Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive587

I feel the conduct of this admin on the

) 11:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

PBS

notified. Unomi (talk

) 11:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I can't find the article

Terror Bombing or anything like it on PBS's contribution list. Which article are you referring to? GedUK 

11:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I've created another redirect at

Terror Bombing.   pablo_hablo

. 11:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

) 12:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The redirect

Terror Bombing will not help much as to understand what Sherzo is commenting on is to look at Talk:Terror bombing and the history of Terror bombing

. Nothing that I did in the article Terror bombing involved administrative powers.

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

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

That

talk

) 12:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

, and a "nut job" on the article's Talk: page. When challenged for a source for the "fringe, leftist" claim, he has produced this footnote:

She is a member of

9/11 Truth Statement (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633), she is a conspiracy theorist."[1]

The "fringe, leftist" descriptor has been removed by another editor and me several times, and the description of her as a "nut job" on the article Talk: page has been removed by three editors, but he persists in restoring both.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] I brought the mattter to

19:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the process of researching how to request mediation between me and Jayjg. This is the first time I've had to do this so it will most likely take a few days. At any rate, I firmly believe that my edits, with sources, justify the wording I used to describe

Rosemary Ruether

. The sources Jayjg posted above can be consulted, but he left out one which I guess got lost in this edit war. Here it is:

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

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

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

--------

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

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

--------

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

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

Bill, I'm not an editor of the article, I'm an administrator there. As an administrator I'm charged with (among other things) enforcing

WP:BLP, at least twice. Jayjg ^(talk)

21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Just so. Personal characterizations -- especially ones intended as derogatory, such as these -- should be avoided unless they are completely well sourced (for example, saying "XXX is a discredited YYY" requires very strong and highly credible sources saying precisely "discredited"). This applies to article pages as well as talk pages; our policies are that items breaking

WP:BLP must be immediately removed on sight, and are not subject to 3RR restrictions (they may be treated as vandalism.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )}

22:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I assure everyone that I have read

WP:BLP

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

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

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

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

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

DSM-IV. --NellieBly (talk

) 04:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

FisherQueen, I agree with T-85. There is even a wiki article on the term,

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

) 04:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Finally, she claims, according to the wiki article

).

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

I would say that both the 'Truther' and Antisemitism portions should be in the article. You don't have to use descriptors in the intro of the biography, but you can put in subsections that describe the actions. Find reliable sources that cite the fact that she signed the 'Truther' petition and the descriptors they use. You can't link to the truther petition yourself and use your own descriptor, that's

talk

) 04:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

reliable sources that do, in the context of her statements on the topic of the article. No more arguing, just reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk)

05:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When I use the word "leftist", I mean it in the context described by the wiki article

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

) 08:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Exactly right, Horologium. Jayjg ^(talk)

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

I've blocked

) 21:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

If this was a simple judgement of the

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

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

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

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

Thoughts? Advice? Fences&Windows 02:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
p.s. Two related threads on the COI noticeboard:[11][12]

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

talk

) 02:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

and POV-pushing).

Myself and Joy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) tried to reason with him at Talk:1102, attempting to find a brief compromise formulation, however he undermined all the attempts at dispute resolution, reverting all the attempts to mention the event, wanting his way or the highway, and producing toxic atmosphere all around. Please pay attention to his contributions, particularly edit summaries, which reveal battleground mentality, assumption of bad faith, and accusation of other users of nationalism and vandalism. Particularly, please check out this outburst [14].

I think that this went beyond normal means of dispute resolution, and I don't think that an article

) 07:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Kurt,

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

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

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

However EVula did just unblock him:

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

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

I think this needs a bit more from the community at any rate, as it seems that few people are aware of the block. --

// 10:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

For the record: [15]. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

) 12:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A strict topic ban was made back in 2008, that told him to not edit the Wikipedia space. Of course with the ArbCom election, he thought he could start it back up again. Viridae and I have reinstated that topic ban. I did leave a clause that he can discuss the election until January 15. --

flagged revs now!

// 13:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

There was such a discussion, last year:

CBM · talk

) 15:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Tan | 39

15:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was this wheel warring? No. Hiberniantears tried to lend false legitimacy to the block by somehow claiming only ArbCom could overturn it ("nor do I endorse the lifting of this block by any other admin without the approval of ArbCom"). As was pointed out at

.

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

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

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

Kurt wrote above: "As for the ban from project space--it was for three months." The topic ban was formalized by user:Ryan Postlethwaite.[16] He reminded Kurt of it a month later.[17] While Ryan wrote that it could be lifted in the future, I don't see any mention of a three month duration. Could Kurt or someone else please priovide a diff to support that assertion? Otherwise the topic ban is still in effect and may be enforced.   Will Beback  talk  21:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Well he's banned from there now. -

flagged revs now!

// 03:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Hiberniantears weighs in, belatedly

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

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

In the interest of getting it right

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

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

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

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

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

Confirm ban - Already left a note on his talk page to this nature yesterday. --

flagged revs now!

// 04:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Ramin Pourandarjani. I do not support Mr. Weber but do support calm and responsibility. To me, this is a confusing mess that could benefit from a clean slate for January 2010. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk

) 19:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI, for those interested in final warnings, I've given one to Kmweber on his talk page saying that the topic ban is still in place and it will be enforced if he violates it again.[19]   Will Beback  talk  20:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Please review your facts. I placed a formal Wikipedia/talk space ban, I said nothing about all articles. And it's too late for a 1,000th chance, he can either appeal the ban, or accept it and edit articles. There is no point in a "January 2010 test". --

flagged revs now!

// 20:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Confirm WP-space ban. If Kurt is going to insist on arguing this, I'll add to the pile-on support for the restriction. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Confirming the ban. Kwmeber has been using the wikipedia space only to fight his ideological battles, he can do that at some other website. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Confirm. The community has spoken. Durova³⁸⁶

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

. These both have articles themseleves, and the relevant articles give information about which routes they run. I feel that the article on the parent company doesn't need information about which routes they run, 1) because technically they don't run them, and 2) because it is duplicated information which is already covered in a better place. Also, it is just a mass of numbers with no explanation.

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

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

• Tagging the edits as a minor edit when reverting ( [25] )
• Going straight in and issuing warnings at the highest level ([26], [27], [28])
• Reverting without an edit summary ( [29] ) (not too bad but they know what they're doing)

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

• Not signing what they say [30]
• Pretenting they are an adminstrator, and saying that they have blocked Ianmacm [31]
• Removing Ianmacm's replies [32]

I hope something can be done about this. I won't revert

15:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Nev1 (talk

) 16:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:DBaba

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is DBaba's post in full:

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

Hope this helps. DBaba, my experience is you're generally a pretty good guy, but there's a problem with calling other editors racist. Remember the fiasco on

01:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Here are six instances of Debresser using the Undo function to remove cited and neutral text, all from this same article, in the space of one week. [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]

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

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

Apology accepted. But you see, you are doing it again! Now you are accusing me of coming here as "a stunt". You just don't seem to know what

WP:NPA, now those have to be brought here. Debresser (talk

) 20:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't want to encourage this unpleasantness any further, as it's been quite some time now, but I must say I strongly object to the way Debresser is distorting my words. I hope he can understand that the context in which I questioned his judgment had much to do with how creepy and horrible I find it that there is a guy promoting a "terrorist" group's Facebook page on Wikipedia; I was hoping that mentioning that would reorient his priorities, from maligning me to looking out for innocent people who may yet be murdered. I'm not going to do a list of the offenses I ascribe to Debresser, because we are now working positively, forwards, in a spirit of good faith. The bridge is valueless without the water under it. And I do wish you a beautiful holiday, bro. DBaba (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

) 01:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

FYI, my previous comments are here. Rodhullandemu 19:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Are you willing to provide the appropriate diffs to an admin (I'm not one), if so, then please be prepared to do so because this sounds like a simple case of

outing and this user needs some time to sit in the corner and think about what they've done. This isn't possible though without an admin (or more likely someone with higher privileges who you trust with your personal info) actually seeing the issue. As much as sometimes we would like to, Admins can't just act on our word alone. Frmatt (talk

) 16:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

[40], [41] [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All Mr IP has done is made things harder on themselves. If anything, now the page is going to be watched even more closely. I believe the operative term is Plaxico? HalfShadow 19:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

) 19:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You were required to notify him - see the top of this page. I've done that now.

talk

) 19:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, thanks - forgot to do that...

TheRealFennShysa (talk

) 19:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he is Mascot Guy? Just a thought, Mascot Guy loves to edit children's Cartoons. --Rockstonetalk to me! 19:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so - most of this kid's IP ranges (usually beginning in "68." or "208." seem to be originating in Georgia, not San Diego, as Mascot Guy appeared to have.

TheRealFennShysa (talk

) 19:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that StevenMario keeps ignoring the consensus at Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games. The consensus is to say that the review scores have been mostly positive, but Steven has changed it to say mixed reviews on multiple occasions. TJ Spyke 19:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I have read up on MascotGuy, this is definitely not him. His mother has stated that he is a twenty-two year old who is obsessed with fonts and bridges. His mother made no mention of cartoons, and Steven does not seem to have any overlapping interests with Derek, the origin of the whole MascotGuy fiasco. Since Mario also has been around for a few months while editing cartoon-related articles, it is unlikely that his mother would've missed this cue.

) 22:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(not that I try) Can some neutral adminstrators please take a look at the diffs below and explain either to User:Raylopez99 that they are indeed unacceptable, or to me why they are ok? Thanks! [54], [55], [56], [57]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If you argue with him, you get to keep him. --TS 20:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I don't like the style used, which I think is ineffective, I think you have to accept that different people have different styles. He has not really said anything bad. So I don't think the diffs you provided are unacceptable.

This suggests that the problem is as much you as it is him. Stop being upset that some people disagree with your belief. Global warming is not a religion; don't treat it like one. There is no need to burn heretics at the stake.

If you don't like what he says, you can always ignore him.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? "your objectivity is exposed as bankrupt ... You must be like Caesar's wife, not an intellectual prostitute ... but the dagger is in your stomach and twisting around" - you find that acceptable? Sure, I could ignore them, since they are not directed at me (yet). But I would also ignore

WP:CIVIL in the grossest way.--Stephan Schulz (talk

) 21:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

He seems to be trying to get you to snap. He also seems to be a conspiracist when it comes to what goes on here. Just ignore him, but if it escalates, come back and they will deal with it. Also, feel free to let him know that people are usually watched to see if they are famous, so there are very few COIs here.

talk

) 21:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ktrl101's diagnosis matches my own. Ignore him and he'll either go away or escalate in obnoxiousness to the point where something will be done. Hopefully not the latter, because people who get that obsessed usually stuck around. --TS 21:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually going to go with Steve here. That kind of behaviour is grossly uncivil, and merits a 48 hour block for incivility and personal attacks. If he doesn't smarten up from there, increase the blocks. I agree with Ktr101 and TS about disengagement, and would counsel you to address only his behaviour and not the content of his arguments in the future. It would be best to do this in a cool, calm, dispassionate manner. If he finds he can't get a rise out of you, he's likely to mosey on elsewhere. Still, we can't send the message that this kind of behaviour is appropriate, and a small block is justified. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks, harassment and trolling. Vsmith (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to make that block a little longer, possibly permanently. --Calton | Talk 02:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

vandalizims check his edits William the Braveheart (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Revision history of Mario Party just look —Preceding unsigned comment added by William the Braveheart (talk • contribs) 21:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Warned user. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

He only blanked the page once, per [58]. A warning will suffice, which I will hand out. Otherwise, there is nothing worrisome with this user.

talk

) 21:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fastily won.

talk

) 21:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

:D -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the first edit of an account usually a report to ANI? Fences&Windows 22:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Was thinking to shout Plaxico, but I'll let it be. SirFozzie (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Subject user has made legal threats [59] [60] [61] on

23:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's not lose sight of the big picture. A quick look at the history of the article in question shows that almost all of the edits have been by Zensurfer, Zensurfer2 or Zensurfer3 - probably not too much of a stretch to say that they are related. Zensurfer may be close to the subject of the article, and thus aware of the real impact of SolidSnake1884's vandalism. Given Zensurfer's limited exposure across Wikipedia, I suspect that he/she isn't aware of WP:NLT. A gentle reminder on the editor's talk page should be enough, and I'll go do that now. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Too late :( Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I had a discussion on

- Afkatk 03:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Complaining about someone is incivility"? Yikes. I'm no fan of our current civility standards, but that's got to be one of the most pernicious statements on civility I've ever seen made outright on-wiki. I see nothing in

WP:CIV

to support this statement; in fact, it directly contravenes that policy:

From

WP:CIV

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

This is the sort of statement that can be used to justify overzealous enforcement of standards not applicable to the given situation, or to skew sanction discussions in directions they weren't ever meant to go. Please, in the light of what

WP:CIV actually says, please reconsider this stance. Thanks...GJC

20:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yes 2/3rds do seem against me but that still does not make any justification for blocking me, I don't see in what universe of logic it makes sense to block someone because they've brought an incident here.

Not a Talk Page

) ^{- Afkatk} 10:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

People have asked for more evidence, and I can not give that at the moment since I don't know where anymore is, though I am sure it exists. I would rather TJ not be blocked out of the kindness of my heart, however, his constant disruptions have turned my hand. I would like for more users who know TJ to get involved in this discussion. Would anyone mind if I was to contact

WP:PW, the project which is primarily participates, about this discussion, to allow more users to give their opinion?--WillC

10:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just because he wasn't banned for two years doesn't mean he was reformed. There has been at least 4 ANI discussions about him (besides the ones linked above) just in the past few months. here[66] [67] [68][69] are several just from October. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Because

Talkie Talk

- Afkatk 00:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This actually brings up a related issue. If someone doesn't edit here, they have no right to host a userpage here. --

) 15:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is why

WP:MFD exists. Collect (talk

) 15:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I was bold and removed the categories and interwiki's that are intended for articles only. (

) 16:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Something still needs to be done about this page. Wikipedia isn't a free webhosting service. If someone doesn't edit here, they have no right to host a userpage here. The page should be blanked. If the user decides to edit, they're welcome to create a proper userpage, one that doesn't pretend to be a mainspace article with unsourced content about someone else. --

) 06:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate forum for this discussion. I'm moving this discussion to the miscellaneous village pump), specifically Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Okay, hands up anyone who wants to discuss...... Happy holidays! --MZMcBride (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

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

• [70]
• [71]
• [72]
• [73]

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

You gotta admit "WikiNazi Watermelon" has a nice surrealistic ring to it, but... yeah.

talk

) 15:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

That would end up in some ways as a triple alliteration ... I assume they were going for the WikiNazi Watermelon prevaricative putz double play. (

BWilkins ←track

) 15:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a winner for "least persuasive unblock request of the year"... [74] -- ChrisO (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

National socialism combined with eco-socialism? That makes absolutely no sense! –MuZemike

17:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course it does. Us fascist communists even have

talk

) 23:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The sickle and the can opener??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it...if not...what is it? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

See Fasces. Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Drake600 (talk · contribs) has been a registered editor for almost a year. In that time he has created a number of promotional company stubs, all of which have been inevitably speedied - his talk page is just a string of speedy deletion notices. Out of almost 300 contributions, only around ten are actually legit. Even worse, he is prone to hoaxes - inserting false information, usually "Anton Vassilenko" (his own name?) as a key person in company articles, several of which I found while writing this report [75], [76], [77], [78] (some as IP's, 195.250.188.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 81.25.246.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). Quick googling shows that "Anton Vassilenko" is a guy in his twenties from Narva, not a worldwide famous CEO/composer. Some of the hoaxes have successfully been in articles since the start of 2009.

His latest creation - One-M-Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - had a look of legit company; if I hadn't been familiar with the user (and his fixation on word "Montek") I might have passed it as a legit article. Even the company home page looks nice and professional - and you have to dig deeper to realize it is just a standard Joomla installation on a free webhost.

As Drake600 is obviously just a throwaway account, there is little point to block him. IP's are dynamic and require just a cable modem reboot to change. Adding filters for "Anton Vassilenko" would be good, but Montek is a common Indian name. So I am at loss of what we can do.

--Sander Säde 09:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is that one issue of sockpuppetry, which might be worthy of an sockpuppet investigation. Otherwise he needs to be warned or blocked for disruptive editing.

) 14:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd support an indefinite block for this account, they were warned and blocked for creating such articles in July, but have persisted. Fences&Windows 15:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed,and so blocked. Not marking this resolved, though based on the other issues raised. Jclemens (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I found a plagarism concern and am not sure how to proceed.

Comparing the article

. I found some identical text and other pieces of text that are almost the same with only some superficial changes. The A&M article appears to be original work (it even cites various references which the WP article does not) so I have no reason to think that that author copied from WP. I have left comments about this on the talk page.

What should be done?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first question is whether it represents

copyright infringement, which must be handled immediately. When the article was created, [79], it was substantially more similar to that external source. The article was created in June, 2005, but the oldest archive is February 2007 for the external site. That doesn't mean we didn't copy it from them. Evidence strongly suggests we did, as they would have had to have taken the text from us in the first month of its creation, before it was substantially changed: [80]. There is nothing at that external site to indicate it is not copyrighted; copyright is presumptive. Though the article has been changed, it seems likely to be an unauthorized derivative work. When copying is blatant, we tag with {{db-g12}}. When it isn't, we use {{subst:copyvio}} and list it for closure at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. This permits time for verification of compatible license or for interested contributors to salvage the article with new content in temporary space. I'll tag this one pending clarification. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

16:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Legendary Sky Attacker

Resolved

 – The police are looking into it, hopefully they can take care of this. —

ark

// 14:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing more to do until he requests unblock.

