions in History of Gibraltar's article are more evenly distributed, though). One party being comfortable with the current content of an indefinitely fully-protected article has no incentive to resolve any argument about it. In my opinion, unlocking the article and letting the ongoing mediation run its course may be more fruitful. It would probably be helpful to keep track of the articles as well, but I'm confident in Atama's diplomatic skills. Thanks for your time. Cremallera (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I welcome the block it seems to have cooled things down and the talk page is being used. However, given the heated comments are still being exchanged it would be premature to remove it now. Justin talk 09:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, seems coherent, since it was you who proposed the indefinite block. Additionally, I'd like to remark that the talk page has been profusely and uninterruptedly used to discuss on the details of Gibraltar's capture as of the 4th of October 2009. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The talk page discussions weren't being productive, mediation kept losing ground as whenever it appears agreement was near, the goal posts were moved. Also the outbreak of edit warring and increasingly bad tempered comments helped no one. As soon as one article was blocked, disputes seemed to break out elsewhere. It might have been my suggestion but it took an admin to accept it as reasonable and all credit to EyeSerene it appears to be working. Justin talk 14:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Keeping it short, because there is ample evidence on the talk pages etc Ecemaml shows up with an agenda of promoting Spain on related Gibraltar pages whenever there is tension, as there is now over the waters issue. Read the talk pages and you can see in one place he refers to the Spanish inhabitants as 'Gibraltarians' {highly provocative, it only refers to the current ones) and in another place denied he did. He also frequently me a liar, which is uncivil. He was previously banned for stalking and causing trouble about Gibraltar articles. Adding a number of Spanish non-entities to the main Gibraltar article is a tactic designed to provoke trouble, which is precisely why I raised it here. Gibraltar is more than 'a rock' it is the home of 30,000 Gibraltarians who are still being harassed by their neighbour in relation to a 300 year old irredentist claim and although being attacked in cyberspace is preferable to hot cannonballs, its still not what I think Wikipedia should be about. Asserting that Gibraltar does not exist is unhelpful.--Gibnews (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not I feel a helpful interjection at this point. While you may or may not be right about a particular editor, that does not give you the right to deny that Gibralter has a history prior to the installation of the current regime. After the Norman Conquest, England never went back to being a Saxon country, but that doesn't warrant removing Edward the Conqueror, Harold Godwinson et al from a list of notable people from England. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read the articles Gibraltar and History of Gibraltar The Spanish period is included. What I am complaining about is adding articles about insignificant people to justify including them as 'notable' just because of their nationality. --Gibnews (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Elen, thank you for your statement on the content issue of this dispute. However, I've got a direct question, that is therefore related to administrator intervention (something that Jehochman has mentioned previously). You've made a request previously: "I would appreciate a cessation of the personal attacks". Although I've tried to stick to your strong advice (and I think that I've got it) I see that personal attacks (against me, as usual) are the 90% of the content of, for instance, Gibnews edition: "there is ample evidence on the talk pages etc Ecemaml shows up with an agenda of promoting Spain on related Gibraltar pages whenever there is tension", "in one place he refers to the Spanish inhabitants as 'Gibraltarians' {highly provocative, it only refers to the current ones)" (mind that Gibraltarian in Spanish, "gibraltareño" does not have such connotation, this statement by Justing is clarifying in which he says "Gibraltarian is problematic when it is applied to the Spaniards living in Gibraltar before 1704, there is tension related to the term caused by the claim that the people living in Gibraltar are not the real Gibraltarians", outside that context, where is the problem in using it once?), "He was previously banned for stalking and causing trouble about Gibraltar articles" (I was banned for breaking the 3RR, something that I've never done again and that, as Atama's points out above, is what Justin and not me has been the one getting closer breaking 3RR), "Adding [Spanish guys] is a tactic designed to provoke trouble, which is precisely why I raised it here.". Finally the usual deliberate misquote of my words about Public International Law which has been duly explained (simply by offering the whole quotation). Is that fair? Is WP:NPA suspended in here? Should I just simply resign myself? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA, just curious but is using a gratuitously offensive analogy as here considered a personal attack? Can we just stop it as agreement seems near? Justin talk 23:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The truth is out there on the talk pages. --Gibnews (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the comments of Elen of the Roads are particularly helpful here. Ecememl's stated aim on his user page is to edit Gibraltar-related articles. He seems to have adopted a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude in his editing patterns. I have no idea how he justifies that somebody born in Gibraltar after 1704 is not Gibraltarian, but that is what he has done here [70] in what he describes as a "minor edit". Edits like that are non-neutral and show all the symptoms of nationalist POV-pushing. Surely, considering the huge number of articles on en.wikipedia, Ecemaml should be able to find articles to edit here that do not involve Spanish-British conflicts/controversies. Mathsci (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ecemaml actually states in his user page that he is currently focused "on the creation, expansion and neutralization of Gibraltar-related articles". I can't see what's wrong with that. Regarding gibraltarian status, you may want to read the quoted article and/or this discussion, for instance. His edits may show all the symptoms of nationalist POV-pushing (or not), but you can bet they are reasoned and properly referenced. And at the end of the day that's the only way to avoid subjectivity. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, thank you, WP:BATTLEGROUND hits the nail squarely on the head. I'm glad that someone independent has finally recognised it. Justin talk 22:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And here we go again... Cremallera (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Reading this row i've noticed that in comparison with Justin andGibnews Users Cremallera and Ecememl have remained pretty civil in their conversation in the face of somewhat aggressive replies. From my own experience with justin and gibnews i've found if you don't agree with them then your either a troll or a nationalist or anything but someone who doesn't agree with their opinion.--English Bobby (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

CarolineWH

Resolved

 – User:CarolineWH blocked for outing/off wiki harassment --Atlan (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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

In the interest of full disclosure I am currently engaged in a discussion to which the user in question is party to on several abortion-related articles. Fortunately, the pro-choice side has many articulate users whose opinions I respect and who have been productively contributing to the discussion, Caroline's absence would not detract from its quality.

Caroline came on the scene as an anon SPA fighting on abortion-related articles in October. The ip address was initially banned because it was the same as a previous sock-puppeteer who had edited the same articles. After some e-mail correspondence between the user and the CU submitter the ban was lifted and little good has followed.

The user wikistalked me for a bit, following me to places as diverse as the talk page of a Canadian military scandal and a Sockpuppet investigation. After that fun she started back into the abortion articles. Though she later apologized after a RfC was filed, she has denigrated the Christian religion and attempted to discount the opinions of its followers. She has waged a long edit-war and worst of all, has repeatedly reinserted false material into an article for no other discernible reason than that it was removed by editors who oppose her political outlook. In that last one she reinserted the statement that "there are no American pro-life Jewish organizations", this is damagingly false and is in no supported by, or even insinuated by the source. But rather than look at that source, Caroline just punched the revert button. Later on in the same edit she reverted the tense in the sentence about George Tiller to say that he is alive for reasons that I cannot comprehend. George Tiller is very much dead, he has been for a while and we have been embarrassed for things like that in the media.1, 2, 3 After I explained, curtly, albeit, the reasons for these changes on the talk page she just reverted them again 6 hours later, compromising the integrity of that article to an unacceptable extent.

After that, yesterday she filed an ANI on me (withdrawn after a lack of community support) and against policy, she never let me know.

She also claims to have phoned an editor's workplace posing as a journalist to try to confirm his or her identity.

At a time when we are having problems with editor retention this user's shenanigans have already cost the encyclopedia a highly valued senior editor, to which she reacted with malice.

It is possible that this user has productive contributions to make in other fields but nothing good has come of her actions on abortion-related articles and she has caused A LOT of damage. For the good of the encyclopedia, I think Caroline should be topic banned from abortion-related articles. - Schrandit (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(We have senior editors? When do I become one?) I have no comment about the pro-choice vs pro-life edit warring, but I do see a problem in calling another editor's workplace to uncover his/her identity. That's entirely inappropriate.--Atlan (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Schrandit, please, just drop this matter? First you and Paul came to Wikiquette alerts‎, asking that we help resolve the apparent personal attacks, Caroline promised not to make comments about you that could be construed as offensive in future, problem solved. But no, you then go on to RfC demanding an apology and redaction of a statement, which naturally Caroline gives you. Yet still you seem to be taking issue with the matter, you've now taken it to AN/I to have Caroline topic banned. Not only will that result in you "winning" your edit war, but it will also annihilate any good feelings Caroline has remaining for this project.

Through out this Caroline has shown extremely good judgement and good faith, and it has been made clear that she herself has been acting from good faith in all cases. However you seem determined to keep bringing the matter up time and again.

Caroline has apologized for the statements she made in regard to you, which is what you asked for. So please accept that apology and move on from the matter, its counter-productive to keep bringing the issue back up.

As for this whole outing accusation. Well, yes, Caroline has phoned someone's work place, and mentioned that she's done as much on wikipedia, if however, we take some time to examine the incident, we can see that Caroline's comment in regard to her phone call was very specific about not revealing the names, numbers or locations, except those freely available on the internet already. Therefore if we punish her for the phone call, we're as good as saying: "all editors on wikipedia must maintain a strict etiquette on and off the project, otherwise they get blocked", since the accusation was about something that she did off the project, it is completely irrelevant to the project. Save for the fact that she made a post that basically revealed the following: "I made a phone call to try and find out whether this user could be a certain person; they're not", that reveals next to nothing.

Unless we what to become some authoritarian power that dictates over user's activity off the project I suggest that we drop the matter. Kind regards Spitfire^Tally-ho! 10:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Her on-project activity troubles me as much as her off-project activity. - Schrandit (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note: there is currently an RFC for CarolynWH where the phone call to the editor's workplace is being discussed (and poo-poo'd by a couple of editors), and a long discussion on my own talkpage (including a couple of entries that I removed) about the same issue. I agree that the incivility seems dealt with, but the User:Ecoleetage-like phone call to an editor's workplace is highly problematic. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "forum shopping" comes to mind as to the number of places this matter has been discussed, Wikiquette alerts‎, RfC, AN/I, user's talk pages, project talk pages, etc etc. Also, I wouldn't say we've "poo-poo'd" the accusation, we've pointed out why its not a valid complaint, if you just scanned over that and disregarded it as, uh, "poo-poo'ing" then maybe that explains why its become rather hard to communicate effectively. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 10:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not worried about outing, as that hasn't been the case, but would you like it if people from the internet call you at work for no other reason than to check who and what you are IRL? Calling someone's workplace you have a dispute with on Wikipedia could be considered real-life harassment. For reference, User:Ecoleetage was banned for such actions.--Atlan (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I see Bwilkins was thinking the same thing.--Atlan (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we stop bringing up this thing about Ecoleetage, he was banned for an incident that was unrelated to the real-life harassment (sock puppetry, I think...). And this incident is completely different from that one anyway, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Ecoleetage was banned for harassing a user by calling his work place. Pastor Theo was banned as his sockpuppet. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this phone call. What was the purpose? AniMate 11:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)No, the harassment was exactly what he was banned for. Saying, "sock puppetry, I think" gives me the impression you have put no effort at all in looking into that matter. I will not stop bringing up that matter, simply because you find it undesirable to discuss it. I think the parallels to that issue are relevant.--Atlan (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec with Atlan) Hmm, maybe he was, still, the two are very different (Caroline and Eco). The purpose of the phone call was to work out whether an IP user was the same person as a previous sock master, something that interested Caroline as she had previously been accused by Schrandit of being a sock of the user. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems unnecessary. Why not just file a request for checkuser? Frankly, I'm appalled by this user's actions. AniMate 11:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If I told you I'd shot a man in Reno (just to watch him die) you'd probably be appalled too, and rightly so, however, that gives you no grounds to block me. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. And you complain about the lack of relevance to the Ecoleetage case?--Atlan (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha, the main point is; off wiki actions shouldn't have an impact upon our presence in the project. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)We have checkuser for such investigations, which allows everyone to remain anonymous. I think you trivialize the phone call too much. Yes, Ecoleetage's call was pure harassment, while Caroline was investigating an IP editor. I still think that's taking things too far, and it creates a chilling effect to other editors. But that's a matter for debate.--Atlan (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What do we want to achieve here? A block is meant to be preventive not punitive, although I still think what Caroline did wasn't something terrible, I doubt she'll be doing it again. So what constructive gain is there by discussing the issue like this? Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"It already happened, there's nothing to prevent". You can get away with anything but blatant vandalism with that reasoning. I wasn't arguing for a block by the way, I'm merely discussing the appropriateness of calling someone at work.--Atlan (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't what I said. What I said was more alone the lines of: "the user won't do it again, so forget the matter", if the user was likely to do "it" again then you could block them as a preventive measure, if they are not likely to do it again then any blocking becomes punitive. Anyway, I'll be leaving the discussion for a while, I may get back this evening. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 12:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

PS, I didn't mean to imply that you were calling for a block, and I do realise that you're just discussing the matter, my question however was: "will anything constructive come out of the discussion"? To which I personally think the answer is no. Kind regards Spitfire^Tally-ho! 12:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't really like discussing here, while there's an Rfc about basically the same issues going on right now. In that sense, I agree with you. As for what a block would prevent: I can understand if editors Caroline works on articles with, have concerns about such intrusive investigations. We don't want an atmosphere where people have to worry about their personal lifes being investigated, simply because they take an opposing stance on abortion related issues. You may assume she won't do it again, but the die has already been cast, I feel.--Atlan (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The user account has been active less than a month, although she did edit anonymously for some time before that. In that time she's been willing to issue an apology and retraction based on community feedback at WQA. At my request she immediately withdrew the WQA she posted regarding Schrandit. It seems reasonable to assume that she would agree to refrain from making phone calls relating to Wikipedia if asked. Would such a commitment be sufficient to allay your concerns? If not, what would? Gerardw (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Can we agree to limit the scope of the discussion to the phone call? Gerardw (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What is problematic to me is that based on the posting on my talkpage, CarolineWH still fails to see that making the phone call was a problem - they continue to justify it. The defence and minimalization of the phone call by others is just as bad. If, when presented with a clear and similar case, the user still "doesn't get it", how do they move forward? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the edit-warring and the re-insertion of false material need to be discussed as well. - Schrandit (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

All phone calls to people's places of work should result in immediate indef blocks. It's chilling, and wrong, and failing to take immediate action will spread more nonesense beliefs like spitfires that this is acceptable. Bali ultimate (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur, there seems to be a misunderstanding regarding what preventative means, it is not only so that the user in question does not cause further direct damage but also to ensure that other users are aware that such actions has consequence. Tracking down an IP editor in order to gain satisfaction within wikipedia is by no means 'off-wiki'. Unomi (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Can somebody provide a reason not to block CarolineWH indefinitely for attempted outing? Why shouldn't she remain blocked until she agrees not to attempt to do such a thing? This does not look like an edge case. Jehochman ^Talk 14:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, all. Now that I know that this discussion exists, I'd like to contribute.

I'll say three things briefly, then answer any questions. First, I have no intention of making any phone calls in the future. Second, I am absolutely certain that my actions in no way threatened the privacy of any editors and therefore was not an example of WP:OUT. Third, please note the context of this accusation. CarolineWH (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here's the context: your supporters feel that the phone call to someone's place of business does not belong in the RFC. Fine then, based on the section of WP:NPA that I have quoted both in our discussion on my talkpage, and I believe I left it in the RFC, this is an issue that requires immediate intervention - if there is indeed action to be taken. Indeed, when I became aware of the situation in the RFC, I should have brought it here myself. You have had about a full day since the end of the interactions on my talkpage to reflect - based on the above, I'm not sure you used the time wisely. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A couple of weeks ago, I voluntarily revealed the fact that I did this research, while carefully avoiding any revelation of private information. My motivation was to demonstrate that yet another checkuser conviction was mistaken.

Weeks passes without a whisper, until the now-departed User:Paularblaster digs it up to try to add substance to an unpersuasive RfC/CU that he and Schrandit launched. There was no haste or cause for it, just an ax to grind.

Now, I said outright that I won't be doing this again, and whether or not you agree with the action, there was never any potential to harm anyone, much less an intent to do so. All this talk about a "chilling effect" is well-meaning but simply mistaken. No matter how you add it up, the situation is one that requires calm reflection, not urgent action, because there's a risk of knee-jerk reaction without actually understanding what happened.

Now, I'm going to ask you, Bwilkins, the question you refused to answer before, and which you deleted from your talk page. Bwilkins, how could my phone call have caused anyone to lose their job? CarolineWH (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(@ CarolineWH) Do you understand why we would be concerned with your off wiki sleuthing, and how that could have a chilling effect? In other areas it would be bad enough, but considering that you are editing abortion-related articles (some of which likely document the murders or stalking of abortion providers) makes it more so. Syrthiss (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec):It was uncalled for sleuthing. You clearly indicate investigating the workplace of either Spotfixer or Phil Specter, even if it eventually didn't turn out to be their workplace. Had it happened to me, I would consider such intrusive investigations into my private life just to one-up me in a content dispute, harassment. Despite saying you won't make such phone calls in the future, I see no indication that you understand how serious and inappropriate it was.--Atlan (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The "I have no intention" phrase is what sports coaches famously say when asked about their interest in another coaching position...the day before the big announcement that they're changing jobs. Take this user's carefully nuanced response, add it to the complete inability/unwillingness to recognize that the previous act was harassing and inappropriate, and you have one very problematic user here. People who cannot conduct themselves properly in hot-button topics should simply be removed from the topic area. Tarc (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked CarolineWH indefinitely. This shouldn't have even been discussed this much. Completely inappropriate behavior; no real indication that the editor realizes why it is wrong. Tan | 39 16:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tan, I wonder if you could do me a favour? Please quote the precise part of policy that Caroline violated. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HARASS#Off-wiki harassment, specifically this: "Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely.".(let wiki-lawyering commence...)--Atlan (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't lean too hard on that phrase, it might break. The problem here is that the moment WP:HARASS is mentioned everyone gangs up for a witch hunt, when WP:HARASS has actually been violated, then maybe its fair enough that they do, however, on this particular occasion the policy has not been violated. Starting with this accusation of privacy violation, at no point did Caroline actually intrude upon the person who she was trying to "find out" about. She rang a work place, and asked if anyone by the name of the person she was looking for worked there. They didn't, thus, no ones privacy was violated. Now you're probably thinking: "Okay, but what if that person had worked there?", the answer to which is: they don't, so it doesn't matter. (also note that Caroline has said she won't do it again)

Secondly, WP:HARASS states: "This policy is aimed to protect victims of genuine harassment which is meant to cause distress to the user, such as repeated and unwanted correspondence.", Caroline obviously didn't mean to cause distress, there was no victim, as the person she was phoning up about didn't actually work there and so her phone call had no effect upon him, and finally, it was a one-off isolated incident, which brings us on to WP:HARASS#Consequences of harassment: " editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated incidents". I request an unblock. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, Carolin recently said that she: "did not ask for anyone by name. I asked about recent hires who were graduates of my schools. In this way, nobody in specific was mentioned. I then hung up and used their automated system to check for any employees named Specter; none were found. So even if he had worked there, the receptionist would not know that I had checked." Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Any call to a work place, under any pretense or justification, is harassment in the wikipedia sense and would have the tendency to very much chill the editing environment if tolerated. Indeed, one can almost see the implied threat in the innocuous call to the office. Maybe the next call won't be so innocuous, hey, if your editing doesn't shape up... The user in question continues to prattle on about her "intent" (as you appear to be doing) as if any of the rest of us should care. We don't. Until she provides a statement along these lines (I welcome her to copy paste this) she should remain indef blocked. "I understand that calling that person's place of work was wrong. I promise I will never, for any reason, try to call the workplace or home of another wikipedia user again. I now understand that there is never any justification for actions like the ones I recently took. I understand that i will be indefinitely blocked if i break this promise and that i won't be given a second chance to come back."Bali ultimate (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As someone driving by I must say I agree with Bali. Spitfire's dependence on the fact that CarolineWH didn't violate anyone's privacy exempts her from having tried. Whether she was succesful or not is irrelevant, the fact remains that she tried to discover the identity of another editor. I, for one, would not feel comfortable knowing that other editors are allowed to investigate my background with impunity. It does not directly violate any wiki policies but I'm not sure it should be condone (or even embraced as your postings seem to indicate). Just because she failed doesn't negate the attempt. Padillah (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)As a completely uninvolved party, I completely agree with Bali Ultimate and Padillah. There is no wiggle room when it comes to this type of privacy violation. Tan's block here is sound. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 17:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: to Bali; Firstly, the use of the word: "prattle" only causes to further inflame the situation, please be careful when dealing with sensitive matters. Secondly, you're supporting the block on the possibility that she might call someone's work place again (not "home", some please don't use that word), however, you say that you're willing to let the matter pass if Caroline says she won't do it again, therefore I suggest you observe her previous comment in this discussion; "Now, I said outright that I won't be doing this again." Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: to Padillah; I don't embrace violations of policy, please don't suggest that I do. Another thing I don't embarace is editors getting unfairly blocked just because someone yells outing. you suggest that Caroline tried to find out another editors identity, this however is false, what Caroline actually did was try to find out if and identity she already had matched a certain editor. she did this in an extremely careful and sensitive manner, see this edit. You also say that just because she "failed doesn't negate the attempt", yes, she "failed" (or from her point of view succeeded in showing that the editor was not working at that place), however, as she didn't find out anything, there was no harm done, no harm done provided she doesn't make this a pattern, which she won't (see above comment: "I said outright that I won't be doing this again.") Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't mean to suggest anything except what your continued justification and defense of these actions suggests: that you condone the actions. Since you are, in point of fact, condoning them and justifying them, it's really the only conclusion I am left with. As for her failure, that is secondary to her attempt. As RaseaC points out below Attempted Murder is still a capitol offense. Just because you suck at shooting doesn't mean you weren't really trying to kill. You argue that she already had the identity she was just trying to match it to an editor - for me this statement calls into question the very basis of this discussion. If you are trying to equivocate the discovery of someone's identity by "matching" vs discovering someone's identity via other means then we have a serious problem. There should be no circumstance under which one editor is allowed to investigate the real life identity of another. No amount of wikilawyering should allow any amount of investigation under any circumstances. That this isn't painfully and obviously clear to both CarolineWH and yourself is a great concern to me and, I hope, to others. Padillah (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if you meant to miss and you did, then that wouldn't be a problem, particularly if you fired the shot into the ground at your feet (although a lot of people would probably argue that you'd been trying to hit the person, but really really really sucked at shooting), Caroline didn't aim to find out where the editor worked, she aimed to find out where they did not. As I said, I don't condone a violation of policy. The problem is that policy is debatable, and I have not seen proof that Caroline's actions were a violation. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Spitfire, enough! Caroline is not going to be unblocked because of anything you say here. Padillah, I think you should feel free not to have to prolong this ridiculous argument (just a thought). Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Elen, enough! Spitfire is not going to shut up because of anything you say here. Although, I'm starting to think that maybe its time to let this die, I can see that no one is going to change their minds, and as your argument is the one supported by an administrator (who apparently reckons that consensus doesn't matter: "While consensus isn't a vote etc etc etc, this rings in at Caroline and Spitfire vs. Everyone Else.") there's not a lot to be gained. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah seriously, as soon as you go off-wiki and start looking for people you've crossed a line and don't belong on the project. The 'she didn't find them' argument is ridiculous, if I go and shoot my neighbour but miss I'm still going to have some questions to answer. The editor obviosuly doesn't understand that what she did was wrong and that is probably the most worrying part of all of this, for that reason alone it is probably best that they stay away from WP for a very long time. It's all well and good trying to educate people, but when the issues are as fundamental as Caroline's I think the only possible route is an indef. I've been following this discussion and have been amazed at how long it's been carrying on, Tan, or any admin, should have issued a block a while back. raseaC^{talk to me} 16:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Spitfire -- If you don't like being accused of prattling then stop prattling. As for caroline - real, extended grovelling, and iron clad evidence that she understands why calling the home, work place, church, former school, etc. etc. of any wikipedia editor is very clearly wrong. Then promises that she will never, ever try to track, either by phone or internet records or any other means, the real life identities of any wikipedia editors. Perhaps an essay making it clear why these sorts of violations are so harmful is in order as well. All i've seen on her talk page so far is surliness and self-justification. Again, a prolonged, full prostration is needed to come back from a violation of trust this serious.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure quite what you aim to achieve by having her grovel at our feet? Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a good block. Any attempt to contact the workplace of an editor with whom one has a conflict – successfully or not – is entirely unacceptable. This is a 'bright-line' rule. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

She didn't have a conflict with the editor, which immediately throws that "rule" out of the situation. Also, she was only trying to see whether or not some one she already knew worked there, her aim was to prove that they did not work there, not that they did. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Who are you, her wiki-lawyer? You are sure doing a lot of poking and prodding around the edges of policy, looking for gaps to exploit. The moment someone attempts to "investigate" another user in this manner, that crosses the line into harassment; there is no wiggle room here. This approach to editing in what is supposed to be a collaborative project is simply cancerous, and should not be tolerated n the slightest. Tarc (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No just an editor who doesn't like to see people unfairly accused of things they didn't do. You people sure do a lot of "assuming" about policy that isn't actually there, apparently just so that you can justify blocking people. The policy actually states: "editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated incidents", I haven't seen any proof that this is a pattern, and certainly no proof that policy justifies a block, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. While consensus isn't a vote etc etc etc, this rings in at Caroline and Spitfire vs. Everyone Else. There's no need to convince Spitfire of the appropriateness of this block. Let's all move on. Tan | 39 17:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"etc etc"? As an admin you kind of have a responsibility to justify your blockes, I am left in extreme doubt as to whether you can when the only response you've made is "There's no need to convince Spitfire of the appropriateness of this block". Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

While I indicated at the RfC that the forum was inappropriate for bringing up material not related to the dispute, I believe the block is completely appropriate. I also attempted to discuss the phone call privately and found that Caroline was either unwilling or unable to understand why the behavior was such a serious concern. Checking up on an editor in real-life, no matter how well intentioned, is completely inappropriate. I'm very concerned that Caroline is continuing to defend her actions; she doesn't appear to realize the seriousness of her intrusion. Shell ^babelfish 17:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Might help to look up: Wikipedia:HARASS#Private_correspondence. She has already shown that she appreciates how serious any actual off-wiki harassment is, and she has said she won't do this again, even though she doesn't think it qualifies as harassment, which shows that despite her own feelings on the matter, she is prepared to let you (the community) be the judge of whether or not certain behavior is appropriate. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't believe that's the case. She's just called her actions harmless and repeatedly stated that she didn't break any rules; there's just nowhere we can go from there. That's some serious stubbornness despite copious feedback; her actions were inappropriate, full stop. Shell ^babelfish 17:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please explain in detail how the phone call and attached edit harmed anyone? Not how it could have harmed them, but how it did, regards Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

One last try Spitfire. While i can't demonstrate harm to any particular person, that sort of action is very, very harmful to wikipedia's editing environment. In theory, a productive editing environment is the most important thing here. Actions like hers are corrosive to this most important thing.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I can, easily. It has irrevocably damaged my ability to trust that I can edit articles like Abortion without fear of being investigated, outed or harassed. How's that? I don't say this to "win" the argument, I say this as an honest response to the question. You are looking in one specialized spot and saying "There's no harm" but you are failing to see the effect these actions have on other editors. Do you not see that condoning the investigation of editors in Real Life, however innocuous it may seem to you, tells other editors that they are subject to the same consequences? Don't you see the harm in this? Padillah (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, what I am saying doesn't deserve a block is when the investigation has no harmful consequences and none are intended (provided there's an understanding that future investigation will lead to a block), what would deserve a block is if the investigation did have consequences, intended or not. So really, Caroline's edits will only make people feel that they can investigate people so long as they don't find anything out and they don't aim to, and no one (except under cicumstances like this incident regarding Caroline) really sets out to investigate people not intending to find anything out. If that makes sense. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic block - why anybody is arguing this is completely beyond me. Contacting an editor's workplace is completely out of line - This is one of those situations where even a "sorry, I won't do that again" wouldn't be good enough. What Caroline did completely crossed the line and then some - the only answer is to swiftly show her the door and make sure it's securely locked. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

For the last time: she's said she won't do it again! WP:BP states very clearly: "Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern." However, you seems to be justifying the block on the ground that what Caroline did at the time was shocking, however, she won't do it again, so the block is punitive, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Outing, or anything that resembles outing, is one of those situations where it doesn't really matter if the editor says they won't do the said crime again - the fact of the matter is that they've already done something which most people consider to be the most serious thing you can do here. I'm not going to get into the intricacies of whether not she outed the editor, but it does come under that umbrella. Is this is punitive block? I don't think so because of the seriousness of the charge. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The "seriousness of the charge" has no effect on whether or not a block is punitive. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A bit late to the discussion, but I'd like to quickly state my support for this block. Any sort of off-wiki investigation is completely inappropriate, over the line and indicates a severe lack of propreity. GlassCobra 18:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Late to party but absolutely support this. I said at the RfC that this was an immediate block rather than a discuss first. Calling up the person you believe to be another editor's employer/professor/priest/mom because you want to find out who they are, is right out. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am leaving the discussion. I'm sorry that the discussion couldn't have had a more productive outcome, in my opinion a punitive block is about as far from productive as is possible. But, as I said, its clear that no amount of discussion is going to change the matter, and so I'm regretfully going to have to leave it as it stands as the discussion is becoming counter-productive. Kind regards to everyone involved, and thanks for your time and opinions, both of which are valued, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Since 1) this is winding down into a pissing match between one fan and everyone else, 2) the user in question is unable to find fault in their off-wiki stalking actions 3) the user is no longer contesting the block, can this be marked resolved? Tarc (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Spitfire, I think you should reflect on how it is that community consensus seems to be behind this block. The likely outcome of appealing to excerpts of policy is unlikely to result in having the block overturned. I agree that perhaps language regarding the unacceptable nature of trying to deduce the workplace or identity of an IP editor should be spelled out more clearly. It is unfortunate that it should be necessary, as most hold it to be self-evident. I also do not see this as a punitive block but rather one aimed at protecting wikipedia from further harm. Allowing attempts at breaches of privacy, which I believe CarolineWH's actions constitute, would be to invite harm to wikipedia and its editors. Unomi (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see when I said "let wiki-lawyering commence" up there, it was taken as an invitation to do so. Clearly consensus is for the block to remain. This discussion isn't going anywhere else from there.--Atlan (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There's pretty much no way that calling someone's employer, even without bringing their name into it, can be justified. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, OK, The matter is over (see above comment), please, please, just leave it? Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Move to mark as closed. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been since 18:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Look at the top of the post (this is just a section) Padillah (talk) 19:13, 30 November 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.

Waste / CarolineWH

While I do not condone the activity I do not feel an indef ban is the appropriate response. The losing of a potential good editor in a rush to judgment is a waste and does not benefit the Wikipedia community. To summarize the consensus position of community as I understand it, the issue is not that Caroline refuses to agree not to repeat the activity but rather that she is defending herself and refusing to take the position that she should have known a priori that making the call was an improper activity. I have been involved since the WQA on 24 Nov and have found Caroline to be willing to listen to advice and counsel when presented in a respectful manner. Meaning depends on context, and interpretation of action should be made in that light. To start, let's consider the original post by Caroline herself

I doubt it, since CU is immune to oversight and has no reason to be honest, but I'm sort of proud of myself so I'm eager to brag. I might have very limited computer skills, but I'm tops at research! I clicked a few links here until I got the company name behind the IP (which I won't mention here in case they Google), then found their phone number on their web site and gave them a call. All I had to do to get their cooperation was explain who I was, including my role in the student paper, and say that I was researching where our recent graduates went off to and how they're adjusting to the real world. I didn't say so, but I'm sure the receptionist assumed it was for a story.

[[71]]

Note:

• She states her skills are limited. Therefore, saying 'she should have just done a checkuser' presumes she even knew that checkuser existed. This is not reasonable
• She is clearly cognizant of the need to prevent breaches of privacy. She intentionally did not post the company's name and provided a cover explanation for why she was calling. At no point does she mention Wikipedia is this account.

Therefore it is understandable to me to she is unwilling to state that she someone should have known the making a call was unacceptable before being told.

Meaning depends on context. Caroline had gotten engaged in disagreement over Abortion page content with Paularabaster and Schrandit. The history here is intervention postings, focused not on the outing but rather on unrelated Abortion page discussion, by Paularbaster on WQA 24 Nov, and Paularabaster on WP:RFC 25 Nov and finally here 29 Nov by Schrandit. Both BWilkins and Elen of Roads have stated they should have escalated the issue to AN/I but in fact they did not. I infer from many of the comments above that is is obvious to the community here that Caroline's activity should have resulted in a block immediately. In contrast, no one reading either the WQA nor the RFC brought the issue to the attention of AN/I. Therefore it seems to me that what is obvious to the experienced administrator community was less obvious to the general editor community. Therefore it is unreasonable to expect that it would have been obvious to a new editor.

under attack

Multiple factors came together that likely resulted in Caroline feeling attacked:

• The fact the AN/I was posted by Schrandit rather than a third party editor despite the fact the activity had been known for days
• her action was compared to stalking abortion providers
• reference was made to countries where Wikipedia activity could result in harm, although I believe the call was not made is such a country

why the haste?

Based on past interactions I considered it likely that if Caroline was forced to respond without having an opportunity:

• to have explained to her the mores of this new community she was part of, and
• given time to reflect and digest the reasoning behind those values
that she would not "get it." To which extent I counseled her to wait before responding [[72]]... I had hoped to have an opportunity to talk her through this. Unfortunately other editors demanded she respond immediately, to poor results.

When a person feels both attacked and pressured to respond quickly it is significantly less likely they will respond in an insightful way. What I don't get is why the rush? Why the need for haste? An explanation of Wikipedia's point of view, concurrent with positive validation of Caroline's intent while making the call while disapproving of the method, coupled with time for her to process, could very well have resulted in a much more positive outcome.

The justification of the ban as a deterrent against future misbehavior presupposes that a new editor such as Caroline would both be aware of and review past Case_law of AN/I. This is inconsistent with the anyone can edit model of Wikipedia.

