Wikipedia : Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive621

) 23:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet editing Kristi Noem

There is an editor working the Kristim Noem article by removed reliably sourced information (such as her title in the South Dakota House of Reps), pushing POV (adding commentary that is not supported by third parties--mere personal opinion and adding information in a biased manner), violating BLP by attacking Noem's educational background, and most of all making edits under a series of different IP addresses.--InaMaka (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's borderline between BLP violations and vandalism. As it's all coming from IPs, and I'm not very confident in dealing with this, so I enacted a 3 day semi-protection. It's been sitting here for 40 minutes, and so to stop potential BLP violations, I've semi-d it. You have my permission to unprotect the page. I'm just doing it as a stopgap. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As a non-admin my opinion my have no bearing hear but i have been in similar situations myself. I think the technical term is a dynamic IP a.k.a IP hopped. If the IP range is wide a ban/block would not be the best intervention. For the time being it is best to semi-protect the page as done. If in three days time the behaviour continues protect for longer periods of time. If possible try and engage with discussion on the talkpage. If all else fails semi-protection is probably the best option unless the IP address can be identified as the sockpuppet of a useraccount. Hope that helps, Regards. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I've trouted myself. Unprotected. I read it as all occurring today/yesterday, but it's happened over a longer time frame. I'll just watch the page, and rv any BLP vios for the interim. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations

Following up from the header above "Major sockpuppeteer", SPI has one of the biggest backlogs I've seen. One case goes all the way back to May 30. It looks like a lot of them are simple DUCK checks, could some nice admins come over and help clean some of these up? Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Talk:Orgasm

A very heated argument is occurring at this page. Please see the "extremely offensive and opressive" section. It appears that several users, including Fabray23, Miafina and the anonymous user 174.130.231.162 are engaging in personal attacks. -Quinxorin (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's taken place over two months so that is hardly heated. There isn't really anything concerning here in the short term but maybe a warning is all that is needed here.

talk

) 05:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User:IronBreww solely created to impersonate me

Resolved

–

talk · contribs) blocked indef. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]

18:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In a pattern from abuse from

User:IronBreww solely to impersonate me.--Ironbrew (talk

) 16:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Though the username is very similar, I don't see any reason to believe that he is trying to impersonate you. If you think that the account is a sockpuppet, you might consider filing an WP:RFCU to confirm that. Other than the username, do you have any other reason to believe that this is an impersonation? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Note also that the account was created in April and looking at the user's contribution history seems to suggest that the user is editing constructively. I also note that you haven't yet attempted to talk to the user about this; that should be your first port of call before jumping into an AN/I. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

My spider sense is tingling, tho, Giftiger Wunsch. Ironbrew edited previously on Iglesia ni Cristo topics and now Ironbreww comes along and is also editing those topics (well, one edit to the template and one edit to talk:Iglesia ni Cristo). I don't have time at the moment to dig further, but if I only edited primarily in one area and someone with User:Syrfiss even made one or two edits in that area I'd be inclined to be suspicious. Syrthiss (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I just had a quick look at the recent contributions of

talk · contribs) in his short contribution history (and they are mentioned on his talk page) are also being edited by Ironbrew. It also strikes me as a little bit strange that such a new user has all the instruction templates, etc. you might expect on the talk page of a much more experienced editor. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]

16:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. For future reference, issues like this should be reported to

UAA. TN X Man

18:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It's fizzy, it's ginger, it's... blocked. TFOWR 10:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Alin (Public Policy)

Not an incident per say, but I wanted to see what other's opinions on this newly created user account are.

user:Alin (Public Policy) has just been created, and from the text on the userpage "This account is used only to facilitate collaboration and development of content on the Public Policy Initiative-related articles on English Wikipedia. This account is not used for, or involved in, the development of any other content on the English Wikipedia." it seems to suggest to me that it may not be for the use of one person, but a larger number. Maybe I'm misreading it, or finding things in it that aren't there, but I wanted someone else's opinion. Canterbury Tail talk

16:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

OrangeMike just blocked for spam username. I would think this settles the matter. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the account of Annie Lin, a new Wikimedia Foundation employee who is part of the public policy initiative. Orangemike actually blocked the WMF office IP.--Sross (Public Policy) (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked... –xeno^talk 23:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have seen 4 or 5 of these pass through UAA - most of which were not blocked. Will add this string to the soxbot whitelist. 7 23:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, xeno and 7!--Sross (Public Policy) (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel kinda sandbagged here. "Public Policy Initiative" is a generic name. This looked like just another dadblamed corporate role account/s.p.a., and I blocked it as such. Putting it on the soxbot whitelist will not address the problem that it reads like a corporate role account; and there was nothing on the userpage to tell me or any other admin that this was a WMF account! Had it occurred to anybody that ordinary rank-and-file admins may be too busy to keep track of administrivia like that, and that the very purpose of a userpage is to clue other editors in? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is faulting you here. The userpage said "This account is used only to facilitate collaboration and development of content on the Public Policy Initiative-related articles on the English Wikipedia. This account is not used for, or involved in, the development of any other content on the English Wikipedia." - which was confusing to me as well as I've never heard of this "Public Policy Initiative" and it didn't make any explicit connection to the WMF. Waiting, however, would have been fine as well - the account wasn't editing. In the end: no harm, no foul. –xeno^talk 12:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, was not trying to find fault with the block. Communication from WMF onto WP:AN in the event of such initiatives might prevent this in the future. 7 13:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If it helps Orangemike, a few months ago I raised a concern with User:Nimish Gautam because he was creating several accounts (UsabilityX, where X was numbers 1 to 9) and saying that it was WMF related. It was eventually confirmed by another WMF employee. I advised them at the time that they should consider being more transparent when doing things like this. I read the statement on the userpage for Alin, and you are correct that it doesn't explicitly state a connection to WMF...though after the fact it could be read that way. I personally might have attempted to communicate with the user before blocking since they hadn't edited yet, but considering the amount of spam and role accounts we see I personally can't fault you for being suspicious. Hope this helps. Syrthiss (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This case was an easy mistake to make, as at least two of them that I cleared off UAA had identical userpages, except for a link to Outreach Wiki, which clued me in. Ms. Lin's user page includes no such link, which made it look like a promotional username without easy explanation. Courcelles (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I left a note on Sross' talk page asking for their help in getting more awareness of this on the WMF side. Syrthiss (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we absolutely need to be more clear about creating WMF accounts; the plan, tentatively at least, is to start having established office accounts create new WMF accounts (Cary Bass sent out a staff email about this last night), although I wouldn't be surprised if some slip through the cracks since new staff who aren't familiar with how this aspect of Wikipedia works are likely to try to create accounts before they are instructed on the right way to go about it. On behalf of the public policy team, I apologize for this mishap; we should have anticipated this, and we definitely should have drafted clearer text for the disclaimer that made the WMF connection obvious. Personally, and more broadly, I don't like the block-first approach simply on the suspicion of a role account; lots of well-meaning and potentially good contributors get summarily blocked, and organizations (e.g., the GLAM institutions Liam Wyatt has been working with, among others) are increasingly wanting to find ways to work with/on Wikipedia and just don't know how to go about it. Explaining what the problem with an account name is ought to be the first step, not instantly block and move on.--Sross (Public Policy) (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Impersonation Account?

Resolved

– Thanks for the forthcoming Gnusmas other/Keegscee, your cooperation is appreciated. (Sock blocked per admission)

NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Gnusmas other posted a rather odd note on User:Georgewilliamherbert‎ talk page. Doing a little research, I found there is a User:Gnusmas. Is this a sock, impersonation, what? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Neutralhomer. I am not a sock of this user. I am actually a sock of Keegscee. Good day. Gnusmas other (talk) 06:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There ya go. Block please? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Lying, sockpuppetry, trolling, pick your poison. Courcelles (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk

) 06:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"Short"cut created. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Nibiru linkspamming

Nibiru collision. Since I don't want to be blocked for edit warring, and since he obviously will not stop, I need to either block him or have someone else explain the rules, since he isn't listening to me. Serendi ^pod ous

08:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, you didn't notify Senouf of the discussion as required - I've done this for you this time. Secondly, there has been no attempt at discussion with Senouf over the issue - I'm not saying that there isn't a problem but you should at least try to discuss the issues first, and then come here if the editor ignores you or refuses to enter into discussion. Mjroots (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Nibiru. Senouf is pretty adamant about adding his link. --Ckatz^chat _spy 10:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In which case, let discussion continue then. Mjroots (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I note that not only is he adding his blog to this article, he's been promoting his ideas elsewhere [19] and [20]

talk

) 12:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Senouf to stop inserting the links due to

WP:SPAMLINKS, with the suggestion that the addition of a link should be made via a request on the talk page of each article in question and subject to consensus, Senouf to disclose any COI when requesting addition of the link. Mjroots (talk

) 12:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Tricia Santos

I would like a review of my action here. This article about a 14-year-old contestant in a reality show in the Philippines first appeared on 31 May and attracted over 40 edits in a few hours from a variety of IPs and SPAs before being deleted as an attack page; it was presently restored as a redirect to the reality show article. It has now been recreated and is again proving a magnet for supporters and attackers, with promotional material about her career hopes and malicious gossip being added and removed. It could well be that the press coverage establishes notability, but in view of the subject's age and the BLP aspects I have restored the redirect to

Patricia Santos. Feel free to revert me if there is consensus to do so. JohnCD (talk

) 10:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I'd have done the same. Ged UK 11:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, seems perfectly reasonable in the circumstances. Good call. EyeSerene^talk 12:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugeneacurry

Talk 10:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

– Anon Indefinite Block/Comunity Ban Slrubenstein

"unresolving" the case, see my comment below with this timestamp. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Restoring the "resolved" check -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved again because of unblock request. Sandstein 20:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC) – and resolved again as unblock request declined, Sandstein 04:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to request admin action against Eugeneacurry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for creating an attack page about me, which he said he intended to post to mainspace.

He and I have been in a content dispute for several months at Christ myth theory, after I opposed its promotion to FA status and tried to help fix it in ways Eugene disagreed with. He recently arrived at an article I had rewritten, John Polkinghorne, and proceeded to make certain changes. We got into a content dispute; he violated 3RR; and I posted a report on the 3RR noticeboard, which was not acted on—see here.

A few hours later, Eugene created an article about me, now oversighted, in his userspace. It was written in the form of a Wikipedia article, and he said here on his talk page that he intended to post it to mainspace under the title "SlimVirgin". When he saw it had been deleted, he even asked another admin to undelete it for him. The article was written in a purportedly sympathetic tone about how I'd been cyberstalked, but it repeated the details of the stalking. He says it wasn't intended as an attack page, but it's hard to see how else to interpret it.

I feel this crossed a line and that some kind of action needs to be taken. Eugene is the pastor of an American Baptist church and relentlessly pushes what seems to be (in my view) a fundamentalist Christian POV. He regularly disparages sources he disagrees with—to the point of causing BLP problems—belittles editors who oppose him, and engages in serial reverting. He's definitely one of the most aggressive editors I've come across. There's a previous discussion here on AN/I about his comparing sources who argue Jesus may not have existed with Holocaust deniers.

If no action is taken about the attack page, he'll interpret it to mean that this degree of hostility is acceptable. I'd like to know whether there's community consensus to do something about it, and if so what. I kept a copy of the article, so I could email it to a couple of people to vouch for the contents, if that's needed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on other behavior I'm concerned, but when you had that oversighted (as opposed to just deleted or hiding those revisions) you removed it from normal on-wiki review processes. There are only a handful of people who can comment on what was there now.

I am not comfortable with the idea of taking action for something I can't even see.

Are there non-oversighted edits which he's done which demonstrate the behavior problem pattern clearly?

If not, if someone who saw it pre-oversight feels that the material justified action that's fine, they can do so, but posting here for general review seems sort of hard without evidence to point to...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I kept a copy, so I'll e-mail it to you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a pickle, isn't it? I can't imagine any scenario where a valid G10 and oversight would be- in any way- acceptable, but the fact that oversight was employed means all but a couple dozen are unable to say anything definite about this. Courcelles (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Received. It's not a bright-line immediate-indef blockable attack page, but it's concerning and worthy following up on.

I'm asking Eugeueacurry some questions on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that creating a page like this about a fellow editor in response to a content dispute was indeed a bright-line issue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Especially if an oversighter felt the page justified that level of suppression... Bobby Tables (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

But how do we know if it is justified if the reasons and evidence are not transparent (i.e., made, at least temporarily, public)? As someone once said, "Trust, but verify". Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the policy is, but isn't it unfair to accuse someone of something without making the evidence public? I mean, not doing so seems like a secret trial. Am I wrong about this? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Bill supports Eugene no matter what the latter says or does. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So an editor can't be blocked for creating an attack page unless the attack page is left in public view? Um- no- not at all. Deletion of attack pages is very sound policy, as is blocking editors who create them. --Courcelles (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant at all, and I'm sorry that I gave you that impression. I have no problem with the deleting of attack pages. That IS a sound policy. My point is that if the "article" is not made public while deciding its merits, doesn't that put a question mark on the decision process? I mean, shouldn't the process be open in order to insure fairness? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying hard to imagine what could be on that page that would not be obvious harassment. I'm failing. The very act of creating an article about someone you're having a conflict with, and claiming you plan to put it in article space, is a prima facie attempt at intimidation, or at the very least baiting. It's gone, and he has said he won't be adding it again, so I suppose I won't block now, but IMHO this is the kind of shit we should be blocking people for, not using naughty words or making mistakes with a script. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the mere act of creating an 'article' about a user you're in a dispute with is disruptive and probably amounts to harassment. Do we need an interaction ban? In any case, any further harassment or personal attacks by Eugeneacurry on SlimVirgin should result in a substantial block. Fences&Windows 02:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As I've said on my talk page, I can honestly say that that I wrote that "article" without malice and with every intention of having it conform to Wikipedia's policies, including WP:NPOV. I intended to submit it to the Deletion Review folks (since the namespace had been salted) once it was finished, so I understood that it needed to be entirely above board. That said, it seems that three people who have actually read it found it problematic and I've agreed to let it go. Perhaps I was "too close" to the situation to see it for what it was; but I never meant it to be anything other than a good-faith high quality stub.