Please take a look at User talk:The Legendary Sky Attacker. My actions there are on advice from the Samaritans who I have been in contact with by telephone. If there is anything else I should be doing, please let me know, by e-mail if necessary. SpinningSpark 10:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Er, it says he has a heart condition. There's no suggestion of suicide or anything, why lock it down and/or contact the Samaritans? ( BWilkins ←track ) 10:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC) "I am going to end it here".  GARDEN  10:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Hmm, where I come from that means "I'm going to stop posting on Wikipedia", based on the context. Those suggesting suicide say "end it all". ( BWilkins ←track ) 10:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC) The fact that he knows he "won't see another Christmas Day"... but whatever. I'm not going to threaten his dignity by continuing this discussion.  GARDEN  10:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC) I think what's more of an indignity is if someone was told by their Doctor that their heart is not going to make it (as per the same talkpage), and someone assumes their parting message (although possibly cryptic) is one of suicide and locks their talkpage down. That's a long-lasting tribute, isn't it. ( BWilkins ←track ) 10:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Whatever.  GARDEN  11:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC) I left a note on his talk page, that gave him condolences if it is something he can't prevent, and if he's thinking about suicide to call me. I think this is a rather dignified way of trying to help out. — ark // 11:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Is there any way to contact the local authorities? Do we know where he lives? -- ark // 10:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC) I'm trying to contact a Checkuser at the moment. It's best if we take this as a possible suicide threat, just to be safe. -- ark // 11:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC) I am tending to interpret this as terminally ill and not suicidal, however, I see where people are concerned about ambiguity. The best-practices essay at WP:SUICIDE basically says that if anyone feels it may be suicide, they can act by reporting to authorities. If this concerns you, report it. I would recommend contacting the user in email to ask their side of the story, if you're also contacting authorities. Georgewilliamherbert (talk ) 11:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC) The only problem we're running into right now is contacting him. He doesn't have email set, and there are no checkusers to get a hold of his IP. I'm well aware of how to try to handle suicides, per the Air Force trying to give us a lot of training on that. — ark // 11:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC) For what it's worth, this is a person who is either school-aged or who has at times edited from a school. He's not in the US or UK. I would be willing to release the country and city to a trusted admin who is willing to contact the authorities, but the IP itself will only be released to the proper authorities. You can email me via special:emailuser. Thatcher 12:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC) I'm currently contacting the authorities. -- ark // 12:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC) NOOOOOO! WHAT ARE YOU DOING? DON'T MAKE SUCH A FUSS! There is absolutley nothing that can be done. I am NOT suicidal. I have a heart failure (A MEDICAL CONDITION) and there is nothing that can be done. DON'T CONTACT ANYBODY! THIS IS A PRIVATE REAL LIFE ISSUE! The only reason I posted on my talk page was for the sole puropse of explaining my soon-forever absense from Wikipedia. An above post was right. I am not going to make it! PLEASE if you have contacted any authorities call it off. They are wasting their time. You are wasting your time. It is not worth fussing over. I am in a severe medical state and I'm going to have two days left to live. THAT IS IT! NOTHING ELSE! I don't want everone stressing over this. It will just be a sudden heart failure and my real life people will take care of the fussing. Can someone please supress this section. Permanantly delete all the edits. There is no need for this.-- Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 20:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Blocked I hate to inform everyone, but either this account was compromised or this is just ark // 23:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC) This is why contacting the police is almost always a bad idea, and blocking or ignoring is almost always a good idea. Prodego talk 02:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC) I think it was still a good call to play it safe. For lack of a better term, "play it safe, just in case". Ks0stm (T•C•G) 04:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC) It's not such a bad idea to call the cops. It might make things a little more real for the guy. Meanwhile, he apparently pulled this same stunt in October. Maybe he's got longer than he thinks. Like the one about the guy whose doctor gave him six months to live. The guy couldn't pay his bills, so the doctor gave him another six months. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC) As noted in WP:SUICIDE - Police really don't mind making such visits and finding out nothing is really wrong. They'd much rather do ten of those type of visits than the one where nobody bothered to make a call and someone's dead now. Not everyone agrees with this, but that's ok. We don't need to turn Wikipedia into a nanny state. We just need enough of us to use good judgement and be willing to dig a bit and respond if something worries us enough. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Is the account really compromised? It doesn't look like it to me. Do we block users for being attention seekers? (though I do note the essay WP:NOTTHERAPY) What about the request from Sky Attacker above (before being blocked) to suppress this whole episode? Fences&Windows 13:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Suppression works on some very specific terms, and I don't think this is one of them. I think the best move here is to simply let it go. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC) He told the police he didn't make the edits, so there is a possibility of a compromised account. We don't suppress everything people want suppressed, this definitely does not deserve suppression, and we don't know if that's him asking for it to be suppressed anyway. -- ark // 14:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Fences and Windows--I read that "request" as either a) the compromiser of the account trying to keep Sky from finding out his account was hijacked--nothing more informative than to have the police knock on your door and tell you you've supposedly got two days to live, per the Internet--or b) Sky himself, reluctant to have real life intrude on his plan for a WP-only pity-fest. I mean, it's one thing to have people grieving all over your user page; it's something else entirely to have the cops come to your house about it. (Also, to Throwaway and Coffee--I don't think F&W meant "suppress" in the Wiki sense; I think it was being used like the rest of the world uses it, as in "to gloss over the whole issue".) GJC 15:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC) I did mean 'suppress' in the Wikipedia sense: I wasn't advocating for it, I was just raising it as we've had the police arrive at someone's house, so I wondered whether the request for privacy should be honoured. As for denying to the police having made edits, if the police arrived at my door asking about my editing of Wikipedia I might not tell them the truth, especially if it was embarrassing. I'm guessing Gladys' scenario B is the more likely, especially as they dramatically 'left' Wikipedia once already in October. Anyhow, Sky Attacker can try to explain and request an unblock on their talk page if they wish, so we can probably archive this. Fences&Windows 15:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC) (outdent) Yes, archive ASAP. Which is more embarassing: making an unclear statement that was intepreted as an intent to self-mutilate having the cops come by and talk to you and your mom about editing Wikipedia perhaps having a real heart condition that now is being looked at as maybe/maybe not real Perhaps we should just collapse this entire thread and let it fade until SkyAttacker shows their face again. ( BWilkins ←track ) 16:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Drake600 (talk · contribs) has been a registered editor for almost a year. In that time he has created a number of promotional company stubs, all of which have been inevitably speedied - his talk page is just a string of speedy deletion notices. Out of almost 300 contributions, only around ten are actually legit. Even worse, he is prone to hoaxes - inserting false information, usually "Anton Vassilenko" (his own name?) as a key person in company articles, several of which I found while writing this report [81], [82], [83], [84] (some as IP's, 195.250.188.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 81.25.246.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). Quick googling shows that "Anton Vassilenko" is a guy in his twenties from Narva, not a worldwide famous CEO/composer. Some of the hoaxes have successfully been in articles since the start of 2009.

His latest creation - One-M-Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - had a look of legit company; if I hadn't been familiar with the user (and his fixation on word "Montek") I might have passed it as a legit article. Even the company home page looks nice and professional - and you have to dig deeper to realize it is just a standard Joomla installation on a free webhost.

As Drake600 is obviously just a throwaway account, there is little point to block him. IP's are dynamic and require just a cable modem reboot to change. Adding filters for "Anton Vassilenko" would be good, but Montek is a common Indian name. So I am at loss of what we can do.

--Sander Säde 09:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is that one issue of sockpuppetry, which might be worthy of an sockpuppet investigation. Otherwise he needs to be warned or blocked for disruptive editing.

) 14:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd support an indefinite block for this account, they were warned and blocked for creating such articles in July, but have persisted. Fences&Windows 15:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed,and so blocked. Not marking this resolved, though based on the other issues raised. Jclemens (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I found a plagarism concern and am not sure how to proceed.

Comparing the article

. I found some identical text and other pieces of text that are almost the same with only some superficial changes. The A&M article appears to be original work (it even cites various references which the WP article does not) so I have no reason to think that that author copied from WP. I have left comments about this on the talk page.

What should be done?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first question is whether it represents

copyright infringement, which must be handled immediately. When the article was created, [85], it was substantially more similar to that external source. The article was created in June, 2005, but the oldest archive is February 2007 for the external site. That doesn't mean we didn't copy it from them. Evidence strongly suggests we did, as they would have had to have taken the text from us in the first month of its creation, before it was substantially changed: [86]. There is nothing at that external site to indicate it is not copyrighted; copyright is presumptive. Though the article has been changed, it seems likely to be an unauthorized derivative work. When copying is blatant, we tag with {{db-g12}}. When it isn't, we use {{subst:copyvio}} and list it for closure at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. This permits time for verification of compatible license or for interested contributors to salvage the article with new content in temporary space. I'll tag this one pending clarification. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

16:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Banned user on a rampage - Urgent action needed

The contribs log and edit summaries says it all [87]. This is a sock of banned

) 20:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Give him a 'range block'. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked some accounts / IPs. Bit early for a rangeblock yet, but it's possible - Alison ^❤ 21:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Every day it's the same thing. He just hops to another 151.57 IP and starts again. Yesterday it was this one [90], tomorrow it will be another one. I don't think anything other than a rangeblock will do. --

talk

) 21:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There, he's at it again [91]. --

talk

) 21:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that he's seen this report, it'll likely increase. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not produce some sort of edit filter that prevents any edit from being made with a certain string of words that he likes to place in the edit summary?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Like "Gayreece" - that's actually really lame :( - Alison ^❤ 21:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say it, but I don't think anyone needs to write "Gayree*" ever on the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙

) 21:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. Apparently Gayree is a woman's first name. Maybe one of them will become notable... - Wikidemon (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Softblocking 151.57.128.0/17 for a few weeks. See how it goes - Alison ^❤ 21:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Not unusual behavior for this sort of creature. Frankly, all they're doing by proxy-hopping is giving us more proxies to block. HalfShadow 21:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So when I went to block, I discovered that it just came from a 6-month softblock, hence the mayhem. 6 months re-instated, so - Alison ^❤ 21:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In early December,

) 17:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Relevant related discussions:

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

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

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

It began as a content dispute, and content is still at the heart of it, but the issue now seems to be a refusal by

original research. This suggests that User:Jojhutton is either unfamiliar with or is misinterpreting what is meant by "original research" or is providing a deliberately misleading edit summary. Neither is acceptable. "United States" was first added to Marilyn Monroe's infobox when the infobox was included with this edit in April 2006. (Admittedly as "Los Angeles, United States" which is not correct either). Since April 2006 this has not been a contentious point, and it is only a contentious point now because one editor has decided it's not appropriate. I believe that due to widespread use, support by infobox template instructions, and the fact the some of Wikipedia's best articles use the country name in the infobox, there is a consensus to say that it is acceptable, and anyone wanting to add this to the infobox should not feel hindered - but there is no such evidence to support the removal. It is currently, as you say, an issue primarily between two editors, and a small issue, but when User:Jojhutton first started this about a week ago, he got a response from several editors who seem to have moved on now that he is not making such widespread edits. I would have too, if not for the Marilyn Monroe edit which shows that he has not accepted the other viewpoint, and has put the change through with a dodgy edit summary. I would hope that is the last time that happens. Rossrs (talk

) 23:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Dismissive" is one way to describe it, but given the accusatory and ridiculing tone in some of Jojhutton's comments, "dismissive" is probably the most tactful way of describing his approach. His frustration is duly noted. I also note the frustration of those that have attempted to discuss this with him. Regarding the earlier comment : "If consensus is clear in a particular area (say, articles about airports, or an infobox, where counter to my earlier statement, a small group of editors maintaining that particular template or family of templates can establish consensus for how the location fields are to be used) and an editor violates that after objections, it could cross the line into tendentious editing." That was exactly what he was doing with some of the actor related infoboxes despite the fact the the infobox itself, supported by

WP:ACTOR says that for birth and death place the format is city,state,country. Jojhutton removes and reverts against this consensus and the clearly expressed opposition of several editors - this is a behavioural issue which stems from a content/style issue. If Jojhutton can accept that there is a community based consensus to allow the use of country as acceptable -not preferred, not mandatory, not standard - just acceptable, there won't be a problem. If he can also accept that removing against the objections of other editors is unacceptable, again there will be no problem. That's what we've been trying and failing to achieve over the last week or so. I believe Jojhutton has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, but I'm not as confident as he seems to be that he has all the answers on this topic. Rossrs (talk

) 06:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the discussion started here on ANI just yesterday, Jojhutton has continued his practice by removing "United States" from more than 20 articles about places in California, once again citing

) 19:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

As others have already pointed out, Jojhutton cites the

Place

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

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

The addition to the FAQ on his talk page, made while this discussion is taking place, does not inspire an assumption of good faith. The FAQ seems to anticipate another stream of questions and complaints. The link to this : "This archived discussion at

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. His talk page is his business, but the FAQ hasn't been added for decoration. It's a shame to be talking about an editor rather than to an editor, but when an editor appears to have withdrawn from the discussion when there are still things to be resolved, it doesn't leave a lot of choice. Rossrs (talk

) 08:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I love how people are always claiming Americans are geographically ignorant, but won't allow the removal of "US" from place names on the grounds that people outside of the US don't know where American cities are located. They attack Americans for wanting to label things like

USA (for example) on the grounds that nobody outside of the US could possibly know that Texas is in the US. Woogee (talk

) 22:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I was hoping you were joking GRuban. I've never even heard of Nunavut. At least one other person took you seriously. Kinda funny :-) Rossrs (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be funny, Rossrs, except that this situation is still continuing. GRuban, with hindsight, it's obvious that you were joking, and I'm sorry I misinterpreted it at the time; I think it was partly because of the association with Jojhutton's behavior, as well as the comment that preceded your joke. It's hard to understand why an editor would continue making these edits under these circumstances, yet it's happening, and as Rossrs mentions, the editor continues to avoid any substantive discussion, and continues to cite

WP:PLACE in his FAQ. Omnedon (talk

) 13:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed Jojhutton's continuing cuts too. :( Various editors have asked him to refrain from continuing, have pointed out that WP:Place (which he always cites) doesn't cover them, and certainly doesn't mandate them. I've tried twice politely on his talk page to make the point that there isn't consensus on this, that carrying on while there's active contention isn't helpful, but to no avail. Despite already receiving a 3RR warning on this exact issue, he still restores the cuts if anyone tries to undo them. Advice anyone? Thanks Huwmanbeing ☀★ 23:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

) 15:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Some clear harassment there with intent to continue in this. "Men ni kommer inte få nån God jul om jag inte får nån avblockering. Jag kommer att tjata och tjata tills du avblockerara mig....Gå och avblockera mig eller sänk min blockering om ni vill ha en god jul." Roughly translated: "But you will not get a Merry Christmas if I am not unblocked. I will nag and nag until you unblock me .... go and unblock me or lower my block if you want a happy Christmas." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at his history here, I have blocked him for harassment. This block is for 24 hours, but should likely be lengthened if he resumes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

He is now showing the same beaviour on english wikipeda as he did on swedish. With long monoluges demanding unblocking. Ghostrider (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he will get the message this time, although notes like this aren't promising (still with the threats to nag and nag). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Easily sorted, just revoke his talk page privilege if he continues to nag. Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the time for that just came? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostrider (talk • contribs) 20:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've indefblocked him and protected his talk page. Enough is enough. Theresa Knott | token threats 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a month-long backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves; apologies if this has been mentioned before but I thought someone better be informed :) GiantSnowman 23:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

On

) 23:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked for 48 hours with a block note explaining and asking him to review

WP:C. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

00:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

user:JamesBWatson won't leave my user subpage alone

there's a large chicken, begins with k or maybe c. A bit like a poussin is a small chicken. What is it I think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.128.159 (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Have a browse of Category:Chicken - but ANI is not the place for these types of questions, sorry! Have a look at Wikipedia:Reference desk instead. GiantSnowman 02:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia community - this is the page where administrators try to resolve issues with Wikipedia itself. Try the ref desk if you have a more general question about a subject, but remember that Wikipedia is not an off topic help desk. - I.M.S. (talk

) 02:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Best. ANI. Thread. EVAR! -- Scjessey (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Cochin? Doesn't look like it. This chicken is too white.... hmmm... -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Polishbantamchick.jpgThis thread makes me very sad. I am a small chicken and yet I matter too. If you prick me do I not squawk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.163.199 (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Here, for example, is a Texas-sized chicken: [98] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they're trying to say there's a chicken on the loose in article space, and we need an administrator to catch it. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Friedchickenbreast.jpg resolved

Hello again

I know this was marked resolved but thought I should let you know have found the word I'm looking for - it's a capon.

This could be a problem:

04:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Doubtful, but we should probably delete all of Schoolboy098 (talk · contribs)'s uploads (no copyright tags, and various other reasons).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm not at home now, I honestly do not want avast! saying "caution caution a freaking virus is being downloaded your computer might just blow up" like it did in this case in this AfD:

“	Comment – Link removed - indication the link was infected with HTML/Iframe.B.Gen virus ttonyb (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Comment: avast! caught that bugger in the process of downloading it as well. I would've posted it if it weren't for the edit conflicts. ConCompS (Talk to me) 01:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)	”
— ttonyb and me commenting on that freaking virus in the link that was removed

Does anyone want:

“	caution caution a freaking virus has been freaking detected that might blow your computer up	”
— avast! complaining about the virus, emphasis added, quote is not exact

this or something similar? If it blocks your connection, just freaking disable your AV software for a second, delete it, re-enable, you're good to go. And Fastily, what AV do you use? ConCompS (Talk to me) 05:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I think I'd rather not delete it until a user with an IT background or anyone who knows how to deal with this kind of stuff takes a look at it; frankly, I'd rather not see my computer not blow up either. I use Norton. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, never mind. Thanks for getting it fixed. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Deleted, as unused, unknown (MS Word ?) non-image file. Haven't checked the users other uploads. Abecedare (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And I wasn't the one fixing it Fastily, it was another admin... whatever. ConCompS (Talk to me) 05:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There was another similar incident recently, see this archive. Honestly, there's no legitimate reason for uploaded images to contain iframe markup, so we ought to be sanitizing it automatically, or else blocking uploads that seem to contain such things. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

To all concerned, I hope there's no hard feelings. Never intended for it to be a debate, just a procedural matter. Happy editing all! Throwaway85 (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

See the history [101] user:biantez, a notorious vandal in pt.wiki [102], because, impositin POV in many articles of carnival. Example, remove valid information., include information with reliable sources. Quintinense (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I see the large content removals, but it's been 2 days since last attempt so any action now might be considered punitive and the user does have a lot of good contributions. At the very least an edit summary needs to be left or it naturally looks suspicious. Haven't been any previous official warnings... admin check and further opinions welcomed. Without past warnings and no clear incivility on our Wikipedia, my unofficial opinion would be a warning... level 3-ish on removal of content? ♪

(talk)

08:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive 1: a user claims that I am making legal threats. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You're in the clear, I'm pretty sure. From the nutshell of

WP:NLT: "A polite report of a legal problem such as defamation or copyright infringement is not a threat and will be acted on quickly." You're not threatening anyone to sue (as you state there, you wouldn't have standing anyway), you're just pointing out that their actions could be considered libelous. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY]

08:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Aye. That's not a legal threat by *any* stretch of the imagination. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 08:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

not vandalism?. So people can just do that repeatedly? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding AFD tags, I believe if you warned the user not to do so (instead of general anti-vandalism tags) they would have stopped, as they did now. Materialscientist (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The 'socking to do so' part is, as yet, unconfirmed, and new users remove AfD templates all the time, thinking it will have the same affect as removing a PROD or CSD tag, especially when the article was prodded and they removed that template. It seems perfectly possible to me at this stage that they are separate users.

Additionally, it would have been much more helpful to try to communicate with the user(s) more effectively than templating them accusing them of vandalism when removal of AfD templates does not immediately seem to be vandalism to most inexperienced users; a message saying 'Please don't remove AfD templates as this will not stop the discussion, and may be considered vandalism'.

Thirdly, it's also a shame that you chose to come straight here rather than engage me on my talk page first. GedUK  09:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the message itself clearly states "do not remove". Secondly, if it is not vandalism, then you're saying *I* have violated 3RR - no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, user did so again, after your friendly message. I'll leave it to you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yo admins? My mate Terry wants to edit this site as well, but we use the same computer? Are we allowed to edit/vote twice in threads like on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.15.254 (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You can do that, but I would discourage against voting as there are things called

talk

) 03:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Or, you could register accounts and then you could each edit with an account and not have to worry about things like sockpuppets! Frmatt (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It also probably wouldn't hurt to declare that you guys aren't sockpuppets of each other. A good way to back this up is to not go into discussions and vote the same way.

talk

) 03:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Suppose we did want to vote on the same issue the same way. Couldn't we make it quicker by just signing once and putting vote x 2 or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.15.254 (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates on

voting. There is no strong reason to sign a "vote x2". I echo the response, suggesting that you each create an account and declare that you are not affiliated with each other, but note that what you are referring to "votes" are discussions, not votes, and that what you say is far more important than whether you say "support", "oppose", or otherwise. --Shirik (talk

) 04:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how it is that an IP's very first edit is to come to this page and raise this question. Although he's at least being honest about it instead of just doing it. Ironically, unless he gets into contentious editing, it's unlikely anyone would know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

whats a sockpuppet? I don't like the sound of it whatever it is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.15.254 (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A

Sockpuppet is a user who creates more than one account in order to sway opinion and consensus about something on wikipedia in their direction. If you click on the blue word "Sockpuppet", you can find out more info. Frmatt (talk

) 04:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If two people are of the same mind, does their vote get discounted accordingly? What if someone's right and left hemispheres are not well connected? They get to vote twice? If I truly feel I am not the same person I was yesterday may I vote again? - Wikidemon (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it, I can show you what happens to suspected socks

talk

) 04:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

  bsmithme 

04:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, lots of this advice is going around in circles. If you and your friend edit from the same computer, but wish to use different accounts, that's fine. Actually, it would be helpful to do so, since it is harder to tell you two appart when you both edit from the same IP address. Each of you can create an account, just place a prominent notice on each of your userpages which makes it clear that the two of you share a computer, and that will head off any accusations of problems. You can safely vote in the same discussions, edit the same articles, whatever, as long as everyone knows up front what is going on, we can

assume each of you is working in "good faith". Just make a prominent declaration of the connection, and all will be fine. --Jayron32

04:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Also suggest that you two sometimes edit from other places. Do you two have jobs or go to school apart? If you sometimes edit from there, and the other guy never edits from there, that is evidence of non-sockpuppetry. Also helps if now and then you two are editing at the same time (once could be a set up but doing that often is pretty strong evidence that you're not the same person.)--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A user that I see is banned from editing Eastern European pages for one year is involved in the discussion on the

talk page.

There is a lot of Eastern European content on that page.

I am simply seeking clarification.

AGF, so I don't want to say any more for now.

Thanks.

DHooke1973 (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd think it'd be obvious, given that the Soviet Union—mostly the SSRs near the Iron Curtain, but the RSFSR too—does fall under the blanket term of "Eastern European". Sceptre ^(talk) 08:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

For reference for the admin resolving this, could you maybe give a few diffs, user and link to sanctions? I know a number recently have been banned from certain aspects and articles per ArbCom, but not sure of all details for all persons. This being why a link would be good. ♪

(talk)

08:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

According to an arbitrator, topics about global ideology are not covered by the topic ban. Also, initiator of the thread seems to be in an content dispute with one of the topic-banned editors. --Sander Säde 08:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue that this could fall either way. Is the article designed or talk posted geared toward how Communist regimes engage in mass killings and why? ...or is it examples, definitions and history of and in the Soviet Union in particular? First would be ideology, later would be a specific matter. I'm entirely indifferent, but there's at least a little gray area here. ♪

(talk)

08:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I simply want to ensure that all editors at that page are editing in good faith. Anyone with a strong ideological bias that will not be shifted by the evidence is going to make it very difficult to reach consensus.