Therefore I respectfully request the indef ban be mitigated. I don't think any block is necessary at all; however if the community feels some cooling off period is justified my past experience suggests a few days would be sufficient. Gerardw (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Gerard, the user was given all day yesterday to rethink as per a discussion on my talkpage. You don't call someone's work/church/home, period. When politely confronted and shown a similar case, you don't continue to justify it. Arguably, Spitfire's discussion absolutely shot down any chance for her, however, she was provided more than enough opportunity to realize her bad, bad, bad judgement. She chose to justify it instead. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No mitigating circumstances. Caroline sought real-life personal information of other editors to be used to her advantage on Wikipedia. Her totally unapologetic response when asked about it, sealed the deal.--Atlan (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

She called what she thought was another editor's place of work and refused, despite repeated prodding, that this was a major wrong hereabouts. She continued to insist there was no problem with her behavior. Excellent block. Prevents more possible instances of same from an editor that crossed one of the brightest red lines here and pour encourager les autres (one can hope).Bali ultimate (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Linking to "case law" is missing the point entirely. This isn't a government and no laws are being enforced. The intent is to protect Wikipedia and its editors. Tracking down and contacting an editor's employer is so far over the line that there's little point in debate. If I thought that such things were given an inch of tolerance I wouldn't want to participate in Wikipedia. That kind of thing is scary. -- Atama頭 01:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of at least one underage editor who felt she had to leave because of being publicly outed here. I think many of us are aware of one very prominent editor who retired for a time because his real name was announced elsewhere. I know that if anyone ever revealed or sought in a way I could find out any real information about me, and I found out about it, my next and final edit here would be to announce my retirement. She was repeatedly told that this sort of thing is not acceptable, and yet she continued to argue that it was. If she can do that once, she can do it again, probably for other reasons which she would find equally acceptable. Whether the people she was attempting to basically "out" would find that acceptable is another matter entirely. We cannot allow one editor's being unable (or refusing) to "get" something potentially drive away other editors, and the record will show that she has already driven away one. She has been told how to appeal the block. Whether she chooses to do so is another matter. However, if she does choose to do so or not, she is being given a good deal of time to come to understand how and why such actions are unacceptable. If she indicates that she does understand to the ArbCom, the block may well be lifted. If she doesn't, then the risk of further misconduct by her along these lines is a very real one which could do some form of harm to virtually any other editor here and I cannot she why we should run that risk for any single individual. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see also [[73]] Gerardw (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Gerardw for bringing this continued discussion to my attention. One of the most disturbing things for me about this whole sorry saga has been the way it has been conducted all over the shop in various forums. I am no newbie here, but I have found it very difficult to keep up with all the various threads of the discussion in all these different places. In my opinion this is an abuse of process. It has been nothing more than a gaming of the system by two experienced users (one who has since flounced) who have taken exception to an oposing opinion about a content dispute. People here who should know better have allowed these two to dig for something that could be turned into a hot button issue and responed unthinkingly when they had no compunction in pressing that button. Certainly CarolineWH's actions deserve censure, but she has been denied natural justice by all this forum shopping - which surely should have raised some alarm bells with people here - which has made it impossible for her to respond, especially given the pressure that has been applied to elicit a rapid response from her. Frankly it looks like a kangaroo court to me. I have stated in the link supplied above by Gerardw what I think should have happenned. It is not too late (I hope) for this precipitate action to be reversed and more naunced approach to be tried.

Finally, there remains the issue of the two who started all this, whatever CarolineWH's actions deserved, this sort of simultaneous multiple forum attack on her is unjust and unconscionable. We cannot afford to allow this sort of abuse to continue. The two perpetrators of this should not escape with their actions unsanctioned, especially given the way the current case for a new user has been dealt with. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

CarolineWH has been told how to contest her block. I can't see any administrator willing to unblock under these circumstances, so she can always take it to ArbCom. AniMate 02:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Gerardw, your entire argument falls at your very first note (why would she even know there was such a thing as checkuser). Read the text you quoted - that bit about CU not being subject to any kind of oversight. CarolineWH had in fact had a disagreement with a checkuser in an SPI prior to the events described, which was why she decided to conduct her own off wiki research. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on ANI

Resolved

 – Reverted, blocked, now ignored. @Kate (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just issued 4im warnings to the two IPs (98.247.230.86 and 123.211.73.44) for personal attacks here. Is there anything more to be done? HJMitchell You rang? 09:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

They're both open proxies, but now blocked. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not really. It's just /b/tards. Ignore and they'll go away ;) - Allie ^❤ 09:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know who they're likely to be? I notice that their only edits are those personal attacks which makes me suspect they might be someone's sockpuppets but I don't spend enough time on ANI to speculate as to whose. HJMitchell You rang? 09:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of idiots who hang about on /b/ getting other, bigger, idiots to cut-and-paste this type of boring vandalism. It's, quite literally, random idiots. Not socks and not really even meatpuppets. Just random idiots. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 09:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, contrary to popular belief (and mounds of empirical evidence) not every idiot on the internet is from /b/. I was on there all night and saw no wikipedia raid threads. Please stop besmirching our name. We can do that just fine ourselves. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

O RLY? ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 10:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

404. A screencap is your best bet when trying to document anything on 4chan. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to document it. But you'll just need to take my word for it. And Alison's word. And SirFozzie's. It was /b/. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 11:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

:`( Why so hate? Throwaway85 (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Trying to look for threads about Wikipedia on /b/ is the equivalent of trying to look for variously placed needles in 50 haystacks which are moving at 30 miles per hour. Threads on /b/ are added so quickly, virtually nothing stays on one page for more than about 5 seconds. If you were to constantly refresh and refresh the page, anything that was there on the previous refresh is already gone... and that's during the less active times. The thing that should not be 16:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Please stop besmirching our name". That's the quote of the month, right there. Tan | 39 16:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No /b/smirching their name, yo. Protonk (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Funniest thread I've seen all week. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

←I took a screencap last night. You can see it here, FWIW. I've redacted Foz's personal info, though it's still NSFW :-O BTW, I'm a proud on-and-off /b/tard myself & can tell you that most people on there don't care for that 'Personal Army' nonsense - it's really only n00bz and the really, really bored that care about these things. I'll probably write up an essay on it at a later date, so people know how this stuff works - Allie ^❤ 21:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

self-portait, Alison? --Jayron32 22:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

lol - hardly :) As the thread on /b/ states, I'm a fat cow ^_^ - Allie ^❤ 22:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying people actually fell for that PA request? /b/, I am dissapoint. Oh, and btw, TITS or GTFO =P Throwaway85 (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Diana Napolis, Do No Harm, attempted outing, and maybe sockpuppetry

I tried to remove Diana Napolis's blog as an external link from her article because I found it to add no encyclopedic value whatsoever. i further reasoned that in the spirit of doing no harm, it could possibly be psychologically harmful to her for wikipedia to link to her site, as she might misconstrue our linking to her as an encouragement and verification for her delusional ideations. you'd have to read her blog and article for context on how profoundly disturbing her paranoia and delusions are.

Diana Napolis is notable, and has a wikipedia article, because she stalked steven spielberg and made death threats against jennifer love hewett because she believed that jennifer love hewett could read her mind. her blog has postings such as "“They” and a mass of other personalities are underneath my home and the surrounding area. It might be their home base. I need assistance getting the good guys out. They have plans to expand. Their weaknesses are flickering lights – (strobe lights would work) - sent with negative energy; spinning, and cold temperature. It appears that my opponents can “mind-upload” or “mind transfer” anyone into the program that I see into, contrary to the belief of various officials that it can’t be done."

after reading her blog, i tried to remove it from the article. but it was added back with the other editor's reasoning that it's permitted under policy. i started a discussion on the talk page [[74]] where the other two editors disagreed with my assertion that linking her site might be harmful to her. i reasoned that her site is unecyclopedic, does not benefit the article in any way, and also might allow her to misconstrue wikipedia linking her site with somehow legitimizing her paranoid/delusional ideations. after the two other editors disagreed, i decided that it would be better to get more experienced help, so i posted on the BLP noticeboard for further advice. User: Scott Macdonald was the only editor to come to the article from BLPN, and he supported its removal and wrote "Do no harm" seems to me to be a perfectly good principle for not allowing our encyclopedia to be involved in encouraging mental delusion. Placing it here simply encourages people to stop and stare at an ill person. That's not what Wikipedia is about. and here's where things got weird User: Hipocrite accused me of being diana napolis, which makes no sense. and then an IP accused me of the same [[75]] - it appears to me that both the IP and hipcrite are the same person. i suppose this is a technical violation of wp:outing, but it's such an illogical accusation that i think the situation now requires much more outside scrutiny. there are probably more sockpuppets here than just hipocrite and his/her IP.

this is my original posting to the BLPN with rationale as to why the link should be removed: [[76]] here is the talk page discussion: [[77]] Theserialcomma (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Er, I'm not the IP, the IP was the one that said it first, and I thought you had made it public that you were Mrs. Napolis. Given that, apparently, it's neither true nor public (I guess), I've removed my statement. I suggest you remove this section as well. Hipocrite (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I independently initiated an AFD on the article over related concerns at about the same time this thread was started. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

hipocrite, please provide a diff of where i've claimed or intimated that i'm diana napolis. writing things like "apparently, it's neither true nor public (I guess)" just shows your intent to continue with your tactics. for the record, i'm a male in my 20s, not an aging woman named diana. if anyone in this bizarre situation is actually diana napolis, it's certainly not me. i'll leave it up to the other admins and editors to see through your ruse and sockpuppetry. Theserialcomma (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• and what are you doing removing the IP editor's comments? if that isn't you, you probably shouldn't be touching other people's talkpage comments [[78]]. and by the way, do you think no one can figure out your passive aggressive intimations when you use edit summaries like "apparently TSC is not napolis". do you think we are fools? Theserialcomma (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to remove the violations of WP:OUTING. I suggested you do the same in this thread. I swear from on high that I have no intent of engaging with you, or the article about Mrs. Napoli ever again, ever. You are obviously not Mrs. Napoli, and I apologize for beliving the IP editor, who, by the way, is located in a totally different state than I'm in. Hipocrite (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: What did you mean by this edit summary Hipocrite? Unomi (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

TSC was very worried about outing (see this report). I redacted lots of outing. He undid all of my redaction - so, while I was scrambling to fix my mistake, he was scrambling to return it. I did my damndest to remove as much of the outing as possible, with the slightly sarcastic comment that it must be ok for the stuff that I left to stay. Hipocrite (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you consider TSC taking the time to counter allegations of being Diana Napolis self-outing? Did you perhaps mean 'attempted outing' in your previous post? Unomi (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

An interesting argument. However, I refer to the policy, which you clearly have not read, WP:OUTING. "If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason." Perhaps you should spend less time following the contributions of people you have previously been in disputes with and move on to other practices. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I will be honest with you here, I do not recall having been in a dispute with you. I think the closest thing to that was when you came to my talk page after I had commented on the jzg/guy rfc, demanding to know how I came to be aware of it and voicing concerns of your edits being stalked. We had a brief exchange on rfc page but certainly nothing that I would consider a dispute. I am not looking at your contributions because you are Hipocrite but because you are a user that has been presented as having made questionable edits here on ANI and I wanted to see if such allegations had merit, upon seeing your choice of words I asked for clarification as the wording you have used in your edit summary and posts could indicate that you have indeed not relinquished the desire to intimate that TSC could be Diana Napolis. I have read WP:OUTING and I am sure that TSC has as well. I respect his decision to react against attempted outing and/or personal attacks. Should you have read WP:OUTING previously then you should have known that repeating the allegations of the IP editor(I assume that this is how you come to curious notion) without diffs that clearly indicated self-outing would be against policy. I apologize if this strikes you as us having a dispute, now, I consider it a clarification of how I perceive the situation. Unomi (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a fairly simple case as regards the link to the blog. If the article is upheld at AfD, then the blog remains per well established content policy. As regards outing, it was not a good idea to speculate if any Wikipedia editors might be the subject of the article. I know we do it often when we suspect COI, but its one of the really troublesome aspects of our COI policy. This is clearly a particularly strong case where we would not want to make the speculation because of the possible harm to an editor, but the contraction to OUTING really occurs every time we do it, unless of course self-admitted. Once the decision is made about the article, some courtesy blanking and possibly oversight would be in order. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I second what DGG said about outing and COI, it's sometimes a tightrope. Generally if you need to err, err on the side of caution and don't out someone even if you're pretty sure there's a COI. What I see from this is an IP did the outing, and Hipocrite thought the identity was previously disclosed and was no big deal. When he realized that wasn't the case he tried to clean things up. While he made mistakes, his intentions seemed good the whole time and as soon as he realized he might be violating policy he tried to fix it. He should at the very least be commended for that. -- Atama頭 23:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Getting back to the BLP issue, I'd like to mention that Template:Satanic ritual abuse (linked to at the bottom of the Napolis article) has led me to some serious BLP violations, especially under the "Notable People" section. I've removed a couple of egregious examples, but I will crosspost this to the BLP noticeboard for further review. I think some of this may be residue from User:ResearchEditor and his merry band of socks. Skinwalker (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm the article's creator, FWIW, as well as {{satanic ritual abuse}}. I don't know where all the attention is coming from or why - in my mind there is extensive support for the status quo page. Per WP:EL Napolis' blog clearly should remain and per WP:N she is very clearly notable. This is basic policy and guideline stuff and I'm quite surprised to see the quality and quantity of the objections. There's nothing not available on a news site, most of the sources are outright linked (I have copies of unlinked news articles as I say on the talk page), and it's not like the page is being used in a disparaging manner. Napolis has edited wikipedia (there are two templates to that effect on the talk page) but never the Diana Napolis page proper including the Diana Napolis page itself - one of which moved the link to her blog in the EL section. The IP addresses comment seemed like a simple case of mistaken identity, one that I saw but didn't even bother to comment on. I don't believe TSC is Diana Napolis, based mostly on the fact that I usually recognize editors who have worked on the satanic ritual abuse pages and TSC's handle didn't ring a bell. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Theserialcomma is right to want to tiptoe very carefully around the mental health of apparently a very fragile person. If DN feels strangers are reading her mind, yet she is essentially posting her diary online, well, there's a self-fulfilling prophecy, but we for our parts shouldn't be "immanentizing the eschaton" (helping bring closer the inevitable end of things). Visiting Bedlam to taunt the inmates is so passé this season, can't we watch bear-baiting instead? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• • i would ask, how does linking her blog benefit the encyclopedia article? i don't think it does anything good for the article, other than the fact that WP:EL allows it. on the other hand, could it possibly hurt her psychological balance by letting her think that wikipedia somehow accepts and gives credence her delusions? this seems plausible, considering she's a paranoid schizophrenic. this is why i believe it should be removed, but it's an editorial decision that consensus will have to decide, i guess. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't therapy. Under that logic, if she said she need Spielberg's or Hewitt's pages blanked for her health, would we do it? There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Diana_Napolis#linking_her_homepage though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That hypothetical about spielberg and hewett that you've presented is actually 100% fallacious logic and therefore logically irrelevant to my argument. furthermore, WP:THERAPY is about WP not being therapy for editors, the guideline has nothing to do with how to deal with BLP subjects, which is what we are discussing. Theserialcomma (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't therapy for anyone. No serious article could be written about any person (or many topics) if our primary concern is "will this affect this person's mental state". Witness Susan Boyle (and again), Britney Spears, Star Wars Kid, and any other potentially embarrassing, but highly notable events and people. There are good sources, extensive discussion and nothing unreasonable on her page. Also note that nowhere does it say she is a paranoid schizophrenic.

For every argument that "x page could affect the subject's mental balance" there is a speculative counter-argument: it might make the subject seek out help. It might make the subject take their medication. It might make the subject go on a shooting rampage. It might make the subject take a vacation. But we don't know. We're not doctors, nor should we try to be. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We're not trying to provide therapy for her. We're telling people quit poking her with a stick to see if she reacts. As you say, we're not doctors, and we shouldn't be pointing people to her personal blog just for the hell of it. It doesn't add anything to the understanding of the subject. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Who's poking anyone with a stick? As WLU has pointed out on the article talk page it appears that Napolis reformatted the placement of her blog link in the External links section herself -- without removing it. Your statement strongly implies an assumption of bad faith. If you do not wish to imply that someone is intentionally poking her with a stick until she reacts I suggest refactoring your comment. There may well be an argument against inclusion based upon what it does or does not add to the entry but that is a content question and not a BLP concern. The editor who brought this matter here initially removed the link on the basis that it was SPAM. Only after being rebuffed did they post on the talk page with a BLP concern. The two arguments are completely contradictory, since one suggests that Napolis is spamming the entry with her blog for her own benefit and the other suggest that we're causing her harm by linking to her page. If anything the manner in which this matter has been brought forth and has now been forum shopped around the encyclopedia bares some scrutiny. I don't mean to suggest that there is any impropriety here but simply that a bit of forethought before making arguments or insinuations might benefit this discussion immensely.PelleSmith (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Star Wars Kid purposely censors out the kid's real name, as does Genie (feral child). these are not examples of people using WP for therapy to benefit the article's subjects, but editors deciding to lessen any potential harm to a living person, which is what i'm arguing for.

and your counter-argument examples are logically flawed arguments - no one knows what allowing the link will cause or not cause. your attempt to use a counter argument with modified premises and conclusions completely changes the argument, which is a logical fallacy. i'm arguing that X might cause Y. you're arguing that X might cause Z, Q or even -Y. You also mentioned in the talk page -X causing Y. There is no possibility that what you have presented as counter arguments would ever pass any scrutiny from a logician. This is not good logic.

but back to the issue: the burden on editors here is to do no harm, not ensure her article has a link to her blog. are we potentially doing harm? i don't know. wouldn't it be better to play it safe, though? i say yes. by the way, to respond to why i called her a paranoid schizophrenic, it's because one of the court documents i found while googling called her so. Theserialcomma (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the link to the blog; its contents are grossly unacceptable for linking pursuant to the BLP policy, among other considerations, and the encyclopedic value of any link is outweighed by the blog's defamatory and frankly sad contents. This material is not to be restored except by affirmative consensus to do so. See, if necessary, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Remedies; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#Remedies. I may comment on other aspects of this situation later. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

IP editor at Editor assistance

An ip editor who has been vandalizing a page may have made a legal threat, I informed them of WP:LEGAL and gave them a talkback message on their user talk, but I'm not sure what they're going to do. see here --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Most definitely a legal threat. IP blocked for two weeks (should it be longer? Seems like a static address...) Tan | 39 04:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Tan, on the face of it, this doesn't appear to be such a good blocking move. The guy said his legal representative had actually written to WMF. If he's done that, he;'s done what we ask people to do, so I'm not sure why you are blocking him. We don't block people while a legal argument with WMF takes its course. Also, Has someone checked that the article doesn't contain a potential BLP vio in amongst all the NPOV stuff. If he was involved in the case (or his kid was) that is a distinct possibility. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEGAL states, "Do not issue legal threats on Wikipedia pages." Stating that you sent the "letter" to WMF legal (this is implied; he didn't state that it was WMF), and then following that up with "a ban will just make it worse FYI", causes my AGF to DIAF. Tan | 39 16:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

New tools

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#New tools β^_command 18:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

How do others deal with unresponsive editors?

By unresponsive I mean not using edit summaries, talk pages, etc. In this case it is Yongle the Great (talk · contribs). I moved Kingdom of Dazhou to Kingdom of Da Zhou - the first time simply explaining in the edit summary that this was what was used in the sources I could find, the second time going into some detail on the talk page as well as posting to the editor's talk page. He's reverted me both times. Now he's created Factory Guards and Template:Factory Guards which are again naming convention problems. And Government of the Ming Dynasty with no link to Ming Dynasty and which is on unnecessary fork from that article (he's copied the text from perhaps New World Encyclopedia, so it may be from an earlier version of Ming Dynasty. I'll notify him of this discussion, perhaps that will draw him in. Ironically I asked him for help with another editor creating unreferenced Chinese history stubs who is also unresponsive. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 06:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Experimental solution-- This seems to be a good case for just-finalized-yesterday new CSD-A10. I put it on Government of the Ming Dynasty, as it literally meets the description word for word. Almost too easy. Trial by fire is always good. ...If the A10 is declined it's still more than appropriate for normal deletion process. The other two creations, when combined, seem tricky. They're redundant, meaning only one of the 2 exist...... at least with the Factory Guards is that formm. Because I'd like to AGF for now on it and the notability I can make no fair decision on, my opinion is that it's acceptable to have that there as a stub, even if it's an article version of a category. Since it has no formatting I can't start to guess what the intention was. This is far from an official opinion, but on the assumption that Factory Guards will need to grow and prove notability , for the time being... since it's just a list right now, same as the function of the template, CSD-T3 likely matches... however, I'm going to go with just removing it from the pages with a normal edit including a link to this in the edit summary. as an explanation.

Since the 'Guards' article is going to have to be largely expanded and presumably articles for the other 3 redlink'd entires has at least some kind of chance of later use there's no extra point to deleting

I'm looking at it this way-- the article can grow and might end up with all 'Guards' without separate branching articles for each. The template is, until the Factory Guards page is substantially enhanced and there are justifiable separate article for each entry that would be there, the template is entirely meaningless. Need to post some tidbits a few other places concerning this and I'll check again a bit later. If you (and author, too!) could give statements on what to do with the Guards article and template, please do! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

One thing we don't do is assume good faith indefinitely. If an editor is editing against consensus and good faith attempts have been made to communicate with them, via edit summaries, their talk page, article talk pages, etc and they won't answer after a reasonable time, then their actions have become disruptive. There could be a variety of reasons they might not respond, in the past I've had editors who come from other language wikis to insert stuff but create some kind of a problem and continually revert it, but don't speak english. If you think this might be the case see if you can determine if they speak another language and find a user to translate, or use google.--Crossmr (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely? Of course not, but for a user without a bad track record and before any of the "questionable" content has been reviewed there's no reason to change the AGF push while the process is going on. Incidentally, decision of my A10 nomination was a redirect to the Government section of the parent article without any content changes needed. Good learning experience. ...And yea, if it's endless non-responses to requests for reply that can start to wear on good faith as well.

My extremely unofficial way to test AGF in random conflict is similar to how 3RR is violated. Original actions were onfounded? -1AGF credit. Apparent unwillingness to discuss or at least explain at some legth a rationale for those actions? -1 more. In this case, if the user in question has still been contributing to the encyclopedia and ignored our request here, or has deleted the delivered courtesey message of the ANI off their talk page, well, -1 is "3AGF" and I'll start looking at things a lot more firmly. Naturally, extreme events can skip or extend the system. Also, if I'm coming in to a dispute fresh even if 10 involved parties are at 3RR with final warnings on harassment and civility, since they haven't been uncivil to me they get one shot at a good impression at least. About the situation on the renamed article-- could make a redirect on the opposing page and ask for a lock on it? Naturally, an admin would want pretty overwhelming evidence that it is the "correct" version, or if deciding this run itself out, disruption and incivility warnings would swiftly become more justified since any other options appeared to have have been exhausted. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This user isn't doing anything obviously wrong, unless everything they are doing is a hoax. Leave them alone. My quick look at Factory Guards indicates the capitalization is correct. It is a title. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The user is not using edit summaries and not communicating. They aren't referencing their articles. I don't think everything they are doing is a hoax and I'm glad you responded on the renamed article, all I wanted was a justification for the spelling. But when I make a change that I explain and get reverted with no reason given, go to their talk page and to the article talk page and they still ignore me, that's wrong and leads to edit warring. I still think that Factory Guards if it is worthy of an article needs an unambiguous title (more than just a capital 'G') and that we need to get the editor to start using edit summaries. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, unresponsive users are the most frustrating. What I've learnt to do? is ignore 'em back. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Total agreement with above. Even if you have totally opposing viewpoints you can usually bend some things around to find a little middle ground the majority of the time if you talk. If persons never communicate, you can't actually do a thing. I believe it's the matter of just blindly moving an article for what seems like the fun of it that starts the trouble, and though not "wrong", it isn't encouraging. The lack of communication is after that is possibly elevating it all since it's pretty hard to justify what you did in direct opposition to another editor when they never speak. Looking at their edit count... 6 total usertalk messages? I'm not having high hopes on the "team player" angle. That'll make this a bit harder. Edit history as a whole suggests a WP:OWN type of feeling, but I don't think with all that much malice. I don't know. Something feels amiss and it's hard to drop that feeling without any statement. There's more for me to look into ... wow I can't believe I forgot to sign before ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I don't trust the very large and mostly awesome contribution history, it's if the efforts or opinions of anyone else cannot don't seem particularly compatible once encountered. In virtually all this user's high edit count articles there were highly unopposed, on occasion lone and extremely similar IPs hopping along. A few times a number of edits were done in opposite directions the user's next edit was section blanking. Yea, more research. Still really can't do anything for now besides trying to beg for comments. Even worse than someone avoiding communication?

Un-responsiveness can be considered disruptive, IMHO? GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that he knows enough to start a stub with an 'unreferenced tag' such as Li Zicheng Uprising but there's no link to Li Zicheng - which actually does a better job of covering the same thing. One of my concerns is that he is creating articles which are more or less duplicates of existing articles. Hopefully he'll be back on line in a few hours and start communicating here. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Communication is the foundation of collaboration, and absolutely fundamental to the way we work here. If they simply ignore all attempts to engage them, the only recourse we're left with is to block them indefinitely with an explanation as to why; this either forces communication or they find something else to do. I've left them a note explaining this, so hopefully we'll get some sort of response. If not, then we can think about taking other action. EyeSerene^talk 18:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oooh nonono, indef blocks over just some article content disputes are so depressing when a solution might be something as simple as getting a NPOV reweite and both users agreeing to never touch (one of?) their contested articles again. Socks? Both agree that they're open to random CU checks vs users that edit suspiciously. No... Too easy, right? A few days ago and ANI came up about a mountain. It could not be agreed what it's "official" location was. I suggested they just add every imaginable category to it that was factually correct so no one could complain a POV bias. I mean. It's all there. I later learned the pair had issues deeper than that, but it's never good if someone is so fixated on "victory" (in an encyclopedia!) that they'll fight so hard over one mountain that even the idea of an overload with somewhat redundant categories to make it as neutral as possible to allow some relaxation... and still not find that extreme amount of a NPOV from an uninvolved party, knowledgeable random responder editor...? That's not good enough? To offer as much neutrality as possible to deliberately put it away for awhile for discussion later... that mountain is important than it's worth ignoring the good faith of others and very unusual attempts to try to help... it's just hard and discouraging for me since since it about flags things as "wasted time" it leads me to even more time researching to try to figure out why this is common to this user. I will never understand how only one article-- no matter how much it might mean to you if you're the largest contributor-- is worth the sometimes high risk of a complete removal from Wikipedia. And stillllll waiting for a comment over here... ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't get both users to agree to something if one user refuses to communicate, that is kind of the point here. You absolutely cannot work with someone if they refuse to discuss any edits, especially if what they are doing goes against consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this particular editor is still not responding but still editing. Dougweller (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My own technique for dealing with non-responsive editors, is I assume that they are just completely unaware that anyone is trying to communicate with them. Sometimes they don't know about the history tab, and the orange bar "you have new messages" is just a permanent fixture on their browser, which they ignore because maybe it looks like an ad to them. As for reverting, I've talked to new editors who were genuinely perplexed why their "new" information suddenly disappeared from an article, so they just assumed it was a software glitch, and re-added it. If it "disappeared" again, they re-added again, and sometimes would get quite persistent (and frustrated) as to why the software kept "losing" their edits. They didn't know that others were reverting them, they just knew that the article was strangely changing when they weren't looking.  ;)

When push comes to shove, usually it's a 3RR block that'll finally get such an editor's attention. Like someone will add {{cn}} or {{cleanup}} or AfD tags, the non-responsive editor will remove the "bizarre" templates (which from their point of view just appeared out of nowhere), then other editors add the tags back... Eventually the non-responsive editor gets blocked, and then, finally, they may notice that they have a talkpage. But in the meantime, unless they're really adding bad info, or charging ahead completely unaware of a talkpage consensus that they're violating, I'd say to just leave them be, in their own little wiki-worlds.  :) --Elonka 07:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem there is when it's an article no one else is interested in, and 3RR works both ways - so unless it's a copyvio or BLP issue, this approach could get messy. Dougweller (talk) 08:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Noticed your latest on their talk page. Elonka's suggestion definitely has its merits, but copyvio can't be taken lightly (and I don't read her post as suggesting that it should be). If they don't respond this time, I think intervention is in order. A short block would be preferrable, but typically I go for indef on evidence of persistent copyvios after a warning and with no response to that warning. EyeSerene^talk 12:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User has uploaded a number of images that might need to be checked. The general logic used on the file pages has no violations due to image age (as in, the 700+ year variety), but things uploaded don't particularly look like scans or images out of a museum. License and copyrights aren't listed on a few... though a polite random editor fixed a few. Some are linked as from a museum in China, and I have no idea what their copyvio standards are... others look digitally altered/enhanced with no original for comparison, but again I have no idea whatsoever on their copyvio, or how we deal with it overwrites in any way because of our server location, etc. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wait... GRRR... Ooh, now I'm grumpy. It's on to premeditated disruption besides the copyvio text matter now. One of the user's new articles was something seemingly CSD-able under the brand new A10, and yesterday I listed it here. Responding admin made me realize that most A10 decisions could be redirects (I felt very dumb) and changed the article without new content to a redirect to location I'd earlier specified here. ...User apparently didn't remotely care about this despite the warning appearing on their talk page and an edit summary mentioning the appropriate change of the article to a redirect, later putting all the old text back in here. Does this could at the "magic bullet" step mentioned about of how usually someone hits a 3RR violation by mistake? Oh, and Dougweller caught this a bit ago and changed it back to what it should have been, though his politely-detailed edit summary wasn't really needed given an official admin article action was reverted without a reason given. I'll let the admin know. ...Reverting an official admin article action related to an incident report without any reason given is bad, right? Why do I get the feeling something is going to happen fairly soon... ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Although they haven't edited since Dougweller's latest note to them about copyvio, they were active since the earlier warnings and have clearly ignored them. That revert of a perfectly valid redirect, again with no attempt at communication, is I think the point at which good faith becomes unduly strained. I've blocked them for 24 hours. They're active enough that they should notice, so we'll see what the response is. EyeSerene^talk 18:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, a block is the way to go. Yongle's actions are coming across as arrogant. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming late to this discussion, but from earlier threads it appears that the best practice for this kind of problem is a "good-faith" indef block until the unresponsive editor decides to talk to the rest of us. I'd say DougWeller is well within his rights to do that now. -- llywrch (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that's normal procedure; this is the first less-than-indef block I've tried in this sort of situation... it was kind of experimental. Because they seemed active enough to notice a shorter block, my aim was to try to provoke some kind of response without the stigma attached to an indefblock (even a good-faith no-prejudice one). However, there's been no response and the block has now expired, so I think my experiment was a failure :) I've now upped the block to indef. EyeSerene^talk 21:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with indef. Though keeping with AGF, there's always a chance that an un-responsive editor might choose to wait out their block. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Shopping for an appropriate forum

Hey, the shopping season has officially started, right? I'm looking for the right forum in which to discuss my concerns about a particular editor. There are several issues that touch upon many categories, while not fitting neatly into any single category. Do I shotgun my concerns to the various distinct but applicable noticeboards, or is there an industrious admin with significant free time reading this who can formulate a comprehensive, single course of action? Here's the background information followed by my specific concerns:

On November 6, User:96.231.137.242 added a paragraph to the Bill Maher BLP article. I removed it because it violated several WP:BLP policy stipulations including sourcing, verifiability and inaccurate contentious material. This was my first interaction with this editor. He repeatedly reinserted the content, so I warned him against edit warring and BLP violations. He was blocked for 31 hours for 3RR and edit warring. Immediately following the block of IP96.xxx, User:DyadTriad appears and continues arguing for the inclusion of that same paragraph, eventually re-adding it. Shortly after that, User:Valerius Tygart picks up the same argument, and starts re-adding the same content. I heard ducks quacking, so I initiated a Sockpuppet Investigation here. Checkuser confirmed 96.231.137.242 = DyadTriad = Valerius Tygart, among others. The editor admits using the many registered and unregistered accounts, but denies using them abusively - contrary to the findings of the SPI case page and the checkuser results. Several of his sock accounts were blocked, and the case archived. Since then, Valerius Tygart has resumed re-inserting the contentious paragraph into the Maher article once per day, each day, for over two weeks now — despite objections from editors on the talk page. In addition, this editor has been attempting to modify his archived Sockpuppet Investigation case page, to the point of getting himself blocked yet again for disruptive editing. Despite (and during) this block, as I type this, he is still maintaining his slow-burn edit war on the Maher article with his Tygart account.