In any event, the admin that deleted the "article" didn't feel that it warrented a block; so far the 3RR board haven't felt my actions at

forum shopping in an effort to silence my opposition to some of her edits at Christ myth theory. Still, like I've said, I'll not try again to write an article on her, no matter how well-intentioned. Eugene (talk

) 02:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, a lot of people her have just pushed

WP:AGF to its limit. If you want to continue editing here, then please do not create anything that could be reasonably interpreted as attacking somebody, regardless of whether that's your intent. Please try to work collaboratively with all editors, including SV and if you can't play nicely, stay away from each other. The best advice I can give you is the oft-ignored phrase "comment on content, not the contributor". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

03:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

admin that deleted the "article" didn't feel that it warrented a block -- I beg your pardon. I didn't feel it warranted an immediate block; your disingenuousness regarding your motivations makes me wonder if my judgment was a little off. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all being disingenuous; I've been exposed to SV through less than ideal circumstances, but the exposure prompted interest, the interest to an attempt at a wiki page. I don't see anything sinister about that. But like I've said, I've let it go. Eugene (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugene is asking us to believe that of all the millions of topics out there he could have created a stub on, I was the most interesting thing he could think of, and it was a cooincidence that this occurred to him hours after I reported him for 3RR. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Even without having seen the page, I'm quickly becoming of the mindset that this might, indeed, be worth a block. --Courcelles (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The idea that wiki-drama that does not reach the point of major media coverage (we all know the main examples of this) is encyclopedic enough for inclusion is dubious, at best, which makes assuming good faith difficult. Kansan (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I felt that coverage in the New York Times and Slate was "major" enough. But as I've said, I've let it go. Eugene (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I see two pretty simple principles here. The first has to do with any-page-that-has-been-construed-as-an-attack-page. I see zero excuse for it at Wikipedia. Of course we create pages in which we documented the times we have been attacked, for use as evidence at ArbCom. But Curry is clearly talking about something else. The principle is simple: we should be here working on articles. Criticize articles, praise articles, edit articles. There is simply no need to descend into attacks against others. This is a no-brainer. The second issue is the oversight. You cannot blame SV for asking. If fault lies with anyone, it is with someone who has oversight powers using them improperly. I am concerned about blsming SV for someone else's actions. Sure, we can disagree over how she reacted. But the responsibility for any redacting or overlight lies with the person SV went to. WP depends on giving these powers to people of good judgment. If you want to question their judgment, fine, but direct your questioning at them. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused ... you're complaining about oversight of the page? We normally oversight things that invade editors' privacy. Slim was 100% correct to ask for it to be oversighted and whoever oversighted it was 100% correct to do so. Attempting to out your fellow editors is not an acceptable tool in a content dispute. In creating this page, Eugeneacurry showed that he is not able to edit cooperatively and I strongly feel a lengthy block or ban would be appropriate. --B (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

@B - no, I am not complaining against oversight. I am not complaining against anything. I am simply saying that Eugenecurry has no grounds to complain against SlimVirgin. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason you removed my comment Eugene? Removing a comment that suggests you be banned makes it very hard to assume you are acting in good faith. --B (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it was an unintentional mix-up stemming from an edit conflict. Eugene (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I have indef blocked Eugenecurry for removing User B's post, which advocated a block, as alluded to above in the middle of a discussion regarding their lack of appreciation of the inappropriate responses they made in an earlier dispute with an editor. Any admin who feels that Eugenecurry has become sufficiently clued up as to the correct use of protocol and practice in these matters may unblock without reference to me. I would also urge parties not to allow this block to simply become fact, but to arrive at a consensus on how this matter may be resolved (which, of course, might include an indef block) with or without Eugenecurry's continued involvement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked under the "block people for the right reasons" banner. I've seen exactly this sort of edit conflict result in apparently deleted edits often enough to assume good faith for this particular action. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It might help the discussion if I described (in very broad non-attack terms) the nature of the article so that this conversation might be put in context. I mentioned SV edit count (sourced to a minor regional newspaper), her first name as she gave it in an interview with a reporter (sourced to that reporter's article in a minor regional lifestyle publication), her experience as a subject of cyberstalking--using the term "stalking"--(sourced to a major mainstream online publication), some of the coverage the stalking recieved in peri-Wikipedia venunes (sourced to a major national newspaper and a technical journal), two theories predicated on that stalking--neither of which were presented as flat facts and neither of which were intrinsically disreputable/negative--I thought they were sort of glamourous myself--or overly personal (sourced to the previously mentioned major mainstream online source and the lifestyle source), and SV's response to the situation in terms of founding a new organization (sourced to the lifestyle publication). I didn't include any information that hadn't already been covered by reliable sources, I didn't try to make SV look bad, I didn't editorialize. While the community thinks it was nevertheless inappropriate (would you feel the same way if I wasn't the one who wrote it and if it was about someone on some other Wiki-like project?) I hardly think it rises to the level of a vicious "attack" and I certainly don't think it merits blocking.

I realize that Wikipedia tends to err on the side of restraint and privacy regarding it's editors, but I felt that if other notable editors who recieved mainstream media coverage could have a Wikipedia article (e.g.

Essjay, though I recongnize that Essjay is a more controversial figure), why not SlimVirgin Eugene (talk

) 14:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been here long enough that you know that casual mentions are not evidence of notability. There is obviously nothing out there for writing a biography of her. Also, as Slim correctly pointed out, your revelation of this as a topic for an article occurring during a dispute with her is completely unbelievable. It's ridiculous that you are even trying to defend this. --B (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, my only defense on the notability point is that at least some of the sources (the lifestyle one and a couple others I didn't get a change to integrate into the body) focused largely on SV. As for the timing, you're right, in retrospect it wasn't the best idea. Eugene (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's hard for me to believe that this is unrelated to your editing dispute. You don't appear to have been inspired to make articles about any editors with whom you are not in conflict. If I were in this situation- I came to believe that a person with whom I was in conflict was so important that an article about them must be written- I'd probably go to

articles for creation and see if any neutral people wanted to take on the project, just to make sure that my own judgment wasn't clouded by our disagreement. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs

) 14:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect you are obviously right. I should have just put in a request for an article and simply provided the links to the RSes. I had thought, foolishly it seems, that SlimVirgin might have been impressed by my fairness towards her in the article and realized that I'm not just a jerk opposing her in other article disputes for spite, that my concerns are substantive and not motivated by personalities. Could I still submit the sources and a request? Or would that only be construed as further evidence of my nefarious intentions?

As for my not writing an article on other editors (those on my "side" of disputes), I'm not aware that any of them are notable. But if you're aware of reliable sources covering Bill the Cat 7, I'd write the article this afternoon. Eugene (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's utterly impossible to believe that this is unrelated to your long, bitter editing disputes. I'm not sure whether or not you can make a case for technically not violating some behavioral policy or guideline, but this has the stink of bad faith all over it. (Why you would do this while identifying yourself as a minister on your user page is shocking to me. You don't really need to sacrifice the second greatest commandment for the first. [21]) As far as Wikipedia is concerned, your creation of the page a serious violation of

WP:DISRUPTION, which I think is a good, catch-all policy for this kind of behavior. As I told you a while back on your user page, I really hoped you'd try to get along. And wouldn't the normal thing to do when creating an article about another editor be to contact that editor and, if told the editor didn't want an article, then to drop the idea unless there were some overriding need for it? I can't assume good faith enough to accept your explanation just above at 15:02. It doesn't look believable that you would create this without contacting her first. -- JohnWBarber (talk

) 15:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

When the material was first deleted off my talk space I said that I would be willing to submit it to SlimVirgin for review prior to submitting it to the Deletion Review team. [22] When it became clear that SV wasn't pleased, I said that I'd drop it. [23] Eugene (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the

good-faith way of doing it would be (1) get the idea to create an article of, at best, marginal notability; (2) contact the editor/subject with the idea, preferably in a private email; (3) procede further only if the editor is receptive to the idea. Especially with an editor you've had conflicts with. -- JohnWBarber (talk

) 15:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Jpgordon, I am a little bit confused about your reverting LessHeardVanU. Are you simply asking that there be more discussion before Eugenecurry be indefinitely blocked? Or are you cateorically opposed to such a block? You wrote, "I've seen exactly this sort of edit conflict result in apparently deleted edits often enough to assume good faith for this particular action" and I would appreciate it if you would amplify on this. I personally cannot think of a time when one editor created an article on another editor in the middle of an edit conflict. I personally see this as the worst kind of edit-warfare. I see no encyclopedic justification for this. How Eugenecurry could think that the world needs an encyclopedia article on Slim Virgin is frankly beyond me, but no matter how I look at it I just do not see any "good faith" spin on his doing so in the middle of an edit war. I see this as truly corrosive to the encyclopedia. I would like to restore LHVU's block but out of deferrence to you, would first ask for you to clarify whatever you think ought to be discussed first. What am I missing here? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

LHVU blocked Eugene not for creating the page about SV, but for refactoring B's posting here advocating a block; except that Eugene didn't remove it - he got caught in the common "edit conflict glitch" where two editors post very close to each other and the second edit overrides the first, making it look like the second poster has deleted the first poster's edit. It happened to me recently, and when I posted at VPT, it turns out it's fairly common. So it was a good unblock. Having said that, I'd have blocked Eugene indef anyway for creating the attack page in the first place. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- I would agree with that block. Clearly this is retaliation for SV's editing. AniMate 20:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  - I agree with the above. His explanation that it was an accidental removal seems fine. He should clearly be indefinitely blocked, not for the accidental removal, but because he has clearly demonstrated he cannot edit cooperatively. --B (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that a number of people are advocating an indefinite block. What precisely is the intended purpose of such an action? Eugene (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

To prevent the disruption and

genuine human distress which your presence seems to have caused and have the potential to continue to cause. FWIW, I support an indefinite block. ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor

─╢ 20:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

SV has emailed me a copy of the text, and I agree with George that it isn't blatantly an attack. But Eugene is not some juvenile, either, he can argue very intelligently at Talk:Christ myth theory and he's smart enough not to produce something simple, so I think he knew he was doing something harmful to another editor. He says now that he wouldn't do it again. George used the word "concerning". I'd say I'm concerned about him, too. Some of his comments early in this discussion indicate he doesn't quite understand just how bad this is. I hate to be wishy-washy about this, but I'm not familiar with past practices, so I'm fine with following whatever the common practices have been in situations with this kind of a less-blatant attack page. At the very least, he should get some kind of block, in part so that the fact he wrote an attack page is on the block record. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanations, and retract my question for Jpgordon. I agree that refactoring a post is not an acceptable reason for an indefinite block (although if this occured at a much earlier stage in this conflict, a 24-hr. block might have sent a much needed message). I have just blocked Eugenecurry indefinitely because i think it is a disgrace to use a wikipedia article as a means of pursuing a conflict against an editor. The minimum integrity of the project as a whole is based on the idea that we create encyclopedia articles in good faith. Eugenecurry has demonstrated the worst kind of faith that perverts the encyclopedia by using it against itself. I further note that this occured after a very long period of edit-warring and what appears to be some degree of stalking. I see that diferent editors have tried to impress upon Eugenecurrie the importance of working within the spirit of our core policies and he has chosen to edit-war instead. I think there has been a healthy discussion here, with the participation of a wide range of editors, who express support for this indef. block. I trust this one will stick and if any other admin. questions my act I would be glad to discuss it further. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to make it clear -- refactoring a post might or might not be an acceptable reason for a block, but since Eugenecurry didn't refactor a post, but instead encountered an annoying bug, that block was just incorrect. I agree with your block here; he doesn't get it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Fully endorse. Eugenecurry's actions were so far beyond the pale of acceptability this is the only response. Courcelles (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Fully endorse block. For reasons already stated articulately above. The circumstances/timing here are telling.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. I've seen a copy of the deleted content and, although it's not really an attack (SV is a [insert profanity of your choice]) type thing, it's not the kind of thing one would write in good faith. I think Eugene has been disingenuous in this thread and generally wasted a lot of time and proved to be a very aggressive editor and I think this block is a necessity, at least for now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Resp to Slrubenstein (and Jpgordon) I indef blocked because of what appeared to be the refactoring of another editors comment, which was proposing a block/ban, during a discussion regarding that same editors extremely poor response to an earlier editor dispute. While I am content with the unblock on the basis of a glitch making it appear that the editor removed content deliberately when they did not, I would point out that I didn't make the sanction upon that incident in isolation - and that I noted specifically that they might be unblocked once it was clear the editor would not make further similar edits (which, since they did not in the second place, meant they could be unblocked promptly). Indefinite is just that, any time period between "how fast can I hit the unblock button" and "forever" and only for as long as it is deemed appropriate. Of course, next time you could ask... Oh, and, yes, good block by Slr. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, after thinking this over while cooking dinner, I'm becoming more of the mind that a full community ban might be in order here. Courcelles (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Eugeneacurry's actions are spectacularly inappropriate, and his behaviour on WP over the last several months do nothing to convince me that there is any benefit to be had from allowing him to continue editing here. Good riddance. Call it a ban if you want, this one should not be allowed back any time soon. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

~~Just what is going on here?~~no need for me to put it that way --
WP:BLOCK#Conflict of interest, I see Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. I think a mere two-month distance between this thread and the previous one counts as "are involved". If an admin not previously in a conflict with Eugenecurry wouldn't mind unblocking and then reapplying the block, it's more likely to be respected in the future. It's important that the blocked editor, his friends and everyone else think that the process here was fair, even if they disagree with the result. It won't help to have a messy block followed by an unblock that will likely be messy, too. Better to secure this thing in place while it's fresh in all our minds. -- JohnWBarber (talk
) 15:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the block is solid; Slrubenstein is not sanctioning Eugenecurry for violation of policy, but was enacting the communities consensus following a full discussion. Since Slr is acting according to that consensus and not on his own judgement then the past history is irrelevant. As it is, consensus is unambiguous and does not require reviewing to ensure Slr was correct in his understanding of it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with LHvU - this is a solid block. Its been discussed here and consensus is very clear. Secondly the matter of being uninvolved is equally clear - Eugenecurry wasn't being sanctioned for attacking/harassing SLR--Cailil ^talk 16:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I obviously do not think the word "are" applies here. I have not had any dealings with Eugenecurry for over two months, nor he with me; as far as I am concerned that mater was closed long ago. I have been involved in edit conflicts that were considered resolved about twelve hours afte the last contenious edit; in my experience I have never seen anyone give or ask for more than 36 hours to see if a conflict really had ended. Two months? You know, it is not like either of us were on vacation! Is there any editor here who seriously considers a conflict ongoing when both editors have continued to edit Wikipedia, and a range of articles, for two months, without any contlict? As far as I am concernded my last interaction with Curry could have been a year ago!