It's because I'm in a content discussion that I want the clarification. No point talking to someone who has already decided not to listen. I want to make sure it isn't the case.

It's both, Datheisen. How, why, definitions, and lots of examples and history of various Communist regimes.

[103]

Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Union_of_Soviet_Socialist_Republics

[104]

DHooke1973 (talk) 09:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as Civility is upheld and some good faith is kept, I can see it as okay... but point of the topic bans were to avoid endless

(talk)

09:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

) 10:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I'm not up to speed with protocol. I've been overwhelmed with bureaucracy and intrigue since I signed up. You don't keep your Talk page public so what's the point of me posting on it? I was actually trying not to name you, just seek clarification on the rule.

No, I wouldn't just ask you, and I'll tell you why:

AGF is something asked of the community. Frankly, I haven't had a chance to feel like part of the community. It's been dodgy since I joined up. If you feel I'm treating you unfairly, Martin, then it would be because I was blocked as a sockpuppet on decidedly ropey grounds and someone recommends that all my contributions on the Talk page be deleted! A significant number of editors I come across have project Estonia or an Estonian image on their user pages, which is kind of weird, only because none of the pages I am editing are about Estonia. I say to myself I'm just being paranoid. Then I find out about this cabal EEML. And you are involved.

I'm sorry, it stinks. NO-ONE ASSUMED GOOD FAITH WITH ME. Bang - blocked. If you're a victim of my circumspection, then you have my sympathy. Hopefully we can open this right up and clear the air.

I have AGF with all editors on the

Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

page, but I am reserving it outside that. Quite frankly I would be insane to do anything else.

Now, we are specifically talking about two famines on that page atm, one of which was in the Soviet Union. Looking at the comment you part-quoted, I honestly don't know why you are within one hundred miles of that page.

"What is understood is that editing Communism positively or critically is not restricted, forbidden or whatever while editing the Soviet Union's topics themselves are among the restricted ones. In fact, the restrictions cover —among other topics— everything to do with the Soviet Union and the Soviet Communism and their relationship with Eastern Europe's cultures and politics.

Chinese communism or Communism in Angola

can be edited freely without violating the spirit of the restrictions. The spirit of the restriction is to end or at least limit the heated atmosphere and the battleground mentality around the topics that involve Russia and its neighbors -both historically and politically."

DHooke1973 (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a "they disagree, so I will find any process to disqualify them"-type situation. I suggest that any editor with any desire to see how the process is working in the article make a fair reading of the article talk page. The article deals with a great deal more than just Eastern Europe, to be sure. Collect (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

With the wider scope of the article, okay, it's likely out of the bounds of ArbCom's ruling. I'd still make a case that this isn't at all in the spirit of ArbCom's good faith in taking extra care in separating out users for different sanctions, and it's almost

(talk)

14:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

To Whom it May Concern,

The article Medieval Warm Period was mentioned on this website, and since that day, there have been a flood of edits, out of character with the amount of editing of the article prior to the publication of the website's article 19 December). I checked the talk page and there is no mention of this. But I thought I'd let you guys know, because I've seen on other pages that there is a banner on the talk page that says if an article was mentioned on another website. Anyways, that might be the cause of the recent edits to the article (it's currently locked).--72.178.133.37 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That website is also on Digg's front page titled "How WIkipedia's Green Doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles".--72.178.133.37 (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue has already been addressed in several places including here and here.Falcon8765 (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added it to the talk page. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I decide to write this WP:ANI because DIREKTOR made fun of SirFloyd once more, ignoring my requests of changing his way of talking one more time.

. He keeps assuming their bad faith and he keeps teasing them, using provokingly language towards them. Even if many users have pointed out to him that they felt offended by his way of talking he keeps refusing apologising or at least changing his way of talking towards them. He keeps de-legitimating other users sources too even if they are from academics saying that the passages which may be perceived as critical towards Tiro (in his user page he says he supports "Josip Broz Tito's views") are based on fascist authors even if it isn’t true (for example “Heh, lol. Unsurprisingly, the source of that is Borivoje Karapandžić, a well known Ljotićevac ("Ljotić-ist"), a Serbian fascist. I'll get back to you on him”). ”). See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito) in the “unsourced”, “Hoping you're not just deleting passages”, “Encyclopaedia Britannica/BBC UK-History”,”This article is an embarrassment to the free Western world”, “This week in the news”, “Question” and “A week at the Tito article” sections. He keeps refusing confrontation too (for example “Enough of this nonsense”). He keeps calling User:AP1929 an Ustase (which is an insult, as Ustase are generally portrayed as criminals) for example when he, out of nothing, says the other users to “be advised that User:AP1929 is a well known Ustaše POV-pusher” in order to de-legitimate his comments, he keeps saying AP1929 edits because of a “political agenda”, he keeps assuming his bad faith accusing him of trying to deceive people (“you are either mentally unable to grasp … or, which seems more likely, you are trying to deceive people here”) and of pushing “incredible nonsense”. He keeps acting like this even if User:AP1929 says “I am highly insulted by several things DIREKTOR has produced right here on this very page” and he didn’t apologise. He admits "I find it personally hard to work in such a environment". He keeps accusing User:Sir_Floyd of editing because of a “political agenda” too (“you're intent on adding unrelated information to push a political agenda”), of being “simply unable to comprehend” “as always”, of “keep(ing) on pushing your POV” (“User:Sir Floyd added his standard cherry-picked quotes”), assuming his bad faith too. He keeps making fun of him (“Ah, User:Sir Floyd talks of "offensive behavior" and "productivity"”). He keeps acting like this even if User:Sir_Floyd says “I agree! It's offensive and it's not productive” and “Good one Mr Director, insulting the whole Croatian people (& Kosovo) to the core. This time you have gone too far. In order to clear this up, can you please explain your comment” and he didn’t clear his comment nor he apologise. He keeps making fun of other users (me, Sir_Floyd, AP1929 and User:ShadowRangerRIT by adding brief comments -to other users’comments- like “LoL” and “Heh, always fun”). He keeps accusing me editing because of a “agenda” too, saying my “criticism is nonsensical” when I asked to him why he deleted passages without transporting them elsewhere. He keeps assuming my bad faith too (“I see my unavoidable temporary absence was exploited to full effect”,” Its not "collaboration" (you seek) if you just insert your POV because I'm away”,” you just added the tags after pieces of text you disliked”) accusing me of “undecency” (a thing which I paticularly think it’s offensive) and threatening me of deleting my edits (“You may rest assured that 90% of the undiscussed POV edits you quickly sneaked in will be promptly reverted”), even if my edits were only insertions of requests for citations and the transportation of quotes to wikiquote. To understand the situation maybe you can see here too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive583#Incipient_edit_war_at_Josip_Broz_Tito, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive584#User:AlasdairGreen27_trolling_once_more_2 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive586#Legal_threats_by_User:AP1929). In the first (and last till now) WP:ANI I opened I discovered users here on en.wiki thought articles on the Balkans should be avoided and that they were considered battlefields from two opposite groups of users, pushing their POVs. As you can see from the WP:ANI above they may be right. However, even if the discussion is often harsh there (to my surprise) this fact mustn’t justify a behavior contrary to wikipedia policies. When an user makes me understood that one comment I made could be perceived as offensive towards DIREKTOR I apologised to DIREKTOR on Tito’s talk page and on his talk page. So it is possible not to be unpolite on those articles. Then why can’t he use a different way of talking, like other users are trying to do? Why hasn’t he apologise like I do? Why has he made fun of my way of talking because of its politeness? Why i keep writing on the talk page what i have changed in order for others to question my edits and he can’t? Why when I told him “Can't we discuss instead?” does he have to make fun of me (“I'm sad that you're so sad. :)”,” He'll get what he wants apologizing all the way”,” Its a mad house, a maaad house”) even if I pointed out a lot of times to him that I was offended by his way of talking (“Telling to another user he/she has not behaved in a decent way is offensive, even if you put a smile after it. Can you please stop talking this way to me? Maybe you think it's not offensive to write that way, but i feel offended. Thanks”,” keep ignoring my request to stop talking to me like this, because saying "He'll get what he wants apologizing all the way" and "Its a mad house, a maaad house" or calling other users "Ustase guy" (as the Ustase are generally portrayed as criminals) is offensive and irritating, as you are teasing and making fun of me and of other users by saying those kind of things. Please use another way of talking towards me and the others. Thanks.”)? . The fact that this WP:ANI deals with a Balkan article shouldn’t make this WP:ANI different from any other WP:ANI. The fact that an old user (DIREKTOR) is involved shouldn’t have to justify his behavior too as he hasn’t gained a sort of immunity because of the numbers of its edits. I hope you’ll do something. Even if it is restricting all users involved in this and the previous WP:ANIs on the same article from writing on it for a year or more, as the situation as to be solved. Thanks. --) 00:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr. This should get some kind of prize. Mathsci (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The user obviously needs a warning, and I would suggest a block only if he kept this up. For some reason, I want to think his account is compromised, as this seems to be a lot from such an accomplished user.

talk

) 01:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, if someone actually bothers to check these quotes one can easily notice that there is nothing malicious in these comments, at all. A warning for not matching the painful politeness of the other guy? Do I really have to go through these quotes one by one?

To save some poor soul the trouble of going through all this, the gist is: 1) I have not even come close to insulting anyone, 2) User:AndreaFox2 is annoyed by informal conversation, and 3) the fellow is trying to get me banned for daring to oppose his edits, by cherry-picking perfectly benign comments and presenting them in a "sinister" context. The trouble he faces is that despite his best efforts its still plainly obvious there is no malice in them at all. --

TALK

) 01:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of turning out "manipulative" or something, I'll still say I am confident no serious Wikipedian will be deceived by this collection of out-of-context quotes. I deal with controversial issues, there's a lot of guys trying to get me banned so they'd have free reign over these obscure Balkans articles. A reminder: no insults have been presented here. WP:NPA has not been violated. 01:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)--

TALK

)

I withdraw the statement above, as no one else has complained here. I guess one can get ticked off, but I'll remain neutral and suggest that you get a trouting instead.

talk

) 01:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I deserve it. I wasn't being as careful as I should've been with this guy. Apparently he'll manipulate my words whenever he gets a chance. Best make sure he does not get one. --

TALK

) 01:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing to watch how this DIREKTOR goes away with his disruptions each and every time. "his account is compromised", "out-of-context quotes" etc etc. yeah right. whats next? the dog eat his homework?  Dr. Loosmark  02:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, it looks like it'll work eventually. If these guys just keep posting nonsense reports like this eventually it'll look like I "get away with it every time". I suppose it only a matter of time before one of these ridiculous-type reports eventually gets me blocked. After all, it wouldn't be "fair" if I "got away with" every single report, would it?

Guys, I'm not "getting away" with anything - there is practically nothing to get away with. Please, please look carefully at these sort of cunning traps before making a decision, please look at every one separately, and please bear in mind there's a lot of weekend-editor guys here who want to push the POV of their petty Balkans faction - a lot of people want me banned and will write-up the equivalent of War and Peace here if they think it'll do the job. Over here, the people who just want everyone to get along are a minority. --

TALK

) 02:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Every time everybody else is pushing their POV while you are the objective protector of the NPOV.  Dr. Loosmark  02:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What can I say at this point? You're making an assessment of my neutrality based solely on the number of nonsense posts that have been flung at me. What do I say to that? Study-up on ex-Yugoslav history and then investigate my edits?

All I can tell you is that I have so far been attacked by supporters from every single Balkans faction - Serbs, Croats (I'm a Croat), Albanians, Bosniaks, and even Italians, and that it seems like all I ever do is keep screaming: "show me the sources". --

TALK

) 02:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, the only thing I find amazing is that every time someone complains about DIREKTOR, you appear and complain about how he gets off easier than you. Just let it go, not everyone's situation is the same.

DIREKTOR, some of those comments weren't the most

civil, I hope you admit that. But there's nothing actionable that I can see. Just don't throw gasoline on the fire if you can help it. -- Atama頭

03:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You're making an assessment of my neutrality based solely on the number of nonsense posts that have been flung at me. Not at all. I have checked some of your edits the last time you were a "guest" on this board and I have to say that I have noticed a certain type of self-rightness which annoys a lot of people. Mind I'm not saying that some of those editors with whom you interact aren't nationalistic POV pushers, they are. Still your constant cries that you are attacked by all those factions is over the top. Not everybody who disagrees with you is a nationalist attacking you.
@Atama indeed not everyone's situation is the same. Had I done 10% of the stuff we have seen in this report I'd be blocked already. But let's not go into that.  Dr. Loosmark  03:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

@Dr. Loosmark. I've seen guys get blocked or even banned on a whim or without the situation being properly addressed, I'm sorry if that happened in your case, and I hope you realize its something I'm actually trying to avoid. You should probably keep in mind that I'm working in the "Balkans department", "the trenches" as AlisdairGreen27 calls it. Proper civility is rare. Which brings me to my next reply

@Atama. Of course I admit it, but I was obviously being careful not to take things too far. I can only say again that its taken out of context. A few half-joking comments on someone's habit of unnecessarily apologizing in every post is nothing compared to some of the stuff being dished out there. Just for example, I've been accused on two occasions of insulting my own country, and all sorts of other crazy nonsense... --

TALK

) 03:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"half-joking comments on someone's habit" hmmm.  Dr. Loosmark  16:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(TLDR) It is you AndreaFox2 that should have been banned long time ago under the Balkans policy for extreme PoV pushing on the Tito article. Last time I checked it 95% of your "references" were removed because they were cherry-picked defamatory quotes you intentionally twisted to make Tito look as bad as possible. Now you want to take revenge on DIREKTOR because he's one of the last normal guys that has enough patience to deal with your ilk. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I still think my TLDR tag was appropriate. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is strange he is "one of the last normal (are you saying i am "unnormal"?) guys that has enough patience to deal with your ilk" as i have written on Tito's page only starting from few weeks ago (two weeks exactly, if i remember correctly). I "should have been banned": why? Because I disagree with you? Do you understand that i'm reporting exactly your type of behavior, which is aggressive and offessive even if you haven't been provokated? You forgot to say that you and DIREKTOR were the ones deleting them. If you have something to report about my behavior you should have to open a WP:ANI about me: there, not here, you can discuss about my behavior. --

talk

) 18:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Administrator attention likely needed

DIREKTOR puts up with a ridiculous amount of BS over on Balkans related articles. Does he always react to it perfectly? No, but rarely is he the instigator. If you look at DIREKTOR's history on AN/I you'll find a string of POV pushers who bring him here that are inevitably indef blocked or banned for said pushing or for socking. It's a frustrating area to edit in, and if anything he should be commended for putting up with so much crap. He'll likely end up at ArbCom at some point, and likely we'll see an expansion of

20:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

He does have his own uber-NPOV POV of sorts (see

ping

04:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Here he is edit-warring once again deleting NPOV edits (mostly citation tags) from other users even if his behavior is being questioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josip_Broz_Tito&action=history. Here he is talking about an other user in Slavic (Croat?)and he admits he follows his contributions to delete them ("I've undone most of the damage by following his contribs, this has to stop"):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DIREKTOR#Mljet.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29. Here he refuses to change his behavior:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DIREKTOR#Sorry.2C_but_it_seemed_necessary_to_me.Here is an example of how users thinks "that the wiki works better when you stay away from and don't disturb the editor Direktor": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sir_Floyd. As it isn't the first time he is being reported for the same things, maybe something should be done, like the proposal i made in my first comment. --

talk

) 17:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

To keep out the potential socks & newbies. Those articles-in-question should be (and remain) semi-protected (including the respective talkpages). GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

@Atama: here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito#Foibe) you see he and an other user were the instigators of what happened later --

talk

) 17:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

P.s. He even admitted making "half-joking comments on someone's habit" ... --

talk

) 17:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User:AndreaFox2, I see you really are doing your absolute best to get me blocked. Either that or you're trying to ruin my holidays (and not just mine). You're even going around calling in anyone you think may support you. [105] I expect we may hear from User:AP1929, as "he was mentioned". I might consider mentioning all my buddies on Wiki too, so that I may canvass as well. And yes, I admit, in my opinion you apologize too much - you caught me. I said you would "get what you want apologizing all the way". This is what the "half-joking remark on someone's habit" was. I apologize for the personal attack. If you require therapy to get over it, I'm willing to cover the expenses (that was another :).

I am trying, as I was then, to lighten the mood of the overly-serious conversation. There was nothing at all malicious in my comment, I suspect all this is is an attempt to win a dispute by getting the other guy out of the way. --

TALK

) 18:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks that way to me too. AniMate 18:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you finally admitted you personally attack me(I apologize for the personal attack): i would have accepted your apology if you wouldn't have add "If you require therapy to get over it, I'm willing to cover the expenses". "this is is an attempt to win a dispute by getting the other guy out of the way", "Looks that way to me too": i'm not proposing DIREKTOR to be blocked, i explicity said since the very first comment i propose a restrinciton on some users from writing on a precise article. --AndreaFox (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it perchance the "precise" article where I dared to oppose your (unsourced) edits? I rest my case. --

TALK

) 19:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It is the precise article where, for example, you blanked a section (introduced by another user) without any explanation (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josip_Broz_Tito&action=history), you had keeped refusing discussion over edits and where you deleted references tags (claiming they were "unsourced") inserted by me and other users to unsourced passages. Can you explain to me how can a reference tag be considered "unsourced"? Naturally, this is a rhetorical question. Do you really believe I want to win a dispute about the insertion of refs tags? Do you think this position of yours is believable? I could had understand your position if we were discussing about the insertion of a passage, about its deletion, ... but we were discussing about refs tags ... --

talk

) 19:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

AndreaFox2, the outcome you want isn't going to be achieved here, especially since this is mainly a content dispute. I doubt you're going to find an administrator here willing to restrict DIREKTOR from the Tito article in order for you to get your preferred version. I suggest filing an

21:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing's going to happen here; end the drama and write articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:PCHS-NJROTC seems to have a particular interest in what they refer to as "cheerleader vandals". They have seem to have decided that there is a ring of "cheerleader vandals" who spread their message via secret "chain letters". PCHS-NJROTC has recently added a banned user template to User:LBHS Cheerleader, the account which they seem to believe is the ringleader, despite having only 11 edits. The edit summary was "Has been banned for a while, ought to be tagged". LBHS Cheerleader does indeed appear on the list of banned users, because PCHS-NJROTC added them. When I asked PCHS-NJROTC about this, their responses were somewhat evasive. Apparently there was no community discussion of a ban nor any decision to ban this user. I am concerned that a user has been improperly labeled as "banned", based on the somewhat dubious decree of a single editor. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC) No worries, it's already been settled. Not officially banned, taken off the banned list, template removed, issue resolved. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 04:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Just be to clear, LBHS is indef banned: 19:18, 28 January 2008 Philippe (talk | contribs | block) blocked LBHS Cheerleader (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Vandalism-only account). — Huntster (t @ c) 04:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Did you perhaps mean to write "blocked"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC) No, seriously, I'd not letting a troll win this by convincing a user that I am "power hungry," so unless admins here seriously think there's a need for an "official ban," let this one drop as simple vandalism for my sake. The vandals will be blocked one way or another anyway unless they behave and contructively contribute, in which case there's no reason to hold their past against them in my opinion. I feel as if the general community has been very supportive of my efforts to fight this particular vandal, but I'm done with them entirely. This is not worth my good name. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 04:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC) You may have misunderstood why I brought this here. You declared a user to be banned when they weren't and then you dissembled when asked about it. Apparently there were other accounts affected by this, based on your actions since this thread started. Edits like this are not appropriate even if you suspect someone of being a vandal. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Fine, I quit, since you're going to try to persue action over something I was never warned about, and occured when I was practically a newbie, after I chose not to run checkuser on your account. Bye Wikipedia. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 04:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC) One person complains about you, no one else backs him up, and you quit within 4 messages? Wow. --Golbez (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC) I quit because this is not the first time I've been sanctioned over this kind of mess. I realize I am imperfect, and I tried to handle this within reason, but I will not be sanctioned because of a troll, which is why DC is being so... unreasonable? This was not over 4 messages. I hope this point is heard loud and clear. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 04:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC) If I may butt in where it is really none of my business, I don't feel that Delicious carbuncle is being at all unreasonable. In fact he could of been much more direct in his communication, and told you quite plainly that you are way out of line putting banned messages on any pages. Beach drifter (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Indef blocks where no admin is willing to unblock is pretty much a ban. Since the vandal keeps coming back under new accounts, we're tossing the socks as we find them. PCHS-NJROTC is familiar with the long term abuse and for ease of processing, tags the account(s) as banned. Not seeing the problem here. Shell babelfish 04:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Take a look at this SPI case. Absent the bogeyman of "cheerleader vandals" why did User:Jess Selders 2012 get indef blocked? A 2 minute Google search show that there is a Jessica Selders at Charlotte High. Let's not get into this bans are just blocks etc bullshit. PCHS-NJROTC is quickly undoing all of their edits relating to this "ban", so I think they see the problem. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC) It's over DC. Someone block my account at my request please, that way this discussion can just be closed and forgotten. I feel I have seriously wasted my time with certain elements of this project. For the record, just because Jessica Selders is a real person doesn't mean she has the right to edit. Are you trying to say that LBHS Cheerleader is a robot? Seriously... PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 05:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC) As my last request, I would like a full blown sockpuppet investigation on DC; I think more than ever now that he is the same as the Cricket IP user troll. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 05:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC) I think you've made my point for me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC) I believe they're undoing it because you've continued to push the issue despite it being clear that PCHS-NJROTC really isn't doing anything but defending the 'pedia from rather long term abuse. PCHS hasn't blocked any of these accounts and has used appropriate channels. Laying this on one editor's doorstep with some rather nasty accusations and hyperbole might just be the real problem here. BTW editors interested in playing around rather than contributing have been known to use real names before, even one's that aren't their own (shocking, isn't it) - that's hardly an indication of good will given the contributions of that account. Shell babelfish 05:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Exactly. What if Jessica Selders wasn't even responsible for that, and she got into some real life "crap" over it all? Wouldn't that just be special? I reverted everything to sastisfy you, which was evidently a waste. No, undoing everything like that right now in order to "hide" something would be stupid, and I sincerely hope you don't really see me as that ignorant. You're probably going to be nailed for AGF among other things. You have this entirely backwards, and you're just mad that I made a big deal about the name issue. Bye. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 05:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC) I lied that I'm done with this entirely; I'm going to, with approval of the community, try to find that person on Myspace or Facebook and personally and calmly, politely ask her if she was responsible (and may I add she most likely was not), and if not, I personally feel the username needs to be changed and her edits be oversighted. Of course, that will be my last contributions to this project, although I'm having second thoughts if the community isn't going to unreasonable as DC has. But only if. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 05:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC) In short, I realize it looks kind of silly that I'm leaving this over one person. It's not that I can't handle it, it's not that it's just this, it's that I need a break from the drama. I realize I have a lot of support here, and probably some opposition too. Fact is, I know just being the subject of a report here hurts one's reputation no matter how outlandish (unless it's blatant abuse, where it gets reverted immediately), and I feel it's time to seriously take a Wikibreak or even retire to cool down this stigma that has been brought upon me. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 05:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Hey, don't worry about it, anyone who doesn't take the time to look and see what happened doesn't matter. See you later. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Removed the retirement templates so that the IP troll won't see "victory" and try it with other users. Bascially, I have to continue to contribute now just so the troll don't get his wish. DC wouldn't even satisfy with that anyway. I restored the entry at LTA because it appears consenus that consenus has been in my favor here. But I'm done fighting LBHS Cheerleader. I never lost my cool or anything; I only wanted to settle the dispute. See, when it comes to legitimate users, I prefer to settle issues without getting into a lot of heat. Sigh, guess I'd never pass an RfA, but who needs RfA anyway? Darn, all of this to try to stop baseing everything on a possible link to another banned user, what a misunderstanding this has been. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 06:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Dude. When you start talking in terms of "you" and "them" and using words like "victory", you are limit the time and extent of the impact on mainspace and wait for them to grow bored. No one is served by your flaring up. Protonk (talk ) 07:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Restarting serious discussion There is a real issue here seems to have been lost under a torrent of emotional outbursts. An editor who had made a total of 11 edits (assuming there are no deleted edits) was indef blocked for what is very run-of-the-mill vandalism. That isn't abnormal. Having a single editor -- who seems to be on some kind of crusade relating to the high school which they attend -- decide that they are banned, is abnormal. The "a ban is just a block that no one is willing to lift" argument is a false equivalency, since we don't add all blocked accounts to a page which states "Banning is different from blocking". From what I have seen of the "cheerleader vandal" threat, it is nothing more or less than simple vandalism and it is unproductive to elevate it to anything more. It seems likely to me that IPs and accounts have been blocked on spurious grounds because PCHS-NJROTC has associated them with this bogeyman. Certainly labeling users such as User:Random Chick236 as "banned" when they are not even blocked is wholly inappropriate (as is the edit summary "Give up kid, you're not funny. Try being contructive for a change"). Can we deal with the issue (unilateral declarations of bans by a single, overly-involved user) now, please? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC) A user who has edits that solely consist of blanking articles on various high schools and replacing them with a message that praises his/her own school and does so consistently and with several possible alternate accounts after the original is blocked seems to be an indefinite block candidate to me, especially when subsequent sockpuppet accounts deliberately vandalize and attempt delete articles on rival schools. Whether it is right or wrong to label a de facto banned user as banned is besides the point.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Without having confirmed it, I suspect that PCHS-NJROTC personally identified most of those as sockpuppets, just as they decided that certain users were "banned". Take a look at User:Monsterbob234. PCHS-NJROTC added the sockpuppet template and "Hello to you to, here's my welcome wagon unwelcome wagon:" and the edit summary "Go to hell pollywog". The user appears to have made exactly one edit that is at all related to cheerleading. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not suggesting that this particular usage should be unblocked since they appear to be a vandalism only account, but I doubt they are a sockpuppet of User:LBHS Cheerleader and I don't think the message or edit summary were appropriate. Do you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC) DC, although some of what you say about being "tag happy" may be true, you must see how holding what happened over a year ago (before my grandmother's death even for goodness sake) is unreasonable. I'm sure there's actions you took as a newbie that you would not take at present because of experience. I have learned a lot since then, but I cannot go back and erase my "renegade, tag happy vandal fighting" past. More recent cases have been blatantly obvious. Jess Selders 2012 was not just blocked because of a random sockpuppetry accusation, but rather because there was a pattern of abuse, and because CheerleaderAgainstROTCFacism jumped in the middle of the discussion, pretty much proving my point. Now lets WP:AGF, say the latter wasn't the same person, the Jess Selders account actually belonged to Jessica Selders, and Jess only wanted to help the project. If that's the case, it should be the troll behind CARF on trial here, not me. If the two accounts are not linked, Jess was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. If JS was indeed responsible for Jess Selders 2012 (and there's a significant chance that she was not), and she wants her name cleared of the sockpuppetry stigma, then she needs to request a username change. If the real person is not responsible, then I imagine she'd want the username changed so that her name is not involved in all of this. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 20:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC) In my opinion you have manufactured a false threat of "cheerleader vandals" which you have used to have editors blocked for small amounts of simple vandalism. I could be wrong, but I have seen no evidence that any such group exists, or is a cause for concern if they do exist. Your histrionic message in this SPI case is ripe with speculation (and includes the all-caps "THESE GIRLS ARE RELENTLESS TROLLS AND NEED NOT BE FED!"). In that rant, you again asserted that User:LBHS Cheerleader was banned when you said "So does the "wiki-love" for those who (unknowing of their ban) give them a second chance". Editors can look at the details of the SPI case themselves, I'm not interested in getting sidetracked by going into the details. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC) It seems that consensus is that DC is making a mountain out of a mole hill here, and I'm sure you can all agree that I've been completely reasonable in the handleing of this case aside from contemplating retirement. Actually, retirement, along with my removal of all references to the user in question being banned, was all no more than a failed attempt to compromise. No emotions, no anger, just an attempt to compromise. Thought if I left just like that he'd have been satisfied. It seems as if I have set DC on fire when I challeged his disclosure of my real life name in a WP:BOLD, which is encouraged here, and I didn't discuss it first because I wanted to WP:Deny recognition. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Whoever this LBHSC person is, she is not Bobabobabo. Bobabobabo edit warred over anime episode list articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC) PCHS-NJROTC, I got involved in this issue only because I watchlisted User:LBHS Cheerleader's page after you made some frankly bizarre accusations on my talk page and elsewhere. For your sake, I won't link to them directly, but the discussion is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Delicious_carbuncle#WP:VILLAGE here]. I believe you know that what you did was wrong and I believe you lied about it in our initial discussion because you knew that. Your subsequent actions suggest that you are trying as hard as you can to get out of this without admitting that. I think it's too late for that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC) I don't know that PCHS's concerns were not real. I am not saying that you did or did not correctly guess his first name there, but if someone posted MY real first name in an on-wiki discussion about me or with me, I'd be a little disturbed and confused myself. This is beginning to look more and more like a personal battle, and I think both sides need to disengage and return to neutral corners. There does not appear to be much to be gained here, and its getting nasty in both directions. I'm not sure any admin action is appropriate here, but the entire mess looks just like personal sniping, and not much more. --Jayron32 21:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC) I used a very common male first name in an example of trivial vandalism during a discussion with PCHS-NJROTC (which was my first encounter with them). PCHS-NJROTC claims that it is their first name. I will assume good faith and assume that it is, but I have repeatedly said that I did not, and do not, know their name, so it was not deliberately chosen. That they now believe that I am a meatpuppet of the "cheerleader vandals" should speak to their eagerness to find connections where none are likely to exist. This isn't personal. I'm not here complaining about possible personal attacks or esoteric content disputes - PCHS-NJROTC unilaterally decided that another user was banned, used that label to influence block on likely uninvolved users, reverted edits of at least one user (who wasn't even blocked) as a banned user based on their mistaken identification as a sockpuppet of the original target. I have absolutely no stake in this or any influence over the actions of any of the parties. At the very least a clear statement from a clueful admin condemning their actions is required, but I would suggest that a topic ban on vandalism would be wise. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Topic ban? That's sillyness; talk about "cool down blocks" and being counter productive. No, just let it drop as half of what you're rehashing is ancient anyway, and did I mention that there was a checkuser in all of this way back when? In fact, the very term "cheerleader vandal" was not my invention, but rather that of WP:ArbCom, has pointed out that you are in the wrong DC. Perhaps we should topic ban DC from AN/I? I personally think a topic ban on anyone would be counter productive here, and frankly, count me out as a contributer to the project if the suggestion even comes close to being seriously considered. There's a reason why administrative action should not be taken on either side of these kind of heated matters, and it's because such actions make matters worse. I am completely done with this; this is a waste of the admins' time. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 04:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC) (e/c)Thank you for making my point here for me Jayron. As I was saying... Right, I now agree that it is a longshot that LBHSC is Bobabobabo; the basis behind the speculation was the fact that she was going by the name "Jessica" (in multiple incidents), and begging everybody like Boba, but the modus operandi was completely different. However, I see that some people were basing decisions on this "possibility," so I decided that something had to be done to halt the mistaken specualtion being referenced to as fact. Trying to get out of this? No, I'm not in anything, and I really feel it is inappropriate that you made a subsection implying that arguements against you was not "serious discussion." Do you honestly think you could deal with the trolls better than I have? Note that not all "cheerleader vandals" are LBHS Cheerleader, a fact that I acknowledge. Bizzare accusations? For one, I cannot stand to see you attempt to "stick up" for a blatant troll, regardless of whether (s)he's a sock. Random harassment is not something that I'm used to seeing just "happen" out of no where. Off-wiki, people claiming to be cheerleaders from LBH have behaved in much the same way Mr. Cricket has, which is why I suggested the possiblity. Some of these LBHSC trolls have said off-wiki that they used to be admins/established users much the same way as Mr. Cricket. It's pretty obvious that Mr. Cricket is not a current cheerleader at LBH, however, because Cricket is not a carrier in Florida. To cut to the chase, what do you intend to accomplish with this thread? Revenge? Help for a troll? A name for yourself? Victory? Some kind of punative action towards me? What policies have I violated? What is your point? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 22:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Per Jayron, I propose a speedy closure of this fiasco. I'm trying to keep my cool here and make peace; DC needs to do the same. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 22:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC) This is somewhat off topic, but I managed to find this "Jessica Selders" on Myspace.com, and the original text that the user added to her user page is a direct copy and paste from the "about me" section of her profile. If the vandal was not actually Jessica Selders, then it was a copyright violation. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 00:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Not important. Stop looking too far into this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC) I'm done with this discussion anyway; I just thought that would be interesting food for thought for anyone following this issue. I've called for closure of this discussion, and I hereby disassociate myself from this pointless debate. Have a Merry Christmas. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Ending discussion My major incivility issues that DC have pointed out are ancient history and have disappeared in the last year. Any incivility I've demonstrated in more recent time have been no more than what is typically demonstrated by the average vandal fighter. Vandal fighters are human; they are not going to by "nicey nice" 100% of the time; you might see the occasional "grow up" or "why can't you just be constructive" comment from me aimed at a vandal, but I've come a long way from telling people "go to hell pollywog." Heck, I've even tried to stray away from telling people "grow up" for fear of controversy. The ancient issues were already addressed. I really find it ironic that DC can't be forgiving of an established users' past, yet he expects us to be perfect angels when it comes to dealing with people like WP:AGFed with DC's posting of my name, but everyone must see the heat my questioning of the post has caused, and that an IP troll saw it as a perfect time to get all of this nonsense brewed. Anyone who fuels this debate fuels the hopes and dreams of an IP editor who calls User:McSly a "flaming homosexual," [106] his own ISP's staff "outsourced sandniggers," [107] and me a "retarded rotc dork" [108] aka Hitler Youth [109] who is power hungry and lives in a double-wide [110]. Why are we discussing this? I cannot help but think that DC is simply mad, and I think the best solution is to just axe this whole discussion now. "Not looking good" as an edit summary? The IP editor, who hadn't edited anything related to me in a while, comes in out of no where and bad mouths me right when DC and I are in a discussion, and DC takes him seriously? DC references to my name (reportedly unintentionally, which I'll accept) about a month after the IP troll did the same? Now DC is on some kind of man hunt to basically get me in trouble after I PO'd him and his IP friend? Put two and two together here AN/I. I'm not saying DC is a sockmaster, but something awefully funny is going on here. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 04:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC) I think many people are feeling somewhat uncomfortable getting involved with this. I certainly would prefer not to, but I will say that it seems to me that Delicious Carbuncle asked a fair and simple question. What has transpired after that seems solely due to the manner in which PCHS-NJROTC responded. Delicious Carbuncle has certainly not deserved to be served with rambling, accusatory screeds which seem to fail to address the substance of DC's queries while ascribe to DC accusations which I have not seen him make. And no, what is going on here is not funny by a longshot, awful, definitely. Unomi (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Without having read everything, This is my view. User PCHS-NJROTC has made some mistakes, the majority of them seems to be in the past, and he has learned from them. I suggest that this AN/I will serve as sufficient "punishment" for his old issues. I agree that it does seem suspicious that DC was pushed the issue, after P-ROTC has tried to resolve this issue, however there is no evidence that the user is in violation of policy. I suggest that this AN/I serve as a warning to both parties, and thats it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC) PCHS-NJROTC added a banned user template to User:LBHS Cheerleader on 19 December, so this has little to do with their history of abusive comments although it does show a pattern. You need to read the entire thread before offering opinions such as those above. What is it you think I need to be "warned" about? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC) There is no requirement for me to read an entire discussion. IAC, what I did see however, is a user admit that he made mistakes, and indicated an understanding of those problems. When the user became aware that their recent edit was disruptive, as in the discussion here, the user removed the template, without prompting, which shows good faith on his part. What I think you need to be warned about, is that when a user shows good faith in that his actions were not intended to harm anyone or damage the encyclopedia, you should lay off. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC) There is no requirement to read an entire discussion? That is enlightening. In that case, having not acquainted myself with the facts, it is quite clearly obvious that you are wrong on several points, for reasons which I do not think it is worth going into here. Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC) May I point out, since it appears that one of my comments was misread, that I did not litterally mean any of this is "funny," but rather, I meant "suspicious." Issues at AN/I are always affected by the response from the involved party(s); had I responded with "f*** you losers" as some users have in past discussions I'd have been blocked without question for showing bad faith, so blaming anything on my response is not a valid arguement. I believe that Sephiroth storm's point is that DC needs to assume good faith as I had removed all references to the apparent "ban" as soon as they were questioned here as an offered settlement. I also pledged to disassociate myself with the trolling issue, which I will hold true to aside from reverting blatant vandalism where I naturally see it and issuing standard warnings levels one through four. Is any of this official business really needed? If LBHS Cheerleader apparently shouldn't be officially banned for "simple vandalism," why should a legitimate user be officially topic banned after he has already agreed to disassociate himself? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 16:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Allow me to express myself one last time... I will not have my name here (PCHS-NJROTC) tarnished over some IP troll giving an established user ideas to go looking for "power hunger" in my history of edits. Period. Done. Already decided. Please, speedy closure, please. I will not be topic banned or otherwise sanctioned; anyone seriously thinking of imposing sanctions is going to have to permaban User:Vandal Fighter Killed in Action from Wikipedia entirely if they think this is worth a ban. I do have a right to vanish, and as to go through any kind of "punishment" (which isn't something I believe in on-wiki as actions are supposed to be preventative), I would just assume vanish forever. That's what the talks of retirement were about. Sanctions could be troublesome for me in real life, and it's not worth the risk to go through all of this for a troll. May I add that a ban from this would probably be a quite unpopular movement. Anyway, I don't care; if it's that serious, change my name, and then ban me, but disassociate all of my actions from the name "PCHS-NJROTC" if that's your course of action. I do, however, doubt that this will happen since there's no consensus to do it. This is not "pouting;" this is my true opinion. Have I not made myself clear I want nothing further to do with this or LBHS Cheerleader? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 00:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Resolution I've dragged this back out of the archives to get some resolution. PCHS-NJROTC seems to have put a metaphorical gun to their own head and threatened to shoot themselves if anyone tried to get too close, but that doesn't do anything to address the issue. I am not sure why admins seem so reluctant to get involved with what seems fairly cut-and-dried to me. Is it ok for users to unilaterally claim other users are banned? If it is, I've got some people I think I will add to the banned list. If it isn't, what do you want to do about it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC) The answer, as I'm sure you well know, is that only ArbCom or the community can ban a user, not a single individual (well, except for Jimbo Wales). PCHS-NJROTC screwed up, but he's no doubt learned the difference between a ban and a block by now – and he let the issue drop. I suggest you do the same. A Stop at Willoughby (talk ) 04:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC) I think there was a recent case where an admin assumed community support and unilaterally banned a user, but that is not terribly relevant here. Why do you assume PCHS-NJROTC has learned anything from this? I haven't seen any clear admission that they did anything wrong. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC) I offer settlement in the case, offer to disassociate myself with the LBHSC case, and learn not to be too WP:BOLD in any situation; basically, I've learned that pretty much everything needs to be thoroughly discussed before any action is taken beyond normal procedure. My error was assuming a ban because others had cited a ban when dealing with the user. Although I merely was trying to be bold and put an end in the groundless assumption that LBHSC was Bobabobabo just because I speculated that they might be linked, I was wrong. Admission to wrong doing is always a bad idea (except when praying to God); investigation comes to a halt with confession, and usually the person who offers confession is hammered. Despite, I have now given you what you want; I have spelled it out in bold letters for you. Now, can you move on now please? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 19:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC) I hate to say this, but your explanation doesn't add up. If you thought that LBHS Cheerleader was a sockpuppet of banned user User:Bobabobabo, why did you remove the {{sockpuppet|Bobabobabo}} tag when you added the {{Banned user}} tag? And your very next edit was to dispute the connection between the two accounts and label them as a "meatpuppet ring" (the dreaded "cheerleader vandals", I assume). When I asked you about LBHS Cheerleader's "ban", you told me "It's a sockmaster who is banned by consensus" and "...I've decided to just pull the Bobabobabo tag and throw in an independant ban on LBHS Cheerleader". I don't think you are doing much for your credibility here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC) I once saw a possible connection, but I felt that since there was no actual technical evidence that it was inappropriate for people to base any action on the possible link. The modus operandi in the article space was different, as was the geographical location, my basis was that they both went by the name Jessica and they both had a habit of begging. The idea was to stop people from assuming despite the lack of technical evidence. I thought just shifting the assumed ban to LBHSC directly would be the ideal course of action, but you're right that I should have discussed it first. I'm sure you will agree that it was inappropriate for people to be automatically assuming a ban under Boba when that was just an untested hypothesis rather than a conclusion. This being said without any knowledge of who DC is in real life or what he does for a living, DC, you should be an attorney if your not one, although I'm not sure if you'd be a better defense attorney (because it seems you're doing a good job defending LBHSC here) or a prosecutor (because of your skill at getting people to confess "I was wrong." If you're wondering, that's a compliment for your skills demonstrated here. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 19:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC) The consensus I referenced to was where people seemed to be saying "oh, there's no reason to ban this one individually; lets instead use the Boba ban against her." I personally disagree with that as there's no technical evidence. Don't you? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 19:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Just so everyone is clear on this, I am not defending User:LBHS Cheerleader, I am merely questioning the unilateral imposition of a ban on this user by another, deeply involved, user. LBHS Cheerleader is indef blocked and will remain indef blocked after this thread is wrapped up. I have questioned the basis of the block for User:Jess Selders 2012, but I see little point in unblocking now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC) there is something more serious that seems not to have been noticed: the earlier statement of PCHS-NJROTC: "I'm going to, with approval of the community, try to find that person on Myspace or Facebook and personally and calmly, politely ask her if she was responsible " and a later statement of theirs that they did precisely that: track down the person on Myspace, and extensive speculation about whether a particular named girl at a particular high school is responsible. To me, this is OUTing, or attempted OUTing, for either of which we normally block. As far as I know, the community does not give its approval" to things like this. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC) First of all, I would like to state that I believe it was wrong for DC to drag this back out, this is my OPINION, it indicates a possible Conflict of interest. As far as the above goes, it is troubling, I would suggest talking to the user, I think he is aware his actions were not in line with our policies. Sephiroth storm (talk ) 06:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC) I don't believe that PCHS-NJROTC is interested in further discussion on the matter. Unomi (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC) What possible "conflict of interest" could I have here? PCHS-NJROTC has made it very clear that they would like the issue to be dropped, but the fact remains that there has been no clear statement about this from any admins. Nor have I seen a clear statement from PCHS-NJROTC that they believe that what they did was wrong. I'm sorry to belabour this, but rather than avoiding the issue, let's settle this and move on. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Admins have been all over this DC. Furthermore, WP:OUTING? I didn't give out anybody's information, and as far as actually carrying out the proposed action of simply asking if it was her, and if she wanted everything oversighted, that was a proposed course of action; I did not actually contact anybody or ask any questions, and would not have without significant community support for the proposal. DC was responsible for just as much OUTing as I was in the matter by going on Google and finding her to be a real person through search results. I asked first, DC did not, and now we have linked to personal information about a "Jessica Selders" all thanks to User:Delicious carbuncle and his despirate desire to get sanctions imposed on me. Who's really OUTing people here? Also of note is that DC has been blocked for OUTing. The block was later lifted, but I believe he could be showing a rather nasty pattern of it. He posted my name, which was apparently unintentional, and then he posted a link to JS's personal, real life information. DC, you keep reviving this discussion, and you obviously seek punishment in the matter. As to why I want closure of the discussion, it's because as soon as my actions were challenged, I went in and removed references to the de facto "ban" and indicated my further disassociation with the issue, and you're still not satisfied DC. Quite frankly, I feel threatened here. I AGFed when DC wrote my name in a discussion, which was apparently unintentional. DC has failed to AGF when I stated my further disassociation with the LBHSC case, which in case wasn't clear, see [111]. If admins apparently couldn't agree on a ban on LBHSC, what makes you think they'll agree on any sort of ban on me? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 15:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) talk ) 15:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC) I do not consider it acceptable to try to get a Wikipedia contributor to disclose their real life identity. As for "only proposed," you then reported you had gone and looked for the myspace page, and found it. that's more than "proposed"; though you and DC may have finished the discussion between you, this aspect concerns one of our basic rules. We can block sockpuppets without needing to know who they are in RL. I'm concerned now about what you did in this respect--I am frankly not concerned about the rest. As a result of getting overinvolved, people sometimes are led to do inappropriate things. I do not think you realize that a hunt for the RL person was wrong. I await the view of others. DGG ( talk ) 15:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC) (ec)As far as I can see, all that people are asking from you is that you discuss calmly and rationally without too much WP:ABUSE, but I fear that your approach to it can be counter productive and I am concerned regarding your apparent ability of perceiving and claiming support where there is none. I do not believe that DC is out to get you, nor am I. I am however somewhat taken aback by your reactions and I hope that we can reach a point where you can come to see why your actions were challenged. I would also note that you have stated your full name on wikipedia and as such claims of outing against your are null and void. Please do consider that I am writing in good faith and please do not feel that you have to respond immediately. Unomi (talk ) 16:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC) With respect, has everyone forgotten how to use diffs? NJROTC, you need to used diffs to support statements such as: "that was a proposed course of action; I did not actually contact anybody or ask any questions" DGG should use a diff in support of "you then reported you had gone and looked for the myspace page, and found it." Now, in response to DC, While NJROTC has not admitted "guilt", he has taken action to remove controversial edits, and has stated that he will distance himself from the situation. I say you may have a COI, because you have not, to my knowledge suggested any compromise, or anything less than sanctions against this user. I can assure you, that this is not the first ANI that has gone without an "official" closeure. IMO, what you should have done, was left the discussion in archive, and watched to see if JNROTC abided by his agreement to separate himself from the noted vandals, "I believe that Sephiroth storm's point is that DC needs to assume good faith as I had removed all references to the apparent "ban" as soon as they were questioned here as an offered settlement." I would like to state that I do not, as of now have a viewpoint on the OUTING issue, as I haven't seen any diffs of the issue. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Very well, DC added a link to an off-wiki site about Jessica Selders at CHS here. Although I did look up JS on Myspace, I did not provide any links to her there on-wiki, what I did do is explain that the user may have violated copyright which I found appropriate because it may be a reason to oversight. I fail to find how explaining that text added by a user is a direct copy and paste is WP:OUTING, but okay, if you desire to see it as such, lets go ahead and remove the comment from this thread. I did not contact her or any of the sort, I just curiously looked her up to see who she was, which is an off-wiki activity that pretty much anyone could do if they so desire. Didn't so much as attempt to get past any private settings, contact the person, or reveal my findings to the rest of Wikipedia (except that there's a possible copyvio), just merely viewed what is posted for public access. DGG, in my opinion, is jumping to conclusions. May I also add that DC was once blocked for outing, but the block was reversed because the user apparently "wrote two articles about himself," see [112] I don't know, but it seems this is a similar case here as the user claims to be Jessica Selders, an athlete at CHS. I don't know, may the admins decide on this one as everything about this case seems to be within a debatable gray area. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 18:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC) PCHS, if you look at a BWilkins ←track ) 18:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC) However, I'm not looking for information to use against her. She's already blocked, so how could I possibly use anything on Myspace against her. The mention of the copyvio was me AGFing (assuming good faith in that it may not have actually been JS responsible) and was for own protection. IMHO, we should rename the account and oversight references to the name (where feasible) as it does potentially get an uninvolved party involved here. We also need to stop referencing to her here; we should AGF as it is not uncommon for vandals to use someone else's name rather than their own. I know I wouldn't want to be impersonated by a vandal. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 18:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC) May I add that, in my opinion, we should be extremely careful when taking actions on wiki for issues off wiki. LBHSC vandals found and harassed me off wiki back when they were more active vandals, but I did not seek on wiki sanctions over it; I instead notified Myspace abuse (since the off wiki harassment took place on Myspace). In my opinion, what happens off wiki should stay off wiki. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 18:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC) seems a little silly to use diffs referring to earlier edits in the very same discussion, but here they are: [113] for the threat and then [114] for the statement of having carried out the threat. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Based on what I am seeing, JNROTC did not violate WT:BP. Sephiroth storm (talk ) 05:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC) As an uninvolved editor in this, I'd be greatly concerned if I knew another editor on Wikipedia was seeking me out on other websites. It may not be outing, but it's a dangerous tactic. And while NJROTC states he did not make contact with the owner of the MySpace page, NJROTC did state that he/she would do so with community consent, and then quickly followed-up saying he/she had already sought out the individual (and apparently confirmed a cut/paste job). No, this is not a case of WP:OUTING , however it could be perceived as harassment, stalking, violation of privacy, and in general just a horrible idea. The fact that an editor sought another (blocked) editor off-wiki to discuss an on-wiki issue also seems borderline obsessive. That aside, wasn't the original issue whether or not one editor was allowed to unilaterally ban another? Not that I have any stake in the decision, I believe this thread will merely get resurrected until that is properly answered. (If it was, and I missed it in all of the hullabaloo, I apologize.) HAZardousMATTtoxic 14:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC) I agree that it was closer to Harrassment than outing. I have yet to see the ed involved recognize that it was wrong to do it. DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Did we ever actually decide on an end action? Has there actually been any kind of "official" action on the ban template adding? This is been essentially forgotten. How about actual admittance of it not being the smartest thing or an apology? ...Mostly, I'm entirely disheartened by the user's hunting down high school social rivals and trying to their face in their collective block. Honesty, I'm starting to think the cheer group was all different persons with accounts (though it doesn't excuse the disruption and vandalism). Really now, not hard to see, some cheerleader-type persons vandalize the Wikipedia entry of your school, you confirm they're blocked for it, then try to remove any mention of their existence? WP:HSDRAMA for "No high school drama, please"? Combine together some classic high school drama and somehow it turns into a Wikipedia ANI with concerns about a personal vendetta and it somehow being DeliciousCarbuncle's fault. I didn't need to do any research to get that... all on user pages or what was posted in this discussion. I might encourage a bit stricter of final stances given the strong evidence of social revenge as motivation and it not just being a random lapse in judgment. Oh, and get over the bit with DC. S/He's not the subject of this ANI. Has nothing to do with outing, or anything else. It's about the ban templates, and research finding a likely motive. Right. Can we actually get on with a resolution now and cut out further rubbish about non-involved editors and take it to ... wherever you want to argue? Please. ♪ (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC) PCHS-NJROTC has agreed that User:LBHS Cheerleader is not officially banned (see slightly up-thread), which, at this point, is good enough for me. It seems unlikely that any admin action will be forthcoming, but having just looked at this page I think a topic ban discussion should be started (as a separate thread). This can be closed, as far as I am concerned. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC) I can agree with you first statement, but I think a topic ban is unnecessary, as the user has stated that they would remove themselves from controversial editing. Why not give him the chance to make a positive change? Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Works for me. See! Alllllll of that and 3 posts to agree that a trouting and AGF self-imposed user sanction is quite fine, even including the most antagonized editor involved in agreement. Sans objections within the next few hours, I'd at least say a mark as resolved, and any further disputes are likely (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC) I'm not going to belabour this, but it is clear that PCHS-NJROTC simply does not get it, based on his statement here: "...I personally feel an arguement over whether a blatant troll was banned or just blocked (every account even thought to be a sock of the user would have been blocked for the user's actions anyway), or whether one makes mistakes (everyone does), to be pointless". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC) e/c DC, you don't get it. This is pointless. Trying to get sacntions imposed on a good faith editor (it'll be a full blown permaban from Wiki if anything, I'm not kidding on that one) in favor of a bad faith editor who's been disrupting at least for over two years is bad. Perhaps I need to scan all of your edits with a fine tooth comb and find something you do wrong and report you to AN/I without settling for less than a "topic ban" or even a "ban" from Wikipedia all together. Why are you making such a big deal out of this? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 22:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Seriously? No, topic bans on one mistake is a bad idea. Any kind of "topic ban" will be disputed all the way up to Jimbo and the foundation if need be, and like I said, you're going to have to ban me all together and rename this account per my rights to vanish, and I'm not kidding. No no no no no no no, not kidding. Why? I'm only saying I should have discussed first, I'm not saying that a ban template was indeed "wrong," or that contacting ISPs (which there's no reak way of enforcing any kind of ban on that anyway without violating policies yourself) was "wrong," and what did I say about confession? Two people take that as an excuse to hammer, which is completely out of line with WP:OUTING. I do not know the one's responsible for the vandalism, nor do I know exactly who's responsible except I've heard it's more than one person, which really doesn't matter except for the fact that it explains why LBHSC's behavior varies greatly, and is difficult to detect. Checkuser confirmed that various LBHSC suspected socks with various personalities were related, but the user is an IP hopper that could not reasonably be range blocked. The Mmbabies case was over a year ago, and I learned a lot from that. Until this month, my handling of the LBHSC case was praised, I received barnstars from it, and respected admins told me to "keep up the good work" as seen here. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 22:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello.