As for forums, I could post on the WP:BLPN so that other editors can tell Tygart what he already knows: he's trying to insert poorly sourced content into a BLP that intentionally misrepresents the subject's views, against policy. But that doesn't stop the repeated reverts. I could post at the 3RR/Edit Warring noticeboard, but the once-per-day revert war doesn't technically violate 3RR, does it? Perhaps I should go to WP:RFPP and request page protection until the BLP violations are resolved? I could go to the SPI noticeboard and say, "Hey - this confirmed puppeteer is editing with some of his accounts while his other accounts are blocked for disruptive editing - what gives?", but the case is already closed. Any suggestions? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Here would appear to be the best place. Did the SPI conclude that Valerius Tygart was the sockmaster? If so, a longer block would seem appropriate. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then this reeks of gaming. I would suggest a longer than usual ban just to beat it into people's heads that no, we aren't idiots, and we can see what you're trying to do. Things like a once per day edit to avoid 1/3rr is clearly an attempt to skirt the rules. Give them a long ban, and keep them on a short leash when they get back. If they can't play nice, then indef-block. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that User:Valerius Tygart be indef-blocked for disruptive editing. Using an IP to tamper with his own sockpuppet report takes the cake. (If you're trying to convince people that you're an incorrigible sockpuppeteer, that's a good way to do it). He should be told that the block could be lifted if he would agree to edit with only a single account, and refrain from editing the Bill Maher article. He could still participate on the article's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I was the admin who blocked IP 96.231.137.242 for edit-warring at Bill Maher, recommended the filing of the SPI, and then blocked the confirmed sock accounts after confirming that they were being used abusively. At that stage I blocked the sockmaster Valerius Tygart (talk · contribs) only for 31 hours in order not to be punitive, and assuming that the socking and disruption would stop. Given that the sockpuppetry has been goind on for over two years and has continued even after the SPI confirmation, I support EdJohnston's suggestion above. Additionally, the Bill Maher article can be semi-protected, if needed to prevent such disruption. Abecedare (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That puts the icing on the SPI cake! Have you blocked the IP already? - _{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 12:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tygart has used at least these 2 IPs since the closure of his SPI case: User:96.231.137.242 and User:140.139.35.250. They appear to be static, not dynamic IPs. Tygart claims to use multiple accounts "legitimately", but I stopped assuming good faith after checkuser J.delanoy confirmed Tygart = 140.139.35.250 = Dogwood123, but Tygart denies ever being deceptive or saying, I am not "Dogwood123". Either Tygart or J.delanoy is lying, and I know where I'd put my money. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing and User Talk page abuse by Scientus

For the past several weeks, user Scientus has been obstructively editing the Alan Grayson page. He has persisted in editing in blatantly NPOV language and extensive soap boxing. Multiple times, we have reached a consensus on the talk page, only to have Scientus ignore our discussions and then persist in his NPOV editing. The best example of this is in this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alan_Grayson#More_NPOV_language_from_Scientus
Scientus has additionally persisted in filling my talk page up with unconstructive allegations against me. These are summarized here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Trilemma&diff=329253240&oldid=329038550
I would additionally like to request an IP check of user Sam Albrecht, whose only editing was on the Alan Grayson page and whose NPOV language was suspiciously similar to Scientus'. I also have concerns that, given the doggedness with which Scientus has persisted in his NPOV edits, he may be officially connected with Representative Grayson. Trilemma (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, Scientus vandalized my discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Trilemma&diff=329030997&oldid=329026048 Trilemma (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've filed the sock puppet complaint on the appropriate board, to update. Trilemma (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive edits at Isaaq

62.16.204.103 (talk) has been repeatedly making unattributed changes to an attributed listing in Isaaq. I see this as disruptive editing, and I have left warnings in the past (several in October, and a final warning in November). However, I am not so sure I should impose the block myself, because the attributed version was my initiative, in order to prevent the list looking like it did before (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Somalia#Clan lineage). This does seem more an issue of disruptive editing, rather than a content dispute (in which case WP:BLOCK says a can't make the block myself), but I figure I would err on the side of caution. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Call me a weenie if you want but I hesitate to call that vandalism. It may be bad editing, but I can't call that deliberate disruption, even if the information is unattributed. It's more like being bold than anything else. Even disruptive editing, if done in good faith, is not considered vandalism per WP:NOTVAND. -- Atama頭 02:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

From my experience, the articles about Somali clans make up one nasty swamp of unattributed information & endless questions of notability. (Combine the usual problems with articles about US high schools & micronations -- that's what one gets to tackle with these articles.) If I could find one solid source which covered most of them, I'd tackle the challenge -- but all I've found are brief overviews & the occasional description of a few of the larger clans. And I doubt no one but our Somali editors even care about this sinkhole at the edge of Wikipedia -- & they aren't the most objective editors to leave these articles to. -- llywrch (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinton Caruthers cross XfD advice

An eager editor has apparently built an impressive package of content. The articles all seem to be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinton Caruthers which also lists a template and category. My hunch is the closer can delete those as well but those items are currently untagged as potentially being deleted. Any suggestions as to the path of least drama? -- Banjeboi 20:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If a category includes no articles I think it can be deleted. Not sure on a template, but a Miscellaneous for Deletion can always be done after the AfD closes. No rush. I think it's best to let things run their natural course. FYI, sometimes editors can be sensitive about postings regarding active AfDs because they think it can sway discussion or be used as a form of canvassing. I'm not accusing you of anything, and I know this post was made in good faith, but I do think it's worth being aware of. Perhaps best to follow up after it closes or to ask the questions more generally as a policy matter unrelated to a specific case (although even that can be touchy with all the paranoia going around). :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you mean well however that doesn't address any of my questions concerning this case involving an AfD that is cross-listing an CfD, RfD and Tfd without actually tagging those items for XfD. As they are all dependent on the articles, which all seem likely to be deleted, is this an IAR where the AfD can be cited for deleting these other items as well rather than sending each of those through SNOW processes. -- Banjeboi 01:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried to address it by suggesting that you leave it to closing admin and taking it from there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Need help with Karaoke Revolution (2009 video game)

Resolved

• Edelweisz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 70.161.65.83 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

This matter is both a case of vandalism and possible sockpuppetry and so for ease am going with this more general board.

Could someone else help me with watching Karaoke Revolution (2009 video game)? I keep reverting IP and new user borderline racist and homophobic vandalism to that page, including such absurdities as:

• "Monkies apparently work at BLITZ Games and Konami. Monkies who don't know that a Music STORE is actually supposed to be STOCKED with songs available for PURCHASE. Instead we get a nice, empty screen." - from the IP
• "Reason is: Konami is too gay to be trusted." - from the account

And the above are just some of the multiple edits being reverted. It is happening faster than I am able to handle as I am working on some off-wiki stuff at the moment as well. Please note that despite a warning, the editor has just replied with, "Idiot! WTF are you talking about?! Stop impeding with my progress of contribution, you moron!" and "Konami is indeed a gay asshole! That is what the "FUCK" I'm doing!" Please help. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This about sums up their edits today. I've blocked the username indefinitely. TNXMan 23:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And article semi'd for a week to head off further silliness. Black Kite 23:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Tnxman307 and Black Kite. Is it worth further checking if there is a relationship between the IP and the account? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

They're clearly the same editor, so I've given the IP a short block as well, though the autoblock from the username block should've taken care of that anyway. Black Kite 00:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sounds reasonable. I posted a request at the Video Game Wiki Project for other members to perhaps help watch list as well should the problem re-occur after protection ends. Take care! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Alastair Haines attempting to circumvent deletion process

Rather than accept the results of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 15 on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adamantius (journal), Haines has recreated the article several times today, under various names including Di studi del gruppo Italiano di ricerca su "Origene e la tradizione alessandrina", Del gruppo Italiano di ricerca su "Origene e la tradizione alessandrina", Adamantius (theological journal) and User:Alastair Haines/Adamantius (journal). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I will not block as I closed the AfD as delete. But especially in light of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 15, these actions by Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) are disruptive. I agree with Orange Mike. Cirt (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped and the article is now in his userspace, which is OK, isn't it? Fences&Windows 19:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition, he removed two times a speedy deletion tag (and the tag was removed a third time with a similar edit summary by an "anonymous" IP). The article has been in his userspace for quite some time, but yesterday (at least once) and today (at least three times) he copied it into article space several times, including to Adamantius (theological journal). --Crusio (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. First, shouldn't he be asking for it to be userfied instead of doing it himself (if that is what happened)? And we do need a time limit on articles in userspace, and in fact I'd much prefer them to be in the article incubator. I'm not happy with that behaviour being rewarded by letting it be in his userspace where it will be found via Google. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with userifying an article oneself. Since userification is essentially automatic except for copyvio and libel, requiring someone who is able to do it is adding unnecessary steps--except possibly when the existence of something has been exceptionally controversial, and this was not. It;s essentially equivalent to an admin deleting pages in his own userspace. Normally, I do not delete single-handed myself, because I know I make a certain percentage of errors and I do not want to risk doing damage to someone' else's work unless some other Wikipedian agrees (not necessarily an admin), but in almost all cases userifying does not have the same sort of negative consequence. I argued against that journal, & it is possible that what I said about it may have been decisive, but it might be possible to show it notable and I have no objection to it being in anyone's user space. anyone who wants it removed can go to MfD, but in recent decisions there we do not remove pages that have any potential at all from the space of bona fide editors for at least several months. They normally do not harm. Using the incubator is a matter of choice; it is hardly an established feature of Wikipedia at this point. I would not want to place any procedural obstacles in the way of improving possible articles.

Obviously the other things done were not good things to do; I do not know to what to attribute it except a short lapse from an otherwise excellent admin and editor. It was right to bring this here, but I think perhaps enough has been said. I can;t imagine it will be repeated; if it should, then some action would be required. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said, my main problem with userfying is the ability to use userspace to get publicity through Google. You've confused me a bit here, who are you talking about when you say excellent Admin and editor? Dougweller (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the incubator idea is a good one. I think just having it somewhere it can be worked on is good, and satisfies the noindex issue. We all agree this is a good outcome? And given this is the sole sticking point, we can agree a block at this point would be unnecessary? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be worthwhile hearing from the accused party on this one.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 20:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggested it on his talk page ( if he's the one DGG means, he's not an Admin and although he has his good points he has a bad block record). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 20:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

sorry about that; when it was said he userified it himself I thought you meant "undeleted and userified", and i did not check. Some of my comments are therefore irrelevant, and I struck them. Cannot any particular page is user spae be NOINDEXED? DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Any page can be NOINDEXED by a variety of means, the easiest of which (in my mind) is adding {{NOINDEX}} to the page itself. That template is also transcluded in a number of other userspace related templates including some for userdrafts. Protonk (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Contra the thread starter (whose good faith I don't doubt), I am opposing (inadvertent) admin obstruction to the improvement and maintenance of the encyclopedia. Admin merely enact the completed decisions of past consensuses and provide a point of contact to reopen discussion should new evidence arise. If I am mistaken, and individual admins have some intrinsic authority, then criticising their actions ought to be protected speech, not wilfully slandered as "obstruction". But I am not mistaken.

The verifiable facts regarding this stub are:

1. it was speedied while the subject area expert who created it was unavailable--perhaps a little unwise and precipiate, but so be it, it's permissible and the speedy proposer did the right thing by notifying me, so no harm done, I later restored sourced content that had been removed without adequate discussion to form any consensus for such an action;
2. it was relisted for adequate (which should mean at least both informed and reasonable) discussion--absolutely fair enough--again I was absent, sorry;
3. after some time only two responses had been posted, one of which proposed a reasonable "litmus test": is it peer reviewed? if not, ditch the thing, but if so, it deserves a chance: the score was "creater for, proposer against, 1 I don't know, default to delete, 1 I don't know, here's a basis for making a decision" and quite rightly, it was relisted because inadequate discussion provided no grounds for consensus to form, so no grounds to mandate any administrative action on behalf of the community;
4. two brief posts were made after the manner of the first response--don't know if it's reviewed, should assume no and delete;
5. these two posts which added nothing to the discussion were taken to constitute consensus and the article was deleted: it is this I believe is standard but wrong practise--if article creators are considered too partial to count their "votes", deletion proposers (and discussion closers at reviews) need also to be so considered--BUT it's not about voting it's about quorums, adequate documentation of reliable evidence and rationales, sufficient to bring all parties to a point of "no dissent", this is what consensus means sometimes it takes time, what's the rush?
6. I happened to drop by a while back and saw the deletion, checked the discussion--all documented in good faith according to policy robust enough to handle quibbles like this--but saw the discussion was inadequate, since basic sources had not be consulted, subject area experts (like librarians first of all) had not been sought, etc. etc., again no harm done, I restored (contacting the closing admin as requested);
7. the closing admin defended his own action, ignored mine, and was uninterested in discussion--rather poor form I think--fortunately John put together even more evidence than I'd gathered in the brief time I was online, a deletion review was proposed, and closed (hopefully) on the excellent advice of DGG, for there was little else of substance against the article, and nothing else that interacted with John's considerable evidence.

This brings us up to date. It is my own clumsy fault (and happenstance of being offline for a long time) that I didn't find the link to the deletion review which had been provided in good faith by the closer of the original discussion. Thanks to the kind offices of another responsible and good faith deletion proposer, I was able to see the deletion review and that, despite a good case by DGG, it was still not really complete. So I restored again and requested that anyone interested in deletion propose that so adequate discussion could be documented and a final verdict reached.

Unilateral actions by admins ensued, operating on hearsay, without examining discussion critically, and without taking into account my real life credentials offered freely to this project. The improvement and maintenance of the encyclopedia cannot be held to ransom by gung-ho (good faith but misguided) administrators. I'll not report them, or put them through requests for comment. It's a waste of time. There are too many other admins that would feel their own tenure threatened and so I don't believe a fair hearing would be possible. Also, I'm simply not vindictive.

Finally, the appropriate place for the article is in the mainspace. This article is not my article, it is our article. Italians will know much more about it than any of us. The research group is already cited at Italian Wikipedia. Userfying is as good as deletion, because the article is so low on my priority list I am quite likely not to come back to it. Wikipedia is a co-operative excercise, not a competition to score featured or good articles. Nor as Doug suggests so cynically (and untypically), to pick up hits from Google.

I don't particularly care whether or not the ignorant comments regarding my editing above are struck or not, because such hearsay should never be used in evidence. It might, however, be wise to strike them, because should others act on that hearsay, it becomes evidence of defamation. I am not a public figure, not notable in any way, so there is no protection for unfounded allegations regarding what I publish at this project. Such allegations need to be proven or withdrawn. Let's just cool it. I can still assume good faith at this point. It would be well if others could do the same. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"The appropriate place for the article is in the mainspace". But it has been deleted per an AfD discussion, so the appropriate place is not on Wikipedia unless it is significantly changed. Is your view that everyone at AfD and DRV was wrong, you're right, and you get to unilaterally ignore process and consensus? It feels like you're Reichstag climbing here. Fences&Windows 03:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to put it in my user space is Alastair would prefer that. A case can perhaps be made that publications of this type should be on Wikipedia. The criteria for scientific journals was not really intended to cover newsletters of this sort, and we might find a way of handling them. But Alastair, the repeated reinsertion under multiple alternate titles does seem a little pointy, and has an unfortunate resemblance to what COI editors of properly rejected articles sometimes do with their company names and the like, so perhaps it would be helpful if you simply acknowledged as much and apologized for it. An unknown contributor doing that would probably have been blocked very quickly--I don't hesitate to do so in such circumstances. DGG ( talk ) 13:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: only DGG and John Vandenburg interacted with any evidence, so yes, what others said counts for very little, certainly less than the reliable sources I have access to.

@DGG, thanks for your kind offer, I already have a copy in my own user space. I'll be posting that as an article on the group, rather than the journal, and simultaneously proposing it for deletion to ensure adequate discussion occurs. I'll time that so I will be available to participate in the ensuing discussion. That will be some time away, since I have other priorities.

I'm very confident of your judgment in the actions you take DGG. In the current case, salting of the original namespace left no place for additional evidence, which is plentiful if diligently pursued with access to theological libraries. Repeated deletions (which also removed my article talk page comments) without discussion (on my personal talk page) by deleting admins also denied any opportunity for any evidence to be presented. Orangemike should have posted to my page first, before posting here. I'm happy for you to be right that I handled this incorrectly, but I'm quite comfortable that the error was on the part of the involved admins. It's no big deal though.

One aspect of the difficulty is that I suspect some admins believe content editors ultimately work "provisional on admin support", whereas I believe administrators work "provisional on content editor support". I saw this very soon after openning an account at Wiki, and resolved not to request to be an administrator. There are many who already do this job well for a start, but there are times systems need to be scrutinised from the outside.

There are many complex issues involved that won't be resolved here.

The important thing will be getting things right next time, when I post the article about the group.

As far as I'm concerned the discussion here is complete. Thanks to all who have participated. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Jack Merridew's disruptive signature

Is 1414 characters, 1159 over the limit, not only that, it obscures surrounding text. I realize this isn't the signature he uses most often, but please, please prevent him from using it ever again. I myself wish to refactor instances of said signature, as they are unquestionably disruptive and there is really no purpose for a signature that blatantly disruptive. For full transparency, I happened upon this signature twice; it was called to my attention per a page I am watching. As a note, I did notify him of this report.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you ask him to change it? AniMate 22:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Such would be a pointless endeavor, as every time I have ever posted a message to his page(except for a single exception, but this message had nothing to do with edits he made, but another refactoring them), he has deleted it without addressing the points brought up in it or responding. I trust the same would happen with this, hence, I ask for assistance of those whose words have more weight.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I asked him. There's nothing else really to be done until he responds. AniMate 22:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I warned him that I will block him if he ignores the community and still keeps the sig. The sig is clearly disruptive. Secret ^account 22:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you will do nothing of the sort. Really, don't be silly. "Disruption" is a term used for serious things like nationalist flaming, wikistalking, etc. Or perhaps for starting baseless ANI threads. Not for one-off signature use. Moreschi (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

At the time of writing this, his most recent contribution was to a talk page, and used a fairly normal signature (see here). So, it may not be a problem anymore. Although, a friendly notice is not a bad idea either, since he might not realize that there was a problem with the old one. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

A friendly notice was given, and immediately followed up by a threat of a block before he had a chance to respond. AniMate 23:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Jack knows what he's doing, that's why I warned him harshly. Lets just hope he gets rid of that sig. Secret ^account 00:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a definite pattern of this editor ignoring administrators repeated warnings to stop certain behavior. That is probably were some of Secret's frustration comes from. The only problem is administrators never follow through with these warnings. Ikip (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but I think the pot just called the kettle black. You've been told your obsession with JM has gone way too far, and yet - here you are. Moreschi (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but I didn't know that only editors such as yourself and AniMate are able to comment here. If that is the case, you should put a tag up above that this is the case, "Only traditional supporters of Jack Merridew allowed to comment in this section". After you responded here Morschi, an editor who has always been an obsessively staunch supporter of Jack Merridew, I felt like I should comment. I can see now why White Cat absolutely did not want you as a mentor.

I recall once that Jack Merridew was specifically warned before about his signature, by Secret? Can't seem to find it though, maybe I am wrong.

Secret, if you feel like this editor should be booted for ignoring your repeated warnings, you should, you would be the first administrator to do this in my experience. Ikip (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

← Lets put down the torches and pitchforks and give Jack some time to respond. Tiptoety ^talk 00:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• What Tiptoety said. He seems to have used it twice, a day or two ago, apparently as a bit of a joke. All his sigs since then have been normal. The fact that long ANI threads are being generated, and block threats are being bandied about, is disappointing. Lighten up people. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Indeed. Jack's not particularly happy over the attitude certain people have taken towards him recently, and this ridiculous thread is hardly going to ease his sense of being persecuted, is it? Secret: please try cooling things down for once rather than fanning the flames. Moreschi (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And on that note, let's not imply that Secret always fans flames. Secret is a good admin. Let's keep things in perspective all the way around. Tan | 39 01:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Grins ;)

Many here would know the backstory; this is drama surrounding my unban review. What does Daedalus want? He want's permission to go refactor a few of my sigs. Many will recall the retired tag he placed on a neapolitan mastiff's user page and the barnstar I offered to the 'zilla that flamed him. And one of the other strident voices (nods @ threads south && Sir Fozzie's talk page) just went off for mebbe two days; we'll see...

So, I like the feedback about the 'overlapping' text and have figured out how to fix it.

My current 'sig' in prefs is:

• <span style="text-shadow: 0.15em 0.15em 0.2em rgba(0,0,0,0.4);">[[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]]</span>

and, by far, most of the sigs I've used are this:

• [[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]]

Ya, I've made a few posts where I paste a bit of extra code around five tildes to generate the datestamp. This is maybe a dozen times over a year. This is not disruptive; it's funny. Calling it disruptive is strident battleground behaviour. Daedalus is known for this and for his perseveration^{see here} re sockpuppets, and Ikip has a thing for me; obviously.

Damn; cutting-short as I see a more important thing to comment on...

Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC) (who *is* a sockpuppet, and who has resisted the copypasta temptation;)

This has nothing to do with the fact that you're a sock puppet, it has to do with the fact that your signature is 5 lines, 1414 characters of text, and is clearly disruptive. Calling a disruptive signature disruptive is not battleground behavior. I don't care to sort through five lines of code, and I'm sure neither does anyone else, hence why secret agreed with me on the manner. Please stop trying to skew the facts.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hai, Dae. Terima kasih; someone had mentioned the text overlap concern, elsewhere. It was not doing so for me, so expect it's the usual reason: your platform and user agent. Anyswayz, I haz fixed it gud. gheerz, Jack Merridew 09:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I first discussed Jack Merridew's signature on Nov. 24 on his unban review[79]: "Signatures like the one he used today [80] are not really evidence of "helping the wiki through his contributions" or benevolent editing." I raised the problem again on Nov. 30[81], when he used that signature again: "To highlight Jack Merridew's use of a very poor signature (content and format, overlapping text)?". I reposted that comment (which was drowned in off-topic discussion) a few hours later[82]. So it's not as if he was unaware of any objections wrt his signature (which he used at least four times, not two as said above). Despite all this and despite this section, his most recent edit is more of the same. If anyone can inform him that being deliberately provocative is not helpful at all (with a trout or with a more powerful cluebat), we can perhaps end this aspect of this sorry mess. Fram (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)'

Hey, Fram. I've my eye on my mentor's comments above. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 10:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? Do you refer to Moreschi's "Not for one-off signature use." comment? It's not really one-off anymore, certainly not when you continue it despite requests to stop, and being clearly against the WP:SIG guideline. Fram (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi is one of my mentors and has little trouble with this. And note that SIG says “it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.” ({{Subcat guideline}}, really; goes for *all* guidelines). See also: "Lighten up people. --Floquenbeam." Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to what has been said below, IAR is probably the most abused term on Wikipedia. Can you explain how your (continued) use of your extremely long signature meets: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." ? How would using a much shorter sig prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia? Fram (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

“common sense, and occasional exceptions” ;) Jack Merridew 11:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC) (and a sense of humour;)

• "Disruptive" is probably the most abused term on Wikipedia, and Daedalus could be the editor most worried about other people's talkpages.(You came to regret it last time, didn't you, Dae? [83] ) Jack Merridew is welcome on my page, Fram. There must surely be various more useful things to do around here than worry about JM's sig on my page, where I for my part don't by any means find it "deliberately provocative". Chill, please. Bishonen | talk 10:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC).

I wasn't worried that he was provoking you Bishonen, you sided with him against Daedalus previously. When it has been pointed out repeatedly, by various people, that a specific signature is a problem, then it is provocative to use it again during that discussion, even on a page of a supporter. Fram (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

So, it looks quite obvious that Jack Merridew isn't going to stop using his 1400+ character signature...[84] unless someone makes him stop. Fram (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And that would be dreadful? We'd better block him indefinitely, then, perhaps. More to the point, I sided with..? Eh? I did? Memory failing, sorry. When did I side with JM against Daedalus? Do please tell. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC).

I don't recall, either; there was this, but I don't think Fram's looking for that. It's *so* under the bridge these days. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC) (do we need a sig-example, here?;)

• Fram, that's his TALK PAGE. Editors are traditionally afforded wide latitude as to what they do there. So long as he doesn't do this at DRV or AFD or ANI, where I acknowledge long sigs are a real pain in the butt, this thread is so much vindictive drama-mongering. Moreschi (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Hey, ALL CAPS! I love the wikilawyering that is used by all kinds of people to continuously defend Jack Merridew. Any reason you believe he continues using that sig except to continue the "drama-mongering"?
    • Um right. Don't you think that if Jack wanted to stir the pot, he'd do rather better than occasionally using an OTT sig? On his talk page? No, I think we can safely assume the drama-mongering here is done by the small but obsessively devoted crowd who want to see JM banned for a year of mostly drama-free editing, mostly, as far as I can tell, for either ideological reasons or just personal vendettas. Moreschi (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
      • No I don't think so (about his actions, not about the reasons for many of his opponents). He is (in my opinion) the kind of user who is smart enough to stay just below the line where even his wiki-friends have to admit that he is deliberately stirring up trouble. Ask yourself: why would he use an extremely long in-your-face signature, highlighting his socking career? And why would he continue to use it, after repeated remarks about it, and during an ongoing ANI discussion? Oh, but his last uses were only on his own talk page and on a canvassing attempt friendly editor's talkpage, no one can complain about that, surely...? It's just a case of "I'm doing it because I can and because I know a number of people will support me anyway". Encouraging such baheviour is not really the purpose of mentoring, I believe... Fram (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Because that's the way his sense of humour functions, Fram. For whatever reason, David gets a kick out of referring to himself as "sockpuppet first class", and surely such candour about his history is to be encouraged? If I did the same thing on my talk page every now and then, with a long and in-your-face sig referring to my myself as "meatpuppeteer first class" (in reference to the recent Ottava Rima RFAR), nobody would bat an eyelid.
        • David is not being wilfully offensive here. It requires incredible contortions of logic to find that signature offensive in any way at all. It's not even that long, not in comparison to Esperanza-crowd signatures era mid-2006. Instead, the anti-JM crowd are being wilfully offended. It's annoying as hell, frankly. Moreschi (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Not that long? Well, only 5 times the max length... That there have been worse in the past is hardly an argument, it's not as if I supported those longer ones. And do you really believe that if, during a debate about the alleged hounding of A Nobody and the impact it may have on the editing restrictions imposed after being banned for hounding another editor, e.g. A Nobody would find it "humorous" to be adressed with "Cheers! — Happy Editing!! — Have a nice day!!! — Best!!!! — Regards!!!!! —Sincerely, Sockpuppet First Class, Jack Merridewthis user is a sock puppet", or that it takes "incredible contortions of logic to find that signature offensive in any way at all"? Apart from the obvious and unadressed WP:SIG violations, this only has the intention to spite people like A Nobody. I don't see the humour in that. Fram (talk) 12:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Your ArbCom case from July? The one where you said that "I agree that calling Daedalus a little shit was wrong." (on July 20), but were more than happy to put Jack's "barnstar" commemorating the fact on your user page on July 22[85]? Fram (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the "sided with him against Daedalus"...? I do see. Don't you think it would be best to stop now, Fram ? Bishonen | talk 11:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC).

He knew how you felt about Daedalus. You knew how he felt about Daedalus. You congratulated one another with calling him a little shit. And when there is a thread by Daedalus about Jack Merridew, he comes to your talk page and posts a link to it, and you immediatley come over here (first post you made after Jack's message). Liek you said, I don't think I need to continue this, everyone can see this for what it is... Fram (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? This thread is starting to remind me of the Ottava Rima RFAR, where I was also informed (by OR) that I "knew" this, that and the other (compare my evidence section "It Was Not a Coincidence"[86]) and had to try to guess what it was even about. What are you talking about, Fram? "You knew how he felt about Daedalus. You congratulated one another with calling him a little shit"... I'm starting to feel terribly ignorant, because no, I didn't know that. (Didn't know what Ottava Rima was talking about, either.) I don't edit that much lately. If there is a pre-existing conflict between JM and Daedalus, or between JM and you, Fram, then I did not know that. I still don't know it. I am not, perhaps sadly, a major conspirator and plot spider. If you're determined to quarrel with me, I have no idea why. All the opinion I've ever had about you is that sometimes when I see your sig, I think "Oh, cool account name." (Like Nansen's ship, you know?) Please refrain from those WP:ABF comments: "Everyone can see this for what it is, dot dot dot..." Actually, *I* can't even see it for what it is, since I'm not aware of it being anything. Good-bye. Bishonen | talk 16:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC).

Fram, Fram, Fram...You know that this message of Jack's is obscured by his signature, but did your realize to the posts above that his posts were not obscured by the signature! Wait....is this one his new signature? - _{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 12:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I did find his signature to be superbly confusing. It really resembles that of a menu bar of a website. It was lucky for him to find a new one. None of the Wikipedia highs had such signatures, not even Jimbo himself! - _{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 12:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Something tells me you weren't around in 2006 to see the Esperanza crowd and their 6-line all-singing all-dancing sigs in full flow :) Moreschi (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My user page sported a sock box for eight months while I was en:banned. I *was* still here and I made 10,000 edits; they just were on WMF projects other than this zoo. My unban terms directed me to use this account, so I do. It's a sockpuppet account, so I say so. It's been on my user page all year long, until this long week of shit-slinging kicked into gear. Jack Merridew is a sockpuppet. Some have a hard time with this concept. I do not fucking care. Deal with it. I am *not* being disruptive, but the torch and pitchfork crowd *is* and none of them are doing themselves or the project any good. Someone box this stupidity, please? Here's teh sig, for great justice and epic lulz, as an example, and just this one on ANI.--Jack Merridew 12:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC) (see User:Chaser/Jack Merridew's signature) p.s. Fram, would you consider undeleting all the bits of my user space that I delete-tagged on the 25th or so? If not, I invite any interested janitor to please do so; sorry for the fuss.

Users have big wiki-sigs for the same reason middle-aged men buy sports cars; over-compensation. There is no valid or viable reason to sport that ridiculous monstrosity. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If signatures of that length were not disruptive, we would not have had so many threads regarding their use, threads which ended with the user being forced to use a normal signature. Further, you do not need 1400 characters to say that your account is a sockpuppet, Jack. Being the smart person that you are, I fail you see how you could fail to see such a simple thing. The fact of the matter is that sigs like the one above are unquestionably disruptive. I'm not rooting for anyone's block here, I just want the damn thing to be gone. The sig is disruptive, and no amount of wikilawyering will change that. It isn't much to ask to use one which doesn't break 255 characters, one which will say the same, but with less ornaments.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Another example of WikiSoapOperaEternal - surviving even the Guiding Light. If Merridew is your bete-noire of the day, just let him be left alone. With the folks being active here being the same ones active in other pages about Merridew, it certainly appears that the primary interest is not in preventing a bad sig, but in chasing him. Time to close this unproductive sideshow. Collect (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

User making offensive edits

I have noticed that Xaronyr has been making a number of offensive edits. The user has has a level 1, 2 and 3 warning in the space of eight hours! As all of these edits have been made in such a short space of time I'm not quite sure what would be the best course of action, but I draw your attention to the nature of the edits (some racist, but all potentially offensive). [87] and [88]. The full list is here. Perhaps something to keep an eye on? Willdow (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No sense in warning them if nobody actually showed the the rules. I've given them a {{Welcomevandal}} for now. It's pretty standard-looking vandalism - maybe when they sign in again, they'll see that people actually pay attention. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I blocked this account indefinitely, as it looked like a run-of-the-mill disruption-only account, and the edits were egregious. If anyone disagrees with the block, they have my permission to take the action they deem appropriate. decltype (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to object, but for very unusual and rather complex reasons. First, my disclaimer is that you're allowed to entirely ignore what I say. Originally I just wanted to check on that "8 hours" for 3 warnings as being suspicious (it's too slow for the average vandal) and found far more odd. Really, I think you're 120% supposed to ignore anything I suggest as a non-admin, but, a change to 12 or 24hr from final article edit would seem better give another shot to see if they're serious about Wikipedia or not. They literally has confirmation of incorrect policies (see below). BWilkins has a good within-Wiki-AGFable-grasp view on it with the welcome message today. Basically, Since the situation is a lot more complicated than normal, nothing to the blocking admin since obviously it was in good faith. These details are far, far out of view. Depending on the admin this might have been no block? Not my place to judge.

There haven't been any edits at all since that welcome notice was put up; had been 7 hours and the user long gone for the night. No mainspace edits at all since the cluebot lvl1 warning. Actually, the user's first edit was evening of 30 November, and was what I'll call "kinda AGF vandalism intended as humor to select audiences". It went untouched for over a full day! I was wondering why there was no welcome or warning on a talk page from then, but that's because I just now undid it. Of course the user didn't think they'd done anything bad. They made 1 edit their first night, came back 24 hours later and everything was exactly the same. Not only did they not know the actual guidelines, they had developed beliefs in an entirely wrong set of guidelines. This alone is reason to remove the def and significantly reduce length, because this is flat-out our faults. ...Moving on, the user might have seen HamburberRadio's lvl2 warning, and even if they did, they stopped editing for the night, meaning they "obeyed" technically.

Bigger question to me was why were there no welcomes or warnings or at least notices about the first few edits? Well I already explained the first. The first edit last evening was caught on a Huggle patrol, but for some reason no warning template was sent. Looking at the (Huggle) user's history, s/he obviously has automatic warnings turned on, but maybe has create new talk pages turned off maybe? Pains me a bit to say, but this was a comical string of tiny gaffs all around on our end... including me since this is my third write of a different opinion after I discovered something depressing (the missed vandalism, this time). However much I figure I'll run across this user again somewhere, this was really not their fault since they did nothing against policy after the time they knew of policy. 12/24 or remove completely and leave them a note. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You can only stretch AGF so far. I refuse to believe that the user thought his second edit was a legitimate and appropriate one. His third edit is libel of the worst kind. Note that the editor has already gotten into the habit of using innocuous edit summaries to disguise his edits as legitimate ones (m "Just some cleaning up"), and his fourth edit is in the same vein. Having looked at the particulars one more time, I have to stick with my indefinite block, which is in accordance with the blocking policy for disruption-only accounts, both in terms of duration and the number of warnings received. I see no indication that the user is interested in contributing constructively. But again, if consensus is that this user's block duration should be reduced, I shall not object. However, even an indef block may be appealed, so the door is half-open, anyway. decltype (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Concur with indefblock. If the user is incapable of realising that those edits are utterly inappropriate in any public forum without having it explained to them, I question their suitability to be here at all. We can perhaps do them a favour by applying Hanlon's razor, but that doesn't mean we're obliged to keep them around. EyeSerene^talk 17:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Concur as well. Revert, block, ignore, move on. GlassCobra 18:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess I go by the Assume Complete Ignorance of the Purpose of Wikipedia and its Basic Rules concept. Maybe it takes AGF too far, but with a handful of stupid edits over a period of time, I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt .... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Whole-heartedly endorse block. The less trash like this on Wikipedia, the better. JBsupreme (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You'll get no disagreement from me, but I always figure I should be judicious in a first ANI reply post to explain the details of things past the short starter description. I just reeeeealy want to give people 1 more shot on AGF after an ANI posting so any blocks don't look punitive and there's a prior and current pattern to look at. Wow, I must look absolutely evil for how much I try to balance a starting evidence posting. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

BLPs, ethnic origin categories and an IP hopper, redux

Okay, I'm slowly being driven (or driving myself) mad with this. We've got an IP-hopping uncommunicative editor who is making very very many weird edits to WP:BLPs. I previously brought this up here, where the consensus was to revert on sight, as I and a couple of others have been trying to do. But it's hundreds of edits a week, and the edits have frequently been helpfully tidied up by other editors (they don't look like abuse on first glance), making reverting painful and slow.

The IP in question is adding ethnic origin categories to BLPs. But the mental leap required to make these categories even begin to make sense is massive.

For instance, Tom Kenny is a New York comedian. But for the IP, he's English American - possibly because of his surname. He doesn't identify as English American and he isn't called English American by any other source. Dick Van Patten is a New York actor. But his mother had Italian forebears, whilst his father had Dutch ancestors. So, for the IP, he's Italian American and Dutch American. He doesn't identify as Italian or Dutch American and he isn't called Italian or Dutch American by any other source. Victor Webster is a Canadian actor. The IP says - without a source - that he's of Italian, German, English, French, Scottish and Spanish descent. He doesn't identify as any of them and no other source identifies him as any of them.

Lately, this has been getting weirder. Apparently, the fictional Lois Griffin is German American. Meanwhile, her equally fictional son Chris is African American.

Now, this isn't the biggest run of vandalism we've ever had, and some of these categories may be correct (although the maths to work it out - American X's grandfather's cousin's daughter married a Mexican, so that makes American X Spanish-American really - is far too complicated for me). The IP in question is non-communicative on any of their talk pages.