No administrator should block someone for personal reasons; it should only be a block that is called for by policy or represents th will o the community. I explained the rationale for my action, and so far no one has found fault with it. And I see a strong consensus here for a community ban.

The reason this system works - is widely agreed to be fair - is that any admin can undo a block at any time. All it takes is one admin who considers the rationale for the block wrong, or who does not agree there is community support. So I view my block in this case exactly as I would view it in any other case. I am no different from LessHearVanU in this regard. Does any administrator think that my rationale for blocking is wrong? Does anyone doubt community support? Then unblock, by all means! I see no other point in further discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to the idea that I'm making too much out of this, and I am not as familiar with blocking policy and practices as most of the editors contributing to this thread probably are. I think a conflict over something as personal as talk of anti-semitism means it's going to be problematic for either party to block the other for a long while. That was a very serious, very emotional conflict. Personally, I can still get angry over matters less offensive after many more than two months. Is that a case of being slower to heal than most? Maybe. But I was actually talking about a conflict of interest in the subject area. Your last edit in the subject area was here [24] on June 16 at Talk:Jesus. The conflict in the previous complaint was at Christ myth theory. Am I misreading Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. at WP:BLOCK? If so, I'd be happy to withdraw my objection. Personally, I still see a conflict of interest on both counts mentioned above and I think it looks bad (and it's a bad example for other admins to follow), but my main concern is practical, and if more editors still think the block is unlikely to be reversed, let's mark this resolved again. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I support the indef block, and oppose the reversal of it, for reasons already articulated in detail above by others. I, for one, see no consensus on this page for such a reversal. With all due respect.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it either. I restored the "resolved" check at the top. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur both with the block and that this is now resolved. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm too late to the party, but I'll just note that I think this was badly handled. I see an editor who did a stupid thing (haven't read the page, so working with limited information). That stupid act was compounded by disingenuous explanation, but after viewing a consensus that the act was unwise, repeatedly agreed to move on. I thought a block was supposed to be preventative not punitive. I see nothing in the editor's responses that even hints at refusal to accept the community decision. Looks to me like "We don't like him, so he's blocked." What did I miss? (Feel free to respond to my Talk Page if this isn't the place to discuss it.)--SPhilbrick T 19:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm also not impressed with the way this was handled. I'm not sure he was a net positive, but I'd like to see people who are less involved do this. (I'm not watchlisting this page). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of Eugeneacurry

Resolved

– Very unsatisfactory unblock request was denied by Sandstein after being discussed. TFOWR 22:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

See here. Please discuss. I've not read the original content and haven't formed an opinion myself, but the request, on its face, would seem to merit discussion. Sandstein 20:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If it were me, I'd decline the request without a moment's hesitation. "I further maintain that the article itself would have been a valuable addition to Wikipedia"—in the unblock request itself (!)—is prima facie evidence that he just doesn't get what the issue is here. –
iridescent
20:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

He seems reasonably contrite and shows some evidence of fruitful introspection... especially after the wife apparently told him he was out of line. Consider giving him another chance and keeping him on a short leash. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to assess this unblock request before it was put on hold by digging into the various histories, and finally decided that I just could not make up my mind. I cannot assess the original content of what might have been an attack page, of course, since it's not available to me. I agree with
good faith here; perhaps the "short leash" mentioned above, combined with (I suggest) a ban on interacting in any way with User:SlimVirgin, might be sufficient to steer the editor back to productive contribution. (It's a pity that we cannot suggest that his wife sit in on his editing.) I apologize for being unable to make up my mind one way or the other and thus being relatively useless; I have outlined my thoughts in some detail because I hope they may be useful to others, even if only to provide something with which to disagree. Accounting4Taste:talk
21:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be very concerned to see an editor unblocked after creating an article about another editor he was in conflict with. This is part of a pattern with Eugene of seeing Wikipedia as a battleground, with sources and editors he disagrees with being personally attacked. I've warned him in the past about the BLP violations he's posted on talk pages, e.g. I warned him here after he posted links on the talk page to disparaging photographs of theologian Robert M. Price, one of sources who suggest Jesus may not have existed (see Christ myth theory), and someone Eugene strongly disagrees with. He uploaded another unflattering photograph of Price to use in Price's BLP—see the files for deletion discussion—and Eugene knew that Price was grimacing in the image because he referred to it in the alt text. [25] He also edited the BLP to call Price a "sub-academic," without a source, [26] and edited the dab page about Price's name to remove that Price is a theologian. [27] These are just examples; there are many more. His article about me, which he's now trying to portray as benign, presented a false and damaging claim about me as if it might be true. That he's trying to present this as a helpful creation means he still doesn't see that the encyclopaedia can't be used as a weapon. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd say unblock and keep on a short leash and indef if any problems occur in the near future. I generally agree with Baseball Bugs here. Might be wise to throw in an editing restriction wrt SlimVirgin Hobit (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It appears that Eugene's problems, including those with SV, relate to his
WP:OWN issues on Christ myth theory and related articles. Perhaps an unblock with a topic ban on that group of articles would allow him to follow a more productive route? Black Kite (t) (c)
22:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

His unblock statement indicates he still can't admit the article is actually inappropriate, not just in terms of him being the author but that it's an insult to have a few controversial incidents, in most of which the subject is barely mentioned, form most of a WP article about that person. I'm appalled that he still doesn't admit that. He's admitted the core of the problem about starting the BLP article on SV, and I think he should have realized that it might create off-line harassment for her if anything actually led to her identity, a possibility he couldn't rule out. (I'm not sure he realized any other possible harm would come from it.) Eugeneacurry's past WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior is very relevant here. The incident in which he was accused of anti-semitism shows he was not, I think, really being anti-semitic (there was no consensus) but certainly insensitive. Please note the date on my suggestion for him to tone it down and note his response. [28] Not long after that, the battlefield behavior continued. [29] I really just don't know whether or not this editor can help himself. If he's let back, he should first get, at minimum, a three-week block (because I think he's not always honest with himself about his motives and we therefore need to reinforce the memory of this incident) and a months-long ban on editing Christ myth theory and its talk page as well as any BLP is in order. Perhaps there should be some kind of civility restriction. I expect further problems, but also some good editing. I think he has some expertise useful to Wikipedia. But overall, I am a bit more comfortable with leaving the indef block in place and having this come up for reconsideration in six months or so. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep blocked. There's recently been some discussion on the Foundation-L mailing list about the challenges in attracting new editors, particularly women, to participate in Wikimedia projects. This is one of the biggies - the lack of comprehension on the part of some editors that using the project itself as a weapon against a perceived foe is contrary to every principle of this project. It *is* harassment, far more than wikihounding is, because it is purely directed toward a specific individual and has no benefit at all for the encyclopedia. Such behaviour is corrosive and harmful not only to the individual who is the target, but also to the project as a whole. This needs to be a bright line.
Just as importantly, and no offense to SlimVirgin, but neither she nor her Wikipedia persona are notable. The attack page created by Eugeneacurry was a coatrack; most of the references did not say what he attributed to them. It not only fell below our standards for a BLP, it actively contravened just about every editing policy we have. As long as Eugeneacurry believes that is an acceptable way to write an article for our project, he should not be here. Reconsider unblock with conditions in six months. Risker (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep blocked. I find Risker's comments to be a persuasive argument based on a point which I hadn't considered; I agree with this assessment. Again, sorry to have waffled above. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep blocked Risker puts this quite nicely, and frankly I don't think we need someone with this kind of battlefield mentality on this project. AniMate 22:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Reduce to temporary block Eugene certainly has his own "attitude" that sometimes comes into conflict with wikipedia policy. However, the disputes are ephemeral, and Eugene's contributions are lasting and many. He sticks to the sources and amasses vast lists of sources to attempt to demonstrate his views; I myself have gotten just as frustrated as he has at some edits and editors. Was this page a poorly-thought out idea? Sure. Eugene was willing to drop it as he stated himself. Just make it a temporary block, or you'll lose one of wikipedia's best editors. NJMauthor (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep blocked - Serious repeated policy violation patterns. Also as per Riskers comments.
Off2riorob (talk
) 23:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Reduce to temporary block per Baseball Bugs and NJMauthor. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Temporary block and short leash. I am no stranger to articles that relate to RL religious controversy: I recently copy-edited Jerusalem, which is a hot-button page. It is the result of appalling behaviour when such articles lead to the kind of personal attack page at issue here. However, I do not favour indefs if at all avoidable, because they tend to have bad consequences for the project (i.e., they have deleterious psychological effects and to bounce back on WP—you know what I mean). Better to protect the project from disruption for a stated period and assign someone from Mediation to counsel the user, and then to supervise him if he later returns. That would build in motivation and protection, and is worth trying. If it doesn't work, then probably an indef. Tony (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep Blocked In addition to the attack page, Eugene has serious WP:OWN issues, creates a hostile, nasty atmosphere, and has driven off numerous moderate editors in frustration. I would however be content with a temporary block plus topic ban. I think he is too close to the subject matter, too passionate about defending his faith, and thus his judgement is skewed. He cannot see where he crosses the line. I was baffled that he thought comparing mythicists with holocaust deniers[30] was somehow acceptable. In his apology he has difficulty assessing where he was in the wrong, only admitting to a hint of "wrongness" in his motivation (the "giddy little thrill"). I don't think that is good enough. ^^James^^ (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In fairness to Eugene, some very well-respected religious scholars have made the same comparison (see here and do a word search for "Holocaust"). In the context of a book or discussion among scholars, I think it comes off as less insensitive. In a heated talk-page discussion, it's a much worse idea, but the context seems to show it wasn't used in an anti-semitic way or in some other way meant to hurt. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep Blocked per the request itself which shows no contrition, as Risker points out with good insight. And if you can't learn to be humble in an unblock request, you never will be. As I see it, an unblock request should not include "I still maintain that the content of the article I wrote concerning SlimVirgin was policy compliant. I further maintain that the article itself would have been a valuable addition to Wikipedia." Common sense would indicate continuing the indef block per
WP:BATTLE among other established guidelines, and I do not think six months is out of line. (Note: this is the first time I have heard of any of this matter, so I do count as fresh eyes.) Jusdafax
02:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as I would still like to escalate this to a community ban, keep blocked. His actions weren't "entirely honourable"? No! They were entirely dishonourable. Courcelles (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This is serious enough to merit a community ban. Support block and would support site ban--Cailil ^talk 16:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep Blocked - He wrote an article about someone he was in a dispute with and thinks that is ok and wants to be unblocked? Forget it. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Support the Block I find myself not only unconvinced concerning Eugene's explanation as to exactly why he wrote the article about SlimVirgin, but of the opinion that his agenda here needs to be re-configured if and when he returns, the POV editing on contentious religious topics needs some cooling down time...Modernist (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Since there's, at least, no consensus for an unblock and the blocking admin has also argued against it, I'm declining this unblock request. I agree that the unblock request is less than satisfactory under the circumstances, as explained by some editors above. Sandstein 04:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Impersonation?

Resolved

– Old memes don't sleep. They wait. --Smashville^talk 13:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:Impersonation here? ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣}

04:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This looks more like silliness than any real claim to be Chuck Norris, me thinks. — ξ ^xplicit 04:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

True... Just that below his photograph, he writes his "other name" is Chuck Norris :) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:OBVIOUSBADJOKE seems to be a more appropriate link. Did you attempt to discuss this with them before coming here? --Onorem ♠Dil 04:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, he's removed it. Says it was a joke. So no issues. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, when did we stop allowing humour? Unless he started editing Chuck Norris-related pages stating loudly that he was indeed Chuck Norris, this was not even something worth mentioning.

BWilkins ←track

) 11:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel a major slapping is appropriate here. I'd prefer to see some... roundhouse kicks! I'll get me coat... TFOWR 12:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Honestly? This is despicable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

For my part, I was definitely joking (and the roundhouse kicks were directed at the same targets as the trout proposed by Bwilkins, i.e. not Atari2). I don't believe that Atari2 was impersonating Chuck Norris because, frankly, I don't believe anyone has the courage to impersonate Mr. Norris. He's too scary. TFOWR 13:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I think Chuck Norris jokes should be blockable offenses. Keep your memes up to date, man. --Smashville^talk 13:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Oh! Ha! Sorry, no, I was referring to the ANI report, not your well-deserved and admirably-targeted roundhouse kicks. I agree that it is plainly clear that if Atari2 were impersonating Chuck Norris his account would have met with the same fate as anyone who crosses Chuck Norris a long time ago. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, got it - sorry! Though I do have to add that Norris has nothing on Bruce Schneier: he can tell exactly where you are by reading ECHELON data. In realtime. TFOWR 14:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

How in heavens did I miss all that? :) Got the point. Cheers. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 02:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No need for a {{roundhouse kick}}, then? ;-) More seriously, impersonation is a serious issue, and it's probably better if we err on the side of caution. Better to have a false positive that's discounted here, rather than a "missed positive" that remains unnoticed. TFOWR 10:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no worries. Thanks for the message, and best regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 20:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Continued problems: Malke 2010

About a month ago, I blocked

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log

) for essentially lashing out at those that disagreed with her and accusing them of impropriety (mostly making personal attacks when there was no such thing). After a number of appeals and attempts for folks to point out that her behavior was indeed problematic, she was unblocked.

I have kept her talk page on my watchlist as I usually do for folks that I've blocked and this warning prompted me to take a look at her recent actions. Unfortunately, the editor is back to accusing folks she disagrees with of impropriety: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], albeit a bit less confrontationally this time.

This recent flurry was prompted after she unilaterally decided that

Womens Airforce Service Pilots was incorrectly named. Since she believes that this admin is harassing her and that she has done nothing wrong, I am bringing her behavior here for review. Toddst1 (talk

) 20:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not done any such thing. I posted a question on Daniel Cases' talk page regarding the Womens Airforce Service Pilots. There was no article talk page discussion, etc. I'd just been doing a lot of reading on the subject and I asked what is the policy when it turns out an article might have an incorrect name. I then found out information today and I changed the article name. I didn't have time, because of RL work, to make posts on the article talk page with my sources. I planned to come back later today. When I came back, I found that User:BilCat had templated me. I removed the template and went to his talk page where I posted it with a polite note asking him not to template me. Toddst1 has injected himself into the discussion on Daniel Cases' talk page, and now he and apparently two editors who are frequent contributors to his talk page, have set out to make this into something.