I was directed here from Wikiquette Alerts.

Kikodawgzzz continues to add tags to the White privilege entry (history), including tags for speedy deletion, while using the minor edits flag. He's been warned twice about this on his user talk page, but he has done it twice since then. (Click here for the most recent example.) -- Marie Paradox (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(ECx2) I don't think they should have been marked minor, but I don't see why it warrants an ANI post. He hasn't been warned the standard 4 times yet. However, he does seem to be editing disruptively. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Administrators should review my own talk page, as well as those of Marie Paradox and Malik Shabazz, and in addition, the revert wars AND the discussion board on the article in question. It's my firm conviction that by doing so, Wikipedia administrators will conclude that the article is POV to the point of being un-salvageable, and must either be removed entirely, or deleted and then re-created with an eye to encyclopedic objectivity. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed your talk page and, quite frankly, I'm impressed with everyone's patience with you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see any connection between your belief that an article is POV and your refusal (or inability) to fix your preferences to stop marking all your edits as minor. Or your repeated attempts to have the article speedily deleted, when you have been told, by three different editors, that your belief that the article is POV is not a valid

criterion for speedy deletion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk

20:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I posted here without four warnings' having been given. If I should ever need to post here again, I'll adhere to the standard. Thank you, Ks0stm and Jauerback for looking into this matter. -- Marie Paradox (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that both the constant reverts and the constant criticism of my actions have come 99.9% exclusively from either

ethnic nationalist

-sympathetic language "supported" by "scholarly sources" and a pathetic two-paragraph, mid-page 'Criticism' section that doesn't even mention (though it used to, back when I used to edit it) real criticism of WSP as it exists in the world of anti-racist, non-right-winger criticisms. Perhaps most important, however, is this apparent perception that it is "me" or "mainly me" that is protesting against this article, because I am "bellyaching." But actually, if you look at the history of the discussion section, there are just as many angry users out there who are equally angry, or at least almost as angry, at the 'evolution' of this page into a totally one-sided view of the phenomenon, and a refusal by its two "chief editors" to work on it to establish encyclopedic/journalistic objectivity, which actually, if Shabazz and Paradox are indeed going to insist upon ensuring that they alone are today's two main editors of the thing, THEY should be taking it upon THEMSELVES to personally ensure. But they won't; they probably put most of the supporting documentation towards pro-WSP in there themselves, actually, and then threw up their hands and said "well, it's not our responsibility to do the rest." Stuff like THAT is clearly not acceptable on a valid wikipedia page. Has everyone forgotten about the fundamental requirement of a Wikipedia article that it be verifiably and obviously neutral in its viewpoint??

If people involved in this case want to continue arguing this way, that's fine, and I'll gladly reciprocate, as I am a very fierce left-wing opponent of White Skin Privilege as an "anti-racist" theory and I believe it should absolutely be purged from leftist circles as it exists-- and warnings against its spread should be posted for the benefit of innocent minds who don't know any better and wind up taking the article as all-but-fact. But my personal views aside, even if these two editors are going to continue to insist that the article must stand until someone else can fix it, should it not be agreed administratively that a warning box and/or a box for the process of gradual deletion over the course of more extended discussion be allowed to stand? I absolutely intend to continue fighting this out and I will do so until Shabazz and Paradox are significantly lessened in their influence of this article. It's time for these two to be shown that they can't be in charge, and that wikipedia is a collective effort. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Kikodawgzzz, personalized disclaimers, and speedy deletion

Kikodawgzzz repeatedly has added a personalized disclaimer to

. In fact, Kikodawgzzz has added the disclaimer several times since that warning.

Also, Kikodawgzzz repeatedly has nominated the article for speedy deletion under non-existent criteria. [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] Three different editors removed the speedy deletion tags with edit summaries that explained Kikodawgzzz had not specified a valid reason. I advised Kikodawgzzz that the article couldn't be deleted unless a valid speedy deletion reason was specified. That discussion, too, didn't sink in, because Kikodawgzzz nominated the article for speedy deletion twice after my note.

Clearly I'm not getting through to Kikodawgzzz. Could an uninvolved administrator please try? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done I've blocked him for a week to prevent continued disruption of the article.

talk

) 19:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

at the time, I was not going to make too much of this, but then I noticed that apparently the user has quite a history of extremely inappropriate posts:

• [126] Calling another user (me) ignorant and petulant.
• [127] Calling another user "an ignorant brute" and a "troll".
• Other very rude remarks that appear to have been part of a campaign of harassment against
  User:Nezzadar. In particular, [128], [129]
  .

There was an earlier ANI thread on this sort of behavior here in the archives (actually, with this edit following the "stern warning", he probably should have been blocked outright). I don't know what the appropriate course of action is to deal with this. I leave it as a matter for the folks here to decide. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If these kinds of vicious personal comments are actually condoned by Wikipedia's policies (as evidenced by over two hours without any other comment), I think I really shall retire for good. I do think this at least warrants some reply, if not some kind of administrator action. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Christmas time. Be patient. Not too many people are here now.

talk

) 18:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I see where you warned him at 21:22, 22 December 2009 which was AFTER the incivility you note above. I also see that User:Franklin.vp has not made any incivil comments since you warned him at that time. Are there any that I am missing, because what I see here is a) your warning 2 days ago b) some edits by him, none of which contain any incivility and c) this thread. What we are missing is evidence that your warning did not cause him to change his behavior; that he ignored your warning. Near as I can tell, he took your warning to heart and is playing by the rules right now. Can you show us recent (i.e. since your warning) evidence of problems? --Jayron32 19:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

He was warned last month for this kind of behavior (and also engaged in more personal attacks of the same editor a week afterwards). I only became aware of the older warnings and the past history of vicious personal attacks after posting the warning to the talk page (thanks to User:RDBury for pointing out this history). Anyway, I feel that this behavior is so far outside the norms of what should be considered acceptable that surely some action stronger than a repeated warning is warranted here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, since blocks aren't supposed to be a punishment, I still feel like 2 days of no problems is a long time to come back and block someone. Yes, he has been warned in the past, but apparently this latest warning took hold. Like I said, we can block him when he continues the problems, but what is the point of starting an ANI thread 2 days after the last incident? --Jayron32 19:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Well, let's hope this warning holds. I for one am still quite offended by some of the remarks this editor has made towards me, despite my own efforts to get past it. I think the best solution is for me simply to leave Wikipedia for good. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, you are far from an appropriate editor to be closing this down. Jack Merridew 20:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved? Not really. For what it's worth, I believe that the appropriate course is for one or more neutral admins to

• take firm control of this shouting match, and
• actually look at the conduct of all the editors involved, and deal with it appropriately to stop the misbehavior.

I've only read some of the diffs, but those evidence counterproductive conduct that should be stopped, including some very uncivil edit comments (regardless of who is right about the edits themselves). Thank you.—Finell 21:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The last ANI lasted weeks, and had to be moved to another page. Since then there has been an RFC and arbcom.

This is a childofmidnight/Giano type dispute, except the editors are much less powerful and influential.

I encourage editors instead to consider a RFC. Ikip 21:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly inserted copyrighted images on his user talkpage [[134]] and user page [[135]]. He is wiping his user page of the last warnings he has been recving but something has to give.

) 17:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

He's allowed to

remove any messages from his user talk that he wants to. As far as I can see, he has not, as yet, restored the non-free images since removing the warning. So far, he is actually heeding that warning. He read the final warning at 16:20, and someone (rightfully) removed the problematic images at 13:54-13:56. So far, he is doing exactly what a warning is supposed to do. He has not repeated the problematic behavior, so there doesn't look like anything for admins to do here. If the behavior returns, let us know, but right now, it looks fine. --Jayron32

19:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to the last few days of warnings he recieved. I understand he is good to clear his talk page at will but this is the at least fourth final warning I've seen because of this issue.