The IPs in question are:

• 166.216.128.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.216.128.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.216.128.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.216.128.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.216.128.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.216.128.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.216.128.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.216.128.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.216.128.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.216.128.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.216.128.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

and, out of the above pattern,

• 98.15.139.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.246.181.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

What to do? Block 'em? Range blocks? Edit Filter? Something else? Or am I totally in the wrong here? ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 11:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock the first set of addresses. I don't know if it's possible to edit filter like that without catching other users, particularly if he is indiscriminately hitting BLP pages. Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh. Wireless network. The set covers a lot under it. ...The last two separates up there in the same area but that doesn't necessarily mean much. Not sure how literally to take each IP even if there's the obvious habits of all. Could be someone playing a large trick on us. ........Looks like the range was hit with a 2 week block. Hope that doesn't make anything explode. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well if that doesn't solve the problem, can we not just identify problematic IPs and create an edit filter to flag up each and every revision they make so rollbackers and others know to revert on sight? HJMitchell You rang? 13:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem would be that the filter would have to hit every IP. A filter hitting IPs after we find them is not much help, since finding an IP doing this sort of crap is five seconds away (via huggle) from reverting it. Ironholds (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the range for two weeks yesterday. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

<-Thanks, Rjd0060 - most welcome. Now, a general question for everybody. Having brought this here, having spent weeks reverting (with others), does the community class me as "involved" should the IP return and another block is required? Should I, if it is needed, do it myself... or report it to AIV with a link to this discussion for someone else to do it? ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 08:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

UAA backlog

Resolved

 – Thanks all  7  15:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I was reporting one myself (not a bad one mind you, so don't worry about the one I reported) but I noticed that Biker Biker has correctly flagged a bunch of especially nasty usernames which should be taken care of. Hoping a wandering admin can take a look. Thanks.  7  11:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay - maybe not a big deal because none have contribs yet (at least none that haven't been deleted)... but still worth a look.  7  12:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Mostly cleared up. TNXMan 14:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

7, you have a username that violates current policy. You are only allowed to use that name because you're "grandfathered" in. Please would you consider not reporting usernames under these circumstances? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The notion that he shouldn't be allowed to report inappropriate usernames because of his own name is rather ridiculous, quite frankly. GlassCobra 18:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Move along everyone. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? His name is a policy violation. Having a user with a policy-violating username report other users for having policy violating usernames is absurd. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll inform 7 about this now NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting where you're getting that his username is a policy violation. So far as I can see, the name is not misleading, promotional, offensive, or disruptive, nor is it particularly confusing. How is "7" an inappropriate username? bibliomaniac15 03:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

NotAnIP, the username filter isn't the same as the username policy. For one thing, the username filter is enforced by a computer, while the username policy is enforced by people. I don't know why the username filter prevents one from registering names that are only made of digits, but it's really not a big deal and it's not in any way a statement about policy. rspεεr (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's comments and I certainly hope that there is no policy violation with my username, however I would like to address NotAnIP's concerns as s/he appears to have had them for a while. When NotAnIP mentioned this as a reason for a neutral vote in my RFA the explanation that someone gave me (sorry, I can't find where) was: after a group of vandals registered usernames that looked like IP addresses or were obfuscated IPs a check was put in place to prevent the user from registering it directly. However as mentioned above these names can still be usurped and policy does not disallow them. Furthermore, I believe these accounts can still be created via ACC with error-checking turned off. I am active over at ACC, as are a lot of other strong editors so I am sure if someone wanted to put this to the test we could. I just did a check, and all single digits 1-9 are already registered with the exception of 4. (doubt that will last long) If someone wants to request an alternate account or wants to CHU'd to that account we can put this to the test. As far as I know, nobody has grandfathered me on anything (and I'm still mad I missed the 18-21 drinking age grandfathering by a few years back in the early 80s). My username was only recently changed and followed the required procedures. I agree with Nja247 that we should all move along now, but I'd also like to address NotAnIPs concerns so this doesn't haunt me (and the 34 others who have single number or letter usernames).  7  04:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

One caveat - 4 is available on en.wp - but SUL won't be available as the username is already active on a few other wikimedia projects.  7  04:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Alastair Haines attempting to circumvent deletion process

Rather than accept the results of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 15 on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adamantius (journal), Haines has recreated the article several times today, under various names including Di studi del gruppo Italiano di ricerca su "Origene e la tradizione alessandrina", Del gruppo Italiano di ricerca su "Origene e la tradizione alessandrina", Adamantius (theological journal) and User:Alastair Haines/Adamantius (journal). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I will not block as I closed the AfD as delete. But especially in light of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 15, these actions by Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) are disruptive. I agree with Orange Mike. Cirt (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped and the article is now in his userspace, which is OK, isn't it? Fences&Windows 19:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition, he removed two times a speedy deletion tag (and the tag was removed a third time with a similar edit summary by an "anonymous" IP). The article has been in his userspace for quite some time, but yesterday (at least once) and today (at least three times) he copied it into article space several times, including to Adamantius (theological journal). --Crusio (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. First, shouldn't he be asking for it to be userfied instead of doing it himself (if that is what happened)? And we do need a time limit on articles in userspace, and in fact I'd much prefer them to be in the article incubator. I'm not happy with that behaviour being rewarded by letting it be in his userspace where it will be found via Google. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with userifying an article oneself. Since userification is essentially automatic except for copyvio and libel, requiring someone who is able to do it is adding unnecessary steps--except possibly when the existence of something has been exceptionally controversial, and this was not. It;s essentially equivalent to an admin deleting pages in his own userspace. Normally, I do not delete single-handed myself, because I know I make a certain percentage of errors and I do not want to risk doing damage to someone' else's work unless some other Wikipedian agrees (not necessarily an admin), but in almost all cases userifying does not have the same sort of negative consequence. I argued against that journal, & it is possible that what I said about it may have been decisive, but it might be possible to show it notable and I have no objection to it being in anyone's user space. anyone who wants it removed can go to MfD, but in recent decisions there we do not remove pages that have any potential at all from the space of bona fide editors for at least several months. They normally do not harm. Using the incubator is a matter of choice; it is hardly an established feature of Wikipedia at this point. I would not want to place any procedural obstacles in the way of improving possible articles.

Obviously the other things done were not good things to do; I do not know to what to attribute it except a short lapse from an otherwise excellent admin and editor. It was right to bring this here, but I think perhaps enough has been said. I can;t imagine it will be repeated; if it should, then some action would be required. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said, my main problem with userfying is the ability to use userspace to get publicity through Google. You've confused me a bit here, who are you talking about when you say excellent Admin and editor? Dougweller (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the incubator idea is a good one. I think just having it somewhere it can be worked on is good, and satisfies the noindex issue. We all agree this is a good outcome? And given this is the sole sticking point, we can agree a block at this point would be unnecessary? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be worthwhile hearing from the accused party on this one.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 20:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggested it on his talk page ( if he's the one DGG means, he's not an Admin and although he has his good points he has a bad block record). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 20:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

sorry about that; when it was said he userified it himself I thought you meant "undeleted and userified", and i did not check. Some of my comments are therefore irrelevant, and I struck them. Cannot any particular page is user spae be NOINDEXED? DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Any page can be NOINDEXED by a variety of means, the easiest of which (in my mind) is adding {{NOINDEX}} to the page itself. That template is also transcluded in a number of other userspace related templates including some for userdrafts. Protonk (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Contra the thread starter (whose good faith I don't doubt), I am opposing (inadvertent) admin obstruction to the improvement and maintenance of the encyclopedia. Admin merely enact the completed decisions of past consensuses and provide a point of contact to reopen discussion should new evidence arise. If I am mistaken, and individual admins have some intrinsic authority, then criticising their actions ought to be protected speech, not wilfully slandered as "obstruction". But I am not mistaken.

The verifiable facts regarding this stub are:

1. it was speedied while the subject area expert who created it was unavailable--perhaps a little unwise and precipiate, but so be it, it's permissible and the speedy proposer did the right thing by notifying me, so no harm done, I later restored sourced content that had been removed without adequate discussion to form any consensus for such an action;
2. it was relisted for adequate (which should mean at least both informed and reasonable) discussion--absolutely fair enough--again I was absent, sorry;
3. after some time only two responses had been posted, one of which proposed a reasonable "litmus test": is it peer reviewed? if not, ditch the thing, but if so, it deserves a chance: the score was "creater for, proposer against, 1 I don't know, default to delete, 1 I don't know, here's a basis for making a decision" and quite rightly, it was relisted because inadequate discussion provided no grounds for consensus to form, so no grounds to mandate any administrative action on behalf of the community;
4. two brief posts were made after the manner of the first response--don't know if it's reviewed, should assume no and delete;
5. these two posts which added nothing to the discussion were taken to constitute consensus and the article was deleted: it is this I believe is standard but wrong practise--if article creators are considered too partial to count their "votes", deletion proposers (and discussion closers at reviews) need also to be so considered--BUT it's not about voting it's about quorums, adequate documentation of reliable evidence and rationales, sufficient to bring all parties to a point of "no dissent", this is what consensus means sometimes it takes time, what's the rush?
6. I happened to drop by a while back and saw the deletion, checked the discussion--all documented in good faith according to policy robust enough to handle quibbles like this--but saw the discussion was inadequate, since basic sources had not be consulted, subject area experts (like librarians first of all) had not been sought, etc. etc., again no harm done, I restored (contacting the closing admin as requested);
7. the closing admin defended his own action, ignored mine, and was uninterested in discussion--rather poor form I think--fortunately John put together even more evidence than I'd gathered in the brief time I was online, a deletion review was proposed, and closed (hopefully) on the excellent advice of DGG, for there was little else of substance against the article, and nothing else that interacted with John's considerable evidence.

This brings us up to date. It is my own clumsy fault (and happenstance of being offline for a long time) that I didn't find the link to the deletion review which had been provided in good faith by the closer of the original discussion. Thanks to the kind offices of another responsible and good faith deletion proposer, I was able to see the deletion review and that, despite a good case by DGG, it was still not really complete. So I restored again and requested that anyone interested in deletion propose that so adequate discussion could be documented and a final verdict reached.

Unilateral actions by admins ensued, operating on hearsay, without examining discussion critically, and without taking into account my real life credentials offered freely to this project. The improvement and maintenance of the encyclopedia cannot be held to ransom by gung-ho (good faith but misguided) administrators. I'll not report them, or put them through requests for comment. It's a waste of time. There are too many other admins that would feel their own tenure threatened and so I don't believe a fair hearing would be possible. Also, I'm simply not vindictive.

Finally, the appropriate place for the article is in the mainspace. This article is not my article, it is our article. Italians will know much more about it than any of us. The research group is already cited at Italian Wikipedia. Userfying is as good as deletion, because the article is so low on my priority list I am quite likely not to come back to it. Wikipedia is a co-operative excercise, not a competition to score featured or good articles. Nor as Doug suggests so cynically (and untypically), to pick up hits from Google.

I don't particularly care whether or not the ignorant comments regarding my editing above are struck or not, because such hearsay should never be used in evidence. It might, however, be wise to strike them, because should others act on that hearsay, it becomes evidence of defamation. I am not a public figure, not notable in any way, so there is no protection for unfounded allegations regarding what I publish at this project. Such allegations need to be proven or withdrawn. Let's just cool it. I can still assume good faith at this point. It would be well if others could do the same. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"The appropriate place for the article is in the mainspace". But it has been deleted per an AfD discussion, so the appropriate place is not on Wikipedia unless it is significantly changed. Is your view that everyone at AfD and DRV was wrong, you're right, and you get to unilaterally ignore process and consensus? It feels like you're Reichstag climbing here. Fences&Windows 03:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to put it in my user space is Alastair would prefer that. A case can perhaps be made that publications of this type should be on Wikipedia. The criteria for scientific journals was not really intended to cover newsletters of this sort, and we might find a way of handling them. But Alastair, the repeated reinsertion under multiple alternate titles does seem a little pointy, and has an unfortunate resemblance to what COI editors of properly rejected articles sometimes do with their company names and the like, so perhaps it would be helpful if you simply acknowledged as much and apologized for it. An unknown contributor doing that would probably have been blocked very quickly--I don't hesitate to do so in such circumstances. DGG ( talk ) 13:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: only DGG and John Vandenburg interacted with any evidence, so yes, what others said counts for very little, certainly less than the reliable sources I have access to.

@DGG, thanks for your kind offer, I already have a copy in my own user space. I'll be posting that as an article on the group, rather than the journal, and simultaneously proposing it for deletion to ensure adequate discussion occurs. I'll time that so I will be available to participate in the ensuing discussion. That will be some time away, since I have other priorities.

I'm very confident of your judgment in the actions you take DGG. In the current case, salting of the original namespace left no place for additional evidence, which is plentiful if diligently pursued with access to theological libraries. Repeated deletions (which also removed my article talk page comments) without discussion (on my personal talk page) by deleting admins also denied any opportunity for any evidence to be presented. Orangemike should have posted to my page first, before posting here. I'm happy for you to be right that I handled this incorrectly, but I'm quite comfortable that the error was on the part of the involved admins. It's no big deal though.

One aspect of the difficulty is that I suspect some admins believe content editors ultimately work "provisional on admin support", whereas I believe administrators work "provisional on content editor support". I saw this very soon after openning an account at Wiki, and resolved not to request to be an administrator. There are many who already do this job well for a start, but there are times systems need to be scrutinised from the outside.

There are many complex issues involved that won't be resolved here.

The important thing will be getting things right next time, when I post the article about the group.

As far as I'm concerned the discussion here is complete. Thanks to all who have participated. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Jack Merridew's disruptive signature

Is 1414 characters, 1159 over the limit, not only that, it obscures surrounding text. I realize this isn't the signature he uses most often, but please, please prevent him from using it ever again. I myself wish to refactor instances of said signature, as they are unquestionably disruptive and there is really no purpose for a signature that blatantly disruptive. For full transparency, I happened upon this signature twice; it was called to my attention per a page I am watching. As a note, I did notify him of this report.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you ask him to change it? AniMate 22:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Such would be a pointless endeavor, as every time I have ever posted a message to his page(except for a single exception, but this message had nothing to do with edits he made, but another refactoring them), he has deleted it without addressing the points brought up in it or responding. I trust the same would happen with this, hence, I ask for assistance of those whose words have more weight.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I asked him. There's nothing else really to be done until he responds. AniMate 22:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I warned him that I will block him if he ignores the community and still keeps the sig. The sig is clearly disruptive. Secret ^account 22:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you will do nothing of the sort. Really, don't be silly. "Disruption" is a term used for serious things like nationalist flaming, wikistalking, etc. Or perhaps for starting baseless ANI threads. Not for one-off signature use. Moreschi (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

At the time of writing this, his most recent contribution was to a talk page, and used a fairly normal signature (see here). So, it may not be a problem anymore. Although, a friendly notice is not a bad idea either, since he might not realize that there was a problem with the old one. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

A friendly notice was given, and immediately followed up by a threat of a block before he had a chance to respond. AniMate 23:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Jack knows what he's doing, that's why I warned him harshly. Lets just hope he gets rid of that sig. Secret ^account 00:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a definite pattern of this editor ignoring administrators repeated warnings to stop certain behavior. That is probably were some of Secret's frustration comes from. The only problem is administrators never follow through with these warnings. Ikip (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but I think the pot just called the kettle black. You've been told your obsession with JM has gone way too far, and yet - here you are. Moreschi (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but I didn't know that only editors such as yourself and AniMate are able to comment here. If that is the case, you should put a tag up above that this is the case, "Only traditional supporters of Jack Merridew allowed to comment in this section". After you responded here Morschi, an editor who has always been an obsessively staunch supporter of Jack Merridew, I felt like I should comment. I can see now why White Cat absolutely did not want you as a mentor.

I recall once that Jack Merridew was specifically warned before about his signature, by Secret? Can't seem to find it though, maybe I am wrong.

Secret, if you feel like this editor should be booted for ignoring your repeated warnings, you should, you would be the first administrator to do this in my experience. Ikip (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

← Lets put down the torches and pitchforks and give Jack some time to respond. Tiptoety ^talk 00:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• What Tiptoety said. He seems to have used it twice, a day or two ago, apparently as a bit of a joke. All his sigs since then have been normal. The fact that long ANI threads are being generated, and block threats are being bandied about, is disappointing. Lighten up people. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Indeed. Jack's not particularly happy over the attitude certain people have taken towards him recently, and this ridiculous thread is hardly going to ease his sense of being persecuted, is it? Secret: please try cooling things down for once rather than fanning the flames. Moreschi (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And on that note, let's not imply that Secret always fans flames. Secret is a good admin. Let's keep things in perspective all the way around. Tan | 39 01:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Grins ;)

Many here would know the backstory; this is drama surrounding my unban review. What does Daedalus want? He want's permission to go refactor a few of my sigs. Many will recall the retired tag he placed on a neapolitan mastiff's user page and the barnstar I offered to the 'zilla that flamed him. And one of the other strident voices (nods @ threads south && Sir Fozzie's talk page) just went off for mebbe two days; we'll see...

So, I like the feedback about the 'overlapping' text and have figured out how to fix it.

My current 'sig' in prefs is:

• <span style="text-shadow: 0.15em 0.15em 0.2em rgba(0,0,0,0.4);">[[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]]</span>

and, by far, most of the sigs I've used are this:

• [[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]]

Ya, I've made a few posts where I paste a bit of extra code around five tildes to generate the datestamp. This is maybe a dozen times over a year. This is not disruptive; it's funny. Calling it disruptive is strident battleground behaviour. Daedalus is known for this and for his perseveration^{see here} re sockpuppets, and Ikip has a thing for me; obviously.

Damn; cutting-short as I see a more important thing to comment on...

Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC) (who *is* a sockpuppet, and who has resisted the copypasta temptation;)

This has nothing to do with the fact that you're a sock puppet, it has to do with the fact that your signature is 5 lines, 1414 characters of text, and is clearly disruptive. Calling a disruptive signature disruptive is not battleground behavior. I don't care to sort through five lines of code, and I'm sure neither does anyone else, hence why secret agreed with me on the manner. Please stop trying to skew the facts.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hai, Dae. Terima kasih; someone had mentioned the text overlap concern, elsewhere. It was not doing so for me, so expect it's the usual reason: your platform and user agent. Anyswayz, I haz fixed it gud. gheerz, Jack Merridew 09:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I first discussed Jack Merridew's signature on Nov. 24 on his unban review[89]: "Signatures like the one he used today [90] are not really evidence of "helping the wiki through his contributions" or benevolent editing." I raised the problem again on Nov. 30[91], when he used that signature again: "To highlight Jack Merridew's use of a very poor signature (content and format, overlapping text)?". I reposted that comment (which was drowned in off-topic discussion) a few hours later[92]. So it's not as if he was unaware of any objections wrt his signature (which he used at least four times, not two as said above). Despite all this and despite this section, his most recent edit is more of the same. If anyone can inform him that being deliberately provocative is not helpful at all (with a trout or with a more powerful cluebat), we can perhaps end this aspect of this sorry mess. Fram (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)'

Hey, Fram. I've my eye on my mentor's comments above. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 10:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? Do you refer to Moreschi's "Not for one-off signature use." comment? It's not really one-off anymore, certainly not when you continue it despite requests to stop, and being clearly against the WP:SIG guideline. Fram (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi is one of my mentors and has little trouble with this. And note that SIG says “it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.” ({{Subcat guideline}}, really; goes for *all* guidelines). See also: "Lighten up people. --Floquenbeam." Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to what has been said below, IAR is probably the most abused term on Wikipedia. Can you explain how your (continued) use of your extremely long signature meets: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." ? How would using a much shorter sig prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia? Fram (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

“common sense, and occasional exceptions” ;) Jack Merridew 11:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC) (and a sense of humour;)

• "Disruptive" is probably the most abused term on Wikipedia, and Daedalus could be the editor most worried about other people's talkpages.(You came to regret it last time, didn't you, Dae? [93] ) Jack Merridew is welcome on my page, Fram. There must surely be various more useful things to do around here than worry about JM's sig on my page, where I for my part don't by any means find it "deliberately provocative". Chill, please. Bishonen | talk 10:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC).

I wasn't worried that he was provoking you Bishonen, you sided with him against Daedalus previously. When it has been pointed out repeatedly, by various people, that a specific signature is a problem, then it is provocative to use it again during that discussion, even on a page of a supporter. Fram (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

So, it looks quite obvious that Jack Merridew isn't going to stop using his 1400+ character signature...[94] unless someone makes him stop. Fram (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And that would be dreadful? We'd better block him indefinitely, then, perhaps. More to the point, I sided with..? Eh? I did? Memory failing, sorry. When did I side with JM against Daedalus? Do please tell. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC).

I don't recall, either; there was this, but I don't think Fram's looking for that. It's *so* under the bridge these days. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC) (do we need a sig-example, here?;)

• Fram, that's his TALK PAGE. Editors are traditionally afforded wide latitude as to what they do there. So long as he doesn't do this at DRV or AFD or ANI, where I acknowledge long sigs are a real pain in the butt, this thread is so much vindictive drama-mongering. Moreschi (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Hey, ALL CAPS! I love the wikilawyering that is used by all kinds of people to continuously defend Jack Merridew. Any reason you believe he continues using that sig except to continue the "drama-mongering"?
    • Um right. Don't you think that if Jack wanted to stir the pot, he'd do rather better than occasionally using an OTT sig? On his talk page? No, I think we can safely assume the drama-mongering here is done by the small but obsessively devoted crowd who want to see JM banned for a year of mostly drama-free editing, mostly, as far as I can tell, for either ideological reasons or just personal vendettas. Moreschi (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
      • No I don't think so (about his actions, not about the reasons for many of his opponents). He is (in my opinion) the kind of user who is smart enough to stay just below the line where even his wiki-friends have to admit that he is deliberately stirring up trouble. Ask yourself: why would he use an extremely long in-your-face signature, highlighting his socking career? And why would he continue to use it, after repeated remarks about it, and during an ongoing ANI discussion? Oh, but his last uses were only on his own talk page and on a canvassing attempt friendly editor's talkpage, no one can complain about that, surely...? It's just a case of "I'm doing it because I can and because I know a number of people will support me anyway". Encouraging such baheviour is not really the purpose of mentoring, I believe... Fram (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Because that's the way his sense of humour functions, Fram. For whatever reason, David gets a kick out of referring to himself as "sockpuppet first class", and surely such candour about his history is to be encouraged? If I did the same thing on my talk page every now and then, with a long and in-your-face sig referring to my myself as "meatpuppeteer first class" (in reference to the recent Ottava Rima RFAR), nobody would bat an eyelid.
        • David is not being wilfully offensive here. It requires incredible contortions of logic to find that signature offensive in any way at all. It's not even that long, not in comparison to Esperanza-crowd signatures era mid-2006. Instead, the anti-JM crowd are being wilfully offended. It's annoying as hell, frankly. Moreschi (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Not that long? Well, only 5 times the max length... That there have been worse in the past is hardly an argument, it's not as if I supported those longer ones. And do you really believe that if, during a debate about the alleged hounding of A Nobody and the impact it may have on the editing restrictions imposed after being banned for hounding another editor, e.g. A Nobody would find it "humorous" to be adressed with "Cheers! — Happy Editing!! — Have a nice day!!! — Best!!!! — Regards!!!!! —Sincerely, Sockpuppet First Class, Jack Merridewthis user is a sock puppet", or that it takes "incredible contortions of logic to find that signature offensive in any way at all"? Apart from the obvious and unadressed WP:SIG violations, this only has the intention to spite people like A Nobody. I don't see the humour in that. Fram (talk) 12:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Your ArbCom case from July? The one where you said that "I agree that calling Daedalus a little shit was wrong." (on July 20), but were more than happy to put Jack's "barnstar" commemorating the fact on your user page on July 22[95]? Fram (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the "sided with him against Daedalus"...? I do see. Don't you think it would be best to stop now, Fram ? Bishonen | talk 11:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC).

He knew how you felt about Daedalus. You knew how he felt about Daedalus. You congratulated one another with calling him a little shit. And when there is a thread by Daedalus about Jack Merridew, he comes to your talk page and posts a link to it, and you immediatley come over here (first post you made after Jack's message). Liek you said, I don't think I need to continue this, everyone can see this for what it is... Fram (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? This thread is starting to remind me of the Ottava Rima RFAR, where I was also informed (by OR) that I "knew" this, that and the other (compare my evidence section "It Was Not a Coincidence"[96]) and had to try to guess what it was even about. What are you talking about, Fram? "You knew how he felt about Daedalus. You congratulated one another with calling him a little shit"... I'm starting to feel terribly ignorant, because no, I didn't know that. (Didn't know what Ottava Rima was talking about, either.) I don't edit that much lately. If there is a pre-existing conflict between JM and Daedalus, or between JM and you, Fram, then I did not know that. I still don't know it. I am not, perhaps sadly, a major conspirator and plot spider. If you're determined to quarrel with me, I have no idea why. All the opinion I've ever had about you is that sometimes when I see your sig, I think "Oh, cool account name." (Like Nansen's ship, you know?) Please refrain from those WP:ABF comments: "Everyone can see this for what it is, dot dot dot..." Actually, *I* can't even see it for what it is, since I'm not aware of it being anything. Good-bye. Bishonen | talk 16:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC).

Fram, Fram, Fram...You know that this message of Jack's is obscured by his signature, but did your realize to the posts above that his posts were not obscured by the signature! Wait....is this one his new signature? - _{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 12:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I did find his signature to be superbly confusing. It really resembles that of a menu bar of a website. It was lucky for him to find a new one. None of the Wikipedia highs had such signatures, not even Jimbo himself! - _{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 12:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Something tells me you weren't around in 2006 to see the Esperanza crowd and their 6-line all-singing all-dancing sigs in full flow :) Moreschi (talk) 12:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My user page sported a sock box for eight months while I was en:banned. I *was* still here and I made 10,000 edits; they just were on WMF projects other than this zoo. My unban terms directed me to use this account, so I do. It's a sockpuppet account, so I say so. It's been on my user page all year long, until this long week of shit-slinging kicked into gear. Jack Merridew is a sockpuppet. Some have a hard time with this concept. I do not fucking care. Deal with it. I am *not* being disruptive, but the torch and pitchfork crowd *is* and none of them are doing themselves or the project any good. Someone box this stupidity, please? Here's teh sig, for great justice and epic lulz, as an example, and just this one on ANI.--Jack Merridew 12:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC) (see User:Chaser/Jack Merridew's signature) p.s. Fram, would you consider undeleting all the bits of my user space that I delete-tagged on the 25th or so? If not, I invite any interested janitor to please do so; sorry for the fuss.

Users have big wiki-sigs for the same reason middle-aged men buy sports cars; over-compensation. There is no valid or viable reason to sport that ridiculous monstrosity. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If signatures of that length were not disruptive, we would not have had so many threads regarding their use, threads which ended with the user being forced to use a normal signature. Further, you do not need 1400 characters to say that your account is a sockpuppet, Jack. Being the smart person that you are, I fail you see how you could fail to see such a simple thing. The fact of the matter is that sigs like the one above are unquestionably disruptive. I'm not rooting for anyone's block here, I just want the damn thing to be gone. The sig is disruptive, and no amount of wikilawyering will change that. It isn't much to ask to use one which doesn't break 255 characters, one which will say the same, but with less ornaments.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Another example of WikiSoapOperaEternal - surviving even the Guiding Light. If Merridew is your bete-noire of the day, just let him be left alone. With the folks being active here being the same ones active in other pages about Merridew, it certainly appears that the primary interest is not in preventing a bad sig, but in chasing him. Time to close this unproductive sideshow. Collect (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

User making offensive edits

I have noticed that Xaronyr has been making a number of offensive edits. The user has has a level 1, 2 and 3 warning in the space of eight hours! As all of these edits have been made in such a short space of time I'm not quite sure what would be the best course of action, but I draw your attention to the nature of the edits (some racist, but all potentially offensive). [97] and [98]. The full list is here. Perhaps something to keep an eye on? Willdow (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No sense in warning them if nobody actually showed the the rules. I've given them a {{Welcomevandal}} for now. It's pretty standard-looking vandalism - maybe when they sign in again, they'll see that people actually pay attention. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I blocked this account indefinitely, as it looked like a run-of-the-mill disruption-only account, and the edits were egregious. If anyone disagrees with the block, they have my permission to take the action they deem appropriate. decltype (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to object, but for very unusual and rather complex reasons. First, my disclaimer is that you're allowed to entirely ignore what I say. Originally I just wanted to check on that "8 hours" for 3 warnings as being suspicious (it's too slow for the average vandal) and found far more odd. Really, I think you're 120% supposed to ignore anything I suggest as a non-admin, but, a change to 12 or 24hr from final article edit would seem better give another shot to see if they're serious about Wikipedia or not. They literally has confirmation of incorrect policies (see below). BWilkins has a good within-Wiki-AGFable-grasp view on it with the welcome message today. Basically, Since the situation is a lot more complicated than normal, nothing to the blocking admin since obviously it was in good faith. These details are far, far out of view. Depending on the admin this might have been no block? Not my place to judge.

There haven't been any edits at all since that welcome notice was put up; had been 7 hours and the user long gone for the night. No mainspace edits at all since the cluebot lvl1 warning. Actually, the user's first edit was evening of 30 November, and was what I'll call "kinda AGF vandalism intended as humor to select audiences". It went untouched for over a full day! I was wondering why there was no welcome or warning on a talk page from then, but that's because I just now undid it. Of course the user didn't think they'd done anything bad. They made 1 edit their first night, came back 24 hours later and everything was exactly the same. Not only did they not know the actual guidelines, they had developed beliefs in an entirely wrong set of guidelines. This alone is reason to remove the def and significantly reduce length, because this is flat-out our faults. ...Moving on, the user might have seen HamburberRadio's lvl2 warning, and even if they did, they stopped editing for the night, meaning they "obeyed" technically.

Bigger question to me was why were there no welcomes or warnings or at least notices about the first few edits? Well I already explained the first. The first edit last evening was caught on a Huggle patrol, but for some reason no warning template was sent. Looking at the (Huggle) user's history, s/he obviously has automatic warnings turned on, but maybe has create new talk pages turned off maybe? Pains me a bit to say, but this was a comical string of tiny gaffs all around on our end... including me since this is my third write of a different opinion after I discovered something depressing (the missed vandalism, this time). However much I figure I'll run across this user again somewhere, this was really not their fault since they did nothing against policy after the time they knew of policy. 12/24 or remove completely and leave them a note. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You can only stretch AGF so far. I refuse to believe that the user thought his second edit was a legitimate and appropriate one. His third edit is libel of the worst kind. Note that the editor has already gotten into the habit of using innocuous edit summaries to disguise his edits as legitimate ones (m "Just some cleaning up"), and his fourth edit is in the same vein. Having looked at the particulars one more time, I have to stick with my indefinite block, which is in accordance with the blocking policy for disruption-only accounts, both in terms of duration and the number of warnings received. I see no indication that the user is interested in contributing constructively. But again, if consensus is that this user's block duration should be reduced, I shall not object. However, even an indef block may be appealed, so the door is half-open, anyway. decltype (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Concur with indefblock. If the user is incapable of realising that those edits are utterly inappropriate in any public forum without having it explained to them, I question their suitability to be here at all. We can perhaps do them a favour by applying Hanlon's razor, but that doesn't mean we're obliged to keep them around. EyeSerene^talk 17:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Concur as well. Revert, block, ignore, move on. GlassCobra 18:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess I go by the Assume Complete Ignorance of the Purpose of Wikipedia and its Basic Rules concept. Maybe it takes AGF too far, but with a handful of stupid edits over a period of time, I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt .... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Whole-heartedly endorse block. The less trash like this on Wikipedia, the better. JBsupreme (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You'll get no disagreement from me, but I always figure I should be judicious in a first ANI reply post to explain the details of things past the short starter description. I just reeeeealy want to give people 1 more shot on AGF after an ANI posting so any blocks don't look punitive and there's a prior and current pattern to look at. Wow, I must look absolutely evil for how much I try to balance a starting evidence posting. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

BLPs, ethnic origin categories and an IP hopper, redux

Okay, I'm slowly being driven (or driving myself) mad with this. We've got an IP-hopping uncommunicative editor who is making very very many weird edits to WP:BLPs. I previously brought this up here, where the consensus was to revert on sight, as I and a couple of others have been trying to do. But it's hundreds of edits a week, and the edits have frequently been helpfully tidied up by other editors (they don't look like abuse on first glance), making reverting painful and slow.

The IP in question is adding ethnic origin categories to BLPs. But the mental leap required to make these categories even begin to make sense is massive.

For instance, Tom Kenny is a New York comedian. But for the IP, he's English American - possibly because of his surname. He doesn't identify as English American and he isn't called English American by any other source. Dick Van Patten is a New York actor. But his mother had Italian forebears, whilst his father had Dutch ancestors. So, for the IP, he's Italian American and Dutch American. He doesn't identify as Italian or Dutch American and he isn't called Italian or Dutch American by any other source. Victor Webster is a Canadian actor. The IP says - without a source - that he's of Italian, German, English, French, Scottish and Spanish descent. He doesn't identify as any of them and no other source identifies him as any of them.

Lately, this has been getting weirder. Apparently, the fictional Lois Griffin is German American. Meanwhile, her equally fictional son Chris is African American.

Now, this isn't the biggest run of vandalism we've ever had, and some of these categories may be correct (although the maths to work it out - American X's grandfather's cousin's daughter married a Mexican, so that makes American X Spanish-American really - is far too complicated for me). The IP in question is non-communicative on any of their talk pages.