I was just about to post a complaint about User:Dave1185 for personal attacks and threats when I found this notice on my talk page. This is all much ado about nothing. Here are the diffs. Please see for yourselves. Please also notice, that neither BilCat, nor Dave1185, nor Toddst1 has ever edited on the Women's Airforce Service Pilots page. I am not a disruptive editor. This is being made out to be something which it is not.

Adding diffs: This is what Toddstl is claiming are not personal attacks: [38]

[39] And this is a personal attack from Toddst1. [40]

Malke2010

21:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

[41] [42] Threat:[43] Template: [44][45][46][47][48] Dave: [49][50][51]

Talk page where there was no previous discussion about name of page, nor is there any previous editing by any of these editors. [52] Personal attack/threat: [53]

[54] Personal attack: [55]

Malke2010

20:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

None of those comments you list as "Personal attacks" are attacks. Also, the "talk page where there is no previous discussion about name" is a link to your own talk page, not the article page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As my message on
WP:OWB to reflect on your own behaviour. FYI, I'm done talking to you and I've already informed Bill that I'm officially disengaging, so go ahead be my guest burning your own bridge. Toodles~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™}
20:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Article talk page where there is no discussion about the name of the article except the one moved by Toddst1.[56].

Malke2010

20:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Malke, "bad faith warning", "give you enough rope" "you need to move on" - none of these are threats or personal attacks, just statmenets. I guess "lets not forget your list of BLOCKS" might be a little on the nose but... remember what we spoke about regarding having a thick skin? I confess I still think you apply

WP:NPA too strongly. S.G.^(GH) _ping!

20:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I edited the

one post by User:Daniel Case. At User talk:Daniel Case#article name was a discussion with several users on the name, all dated "Yesterday" by my time. As the Move as just after noon my time, I felt a formal warning was approiate, and issued it. Everything els is either on the article's talk page or the user's talk page. WHile I can understand a user feeling overwhelmed when several editors show up all at once to tell you you've done wrong, her reaction has only made matters worse for her. - BilCat (talk

) 20:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, Dave1185 is a registered lurker on my tsalk page, and a welcome one. He probably saw the response Malke had posted on my talk page here, and checked it out. He and I often watch each other's backs, as we have both been targets of wikistalkers in the past. - BilCat (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What's a registered lurker? Is there a userbox for that? Maybe I should have some of my

WP:TPW's register? ++Lar: t/c

21:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It's just a spontaneous phrase I made up becaus I wouldn't remeber "talk page watcher"! By "registed" I meant he has my approval to watch my page and act on my behelf when necessary. - BilCat (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The warning is bait and you are just attempting to get a reaction which you failed to get. So you are claiming all sorts of things that are not true. I have done nothing wrong. I've not made any inappropriate comments. An editor with an honest question would not have templated me.

Malke2010

20:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What things have I stated that are not true? Do you mean my having edited the page twice beofre, when you claim I haven't? Or something else? - BilCat (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As for your edits, you reverted vandalism and fixed a link. Hardly the interested editor you are attempting to portray yourself as. And your portrayal of my actions and motives is completely false.

Malke2010

21:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think whaht has happened here can be deduced from her own reactions to my comments here. If you compare them side by side, it looks like were talking about two different things. I rest my case. - BilCat (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Difficult issue; an editor who makes good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia, but conflates legitimate questioning of her edits as personal affronts (pa, wikihounding, etc.) and subsequent review of her actions as harassment. I don't know if one or two of the editors with whom she has a good working relationship would be prepared to mentor her, in that she might bring any concern regarding the intent of another editors actions to their attention and comment instead of reacting so... impulsively. I am of the opinion that short blocks would be counterproductive, so we should consider other options before long term blocks become the only solution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't done anything wrong. Show me diffs of where I've done any of the things you are saying I've done. You can't. There aren't any. I'm a good faith editor who is being harassed by Toddst1. Show me a diff that supports what you are saying. What would you say if I'd been the one templating

Malke2010

22:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This is way overproduced. Malke was

took the bull by its horns which is not totally a bad thing. Then, the move was reverted, discussed, and consensus formed. The best option is just to leave Malke alone. Everybody's comments are working her up. Malke, you have to develop a thick scalely skin on Wikipedia. The problem here is your reaction to criticism and not your actions. This thread should be closed. It's just stirring up trouble. There's nothing here until a page move war starts. RJ (talk

) 22:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The thread should be closed. I've done nothing wrong. I want it to say that.

22:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comment "I've done nothing wrong." is somewhat disturbing. You need to listen to both constructive and somewhat less than entirely constructive criticism. If people are complaining about things you do, and uninvolved admins agree that there's a behavioral problem, insisting there is not one is eventually a path towards Wikipedia oblivion.

This is not just an encyclopedia that everyone can edit; it's an encyclopedia that everyone edits together. You owe the community attention to its concerns. That doesn't make every particular criticism leveled right. But you need to engage with and pay attention to those criticisms. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think LessHeard vanU's comments are right on the money. The previous blocks have been indeed counterproductive. Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) has attempted to informally mentor this user as has SGGH (talk · contribs). Unfortunately, neither have been very successful, despite notable attempts. Gwen eventually ended up blocking her. Toddst1 (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I too agree with "conflates legitimate questioning of her edits as personal affronts (pa, wikihounding, etc.) and subsequent review of her actions as harassment" as said above. Gwen Gale is familiar with this whole thing, having been involved in previous issues. I'd trust GG's assessment of things, however I wish Malke would just accept that bold changes will bring criticism and stop blowing things up with her liberal application of

WP:NPA. I'm afraid that blocking will end up being the only alternative. Perhaps getting her into discussion before unblocking - should that happen. S.G.^(GH) _ping!

22:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've done nothing to warrant this thread at all. Show me diffs that show me being disruptive, that show me templating regulars, that show me making personal attacks. This is a nonsense. You cannot block me. I've done nothing wrong.

22:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, please note, I've never been mentored by Gwen Gale or SGGH. Not in any way, ever.

22:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, we tried. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 23:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No, neither of you were ever mentors to me.

Malke2010

23:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No, despite several emails it became apparent that you are not willing to alter your attitude and your decision to treat every slight as a personal attack, and rebuke everyone harshly with an overreaction. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 00:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've not corresponded with you in anyway regarding this thread.

Malke2010

00:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Gwen Gale blocking me, Toddst1 is being disingenuous in his characterization of this. I deleted a personal attack by RepublicanJacobite and wrote, 'removing vandalism' in the edit summary because I genuinely believed it was vandalism. Gwen blocked me. She later realized her mistake and unblocked me. There is nothing here. Everybody go home.

23:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Malke, for the record, I gave you a formal warning for moving the page because I flt it was warranted, given the discussion on User talk:Daniel Case#article name in which you participated. It was celar to me that you had move the page from a title a clear source supported to another one with no supporting sources, or even a reason given. Your comment on that page, "I've sent an email to Harry Reid's office" was made 18 hours before you made the move, with no followup comment on that page to explain your actions. As such, I felt you made a deliberate move without disscussion, and thus a formal warning was necessary. Templating regulars is not forbidden, and there are circumstances where it is warranted. This is one of them, in my opinion. If the community feels I erred in that decision, I'll be willing to accept that. But it is not wrong, nor was it "baiting" in anyway. As to removing the first post you made on my talk page, I misread the warning which you had copied from your page to mine, and I thought you were warning me. That is why I deleted it. I have since restored the comment without the copied warning to my page. That still does not justify your own overeactions to the situation. All you had to do was admit you made a mistake in moving it prematurely, and continue the discussion. That's why Todd copied the comments from Daniel's page to the article talk page, so the discussion could be continued there. In fact, it has contiuned without you, and has since been moved to another variation of the current title. - BilCat (talk) 04:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What to do about Malke?

It's pretty clear from the thread above that Malke:

can't handle disagreements constructively and this has repeatedly led to problems[57]
continues to have a very different and problematic view of her behavior that doesn't indicate any potential change.

We've tried mentoring and that didn't work. Short-term blocks were indeed counterproductive. Does anyone have alternative ideas besides long-term blocking? Toddst1 (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide diffs that support your claims.

Malke2010

00:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Your report to ANI evidences them. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I was notified of this thread by Toddst1. I've got very limited time here; it's late in my part of the world (given my hours, that is). I'm one of the admins who blocked Malke in the past; following that, we engaged in what seems to me to have been a pretty productive conversation about civility and working with others on Wikipedia. Malke has come to my talk page a number of times since to seek advice on interacting with others. I'm not sure what if any action is needed here, since I don't really have time to read through all the diffs and history (late in my part of the world), but if it is determined that a mentor would be beneficial here and Malke would be comfortable with that solution, I would be willing to take up the position LessHeard vanU suggests. I agree with RJ that a thick skin is sometimes necessary to successfully navigate Wikipedia; indeed, goes a long way to doing as Georgewilliamherbert suggests in engaging criticism. Now I'm sufficiently bleary-eyed to have to take myself off. I'll see where things stand with this in the morning, but I wanted to note my position before turning in. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Moonriddengirl. I'm off for now as well.

Malke2010

01:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

One month block - I stayed away from this until now, and in the interests of full disclosure, as I said at the last Malke/ANI thread, this is an editor I have had ugly run-ins with in the past. That said, as I pointed out in several venues a few weeks back, Malke 2010 does not learn from short blocks, and I do not think further mentoring is the answer. I have fairly recently told Malke on my own talk page they need to learn to walk away, great advice that went unheeded, as Malke went right back to snippy comments literally right after being unblocked. As for Malke asking for diffs... who needs diffs when you see an editor making the kind of defiant comments like we see above on the ANI page when they are a multiple blockee who is back again facing admin complaints? Statements like "You can't block me" etc. etc. more than prove the point. The last step before a long-term block is a medium-term one. And this is what should have happened last time. Let's stop the merry-go-round. Jusdafax 01:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Jusdafax, those are very serious accusations you are making. I should think if they were true, you would be more than happy to provide diffs.

Malke2010

03:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just scroll up, and read your own comments (and the replies from various parties which, with considerable restraint, rebut your statements). Jusdafax 03:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Support - reason provided below in my other post. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 03:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Diff? Malke, how about this insinuating message you left on Daniel Case's discussion page? From the looks of it, it sure looks to me that you're accusing Toddst1 of something there (per point number 37 of
WP:OWB, though without socks, as yet). Thoughts? Another thing to note, does the passage of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing mean anything to you? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™}
03:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a policy violation here?

03:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Support - there has to be consequences to ones actions. From my read of the diffs first listed by Toddst1, they strike me as amounting to gaming the system. The user has been blocked several times for similar things, and to my recollection has challenged each of those blocks only to be given another chance my an admin. 5 blocks and 4 unblocks by my count. Time to try something else. I don't think a third attempt at finding a mentor will stop this behavior in the future simply because of the past history with that. Jusdafax's suggestion seems sufficient unless a new idea can be provided.Chhe (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Support - I know Malke is looking for diffs, but the truth is that there is an overall pattern of antagonism and problems that seem to follow Malke. Just look at Malke's talk history and you will see plenty of warnings about behavior (or you won't see them because Malke routinely deletes these warnings). Wikipedia is not a
battleground and continued battling is detrimental to the project. I suggest playing nice with others in the future so that you don't risk being blocked. --Brendan19 (talk
) 04:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Support - I see the block has already occurred, I support it whole-heartedly. A user with this many warnings, blocks, and ANI threads about her is an overall net negative to the project. In the interest of honesty, she's had problems with me before and because of her personal attacks, I've taken articles off my watchlist so as not to have to interact with her. This one was overdue. Dayewalker (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Blocked 1 month. I sincerely hope this is the last time we discuss this user here. Toddst1 (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Malke2010's detractors should have thick skin also. She said "don't template me" and removed comments from her talk page, so what? And I hoped that Toddst1 left the matter for another admin, especially after Moonriddengirl's comment. Sole Soul (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Really not our problem that she has brought this on herself or that she let her own emotion get the better of her during her tenure here but when called upon by myself, Bill and Toddst1 to look into her own problem, she has demonstrated her unwillingness to acknowledge her own problem and tackle them if the need is indeed there to do so. IMO, she needs to read up on
WP:NOTTHEM). --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™}
09:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Support (retroactively) I concur this was, regrettably, necessary. It is a shame, but some of Malke's actions have gone against the most obvious logic. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried to drop another message to the user, but after this I think I'll have to step back unless recalled to speak. Malke's inability to see what appears a clear point... well it has become a bit infuriating - that an otherwise good contributor won't stop doing this, rough treatment by others or not. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I think this block is likely to be a poor instrument of change. What is Malke going to learn about navigating Wikipedia from this "time out" that she hasn't learned in her previous blocks? She clearly needs to work on the whole collaborative environment thing. Her comments on her talk page after her block themselves demonstrate some continued misunderstanding of the Wikipedia way (while only administrators can implement a block, consensus for blocks does not have to come from administrators). Yes, she needs to develop a thicker skin and, if she can't, she needs to ignore her offended feelings. She needs to stop focusing on others' behaviors and motivations and start focusing on issues. I don't know if Malke can learn this or not, but I think she is motivated to try. The likelihood that she will spontaneously develop these skills seem pretty low, I'd say. Talk of failed mentoring has been bandied about; has Malke been mentored? She says she has not. Others may have tried to advise her - I've done so myself - but mentoring is a collaborative arrangement that requires acceptance on both parts. This one month block will have no value; mentorship might. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Now Malke is threatening to sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think she means a

WP:CLEANSTART, but I have to say that whatever she means I'm not greatly encouraged by her response. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

14:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MRG here, I don't think this block will change anything, because I don't think Malke intends to change. She's never acknowledged any fault in her actions, always choosing to blame her numerous blocks and ANI threads on others, and "admin abuse." Even now with MRG doing her best to help her, all Malke wants to do is point fingers at others and refuse to let anyone else talk to her [58]. She has a serious problem working with others, and if she's got a laundry list of experienced editors she says are out to get her, I wonder how many casual editors she's crossed paths with and turned off from editing. That some of her previous blocks were overturned by well-meaning admins has apparently only served to strengthen her belief that she is right and everyone else is wrong. The block should stay in place as a preventative measure until she understands that she has indeed been

tenditious in her editing habits, and she agrees to some kind of mentoring. Dayewalker (talk

) 17:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a full month is excessive. And I'm normally harsh on folks who haven't got a
WP:CLUE. A week at most, but if she agrees to mentorship by Moonriddengirl, the block could be lifted immediately. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite
17:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I think MRG is trying hard to work with this user (and deserves a round of applause). But I'm not sure how well it will go. There's a lot of
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on. Despite urging But the unblock request just posted seems to strike a different, and more helpful, chord. I'd support a conditional unblock (after a bit more time goes by) in those circumstances. ++Lar: t/c
17:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been talking to Malke 2010 on email. I do think between MRG and I, we've managed to show Malke a way out of this. I think there's a good chance she can keep to the standards she has set for herself in the unblock request, and I'm strongly inclined to accept it, but I'd like a little more discussion here first. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
(EC) I agree. I'm still concerned by the overall picture, but I think that a mentorship has a decent chance of success, and the magnitude of the problems here wasn't abandon-all-hope-and-block bad. Moonriddengirl seems to be both the right person and at the right time to give probably the best realistic chance of resolving this positively for everyone in the long term. MRG is both willing to AGF and work with people, and has shown good and firm judgement when reaching the end of the rope when people hang themselves. I don't know if this will succeed or not, but I think that giving the situation some time and some AGF and patient mentoring is a fair choice at the moment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk)
- {e/c}Lar said it very well. The other thing that is going on, I'm afraid is
  WP:OWB#3
  :
  Troublesome editors waste far more of the community's time than vandals. One who sometimes has good edits, but endlessly bickers, threatens, insults, whines, and is eventually banned, will have taken hundreds of hours from other users who would have better spent that time building the encyclopedia. This is in part due to people's fascination with conflict. Efficiently managing troublesome editors is one of the best ways to improve the project, but also one of the most difficult.