[[136]] [[137]] [[138]] [[139]] [[140]]

) 19:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Block this user. In addition to don't care about the warnings, he's attacking users, like me. After he wrote that on my talk, he reverted my editions on his userpage and my message too. I reverted it again. --MisterWiki talk contribs 19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Block him for a week, since he has only been here a little over a week.

talk

) 19:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for 3 days for the personal attack. --
  ark
  // 20:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Tim Ireland article has been controversial for some time, with several accounts nominating it for speedy deletion on multiple occasions, and/or repeatedly PRODding it (the repeat PRODs are, of course invalid). The article was originally PRODded by Magpie1892 in July, with the PROD removed by CJPargeter. Magpie1892 PRODded the article a second time in early December, I removed the PROD as invalid, and the sockfest began. The PROD was added back several times by IPs, then twice by User:Chithecynic, who has also acknowledged being one of the IPs. It was also speedy-nominated by IPs and by Seven-nil, who has virtually no edit history and only one edit not related to this article. On December 17, Chithecynic nominated the article for deletion. All but one of the "delete" !votes in the AFD (that by Fenix down, who is clearly editing in good faith and not involved in the shenanigans) appear to come from the accounts/addresses which had previously placed invalid PRODs or speedies (quickly declined/removed) on the article. These account share other features -- for the named accounts, very limited edit histories; problems signing posts correctly, and posting personal attacks on editors disputing their edits(mostly me, see such charming examples as [141] (Chithecynic); [142], [143] (Magpie1892); [144] (Seven-nil); [145] (217.28.34.132, open-to-public IP address with many other users); [146] (92.41.202.43, presumably same access as !voter 92.41.217.22). I'm not sure this article over a minimally notable UK blogger has stirred up such a hullaballoo fracas, but it's getting way out of hand. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you'll just love this, so :p - the following accounts are  Confirmed as being the one editor:

• Magpie1892 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Seven-nil (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wolfowitz=twat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The underlying IP has been blocked, too, as it's been abusive in itself. The other accounts are  Unrelated - Alison ^❤ 20:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that a resolved tag then? Throwaway85 (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone should likely deal with the accounts. As checkuser, I'm not going to block them, too - Alison ^❤ 21:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast; thanks very much. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So my understanding is that the IP editors have been blocked, is that correct? If so, should we start an SPI on the registered accounts? What's the proper course of action here? Or have the registered accounts already been taken care of? Throwaway85 (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, they've actually all been done now. I ran a check on the accounts in question - sokay, we're good :) - Alison ^❤ 00:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't you mean 'sockay'? Oh ho ho ho ho...God, I'm lonely... HalfShadow 00:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if someone else could take a look at this and possibly leave a comment on their talk page. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've left a message on their talk page regarding this, I don't think we're quite to the level of needing any admin actions yet.

talk

) 23:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree, I just thought it would have more effect coming from someone with whom he had no previous interactions. postdlf (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A situation was raised in this thread at the External Links Noticeboard that deserves administrator attention. Someone is creating multiple new accounts with the apparent sole purpose of adding links to the site at sites.google.com/site/datemix/. The accounts are created, given user pages dressed up to look like the pages of experienced users (e.g., putting a supposed user profile claiming to have begun editing in 2006, when the account was created that day), and from there the only activity is to add this link. I'm particularly disturbed by the user-page dress-ups, which suggests a relatively sophisticated attempt to prevent the accounts from being immediately blocked. The link itself goes to what is basically a blank page, so I suspect either malware distribution or an experiment to see whether this type of approach will work for spreading spam in the future. Accounts involved include:

• Edunsi (talk · contribs · block user)
• Denenc (talk · contribs · block user)
• Menxuo (talk · contribs · block user)
• Benzuo (talk · contribs · block user)
• Carlode (talk · contribs · block user)

I'm working on removing the remaining instances of this link, and I'm going to report it to the

) 15:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the user and talk pages, they are full of fake claims - Denenc has copied

talk

) 15:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Socks. Look at

(talk)

15:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked all the socks, will file an SPI to root out sleepers. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 15:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Got one more - Xinoov (talk · contribs · block user). NawlinWiki (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, will add to SPI now. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 15:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• • And another, Dexora (talk · contribs · block user). NawlinWiki (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• And have added that one as well, as well as requested any CU doing it to also hit the underlying IP. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 16:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• By the by, SPI up. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 16:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Found a bunch more, I'll add them to the investigation. The pattern suggests to me that it's User:Tile join, but that's just a hunch. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And CU complete. It's not Merlion444 or his socks, nor is it Tile Join and his socks - it's a Spanish ISP, a /23 of which has been given 48h. I think we're done 'ere. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 14:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I've archived this. Fences&Windows 01:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP:list of banned users (as well as earlier false assertions in SPI discussions that the user was banned). In that thread there were concerns raised about PCHS-NJROTC tracking down people off-wiki to question them about their accounts. PCHS-NJROTC was previously topic banned from Mmbabies-related topics for similar off-wiki activities. The entirety of this Mmbabies discussion page is simply an embarassment to the project (which doesn't even take into account the edits that have been removed). PCHS-NJROTC should have been topic banned from any vandalism-related activities long ago. Support- as proposer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Oppose and speedy close. I really do hate stray from WP:AGF, but I'm about to propose a topic ban on DC from posting AN/I threads as he clearly can't control his urge to get a "topic ban" imposed despite lack of support/consensus. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 22:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC) I've reverted a unilateral deletion of this thread. Anyone who thinks it merits deletion should say so and get something like agreement on this. (As for me, I have no opinion on it.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC) DC, could you please talk ) 23:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC) DC, I think you are doing nothing by digging for drama. You dug one post out of the archives, you start this one after the previous one is archived again. You are clearly involved and want nothing more to dig up some drama. You say this "isn't anything personal", but it is clear it is personal to you. Hence why I moved this to the section at the top and archived it. Step away from the dust that was once a horse. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Dual (talk) How about this, as was suggested in the previous close: WP:DENY , go work on other stuff, take a few days off. Speaking to the other party in any way shape or form even indirectly can be interpreted by any uninvolved admin as a lack of truck in further AGF and can perform whatever actions deemed necessary. Both of you are "encouraged" to avoid any notification boards with the exception of matters in need of immediate attention such as actions relating to BLP, AIV, NLT, etc. DC, should admit that dragging this on is not the wisest thing. PCHS needs to admit to the same in tandem. Preferably both with apologies. PCHS has the matter of the blocking and offline social drama dragged to Wikipedia that started this all, but that's separate and supposedly handled. End this, or I'm going to start an RfC for both of you in one swoop since the level of sighing all around is pretty balanced and there's seemingly no reconciliation. Is it one or both sides contributing to that? Who knows. That's what an RfC could discuss. Any RfCs filed in this matter from either of you should include a call for discussion on your own actions, as well, so that there's at least an attempt at one balanced level of discussion. No more ANIs, no reports elsewhere. It'll all be about the same thing. Would someone mind explaining to me how this can't just be marked resolved as "consider these unofficial final warnings on dealing with one another"? That's agreeable, I'd think. Everyone drop their (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Request to re-open the ban discussion It looks like this thread has been prematurely closed because people are characterizing it as "drama" without even reading the diffs provided. Why not let the discussion run its course? If the community decides that a ban is not necessary, no ban will be enacted. I may be pressing the issue, but not dealing with it squarely and promptly is what is causing the drama. If it helps at all, I'm not planning to participate any further in this (but I would like it re-opened). If someone wants to start an RfC, be my guest, but don't expect me to participate - the discussions speak for themselves. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC) NO! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Neutralhomer, after I asked you to stop interfering with threads in which I am involved, you moved this into the archived discussion. You seem to have personal grudge with me for some reason and only do this to threads which I have started. You're welcome to offer your opinion, but please do not stifle other editors' ability to participate here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Nothing is going to come out of this Carbuncle. Move on, for fuck's sake.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Yes, Carbuncle. For your own sake and sanity, stop flaming the Solly in an attempt to burn the Spy. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 16:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC) I continue to support blocking him for harassment, but for reasons I do not understand, there does not seem to be enough support. DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Somewhat to his defense, he did raise a very sizable concern that started this ANI and was largely ignored because of a tidal wave of uncivil statements being shoved again. With his/her level concern with the ANI, I don't blame them.. At the very least, the party concerned has been able to deflect any criticisms. Past that, no, there's no excuse as to why this has kept on. DC... please, stop.This is arguably over the line on "mutual stubbornness" tipped against you now. As such , if people could avoid trying to pile on it, that would be appreciated. A lot of the continued defensive attitude comes from from now being continuously scrutinized for every one of DC's actions, whether or not that is warranted. DC needs to give it a rest, retaliation posers out to get DC need to give it a rest. ♪ (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, and Happy Holidays Wikipedia Admins.
I'm sorry if this incident has been made in the wrong section, I don't think this fits into the other categories.

I've finally decided to start making edits to Wikipedia, and I find someone has been impersonating me.
I've been trying to make my name for a few months now.
Every time I try to make my name PimpUigi, I get the message "too similar to the user name Pimpuigi"

I've never registered here, and I am an ex pro Smash Bros. Melee player.
http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki/Smasher:PimpUigi
I was relatively famous, and very popular in the pro circle from 2005 to 2007
I've never been impersonated anywhere except for here, to my knowledge.

I can do whatever you want to prove I am who I say I am.
Voice verify, web cam, PMing my established user name (PimpUigi) on forums, cell phone, passport, drivers license, etc. etc.

I have made small but accurate, handy, sourced edits to the 32X, and 32X related articles, as well as the JVC Star Wars article.
I plan on continuing to provide respectable assistance, but I will not make another name that is not mine.

I have the AIM account PimpUigi, and my use name on every forum I want to be part of is PimpUigi.
Pick a random one to PM, and it will be me, I can guarantee it.

My email addresses are not PimpUigi, because I want to remain professional for my real life profession.
I can and will provide email addresses if asked, I do want my user name linked to at least one of them.

I did not chose my nick name, my name chose me.
Dukey Brown Mario came up with it as a cool name for the Pink Luigi, and people just simply started calling me "PimpUigi" because I would shout "PimpUigi!" when someone would pick the Pink Luigi.
It stuck to me so well, the admins of www.smashboards.com changed my user name from whatever it had been at the time, to PimpUigi for me.
It's a very fond memory of mine.

I tried once before to resolve this, but as I had no other interest other than someone was impersonating me, I let it drop.

I looked over your guideline for misleading user names.

"There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed:

• Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. Misleading names include those that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, or those that impersonate other people."

Someone impersonated me under my name.
I can already see they made my name look bad.
This makes me very unhappy, especially since I want to help contribute, and be semi recognized for it.--70.20.246.58 (talk) 07:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The "Pimpuigi" account appears to be unused for several years. Surely someone could rename it and make it available for you to use.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That account was actually just a vandalism account (and is indef blocked, so it won't be making any more edits anytime soon), so it might meet the "...rare exceptions are made where old edits do not require attribution under the GFDL" at WP:USURP, since all of its edits have been totally reverted as vandalism. Regardless, since it's registered, usurpation would be required, so you'd have to create an account of some type to move to that name. Bureaucrats also generally prefer to see that you've made a reasonable number of good edits with that account—it's a waste of their time to usurp for people who aren't going to stick around anyway. I think, though, that if you make yourself an account (what about something like User:The Real PimpUigi?) and edit under it for a while, if you explain your case, there's a reasonable chance a usurpation request would get accepted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

As this prospective user wants the name with different capitalisation from the existing account that is blocked they actually need to request the account be created for them.

WP:ACC or the direct link to the form, http://toolserver.org/~acc/ . delirious ☯ ^{~ nollaig shona duit~}

18:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

ApprenticeFan and deletion processes

In the online communities for which are based on one of my editing areas here on Wikipedia, the television series "Tensou Sentai Goseiger" has been known about for a month or so now. A recent magazine article came out which has officially confirmed this entity today, and I wrote the article on it found at Tensou Sentai Goseiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fractyl (talk · contribs) had been working on a draft of this article in his user space using information that was not found in standard publications available to the general (Japanese) public (proprietary catalogues given to marketing people) found at User:Fractyl/Tensō Sentai Goseiger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

ApprenticeFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) discovered my authoring of the main space page today and listed it for speedy deletion as a copy-paste move of Fractyl's subpage. I advised him of his mistake and moved on by adding onto the page. He took my statement as an invitation to list Fractyl's user page for MFD using faulty reasoning.

ApprenticeFan has participated in many deletion debates but it does not appear that he knows when a page should or should not be deleted. Very often he provides improper deletion reasons and definitely in the two "Goseiger" pages his inability to discern proper deletion processes is evident.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I decided to speedy closed the discussion minutes ago. I'm deal with this. Done. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 07:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm in the wrong - I might well be - but I don't like how I've been treated by another editor, so would appreciate some clarification. If I'm in the wrong then I at least know not to do it again. There has been a debate on

.

This is what he wrote: [151].

I have no problem with this. But in my eyes, it was non-neutral and continued the discussion rather than just notifed. That is the editor made a point and expressed an opinion, so I responded to the point raised even though the main discussion was taking place on the Avatar talk page: [152]

The other editor moved my comments to the Avatar page, but left his own up. I reverted this edit even though I agreed with the principle behind it. The reason I restored my comments is because he left his own comments, which I felt were not just notifying other editors of the discussion but that he was furthering the discussion. You can see there were a couple of reverts between us: [153]

I felt it was out of order that he made further comment on the subject but was deleting my comments while leaving his up. I also agree that the discussion should take place at the one location. This was eventually resolved when the other editor removed the 'bias' from his comments thus leaving it as a simple notification: [154]

This is where things turned ugly with another editor, when User:Wildhartlivie left a comment at my talk page: [155]. They accused me of edit warring because I had restored my comments to the talk page. I explained why I had done this, that i felt the other editor had done more than just notify the other Project members of the discussion, but had furthered the discussion: [156]. The other editor did not agree: [157]. He reiterated the accusation taht I was edit-warring which I felt was insulting. I was attempting to resolve the dispute through discussion for a start, and disagreed with the nature in which the discussion was raised. I didn't really see why the other editor's comments expressing an opinion on the dispute should remain, while mine were deleted. I felt it was appropriate for my comments to be there while his were. I felt the other editor finally acknowledged this by altering his comments to reflect my concerns. It may have been wrong of me to restore my comments, but I genuinely felt a injustice at the time. What I take exception to is this accusation of edit-warring by this other editor while I was taking part in a discussion so a dispute wouldn't become an edit-war. I thought it was rude, so informed him that I thought it was insulting to accuse me of edit-warring and re-explained my position: [158]. He responded with this: [159]

So there are some things I would like to clarify. Was the discussion raised in an acceptable manner? Was it legitimate for me to post a response? Was it legitimate for my comments to be removed? was it legitimate for me to restore my comments? And was it legitimate for this other editor to leave such comments on my talk page? Maybe my actions were incorrect, in which case I am sorry, but I do feel slightly aggrieved by the whole thing. Betty Logan (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Erik insisted on a biased notice to the talk page discussion in clear violation of

WP:CANVASS

. In his defense, after all of the drama he did eventually change it into a neutral notice but it shouldn't have taken an edit war to convince him to follow Wikipedia's policies. The warnings left on your talk page were inappropriate, you had a completely legitimate concern and his own bias was getting the better of him. Wildhartlivie had no call to drop edit war notices on your talk page, especially since Erik was closer to violating 3RR than you were.

Just an aside, did you notify Wildhartlivie and Erik of this ANI posting, as required by the board rules? -- Atama頭 22:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I was not notified of this posting until an uninvolved editor posted a notification to me. I do not believe my initial postings to the editor's talk page were in the least bit insulting. I posted after I noticed that

WP:AGF. Wildhartlivie (talk

) 01:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm completely cool with Erik, he's a good editor. We had a dispute and were trying to hack it out. He did alter his comments in response to my objections so the situation with Erik was resolved. I find it disheartening that Wildhartlivie accuses me of violating AGF when in his first message to me he accused me of edit-warring. The only reason there was a time gap was because I only discovered the comment several hours later. One of my concerns was that the debate on the original talk page was quite long, and I felt the notification on WT:FILM summarized only half of the argument, so I tried to balance that. I'm sorry that I didn't notify Wildhartive about this ANI, but this is actually the first time I've ever posted on this board. It is unfortunate that Wildhartlivie still doesn't accept he behaved incorrectly though. Betty Logan (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not accept that I behaved inappropriately. You made a huge stink about Erik having posted a comment and made it sound as if it were posted at the same time that he moved your posting, which essentially instigated all of this. It is not unacceptable to raise the problem of edit warring when it appears that is occurring, although I did not drop a

WP:AN/I threat on my talk page and then brought me here and lament that I "accept" my incorrect behavior, when I was not the one reverting a move to a talk page message. It is thoroughly relevant that his comment was over two hours earlier, since you are asserting he added the comment with the moving of the talk page commentary, making it appear the two were directly related. If it is "all cool" with Erik, why did you bring this here? To drag me into what you perceive as "trouble"? Sorry, you're simply wrong. Wildhartlivie (talk

) 06:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is unwarranted.

) 02:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This does not concern you Erik. I was not happy with the wording of your notification because I felt it summarised your side of the debate but not mine, and you corrected it. Our 'dispute' was quickly resolved, and the only reason you are mentioned here is to give my complaint context. I stressed a couple of times I have no issue with your behavior, and the only thing I took exception to in regards to you, you yourself quickly resolved without any outside intervention and I appreciate that. This complaint is entirely about the messages Wildhartlivie left on my talk page, and for the record I did address my concerns with him on his talk page where I pointed out that I felt insulted at his accusation that I was "edit-warring" and explained my stance. I was courteous in my message on his on his talk page, but he deleted it and left another message on my talk page instructing me that I must not leave any more comments on his talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Give it up. I do not intend to "admit" to bad behavior as you seem to want because I did not violate

WP:SSP case I found. Wildhartlivie (talk

) 07:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I came here for clarification on my behaviour in the matter, to ascertain that I did not behave improperly and that my actions were within the remit of Wikipedia guidelines. An administrator confirmed that Erik's notifification was inappropriate in its original form, I was not out of order in restoring my comments, and that you shouldn't have left the messages you did on my talk page. As far as I'm concerned this is resolved now, and what you do or don't accept is between you and your conscience. As for this silly sockpuppet thing as far as I'm aware I cleared the IP check and my personal edit history is beyond rapprochement. Betty Logan (talk) 09:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to bring this to everyone's attention. It's a

WP:CANVASS violation, near as I can tell. Equazcion ^(talk)

16:08, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Equazcion. I wasn't going to bring that up here, but it's worth mentioning Skag has filed a sock puppet case against me based on the comments of an unrelated editor at her talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

After noticing SkagitRiverQueen had filed a sock investigation against Wildhartlivie I thought the complaint might be relevant to this inquiry. I think bringing the details of an investigation into a particular user to the attention of another editor that has filed a sock investigation is hardly 'canvassing'. Canvassing would be going around messaging every editor who had a dispute with Wildhartlivie. There are now two investigations into Wildhartive that may be relevant to each other and I notified the instigator of the other investigation. This is clearly not canvassing because I was not incentivising an editor to take action against another user - they had already instigated the investigation and I made them aware of this one, especially since this investigation pertains to an editor's improper conduct, and SkagitRiverQueen has started another action pertaining to the same editor's improper conduct. Betty Logan (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

As an aside it is also worth pointing out that User:Equazcion is embroiled in a dispute with SkagitRiverQueen about reporting Wildhartlivie as a sock [161], so their judgement is hardly objective here. It may even be worth adding that user to the sock investigation. Betty Logan (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

What judgment? I'm not commenting on this ANI dispute, only on your canvassing for participants. It doesn't take much judgment to assess that. You notified someone uninvolved with this dispute based on their having been in previous disputes with the editor you seek to complain about here. That's canvassing. Read

WP:CANVASS. Equazcion ^(talk)

20:05, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notify the editor on the basis of a previous dispute, I notified them on the basis they have instigated a current investigation into the same editor that is being investigated here. If I were interested in digging up old grievances I would hardly have stopped at just the one editor. SkagitRiverQueen filed a complaint of her own volition, nothing to do with me. Betty Logan (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You told the editor "There is an investigation into his conduct at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_can_I_have_some_advice if you would you like to bring your probelsm with this editor to the attention of the administrators". However you want to word it: You sought Skag's involvement here based on knowing they were in a dispute with the user. Whether they instigated an investigation, or whether the investigation is currently ongoing, are both irrelevant to the question of canvassing. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:39, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I brought this investigation to Skag's attention on the basis of her being involved in another investigation concerning the user being discussed here. If it were just a dispute between the two parties there would have been no notification. I did not canvass the opinion because she has already officially filed it somewhere else. If you're saying that canvassing precludes informing other editors about investigations into users that they are currently officially complaining about then I think you misunderstande the concept of canvassing. Canvassing is there to preclude you soliciting opinion that otherwise wouldn't exist and that clearly isn't the case here. Betty Logan (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing policy is there to preclude the soliciting of opinions that you know already exist. If you know someone will likely take your side in a discussion, you're not supposed to choose them to inform about it. See

Wikipedia:CANVASS#Votestacking. Equazcion ^(talk)

20:57, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Query - User creating hoaxes in another user's space

Resolved

 – All users the same guy, not a sock but as the result of lost passwords, user promises to move articles in question off WP, everyone has a round of eggnog fa la la la la la la la la.