The IPs in question are:

• 166.216.128.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.216.128.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.216.128.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.216.128.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.216.128.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.216.128.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.216.128.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.216.128.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.216.128.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.216.128.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 166.216.128.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

and, out of the above pattern,

• 98.15.139.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.246.181.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

What to do? Block 'em? Range blocks? Edit Filter? Something else? Or am I totally in the wrong here? ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 11:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock the first set of addresses. I don't know if it's possible to edit filter like that without catching other users, particularly if he is indiscriminately hitting BLP pages. Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh. Wireless network. The set covers a lot under it. ...The last two separates up there in the same area but that doesn't necessarily mean much. Not sure how literally to take each IP even if there's the obvious habits of all. Could be someone playing a large trick on us. ........Looks like the range was hit with a 2 week block. Hope that doesn't make anything explode. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well if that doesn't solve the problem, can we not just identify problematic IPs and create an edit filter to flag up each and every revision they make so rollbackers and others know to revert on sight? HJMitchell You rang? 13:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem would be that the filter would have to hit every IP. A filter hitting IPs after we find them is not much help, since finding an IP doing this sort of crap is five seconds away (via huggle) from reverting it. Ironholds (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the range for two weeks yesterday. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

<-Thanks, Rjd0060 - most welcome. Now, a general question for everybody. Having brought this here, having spent weeks reverting (with others), does the community class me as "involved" should the IP return and another block is required? Should I, if it is needed, do it myself... or report it to AIV with a link to this discussion for someone else to do it? ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 08:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

UAA backlog

Resolved

 – Thanks all  7  15:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I was reporting one myself (not a bad one mind you, so don't worry about the one I reported) but I noticed that Biker Biker has correctly flagged a bunch of especially nasty usernames which should be taken care of. Hoping a wandering admin can take a look. Thanks.  7  11:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay - maybe not a big deal because none have contribs yet (at least none that haven't been deleted)... but still worth a look.  7  12:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Mostly cleared up. TNXMan 14:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

7, you have a username that violates current policy. You are only allowed to use that name because you're "grandfathered" in. Please would you consider not reporting usernames under these circumstances? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The notion that he shouldn't be allowed to report inappropriate usernames because of his own name is rather ridiculous, quite frankly. GlassCobra 18:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Move along everyone. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? His name is a policy violation. Having a user with a policy-violating username report other users for having policy violating usernames is absurd. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll inform 7 about this now NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting where you're getting that his username is a policy violation. So far as I can see, the name is not misleading, promotional, offensive, or disruptive, nor is it particularly confusing. How is "7" an inappropriate username? bibliomaniac15 03:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

NotAnIP, the username filter isn't the same as the username policy. For one thing, the username filter is enforced by a computer, while the username policy is enforced by people. I don't know why the username filter prevents one from registering names that are only made of digits, but it's really not a big deal and it's not in any way a statement about policy. rspεεr (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's comments and I certainly hope that there is no policy violation with my username, however I would like to address NotAnIP's concerns as s/he appears to have had them for a while. When NotAnIP mentioned this as a reason for a neutral vote in my RFA the explanation that someone gave me (sorry, I can't find where) was: after a group of vandals registered usernames that looked like IP addresses or were obfuscated IPs a check was put in place to prevent the user from registering it directly. However as mentioned above these names can still be usurped and policy does not disallow them. Furthermore, I believe these accounts can still be created via ACC with error-checking turned off. I am active over at ACC, as are a lot of other strong editors so I am sure if someone wanted to put this to the test we could. I just did a check, and all single digits 1-9 are already registered with the exception of 4. (doubt that will last long) If someone wants to request an alternate account or wants to CHU'd to that account we can put this to the test. As far as I know, nobody has grandfathered me on anything (and I'm still mad I missed the 18-21 drinking age grandfathering by a few years back in the early 80s). My username was only recently changed and followed the required procedures. I agree with Nja247 that we should all move along now, but I'd also like to address NotAnIPs concerns so this doesn't haunt me (and the 34 others who have single number or letter usernames).  7  04:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

One caveat - 4 is available on en.wp - but SUL won't be available as the username is already active on a few other wikimedia projects.  7  04:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant, fabulous

Resolved

 – Mccready has decided to take the matter to Arbcom. --Atlan (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I began a discussion above about an admin who had not done a proper review of my case and refused to discuss the matter. He now says he has been fired from his job and my case is not a priority. Naturally I feel sorry for someone who has been fired but that shouldn't affect wikipedia's handling of my case.

I was asked above to clarify and then the discussion was cut off before I was able to. Instead I was attacked by people who appear not to have understood the history or digested fully the last few days' exchange. Why do I get a feeling of deja vu? I would be happy to answer the question asked if the close on the discussion above is lifted. I consider it discourteous to be asked a question and then not allowed to answer. Neither was I allowed to address the faulty block history which was quoted when this began (admitted now by more than one admin) and which clearly influenced the mind of "the community". I hope wikipedia can do better than this. Kevin McCready (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Diffs on the personal attacks? I don't see anything uncivil in that last ANI. Seriously, would you please back away from the situation and especially that admin for awhile? He even admitted they're in no position to handle your situation, which is what a good admin should do. If you have evidence to present in an ANI, put it in your first post, because as you've seen you may well not get another chance to. Note that he said he was busy, not that you were not a priority. Wikipedia is 100% volunteer work and often editors can't get done everything they want. That's "community". No admin or anyone else "owe you priority" by default. ...It was suggested in the last ANI you filed on this, yesterday, it was suggested your take this to WP:ARBCOM. Another ANI isn't going to accomplish much. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's try this again. You insisted the admin in question carry out a review, then you didn't like what he said. What part of "Take this to ARBCOM" are you not understanding. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Dubious edits

2nd opinion requested

 – Need to have the ethnicity-related claims checked by other editors ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – simple content dispute. Toddst1 (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Highly suggesting further evaluation before true resolution. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – I fear some racial concerns, honestly. Let's run this a bit more since that would be significant... ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Today, in Macedonians (Greeks), Alex Makedon has started to make some dubious and unexplained edits, which I cannot revert all the time. This user has been accused of suckpuppetry and has been blocked several times in the past for his edits in Macedonia-related articles. Could anyone help? - Sthenel (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And you shouldn't continue reverting. You've already reverted 4 times in violation of WP:EW and WP:3RR and this is not one of the exception cases. Toddst1 (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Only two of my edits were reversions. And this is what I asked you to do, to help with his edits. - Sthenel (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope - you had 4: 1 2 3 4. This is a simple content dispute. Please seek WP:DR and stop edit warring. Toddst1 (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What was the solution exactly? - Sthenel (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It would appear to me that there is more at work here than some strange edits. This "does" look like a normal content dispute. What content? ...I have no idea. The first "revert" here is a grammar/syntax correction. At least it looks like that. There's no reason to not think it's just that. Entirely normal. On this, I can't see how you could give a 3RR violation to Sthenel as has been suggested. If anyone would like to make the case that to AN3 on that, I guess I can't stop you. Ironically, that was minor, but User:Alex Makedon marked most all his edits as minor. Unusual when actually changing things, yes? The word in question at start was "region" at start. As to why someone would place a {{fact}} next to several things in the lead sentence and repeatedly garble and mess up the line mentioning disambiguation, I don't know. Then I ran into this at the article talk page from nearly a day ago. To summarize-- this editor is literally asking for proof of existence of these persons. As in, are they people? Toying around with "region" is an attempt to remove the idea of the persons bring from that land, and replace with the fact that some people accidentally happen to live in a same place and they may or may not share some common traits. Trying to strip any persons of their concept of 'homeland' has, well, not been looked upon favorably here or in history. User:Sthenel reverted an edit that made the article subject look like Prince. Fair. Edits get weirder with insertions of {{fact}} placed next to statements of ethnicity. Apparently "are a regional population group of ethnic Greeks" needs a source. A bit more, and one more revert. Both users are at 3RR, stop.

The talk and edit style have the MO of the indefinitely blocked User:Pyraechmes who has an endless history of edits regarding Greece and Macedonia which came to a peak on this where that string of edits would appear to be literally stripping the ethnicity off of people. This seems to have started the process toward blocking. I reverted the page to last version before this all. No content from other users were lost; article body was not changed. I've exhausted all I can do, and though you can leave me a message for questions I think I covered everything (just in shortened form. This needs a serious looking over. Help, please. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC) -- Few edits: ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Pyraechmes has repeatedly asked to be unblocked, most recently asking in October to be allowed back. But the Alex Makedon account has been around since 2007, longer than Pyraechmes. I can't imagine that an editor would create a sock, have the sock banned, then have the sock beg to be unbanned while their original account remains free to edit. That doesn't make sesnse.

As to the racism question, I just don't see it. Oddness, maybe their edits aren't great, but it still seems like a content dispute and I agree with Toddst1 that this needs to be hashed out through dispute resolution, not administrator intervention. -- Atama頭 00:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• No. I'm familiar with Alex Makedon's editing pattern and he has no love for Greeks, trust me. This really was flagrant trolling on his part, battleground mentality taken to extremes. Such nationalistic flaming is not acceptable: under WP:ARBMAC (he must be sick of the sight of that case) he's blocked (yet again, this is something like his 7th block on 2 accounts?) for 1 month, and topic-banned for 3 months from all Balkans-related articles.

• Sthenel, I'm going to let this one slide. You were reverting edits of truly terrible quality, yes, but in the future please report such disruption before you run up 4 reverts. This is the only warning you will get. Happens again, and I will block you and put you on revert parole. Understood? Moreschi (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Moreschi for clearing things up before I had to try and explain the whole of the situation for everybody. It would have taken some time to do so. Datheisen, or anyone else interested can check out the history of WP:ARBMAC2 and the naming convention WP:NCMAC that was upgraded from what was previously a centralized discussion page. Fortunately the situation is stabilized now, not thanks to edits like the ones from Alex Makedon. Shadowmorph ^{^"^}

just to set the record straight:

• Pyraechmes was on the other side of the argument than Alex Makedon. His disruptive edits were not about denying the subject of the article but rather about the purity of the article. He was picking up whether certain people should be presented in the article if they weren't of - I don't know - proven Greek Macedonian blood, maybe. So he was on the extreme of the other side.
• I think Sthenel did 3 reverts not 4. I just checked it out carefully. It seems to me they are 3 but anyway Sthenel should remain his cool at all times because edit wars like that escalate sooner or later with the involvement of other "allies" and then there is no telling who reverted who how many times. I think he was fairly mild and civil in his responses even though he was dealing with a highly aggressive editor so I give him that.

About the racism thing, I can't say I have met myself with the best treatment since I created the article in question and after I had to declare myself a Macedonian (i.e. a Greek from Macedonia, Greece) during the ARBMAC2 Arbitration case. But to be fair I think Alex was more like acting along the course of the naming dispute and wasn't acting because of racial reasons. He was being discriminating though. He seems to have a strong politically anti-Greece attitude. Hope he chills out. Thanks. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 01:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Alex seems to have been in violation of the naming dispute rules set forth by ArbCom. I don't see overt racism, but there might have been something subtle I didn't pick up on. I do think the block/ban seems justified. -- Atama頭 19:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit war at 2009 Formula One season

I've blocked both Officially Mr X (talk · contribs) and The359 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours each for edit warring on 2009 Formula One season . IMO both have breached WP:3RR, and although they are both normally productive editors I feel that I cannot let this pass without comment. Mjroots (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Might be a little heavy handed, at least on 359's part. While he may have been heading towards a 4th revert (which obviously we won't know about), it does seem to ignore the rather long history of disruption that Mr X appears to have on F1 articles. A stern word might have worked for both of them just as well. Though it is done with now. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it is that I can't apply a sanction unevenly when an edit war is in progress, hence both were blocked. Both have been around long enough to know the 3RR by now, hence the short block. That said, I'll be ameniable to an unblock request as long as both editors realise that edit warring is wrong, and there is discussion of the issue on the article's talk page (none so far) to obtain consensus. Mjroots (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to drift toward The359 (on the content! blocks are fine). There was a perfectly acceptable existing version and no call for that information. ...It is really ridiculous extra information. Would be kind of like reporting the results of scrimmage games during NFL practice. +1 on content, -1 on attitude? No matter. Wikipedia is not a timekeeper, never mind that we don't do databases or endless info collection anyway, and neither seem to want to get along. ...Just let the blocks run off, or if someone is to unblock it should be both just to keep whatever type of zen balance in data formatting there should be. If you inform them both that their counterpart is also blocked for a day they'll probably relax. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Officially Mr X

For Mjroots (who has apparently given himself superiority to dish out edit bans for some reason which seems thoroughly arrogant to me) about Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: there has actually been a discussion already around this issue on Talk:2010 Formula One season#Pre-season testing. My points, as usual, aren't really being considered even when my article ideas and suggestions are constructive and make logical sense. I find it a ridiculous system on Wikipedia in these areas. Officially Mr X (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Officially Mr X, I have not given myself superiority to dish out edit bans. The tools were granted to me, as with all admins, by the consensus of the community in an RFA. WP:3RR is a bright-line rule, which you broke. You have been around long enough to know this, hence the short block. I checked the talk page of the article being warred over and saw no discussion there. Mjroots (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Copied text ends Copied from The 359's unblock request I can understand warnings for edit warring and 3RR and such but to me a block, even for 24 hours, seems a bit excessive for something like this, especially when both were involved in a discussion (granted, not on the 2009 Formula One season talk page, but rather Talk:2010 Formula One season). My intent was to revert what seemed more like a "proof of concept" test edit to another article in order to promote his opinion in discussion, rather than a constructive edit to the article, which is why my first edit summary stated that this was something that was still under discussion and had not been approved by consensus. I certainly had no intention of continuing to revert and had begun to take things back to the discussion page after my 3rd revert. Which makes me think that a warning that yeah, I was getting close to a 4th revert and that discussion was needed would have easily sufficed. I'm also slightly confused as to why this was brought to WP:ANI only after the blocks? I'm not really contesting the fact that I did something wrong, I'm just contesting that I think the block is a bit heavy handed for this incident. copied text ends

• I would be more or less to inclined to unblock The 359, as he seems to understand why this happened, but since the block is over in about an hour anyway there doesn't seem much point. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested extended block of User:Njirlu

Resolved

Njirlu (talk · contribs · logs) is a single-purpose account (apparently active also on other, non-English wikis), intent on changing/adding a number of very dubious ethnonyms to the Aromanians page and related articles. His edits have been reverted many times, for reasons explained to him several times in no uncertain terms by a number of users in his talk page. He has responded by rants and personal attacks (he recently called me a Nazi), and has been blocked repeatedly for his behaviour. He's back from a month-long ban now, and I don't see any signs of him changing his pattern of editing. Despite repeated admonitions and warnings to either find credible sources or stay off the page, he does the same things over and over. Aside from changing the names in the lede and adding a large chunk of bibliography, his contribution to the rest of the article is zero. Constantine ✍ 12:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered an WP:RFC/U? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have, but the problem is not that he needs to be educated in Wikiquette. The relevant policies have been repeated to him over and over, and he is at times capable of a relatively civilized discussion, but the essence is that he does not or does not want to understand that he is doing something wrong. He is a very dedicated fringe POV-warrior who fights (in his own eyes) for the truth against the likes of me, Greek and Romanian Nazis who hate Aromanians... He is not likely (understandably) to change his views on this issue... Constantine ✍ 12:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours by Cuchullain. It should probably be logged on RFAR/Macedonia Blocks and Sanctions. Toddst1 (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Logged. This would be appear to be your bog-standard flamer, I suggest rapid escalation of sanctions if poor conduct continues. Moreschi (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• In all fairness, the user clearly doesn't speak English very well, at and one point asks, "what persissting edit warrings?" (sic). I tried looking on simple.wikipedia.org, but they don't seem to have a page about edit warring (!). Perhaps if somebody explained to this guy in whatever language he uses he might, like, understand the problem. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Request undo of Administrative talk-page deletion

Resolved

 – No admin action required. EyeSerene^talk 18:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The talk page of the article Spin-statistics theorem used to have a section devoted to explaining the arguments in the paper by Berry et al that claimed to have an argument for a spin-statistics theorem in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. The explanation given on the talk-page was not yet incorporated into the article, but was placed so that editors could understand the argument in the paper, and perhaps add the reference and discussion later.

This discussion disappeared from the talk page a little while ago, and its revision history is gone too. This is either a robot glitch or an under-the-radar removal by someone with administrator powers. The discussion was dry and scientific, and had nothing to do with BLP or anything else that's touchy. I would appreciate it if someone could restore the discussion, and look into the deletion, since it seems to be a violation of Wikipedia policy to delete talk-page discussions without reason.Likebox (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The last talk-page edit was yours, on 15 June, and there have been no page moves and nothing appears to have been deleted. It's possible that there has been some kind of software spasm, but perhaps more likely that you are simply misremembering either what you saw or where you saw it. EyeSerene^talk 17:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm stupid. I misremembered completely. My bad.Likebox (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Were you looking for Talk:Pauli_exclusion_principle#Spin statistics without relativity? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No, not stupid, just human :) Marking as resolved. EyeSerene^talk 18:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Problems with IP Block 206.131.49.*

IP Block 206.131.49.* seems to be not only vandalizing pages, but doing so in tandem. Either one user is swapping through a group of IPs or there are some prankster kids working in tandem. See the contribution history of:

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

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

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

There may be more of them in the block, but I only noticed it because they all ganged up on Solar Power for ten minutes earlier today, thereby revealing the relationship. Their recent edits seem focused on various alternative energy pages, but the vandalism edits are incredibly childish; I doubt there is a political agenda involved. This isn't appropriate for WP:AIV largely because the abuse is sporadic and spread between IPs; blocking just a few wouldn't solve the problem, and we'd have to go through hundreds of warnings to fulfill the requirements for WP:AIV. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It's bored schoolkids in a physics? lesson. It is not uncommon for school IPs to behave like this, usually through students on different computers. They can be treated as the same user for the purpose of warnings and blocks. There seems to be a lot of crap from this network, but I'm not sure if a rangeblock is justified at this time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I softblocked Special:Contributions/206.131.49.101/24 for 6 hours. It doesn't seem like there is too much traffic from that range (per Soxred's CIDR range contribs tool). The kids will move alone soon enough. NW (Talk) 20:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me, just wanted to make sure someone was aware of it. How do you know if a range is blocked by the way? It seems like doesn't show on the contribs page like other forms of block. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a link at the bottom of the talk page and contributions page.[99] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Shopping for an appropriate forum

Hey, the shopping season has officially started, right? I'm looking for the right forum in which to discuss my concerns about a particular editor. There are several issues that touch upon many categories, while not fitting neatly into any single category. Do I shotgun my concerns to the various distinct but applicable noticeboards, or is there an industrious admin with significant free time reading this who can formulate a comprehensive, single course of action? Here's the background information followed by my specific concerns:

On November 6, User:96.231.137.242 added a paragraph to the Bill Maher BLP article. I removed it because it violated several WP:BLP policy stipulations including sourcing, verifiability and inaccurate contentious material. This was my first interaction with this editor. He repeatedly reinserted the content, so I warned him against edit warring and BLP violations. He was blocked for 31 hours for 3RR and edit warring. Immediately following the block of IP96.xxx, User:DyadTriad appears and continues arguing for the inclusion of that same paragraph, eventually re-adding it. Shortly after that, User:Valerius Tygart picks up the same argument, and starts re-adding the same content. I heard ducks quacking, so I initiated a Sockpuppet Investigation here. Checkuser confirmed 96.231.137.242 = DyadTriad = Valerius Tygart, among others. The editor admits using the many registered and unregistered accounts, but denies using them abusively - contrary to the findings of the SPI case page and the checkuser results. Several of his sock accounts were blocked, and the case archived. Since then, Valerius Tygart has resumed re-inserting the contentious paragraph into the Maher article once per day, each day, for over two weeks now — despite objections from editors on the talk page. In addition, this editor has been attempting to modify his archived Sockpuppet Investigation case page, to the point of getting himself blocked yet again for disruptive editing. Despite (and during) this block, as I type this, he is still maintaining his slow-burn edit war on the Maher article with his Tygart account.

As for forums, I could post on the WP:BLPN so that other editors can tell Tygart what he already knows: he's trying to insert poorly sourced content into a BLP that intentionally misrepresents the subject's views, against policy. But that doesn't stop the repeated reverts. I could post at the 3RR/Edit Warring noticeboard, but the once-per-day revert war doesn't technically violate 3RR, does it? Perhaps I should go to WP:RFPP and request page protection until the BLP violations are resolved? I could go to the SPI noticeboard and say, "Hey - this confirmed puppeteer is editing with some of his accounts while his other accounts are blocked for disruptive editing - what gives?", but the case is already closed. Any suggestions? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Here would appear to be the best place. Did the SPI conclude that Valerius Tygart was the sockmaster? If so, a longer block would seem appropriate. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then this reeks of gaming. I would suggest a longer than usual ban just to beat it into people's heads that no, we aren't idiots, and we can see what you're trying to do. Things like a once per day edit to avoid 1/3rr is clearly an attempt to skirt the rules. Give them a long ban, and keep them on a short leash when they get back. If they can't play nice, then indef-block. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that User:Valerius Tygart be indef-blocked for disruptive editing. Using an IP to tamper with his own sockpuppet report takes the cake. (If you're trying to convince people that you're an incorrigible sockpuppeteer, that's a good way to do it). He should be told that the block could be lifted if he would agree to edit with only a single account, and refrain from editing the Bill Maher article. He could still participate on the article's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I was the admin who blocked IP 96.231.137.242 for edit-warring at Bill Maher, recommended the filing of the SPI, and then blocked the confirmed sock accounts after confirming that they were being used abusively. At that stage I blocked the sockmaster Valerius Tygart (talk · contribs) only for 31 hours in order not to be punitive, and assuming that the socking and disruption would stop. Given that the sockpuppetry has been goind on for over two years and has continued even after the SPI confirmation, I support EdJohnston's suggestion above. Additionally, the Bill Maher article can be semi-protected, if needed to prevent such disruption. Abecedare (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That puts the icing on the SPI cake! Have you blocked the IP already? - _{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 12:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tygart has used at least these 2 IPs since the closure of his SPI case: User:96.231.137.242 and User:140.139.35.250. They appear to be static, not dynamic IPs. Tygart claims to use multiple accounts "legitimately", but I stopped assuming good faith after checkuser J.delanoy confirmed Tygart = 140.139.35.250 = Dogwood123, but Tygart denies ever being deceptive or saying, I am not "Dogwood123". Either Tygart or J.delanoy is lying, and I know where I'd put my money. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone is playing possum. Still unsure of an appropriate forum. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Problems with User:Starsaresane

Resolved

 – Spoke to user on user page A8UDI 22:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Single purpose editor is sanitizing Josh Mandel article. User:Starsaresane persists in deleting information despite warnings.THD3 (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Shopping for an appropriate forum

Hey, the shopping season has officially started, right? I'm looking for the right forum in which to discuss my concerns about a particular editor. There are several issues that touch upon many categories, while not fitting neatly into any single category. Do I shotgun my concerns to the various distinct but applicable noticeboards, or is there an industrious admin with significant free time reading this who can formulate a comprehensive, single course of action? Here's the background information followed by my specific concerns:

On November 6, User:96.231.137.242 added a paragraph to the Bill Maher BLP article. I removed it because it violated several WP:BLP policy stipulations including sourcing, verifiability and inaccurate contentious material. This was my first interaction with this editor. He repeatedly reinserted the content, so I warned him against edit warring and BLP violations. He was blocked for 31 hours for 3RR and edit warring. Immediately following the block of IP96.xxx, User:DyadTriad appears and continues arguing for the inclusion of that same paragraph, eventually re-adding it. Shortly after that, User:Valerius Tygart picks up the same argument, and starts re-adding the same content. I heard ducks quacking, so I initiated a Sockpuppet Investigation here. Checkuser confirmed 96.231.137.242 = DyadTriad = Valerius Tygart, among others. The editor admits using the many registered and unregistered accounts, but denies using them abusively - contrary to the findings of the SPI case page and the checkuser results. Several of his sock accounts were blocked, and the case archived. Since then, Valerius Tygart has resumed re-inserting the contentious paragraph into the Maher article once per day, each day, for over two weeks now — despite objections from editors on the talk page. In addition, this editor has been attempting to modify his archived Sockpuppet Investigation case page, to the point of getting himself blocked yet again for disruptive editing. Despite (and during) this block, as I type this, he is still maintaining his slow-burn edit war on the Maher article with his Tygart account.

As for forums, I could post on the WP:BLPN so that other editors can tell Tygart what he already knows: he's trying to insert poorly sourced content into a BLP that intentionally misrepresents the subject's views, against policy. But that doesn't stop the repeated reverts. I could post at the 3RR/Edit Warring noticeboard, but the once-per-day revert war doesn't technically violate 3RR, does it? Perhaps I should go to WP:RFPP and request page protection until the BLP violations are resolved? I could go to the SPI noticeboard and say, "Hey - this confirmed puppeteer is editing with some of his accounts while his other accounts are blocked for disruptive editing - what gives?", but the case is already closed. Any suggestions? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Here would appear to be the best place. Did the SPI conclude that Valerius Tygart was the sockmaster? If so, a longer block would seem appropriate. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then this reeks of gaming. I would suggest a longer than usual ban just to beat it into people's heads that no, we aren't idiots, and we can see what you're trying to do. Things like a once per day edit to avoid 1/3rr is clearly an attempt to skirt the rules. Give them a long ban, and keep them on a short leash when they get back. If they can't play nice, then indef-block. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that User:Valerius Tygart be indef-blocked for disruptive editing. Using an IP to tamper with his own sockpuppet report takes the cake. (If you're trying to convince people that you're an incorrigible sockpuppeteer, that's a good way to do it). He should be told that the block could be lifted if he would agree to edit with only a single account, and refrain from editing the Bill Maher article. He could still participate on the article's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I was the admin who blocked IP 96.231.137.242 for edit-warring at Bill Maher, recommended the filing of the SPI, and then blocked the confirmed sock accounts after confirming that they were being used abusively. At that stage I blocked the sockmaster Valerius Tygart (talk · contribs) only for 31 hours in order not to be punitive, and assuming that the socking and disruption would stop. Given that the sockpuppetry has been goind on for over two years and has continued even after the SPI confirmation, I support EdJohnston's suggestion above. Additionally, the Bill Maher article can be semi-protected, if needed to prevent such disruption. Abecedare (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That puts the icing on the SPI cake! Have you blocked the IP already? - _{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 12:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tygart has used at least these 2 IPs since the closure of his SPI case: User:96.231.137.242 and User:140.139.35.250. They appear to be static, not dynamic IPs. Tygart claims to use multiple accounts "legitimately", but I stopped assuming good faith after checkuser J.delanoy confirmed Tygart = 140.139.35.250 = Dogwood123, but Tygart denies ever being deceptive or saying, I am not "Dogwood123". Either Tygart or J.delanoy is lying, and I know where I'd put my money. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone is playing possum. Still unsure of an appropriate forum. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

Resolved

 – Reporting editor community-banned.  Sandstein  14:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