Toddst1 (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If Mrg can come to a mentoring agreement with Malke I would/do strongly support a conditional unblock. We can't read minds and don't need to, behaviour will out one way or another. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I must confess I am still pessimistic, given that I have heard the same promises (in near identical language) before and nothing changed - her comments about never having editors help her before baffles me, but I still wish the current attempt the best of luck. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've set out some terms, including cautioning Malke that the next step from here is probably an indef block or ban. (Of course, she still has the option of sitting out her month and trying it alone or requesting an unblock on different terms. But I suspect if she winds up back here in any case, the next step is an indef block or ban.) In terms of unfounded accusations leading to an immediate block, I would at least request some leniency on my "mentoring" subpage. Rome wasn't built in a day. :) But I'd agree otherwise. If Malke is willing to give it a shot, I'm willing to help her the best I can. (SGGH, I understand that you've tried. Toddst1 points out that she even accepted your offer. But this mentorship, as I pointed out to her, is a rather more formal situation; maybe under those circumstances it will work.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, we've come to terms. I leave it to the community to decide if they're acceptable and to unblock if so, since I'm kind of involved at this point. I'll keep a close eye on her interactions with others on talk pages and edit summaries if so. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to be unpleasant, but I'm a bit cautious about this unblock. Reading this editor's contributions I think she's focused on some of the more controversial articles we have, and she's got a black and white view of things. MRG's supervision needs to be quite close, I think.—S Marshall T/C 20:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
If Malke agrees to mentorship by Moonriddengirl, I can see no reason not to unblock. I trust Moonriddengirl's judgment, and don't want to lose a productive editor if we can help it. AniMate 20:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Support the mentorship by MRG, although I agree with S Marshall above. Her comments on her page about the mentorship seem to still be full of paranoia about other editors being out to get her. Eh. If it works, it works, if not then we'll finally be done with it. Dayewalker (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Support unblock for mentorship. However should it later come under review and it be seen to have been unsuccessful, a ban in order I would say. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Support the mentorship by MRG (and strongly suggest that problems be brought to her first rather than directly here, and that we not jiggle her elbow) and since MRG and Malki2010 have reached an agreement on how the mentorship will work, support an immediate unblock, subject to the conditions arranged. ObDisclose, I've been in contact with Malki2010 via email at their initiation. ++Lar: t/c 20:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Support unblock, precisely per Lar. NB: I've tried to add this edit a few times, and I'm worried I might have accidentally erased a post or two in the process (that's happened to me before).—S Marshall T/C 20:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - I've never had a moment's problem with working with Malke and I have severe reservations about anyone supporting a block who also has engaged in poking her over and over or posting pointy edits, what appears to be campaigning and overstepping roles: [59], [60] [61] [62] [63] case [64]. I think it is small wonder this editor feels ganged up on, with 3 or 4 editors posting comments on her talk page about generally the same things on various talk pages. The most pertinent thing I've read on this page was posted by Toddst1, and, emphasized differently, said:
"Efficiently managing troublesome editors is one of the best ways to improve the project, but also one of the most difficult." I think if an unblock request was granted "with the stipulation that the restriction that the next unfounded accusation against any editor is grounds for immediate indef-block" is far too extreme and ignores the fact that, regardless of what seems to be popular opinion here, she may well encounter issues that could conceivably be interpreted as "unfounded accusations", depending on the interpreter. The post to the talk page for Daniel Case is a point in fact. It was highlighted and posted everywhere. I have no doubt that her edits will be followed much too closely, her right to express her opinion suppressed and her ability to make a case about issues overridden. I would suggest that only currently uninvolved parties be involved in anything future related and any block discussion be allowed to run its course prior to blocking, instead of in the midst of it. I'd also highly recommend accepting MRG's willingness to be a mentor. Wildhartlivie (talk
) 20:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Support unblocking in favor of mentorship. Also I agree with Lar above to bring any problem to Malke's attention first.
talk
) 20:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

*Strongly suggest Malke 2010 serve the entire month block - As always, I will start with the disclosure that I have had past issues with Malke 2010 that have been highly unpleasant. I think the multi-block record gives more than enough reason to suggest this is a tendentious editor who, when blocked, promises the moon - and as soon as the block is lifted, goes right back to ways unsuited to building a consensus-based wiki. Any serious look at Malke's comments above - including the amazingly defiant (and obviously wrong) "You can't block me" - show zero ability, after a year of editing, to understand how this place works. Admin Toddst1 is solidly on-track with this block. Unblocking now just sends the wrong message - again - that any corrective measures taken can be gotten around. On the other hand, if Malke 2010 serves the entire one month it may sink in - for the first time - that the community means business. As Toddst1 notes, Malke's ongoing issues consume a lot of other editor's collective time. Mentorship is clearly not the answer, a month of thinking it over is. Ultimately I feel sorry for Malke, who (and I mean this sincerely, not as a dig) should seek real word counseling, and not force the community here into being therapists. With deep respect to all parties here who have made efforts to deal with this editor, and best wishes, ~~Jusdafax 21:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)~~ (Removed as inappropriate, see comment below.)

Mildly supportive of the above statement - Seeing that she has gotten her unblock through cooperating and accepting being mentored by MRG, she has yet to apologise to the very people she had offended, ie. Bilcat & Toddst1 for behaving in such a hostile manner towards them even though they had been very civil in their rebuttal/statements to her, repeatedly if I might add. Anyway, as I've mentioned time and again,
WP:ROPE is something she should be very much aware of by now. The choice from hereon is hers and hers alone, even if it means that tomorrow she gets blocked again... then let me say this, it is her choice, I shall be no part of her own undoing or doing. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™}
21:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Yeah an unconditional apology to those parties impacted, including Toddst1 and Bilcat, among others, would indicate a first step in the right direction. Jusdafax 22:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I have huge issues with anyone suggesting that someone seek therapy and making such diagnoses. In fact, I've seen editors blocked here for making milder psych diagnosis posts than this. Not liking such characterizations. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

:I have had to take reactions like yours into consideration; I do not make this honest statement lightly. I say again, I am more sympathetic to Malke than otherwise. But the big-ticket issue now is how much editor's time Malke eats up, in what can be seen as an attention-seeking device. Who on earth come to this board and openly boasts "You can't block me"? After nearly a year of dealing with Malke in time-eating numerous ways, perhaps I become over-vehement... unlike Malke, I realize I can indeed be blocked. But let's not lose focus and make this about me. We need to realize that Malke - who has numerous parties riled up over and over again - is not getting better. A reasonably lengthy block should be applied. Again with best wishes to all, Jusdafax 21:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC) On further reflection, I apologize for the redacted statements. The unblock turns a new page, and I hope we can all move forward here. Jusdafax 22:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked. While not unanimous, I see a consensus to unblock conditional on mentorship by MRG, and I've unblocked on that basis . Let's err on the side of trying too hard to keep an editor. If things don't work out, at least we tried. If things do work out, then yay. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Late Malke commentary

I'm pretty late to the party, and it looks like the matter is mostly settled for now. However, as I had some experience with this editor, I felt it might be helpful to throw in my perception, in case something causes the issue to be revisited.

Mostly, I'd like to state that it's my opinion that this editor is amenable to mentoring. A while back, I ran into some puzzling statements made by User:Malke_2010 along the lines of accusing other editors of acting in bad faith or of making personal attacks, when there really wasn't any such thing in my opinion. However, this behavior mostly stopped despite quite a lot of ongoing interaction involving this editor. I wasn't aware of any administrative actions, but I'm guessing past mentoring may have been the reason why the excessively thin-skinned(?) accusations and less-productive editing behaviors stopped. In past weeks, Malke has become quite civil during very contentious edits, and has even attempted to serve as a mediator. Mostly, I think Malke has made past accusations in good faith, but just didn't have a clear grasp of the policy on personal attacks and such. Overall, the mentoring must have prompted the improvements to this editor's approach to difficult edits. Given the very noticeable change in tone that this user has assumed, I hope that others will give him/her some extra consideration (should any be needed in the future). While I'm not familiar with the exact circumstances that prompted this action, IMO, User:Malke_2010 is likely not far from having an excellent grasp of the Wikipedia norms and reaching a stage of high productivity&civility and minimal disruptiveness. BigK HeX (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaziantepspor

Resolved

– Erkan 6317 indef'd by EyeSerene. TFOWR 22:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a small edit war going on with the user Erkan 6317. He continually adds a link to (presumably his, or one that he is a member of) a fan page. I've warned him several times, but he hasn't stopped. He went as far as insulting me in Turkish (See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaziantepspor&oldid=369616330) that I would rather not translate here. If someone could resolve the problem at hand it would be greatly appreciated, as I highly doubt we could come to some kind of compromise. Thank you. Invisibletr (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Indefblocked - the only edit they've ever made is to spam their link, and it's been going on for a while now despite warnings. EyeSerene^talk 12:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Invisibletr (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE issues with User:FiGhT 12

Resolved

– FiGhT 12 indef'd by EyeSerene. Userpage deleted. TFOWR 22:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I reported FiGhT 12 here about a week ago, for having a user page which self-identifies him as a minor, while revealing the names of himself and family members and their place of residence. I've noticed quite a few problems after that:

The userpage is up once more, again with some personal information.
He uploads a large number of images without a license and copyright info.
He creates templates which are unsuitable for Wikipedia, like Template:YouTube Trailer and the template on his userpage listing his movies, which actually linked to a former vice president of Nicaragua until just moments ago (now it links to an article about FiGhT 12, speedy anyone?).
"This the list of the films of Sergio Ramirez size of 12 years old and have a great franchise", sums up his grasp of the English language with which he edits Wikipedia.
He inexplicably adds false information to articles, like here.
He is obsessed with images in articles and will change them around a lot, often without changing the caption that comes with the image.

He has a host of warnings on his talk page, but he has zero talk page edits himself, so I have no idea whether he has read them or just doesn't care. Can someone give him a break from editing until such a time when he acknowledges the many warnings and notices on his talk page and changes his behavior?--Atlan (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

He has edited his talk page now. He blanked it. PhGustaf (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. At least some indication that he's read the messages. The concerns above aren't any less valid, though.--Atlan (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't buy that reasoning. I know people use it a lot, but I can load a page and blank it without reading it. Heck, I can blank it without even load it if there is a blank page in the history I could revert to.--

Crossmr (talk

) 23:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

True, but he's never blanked his talk page before. The timing is too coincidental for him to arbitrarily blank his talk page just when I reported him here.--Atlan (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

We could block him now, or block him in a bit. If he is uploading cop vios and continuing not listening to any warning and inserting rubbish into articles. Why wait?

Off2riorob (talk

) 22:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of his edits are productive. I've deleted all the non-notable stuff, obvious copyvios and weird redirects he created but I'm only 1000 edits back in his history - I'm surprised no-one's noticed him before. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Must of slipped under the radar, well, one more chance I see you have warned him. I'll add him to my watchlist.