--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I recently discovered something very strange while recent change patrolling. One user, "Mr. Frank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)" has been creating possible hoax pages in another user's namespace. See here: [162] [163] [164]. These are all within the TheWho71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) userspace. This was extremely perplexing to me. The articles revolve around a seemingly fictional band named "Smile", and the pages are written in past tense. Examples: "Smile (commonly typeset as SMiLE) are a rock group formally banded in 2010" "Then they had an above-average commercial success in their native province, with their debut Internet-only releases, their albums First Smile and Second Smile (2015), and their first concept album, Hit-Parade (2016). However, it is with the releases of their double album Two Times Rock 'n' Roll in 2017, a second concept album Performance in 2018"

This all seemed very strange (and rather fishy) to me. What do others think of this? Should steps be taken to prevent this material from hitting mainspace? - I.M.S. (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that you notify Mr. Frank of this discussion. I suggest that we ask him; he has been most industrious in building that page. I can't imagine that that page has any legitimate encyclopedic purpose, but let us see what he says.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, a "hoax" which discusses what a band is doing in 2017 is so obvious it couldn't survive casual inspection, so I wonder if it is an actual hoax or done for some other reason.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified him of the discussion, and I hope he posts here soon. I agree with you - he has been extremely industrious in the building of those articles. I wish he'd devote that energy to real ones. :). Another interesting thing I noticed, adding to the "hoax", is that the Grateful Dead, including the deceased Jerry Garcia, play with the group on their 2014 live album. Very strange. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed so; if it was a common hoax, I'd delete first and ask questions later. But these obvious huge red flags make me want to hear from him, and at the very least give him a chance to copy them elsewhere before we delete them, as a sign of respect. We do no harm by waiting. Do we have an archive of the best hoaxes someplace?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

We did, somewhat. Here. There are a couple other places in which users preserve "silly" articles, or hoaxes that had so much work put into them that they didn't deserve to be erased. Some people save them in their userspace (User:I.M.S./User:TheWho71/band/smile live 1‎, for example - the page does not exist) but this practice is frowned upon, I believe. I'm sure you know about all of that, however. Responding to "waiting for his opinion" - I completely agree with you. Waiting can't hurt. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if TheWho71 is a part of this, and if we should be talking to him as well. Would a page created in his userspace automatically be part of his watchlist? And the fact that his name derives from a band and this "hoax" is about a band is an interesting coincidence ...--Wehwalt (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm, from experience, that subpages of a user's userpage are not automatically added to their watchlist. So if TheWho71 is a separate user from Frank, he wouldnt automatically know about the creation of that band page. (But then, TheWho hasnt edited since May 2008 anyway, so it's kind of a moot point). -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Never mind the notification, I see you did that. Nice work. Why would you go into another's userspace unless you had permission? I mean, it is not as if you are hiding anything, it is going to show up in your contributions and the article history.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, edit conflict. Responding to your second from last comment: Too much of one, perhaps. I'm not at all suggesting a

) 02:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Why aren't you suggesting a cu? Given the fact that most users on their 30th edit couldn't intentionally make a page, it seems very possible and would explain a lot. Again, though: screamingly obvious.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

How do we go about it? Should I open a formal case, or should we contact a CheckUser? What's the best way? I must admit that I've never opened or even been involved in an SPI before. - I.M.S. (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Go to the SPI page and create the subpage with the checkuser thing. I could start it if you want, as I have done so before, only to have one of the most stressful SPIs possible.

talk

) 03:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I created the investigation

talk

) 04:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for creating it, Kevin. As I'm rather busy right now, I feared getting caught up in an SPI, as I don't have that much time to devote at the moment (much like some of my FACs/GANs in the past). I'll submit my evidence to the case, If you'd like. Many thanks - I.M.S. (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe this really qualifies as a hoax, because it's set in the future. I'd call it a fantasy article, really, and it reminds me a lot of the fantasy hurricane articles that Dylan620 created in his early days on Wikipedia. And Dylan was allowed to move those articles to Wikia, where he could work on them at his leisure without worrying about any of them getting deleted. I suggest we do the same with this person. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Let's let the sock investigation conclude. Now the article is being edited by an IP. It's all very odd. There seems to be no malicious intent whatsoever.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

pehaps we should tell Mr. Frank that he has X amount of days to move the article/s somewhere else befroe they be deleted. S/He isnt doing anything that is hurting the project but it is still hoax-like.--

Oh Christmas Lights...

00:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Give him ten days, and tell him that if he doesn't act, they will be deleted, but he can always ask an admin to email him the pages if he misses the deadline? And notify all of them, including the IP.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm in favor of that. - I.M.S. (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, everyone... I just have been warned, and I realize that I did something wrong... Hum, pretty embarrassing... I agree that these pages are not really at their place. These are not a hoax, it's a bit of fantasy written about a band I know (a kind of fictitious career plan), and as you may have understood, these are not finished. What can I do if I wish to continue to edit these pages without trouble, but also without disturbing the project (for which I participated a lot with my accounts TheWho71 and Monday94) ? Mr. Frank (talk) 14:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait. Are those accounts yours? As in they are legal sockpuppetts. We all thought that they were seperate users.--

Let's talk

14:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

They aren't. Actually, I lost my passwords for these accounts, so I created Mr. Frank. Mr. Frank (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That said, I began to save them on my computer, but it's not over. I'll give the signal if you want to delete them. Mr. Frank (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Guys, does that sound good? The user has admited that those were his old accounts and seeing as he forgot the password, he made a new one. (You may still want to put the Legal SP tag on them so this will not happen again) He has also agreed to move his work to his own computer and at the end of the day they can be deleted. Sounds good?--

Let's talk

15:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I can close the SPI now if you guys think it is okay, since it is basically confirmed. At least he was honest about it, and all is well. Thank god this was peaceful. I guess we are all in the Christmas spirit here.

talk

) 16:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am gratified to see how laid back everyone was about this. Not a single admin jumped in and started throwing blocks around. Can we bottle some of this Xmas spirt and have it available the rest of the year?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleased with the outcome as well. I truly was not expecting Mr.Frank to show up here, but now that he has, it's made this issue quite a bit easier to resolve. Thanks to all that helped me figure this out, and happy holidays - I.M.S. (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Cremepuff222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to have decided to continue their campaign of leaving stupid messages on my talkpage (see here for earlier discussion). I don't know what the solution is, but their behaviour has to stop. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 09:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I propose this discussion take place elsewhere. I see no reason for administrative intervention. --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've responded to this suggestion on Cremepuff's talkpage. I see the need for administrative intervention because nothing I can do seems to stop these soppy notes being left on my talkpage. Cremepuff's admin rights were removed, and it still carries on. This clearly needs the community to step in and help resolve the "dispute" – such as it is. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 09:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I ask if you like apples. Cremepuff222 gets banhammered? Just answer the question. :) --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Honest question Cremepuff: Why would you do this? It seems as if you are just asking to get banned. We just finished a prior proceeding where your behaviour was deemed inappropriate. Why stir the hornet's nest again? Are you still tying to prove your "everyone should relax" point? Throwaway85 (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, checking back the records, there have been a couple of other similar/worrying from Cremepuff today and yesterday: [165] [166] This really needs to be sorted out. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 09:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I decided to read the discussion that went on here earlier, and some comments were not very nice! --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and that double support on the RfA was quite a mistake. The first diff, however, was quite intentional. Edit summary just wasn't that nice. --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously man, just address the question: Are you trying to make a point here (again)? This is getting tiresome. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I wasn't trying to make a point here (again), sir. His comments were not very kind, and posting silly questions clearly disturbs him greatly. So an act of revenge I believe! --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I very much like your userpage, Throwaway85! It's lovely. :) --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Back to the issue at hand? Throwaway85 (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Needs attention ASAP, this is the same matter that looked like a compromised account a week ago and it shouldn't happen again. Both of you, I'd suggesting backing off for a few hours and taking a powernap while matters are sorted. Continued bickering isn't going to accomplish anything and just result in unneeded incivility or disruption.

Given the severity of the last matter, it needs to be discussed and investigated. Given the holiday and ArbCom appointments coming, it may or may not be better to discuss here first, I've no right to opinion on that. One condition of the indef block overturned 5 days ago was for no further disruptions or other nonsense. It may or may not be deliberate that this is starting exactly 1 week after the first block (of 1 week) was initiated, perhaps thinking that it results in a clean slate for some reason... however, the block was changed to indef, so even that claim is moot. This is out of place for me to suggest, but a short-term block could be used to pause this, as it was last time. ♪

(talk)

09:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. Because further "harassment" will cause much harm to our beloved editors. Hmm, the one week business is quite a coincidence too. I think we should discuss on my talk page though, if possible! --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

CP, could you please just agree to stop provoking editors in this manner? If you would do so, I think everyone involved would be willing to move on and forget anything ever happened. Continuing on this course, however, will only engender more drama. Please stop. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll stop. :) --cremepuff222 (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. For the record, I think it best to cease any interactions of any kind with TreasuryTag, given the delicate nature of the situation. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Note—this is precisely what Cremepuff promised to do a week ago: "Whatever the case, I will not engage in anymore of these nonconstructive editing sprees. And again, apologies to those whose time I've wasted." That promise held for about six days. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 10:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I know, but let's just leave it be for now. If it happens again, it's flagrant trolling. For now, let's AGF that he's being honest here. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that, Tags. I'll stop for sure this time. --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Give it up on your talk pages, too, please. TreasuryTag--

(talk)

10:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I guess I forgot about that little detail. --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you honestly suggest it was "revenge"? That's either

BWilkins ←track

) 10:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't suggest, I quite clearly stated that it was indeed revenge. :) And... I like all four of those. They're nice. --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Really??? Are you here to write an encyclopedia or screw around? (

BWilkins ←track

) 10:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol, not gonna lie. Both! --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This nonsense on the part of Cremepuff needs to stop. Toddst1 (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's "Cremepuff222" to you, sir. And why do you speak of me as though I am not listening? Speak to me, more effective. :) --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, taking a look at his talk page has convinced me that this problem is not going away. Can we focus on a permanent solution? Or, correct me if I'm wrong, has he already been blocked? Throwaway85 (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've restored his indef block. Edits like this prove he is here to screw around. The rest of us are not and simply don't have time for this childishness. Edits like this prove he doesn't care much either way. Without meaning to be rude, we're well shot of him; alas, because he was a productive and useful editor once. But no longer. Wikisuicide.

11:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, pity. Hope we will see him again in a mature guise.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Good block. Let's close the case and move on. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I was about to block when Redvers beat me to it. Because he may come back, and because of this disruption, I have removed his rollback rights.

talk

) 11:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

He's indeffed right now, to my understanding. If he wants to come back, he needs to appeal the block, and I don't see that happening (successfully) any time soon. Still, good preventative measure. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

< Good block, thanks, Redvers. A real pity it had to come to this... ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 11:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just to say that I support this block. It's very sad seeing a former administrator and a long term contributor indefed, but come on, Cremepuff, enough is enough. Way too much time has been wasted on his childish game playing already with the last ANI, the RFC etc and he either needs to get with the program and stop using Wikipedia as a toy or go away and come back when he's grown up a tad. What I find most alarming in all this is that someone this immature could get through RfA and it's really yet more evidence that we need to find a better way of selecting our admins. Sarah 11:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • In talking to Ryan Postelwaite, his nominator, it seems that this childish behaviour is recent, and that he behaved in a much more mature fashion during his RfA and the period following it. This recent behaviour seems out of place. Inexcusable, nonetheless. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The childish trolling continued on his talk page, so Anonymous Dissident blanked and I've protected it indef to save him from himself. I'll unprotect after a month or so, to give him growing-up space.

11:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have been so blunt in my questioning this morning. I'd seen enough, and realized that appealing to his ego was actually going to get the true answers. (

BWilkins ←track

) 11:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The former administrator-in-question, had become irrelevant to Wikipedia. The indef-blocking is the correct course of action. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what Cremepuff was trying to achieve here - I emailed him last week when he started messing around and he seemed quite genuine with his apology to me. After he gave up his admin rights, he seemed to behave more collaboratively for a few days then we get hit with this. The only thing that I can think of is alcohol (or some other drug) getting in the way of his clarity (especially given the time of the recent troublesome edits (around 4am his time)) but that doesn't really matter anyway - Well deserved indefinite block in my opinion. I want to make it clear though that when Cremepuff became an administrator, he was a role model for other young Wikipedians - he worked extremely hard and was well respected, it's unfortunate what's now happened. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to be able to attribute the behaviour to some substance, but it appears as if this has been a concerted effort on Cremepuff's part to disrupt. I'm sorry that you got dragged into this, and I know it must not be easy to see someone you had a lot of respect for go down in flames like this. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Cremepuff 222—clearing up the mess

Cremepuff has helpfully posted a list of his misdemeanours on his talkpage, some of which may need looking into, particularly this – a case where Cremepuff seems to have reversed, without explanation, a decision made at MfD. He has also admitted another vandal-sockpuppet about which even last week's Checkuser drew no evidence; perhaps this merits further investigation. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 11:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the disruption on his talk page, that may need to be protected as well. It's a shame that a previously productive editor has ended his time here like this. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

He's now spamming my email. I just received the following message: Sup. :P Gonna post this on ANI as more evidence that I should be burnt at the stake? Okay. :) Sounds like great fun! While his email address reveals his real-life name, I'd very much rather this stopped. Could he be re-blocked without email? I'm happy to forward it to an admin if necessary. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 12:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(Now received multiple emails from him... *groan*) ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 12:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Not much anyone could do about off-wiki emailing. Just mark his email addy as spam and be done with it. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There is, he can have his use of

Wikipedia:BLOCK#Setting_block_options). ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene

─╢ 12:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done GedUK  12:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you didn't reply to anything he sent? Throwaway85 (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

< Thanks, Ged. And no, I certainly didn't reply to anything he sent, I have hopes of living the rest of my life in peace! :P ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 12:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well good luck with that, and may your holidays end in a much less stressfull manner than they started. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As sad as this is to say, this went far more smoothly than last week, and being why this time everyone being so flat and blunt was useful. User has no one to blame but his/herself for this all and we still don't know where this came from or why it started. Remember the concerns about the compromised account and the appeal to Meta for an emergency desysop? Given this happened again, and seemingly very deliberately at the end of what the user thought was still their 1 week block/sanctions, it should be reported somewhere "higher" (I wouldn't know where) and a check on login info being from different IPs than the usual? ...Do we do CUs of a single account in these cases? All the question marks that appeared then that were chalked up to a one-off bit of adolescent whatever are now back. ♪

14:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Good block. I'll have to note the permalink of this discussion for the next time somebody asks me why I oppose admin candidates who are minors.  Sandstein  21:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Good block, enough is enough. Sandstein, please don't paint all minors with the same brush, adults act immature too so this really does not prove anything.
  Ask me
  ) 21:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Piling on to endorse the block. We gave him a chance and he blew it with his eyes wide open.
  talk
  ) 22:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I know we don't usually take preemptive actions, but I went ahead and reblocked his socks with talk page access revoked, and re-instated the autoblock in the interest of heading off any more of this monumental foolishness.

talk

) 23:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Other sockpuppets

23:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done good catch.

talk

) 23:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You may also wish to check out this list.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I blocked two that were fairly obvious off that list, but we would need a checkuser for the rest.

talk

) 18:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• This situation doesnot require admin action, there has been no attempt to resolve the dispute through normal channels such as the talk pae,
  talk
  ) 21:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Despite pledging to be "topic banned from editing or participating in discussion of any political or politically controversial article, as well as BLPs. This includes articles directly about politics, but also includes politically controversial topics, like climate change,"

) 21:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in the edit you cite, [167], he says that "I still reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs", so he is not violating the conditions of his unblock, and I see no immediate reason to re-block. (Whether that unblock was a good idea in the first place is a different question.)  Sandstein  22:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in the edit I cited "climate change" was specifically listed, but Grundle did not rule it out as one of his conditions. So interpreted strictly, he violated his own pledge. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I said, "I still reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs." Grundle2600 (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

So? You are still editing at a politically-controversial, left vs. right hotbed article on climate change. That's as clear an indication as any that you intend to continue the actions that got you blocked in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Please cite any diffs that I made since my last block ended that you think are in violation of any wikipedia rule. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

What has that got to do with anything? You pledged to avoid "climate change" and then went back on your word, as far as I'm concerned. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I said, "I still reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs, such as

sweatshops. My edits in these articles have generally been welcomed by other editors, and the histories of these kinds of articles shows that I have substantially improved them without causing trouble." Grundle2600 (talk

) 15:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey is falsely attributing that pledge to me. I never pledged that. According to the text at the very link that Scjessey posted, this is what I said:

"I agree to avoid editing articles about politicians from all countries, including their article talk pages. I also agree to avoiding editing articles about people from all countries whose main notability is their political commentary, such as

sweatshops

. My edits in these articles have generally been welcomed by other editors, and the histories of these kinds of articles shows that I have substantially improved them without causing trouble."

Thus, I never said the words that Scjessey is attributing to me.

I am going to assume good faith, and assume that this was an honest mistake on Scjessey's part.

Grundle2600 (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, the concern was with your editing behaviour in regards to any article with political connotations. As part of your unblock request, you said you would like to be able to edit articles on animals, etc. Climate change is very obviously a politically heated issue, and violates the spirit of your pledge. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle should not have been allowed to add his own qualifiers and interpretations to the conditions laid out at Proposal to unblock. But that ship has now sailed unfortunately, as I'd say the fact he was unblocked serves as an implied acceptance of those "modified" conditions. So like a defendant who gets off with a lesser sentence because of a clerical or judicial error, here we are. Tarc (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, totally agree. The conditions that were added by Grundle substantially weakened the proposed restrictions. Shrug - nobody said anything about it then, so I have to agree with Grundle that they were accepted by both sides. Based on the modified restrictions, his comment is not in violation.

Ravensfire (talk

) 23:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Throwaway85, you said, "Climate change is very obviously a politically heated issue, and violates the spirit of your pledge." You are wrong. It's exactly within my pledge, which states, "I still reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs, such as

sweatshops. My edits in these articles have generally been welcomed by other editors, and the histories of these kinds of articles shows that I have substantially improved them without causing trouble." Grundle2600 (talk

) 23:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to make any judgements about Grundle's involvement, since I know nothing about the previous discussions on the subject. However, it should be noted that the article in question, while not a BLP per se, is fundamentally concerned with BLP issues since it relates to accusations against several individuals and organisations. It has been persistently affected by (and a number of editors blocked for) violations of the BLP policy. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Allow Grundle to edit politics articles again and topic ban him from BLPs and anything related to science. Articles in the latter two categories are serious articles; you don't want problematic editors to edit these articles. Editing politics related articles is more of a recreational game on Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this. Grundle has shown nothing but contempt for Wikipedia policies on any article that has even the slightest hint of a political flavor. This latest transgression should be the end of this. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite any diffs that I made since my last block ended that shows "contempt for Wikipedia policies"? Grundle2600 (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, ban me from science articles? Why? Please see User:Grundle2600#Articles_that_I_started for lots of science articles that I started. There's no problem with any of them. And there's no problem with BLPs that aren't related to politics either. Can you point out a single diff that I made since my last block ended that violates any wikipedia rule? Grundle2600 (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Grundle is making an honest attempt to abide by the restrictions he specifically agreed to as conditions of his unblock. On the other hand, due to his history of using Wikipedia more as a journalism/investigation site than an encyclopedia, I don't have a lot of faith that this will work in the long term. But until and unless he violates policy again, or goes back on his pledge to avoid political BLPs, I don't think that any further action is needed. -- Atama頭 23:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, here is the diff that Scjessey's ANI complaint is about:

"I vote for calling the article Climategate, as that is the most commonly used term, just as the article about Panthera leo is called Lion. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)"

"Q Science said, 'By the way, of the 157 MB of released files, only about 8 MB (5%) were email.' I think that statistic should be added to the section of the article called 'Content of the documents.' It also seems odd that the only subsection in that section is the one about the emails. Perhaps the info about the rest of the documents doesn't have any reliable sources - yet. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)"

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Update - Grundle has been WP:ICE CREAM-ing the regulars.[168] I think this calls for an immediate fudge sauce with walnut sprinkles. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I support Wikidemon's proposal. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I note that Grundle has made no effort to apologize for this infraction, and continues to argue that he has done nothing wrong. Wikidemon attempts to make light of this, as he has done in the past, but frankly Grundle's "I'm a nice guy. I've done nothing wrong" routine doesn't work on me anymore. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, the only "infraction" is that you falsely attributed a quote to me which I never said. At first, I said that I thought that you had made an honest mistake. However, since you have not admitted your mistake, and you have not apologized, and you continue to pursue this matter against me, I now believe that what you did was a deliberate, bad faith attempt to get me blocked even though I did not break any rules. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for doing that. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Urgh. Last week, on one of his unblock requests, he stated "Then they should ban me from all political articles from all countries, instead of blocking me, so I can still edit articles on animals, science, technology, and pop culture" I hate to say "I told you so", but when I declined his unblock request last week, I stated "I'm not sure how you could turn an article about an animal or science or pop culture into a political battleground, but I am sure you will try hard to do so." It seems clear to me that Grundle is not interested in editing in a way that avoids controversey. Immediately after being unblocked, he dove in head first into one of the biggest edit wars going on at Wikipedia right now. This is completely unacceptable. He claimed while blocked, several times, that all he wanted to do was avoid political articles and edit innocuous stuff. He gets unblocked, and goes right back to the same behavior has before. Can we just return his indefinite block, and call this done with. The experimental unblocking has failed after less than a week. --Jayron32 05:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That was a different unblock request, which was denied. Also, if you think that what I did was so bad, then why have you not cited any diffs to show that I broke any wikipedia rules? Grundle2600 (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed the heading of this section from "Grundle" to "Grundle2600" because there is another wikipedia editor named Grundle. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I also made this edit on my user talk page before my block was was lifted, where I replaced Jules Verne with Bill Watterson. Obviously, Verne has been dead for quite some time. Silly me! Grundle2600 (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Having exhausted the community's goodwill, the indefinite block of Grundle2600 should be reinstated.