collapsed so as not to take up half of ANI, per suggestion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Slrubenstein {{discussion top}} User:Slrubenstein, an admin with a dubious history, is engaging in personal attacks,assuming bad faith, and commenting on editors rather than edits here: [[100]]. Could someone please caution him? This, coupled with his recent abusive uses of the tools, tends to show a disregard for the normative behavour expected from tool weilding editors.--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I have notified the editor in question. But, um, are you sure this is the right one? Basket of Puppies 05:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Yes. I had notified him. Are you sure you notified the right person?--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I clicked on the link you provided and got some user from 2005. I am awfully confused. Basket of Puppies 05:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC) All sorted out. Carry on. Basket of Puppies 05:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC) (EC) I see a somewhat heated discussion, but that does tend to happen with subjects such as this. You may wish to seek dispute resolution. (And I feel compelled to add that, for the record, the Holocaust claimed many victims other than Jews; although many of the victims were Jewish, it was not exclusively Jews who were persecuted.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I am not seeking content mediation. I want him to cease his behavour. The issue is not as to if they are Jews or Gentiles, but his accusations of trolling, assumption of bad faith, personal attacks, and incivility.--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Slrubenstein isn't an administrator as far as I can tell, but his comment does seem to assume bad faith--Crossmr (talk) 05:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC) No admin action needed. Strong rhetoric when discussing a strong topic—carry on smartly. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC) With all due respect, I am not in your army. This needs to be addressed. It oes not have to be by you. You are dismissed.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Plaxico! Hipocrite (talk) 05:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC) {{discussion bottom}} http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Slrubenstein Die4Dixie blocked After reading this, I've come to the conclusion that this was a premature close. Slrubenstein IS an administrator, and his actions in this case were inappropriate. WQA is useless, I know from experience. I think this would be solved if Slrubenstein was given a friendly reminder about civility from an administrator; then Die4Dixie would no longer have any reason to complain. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) I am blocking the original poster Die4Dixie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for WP:POINT for the following reasons: This edit, which appears to be designed to get a rise out of others. Filing a frivolous complaint against a content opponent (this thread).[101] Including personal attacks in the complaint ("an admin with a dubious history"). [same diff as prior] Block log shows multiple prior blocks including one about 64 days ago for WP:POINT that was lifted early in good faith, and one 14 days later for disruptive editing. You've been put on notice about how to behave at Wikipedia, but the clues aren't getting through. [102] You're continuing to battle on this thread even after told you have no case.[103] Take a week off, and when you come back keep in mind that Wikipedia is not for ideological struggle. If that principle doesn't agree with your objectives, then you'll have to find another pastime. Jehochman Talk 05:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC) For the record, when I look at the rights of User:Slrubenstein it shows him as having +sysop. Other than that I agree with the closing and blocking Admins. Crafty (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Actually I'd like to +1 the call for a civility reminder to Slrubentein. I'm not going to argue OP's block, as that is an entirely seperate matter, but my impression of Slrubenstein from my dealings with him have left much to be desired. I found him to be hotheaded and emotional, and quick to use his tools without bothering to gain a full understanding of the situation. Perhaps a friendly reminder by an established editor would encourage more appropriate behaviour. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC) FYI: the blocked user has, on his talk page, requested a block template with appeal form so he can appeal the block. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC) All the while suggesting that he was blocked as part of some jewish conspiracy. Yeesh. Crafty (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Die4Dixie has shown their agenda with the following edit Hochman, I really question your blocking on behalf of another Jew in this case. . Is there another admin who could review this matter, please, and determine whether this warrants an increase to indefinite blocking? Jehochman Talk 06:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC) The user obviously was angry over the block, and is under the impression that it was due to a perception of anti-semitism from a Jewish editor. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC) It's an absurd excuse to indef someone over. No, it does not warrant increasing to indef. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I agree 100% with the above user. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC) He has resorted to a base anti-semitic slur and it warrants an indef. Crafty (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Indeffed. I don't normally block for "venting", but he needed to be shown the door months ago. Protonk (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I don't see it as venting really... If I were reprimanded by two admins whose names sounded to be of a similar ethnicity, especially when the topic of dispute was ethnic-related, I might suspect impropriety as well. And what did he do "months ago"? Equazcion (talk) 06:36, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) Was there discussion that future "venting" would result in an indefinite block? --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC) What? Protonk (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I think William meant "Was the user warned that further 'venting' would result in an increased block duration?" Equazcion (talk) 06:41, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) Also like to hear an answer to my concerns further above, kindly. Equazcion (talk) 06:42, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) Please check the user's block log and contribution history. Take in a broader view of what he's been doing around Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 06:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Could you provide diffs or links to previous discussions about the user's behavior? It would be easier for you to find such things if you know of them (or Protonk who seems to have had previous experience with this user) than for me to go searching blindly through the contribs listing. Equazcion (talk) 06:48, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) I mean, don't take this the wrong way, but permission granted not to leap to the users defense if you don't know any of the history. Protonk (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC) "I know the reason; and that's all you need to know." --Well how much easier our lives could be made if that were a valid response. You've blocked someone indefinitely and this is ANI, so I'm asking for your reason. I find that a somewhat acceptable request. Equazcion (talk) 06:57, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) It's totally reasonable for you to ask. My point was that if you are going to ask for diffs and insinuate I have some personal history then it behooves you to acquaint yourself with the arbcom case he has been involved in, his block log, and the numerous AN/I threads about or instigated by him. Protonk (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I wasn't insinuating anything beyond the fact that you might be the best person to ask for links, since you mentioned that the user should have been indeffed long ago. I assumed you had some reason to say that. Thanks for eventually giving me at least some clues to go on now, as difficult as it has been to pry actual information out of you. Equazcion (talk) 07:09, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) My mistake on the RFAR. I'm not sure what I was thinking of, probably this thread. Protonk (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Strong support, no disrespect to those above but you cannot make accusations based on editors perceived (or real) ethnicity, no way, no how. Sometimes it's ambiguous, here it isn't. Consider an unblock if he sincerely apologizes. Mackan79 (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC) No, he wasn't. He's been expected to behave in a collegial manner since he got here. instead he has spent his entire time here angling to construe conflicts as grand conspiracies. At some point you reach a level of disruption and malfeasance where it isn't worth the effort to put up with you. he has been there and beyond for some time. Protonk (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I don't object on that basis at all, but there's no doubting here that this could have handled a lot better than it has (or in fact, should've) been. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC) In case anybody thinks I might be biased in favor of Slrubenstein, please review Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlrubensteinII. Jehochman Talk 06:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I didn't suggest that -- but rather than being offered the link you just provided us, the user who was so concerned was blocked indefinitely for possibly making the insinuation. Equazcion (talk) 06:44, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) That would've been a more ideal response rather than adding more drama to an already poorly handled situation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Give me a break. He asked that only gentiles review his unblock request. Completely inappropriate and I fully support this block. AniMate 06:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Let's get back to the initial block. D4D came here to ask that Slrubenstein be cautioned for using the term "trolling". William S. Saturn, for one, agreed that this is in order. Jehochman then blocked D4D for bringing a frivolous case, and for persisting in it? I'm a bit taken aback here. Not happy about the slur, of course, but first things first.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC) ^Agreed. The user in question is certainly not my favorite person, but the sequence of events that led to the indef is out of whack. Equazcion (talk) 06:55, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) How thoroughly have you reviewed the contribution history and block log of Die4Dixie? He's been blocked twice since the end of September for disruptive editing. He was posting flamebait at Talk:Holocaust.[104] When an editor predictably responded, he ran here to file a complaint against the editor. That's cynical, battlefield behavior. We do not need such editors at Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 06:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC) What you call "flamebait" I rather see as evidence that the user is either dumb or inexperienced with regard to Holocaust information. Perhaps AGF? Unless there's more in his contribution history to support the accusation of deliberate trolling, which so far hasn't been forthcoming... Equazcion (talk) 07:00, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) See now come ON. Protonk (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC) That's... a really great point. Way to be constructive. Equazcion (talk) 07:03, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) I'm not going to get lectured by someone who sees "This doesn't seem to be an image of Jews, as they are not circumcised.Perhaps, unless we want to expand the Holocaust to include non Jews, we should just stick to pictures of Jews for this article" on Talk:Holocaust and insists that he's not trolling but instead he's just conveniently ignorant of the holocaust. that doesn't pass the laugh test, sorry. Protonk (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I'm not insisting he's ignorant. I'm just suggesting it as a possibility. This is how AGF works; we try to assume the best scenario rather than the worst. Sorry for my errm lecturing. Equazcion (talk) 07:11, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) And my response is that such a suggestion doesn't even pass the laugh test. AGF is not (quoting spartaz paraphrasing Posner) a suicide pact. Asserting that his comment was made out of some innocence of the context requires a heroic assumption of good faith which would at best be extended to an editor who didn't have a history of trolling or who didn't respond to his block by suggesting that the jewishness of the admin made it illegitimate or that the two jewish admins conspired, devised if you will, to block him. No. Sorry. I'm not buying it. Protonk (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I might be inclined to consider your "laugh test" assessment, if the comment could be considered offensive. As I said below, I don't quite see how it could be considered that. In order for trolling to be evident, the user would have had to say something offensive, in order to incite an argument. I'm not sure what was so offensive about the statement to begin with, that would make us question the motive behind it. Stupidity alone doesn't seem a likely candidate for bad-faith. See me comment further down, that starts with "(edit conflict)Another problem I have..." Equazcion (talk) 07:57, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) Oh and my mother isn't jewish. Protonk (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Comment: Administrators should not be so quick to block due to their perceptions of bigotry in an individual. In matters such as this, there should be a community consensus. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC) For reference, I am a "gentile" (I presume an atheist counts?), and I'm fully in support of the block. Bigotry is not acceptable here, whoever it may be directed against. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC) As far as I can see, D4D was initially blocked for bringing this matter to AN/I, persisting in it, and having a block history. That is what Jehochman says. I do not see that these are blockable offenses.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)That's my interpretation as well. His comments may be inappropriate, but I do not see them as blatantly racist. Saying that one jewish editor was leaping to another jewish editor's aid is not helpful, but its not racist. Similarly, asking to have the case reviewed by a non-jewish admin, if one honestly believed that you were being discriminated against because you weren't Jewish, isn't racist either. It might even be downright appropriate. His other behaviour was not at issue here, and seems to have played an inappropriate role in the chronology of the indef block. Look, the guy doesn't appear to be the sharpest crayon in the box, and maybe wikipedia is better off without him. i'm simply concerned about the conduct of the blocking admin(s). Throwaway85 (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC) WP:NOT is policy and WP:POINT is a guideline. He's broken both of them, as I've explained above, and then iced the cake with some personal attacks. The prior block history means he doesn't need warnings or extra chances; he's used them up already. Jehochman Talk 07:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)Another problem I have with this is that the comment itself doesn't actually seem likely to offend anyone. It just doesn't make sense to anyone who knows anything about the Holocaust. He suggested sticking to pictures of Jews unless the Holocaust involved other races. Is that offensive? I mean I know it's stupid, but offensive? Is it really? Could someone explain to me why it would be? Equazcion (talk) 07:19, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) I concur. It's dumb and tinhatty, but I can't see that being offensive, unless those offended were a little too eager to read offense into things. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC) D4D stated baldly that Jehochman made a block not on the merits of the situation, but rather because he's a jew acting in defence of another jew. I despair for those who cannot see what is so utterly offensive in that. It's not "tinhatty". It's not "stupid". It's totally offensive and completely unacceptable. When viewed in the context of D4D's editing history it demonstrates that he should never be unblocked. Crafty (talk) 07:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC) See Throwaway's comment in response to Wehwalt above. The mere suggestion that one admin might be acting in defense of another admin for ethnic reasons isn't worthy of an indefinite block, though it isn't a smart thing to say either. We should also be also more inclined to allow leeway when it comes to someone's response to the frustration of a block. Also none of this changes the fact that the comment that sparked all of this wasn't actually offensive, and the initial block came simply because the user brought a complaint to ANI -- and one that had nothing to do with ethnicity. Equazcion (talk) 07:51, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) That's fair. And I'll note that accusations of ethnic conspiracies aren't uncommon (they are par for the course on most of the nationalist conflicts and the same goes for political accusations w/ american left/right politics disputes). But I'm not blocking him for the comment alone. I'm blocking him because I feel he has worn out his welcome. Protonk (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I can't seem to find WP:WORNOUTHISWELCOME, Protonk. Can you help?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Jehochman blocked today (2 December 2009) for 5 reasons. Let's look at each of them: this comment which was made on 30 November 2009. Was it really offensive? Foolish yes, but offensive? Regardless, do we usually block so much later for such a comment? "frivolous complaint against content opponent". Do we usually block for that reason, or doesn't that happen often enough that it does not warrant a block? "personal attacks in complaint ("an admin with a dubious history")" If an editor makes an allegation, particularly against an admin, do we usually block them or ask them to substantiate? Block log with blocks for point and disruptive editing...a fancy way of saying blocking policy allows a block if the conduct continues. And...where was the discussion for that? Was there even an RfC/U that some frequently encourage users to use in lieu of ANI and binding measures? "continuing to battle on this thread even after told no case". One user felt there was a need to remind/warn Slrubenstein, while another felt otherwise. Battling aside, how is it in any way reasonable to expect a filing party to agree with a user who disagrees with him, particularly when someone else felt some justification in the filing party's concern? Meanwhile, Jayron32 closed this making some correct statements (about using dispute resolution) and incorrect statements (those regarding Slrubenstein's sysop rights). Does this blocking rationale stand up to scrutiny? If it actually does, great. Personally, I'm inclined to think that more discussion prior to admin actions may have resulted in this being handled much more appropriately (and without the escalating drama). There may have been other reasons that resulted in the block, even an indef one that I'd have fully supported. However, as those reasons were material to this block, those reasons should've been stated in the rationale to begin with (if they existed at the time of blocking in the mind of the blocking admin). Personal assumptions do not override discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I don't want to get too deep into it, since Jehochman and I are both ArbCom candidates, but there needs to be more emphasis on discussion rather than unilateral actions, and I wish Jehochman had waited. It is very possible that Wikipedia would be better off without D4D, I couldn't say. But "better off blocked" is not a reason to block. I suggest that D4D be unblocked, with a caution as to his language. I also suggest that Slrubenstein be cautioned that "trolling" is a word likely to be provocative.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Please comment on the following two edits. Are they helpful or unhelpful, given the backdrop of an editor who's been blocked repeatedly and recently for disruptive editing?[105] The way this case has been handled is strictly routine. Jehochman Talk 08:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC) This doesn't seem to be an image of Jews, as they are not circumcised.Perhaps, unless we want to expand the Holocaust to include non Jews, we should just stick to pictures of Jews for this article?. The image in question Hochman, I really question your blocking on behalf of another Jew in this case. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 08:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I agree that using the word "trolling" is not wise. It tends to make a situation worse rather than better. However, this error is quite mild compared to the provocations by Die4Dixie. Jehochman Talk 08:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC) And yet you blocked him for bringing the case here and persisting in it!--Wehwalt (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Correct. For the reasons stated above. Die4Dixie has a contribution history evidencing a particular point of view. His comment appears to have been flamebait. He hooked a fish and brought it here for frying. No, we don't allow that sort of game on Wikipedia, especially not by editors who already been warned and blocked at least twice for disruptive editing in the recent past. Jehochman Talk 08:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Unless the original comment can be shown to have been somehow offensive, which no one's explained yet, there's no reason to think he was baiting. The comment was just stupid -- not offensive. Equazcion (talk) 08:23, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)Both of those comments have been addressed above. The "circumcised" comment, again, was stupid but not offensive, nor worthy of a block. And again, merely suggesting, in the frustrated aftermath of a block, that one admin was acting in defense of another admin for ethnic reasons, is also not worthy of a block, let alone an indef -- though it may still have been ill-advised. Equazcion (talk) 08:16, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) @Jehochman; decidedly unhelpful. I've seen D4D before; one of the other incidents, but I don't recall the details and do not believe I was in any way involved or even commented; but it was in this same vein. I have a question of my own: Is there anything good coming out of this user? Because if there's not, Jehochman and Protonk have this done right. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I see plenty of constructive edits in his history; though even barring that, the "net positive/net negative" argument has never held much water when it comes to users. Equazcion (talk) 08:27, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) Was the following edit constructive? This users is pleased with the changes in the status of Juan Almeida. One down and several leftists to go! [106] I am no fan of communists, but grave dancing and using Wikipedia as a battleground is unacceptable. Jehochman Talk 08:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Not helpful, but also not worthy of blocking indefinitely (though maybe blocking temporarily following a warning, which I think is what happened). That wasn't a personal attack against another editor; just a case of bad taste, saying things out loud that most of us confine to our heads instead. There was a user a while ago who posted a box on his userpage that suggested all Americans should die. It sparked a lengthy controversy on whether or not the user should be forced to remove the box, but no mention of a block. There are plenty of uncouth editors that aren't indefinitely blocked for being so. It might be better to reconsider the actions that led to the block in this case rather than searching for reasons to rationalize it. Equazcion (talk) 08:45, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) Thank you, Jonathan, *that* was the incident I recall this user from. We can haz rezolved boxen soon? Cheerz, Jack Merridew 08:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC) You seem to be suggesting blocking a user indefinitely for something they did two months ago, were already blocked temporarily for, and haven't repeated since. Of course I have to disagree with that. Equazcion (talk) 08:53, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) Good block and I support the indef as well. Although I'm sure it'll be lifted in a week. That's all indeffed seems to mean most of the time. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Looking at the dialogue on Holocaust, D4D's responses to Slrubenstein were completely inappropriate. Here is the interchange about the non-free image File:Holocaust123.JPG just so that editors can get a little sense of perspective. D4D was quite clearly trying to WP:BAIT Slrubenstein. Whatever William S.Saturn may say in D4D's defense, D4D's "objective editing behaviour" is reminiscent of the kind of discussions that got Fourdee (talk · contribs) permabanned by Jimbo (he suggested that Jewish historians were incapable of evaluating the holocaust). This doesn't seem to be an image of Jews, as they are not circumcised.Perhaps, unless we want to expand the Holocaust to include non Jews, we should just stick to pictures of Jews for this article? Die4Dixie (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Excuse me, but what is the point of your comment, unless you are trolling? (1) which people are not circumcized? (2) this article does as you must know include the suffering of non-Jews. Please explain. Slrubenstein Talk 19:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Excuse me, but your comments were not civil, were the opposite of WP:AGF, and were definately uncalled for and not appreciated. If you examine the genitalia carefully, it will be self evident the corpse to which I refer. The introduction makes reference to the exclusivity in certain circles to the term. If you aren´t interested in my input, it is a big project and plenty of communist propoganda for me to rectify elsewhere. I really don´t have much more time for attitude and maudlin sensibilities.--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Excuse me, your saying that victims of the Holocaust are not Jewish, and making a tendentious comment about circumcision, are not civil, and are the opposite of good faith. I am sorry you cannot appreciate it. Obviously you are not going to answer my question, about which individuals specifically are not circumcised, because you cannot. Proof enough of your bad faith. Slrubenstein Talk 17:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Excuse me. The dark corpse in the bottom half of the picture. Follow the white hand that is at approximately 6 o´clock along the darker cadaver that points towrds two o´clock. Follow it until you reach the external gentile genitalia. Use the larger picture that you can reach by clicking on the image.--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Mathsci (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I haven't seen anyone point out that the lead for the article they are discussing excludes nonjews from the victimes of the holocaust, pretty much. Given this, it does seem that Die4Dixie's comments make sense in a race/religious neutral context. He was observing that the photograph doesn't depict what the article is discussing. The admin then informs him that the holocaust includes nonjews (something I thought as well) however this seems to contradict with the main definition of such in the article's lead. I agree the admin should be warned for civility, and I think the ban was excessive. It seems people are reaching to show incitement, where a perfectly rational explanation seems plain. The picture shows something that appears inconsistant with the subject. In any case, the ban now given seems grossly excessive when viewed in light of bans given to vandals and obviously bad faith editors who act with plain malice, and I question seriously whether any disciplinary action was appropriate at all.--Δζ (talk) 12:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC) So, a user known for being inflammatory makes his own interpretation of a small portion of a photo and posts a comment of poor nature... and then defends it to the point of bringing it to ANI... and we're still debating this? It was a masterful troll that has ANI in a tizzy and I see no reason to unblock. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Well I haven't seen how the prior comments establish these as violating any of the rules. Certainly he could have malicious intent and he could be breaking the rules, but I don't think that's been demonstrated. My understanding is that anyone's allowed to question the content. Maybe he's a holocaust denier (which I would hope isn't against the rules here, at least not for reasons of offending people) or something, but that's not obvious from the post. I fail to see how making a comment, even if irrelevant as you contend, questioning a photo is deserving of this type of ban.--Δζ (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Looking forward I've advised Die4Dixie that they need to ponder what's happened here.[107] After a week if they post a convincing unblock request, they might get another chance. They need to demonstrate an understanding of what Wikipedia is for, and that they recognize what mistakes they made. Those apologizing for Die4Dixie are doing the user no favors. Die4Dixie needs to understand the problems and correct them. Jehochman Talk 08:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC) You're skipping some steps here. Per the discussion above, it doesn't seem all that clear what the user did "wrong", or at least what they did that was worthy of a block. So far, he said something stupid at Talk:The Holocaust, which it has been suggested was a baiting attempt, though no one has been able to explain how it could be seen as such. He then responded to one admin defending another by suggesting they were doing so due to common ethnicity, which while an ill-advised thing to say, also isn't worthy of a block. Perhaps you could respond to the challenges in the above discussion rather than skipping to your own conclusion? Equazcion (talk) 08:59, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) Die4Dixie explicitly stated that an image by the official Jewish memorial Yad Vashem on the victims of the Holocaust does not represent Jewish people. Basically, he's restating arguments on holocaust denial on Talk:Holocaust. The sole aim of that comment is to inflame, as he well knows how sensitive the issue is. Now tell me, how is that not baiting? Then, when he's blocked, he automatically assumes the blocking administrator is Jewish without any prior evidence. The block is deserved. —Dark 09:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC) It was blatant baiting. If it wasn't for the user's history (Allende was "congressionally appointed" not "democratically elected", Pinochet wasn't a fascist, anti-semitism includes hate against Arabs, ...) I would be prepared to assume good faith: that it was unintentional blatant baiting. But not in the case of what seems to be a highly intelligent extremely right-wing user. If you, Equazcion, don't see what's wrong about telling editors at Talk:Holocaust (who obviously include relatives of those who survived or died in the Holocaust) to magnify the photo of a stack of dead bodies and examine their penises to see if they are circumcised (as if that was even relevant – people were killed for their descent, not their religion), then I don't know how to help you. The overall attitude shown by Die4Dixie in that thread was also clearly that of a Holocaust denier. I am surprised that the reactions were so relatively cool. Hans Adler 09:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC) @Dark: I now see where you're coming from. However it seems like a jump contrary to AGF to assume holocaust denial based on the statement. It could be as you claim (and thank you for being the first to finally step forward and explain this), but still, it could as easily be ignorance. Unless there's prior evidence of an antisemitic editing slant, I don't feel this warrants assuming the worst, yet. @Hans: I indeed dont see what's wrong with telling editors at Talk:Holocaust to magnify a photo of dead bodies in order to investigate a claim of inaccuracy. If the editors participating at Talk:Holocaust are emotinally involved to the point that they can't handle objective scrutiny of the subject without becoming offended, they might want to consider editing elsewhere -- though I doubt that's actually the case, and rather seems a stretch. Equazcion (talk) 09:45, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) User:Equazcion should reacquaint himself a.s.a.p. with the wikipedia guideline WP:OR. In this case, rather than making comments on and analysis of an image like this (and continuing for example with the completely incorrect assumption that only circumcised people could be classified as Jews by the Third Reich), the only relevant thing here is to look at the sourcing for the image on the original site. That is how wikipedia is edited. Considering the source (Yad Vashem), I don't quite understand what could have prompted Equaczion to write justifying such disruptive editing behaviour. Mathsci (talk) 11:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC) OR is a content guideline and has nothing to do with the theories wikipedians may construct about motivation or anything else. What should be said is that the more convoluted and bizarre the defense of trolling on Talk:Holocaust gets, the less likely outside observers are to believe it. Protonk (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC) That had nothing to do with any sort of objective scrutiny. Remember what the claim was: One of the dead men on the photo wasn't circumcised. So what? I am not aware that the Nazis routinely circumcised men before (or after) killing them as Jews. Therefore this doesn't even prove that this one man wasn't killed for being Jewish (whether he considered himself that or not). Let alone all the others. And it's not even relevant unless you argue from a Holocaust denial POV. This was clearly meant to function [the same way as] telling someone that they would make a nice lampshade – only calculated to stay just below the threshold where it becomes actionable. Well, it was a miscalculation. Hans Adler 09:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC) [grammar corrected 11:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)] It's not even relevant from a Holocaust denial POV. (correction -- it could be, but...) The guy could just be a moron who doesn't know anything about the Holocaust, which makes this case less "clear". If there were a demonstrated history of antisemitic editing I'd be more inclined to waive AGF, but I see no reason to do that yet. Why are we assuming the worst of this thus-far isolated incident? Equazcion (talk) 10:07, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) "Unless there's prior evidence of an antisemitic editing slant, I don't feel this warrants assuming the worst, yet." Apart from the username, an editor whose fourth edit is to defend the Stormfront website[108] ceratinly raises red flags wrt an "antisemitic slant". Changing "Blood libels are false accusations that Jews use human blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals." to "Blood libels are false accusations that Jews use human blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals."[109] may be an indication as well. Fram (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Suppose we twist AGF to assume "This doesn't seem to be an image of Jews, as they are not circumcised" in regard to this image was not either trolling or denialism. Fine, but then Die4Dixie files a pointless complaint here; that is definitely outside AGF and the five reasons explained above show that the initial one-week block was reasonable. The subsequent discussion at Die4Dixie's talk shows that future contributions from this user are not going to help the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC) OVer a year back, William S. Saturn (under his now-blocked sock name User:Uga Man [110]), was here defending another Southern editor User:God Save the South who was blocked for very much similar editing to Die4Dixie. [111]. Just thought I'd mention it, like. Black Kite 10:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I see editors above who have vehemently prosecuted suspected anti-semitic editors before too. If there's a conclusion to be drawn from the former, perhaps there is one to be drawn from the latter as well. In response to Mathsci further up, violation of OR or the like is not in dispute. You don't get blocked for discussing a perceived problem with an article that might stem from a purely OR concern. This is about an "intentional baiting". Regarding the blood libel, speaking from a purely objective standpoint, the blanket statement that blood libel claims are "false" seems rather unprovable, and again this is from a purely objective standpoint, the word "false" should probably be removed. It's enough to say that it's an "accusation" without making baseless claims about how true they are. Changing the statement as D4D did again might be evidence of something larger, but it also might not, as I can see a legitimate reason for it. If there were a statement in an article that no cow ever stepped on a land mine, that would similarly be rather unprovable and I don't think anyone would be complaining if it were altered or marked with CN. That said I can see the tendency to suspect something else by connecting that edit with this incident, but still, there's enough doubt to warrant AGF for now. In response to Johnuniq, filing a complaint that others see as being pointless is not generally something people get blocked for, and some editors have expressed the opinion that it was warranted. As for statements following the block, I feel like they're being used as an excuse in the case, when in most other cases we don't normally extend blocks based on users' reactions; rather we usually grant leeway for the understandable frustration users feel when blocked. I'm also not even of the opinion that the user's follow-up statements were all that terrible. Suspecting impropriety based on common ethnicity sounds bad, but there aren't really any grounds to say it couldn't possibly be a valid concern -- not that I'm saying it was; just that it's not an entirely unthinkable thing to worry about when an administrative action has been taken against you. Equazcion (talk) 11:56, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) Equazcion, it's extremely hard to see this as anything other than baiting and deliberate disruption. I tried to find the original source for the image with its accompanying information. However, there are too many images of this kind to sort through in the photographic archives at Yad Vashem. Mathsci (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Equazcion, consider D4D's request - that a bunch of amateur writers, and that's really what we are, armchair quarterback 65 years of historians, archivists, and researchers; that we take a digitized image thoroughly out of the context of all that documentation and scholarship; that we spend a great deal of time staring at a dead man's limp dick, and make a determination of our own over that of the Reliable Sources to agree withD4D that at least one cock in the pile is NOT circumcised; and that we use that conclusion, if we can ignore WP:RS, and WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH, to determine that because one prick might not be clipped, then ALL Those bodies are non-Jews, and therefore, by extension, the image should be removed. If we indulged him on all this, and tried to think as he does, we would them be asked, no doubt, to prove the bodies are from the WW2 era at all. One - defending the presence of a strongly emotional image on the page is quite different than insisting others stare at it ad nauseum to try to 'debunk' it, Two - this editor has a history, amply demonstrated above, of looking to provoke others, and by your own admission, it's stupid set of things to say. Stupid comments plus a history of calculated 'stupid things' is trolling. Your defense seems to rely, like D4D's comment, on examining one dick out of context to all the things around it. Sure, one comment MAY just be stupid, like one dick MAY be uncircumcised, but in context, one comment may just be the latest bit of trolling, like one dick, looked at for even a moment, shows that it's clearly circumcised. Further, consider it this way. EVEN if that first block, for saying things designed to be BAIT for the Jewish editors, was questionable, the fact that the blocked editor's reply is to immediately imply that Jews all act to protect each other (the popular Sekrit Joozish Conshpeerasy) demonstrates that in this case, scratch the surface of a 'stupid edit', find the race-baiting editor beneath it. It's been said here that D4D is good at making edits that stay just shy of the threshold of a block. Even if true, it appears he miscalculated, as was also said above, and then showed his hand ... flat, face down, at the end of an extended upward arm. And he got blocked for it. Good block -Encouraging vilations of RS, OR, SYNTH through BAITing others? please. ThuranX (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Equazon - have you read the comments D4D made? It's possible to ask questions about an image that includes (possibly) an uncircumcised male on the talk page of a holocaust article without doing so in a manner that you *know* is going to annoy the fuck out of many people. D4D's ignorance is not the problem. D4D's possible OR is not the problem. D4D's provocative manner in asking the questions is. That, combined with a the username, and with other edits, shows that the editor is incapable of editing for the enemy, will push a certain pov, and will do so provocatively. The username combined with some of the edits is enough for an indef block. He was allowed to keep the username so long as he did not engage in this type of editing. He failed that test, and failed it hard. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC) @Thuranx: If the history of trolling is as unquestionable as you imply, then maybe you're right; I just haven't seen such a history demonstrated here. Otherwise, as you say, the comment could just have been stupid. Also, the block wasn't actually for the supposed baiting, but for bringing a so-called frivolous complaint to ANI -- one which, as was also said above by multiple editors, may have had some basis. Disregarding a supposed history of trolling that, if it exists, Slrubenstien probably wasn't aware of or acting on, personally I think Slrubenstein's reaction was not ideal; though still not worthy of an ANI report, but also not entirely un-worthy of some complaint by an editor who might not have known better the threshold for which concerns belong at ANI -- at least not to the point of blocking him for making it. @NotAnIP: He might not have *known* it was going to annoy the fuck out of people. As I said, it could simply have been a stupid, ill-thought-out remark (or the user could be a dimwit to begin with). You're assuming he knew that the statement would be taken as provocative, but I'm not. As for the username, I'm not entirely sure why that should automatically be counted as evidence of antisemitism, if that's what's being implied. Equazcion (talk) 13:09, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) Have you read his comments at the talk page? They're *clearly*, and I cannot understand how anyone can think otherwise, baiting. There are ways to ask questions about what appears to be an uncircumcised male in a picture of what's supposed to be all Jewish people in an article about the Holocaust (when you're confused about the use of Holocaust to refer to the death of Jews but not homosexuals or Gypsies) - but D4D's questions were absolutely not the way to do it. So, so far I'm accusing D4D of blatant trolling. If you were to say that some editors are being too quick to accuse D4D of anti-semitism; well, I might agree, but he's clearly using that as a button to push to annoy people. And about the username: Die4Dixie was reported at UAA. People were worried that a username like that would be pushing a racist POV. Others asked for AGF. D4D has shown that AGF was optimistic. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC) In my unsolicited opinion, this whole thing is pretty absurd. The comment on his user page is not per se antisemetic, and I see no reason to stretch to reach that result. It was insensitive, but so what? He is asking for someone that doesn't have an ethnic/religious association with the claimed offensive actions to decide on the disciplinary action. He didn't claim a conspiracy or any of the other nonsense, and certainly didn't slur folks. Good lord. Maybe he's a raging bigot, but it ain't evidenct from this stuff. Finally, the article lead for the holocaust pretty much excludes nonjews from the definition thereof, and the talk page observation was therefore quite relevant: the pic was unrelated (allegedly) to the subject. The admin then claims, contrary to the lead, that the holocaust includes nonjews (something I thought as well) with no explanation for how he squares that with the article's lead's proclaimed scope. Seems to me that people are looking at insensitive comments and straining to see malice where it isn't plain on its face. I hate to be one of those people (seriously, I really do) but this looks like political correctness gone wild (and usually I'm criticising those who make such allegations, yeesh).--Δζ (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Please go read the lede of that article, all the other groups are prominently mentioned in the second paragraph of the lede. Your comment is as disingenuous as his. ThuranX (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC) This comment again assumes bad faith. Δζ simply made a mistake, or at least that's what you should be assuming; yet you're calling him disingenuous. Furthermore this may have been the same mistake D4D made. You could assume they're both being disingenuous... we could assume intentional misdeeds as opposed to mistakes across the board in all cases... but that's not our policy. Equazcion (talk) 13:20, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) I understand the second paragraph mentions other groups, but the first one seems to advance the "jews only" view as the more prominent and general use of the term. In any case, how am I disingenuous? I can only interpret that one way, which is a pretty ridiculous assumption on your part. Should I trot out my jew street cred? Mention all the unverifiable friends/survivors I know? Not everyone who has a different opinion or makes an understandable mistake (as Equazcion observes) is doing so out of malice. I feel like I'm being baited into condemning views nobody has any business assuming of me in the first place. Chill out.--Δζ (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC) (ec) Equazcion, are you reading the diffs carefully? D4D requested a citation two years ago for the edit: "Blood libels are false accusations that Jews use human blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals," [112] which means he thinks Jews might use human blood. Now he's making comments about Holocaust victims not being circumcised (and therefore what?), and complaining because he is blocked by an admin who he thinks is Jewish. I'm not seeing a reasonable doubt here. SlimVirgin 13:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Already responded to this. See my response to Black Kite above for my thoughts on that edit. Equazcion (talk) 13:38, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) Endorse block. The history of events that led to the block is not a monument of due process, but the end result appears okay to me given D4D's long term edit history; cleary he isn't here to improve Wikipedia. Pcap ping 13:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Endorse a block, but the trigger finger may have gone a bit too quickly towards an indef. Let the dust settle a bit and see where this user's head is at in a week or two, where an unblock request can be more thoughtfully considered and less emotionally reacted to. Tarc (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I agree with the block. Whether this user is simply ignorant about the Holocaust or consciously trolling, he's not helping to improve Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC) BTW, I'm curious, it seems some supported these actions because of antisemitism (or maybe they were just outraged by it). Is this against the rules per se, or only trolling? I'm just curious if viewpoints of certain types are not allowed to be had by editors. I'm not asking if wikipedia may be used as a platform for delivering those viewpoints or debating them, but whether if viewpoints are discovered of an editor, do they ever run afoul of policy by that fact alone, or by them having had them? From my understanding, antisemitism alone doesn't violate any existing policy, though it may be relevant to interpreting comments like those at issue here.--Δζ (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC) As far as I know you are allowed to support "Nuking the gay whales for Jesus" as long as you do not edit that POV into articles or intentionally antagonize other editors with it. DSRH |talk 21:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I support the indef block. Anyone who posts such things does not belong on this project. Crum375 (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Die4Dixie Unblocked, Community Ban Proposed 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. After roughly a day of discussion, there is broad consensus for the proposed community ban of Die4Dixie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeatedly and persistenly violating our norms of civil interaction, notably by conduct widely perceived as racist and/or trolling. Accordingly, Die4Dixie is community-banned, and I am blocking his account. Wehwalt is reminded not to perform unblocks without discussion except in the "cases of unambiguous error" mentioned in WP:BP#Block reviews.  Sandstein  13:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC) I've unblocked, based on the discussion. We must only block when an editor is in clear violation. Jehochman's block, never mind the post hoc statements, was for bringing this matter here, persisting in it, and having a previous block log. The upgrade for indefinite, for asking a non-Jewish admin to look at it, was inappropriate. Incidentally, I am Jewish, and if that causes Die4Dixie to roll in anguish at having his editing privileges restored by such, good. I will leave an appropriate caution on the talk pages of both Die4Dixie and Slrubenstein.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Wow, Wehwalt. There is no consensus to unblock. Jehochman Talk 15:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC) There was no consensus to undo the block, Wehwalt; quite the reverse. SlimVirgin 15:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Wehwalt has unilaterally unblocked Die4Dixie. I request a community sanction: Die4Dixie is community banned. Regrettably this is necessary. We cannot have admins supplanting consensus with their own peculiar views. Jehochman Talk 15:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Huh? If anything, what we cannot have is admins who provide clumsy rationales for their actions and expect them to stick. An unblock request was posted; any admin reviewing it gets to decide, unless it was a formal community sanction (which this was not). There's no point in complaining on that point. However, you are welcome to start a formal discussion for community sanction/ban at the appropriate venue (particularly in an appropriately named section). Though, I thought you were complaining last time a community sanction discussion happened at ANI.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Support community ban. Crum375 (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Support community ban per repeated trolling. Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Support community ban per my explanations above. Hans Adler 15:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Procedural oppose. I'm sorry, but inflating this incident as if it rises to that level is not good enough [when others have received not even a warning for similar conduct in other disputes]. If there is another more compelling reason for this proposal, which is what the above supports seem to allude to, no RfC/U or evidence trail has been presented. If this user should be community banned, it should not be difficult to present the trail of misconduct to justify the ban. I'll make a view on the merits of this upon that happening. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC) A better evidence trail exists now so I cannot oppose on these grounds, if any. The more general point I've raised here (but more explicitly in the a later subsection) really does need to be addressed by the community though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Support lengthening the block for Dixie's inappropriate comments that violated Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Dixie's comments assumed (possible) bias on the part of a (possibly) Jewish administrator, without substantial evidence--and Wikipedians should be judged based on decisions, not ethnicity. Oppose making the block indefinite. The decision to up the block to indefinite seemed too abrupt, and the difference between a week-long block and an indefinite block is too great. --AFriedman (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Support block/ban, bad unblock. Whether D4D is an antisemitic asshole or just a moron (as per User: Equazcion's suggestion, although I'd like to add that these are in not way disjoint categories), he or she is unlikely to help building an encyclopedia. See also [113] and the rest of his history. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I obviously oppose a ban. I've been looking through this user's contrib list, and found a remarkable lack of edits to Judaism-related articles for an editor who's being accused of antisemitism. Aside from the blood libel edits nearly 2 years ago (which I've brought evidence to support their being legitimate), and some subsequent edits to the same article, there isn't much else to support this claim. This editor's supposed long history of trolling is also rather unsupported. People seem to be flying off the handle when it comes to edits that might be construed as antisemitic, when if the same sort of edits occurred regarding other subjects, they'd not be taken this way. And I'm Jewish, in case that should matter, but it really shouldn't. I'm concerned, among other reasons, that being oversensitive about this only trivializes other cases where there may be actual cause for concern. Equazcion (talk) 16:02, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) Oppose as well. If you want a ban, take a deep breath, and then go do a RFC/U. At the present time, you have a very result oriented appearance, which isn't want this is all about. Cancel the order to the stick factory, don't put any stress on that dead horse, then go think about it for a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I think we need to draw a line that attacks based on an editor's perceived race, ethnicity, religion, or sexuality are very seriously forbidden, just like making legal threats. When somebody makes such an attack, they should be blocked indefinitely until they retract the offensive remark. At any reasonable non-profit organization, volunteers and employees are expected to uphold such minimal standards of interpersonal conduct. Wikipedia should do the same. Jehochman Talk 16:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I think that is an excellent idea. Let's get that put into policy, and if D4D violates it, we will block him! But he can't be blocked for an unstated idea of yours ...--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)\ I cannot, in good conscience, support that idea simply because of the enormous subjectivity that would need to be applied to every statement a person made. If I were a member of the Flat Earth Society and you tried to tag that article as pseudo-science, I could call for your indef block for being offensive to me and my views. does that sound even remotely logical? I hope not. Padillah (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Support for community ban; D4D needs to go. I also want to express my profound disappointment with admins and long-time editors who seem to believe that this kind of nonsense is in any way acceptable. In the words of one of WP's greatest admins: "AGF is not a suicide pact". I wouldn't normally quote Machiavelli either, but in this case it seems that the ends do indeed justify the means; It's more important to quickly and efficiently remove a dedicated troll than it is to follow the exact letter of policy. Kudos to Jehochman for taking proper action. Doc Tropics 16:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC) We can add it to written policy right now, if it is not there already. We have traditionally indef blocked accounts that cross that line. I've left a message on your talk page suggesting an alternative resolution for this thread. See what you think. Jehochman Talk 16:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I don't have a problem with asking D4D to strike specific statements, and if he refuses to do so, jointly starting an RfC. It may take several days for me to write one up, though, busy busy, Jehochman, I know it is the same with you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)Okay, I ask the community to suspend this proceeding and place an archive box around it. Wehwalt and I will deal with Die4Dixie and make sure things are fixed up, or else we will initiate an RfC that may result in a community ban. Jehochman Talk 16:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Jehochman, I really like your idea. These types of comments are already covered on the policy page for Wikipedia:No personal attacks, sort of--"Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views [is a personal attack]...Speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense." Perhaps we could make it clearer, in "No personal attacks," that this is a serious offense? --AFriedman (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I also really like this idea. It would go a long way in resolving some disputes involving problem-editors a lot more quickly and efficiently. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Gladly something useful came of this discussion. Let's go to the policy pages and improve them. Jehochman Talk 16:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) Frankly I'm against that change as it's meant to apply to situations like this. Equally as frankly, and it seems at the risk of being labeled a bigot myself, were I a gentile, being reprimanded and then blocked by two people in power who were Jewish, for my supposed antisemitic remark, I would probably feel compelled to call attention to that fact as well, un-PC as it would be taken. Also frankly, and here's where it gets real touchy, but I'm going to say it anyway, I'd suggest that Jewish administrators think about recusing themselves in such situations, just as bakers should recuse themselves from situations involving editors insulting the baking industry... and so forth. I'm not sure why there should be a difference in an ethnic situation; and really, the more potential for personal offense exists, the more careful we should be in avoiding the appearance of potential impropriety. Anyway, any policy changes should probably not be discussed here. Equazcion (talk) 16:40, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) Based on three requests from other people at Wikipedia: [114], I have reopened this thread. Please continue to spend more time on this. Thank you. --Jayron32 17:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I support a community ban as well. This was a really terrible unblock. AniMate 17:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Ugh. Strong support, per Durova. AniMate 05:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC) By that logic, Equaczion, us white folks should recuse ourselves on any dispute involving editors who insult a white person. Do you see the massive flaw in your logic here? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC) See User talk:Stephan Schulz#ANI close, where I've answered that point. Equazcion (talk) 18:01, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) Support community ban Editors examining genitalia to determine race and ethnicity smacks of something that is really hard to AGF. We're better off without that sort of thing. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Note - Jayron reopened this thread mistakenly, in response to concerns regarding his original close located way up this thread. It's already been agreed upon by the blocking admin and the unblocking admin that his matter be handled outside ANI. Equazcion (talk) 18:04, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) note: I've re-closed this per Jayron's talk page. Equazcion (talk) 18:08, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) So, because Jehochman and Wehwalt have decided to file an RfC we are no longer able to discuss a community ban? Sorry, but I was not aware that those two represent the community in totality. AniMate 18:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC) They are the blocking admin and the unblocking admin. They agreed to offer the user an ultimatum, and if he doesn't accept, to open an RFC/U where a community ban would be discussed, and you'll be welcome to comment. Equazcion (talk) 18:20, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) Right. My unblock related to the process that was undertaken, that could have been done better. We are now addressing D4D's actual conduct, giving him a chance to back off and improve things, and if that fails, the community will make a decision on whether he is welcome at Wikipedia. I suspect I know how that will end.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Sorry for thinking community bans should be decided based on community input and not just the whims of the blocking and unblocking admins. AniMate 18:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Well, gee, go start your own RfC then. But I think when the two admins closest to the picture are waiting for a response from the editor in question, I think people will wait on that. There is no huge hurry, if D4D starts editing again, and doesn't respond to me, or if he responds negatively, we know what to do, and if he doesn't resume editing it is a moot point.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC) You're so close to the picture you forgot to inform the blocking admin that you reversed his block. Considering Protonk's involvement I think it fair that he be allowed to weigh in here. AniMate 18:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I, as an uninvolved editor, am uncollapsing the discussion. I would recommend that future commentors take into account the discussion between Jehochman and Wehwalt (link ?), but it was inappropriate for an editor participating in the discussion (User:Equazcion) to short-circuit and collapse a ban discussion that they opposed. Abecedare (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I wasn't the one who collapsed it originally. I only re-collapsed it following Jayorn's mistaken reopen. See here. Equazcion (talk) 18:43, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) Support the community ban. D4D is obviously a racist troll and a hypocrite with no good intentions on WP. --Mista-X (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Support a ban, obviously. Protonk (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Discussion between Jehochman and me can be found here.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Anyone want to re-collapse this mess again, since my doing so is clearly an attempt to short-circuit a ban discussion that I oppose? Equazcion (talk) 18:47, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) Support a community ban. Crafty (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Support @Kate (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Support with comments. Excusing an editor for "venting" is a rather bad proposition in any situation. More so when it carries overtones of bigotry. Durova371 20:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Changing to strong support per this.[115] Durova371 02:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Support a community ban for Die4Dixie. Since enough people have commented in this discussion that it can no longer be seen as being between the blocking and unblock admins, their agreement to continue in another forum has no bearing on whether this thread proceeds to a community ban consensus. Nathan T 20:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I agree with Nathan. Jehochman and my agreement has been overtaken by events. I will take no position on the community ban. Howver, I would ask that participants check WP:BAN and make sure that Die4Dixie is notified and that the process go the required amount of time before an uninvolved admin closes the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Per Wehwalt, except my original procedural oppose still stands - no view on merits. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)procedural oppose struck. Oppose community ban, because he helps make articles better (eventually), but support long-term block of 6 months to 1 year for racist remarks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Support community ban for Die4Dixie. I have long admired this editor's ability to capitalize on disagreements between admins and to thereby emerge unscathed from contretemps that would have quickly done in lesser rhetoricians. However, his/her entertainment value has been depleted. — goethean ॐ 21:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Oppose - this has been blown way out of proportion. This is a good example of making a mountain out of a mole hill. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Oppose if by "community ban" we mean an indefinite involuntary bye-bye from the project. Surely there is a more constructive, targeted approach, if required. I've known D4D as an editor for quite a while and initially tangled with him, but personally I've found that some goodwill and patience pays off. He's here in good faith and does make sincere, positive contributions to the encyclopedia. He is also passionate in certain beliefs about politics and race, from a conservative point of view (forgive me if I don't quite have it right, but the specifics aren't the issue here) and has tended to blow off steam if challenged. But if approached calmly he usually knows when he's gone too far, and backs down from the objectionable behavior. I don't see the holocaust / circumcision comments as necessarily antisemitic, at least not in intent. Assuming good faith rather than assuming trolling, these are legitimate questions: (1) should our conception of the genocide in the holocaust be limited primarily to Jews (and perhaps gypsies and gay and disabled people) or should we also include other victims such as resistance fighters, Russian civilians, etc., (2) were most Jewish victims of the holocaust indeed circumcised - an uncomfortable but possibly legitimate question, and (3) was that particular photograph authentic - it is, but D4D may have simply been asking an honest question about that. I'm not saying he should have posted such an uncomfortable question in such a sensitive place, just that doing so may have been innocent or simply insensitive rather than out-and-out racist. I think a factual explanation of the truth of the matter, coupled with a calm request to please respect people's sensitivities over discussing the most morbid details of the holocaust, would settle this with a lot less fuss and loss to the project as tossing yet another editor over the side of the boat. If we think the long-term incivility has gone too far then some kind of civility parole or mentorship would be a lot more helpful. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Per LHvU's comment below, is there a diff or link to the "ongoing campaign" - I know of the other two but have not noticed that, and it would be troubling. If there is to be a ban, why not limit it to the problem areas of race and politics? Both articles of the same, and any derogatory comments about the same. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Support community ban My recollections of past Noticeboard discussions re Die4Dixie; Username concerns - it was decided that a name evidencing an apparent strong allegiance to American Confederate sentiment was not inappropriate (or simply misunderstood, I cannot recall, as a mistaken perception). Flagrant celebration of death of Communist leader/icon/whatever, with commentary that inferred that liberals and socialists were the kin of such people and whose demise should likewise be celebrated. Ongoing campaign regarding Jews and the Holocaust, including suggestions that denialist claims should be included per WP:DUE or that general claims upon figures of Jewish deaths should be cited. I cannot recall specific references to either homosexuals or Catholics, but surely this would be a matter of time for such a stereotypical Southern States bigot? Further, while there is a (good) practice of allowing individuals to "let off steam" immediately post block - vis a vis comments regarding the blocking admin or those held responsible for producing the block - I am extremely concerned that there was an instant accusation of Jewish conspiracy. In vino veritus... anyone know the Latin for "anger"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Support community ban. Wehwalt's unilateral unblock against consensus has unfortunately made me change my voting in the ArbCom election: what he has written here seems extraordinarily clueless. Mathsci (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Support community ban and trout, at the least, Wehwalt for his/her unilateral unblock against consensus: I, too, am going to re-check my vote. The obvious trolling by Die4Dixie was bad enough, but the knee-jerk support for him has gone far past "reasonable doubt" into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT excuse-making territory. --Calton | Talk 23:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Support community ban. Examining genitalia of Holocaust victims to determine whether they're Jews, complaining about being blocked by an admin he perceives as Jewish, and earlier in his history requesting a source to support that Jews don't use human blood in religious rituals. [116] There's no benefit to the project in harboring this kind of attitude. SlimVirgin 00:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Multiple explanations have been provided for the blood libel edit (mine originally, and finally D4D's recently), but you still point to it unilaterally. I can do that too, ignore further explanation in favor of continuing to express my initial disgust at something, but while that's easier it also hampers progress in any situation. As for the genitalia, I don't see what's so terrible about pointing out genitalia in a photo, even one as gruesome as this, in order to voice factual concerns. I might've done the same thing, had I the misconception about the article D4D did. Granted I would've approached the subject more delicately than D4D did -- if he had, we might not be here -- but frankly he doesn't seem to possess the language skills for it. Should that mean he's condemned? There's plenty of benefit to the project, because for two years the user made unproblematic edits. You're just focusing on two isolated incidents that occurred 2 years apart. Equazcion (talk) 08:56, 3 Dec 2009 (UTC) Wehwalt's unblock did not follow consensus in any form whatsoever. I support the community ban on the basis of D4D's destructive behavior, and his failure to understand what is wrong with his actions. —Dark 05:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Support. -FASTILY (TALK) 07:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Support community ban.   Will Beback  talk  08:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Oppose, That is, if I can do so.--Die4Dixie (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Support community ban.Synchronism (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Support This editor does not appear to appreciative neutrality in writing articles and is a distraction to other editors. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Oppose The comments were not per se antisemitic or violative of wikipedia rules that would deserve a ban. This is essentially people presuming a motive where none is apparent, and I feel that is insufficient justification. Questions about the content of a picture are not deserving of a ban, no matter what views of the editor may be plausibly inferred. Wikipedia is not censored as to viewpoints, and a presumably good faith comment on a talk page about a picture where no personal attack was made is not grounds for a ban.--Δζ (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Support community ban. After everything that has happened, posting this ("First I ran a search for Hochman using his first name that he gives here on Wikipedia. The article that pops up is about bull riding and has plenty of in-group humor of the "Nice Jewish Boy" type...") and similar shows that the editor is not going to be an asset to the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Ummm. That was supposed to be where we could discuss that. I´m not following your logical leap from A to B. My explaining to the offended editor how I arrived there is more evidence of why I should be banned? Oy Vey(smacks head). A Jewish publication specifically mentioned "Nice Jewish Boy" and bull riding. here, you read it and see if I mischaracterized it: http://www.jewishmag.com/102mag/bullrider/bullrider.htm--Die4Dixie (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Oppose community ban. We are all of us (in part) products of our environments, and I am too well aware of what sort of material circulates in the American South; should Southerners in general be banned from Wikipedia because so many have been raised in a background distrustful of Jews? D4D, believe it or not, seems to have managed to emerge affected, but relatively mildly and reasonably (by comparison), by that background. This progress, even though incomplete, should be taken into consideration. The blocks of him, on the other hand, quickly bypassed any other form of dispute resolution, and may easily have served to only harden his beliefs about bigotry against him. Perhaps rage was not helpful here. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Support — per Jehochman; per Durova, too, whose talk page I just looked at. We could have had closure yesterday. Cement this, please. The piece that utterly convinced me was the urging to scrutinize the image for details of the genitals of gruesome corpses. *That's* trolling 101. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 10:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Support - this has gone on long enough. I wasn't going to comment but D4D's responses have convinced me. Dougweller (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Support: LHvU has a better reasoning than I have. Additionally, I will note that I remember him trolling the Obama articles, where he was convinced that Obama was a secret Muslim communist who stole the election because of ACORN. Anyone who seriously believes that belongs on Conservapedia, not here. Sceptre (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Not quite how that went down. One to nurse a grudge, Sceptre? I am sure, bright young fellow that you are, that you know exactly what you have done. Building the strawman is not particularly crafty this late in the game. I had expected something a little more thoughtful from you after a year. Sigh. Are the tellietubies not on yet?--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:54, 3 December 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. Alternatives to a ban Note: Jehochman and Wehwalt are currently discussing alternatives to a community ban for the user. Please see the discussion here before adding your !vote to the discussion above. Abecedare (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Comment Instead of unblocking and then offering D4D a compromise whereby he retracted his remarks, otherwise we go to an RFC (in other words, another complete waste of many editors time and effort), why on earth wasn't he left blocked until he withdrew those remarks and promised not to re-state them? Serious failure of WP:COMMON there, methinks. Black Kite 19:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Time is never wasted in dealing with an editor in a manner not only fair, but also seen to be fair.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Oh, it is, because an RFC/U is inevitably subsumed in a large amount of bickering, most of which isn't actually about the subject in hand. And a lot of the time it leads to a unanimous agreement that ... er ... something should be done, but we're not sure what. Black Kite 19:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC) And what alternative is better?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC) The one favoured by most contributors to this thread (i.e. leaving him indeffed until there's some evidence that there is recognition of the behaviour that caused the block, and some evidence that it won't recur). Black Kite 21:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Moot point. The community seems to be taking it out of our hands, which is its right. I can only say I didn't think of it, and it wasn't proposed at the time. Whether I would have done that had I or someone else thought of it? Hmmm, not sure. Possibly the best course was to defer decision for a bit and urge D4D to strike the language before making a decision. But hindsight and 20/20 and all that. Hard to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Only moot because you mooted it by unblocking. Protonk (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Well that's easy. Unblocking him forces the discussion, because only re-blocking him is wheel warring. :| Protonk (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC) <comment restored after being accidentally removed in an edit conflict. Sorry about that> My response was eaten in an edit conflict, but he was unblocked because the structure of wheel makes only the reblocking wheel warring. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Regardless of what WP:WHEEL says, it's always been very bad form to undo another admin's block without the blocking admin's consent and when community discussion is strongly supportive of that block. I can tell you that I probably wouldn't be as conciliatory as Jehochman about it, if I were in his shoes. MastCell Talk 19:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Interesting characterization, MastCell. I read the discussion as deeply divided, and very powerful arguments made that no valid blocking rationale had been stated. That's what I limited myself to. Consent? I don't think that is the standard. That leaves things in the blocking admin's hands, which is not how things work. The blocking admin and I were part of a discussion at AN/I, and I looked at all the arguments in making a decision to unblock that I knew was not going to be wildly popular, but which was doing the right thing by an editor. It is the decision you have to make sometimes, even if you know you are going to take heat for it. Sorry if you feel offended on behalf of Jehochman, but he and I then engaged constuctively on how to move forward.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)I don't see community discussion as being "strongly supportive" of the block. There's definitely some issues with D4D's conduct, but there's also been some serious questions raised as to the manner in which the block was applied. The issue at hand is not D4D's conduct (which seems to have been blown out of proportion) but rather whether the block was applied in an appropriate manner. I contend that it was not. I'm not offering support to D4D, I'm expressing my reservations as to how the block was applied. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC) While I'm extremely unimpressed with D4D's conduct in general and am sitting on the fence regarding the prospect of a community ban, it seems clear to me that the original block was not applied correctly. The solution linked above looks like the right way to be moving. Brilliantine (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Had an editor stated any other nationality/religion/ethnicity/cultural identity regarding any other editor-admin, I am sure that many members of the admin community would not have escalated it in the same way. That is the problem. The only way to be fair is to make policy tighter on these issues and enforce it more consistently where applicable. Being less conciliatory than necessary is counterproductive, particularly for a discussion where established editors are deeply divided on a matter of principle and approach rather than on the matter of an individual. There are very limited situations where in such discussions we can afford to focus on improving principle and approach prior to reviewing the individual, and I firmly believe this is one of them. But I fear that we're so used to focussing on the individual that the principle and approach is slowly being forgotten and is gradually going to cause even more problems for future disputes, including those that end up in front of ArbCom. Oh well, not our problem I suppose. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC) It is what it is. All you can do is continue to do what you feel to be right.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC) That's a very salient point, ncm. I've been involved in articles on Irish nationalism, and there have definitely been times where an admin was accused of using their tools to ban people on account of nationality. Never was it considered racist. I feel I must make this very clear: Insinuating that a Jewish admin was rushing to another's aid on account of their 'jewdom', rather than the merits of the case is not, repeat NOT racist. It may be wrong, or it may well be right. Either way, it's a legitimate concern, and one's particular religious or ethnic background does not give one immunity from such accusations. In no way is such an accusation a blockable offense, unless it contravened other established policies. Nor is it a personal attack, and must not be viewed as such. If an admin takes offense to an editor's claims about the motivation for their conduct, they need to seek a second opinion from another, uninvolved admin. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Concur. The only thing separating this from other such cases is the specific ethnicity concerned; and that's a very, very bad state of affairs. Equazcion (talk) 21:01, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) Not sure this is true. I'm fairly certain there would be immense outrage if he requested that no black administrators review his block. In fact, I'm fairly certain that if it was any other ethnic or religious groups besides Jews, this block wouldn't be an issue. "I don't want any Asians reviewing my block". Indef without any objections. "I don't want any Jews reviewing my block." Fair enough. AniMate 21:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC) That's skewed phrasing in favor of your point. He said "Could a non involved gentile please look at this?" If someone were block by an Asian-sounding name on the belief that he insulted Asian culture, and said "Could an uninvolved non-Asian please look at this?", I don't think racism would've been suggested. Equazcion (talk) 21:12, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) Actually, I disagree. Asking for uninvolved administrators is fine. Any administrator who reviews a block has to be uninvolved. We don't get to cherry pick by race, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation. No admin is infallible, but to disqualify an entire group of admins based on their religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation is flat out wrong. AniMate 21:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I see nothing wrong with requesting an uninvolved admin of a different ethnicity than the one you feel is conspiring against you. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Problem is that there wasn't a conspiracy and acquiescing to these kinds of demands is an insult to editors of any faith or race. AniMate 21:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC) It's really not, and despite the term conspiracy being thrown around here, he didn't use that word in his request. Furthermore he wasn't disqualifying an entire group *period*; he was rather disqualifying the group that his comments were perceived as offending. That makes his request a COI concern rather than racism as you imply. Equazcion (talk) 21:33, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) No, you aren't entitled to choose the race, ethnicity, or religion of admins to handle a matter. The US has considered the matter many times (for example here) with respect to court trials. Claiming that you can't be a fair administrator on a matter if you're Jewish is just wrong. The request is inappropriate but not terribly offensive on its face, but it does tend to inflame a delicate situation - best to give a firm "no" and move on. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Policy doesn't support his request. You're more than welcome to attempt to change WP:UNINVOLVED to conform with your views. AniMate 21:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Irrelevant since I didn't make any claims about whether policy supports the request. This isn't a question of whether or not it should have been granted -- only regarding whether or not it necessarily constituted racism, and whether he deserved to be blocked indefinitely for it. Again it was a COI concern and not racism. Unreasonable request maybe, racism no. Equazcion (talk) 21:49, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) This is getting pointless. The reviewing admin thought it was anti-Semitic and the majority of users here agree. The only place I can see major disagreements is over whether or not Jehochman's original block was warranted and if that tainted the indef block. Split hairs all you like, I'm pretty much done here. AniMate 21:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Equazcion and I are saying the same thing, I think. A comment can be racially offensive without being intentionally so. To those who consider it anti-Semitic and worthy of sanctions, I urge them to think twice about whether it is better to simply punish people for causing offense, or to educate them as to why you're offended. The first approach doesn't really change anything. My two cents is that both the original block and the indef were within the blocking administrators' discretion and should not have been undone without discussion. Not that I agree with them, but undoing other admins' actions unless they are clearly erroneous often triggers a lot of unnecessary hand-wringing, this discussion being a case in point. What's the hurry to unblock? There's no deadline here. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Basically yes, except on the procedural concerns of unblocking, which I don't have much of an opinion on. This is part ignorance and part not having thought about it... discussion prior to unblocking seems reasonable, but I also don't see much harm in unblocking as it seems to not have been preventative. It seems more harmful to me to keep someone blocked who might not deserve it, unless they're a potential immediate threat, and I didn't get the impression that that was a concern. This seemed to be one of the more "deterrent" type blocks. Equazcion (talk) 22:14, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) Request for non-Jewish admin "possibly legitimate" Resolved by the Official Soviet Red Herring This resolution deserves special comment. Many Wikipedians choose usernames that are unrelated to their religion, etc. Also due to adoptions and quirks of inheritance quite a few people even have surnames that bear little or no connection to their actual heritage. It is inappropriate and bad faith to presume that such types of coincidence impede administrative judgment. Durova371 02:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC) (unmarking resolution) I actually think granting the request for review from a non-jewish admin would have settled the matter quicker. Think about it: You have a belief that jewish admins are teaming up against you due to their ethnicity. What's going to do more good: Having an uninvovled gentile admin say "no, you were wrong", or having the two jewish admins say "no, you don't get to have a non-jew look at it". I'm not saying policy should be changed to reflect this, simply that in this case it might have prevented escalation. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC) There is dubious value to validating such a request in any way. Among other matters, the inheritance aspect of Judaism comes through the mother's side while surnames generally derive from the father's. So through intermarriage quite a few people with Jewish surnames belong to other faiths. Also names (both rl and usernames) may be selected to honor an individual's achievements (as opposed to religion or ethnicity). We wouldn't take such a demand seriously if it referred to gender or nationality, and indeed when blocked users presumed I was Russian it never garnered more than a belly laugh. Nothing has changed since then. Durova371 02:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Ok. I'm not jewish. I reviewed the block and determined that it needed to be lengthened considerably, not reversed. Protonk (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC) That's fine. At this point I'm just commenting on people's objection to D4D's request for non-jewish review, which people took exception to. I still think more discussion prior to your indef block would have been proper, but that's a seperate issue. It's also a moot one, as a course of action that allows D4D to acknowledge and apologize for his actions has already been undertaken. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) Doesn't count unless you tell him you're granting his request; plus the problems stated above of your reason for doing so; and the oddity of extending a block as a result of an unblock request, which makes your claim of granting the request seem rather after-the-fact; and there is the fact that it actually is after-the-fact; oh and you're right, this is the perfect time for flip and facetious responses to your opponents, what with the lighthearted nature of the subject matter. Good call. Equazcion (talk) 22:42, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) Let's not escalate things any further here. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I'm not being flip or facetious, at least not in this comment. I'm unconvinced by your claim that unless I literally edit the unblock request it doesn't count. Besides, it is all premised on the absurd notion that D4D is somehow entitled to demand that a unitarian unblock him, or what-have you. Protonk (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC) If you consider the demand unreasonable (and I don't necessarily disagree), then your response implying that you granted it ("it" being the request for a non-jewish admin) is facetious, especially considering that you added the fact that you extended the block instead as a result of an unblock request. You were being humorous. It would've been good, had we not been in the lengthy argument we're in. Equazcion (talk) 23:07, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure we are connecting here. I wasn't joking when I suggested that indeffing him was an implicit unblock review, where the unblock request was that a non-jew review the block. Why we are even having an argument w/ the assumption that such a request is something done in polite society is pretty unclear to me. Protonk (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC) We are having the discussion because there's a couple of members of said polite society who believe the request could have some legitimacy. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I remember at some stage Alison (talk · contribs) was told by a fellow administrator that her Irish background meant that she should probably not administer issues connected with the Troubles. These statements about presumed Jewish administrators are similarly disturbing. This is a sad day for wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Aw, it's not that bad! It's not a sad day, just an impermissible request for which a firm "no" is called for. I have chosen not to reveal my ethnicity, race, gender, nationality, location, political beliefs, etc., on Wikipedia (although some would be an easy guess). In this particular case it's moot because I'm not an admin, but in a more general sense if I have decided that ethnicity / religion is not part of my editing experience, I don't think that issue should be forced on me. That's a corollary of the right to edit anonymously, not to have your religion called into question. On the other hand if I loudly proclaimed everywhere that I was an activist on Jewish causes, then by my statements I was declaring a personal position. That's different, and it would be reasonable for someone to assert that this gave too much of an appearance of bias for me to pass judgment on someone's statements about the subject. If D4D were truly concerned and had a legitimate fear of being ganged up on, a more delicate thing to request would be to find administrators who do not have a content stake on articles reflecting Jews and the holocaust. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) Always the dramatic, Mathsci :) I view this portion of the discussion as more academic, as the main issue is really whether or not the request itself was enough of a problem to block indef for. Whether or not it should actually be granted in the future is an interesting subject, and I don't see it being "sad" to discuss it, but it's sort of beyond this particular incident. Equazcion (talk) 00:07, 3 Dec 2009 (UTC) I wouldn't be surprised if people commenting in favour of D4D in this thread were themselves blocked at some later stage. What some of them have written here seems ill-considered. Mathsci (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Absolutely. The number and vehemance of the anti-semitic apologists in this discussion is appalling. Crafty (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC) That's uncalled for. Come on guys, this is a discussion, not a riot. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Am I to understand that those calling for additional blocks don't see how that behaviour contributes to the perception, rightly or wrongly, that there are special interest groups on wikipedia who will band together to ensure that their views become official policy? Are you kidding me? You want to dole out a block for my saying that D4D's request for a non-jewish admin to review his case in light of his belief that he was being discriminated against could be valid? That I'm being anti-semitic? You are doing nothing to help your own position or wikipedia by so arguing. You are, in fact, lending credibility to the bigots and racists out there. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Let's just end this. What administrative action is required for this specific issue? To me this appears to be a policy discussion and AN/I is for incidents that require administrative action. If you want to change the rules for Jewish administrators, start a discussion at WP:Administrators or file an WP:RfC. The only aspect of this that we can really do anything about here is the community ban. Let's focus on that. AniMate 00:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC) I agree with your assessment, especially in light of the new action being taken in regards to D4D. For the record, I'm not saying anything about Jewish admins, just questioning the hasty remarks some editors have been making here. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Some users appear to have suggested on-wiki, and have requested clarification off-wiki, as to whether I'm "sympathetic" to Die4Dixie, or an "apologist" of anti-semitic commentary. The plain answer on both counts is no. I do hope that Craftyminion (talk · contribs) will take more care in his/her future on-wiki comments to avoid sparking something like this again. I don't recall interacting with Die4Dixie previously, nor have I expressed a view on the merits of anything beyond a block rationale, and I certainly don't find any sort of offensive commentary acceptable. What I am sympathetic towards, as my earlier comment was hinting at, is the inconsistent enforcement by the community at large. Be it the admins or the established editors who've responded here, none had responded as aggressively as they did here (if at all) to similar accusations of bad faith in some other cases, whether it's a European ethnic conflict (English/Irish), an Asian ethnic conflict (Indian subgroups), or some other conflict involving race/religion/ethnicity/nationality/cultural identity. Is there inconsistent enforcement because some people are more aware about history relating to a particular type (Jewish), and not others? Or is it because of how "well known" the individuals involved are? Is it a lack of clarity/awareness in policy? Or finally, is it because there is an genuine (but very unfortunate) divide in the community on this principle? Frankly, I don't know - I just want that to be remedied so everyone who makes a particular type of comment or demand is treated in the same way, regardless of which race/religion/ethnicity/nationality/cultural identity they touch on, and regardless of which individual (be it editor or admin) that the accusation goes against. Misrepresenting this as being apologistic to what is broadly unacceptable simply add heats to a discussion, not light. Sometimes users who raise an issue for community awareness are doing just that - nothing more. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Nmvocalist: grotesque discussions of the type that D4D was having about pictures of what Yad Vashem would normally classify as a "pile of corpses" are just not acceptable on wikipedia, nor are the ensuing Jewish conspiracy theories. Likewise a grotesque discussion about a picture of comparable atrocities elsewhere in the world should elicit a similar reaction. That is for example why Fourdee (talk · contribs) was banned by Jimbo. Indef blocked MoritzB (talk · contribs) for example was inserting material in Lynching from contemporary newspaper reports to suggest that the lynchings were merited. It's probably worth looking more carefully at the whole of D4D's recent contributions, including the remark left on Durova's talk page. In addition, there are others opposing the community ban such as William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) whose alternative accounts have been involved in Holocaust denial. [117] I think that in a more general context you are making a valid point; however in this particular case the extreme nature of D4D's remarks, just like those of Fourdee in the period leading up to his ban, go beyond reasonable limits. That is probably why Protonk extended the block to indefinite. Mathsci (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks Mathsci. Raising the point in a more general context unfortunately does not receive enough input from the community and does little in the way of raising awareness effectively to those who need to be aware of it - the editors and admins who intervene to help resolve these sorts of issues. That's why I raised it during this incident when there is deep care and a lot of eyes, so that the process of addressing the issue finally begins. I hope that you will, at least in time, appreciate that it would not have been possible to do so effectively, without Wehwalt's intervention. In the meantime, I've struck my procedural oppose as it can no longer apply to this specific case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Why not just ask D4D how he meant it? It's a troubling subject no matter how one comments on it - all talk of the Holocaust is difficult, and should be so. But did D4D mean to cause trouble, or were his comments earnest but insensitive? - Wikidemon (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC) [118] may help answer that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC) EC x 2. Look, you will always be able to find something to be offended at. Hochman gives his name, posts his picture, links to his Linkdn page all from his userpage. That google search is not offensive in the slightest. I have not engaged in any Jewish conspiracy theory. No mention of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, no holocaust denial. Nice try at the association fallacy by suggesting that I am like someone like Fourdee. I never knew what the yad vashem was that keeps getting invoked here until I clicked on the link. The picture was put there to be looked at. It is a grotesque picture. I have struck those comments hours ago now. Please see the discussion on my talkpage that explains. What ever Saturn has done with his account does not mean that I am Saturn. Can you not do better than these tired ad hominems? Collect the diffs on this history of jew baiting, because that is what you are acusing me of, right? You are way too invested in this. Go have a cup of tea or read a book. You may think that your attacks are ok because you are discussing banning me, and twisting something to make it appear that I have claimed some conspiracy to try and tar me with antisemitism, but it is not. Nice trying to poison the well with mentioning lynching too.--Die4Dixie (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC) D4D, if you didn't / don't mean to offend why not just say that? Intended or not, you upset some people who have good reason to be offended. Some here lost loved ones in the tragedy, and even those who did not are keeping the memory alive so it won't be repeated. Whether you intended to bait or not your line snared some deep fish. I think it would be helpful to separate that question from the related issue of whether you were unfairly treated here for speaking your mind. If that's the case why not just apologize for having upset people and in the future try not to step on those landmines. Perhaps take your lumps? Sorry if this sounds PC but some subjects deserve deference to people's feelings. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC) D4D's explanations are not helpful, here or elsewhere. In the original discussion, he mentioned that he clicked on the image. At that point he could see all the data on the image in front of him, including a reference to the original photographic library from which the image was apparently copied. In fact for images of this kind that site uses captions which refer to "prisoners" without further qualification. The wikipedia article Holocaust is similar. Mathsci (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC) I clinked the link from ANI. I didn´t examine the pedigree or providence of the photo. I looked at the penises. Wikidemom, adversus solem ne loquitor. The hive is agitated. Axes were ground today. This is a bonding ritual for some. Have fun. You can read thaat tally up above.--Die4Dixie (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC) BTW Jehochman lives in Connecticut. Here is his linkedin page [119]. The Jonathan Hochman D4D unearthed lives in Texas. This seems to be his linkedin page [120], judging by the references to Mensa, information technology and rodeo riding. This is the kind of unfortunate error that happens when editors start writing about conspiracy theories. Mathsci (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC) And I apologized if it was not him. Nothing is going to satisfy you but a sacrificial rite. Where was the the conspiracy theory. I was concerned that he could not put his feelings aside, just like you can´t seem to do. I struck the G*d damn comments on the penis page, I have been roundly abused and all kinds of motives have been ascribed. You sound like I was writing some treatise on Some International Jewish Conspiracy. I wasn´t , and I didn´t. Me, I´m going to eat a bagel. You should have a cup of tea. And thank goodness I didn´t invert that order or you would have cranked up the Hague.--Die4Dixie (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Why is D4D still repeating this error [121]? What is the exact point of writing "Oy Vey (smacks head)."? Is it some form of joke? Mathsci (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC) What is the exact point of pointing that out? Is it some sort of assertion? Equazcion (talk) 10:31, 3 Dec 2009 (UTC) It shows that there are probably still problems with D4D's edits to wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC) This is surreal. No, a request for a non-Jewish admin is not legitimate. If you think so, would you be willing to entertain requests for non-white admins on anything that has to do with slavery (well, we want non-black there as well) or the third world? For non-American admins on articles about the Iraq war, the Vietnam war, Waterboarding, or the election campaign? For non-Christian admins, for, say, work on Jesus? For non-male admins on Marie Curie or Divorce (where you could also ask on non-female ones, or non-divorced ones...). The suggestion that a whole large group of editors is biased because of their ethnicity, or gender, or hair color, is inherently offensive to all civilized society. . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC) These are poor analogies. Are you suggesting that anyone who doesn´t share your rigid world view is uncivilized? Is that not the hight of cultural elitism? The least tolerant attitude that I have yet to see tonight? Are you suggesting that I am not civilized, herr Schulz? Unvarnished prose is to be perfered.--Die4Dixie (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC) They're poor analogies for another reason too: People in those situations wouldn't be nearly as likely to offend as easily due to the subject matter. Jewish admins acting on a perceived antisemitic remark, particularly on a Holocaust article, and particularly on a photo of dead Holocaust victims, is much more understandably called a possible conflict of interest. Not that I necessarily think D4D's request should have been granted, but still, it wasn't entirely disgusting either, nor worthy of the racism label. Equazcion (talk) 11:14, 3 Dec 2009 (UTC) I suggest that you (D4D) are intentionally offensive to make a WP:POINT, both in this last reply, in the original scuffle, and in your request for a non-Jewish admin. You may or may not be civilized, but with your behavior is not fit for civilized society. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. You have exhausted my good faith a while ago. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Retreating to the original accusation doesn't advance the argument. This is the equivalent of "I still think you're wrong". Equazcion (talk) 11:26, 3 Dec 2009 (UTC) (ec) Are you joking? This guy has just been released from an indef block on condition that he starts behaving, immediately goes around saying "Oy vey" and "Herr Schulz", and you accuse Stephan Schulz of "retreating to the original accusation" when he points out the obvious problem? Are you from some strange civilisation where that would be considered normal or even deescalating behaviour? It's getting more and more obvious that I was right before: That guy simply tries to stay just below the level where it gets actionable. (The technical term for this is of course "trolling", and I am usually quite reluctant to use it. Here it's obvious by now.) Hans Adler 11:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC) "Pointing out the obvious problem" again isn't helpful. Providing rationale to back up why one sees a problem is a better way to go. Otherwise we're all just repeating ourselves ad nauseum. Equazcion (talk) 11:50, 3 Dec 2009 (UTC) Huh? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC) In other words, in your last response you didn't answer the last point brought, nor did you provide any further rationale to advance your argument. You instead repeated your feeling that the user was being intentionally offensive, which I think everyone already knows by now, and doesn't help the discussion. Equazcion (talk) 11:38, 3 Dec 2009 (UTC) To be fair Equazicon, if everybody knows the editor is being intentionally offensive, we're done. WP:POINT clearly states that this is being disruptive and that can lead to a block or ban. Are you honestly asking us to be thought police and determine why D$D is acting this way? Does it excuse his continued behavior? Is there really a set of empirical datum that would lead you to believe you knew anything about an anonymous user on an Internet web site? "Why" isn't the question, that the situation "is" is enough. If D4D wants to advance his social acumen he can open a dialog about what is offensive for himself. The impetus is on him to want to understand others and change. Or he can choose to continue and be subjected to these situations over and over again. I guess I need to ask, why is it beholden of us to understand him? (other than the painfully altruistic reasons) Padillah (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC) To Schulz: Now what did you find so offensive about me requesting that you clarify an extremely offensive post. Don´t even try to say that you came to this discussion with your good faith pants on. You have been twisting everything you could get your hands on to contort it to the least favorable and most inflammatory extreme that you possible could. You have engaged in logical fallacies, reductio ad you name its, and general nastiness. What were you so offended by? That someone you tried to minimize and dehumanize wasn´t inclined to entertain your melodramaticly waxing poetic bull shit?--Die4Dixie (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC) In fairness I think you're "contorting to the least favorable and most inflammatory extreme that you possible can" too, D4D. Summing up your opponents' arguments as bullshit isn't helpful. Most people in an argument with opponents they don't care for think similarly, and saying it doesn't help anyone. It's probably best to stick to intellectual arguments rather than resorting to hostile classifications. But I'm probably wasting my time, aren't I. Equazcion (talk) 11:48, 3 Dec 2009 (UTC) I think that I have suffered a great deal of abuse at this man´s hands. Pointed abuse, over the top personal attacks. If I crossed the line with BS, ok. Perhaps I might not be helping myself here now. But his civilized comments and dichotomizing was a little over the top. Your call.--Die4Dixie (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC) In my view most of the people commenting here are over the top. I've probably been guilty of the same at some point. Let's just all try to keep it under control and keep it civil/rational/fact-based, rather than seeking to strike emotional blows at one-another. Equazcion (talk) 12:00, 3 Dec 2009 (UTC) Equazcion, stop enabling this obvious racist troll or we will have to start a discussion on what to do about you. I am not familiar with you and therefore find it hard to judge if your current behaviour is in good faith or not. It certainly doesn't look as if it is. Hans Adler 12:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Whether or not this person is an "obvious racist troll" is precisely what we're trying to determine, through discussion, which is all I'm doing. I don't see anything particularly wrong with that, even if lots of people disagree with me. When it's a majority against a minority, flinging "you're wrong"s and "youre obviously this or that"s is unfortunately all that's needed, since the majority has more bullets. My "enabling", as you put it, is an attempt to level the playing field and get rid of the back-and-forth accusations in favor of forcing more intelligent discussion. Feel free to start a discussion about me though, if you feel that's a bad thing. Equazcion (talk) 12:16, 3 Dec 2009 (UTC) I guess obvious racist trolls need love, too! Seriously, if you're looking for a chance to get your Fightin' for the Underdog ya-yas out, you've picked the wrong cause to champion. --Calton | Talk 14:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC) So much for raising the intelligence bar of this discussion. If it were about who could develop the more clever and cutting line, I think I'd win. I'm totally good at that, in addition to waxing intellectica. But that's neither here nor there... right? Equazcion (talk) 14:31, 3 Dec 2009 (UTC) Hans Adler, I don't think we need to call Equazcion's motives into question. So far he has stuck to defending the editor, not the edits. He has asked some fair questions and has continuously decried the statements that D4D is being called out on. I see no reason not to continue to AGF with this guy. Padillah (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Comment, I've tried to stay out of this but would like to say some now. First, asking for a non Jewish administrator is never acceptable. Googling to find information about any editor is also very much against policy. I won't classify anyone but I was very angry at both of these things happening. I am also upset to read this whole thread to find that no one, not one editor or administrator comments on the searching admitted to. Dixie, I have no problems with you personally but these two things really irked the hell out of me. I just had to let Dixie and others here know that their are some of us lurking. These things need to stop asap. Thank you for your time, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC) It's a bit uncouth to bring up, in a dispute with another editor, personal details that you've found out about them through off-wiki methods, and in the case of revealing specific identifying information could be considered outing. The googling alone isn't against policy though. You can google whatever you want whenever you want. Equazcion (talk) 13:00, 3 Dec 2009 (UTC) It's a bit uncouth to bring up, in a dispute with another editor, personal details that you've found out about them through off-wiki methods, and in the case of revealing specific identifying information could be considered outing. "A bit uncouth"? He did the Googling and outed the editor in order to prove that the editor was a Jew and thus biased (as if that makes sense). There are several steps to D4D's logic, all of whch are not just stupid, not just racist and offensive, but all three. And of course this entire train of logic is to prove that he was not trolling when analyzing the foreskins on pictures of corpses and coming to conclusions about the Holocaust from the presumed existence of foreskins on one image. Are we obliged to allow insane people to edit the encyclopedia? — goethean ॐ 20:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC) (←) For the benefit of Ncmvocalist (and others of similar mind) I am entirely comfortable with the way I have conducted myself in this matter. I know a bigot when I see one. D4D's conduct was dreadful, blatantly anti-semitic and wantonly disruptive. By that conduct he placed himself outside of the Wikipedia community as confirmed by the passage of his ban. I would remind those of you currently styling yourselves as champions of free speech that D4D finds himself banned as a result of his actions alone. Crafty (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC) I think at this point we can mark this resolved, as this is now just debate for the sake of debate. We're not going to change policy to force all Jewish admins to be recused from anything related to the Holocaust and the editor in question has been community banned. We should all get back to editing the encyclopedia. AniMate 19:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Arb I agree with equz. If you want to vote, vote. But enough of the attacks and melodramatic flairs. If someone has a concrete thing they would like me to do, suggest it. If not, I´ll concede the field. What has happened here is and was wrong.--Die4Dixie (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Motion to Close Support - User banned, etc, etc, etc. Nothing else to do here.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Yupyup What he said. Durova371 01:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Motion to Collapse So it doesn't take up half of AN/I? Throwaway85 (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Incivility by Radeksz