Off2riorob (talk

) 23:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm on a mini-break myself and only pop-in every once in a while so I did not take the time to fully look through his edits, I merely just one-clicked with my handy-dandy TWINKLE and reported a blatant copyvio he'd uploaded. The issues are quite clearly prevalent here though. His actions seem like that of a young individual who has done broken something, knows they've done something wrong, and rather than admit it they instead try to hide it or deny having done so. I personally had to look through his talk page history, then through his previous edits to get a grasp of the sheer number of things he's done wrong. But if I may interject, I'd like to propose a different method of handling it. Rather than outright block him from ever editing Wikipedia again, block him from specifically editing articles - if it is possible that is. That way, he can still respond on his own talk page - should he wish to, and participate in discussions on himself. It is clear to me that he does not understand copyright nor does he have any understanding of Wikipedia policy and is probably very young - likely not even an adolescent as of yet which depending on where he lives might put Wikipedia itself in a very precarious position; COPPA comes to mind immediately, especially since he was informed of it on his talk page (in accordance with Wikipedia Policy and responded by blanking the page and once more posting the information. Although Wikipedia does allow editing by persons who are children but who do not self-identify themselves as children, this person identified their self as a child. That said, if it is determined that based on the law, for Wikipedia's own sake, and with regards to the arbitration which occurred in late 2006 with regards to Protecting children's privacy, it may be the case that this user needs to blocked in accordance with the set-forth policies for his own good, safety, and protection. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 23:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Block him from editing articles? Like a topic ban from article space? What's the point? Not counting image uploads, he edits articles exclusively, with no contributions to talk pages. Also, I have doubts that he understands the problems we have with his edits. Judging by the unintelligible comment he left at Black Kite's talk page, his English language skills are sub par to say the least.--Atlan (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It was merely a momentary suggestion. Thought I'd at least make a good faith effort rather than "BAN HAMMER!". I just noticed that he has posted his real name, his Facebook page (which apparently shows family members as well and their real names), location, etc., while also clearly misrepresenting himself. With that said, I'm honestly going to blank his page for his own good and set it to redirect here. Hopefully an administrator can delete it so the history is not viewable to anyone passing by. I am now leaning heavily towards the latter portion of my previous comment. Perhaps a block is necessary. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 23:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I was saying "block him until he acknowledges his mistakes", which I find quite different from suggesting "BANHAMMER!". Anyway, another string of edits by him just now. Some good, others plain bad. I'm getting tired of policing his every action, so someone please issue a block.--Atlan (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been having problems with this editor for a while. He edits film articles regularly and hits a few that are on my watchlist. Usually his edits make no sense or he's uploading non-free images with no source for FUR. I've tried talking with him, but I've never seen him actually use a talk page. [65] [66] I think he should be blocked since he keeps uploading non-free images with no copyright information and does not stop when warned. Maybe he'll use the unblock request and explain himself. Mike Allen 01:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked indef and ~~tidied up his user page (I deleted it last time but thought I'd go for the softer option this time)~~ changed my mind - page deleted again. If he can produce a coherent unblock request that satisfies editors' concerns, I have no objection to any other admin undoing my block. EyeSerene^talk 11:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism RevDel request

Resolved

– The revision by 75.24.64.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) had been deleted, and the IP has been blocked for 48 hours. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Could an admin delete the last edition of my user page? Thank you. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 20:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the revision by 75.24.64.113, then the revision has already been deleted by Rodhullandemu. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant to say the same. Thanks. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 20:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Compromised Account Block Review

Resolved

– Bad admin! Go to your room! HalfShadow 21:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I hate to bring this one here.

WP:THORO (he has over 16,000 total edits)...so when I see this

, my heart just sinks. It's obvious to me that his account has been compromised.

I'm still torn about the fact that I blocked him. I mean, I know the account is clearly compromised...but...I mean...man. --Smashville^talk 21:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that a single bad rollback equals a clearly compromised account. Might have been as simple as not noticing a misclick on the watchlist. --Onorem ♠Dil 21:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And now that I look at it again and question it...I'm feeling I should go back and unblock. Thoughts? I was so damn sure when I made that block like 10 minutes ago...now I'm not remotely. --Smashville^talk 21:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

- I think I might have asked the editor
  if he meant to do that. Rodhull andemu
  21:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I unblocked. Awful, awful block on my behalf. --Smashville^talk 21:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like an understandable mis-rollback to me. I sometimes make a mistake like that. Of course, I also revert it when I realise my mistake, but still, blocking the account as 'compromised' for a single reversion which more likely than not may have been erroneous seems a bit excessive. I mean, if he'd had a page of them, you'd have an excuse... I'd have at least asked him first. HalfShadow 21:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's just hope that his account is not compromised; if he continues to make these edits, we will have to unfortunately block him for a compromised account. Meanwhile, shouldn't we encourage users to get a

committed identity? It says so on the login page, but I'm guessing that most people just glance over it and don't pay much attention to it. A committed identity can prove that a user is still in control of his/her account. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L

) 21:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My guess, the tool slipped. Daprogrammer999 vandalised and the IP reverted within 10 minutes. It would be easy to accidentally revert to the wrong diff - the guy's not using Twinkle, which does a check for precisely this situation when it edits. I think you might need to apologise round about now.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a simple error in rollback, a

fish supper for Smashville and we all hope the editor understands the mistaken block and takes it with good humour. Then no harm done. Pedro : Chat

21:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive
original research

Resolved

– no admin action needed at this time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

original research to various articles. He has received a block for such egregious activities as blatant copyright violations and altering material based on published reliable sources and edit-warring to re-insert it, in the past. He has also made false copyright declarations

However, he is still engaging in such disruption. Rampant original research such as this and this has been intermingled with disruptive talkpage rants and only today, he added unreferenced material into multiple articles [67][68][69]

Given the fact that he's had a prior 24hr block, as well as multiple warnings before and since, I can only suggest that he is given an extended block, perhaps of five days, with the clear message that it will be extended radically should he revert to such disruptive behaviour on his return. Thanks, ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 17:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Your diff (currently #97 above) is referenced, and says exactly what the source says. Granted, some of the others are problematic, but... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, that one was a mistaken posting. However, the ongoing pattern of disruptive behaviour is nevertheless evident. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 19:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

TT, you've just brought this one back from the grave again. I'm thinking no-one is actually going to take any action here. Then again, maybe if I say this, someone will.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, since when is it normal practice to move threads to the bottom just because they're not getting enough attention?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it done many times, but if you object, then move it back and I'll start a new thread pointing to the old one. Just makes life more difficult, though. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 21:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No need, I just resolved it as no action needed at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, but when he does it again, it'll just waste even more time... ╟─Treasury Tag►Captain-Regent─╢ 21:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Using userpage as a place of propaganda and personal attacks

There is a problem with

talk

) 13:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Attack removed, editor notified of discussion, and reporter reminded to notify subjects of reports in the future. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know this. Thanks.--

talk

) 13:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to contest this removal, but I firmly deny making personal attacks and am very upset about being accused of using my page for propaganda. The attack was a general attack on the use of Wikipedia for the purpose of nationalist POV pushing, which is rife. The text had been on my user page for a considerable time, so I assumed it was OK, although I was provoked into amending it by the uploading of an image to press a claim at Talk:Mount Kazbek when the image very clearly refuted the claim. I will refrain from using the T word to describe the uploading of this image. Viewfinder (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Your behaviour was clear example of fascism, racisms and antisemitism - and after this you are talking about something? Really interesting.--

talk

) 14:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No personal attacks please, Gaeser. --SarekOfVulcan (talk

) 14:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

How ironic—warning other editors not to make personal attacks, while making personal attacks yourself? Agree with SarekOfVulcan above. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-compliant signature

Resolved

– KnowIG (talk · contribs) is temporarily blocked for 48 hours, and he has changed his signature to link to his userpage. Hopefully the disruption does not happen after his block; if it does, feel free to remove the "resolved" template from this section. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:SIGLINK. He has been asked to change it, and given advice on how to do so, by multiple editors ([73][74]) yet has ignored these messages [75]

and still insists on conduct which is defined as "obstructive" by the guideline I linked to earlier.

For this reason, I would ask that an admin give him a final warning, and then block him if he continues regardless – this proposed course is identical to that taken in a previous and similar case. ╟─Treasury Tag►international waters─╢ 14:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you misspell the username? It looks like User:KnowIG doesn't exist, nor does the most obvious mistake, User:KnowlG. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Odd, the link didn't work for me but now it does; the user was on my watchlist so I confirmed that the name is correct. Maybe that was my mistake; carry on. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I mis-spelt it and then corrected it! ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 14:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, that was the magical power of you correcting the edit. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Warned user. –xeno^talk 14:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorted it thanks Zeno, easy mistake to make. But Treasury your definatly being OTT as some of us go to work and do not sit on the internet whilst at work, give people a chance to change it...KnowIG (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
You were given two chances to change it. You read and ignored messages from two editors. ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 21:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Which were immediatly I think you need some time away from the computer sunshine and live in the real worldKnowIG (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
No, that's not true. You were asked to change it; you edited since then without doing so. You were asked again; you edited again. As the diffs above show. ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 21:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, KnowIG has been blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing, and since his signature now does link to his userpage, I'm marking this section as "resolved". Feel free to remove the template if further disruption happens after his block. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

Not sure this is the correct place to ask this question, but with regard pending changes, if you review an edit and it is not accepted is it counted as a revert, in regard to 1RR articles would it be counted as a breach if you made another revert? Mo ainm~Talk 16:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You should only ever be not accepting simple vandalism, BLP violations, and the like, which never counts towards revert limits. If you are not accepting good-faith content, then that's not good. Maybe I am misunderstanding the question? --B (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, though I agree with what you've said. As I understand it, the question is will an "unaccept" for a legitimate reason (say, a

WP:BLP-vio) count as a revert for, say, 3RR?" In which case the answer is, I assume, no. Since Mo ainm mentioned 1RR I'd also say no, but it might be worth running it by Arbcom to check. I can see Arbcom raising eyebrows at unaccepted revisions if those edits appeared acceptable. TFOWR

18:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say that is something to pay attention to, as with rollback and all editing really, if you revert something that is not clear vandalism or a BLP violation or rudeness or nonsense you should take care not to edit war over it and move to discussion as you would without pending changes.

) 18:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Although I tend to concur with Off2riorob, I'm a little hesitant, here. After all, if I don't accept someone else's edit, it isn't reverted and can be accepted by anyone else who happens to pass by; if I unaccept it, it goes back in the unreviewed queue and, once again, anyone passing by can accept it. So I don't think that unaccepting edits should count as a revert, even though I believe that if a reviewers made a habit of unaccepting perfectly good edits he should be sanctioned (at least, stripped of his reviewing privileges).

Clearly, this shouldn't apply when, instead of not accepting or unaccepting an edit, the reviewer chose to undo or rollback the edit in question. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It does occur to me, somewhat later than I'd had hoped, that Wikipedia talk:Reviewing may have some answers. TFOWR 22:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User:76.24.231.182 Vandalising pages

Resolved

– Vandalism was weeks ago, been reverted and warned already. Nothing to do here. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

He has vandalized

talk • contribs

) 23:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

All of the vandalism has been reverted, though in the case of

Under the Magician's Spell, it took ten days until you happened to notice it. The IP was warned back on June 16th about vandalism and hasn't continued, so blocking isn't necessary. -- Gogo Dodo (talk

) 00:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What is Elockid up to?

Elockid has just blocked all the computers in the London Borough of Sutton for "persistent vandalism". There has been no vandalism since this: [76] which is over a year old.

This administrator seems to be running around like a bull in a china shop. In a rambling post to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive245#Community ban on Swamilive s/he says that where no ban discussion has taken place that gives him/her the right to impose a ban unilaterally. 78.149.161.38 (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, this doesn't look very salubrious to me... ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 10:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Guidance states, "Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern." 78.149.161.38 (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes? ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 10:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody block this as an IP sock of Vote (X) For Change? I mean Greater London address? Continuation from the IP they're complaining 212.85.13.143 about. The reason for blocking can also be seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change.

Furthermore, blocks are not only implemented for vandalism. Everybody knows that. Yes, the block is intended to reduce further problems. Given the long block history, coupled with no legitimate edits from users at the time of the unblock, as well as being used by a sockpuppeteer, it's clear that the block was intended to limit disruption. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

78.149.161.38, thank you for bringing your concerns to AN/I for discussion, but please be careful to comment on actions, not on editors. Accusing an administrator of "running around like a bull in a china shop" and "rambling" is getting a bit close to

WP:NPA in my opinion, especially if you are not aware of policy on the matter. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]

12:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

78.149.161.38 blocked by Toddst1 (talk · contribs) for block evasion. Thank you, Toddst1. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Denada. Toddst1 (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Bom dia, todos! What nonsense is this? "No legitimate edits from users at the time of the unblock"? Of course not, because the IP was blocked. User:Jc3s5h went block fishing with a fictitious case as bait and the administrator swallowed it. Two very bad blocks in my opinion. 195.191.66.225 (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Obvious duck. 195.191.66.225 reblocked one month. Thank you Tim for blocking. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the answer to the ban discussion this - when someone adds the "banned" tag without initiating a ban discussion on ANI they are not describing the position as they believe it to be - that the editor is de facto banned (which is an oxymoron if ever I heard one). As an example of wikilawyering this is hard to beat.

People like User:Jc3s5h and User:Chris Bennett who tell everyone I am banned ([77] is just one example) use this as a cover to revert my edits to a version which promotes their own agenda. In the case of Jc3s5h it is that Orthodox churches have rejected the Orthodox calendar in favour of the Catholic one (no sources are ever cited to support this theory). In the case of Chris Bennett it is many ideas which appear on his website (and nowhere else) which he then transfers to Wikipedia quoting his website as a "reliable source". 195.194.10.178 (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that Chris Bennett actually said in that same comment that you pointed certain things out correctly. Either way, you're not winning points by arguing and evading IP blocks. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

See this comment from Chris Bennett [78]. This amplifies what I said above. What Bennett calls my "personal theories of calendar history" are the same theories which he discusses on his website and attributes to many people, myself not being among them. These theories are summarised here: [79]. The difference is that his theories appear only on his website, or in Wikipedia edits made by him.

The other troublemaker, Jc3s5h, is on a block warning for ad hominem attacks. 86.162.232.145 (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Jayant Patel aka 'Dr Death'

From the article: "Patel is currently being tried in the Supreme Court(Brisbane) for the unlawful killing of three patients, and grievous bodily harm to a fourth".[80] This is a controversial court case in Australia where the jury is apparently currently considering it's decision. I think it would be a prime candidate for vandalism. Just a FYI in case. --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 02:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it, thanks for the heads up. Will it help matters if I comment that vandalism may not become an issue as Australian editors seem to behave more responsibly than other editors?^{[citation needed]} ;-) Apart from Kiwis. Obviously. TFOWR 12:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? Perhaps our 'vandalism' is at least amusing due to our larrikin nature? (except for politics perhaps! Considering what some have said about our new Prime Minister)! --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 05:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

improper recreation of
Leanne Tiernan

I would like to report the improper re creation of the article

Leanne Tiernan it was deleted as Murder of Leanne Tiernan and the discussion can be found here.--Lucy-marie (talk

) 17:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the deleted version, the new article is substantially different and has multiple

) 17:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it could do with a rename as there is a lot of content that is not about her.

) 18:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

) 09:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Second Amendment long term AnonIP talk page disruption.

Would an administrator please take a look at the long term talk page disruption from an AnonIP at the

disruptive of the work of writing an encyclopedia article. SaltyBoatr^{get wet}

19:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to report that SB had engaged in repeated violations of 3RR and that the current freeze on the Second Amendment article is due to his engaging in a an "edit war" with another poster. Not me.