• Support — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Please cite any wikipedia rule that I have broken since my last block ended. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• support --Jayron32 07:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Please cite any wikipedia rule that I have broken since my last block ended. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just a clarification, is this a proposal for a community ban? That's what we normally do with people who have exhausted the community's patience. If what is proposed is a normal block, what would be the conditions for an unblock? (I have not yet formed an opinion about the merits of either proposal.)  Sandstein  08:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• One way to get unblocked is for the person to acknowledge that they broke a specific wikipedia rule, and promise not to do it again. Since I have not broken any wikipedia rule since my last block ended, there is no wrongdoing for me to acknowledge, so I could not use that argument to get unblocked. The only other way to get unblocked is to argue that the block was not justified. In this case, no block is justified, and several people have already explained why. Even the people who support blocking me have ignored my multiple requests for them to cite any diffs which show that I broke any wikipedia rules since my last block ended. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose So far, no one has posted any diffs of me breaking any wikipedia rules since my last block ended. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose pending some showing that Grundle2600 broke a policy or what he agreed to on his talk page. And please, could the usual suspects please avoid cowboyship by going and blocking in the middle of a discussion? Let's talk this out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, I have to agree with the two users above, someone needs to demonstrate how Grundle broke policy before we even think about a lifetime community ban. WVBluefield (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wehwalt & WVBluefield.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - No policy was broken this time, but Grundle2600 broke a pledge to avoid politically-controversial articles after being indef blocked for breaking policies in the past. Agree with Wehwalt that this needs to be properly talked out this time - let's not make this a thing that crops up every week or month. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Why not just re-apply the original conditions, without his qualifications? The case is murky, because Grundle was seemingly allowed to agree to restrictions only conditionally. If we reapply the restrictions and he breaks them, the case for an indef block will be much more clear-cut.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose regrettfully. Too much confusion over the exact terms of the unblock (terms asoriginally posted or as modified by Grundle) giving plenty of doubt that anything was violated. Wikilawyering by Grundle on this? Obviously! But in this case, because of a lack of clarity on the community's side, not Grundle.
  Ravensfire (talk
  ) 15:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment What makes this even more ridiculous is that Grundle’s “violations” were made on an article talk page and not an article[169]. This whole thread smacks of pettiness and demonstrates how one user can game the system to squash another editor. WVBluefield (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  I beg your pardon? You'd have to be extraordinarily naive to think that article discussion does not have a direct affect on article changes. Also, I don't care for your suggestion that I am gaming the system. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Its becoming clear from the discussion above that not only has Grundle not violated any terms of his unblocking (as he wrote the terms favorably) but that you are using this forum to punish him for past run ins and not any current conduct. And for the record, an article talk page is not an article. WVBluefield (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's pure fantasy. This matter is nothing more than the logical result of Grundle2600's actions. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional Suport I propose modifying Grundle's ban to include any articles with political connotations. I realize this may be difficult, but Grundle has editted productively articles which have nothing to do with politics, and it would be a shame to lose those contributions. I suggest modifying his block, and having rigorous administrator oversight to ensure future relapses do not occur. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional Support per Throwaway85. I wish either my original unblock conditions had been left intact or else people hadn't allowed so many revisions by the blocked individual. He must have known this AN/I drama-fest would happen the second he set foot in that Global Warming email hacking nightmare.
  <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk
  ) 09:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, no. Given that my talk page comments were perfectly reasonable, it never occurred to me that anyone would file an ANI complaint. And still, even now, no one has cited any wikipedia rules that I violated with my comments. There is no legitimate reason to topic ban me from articles related to global warming. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Objections to complaint based on confusion over quote attribution

Scjessey, the person who created this ANI complaint against me, wrongly attributed a quote to me which I never said. Then after I explained his mistake and posted what I really did say, I said, "I am going to assume good faith, and assume that this was an honest mistake on Scjessey's part."

However, since then, Scjessey has not admitted that he mistakenly attributed something to me which I never said, and he has not apologized, and in fact, he has continued arguing against me. Therefore, I no longer believe that what he did was in good faith, and I no longer believe that it was an honest mistake. Instead, I now believe that Scjessey deliberately attributed a quote to me which I never said, in a bad faith attempt to get me blocked for something which I never said.

Shame on him.

Grundle2600 (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about the topic ban quote here? Yes, I'd like to see Scjessey address that. Given that what is being discussed is the privilege of one editor to edit Wikipedia, we need to make sure what we post is accurate.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what we are talking about here.

Scjessey said:

"Despite pledging to be 'topic banned from editing or participating in discussion of any political or politically controversial article, as well as BLPs. This includes articles directly about politics, but also includes politically controversial topics, like climate change,'"

But I never said that.

This is what I actually said:

"I agree to avoid editing articles about politicians from all countries, including their article talk pages. I also agree to avoiding editing articles about people from all countries whose main notability is their political commentary, such as

sweatshops

. My edits in these articles have generally been welcomed by other editors, and the histories of these kinds of articles shows that I have substantially improved them without causing trouble."

Thus, I never said the words that Scjessey is attributing to me.

Grundle2600 (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to see Scjessey address this point. If Scjessey is maintaining that Grundle said this, and certainly that is the implication, I'd like to see Scjessey post a diff. We get enough drama at AN/I without questionable bases for persuing a matter, if that's what we have.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I also made this edit on my user talk page before my block was was lifted, where I replaced Jules Verne with Bill Watterson. Obviously, Verne has been dead for quite some time. Silly me! Grundle2600 (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I already explained this yesterday. I'll do it again if you like. Here's the gist of it in easy-to-read points:

• Grundle2600 was indef blocked for various violations of policy, including
  the most sacred (see archive of ANI discussion
  )
• A list of "sanctions" were proposed (see archive) by
  User:Multixfer
  . "Climate change" was specifically mentioned in the list of points.
• Grundle2600 pledged (with conditions) to abide by these points diff, but no mention of "climate change" appeared in Grundle2600's conditions.
• Grundle2600 violated the agreed-upon terms by joining the debate on a highly controversial climate change-related article.

I think this is a direct violation of his "promise to be good" pledge. Even if you don't agree, you'd have to argue that it is at the very least a violation of the "spirit" of that pledge. Grundle2600 has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to edit or discuss political (or politically-controversial) articles in a responsible manner, either by directly violating policy or trying to push a political agenda. How much more of this must we put up with? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In Grundle's defense, his version of the conditions includes the phrase "I reserve the right to make edits about international political articles that are not BLPs...". I think that does cover the climate change articles for the most part. His changes are pretty cleverly written to include many of the articles that he wants to edit without imposing too many new limits on him.

Ravensfire (talk

) 15:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The talk page Grundle2600 edited has a BLP tag at the top of it, as pointed out by another editor above. It may not be a biography, but for the protection of the various individuals being discussed within the article it certainly falls under the auspices of

WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk

) 15:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The article does not have a BLP tag. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles don't have BLP tags, their discussion pages do - as in

Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (the very first tag on the page). If you are going to pledge to avoid BLP articles, it would certainly be helpful if you could actually identify them! -- Scjessey (talk

) 18:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Jay Leno article says "Living people" in the list of categories at the bottom. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. So? -- Scjessey (talk) 02:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(No indent) You just said, "Articles don't have BLP tags." So I said that you were wrong - the Jay Leno article does. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Another proposal

Grundle is to abide by the original unblock conditions without any qualification:

1. Grundle is to refrain from posting his list of seven questions or referring to them anywhere on Wikipedia.
2. He is topic banned from editing or participating in discussion of any political or politically controversial article, as well as BLPs. This includes articles directly about politics, but also includes politically controversial topics, like climate change.
3. Grundle agrees to take note of and adhere thoroughly to
   WP:SYN
4. Grundle agrees to disengage from and avoid those he has had disputes with, especially political disputes.
5. Any posting of his seven questions or referring to them, or breaking of his topic ban, or deliberate engagement with those he has had disputes with will result in his indefinite block being immediately reinstated for a period of no less than 4 months.

This will clear up the confusion about what restrictions were placed and agreed to.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

For now, I disagree. Grundle has several restrictions on him at this point from previous discussions/cases plus these new ones. Let's see if he can abide by his own restrictions without causing disruption. If he can - great! Job well done! If he can't, it should be easier to be get additional restrictions. I think he got let off the hook on this one, but maybe he'll work better under restrictions that he was able to modify, rather than have them dictated to him.

Ravensfire (talk

) 15:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Extremely disgusted and reluctant oppose - I'm sorry to say but the unblocking admin seriously screwed the pooch here by accepting Grundle's conditions, so unless another admin wants to start the ol wheel-war fun, we're stuck with dealing with the consequences. I have
  no faith whatsoever that Grundle can make positive contributions to such a politically charged as global warming and the e-mail hacking incident, but the unfortunate outcome of the unblock is that it will have to be tolerated until it crosses the line. Perhaps this will serve as a cautionary tale for the future; don't let the accused dictate the terms of the probation. Tarc (talk
  ) 16:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah, it looks like Grundle2600 is going to get off on a technicality. Ambiguity is the friend of the accused. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Scjessey, the only "ambiguity" is that you attributed something to me which I never said. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Tarc stated, "I have
  no faith whatsoever that Grundle can make positive contributions to such a politically charged as global warming and the e-mail hacking incident." You are mistaken. The most recent edit that I made to any such article was this one from December 9. And if you look at the current version of the article, you will see that the information that I added to the article is still there - 2 weeks after I added it. In fact, even Scjessey, the person who filed this current ANI complain against me, has edited that article since I added that info, but left intact the information that I added. Thus, I have just proven that I am capable of making a positive contribution to such an article. However, if you think that my edit has made the article worse, you are free to remove that information from the article. Grundle2600 (talk
  ) 16:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• A single edit is not much of a sample to go on, and the bulk of your past disruption stemmed from talk page contributions, not article edits. Tarc (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Tarc, here is the diff that Scjessey's ANI complaint is about. It's on the talk page. It's a perfectly reasonable edit. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• You continue to ignore the facts, which I have laid it in an easy-to-follow form above. You are less likely to get sanctioned if you admit your error (or even admit it could be seen as an error), instead of arguing with every editor who disagrees with your version of events. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Grundle, I voted to oppose, albeit reluctantly. Take your victories where you can and stop quibbling. Tarc (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I believe it to be in the best interests of all concerned for Grundle to maintain his editing priveleges, with the caveat that he refrain from editing, or commenting on the talk pages of, any article with political connotations. I propose, as above, that an administrator undertake to monitor his edits, and ensure he does not violate said condition. While I agree that technically, he has not violated any rules since his previous block, I feel his recent edits violate the spirit of what was imposed. The unblocking admin was perhaps too quick to accept Grundle's proposed conditions. I think we can avoid much future drama, and Grundle avoid future blocks, if he agrees to adhere to the condition I have proposed. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• I oppose blocking - But this should be considered a "last chance" for the editor. I think that's the consensus I see here, most people opposing an immediate reblock do so because of a technicality and because no disruption has occurred afterward, and I'm in that camp. But I don't see many people putting a great deal of faith in him. I say that if he can somehow avoid trouble, despite his history, then great. If he acts as everyone expects he will, then there's cause for the indefinite block to be reinstated. -- Atama頭 20:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment It is not a last chance for Grundle, because as far as I can tell, he has not done anything wrong. He is within the scope of his editing restrictions. Now, I will say that possibly the unblocking admin should not have let Grundle amend the understanding that way, but it did pass by unremarked, and Grundle's entitled. The edit itself seems unobjectionable. I would say that I'm far more upset at Scjessey. Either Scjessey's complaint that began all of this lacked clarity, or it lacked candor. I have my opinion on which, but I AGF. Frankly, I see nothing further to do here. Let's close all of this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I gave you the thorough explanation you requested. As far as I am concerned, Grundle2600 agreed not to involve himself in politically-contentious areas of Wikipedia, and he went back on that agreement. That is my interpretation, which I have made in good faith. Indeed, Grundle2600 continues to involve himself in the same article, with this proposal. Bear in mind that Grundle2600 was expected to act "whiter than white" in order to get the indef block rescinded. If Grundle has not done anything wrong, then perhaps the failure to properly restrict Grundle in the first place should be addressed. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

He is within the scope of his editing restrictions. Thus, he did not do anything wrong. Nothing further to be done here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Grundle has wriggled out from under this one, but his choice to wriggle is disconcerting. This[170] edit to the Irish Famine article is disconcerting, too: he tries to put the famine in the context of laws that had been repealed a generation or more before[171]. So, he'll be back, and I will gladly bet the under for January 5. PhGustaf (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• PhGustaf, I was not aware that those laws had been repealed. I was just citing what was in the source. I am interested in accuracy, so thank you for pointing that out to me. This was not a deliberate attempt on my part to add false information. If you look at the source that I cited, I think you will see that my edit was done in good faith. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• The first line of Section I of your source says, "The Penal Laws, dating from 1695, and not repealed in their entirety until Catholic emancipation in 1829,...". PhGustaf (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• That's my fault for not reading every word of the source. It was a careless mistake on my part, which I should not have done. But it was not a deliberate attempt to add false information. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, now might be a good time to take a step back from articles with political connotations. You do yourself no favours by editing such articles, as it only increases admin surveillance of your edits. It might be wise to stick to entirely uncontroversial articles for awhile, and let things cool down a bit. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. I am now voluntarily on break from all political articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Grundle2600 agrees to take voluntary break from all political articles

As of now, I am taking a voluntary break from all political articles and their talk pages. I am doing this as a gesture of good will, and to show that being allowed to edit the rest of wikipedia is important enough to me that I am willing to compromise. All I want to do here is to improve articles, and there are plenty of articles that I can work on that aren't political. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and Merry Christmas (from an uninvolved non-admin)!—Finell 17:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too! Grundle2600 (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good. Can I suggest that you do this for at least a month and also drop a note here on AN/I when you are ending it, so we are all on notice?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll raise you to two months and change. I will avoid editing political articles at least until February 28, 2010, 11:59 PM. And yes, I'll post a note here when I'm ending it. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Good plan. Be careful, though; you're sufficiently talented to work tendentious political commentary into articles on bacon without even noticing it yourself. Stick to stuff like peeps. Cheers, PhGustaf (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh. Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

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

You never know where an edit war will break out. This skirmish is an IP address insisting that the song's lyric about the banana spider is a veiled reference to black people plotting to kill white people. What should I do? Wait until he breaks 3RR? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Damn, this is sad. I love that song.

talk

) 01:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has discussed this with the editor, on his/her talk page, until now. Also, editor has not been given the courtesy of an ANI notification. This complaint is premature and should be shelved until

proper process has been followed. Rodhullandemu

01:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You are suggesting that IP editors actually are aware of what gets posted on their user talk pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

They get the big orange notice, assuming anyone posts to an otherwise empty Talk page; however, I see there has been some engagement on the article Talk page, which is where the discussion belongs. I

education process seems to be continuing. Rodhullandemu

01:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I also posted a comment on that article talk page point the IP to here if he wants to say something. That particular IP's last edits were 3 1/2 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, all. It appears that the IP has backed off, for now at least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

come mister tally man, tally me banana --Jayron32 04:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs (

)) has a problem with a NPOV interpretation who goes running to the administrators after a few minutes of a disagreement. I think we are working the disagreements out on the article page. But go ahead and block me. There is no point in being able to edit if the edits always get undone anyways. Why contribute anything useful to Wikipedia then? It would just be a waste of my time.

On a different topic, why can't I just respond to one topic on this page? I had to edit the whole page. Is there a way?

Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm just putting the userlinks here so it's easy to block Baseball Bugs if an admin wants to.

24.125.41.207 (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I advise against that, especially since calling him a "fascist" is very much blockable as a personal attack. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 08:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What if he really was a fascist? What if he was a member of a fascist political party, or admitted to a fascist philosophy? He may want to be known as a fascist. 24.125.41.207 (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You do not know any of that, however, and as such it is a personal attack. Let's not argue semantics here. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 08:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy, if I called him a democrat, would it be a personal attack? I don't know that he is or isn't a democrat. I don't think it's a personal attack. I intend to argue semantics because it's Wikipedia. You are getting off topic. We are trying to decide the level of citations that is needed for interpretations of music. There are articles with uncited interpretations of music all over Wikipedia. And then Baseball Bugs, the self-appointed dictator of Wikipedia, doesn't like an interpretation he sees and says it's original research, doesn't have any citations, and all of the usual libel that self-appointed Wikipedia dictators dredge up. I am trying to work on that question on the article page. 24.125.41.207 (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

IP, you're going to have to rein in the personal attacks. Nobody is going to listen to any substantive points you may make when you're using overly emotive (and inaccurate) terms like "fascist" and "self-appointed dictator of Wikipedia". Indeed, we're likely to skip listening to you entirely and just hit the block button. Want to try again?

⇨

09:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

OK REDVERS, I can be less emotive with how I talk about people. However, it seems like Baseball Bugs simply assumes that he's right. Look at the tone in his posts about this article. Without saying that I am talking about Baseball Bugs, just talking about Wikipedia users in general, can you please give me Wikipedia advice about how to deal with people who constantly patrol articles to enforce their non-NPOV perspective on those articles? Is there a way to complain about users who are too protectionist, activist, or authoritarian? 24.125.41.207 (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You got caught inserting potentially racist, but nevertheless uncited commentary in an article about a still-popular song. They were thankfully removed. Why do you suddenly feel the urge to bite the person who caught you? That will never detract from the reality of what was done, and that it was fixed. Wikipedia is not a game, and getting mad at the people who protect it is never going to get you far. (

BWilkins ←track

) 10:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Games are great. :) --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Cremepuff now blocked (see a section below). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

To the IP, who asked - and ignoring Cremepuff222's attempt to be unhelpful - the basics of sorting disputes are first to self-edit any and all emotive language (so that's a checked-box straight away - thanks). Now, does the problem seem to you to be one editor or multiple editors? If multiple editors, start a thread on the talk page of the article, and list concisely and factually the issues, then how you would see them resolved. If it's one editor, start a thread on their talk page and do exactly the same. This part is negotiation.

Lets assume that the start-talking step above didn't work, for whatever reason. That's when it's time for one of the avenues in

(as links is best) to back your point of view. Dispute resolution is never quick, but we're not on a deadline here and we're all volunteers, so you're not going to get speed out of us!

The only time that administrators can intervene is if someone breaks one of our bright-line rules. The community doesn't empower admins to make judgements in content disputes; we can only act where a rule has been clearly and unambiguously broken, or where a consensus can be shown to exist and continue to exist for or against something and needs enforcement - and even there we tread carefully as the community is rarely happy for admins to make too sweeping a judgement over anything.

So your next stage appears to be to try dispute resolution. You may also like to make a free account and edit with that: you don't have to, but since 70% of our vandalism comes from IP addresses, people tend to have a prejudice against them. The account can be throwaway - use it for the dispute resolution, then quietly forget about it once it's over.

10:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The IP also characterized wikipedia editors with various extremist terms, on the article talk page. He also removed a section to make a point, although the point might be right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links REDVERS. That's a great explanation of how to work on these edits. You should add it to a help page.

BWilkins, the interpretation is not racist. By saying that "if I think it's racist, it must be wrong" undermines the effort to create factual articles. If you actually have something constructive to say about the topic, come work on the article. 24.125.41.207 (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Factual articles are awesome. Those based on

BWilkins ←track

) 01:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

So now that the IP cannot add his interpretation of the song, he removes another interpretation.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)