Resolved

 – Comments redacted, editors reminded to remain cool while editing. Nothing more to do here. NW (Talk) 02:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at this. Offliner (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Temperamental response to ongoing harassment. Redacted.radek (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"Ongoing harassment" and incivilities are provided by you, Radek. -- Matthead  Discuß   02:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, ok lets cut the sniping. Is there a problem that we can help with here, or is it just a case of "remember to remain cool when editing"? Prodego ^talk 02:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Radek's recent edits are part of a much larger longtime problem, currently discussed by Arbcom. Also, I have filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Radeksz concurrently. -- Matthead  Discuß   02:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Throwaway85

Resolved

 – Throwaway85 unblocked, Checkuser has apologized, everyone says "no hard feelings" and discussion on problem is happening elsewhere. I get warm fuzzy feelings when these situations work out so well.--Jayron32 05:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Could someone look at his unblock request here? I'm too involved to do it, and I don't have the technical background or checkuser access probably needed. Or if someone is dealing with it, could they post to his talk page and say so?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You should email the checkusers list, but I think several of them seem to be responding on his talk page already.

I don't think anyone without CU access can usefully respond - the discussion of who's editing using what requires the CU info on our side, to verify.

I don't find his claims a priori unbelievable, but I have no idea what the CU evidence says. We put people we trust into the checkuser rights bin - let them do their job... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated to OP but I want to chime in here and say chechusers are not always reliable, and in fact make many, many mistakes (mistakes which have no way of being proven as only checkusers have access to the technical info). If the checkusers say you're guilty, that's it. Even if every edit you've made has been helpful and productive, if the checkusers say you're a mass-vandalizing, trolling sockpuppet pushing several agendas on articles you didn't even know existed, then you have no defense. And you will literally get laughed out of the IRC channel if you attempt to inquire about what happened. But hey, maybe I just had a bad experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.75 (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks (@Gwh)--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

In my observations, checkusers usually get it right. If anything, they err on the side of caution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. I just wanted to ensure he knew we all weren't ignoring him and he was shouting into a vacuum.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

IP, you have any diffs to support that accusation? Here's why you should provide such evidence: No one is going to believe you, as I have experienced things, CUs are mostly right, and hardly make any mistakes.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

We're currently looking into this, although I can't say for certain when the unblock request will be handled. To address the IP's concerns (ignoring the fact that he's obviously evading a block), generally if we come up with a "confirmed" result, we're about 99.9% certain the accounts involved are the same person, and even "likely" results we're pretty darn sure, especially if behavioral evidence backs it up. That said, we do make mistakes on occasion, and sometimes there are circumstances involved that explain the apparent relation, circumstances which we can't see through the checkuser report. If a checkuser-blocked user is able to provide such an explanation, that is both plausible and supported by the data, the we'll reconsider the block. I should note, however, that these situations are very uncommon. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am definitely sympathetic to the visuals of the situation, and understand fully the actions of administrators and checkusers invloved. I am sure, however, that I am not the only person this has happened to. Is there an appropriate venue to discuss how sockpuppet investigations should be handled, especially when large institutions with thousands of users are involved? It seems that a reliance on checkuser alone in this circumstance can lead to false positives, rare though they may be. I simply wish to spare future editors the ordeal I just went through. Also, if it please the community, I would like to follow up on User:Technical Reasons' actions with my school's network administrators, as I believe it likely that the school's TOS were violated. His behaviour was both unacceptable and damaging both to the community, and to his fellow students, who, like me, had their access jeopardized. I would like to pursue this matter further, but I think it best to obtain consensus in order to do that. Alternatively, I can provide contact information for the Abuse Investigations department, and one of the admins involved can contact them directly. Scratch that. Upon reviewing, he seemed more antagonistic and stupid than racist. Thank you, Throwaway85 (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the matter here. I welcome everyone's input on how we might (or even if we should) attempt to reduce incidents such as these in the future. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Acceptable behavior?

Hello, let me just first say, I dont know the exact procedures of complaint, but I was send here by admin Beeblebrox; who was the admin involved in the sockpuppet investigation in which Neftchi (myself) and XrAi are accused, I come with a troubling matter. But before I contacted here I had informed Buckshot06 on this matter, as I didnt know who the admin was of the investigation, then I contacted admin Beeblebrox. Therefore, please accept my apology that the following is somewhat the same text I send Buckshot06, however the arguments still remain solid for all.

Eventhough the accusing party (Izzedine) has withdrawn his accusation, I have several questions on his behavior. Izzedine failed to give a reason for his accusation, instead he simply awaited a checkuser report. I dont believe its right to randomly accuse people this way and not give out a reason. I kindly asked him for a reason, but he ignored to give one, instead he was busy with other things, I note the following:

• Here he send Intelligent Mr Toad a message and I qoute him saying: "This one seems like a problem editor. If you have further concerns about him and decide to report it, let me know." and gives a link to the sockpuppet investigation that he just a few moments earlier had started.
  • Is this even allowed? When I asked him to eloborate this, he said and I qoute: "Yes (Neftchi), perhaps an edit-warring report needs to be opened in addition to this, as it looks like you are causing disruption to many editors." (this can be seen in the deleted socketpuppet investigation here

Now you know Intelligent Mr Toad is a user who several times removed the sourced sentence of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic... and start a headline on this matter in the talk page of Azerbaijan.

• Now suddenly Izzedine joins in with Intelligent Mr Toad, as can be seen here.
• His anti-Azerbaijan mood continue's in the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic article in where he completely removes well sourced information in the lead, he doesnt join the talk or give a valid reason for his removal, he simply says "ridiculous statement for the lead", see here
• Its also worthy to mention that his first edit in the Azerbaijan article ever has to revert my edit, as can be seen here
• In his second edit in Azerbaijan article he again removed fully sourced information, seehere
• After all this Izzedine, blanked out the sockpuppet investigation page [122] and wanted a speedy deletion of the investigation [123] then the admin restored the information of the investigation [124] but again Izzedine blanked out the entire investigation page [125].

I am shocked at this behavior and would like to see an investigation report on his behavior, I wonder is this kind of attitude acceptable or not. I wish you to take a look at this urgent matter as all his vandal-attacks are still unreverted. Neftchi (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Neftchi mixes lies with exaggeration. I withdrew the sockpuppet investigation as [on closer inspection] I thought it was mistaken, now I see he wants to use that against me, well perhaps he would benefit from a negative result of one. He has been edit-warring with several users recently, so you can take his moaning with a pinch of salt. ^Izzedine 03:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

To start from the start Neftchi, no, it's not banned to say someone might be a problem editor, but the complaint has to be well substantiated. If, for example, an editor had a history of adding material that was not verifiable and keep re-adding it after it was replaced by sourced material. that might be an example of a 'problem editor.'

For the rest, we have two issues, a contents issues with Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, which should be sorted out via, in the first instances, their talkpages, via discussion. My limited involvement with these types of issues has shown that sometimes citations are given which are not full; this can be a reason to replace material. However I should state I've been in discussion with User:Intelligent Mr Toad already on some of these issues, and warned him.

The other is the sockpuppet issue which had now been withdrawn, thus, unless there's another more experienced admin who would like to comment/give advice, I believe the matter is closed.

The important thing is to resolve the content issues by the prescribed process: involvement of additional editors, preferably including those 'neutral' in an Azerbaijan-Armenian context. I should also remind all the parties interested that there is a ArbCom decision which allows admins to place sanctions on those involved in Arm/Az articles if they see a need. Further comments from more experienced admins very welcome. Regards to all Buckshot06 (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:203.45.210.58 is vandalising David Thorne (writer)

Please block this article from being edited.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Dempsey (talk • contribs)

Ignore this, see report below. The editor here is the real vandal. --BlackAce48 (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

How am I a vandal? I have contributed to the page several times. User:203.45.210.58 has continually added vandalism to the page over last week. ?? Simon Dempsey (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Simon Dempsey

He may be reverting in good faith, but he has exceeded the 3RR by reverting [six times] in less than 24 hours. I gave him a [warning] but I thought I'd report it here to get input from other editors. --BlackAce48 (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I recieved your warning and I understand. Was reverting information that is being vandalised. I have reported the vandal. Simon Dempsey (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That's good, I clearly understand that you were trying to revert vandalism, but keep WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR in mind. Reverting six times in less than 24 hours can be viewed as disruptive though by some. I understand you weren't however. --BlackAce48 (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we're done here unless other users want to comment. User was not being disruptive. --BlackAce48 (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism and removing content that is libelous towards living persons is not subject to WP:3RR. The question is if this is considered vandalism or libelous. If someone has that issue of Wired we can see if it discusses him in the negative light and whether or not it is a viable source. However, then it is up to the community to decide if the content is allowable. However, this does not give anyone the right to do revert anything without discussion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the article in question. No mention of David Thorne that I can see. Seems like pretty clear vandalism/defamation to me. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Content added by troll

The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/27bslash6 (now locked) contains a line of text by a troll that links to a reference that has nothing to do with either David Thorne or the article regarding 27bslash6. The link is about a girl who became famous on the internet. The girl has nothing to do with 27bslash6 or David Thorne and is a ridiculous addition to the article. The user (203.45.210.58) seems to be using the article as a personal vendetta. Possibly for having a comment deleted from the webpage in question.

I request the content "Comments can be left on the website, although it has been reported that notoriously David Thorne erases or modifies any remarks that criticize, mock or minimize the quality of his work. [9]" to be removed by administration. I also request that this page be permanently locked. Simon Dempsey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

I have blocked the IP for edit warring after a final warning to stop thanked Simon Dempsey for reverting the edit. Extraordinary claims of bad behavior require a proper source, and I suspect the IP was simply trolling or attempting to settle a grudge. The page will not be permanently locked(we call it protected), its protection will expire at 02:35, 11 December 2009. If there are further problems after that time you can come to my talk page. ^Chillum 03:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I am the administrator who protected the page; I explained the action here. See also the talk page discussion. Regards  Skomorokh  05:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone please do something about User:Hasbro sp.

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 hours. GedUK  10:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hasbro sp has been introducing original research and POV to articles. Point of focus in this case is an edit to Karai. I explained the matter to him, pointing him to the relevant policy pages and gave him a few warnings after he kept at it. I'd discuss the problem with his edits further, but I get such gems as this, this and this. In short, he doesn't need sources or comply to policy because he's older than me, seen all the episodes, worked at all the companies that had anything to do with the subject, I have stupid intelligence and lack self-respect (or something). I can't argue with that, but maybe someone else can.--Atlan (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a day. GedUK  10:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ford GT (ongoing)

TheBalance continued WP:POV, WP:OWN, and WP:WAR violations in Ford GT article. WP:COPY is no longer an issue.

• Previously archived discussion: [126]
• Current 3RR violation: [127]

Again earlier I had added multiple 1/4 mile performance figures taken for the FGT since the only listed figure is not representative of the FGT's actual performance. TheBalance keeps reverting them to only include the very best time tested by Motor Trend.

A list of major US magazines: [128] Car and Driver ranked #69 Motor Trend ranked #85

Taken from Motor Trend:

• [129] 11.2 sec @ 131.2 mph (single figure TheBalance wants in article)
• [130] 11.6 sec @ 126.2 mph
• [131] 11.78 sec @ 124.31 mph

From Car and Driver:

• [132] 11.6 sec @ 128 mph
• [133] 12.0 sec @ 123 mph (new time I found)

From Road and Track:

• [134] 11.7 sec @ 125.8 mph

I thought this had been settled by including all the times tested (that I could find) by Motor Trend, which includes the ringer's time instead TheBalance reverted my edit again to include on the rigner [135]. This time adding a discussion to my talk page. [136] which I responded to [137]. Mr.Sakaki (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The attempt at discussion is good; the continued removal of sourced material and reinsertion of comments that imply article ownership most definitely isn't. Where there are differences between sources, we typically provide the fullest possible information and allow the reader to make up their own mind; there's no reason at all to remove the full range of figures leaving only the best. I've re-blocked TheBalance for 48 hours; review welcome as always. EyeSerene^talk 10:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I'm going to again add the two other Motor Trend 1/4 mile performance figures, I really can't see a good reason to remove them. Mr.Sakaki (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with that. I should perhaps mention that my administrative action was taken only to address the disruption, which was why I didn't touch the article itself. However, this board isn't for resolving content disputes and as long as there's no further edit-warring on the article, settling that will be between you and TheBalance. It might be worth asking for a third opinion or trying some of the other measures listed at WP:DR. As I mentioned above though, I think TheBalance will have a very hard time making a case for excluding all but the best performance figure. If they object to a long list of figures, mentioning the range (ie lowest and highest) might be one compromise solution. EyeSerene^talk 11:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Request a review of my block of Lomcevak

I have just blocked User:Lomcevak. I believe the user passes the duck test with regards being User:Dsmith1usa. They share similar editing patterns, specifically the articles Natascha Engel and Politico-media complex. The user appears to have continued editing the article Natasha Engel in a tendentious manner, and given that Politico-media complex is forming part of Wikipedia:School and university projects/User:Piotrus/Fall 2009, the user has proven unhelpful and disruptive at Talk:Politico-media complex. Given that teh user is attempting to evade a block issued to User:Dsmith1usa by creating a new sock puppet account, I have blocked indefinitely, although I bring the issue here for review. Hiding T 17:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Briefly looking at Talk:Politico-media complex and User talk:Sam Blacketer as well as the Dsmith1usa's contribs, I'd say they're the same. Good block. MuZemike 19:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, very likely - the two articles Natascha Engel and Politico-media complex are relatively obscure - a near-neologism and a backbench MP. You may wish to check User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 51-100#Natascha Engel and User talk:Sam Blacketer/Archive 51-100#Natascha Engel again et seq. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well User talk:Sam Blacketer#Guidance nails it for me that they are one and the same. Now I ponder if the block should stand? Do you think they're capable of contributing within the spirit of behavioural policy? Hiding T 14:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:86.136.89.238‎‎ - reblock needed

86.136.89.238 (talk · contribs)

At the risk of spamming ANI with something no one can help with: This user just returned from a block, and may possibly be failing to understand due to language issues (maybe not, AGFing here). Besides some questionable and unexplained edits, the editor has begun adding a Caste infobox to many clan/family name articles, aparently identifying each as an independent caste. This seems incorrect, as a widespread change. Further, the infoboxes are unsourced, and some of the information they contain conflicts with my very VERY limited knowledge. I am too ignorant to say with confidence that this is a Bad Thing, but I think interested editors are going to be backing these changes out, and if they ARE a bad idea, I hoped that someone with more knowledge than I might be able to say whether these changes need to be stopped with a block. I have placed an ANI notice on the anon talk page. - Sinneed 20:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am fed up of reverting this IP's edits. It's like some sort of spam bot, that keeps doing the same thisng over and over again. Thanks--Sikh-History 08:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's just come off a block for similar, it can be reblocked, so I've altered the section heading. If it won't respond to anyone hailing it, then there may be a query as to whether it is an editor of net worth to the 'pedia. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, SH. I just don't know enough to have known if the edits were really wrong. They just looked fishy. The IP is blocked again. I didn't note the blocking admin name or block length.- Sinneed 13:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• 2 week block by Materialscientist. Editor made another odd unblock request: "Sorry vandalism edited". Resolved for 2 weeks I should think. It was declined.- Sinneed 13:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Donkeyherder1 and User:Donkeyherder2

Resolved

page deleted, users blocked/ warned by Tnxman307 HJMitchell You rang? 15:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

These two users (almost unambiguously the same person) have been doing nothing but disrupt Wikipedia over the last 2 days. Between them, their edits consist of nothing but User:Donkeyherder1 (at AfD after a contested prod) where one of them removed the AfD tag and is obviously determined to avoid the page's deletion and Bob Dole, which leads me to my greater concern. Donkeyherder1 created User:Donkeyherder1/Bob dole Hitler song (blanked and tagged as a G10) which, aside from the misuse of userspace, serves no purpose but to slander (you guessed it...) Bob Dole. Another editor has, thus far, given them the benefit of the doubt but, having discovered that page, I think administrator intervention is now required. HJMitchell You rang? 14:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Found the attack userspace deleted, as shown by this. Did you file a formal warning to this account? - _{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 14:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the attack page, closed the AfD, blocked the second account, and gave a final warning to the first account. TNXMan 14:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Tarc's relentless antagonism and trolling

Tarc is continuing to hound me and to involve himself in discussions that have nothing to do with him in order to take shots at me and pursue a vendetta. Some sort of administrative action to put a stop to his battlefield behavior and disruption is needed. See his comments in above discussions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I must be off shortly for an hour or so, so a proper response will have to wait. I am disappointed that CoM has yet again failed to note specific actions or words of mine that he feels necessitate administrative intervention. Yes I have weighed in, here and in the past, on his bad behavior. I do not feel any of that input rises to any sort of level of incivility or disruption. If CoM feels otherwise, please, lay out some facts. Tarc (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes COM, please provide quotes, edit differences, and dates. Right now you are offering an unsubstantiated opinion. This already is feeling like an RFC. Ikip (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

CoM's proximate concern is, as stated, Tarc's recent edits to this page. His edits since the beginning of this month to this page are:

• here at 13:50 December 2, on a matter unrelated to CoM on a thread CoM had not contributed to and before the contentious thread above was started,
• here at 16:13 on December 2, again on a subject CoM had not contributed to and before the contentious thread above was started
• here at 19:09 December 2, the first relevant to CoM in which Tarc says "CoM has a long history in unrelated policy discussions of directing antagonism towards those that have had to use the stick against him in the past",
• here at 19:24 December 2, in which he responds to what he indicates are CoM's early misrepresentation of earlier events regarding what he says is his one historic block and in which he indicates he has this page watchlisted]
• here at 21:21 on December 2, in which Tarc indicates that CoM's thread calling for various heads should be closed, but the thread regarding the possible block of CoM be kept open, at least in part because, as he says, that thread had yet to receive a single oppose
• here at 21:53 on December 2, in which he responds to a comment made by Redheylin
• here at 04:23 on December 3, in which he responds to another editor who had stated CoM should not be blocked because CoM is a productive ditor, citing examples of other productive editors who have been sanctioned
• here at 13:30 on December 3, in which he makes a statement regarding how CoM does not initiate topics here
• here aT 17:04 December 3, in which he closes again the call for heads which had been closed by someone else earlier and reopened by CoM, and in which he says in the edit summary that CoM should not make things worse for himself by reopening it
• here at 17:06 December 3, simply moving a hatnote
• here at 17:11 December 3, in which he responds to my comment about how placing blocks on editors who initiate unfounded complaints might be dubious, and noting that CoM had repeatedly reopened the call for heads section after others had closed it,
• here at 17:13 December 3, fixing his own addition of an unsigned template to my earlier comment (this machine is currently experiencing intermittent tilde failure, I'm afraid),
• and finally here at 1&;22 December 3, his own single addition to this thread above.

In my own opinion, I believe that the evidence indicates that Tarc's statement that he has the page watchlisted is seemingly accurate, and that in fact the claims made by CoM regarding Tarc are at best distortions of fact, very possibly violations of WP:HARRASS, and serves as further evidence of how CoM just likes starting threads to discipline people with whom he has had disagreements. I personally think that the thread should be closed as the available evidence seems to at least me to be much more critical of CoM than of Tarc himself, and that it should be closed with no action against Tarc. John Carter (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about this dispute, nor do I want to get much involved. All I know is COM is an editor who is talked about often here on ANI.

John Carter, thanks for sharing those links. Okay, John Carter's edit differences are all the contributions that Tarc has made to ANI this month. That shows that Tarc regularly edits ANI, and claims that COM is being hounded by Tarc on ANI, if he said this, are probably not true.

Both of you are accusing the other party of hounding or harrassing. There are six sections of WP:HARASS:

1. Wikihounding, 2. Threats, 3. Perceived legal threats, 4. Posting of personal information WP:OUTING, 5. Private correspondence, 6. User space harassment

Is there evidence of Tarc following COM to pages and/or vice versa? (Wikihounding)

If not Com's hounding claim is bunk.

Is there evidence of COM violating any of the 6 sections of Harass?

If not, John carter's claim of harassment is bunk. John Carter wrote: "claims made by CoM regarding Tarc are at best distortions of fact" COMs statments alone maybe "Unfounded accusations of harassment" but COMs statments are not harassment themselves.

I hope both parties keep in mind that, "Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly." Ikip (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

CoM has recently been posting to John Carter's talk page despite requests to stay off. Does that count? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:HUSH (6. User space harassment) part of WP:HARASS, also see the essay Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments:

I think a good argument can be made of Harassment per WP:HUSH if Thejadefalcon edit differences are correct.

COM can probably claim ignorance though, and apologize to John Carter, as this is a section I have never heard of, and I never actually knew about until just now myself.

I don't know if "ignorance of the law is no excuse" applies on wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you've gotta consider what is the one feature common to all these dramas? From where I sit, it appears to be CoM. Crafty (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

My claim is based on the comments of CoM at the top of this thread.

As per WP:HOUND, "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annonyance or distress to the other editor". "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." I believe requesting administrative action against someone without anything like just cause in such a setting as this probably constitutes a violation of the above.

As per that same page, the section "Threats" immediately below it states "Threatening another person is considered harassment. This may include threats to harm another person, to disrupt their work on wikipedia, or to otherwise harm them. Statements of intent to use normal wikipedia processes properly, such as dispute resolution, are not threats." Beyond the open question as to whether filing what I believe to be a baseless claim is considered using "wikipedia processes properly", there is the question as to whether this is not only a threat, but an explicit attempt "to disrupt their work on wikipedia." For what little it might be worth, CoM's warning to Tarc on his user page here is probably more civil than CoM's comments here.

Granted, this may fall within a grey zone in the eyes of some. I did however make my statements in such a way as to indicate it was my opinion. I stand by my earlier claim that this thread should be closed without action taken against Tarc. If anyone wishes to take action against me on the basis of an alleged personal attack, they are free to do so. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think right now we need to pick one of two things and actually do it. Was tarc bothering COM? if so block him. If he wasn't, block COM for a frivolous report.--Crossmr (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Ikip's "Both of you are accusing the other party of hounding or harrassing" statement, I would have to express disagreement there. CoM does not harass me personally, and I do not believe that I have ever put forth such a claim. What I have said is that he needs to put up or shut so to speak up in regards to "hounding", "battlefield", "disruption", and I am glad he has finally chosen to do so rather than leave vague hints and innuendo in other threads. I have also pointed out that CoM is a general nuisance and antagonist of numerous other editors, mostly admins, both in AN/I and on various user talk pages. This bad behavior stems from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles, where ChildofMidnight believed himself to be the aggrieved party, only to see the ArbCom committee determine that he was (rightly, IMO) one of the primary aggressors and instigators of the affair. Travesty in motion sat atop of his userpage for awhile, haranguing AC members at various times (Wizardman, and 2), the infamous episode of comparing other editors to Nazis, for starters. Tarc (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

CoM's comment at the start of this thread refers only to this page, quoting here, "See his comments in above discussions". Based on that comment, which refers only to this page, I had no choice but to assume that the complaint dealt only with edits to this page in the recent past such that they appeared on this page, rather than the archives, at the time that comment was posted. I am also very interested in the AE case linked to above regarding Nazis, in which the closer of the discussion indicated that perhaps it was time for the community to take action on its own regarding CoM. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

See my comments toward the bottom of this section above in regard to starting a user conduct RfC. Nothing useful is going to come of these threads, but an RfC could be a good way to go. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The diffs posted by John Carter speak for themselves. Tarc claims to be a regular contributor to ANI and yet how many (10 of 15 or so?) of his posts this month are pointed attacks towards me where he brings up irrelevancies in threads about issues in which he has ABSOLUTELY NO INVOLVEMENT. He also makes statements about my motivations and accuses me of all sorts of things.

If it's determined that this is appropriate behavior, then so be it. My understanding of civility, stalking, and harassment are perhaps different than some other editors. I know they are very different from John Carter's. And of course Tarc's involvement on other pages shows a similar focus on me. So while John Carter objects to my polite requests on his talk page asking him to refactor his false statements about me, this same admin thinks an editor following me around to pick fights is appropriate? So be it. I can't understand why we're losing content contributors... ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It is hardly anyone else's fault but your own that you cut a wide swath across AN/I. Let's see if the one above produces a significant block; if it doesn't, then perhaps I will take Bigtimepeace up on his offer to turn that RfC link above from red to blue, if he wants to.

And regarding "asking him to refactor his false statements about me", could you please provide a diff of one of these? Thanks. Tarc (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

COM, I have noticed that whenever someone says "xxxx speak for themselves" this means the editor will not provide evidence in the form of edit differences, correct?

John Carter, you did state that COM was involved in: "Unfounded accusations of harassment" I never stated that COM's alleged harassment was directed to you.

The watered down term WP:HOUNDING originally was called "stalking", "requesting administrative action against someone" is not "stalking", it is not following someone around from page to page.

Wikipedia:Harass#Threats is more serious than filing administrative action against someone.

So regarding WP:HARASS, COM has violated WP:HUSH, if Thejadefalcon edit differences are correct.

The personal attacks:

User_talk:Wizardman/Archive25#Bias.2C_censorship.2C_and_Arbcom "I was just reading about your fellow Arbcom member's sockpuppeteering and POV pushing." Looks like a bad faith comment, but unfortunately, it is similar to many of the comments here directed at COM. If there is no proof of sockpuppeting then it is a personal attack too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChildofMidnight&diff=310733806&oldid=310711181 The nazi comment, is pretty over the top, and should be the center piece of any RFC.

Anyway, COM, I recall now, I think I gave you a barnstar once, over a year ago.

COM, you better start apologizing quickly, and changing your behavior or you will be banned forever. You obviously either (a) have little evidence against those who want you banned or (b) you don't know how to effectively state your case. Since Bigtimepeace, an editor I respect more than almost every editor on Wikipedia, is willing to start a RFC against you, and I have seen your name many times on ANI, it is probably "a". Ikip (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And that apology had better include a full acknowledfgement of your repeated distoriton of fact, at least possibly bordering on outright dishonesty. The claim you objected to my making at 19:16 Decdember 2 here, to the effect of your having given notice, was and remains factually accurate. You gave exactly one notice, six minutes after that posting, here, at 19:22 December 2. Let me make it clear to you CoM. I will not remove factually accurate information regardless of how often you attempt to distort it. Particularly considering that, given the length of time between my making my posting and your finally getting around to do what the page requires, I have every reason to believe that you only made the post after seeing how I had remarked on your failure to do so. If that is true, as I believe it is, then your persistently raising demonstrably false accusations against others for the purpose of hiding your ownn failure to abide by even basic civility is very definitely something that deserve serious consideration.

I also note that CoM persists in justifying this claim, now adding that unspecified comments elsewhere, which were not referenced in the original complaint, are relevant I look forward to seeing diffs of those comments elsewhere which CoM has now decided to include in the complaint, after the first version of his complaint was found to be what I and I believe others consider unsupported by the available evidence. John Carter (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The record is quite clear John Carter. You made an absurd and disruptive claim complaining that I hadn't informed you about a thread that you were already involved in. I responded (as did other editors and admins letting you know you were out of line). I also notified GWH that he was included in the thread. You apparently didn't see the notification, and notified him again (as you've acknowledged on your talk page and is clear from GWH's talk page). You accused me of failing to notify him. I called you out on it because your statement was false. Instead of correcting it you repeated it. I called you out on it again.

You still refused to correct yourself. I reminded you on your talk page that making false claims is a civility violation. You then tried to excuse your incorrect accusations by saying you thought my notification was related to something old even though it's clearly dated. And, as far as I know, you still have not corrected you improper and completely false accusations.

And yet here you are again continuing to make grotesque distortions to cover up your abusive behavior. Please try to do some collegial content contributing instead of going after editors who dare to point out your improper behavior. Lying about the actions of other editors is a clear civility violation as is failing to correct them when they are pointed out to you. Your comments accusing me of not notifying GWH (posted after I had done so and after I had told you I had done so) remain to this very moment, a testament to your failure to comply with our policies. You should be aware that this type of misconduct may be grounds for you losing your tools. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I regret to say hat your comments above display what some might call a lack of contact with reality. I meant not only myself, but also Cirt and GWH, and at the time I said that you had, in fact, contacted no one. Therefore, there was no statement to correct, because the statement was accurate. There was no false claim. I have demonstrated through diffs above that the only person you ever did contact was GWH, and that after the fact of my comment. I did add a comment later in the thread, which in general is how such things are handled. The record is unfortunately become clearer and clearer regarding your behavior here. I and others specifically asked you to provide some evidence to support your as-yet completely unspported allegations for the comments starting this thread. You have pointedly refused to do so, instead once again insisting that reality be adjusted to your convenience after the fact. Regarding your threat regarding my adminship, perhaps if you read this page you will see that I had alreaady asked in that thread to have my conduct reviewed. I in fact asked two other admins, both of whom stated that was no evidence presented to support the claim. I would think, at this point, your primary concern would be regarding your own credibility in these matters, and that would best be served by providing the evidence which has been requested to support your claims against Tarc, which you have yet to provide any evidence to support, making, at this point, two threads you have started to discipline others based on no evidence whatsoever. I would point out, by the way, that I think I got on your enemies list because of blocking you on October 8 for disruptive editing. John Carter (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)