Regarding the "whack job" comment. Please read the US Supreme Court language and let me know if the US Supreme Court considers that anyone pushing a viewpoint other then the one cited, is living beyond the looking glass, i.e. is crazy, or colloquially is "a whack job". My posts and US Supreme Court language are below.

Again: The US Supreme Court has stated that to "bear arms" simply means to "carry arms" and anyone who thinks different is a wackjob living beyond the "looking glass". This quote, already in the article, was pointed out a few days ago.

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage ("for the purpose of self-defense" or "to make war against the King"). But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game." The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter.

It cancels YOUR policy to push the meaning of "to bear arms" as meaning only to bear arms in warfare. In the words of the US Supreme Court, anyone who thinks that to "bear arms" means anything but to "carry arms" lives beyond the looking glass, i.e. is crazy, or colloquially "is a whack job"96.237.120.38 (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Suffice to say, that does not give you the right to call other editors here whack jobs.

WP:BATTLEGROUND applies, as you should not be trying to "cancel" a policy push with one of your own. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

16:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read the US Supreme Court language and let me know if the US Supreme Court considers that anyone pushing a viewpoint other then the one cited, is living beyond the looking glass, i.e. is crazy, or colloquially is "a whack job". The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Could an administrator please look into this and help out? The edit pattern of this AnonIP is disruptive to the process of writing an encyclopedia, and has gone on incessantly for almost a year not. Just today, a long string of postings to the talk page, treating the talk page as a forum, zero references to third party sourcing, with the net effect to stir things up like a troll and causing disruption to the process of writing an encylcopedia[92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102]][103] (and this is just the last 24 hours!). SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 21:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I recently provided this third party source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Common_law_right_to_arms_prior_to_English_Bill_of_Rights

as well as this one

Oliver Wendell Holmes seems to think that "common law" is quite a bit older then you think. Pardon me for having more faith in him then I have in you. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Oliver+Wendell+Holmes In The Common Law, Holmes traced the origins of the common law to ancient societies where liability was based on feelings of revenge and the subjective intentions of a morally blameworthy wrongdoer. For example, Holmes observed that in such societies creditors were permitted to cut up and divide the body of a debtor who had breached the terms of a contract.96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I again would like to point out that the current freeze on the Second Amendment article is due to SaltyBoatr engaging in and edit war with multiple 3rr violations. An edit war which I had no part in. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr is one of the most principled editors I've seen, opposing edits that would, from my opinion, appeal to his/her view because they don't meet wiki standards. The discussions I've seen on the 2nd amendment talk page appear to be civil, but they're not the place to debate the merits, they're a place to discuss additions and those sources. Find the sources that say these things and it's not a problem... but this disruptive pattern of editing is a problem. There are a lot of people that want to improve these articles, and the irony is that I don't think this is at all an ideological debate, but rather an issue over procedure. So please... just discuss on this level, and provide sources, whose merit can then be discussed. Shadowjams (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I again would like to point out that the current freeze on the Second Amendment article is due to SaltyBoatr engaging in and edit war with multiple 3rr violations. An edit war which I had no part in. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

collapsing unintentional edit of archive page
Updating this. The AnonIP continues with WP:DE effect is serving to make the dispute resolution process at that article[107] more tedious that it need be. And, as a result, this important article has been in a page protect mode for more than a month. This long term AnonIP's disruption is interfering with the important work of editing an encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr^{get wet} 16:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr has been engaging in repeated edit wars to push his personal militia based theory of the Second Amendment. His edit wars have gotten the Second Amendment article frozen twice over the past month. The most recent freeze was on the 3rd of this month. His most recent edit war/3rr violation is detailed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Salty_Boatr_-_You_are_already_in_violation_of_3RR but has not been officially filed. The militia based argument has been termed worthy of the mad hatter by the US Supreme Court and Salty just does not get that his pet theory is as dead as a doornail. The US Supreme Court has stated that

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage ("for the purpose of self-defense" or "to make war against the King"). But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game." The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter.71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, after the long freeze, because of the first edit war by Salty mentioned last month ( see above), there was a severe need for an article update. I and other editors engaged in edits to update, clarify, or constructively edit the article. Salty acted to revert a number of those changes resulting in his being in a 3RR violation. After I pointed that out to him in the talk page, he complained of an edit war between myself and another editor, and asked for a freeze on July 3rd as he could no longer act to stop article updating. When asking for that freeze on the 3rd he laid the blame for the edit war on myself and Hauskalainen, making it look like myself and Hauskalainen were the ones engaged in an edit war, when he was the ONLY person in an edit war/3rr violation. That violation is detailed here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Salty_Boatr_-_You_are_already_in_violation_of_3RR but was not officially filed.71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As for dispute resolution, I cannot see how I can resolve a dispute with someone who engages in an edit war and then tries to lay the blame for that edit war at my feet. At this point I cannot assume good faith on the part of SaltyBoatr and do not believe that any dispute between myself and Salty can be resolved in dispute resolution. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

User has created their own speedy template

Resolved

– The editor used a valid method of speedy nomination, and the tagged article failed speedy deletion policy on other grounds. No need to examine this further. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Timneu22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After a lengthy discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A11_revisited:_How-to_criteria, where he failed in a bid to get sufficient support for a new CSD category of 'How-To' articles, Timneu22 seems to have invented his own 'please speedy this' template [108]. While I'm not saying that the article he has applied it to has any merit, is this an appropriate action? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't create a template, I just tagged that page by hand using {{

WT:CSD. — Timneu22 · talk

13:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record,

delete}}; are you trying to report some violation?? — Timneu22 · talk

13:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've retagged it as a copyvio. Nothing more to see here. Deor (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And I've just zapped it as such. Courcelles (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't see the copyvio. At any rate, even if I did use a homemade template, I certainly don't see why there's a violation of using SUBST with my own userpages to make maintenance quicker. — Timneu22 · talk 13:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No argument from me that the article is without encyclopaedic worth (obvious balloques). It's just that having lost the argument that such things should be speedied, it seems a bit...dubious...to be handling the deletion request in this way. Also, for what it's worth, articles of more than four lines that appear without either a userpage draft or article wizard help always seem so much more likely to be copyvios, that it's always worth sticking the first couple of sentences into google. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Dubious to do what? Use {{

delete}} with a rationale? — Timneu22 · talk

13:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It was to do with the outcome of the discussion, but I guess it's just me. Anyway, I'll say no more about it - you're obviously OK to carry on. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for community ban of Darkstar1st

Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

single purpose account editing only the article Libertarianism

and to a lesser degree other articles about libertarianism. Although libertarianism may be a controversial subject, Darkstar1st stands alone in his insistence in projecting his own beliefs into the article without any reliable sources. The following are problems that he has presented:

Edit-warring
User:Donald Duck both placed notices on his talk page complaining about removing sourced material. Darkstar was later blocked for edit-warring.[109]

Soapboxing Darkstar1st uses the talk pages in order to present a viewpoint rather than to improve articles. In a recent example he presented comparisons of the coverage of WP and the Stanford Encyclopedia about race and Wittgenstein.[110]
Abrasiveness toward other editors For example he began adding tags to the talk page text of editors with whom he disagreed.[111]

Darkstar1st has argued extensively over obscure points and will not give up when no other editors support his point of view. This behavior wastes the time of other editors who reply to his objections and prevents the improvement of the article. He is either unable or unwilling to improve WP and therefore should be banned. I believe that Darkstar1st is a sockpuppet of the banned editor User:RJII although Checkuser was unable to confirm that. However his behavior is identical, as can be seen at User talk:Jadabocho or User talk:Introman, two of numerous RJII socks.

TFD (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

untrue neither of those you mentioned appear on my page other than the follow comment, "Horse shit. You know about as much about Wikipedia's rules as you clearly know about properly writing and formatting a talk page message." tfd has made false claims before, see my sockpuppet case. i have created an article for wp 5 years ago, which has hundreds of edits(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Mexico). i have made even more contributions since 2005. my only purpose is improving/expanding wp. tfd if i apologize for any offense i have made, but honestly believe each edit made was for the best. apparently wp agrees as the majority of those edits remain. imho, experiences like this is what alienates long time editors, as Jimmy pointed out in his recent vision forward for wp Darkstar1st (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Have there been any attempts at
dispute resolution other than this ANI thread? Sandstein
05:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I had the same question. (Disclosure: I've been involved in the article and was the editor who reported

) 05:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution has been tried:

RSN: The Progress Report & LewRockwell.com [112] 20 April, 2010

RfC: Talk:Laozi#RfC: should lead state mention Libertarianism 11 May 2010

ANI: Adding article markup tags to people's comments on the discussion page[113] 13 May 2009

TFD (talk) 05:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, do you think that Darkstar1st is arguing in good faith or do you think that he is deliberately trying to disrupt the improvement of the article? TFD (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. But he's been confining his edits mostly to the talk page since his block. Those posts have been long-winded and oblique, however. Not sure what the issue is....

talk

) 06:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at Darkstar1st's edit history, he is most likely the sockpuppet of a banned editor, is using his account to disrupt the improvement of the Libertarianism article, and has no intention of making a positive contribution. His lengthy and bizarre postings show this. Please read User:RJII for a first hand explanation of the motivation of this type of editor. While you have the patience to read Darkstar1st's postings and respond to them, in the long run it wastes a lot of time of serious contributors. Even when he edited several years ago and created the article about immigration, all the discussion he attracted on his talk page were complaints about "re-inserting biased, unrelated, conspiracy-theory based POV material", spam, 3rr, and soapboxing.[114] TFD (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I did look at the contributions. I didn't see enough similarity to trigger my

talk

) 15:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is way overblown. TFD and Darkstar have a history of not getting along. While Darkstar has had a few incidents, his behavior has improved when specific issues were brought to his attention.

The RSN was very effective, with everyone basically agreeing that the sources in question were not reliable. Darkstar didn't dispute that or edit war against consensus. In fact, he was the person who initially questioned the reliability of the sources. The was hardly a dispute at all, when it came down to it.
The RfC also went very well. Again, Darkstar was
bold, but after consensus was reached to remove his addition, he didn't edit war or disrupt anything. The agreed upon wording and content for the Laozi
article has remained.

ANI, once again, he stopped engaging in the problem behavior once it was brought to his attention that it was way out of line.

The primary article at issue, I believe, is the Libertarianism page, which Darkstar has been heavily participating in. However, most of his contributions have been on the talk page. He has had two instances of minor edit warring in the last two months, but he is generally attempting to play by the rules and only add appropriate sourced material. He does do a bit of soapboxing, but I think he's doing a decent job of listening to other editors as well. He has had one borderline civility problem when he said he was ignoring another editor, but he is discussing the subject matter of the article and engaging in dialogue for the most part. The talk page still has most of the (generally congenial) discussion.

In light of the fact that each time there has been a problem, Darkstar has corrected his behavior, and the fact that he is genuinely trying to improve content, I think a community ban is out of proportion. He has only been blocked once; the previous near edit-warring in April was resolved without a block. I do disagree with some of Darkstar's viewpoints, but he has not been adding truckloads of unsourced material. There have been problems, but they are being worked on through talk page discussion and edit summaries. For whatever reason, there is bad blood between TFD and Darkstar, but I don't think that should prevent them both from continuing to contribute to the project. I might agree with someone mentoring Darkstar to help him become more cooperative, as I feel he is knowledgeable and can add quality content with guidance. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 06:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just for the sake of information, the two major themes Darkstar pursues in the article seem to be (1) a deep opposition to Libertarianism being compared to Anarchism, and relatedly (2) a heavy emphasis on the author Murray Rothbard (apparently a well-known Libertarian voice from the middle of last century, but not someone I recognize as a major political scholar or political figure). Darkstar is certainly well into

wp:AGF, I'd prefer to see whether the behavior magnifies or fades over time before making any judgement on the issue. --Ludwigs2

07:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

having been an editor longer than all you combined, the sockpuppet accusation is confusing. i challenge you to find another with as poor grammar as myself. "RSN: The Progress Report & LewRockwell.com[162] 20 April, 2010", result: the link to the homepage of iep was removed as a source, should anyone wish to replace, i will not challenge.

RfC: Talk:Laozi#RfC: should lead state mention Libertarianism 11 May 2010, result: libertarian attribution remains, yet not in the lead as it would be on other leads for philosophers. as far as not wanting to contribute, i would like to add libertarian was attributed to dejaques before i corrected the page, with much pushback, with the actually originator of the term who existed 100 years before dejaques, and spoke the word in english, rather than "libertaire", which has been interpreted(perhaps incorrectly) as the english word libertarian. ANI: Adding article markup tags to people's comments on the discussion page[163] 13 May 2009 result, correction, it was may 10, not 09. after scouring the wr:rules, most of which have been created/altered since i joined in 05, i was unable to find where adding tabs in talk was prohibited. i agreed to stop, and rather than meaning to offend the editor, i was asking where he got the wp:rules he seemed to make up as he was writing. just yesterday i was told all peer-reviewed material was wp:rs "end of story", which i feel is incorrect and found supporting material on wp:rs. I do not wish to disrupt or offend anyone at wp, evidence being 98% of my edits remain, and i defy anyone to find where i added un-source/improperly sourced material. the immigration to mexico page i created in 2005 is a perfect example. it is true i have reverted many editors there, and not only has my original info stood, but additional material as well. i do regret the ignore comment, especially after learning it was her that got the page included in the philosophy section in the 1st place. after reading the history, i found she also suffered many accusations, ridicule, yet continued and succeeded, apologies, and hat off to you! since learning her history, i am paying much closer attention to her words, and will respect and hopefully support her future edits. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Darkstar1st definitely is disruptive and wastes a lot of time in WP:Soapbox and baiting others to it, refusing to focus on WP:RS. I believe as a way really of getting them fed up with the article Libertarianism. I've been trying to keep it NPOV with a proper balance of property and antiproperty views, despite attacks from both "left" and "right" trying to make it POV. Darkstar1st certainly has been most persistant and annoying in trying to enforce his POV. (By the way, his single quote from Rothbard vs. "anarchists" was against left anarchists and in fact many consider him the father of anarco-capitalism.) A community ban might be too strong, but at very least blocking him from all libertarianism-related articles for six months would be warranted and might teach him to edit more cooperatively and appropriately. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with a short topic ban, though I think six months might be too long. I'd support one month, followed by two months if when he returns he reverts to the same behavior. Then three, followed a permanent topic ban for subsequent repeats.

talk

) 15:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"Sir, I am neither an anarchist nor an archist, but am squarely down the nonarchic middle of the road.", murray rothbard, the father of are you sure? http://mises.org/daily/2801 Also, do you not consider my addition of the person who coined the term not a significant contribution? before i made my edit, which i was accused of edit warring when i re added "The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham", the page incorrectly attributed the 1st use of the term to DeJaques, which was incorrect. i see my edits as factual and fundamental, proof being they remain. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

On a separate note, the sockpuppet charges are inappropriate. Darkstar was already exonerated once. Just reading over User talk:Jadabocho and User talk:Introman, you can clearly see the tone of writing is completely different. Compare this and this to, say, this. There is no resemblance. I can see that Darkstar has clearly ruffled a lot feathers, and I would probably agree with a short introductory topic ban of maybe just a couple weeks, during which time he can try to gain a better understanding of exactly what the problem is that other people are having with him. I think he's not realizing that the content is not the issue, it's the way it is presented and discussed. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 15:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

after murrays lengthy article on not being an anarchist has been removed and resulting block, i am give up on the libertarian article. the article is much better than the one in april when i first noticed the contradictory, confusing, page i found, imho. it has been interesting to meet such a committed group, kudos to your vision and efforts. should i not be banned from wp entirely, notice the editors who follow me to new articles about anything that peaks my interest in digg, where i am also a long term well friended, well dugg member(same username there). a review of my discussion edits should exonerate me on charges of inappropriate language, threats or derogatory comments. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Torchiest, if you referring to the lack of capitalization and the short, choppy sentences, Darkstar1st did not write this way until after the Sockpuppet case as can be seen here. TFD (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I was primarily referring to the far more casual tone of the first two, versus the almost formal, and sometimes quite complex, sentence structure that Darkstar uses. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 21:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Numerous editors will spend a lot of time arguing with Darkstar1st, after which he will be blocked or disappear. Then he will return and we will repeat this conversation all over again. In the meantime he has contributed nothing to the article and hindered editors who wish to improve it. TFD (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

tfd, did you not see the part where i corrected the article with the person who actually coined the term libertarian? i say my contributions have helped. the sockpuppet confuses me to no end. why create a puppet in 09 when this account from 05 was in good standing? after reading the user talk, i see we have similar interest, but much different views from my accused puppeteers. ex: "Yes an individualist anarchist would be a libertarian. But so would a socialist anarchist. They're both libertarians", does that really sound like me? i say murray is correct, no libertarian is an anarchist, nor is any libertarian an archist, far from it. again i ask you if we cannot come to some agreement as to wp being large enough for us both. the funny part is, when i was your age(assuming you are 20ish) i held the same views(socialist/communist). seeing how bad off people lived around the world inspired me to want change by any means. now i think change at the end of a bayonet is not sustainable, people must want to share. since then i have been a libertarian, voted Marrou 92, browne 96, 00, badnerik 04, and took a pass on barr and voted baldwin at the recommendation of ron paul which left a foul taste as baldwin is rather superstitious. i hope as your life leads you down the road we all must travel, your zeal for justice will not abate. should this be our last words, i would like to quote the exalted jerry garcia, "fare thee well" Darkstar1st (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

User Darkstar1st appears to have tired to canvas for help [[115]]. By the same token user TFD has tried to get another user blocked in a way that smacked of harassment with an SPI, but I can’t find it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this the sockpuppet investigation you were referring to? Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 14:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats the one.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(out) Darkstar1st, please do not accuse other people of being "socialist/communist". Slatersteven, regarding my request for SPI, the fact is the article mentioned has been plagued by numerous disruptive sockpuppets and the editor reported has continued the same editing style. Could you please read through it and explain why you believe this to be harrassment. You actually wrote, "I believe that [the suspected sock] may have some civility issues" and you wrote to him, "If you manage to get yourself blocked (and it will be over attitude not socking)". And none of this has anything to do with the current discussion thread. TFD (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What do I mean, well raising sock puppet allegations about accounts that have not been active in two years for one (and in same cases banned two years ago). As far as I was aware we do not ban users for actions they have not engaged in for two years (indeed as far as I was aware users stopping doing something is considered a good thing). I agree that he has civility issues, but that has noting to do with SPI, that is ANI (by the way I never called him a suspected sock puppet, please do not mis-quote me), and as you say he will be blocked for attitude if he continues with his actions, not sockpuppetry (which is again an issue that should be here, not SPI). That is also why I say it smacks of harrisment, you are trying to get him blocked for A, using proccess B.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

tfd, apologies for accusing?you of being a socialist/communist. i did not mean it as an insult/accusation as if there is anything wrong in believing a doctrine in the 1st place??? after viewing your edits, i made an assumption. but perhaps you missed my point. i am offering an olive branch by stating i am finished with the article and hope i can both remain in broader wp without conflict. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest closing this discussion, as it seems to be more of a content dispute and personal disagreement between TFD and Darkstar1st, the latter of whom has already stated he will not be editing Libertarianism anymore and that he wants to work towards more collegial editing. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 15:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteen, when an account is blocked they are not permitted to continue editing under a new account. Since

User:Bsharvy created at least eight additional accounts, which concentrated on one article, it is not unreasonable to suspect that an account that became active after these accounts were blocked and edits the same article from the same unusual position, may be the same person. If the suspected sock is in fact Bsharvy then they should request re-instatement of that account rather than open new ones. TFD (talk

) 16:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to say that I don't see this just as a person dispute. While Darkstar1st certainly had some good criticisms, his aggressive WP:SOAPBOX constant push to delete material on the range of libertarian views was the real problem that wasted a lot of my time and energy and got me demoralized me so I'm still trying to refocus on collecting good WP:RS to deal with those and other issues in the article, but feeling a bit too bummed to do it. I'm sure I'm not the only one demoralized by his Modus Operandi. So I do hope he'll stay away til he learns to cooperate better and just recommend specific edits with specific WP:RS and not emphasize his intention to redo article to his POV. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No but it is resonable to expcect an explanation when doubts are raised. 1. Nolloop did not (and does not) concentrate on 1 page, 2. his account was created around (what about) a year after the sock was banned. So what you seem to be stating is that becasue he holds certain views that a similar to some one who was banned then he might be a sock? I find that exlpantion difficult to accept as justification as it would seem that one of the accounts you accused of being a sock seems to agree with some of my concearns as well. Yes there are similarities, but nothing that would make me think they are the same person. Also the language does not seem similar in style, but then that might be the result of anger missues that nollop seems to have.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Slatersteven, it is not unreasonable to suspect that the accounts are the same and the correct forum to discuss it is at SPI. It has nothing to do with this discussion thread. As I said to Darkstar1st, "Your best approach at ANI is to answer the issues raised rather than canvassing other editors to attack the person who started the discussion thread. If you want to invite other editors to become involved, you should contact editors who can speak positively about your editing history." TFD (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Carol, some of the sources i deleted included a self published 16 y/o, a link to the iep homepage, and several passages not supported in the source listed. i do not object to your inclusion of every published word co-oping the term libertarian, rather the weight some of the more obscure forms are given. reading the page in april where it said some libertarians believe in anti-property and some do not left me confused. the opening paragraph seemed to be a debate about what libertarian actually meant. my idea was to peg the term to the current understanding by the most people. perhaps i am wrong, are there more libertarians outside the us than in? do more libertarians believe in socialism or anarchy than do not? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I've received all manner of personal comments today at Talk:Ahatallah, ranging from (unsubstantiated) accusations of plagiarism [116] to the claim that I'm a covert Vatican agent, and most recently a white supremacist and a member of the KKK.[117] And it's not even lunch yet! This seems to stem from certain editors evidently having not particularly liking the academic sources I used in the article. The plagiarism bunk I can handle, but I will not be called a white supremacist. Can someone please look into this?--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The anon who made the KKK comments has been blocked. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for the swift resolution.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

User:PrimeViper overriding existing images with uploads of copyright material

Resolved

– Copyvios deleted, user warned

This user has a history of uploading high res or otherwise unacceptable copyright images over existing content. I am not sure why anyone would repeatedly do this except as an apparent attempt to disguise the improper nature of the newly uploaded work. See [[118] and also the images and deleted history mentioned here:[119] Can action be taken?Active Banana (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've trashed all the copyvios that he uploaded and given him a final warning. If this resumes, please post here or on my talkpage. Together with his other uncollegial editing practices, if he continues in this vein his first block is likely to be indef. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Drake no walky planky - blatant troublemaker

Resolved

Blatant sock/vandalism account - I have no idea who it's a sock of, so don't have the details to take it to SPI, so I'll leave it to admins here to decide how to deal with it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternate account of User:Sir Francis Drake (not really!). Bramble claw x 18:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've marked the user page for speedy deletion as a personal attack against wikipedia administrators. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock. --auburnpilot talk 18:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

User:PWeeHurman socks

Resolved

– J'onn J'onzz cleared, PWeeHurman community banned. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on the naming pattern and editing behavior, it is blatantly obvious that

talk · contribs

) 19:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The user was blocked, and is protesting the block and notes that his account is a year older than PWeeHurman's (something I failed to notice myself)[120]. --

talk · contribs

) 00:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

He's right about it being a comic book character. Could be a coincidence, I suppose, although the editing behavior... eh. I suppose there'd be nothing wrong with unblocking in good faith and seeing whether

WP:ROPE comes into play. Shimeru

02:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I should note that CU has said that J'onn J'onzz is unrelated. See this for more info. --Bsadowski1 08:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Community ban of User:PWeeHurman

Given the ongoing gross sockpuppet abuse of this person (see discussion ~~a few spots~~ above), I propose a permanent community ban for User:PWeeHurman. This will allow all this person's edits to be reverted on sight without having to worry about 3RR and such. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: Combined two sections together. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Aargh! Should've dropped you a note saying I did so. Apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No big deal! :-) Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Second the Motion: Long-term abusers should be booted, and those using socks are using dirty tricks to game the system. Assuming there is a consensus, let justice be served. Jusdafax 23:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Second even if does appear to be a false alarm, as he has been actively socking this year and clearly intends to keep doing so. --
talk · contribs
) 00:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Second This user has exhausted all of our patience with his sockpuppeting and long-term abusers must be banned for their actions, so I strongly support this motion of the permanent community ban towards that user. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Support- even though the sock Anma mentioned above is unrelated. Sockpuppetry cannot be tolerated. This user should notify the arbcom if s/he wishes to edit Wikipedia. Until then, the user should be banned. – Tommy [message] 15:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Strongest possible support. This idiot and his friends have me in their crosshairs every time they try logging on. Not only do I support a ban, I support formal action be taken with each and every IP which is used in the course of this ridiculous action. This is serious vandalism and damage to a multi-million dollar project.
talk
) 01:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've said it many times before, I do not understand why ISPs are not sent abuse reports more often. I can think of several people who have been harassing and vandalizing here for ages who need their interwebs access removed. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I can think of at least one ISP from which I do not recall ever seeing a single useful contribution. I believe we can send abuse reports ourselves? Regardless, I'd like to see a more formal method of handling ISPs: abuse report, followed by shutting off access to the entire range of IP addresses controlled by the ISP if they do not respond to abuse reports. Once their customers start complaining that they can no longer edit Wikipedia, maybe then they'll start dealing with problematic customers. TFOWR 10:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. Y'all knew I'd be here sooner or later.
WP:BLOCK. TFOWR
10:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. TWOFR said it perfectly. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Support. Haven't seen this name for years ... he had another whole family of socks that used to pester me when I was a new admin. I'm surprised he wasn't banned a long time ago. Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Consensus seems pretty clear so I have tagged the main account that the banned template. If someone really wants to argue that he shouldn't be banned, it can be undone. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Request of indef block for user PCE

Resolved

– Blocked indefinitely

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

I haven't gotten into any disputes with this user, and frankly I can't remember how I started to watch their page, but one thing is for certain; this user has a history of disruptive editing and personal attacks. They attack people they disagree with, and they attack admins when blocked. On top of that, it seems they actually try to be disruptive.

Around the time when I first started watching their talk page, they tried to replace it with goatse, but that's just one diff in a sea of many.

A more recent example.

To the point, they obviously care nothing for our

WP:NPA

policy. An indef seems the only way to stem the flow of disruption from this user.

User notified.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks by User:Courcelles, talk page access taken away as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I did that off a RFPP request regarding this diff after a one week block. I honestly have never encountered the user before that, so if someone wants to raise the block to an indef, you'd encounter no objections from me, but at the present time, I don't think I've done enough reading the history to comment. Courcelles (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I know they were blocked 2 weeks, Homer. I was hoping per their pattern of personal attacks that that could be upped to indef.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 06:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The last block was two weeks. Common sense indicates this one should be longer. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Support indef. block Blocked (at least) three times for the same reason. Look at his user page (before the last revert). This user will do the same all the time. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 06:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Supporting it is fine and all, but newyorkbrad brought up a point. I think ANI is turning to voting too soon, too often. Longer discussion might be beneficial. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There is not much to discuss. You know, when a user is problematic and this cannot be able to work with other people, is better stop him/her before it get worse. This user has been blocked six times, he is not learning, so what other thing we can do? Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 06:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm someone who piles into every comm-ban discussion with a "support" !vote. However I tend to agree with NativeForeigner: there's a wider issue here than merely "aye" or "nay" to a community ban: there's "should these discussions be punted to

banned}} tags when a user is merely de facto banned (blocked with no admin willing to unblock). This particular case may be a matter of support/oppose, but I strongly suspect there will be many more similar cases, leading to a general problem. TFOWR

12:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

He is indeed not learning. Can we just get this over with an indef block him? He obviously isn't going to follow our rules.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 02:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In view of this discussion, I have restored the user's talk page access and will copy any comments across to here. JohnCD (talk) 09:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they can't seem to resist the temptation to insult other users. Re-blocked. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Guys, this is just silly, before I could see 2 weeks working, but now they are just screwing around. RBI is in order, and with the "B", make it an indef block, no talkpage access this time. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This [121] is totally unacceptable. Can someone block this racist jerk indefinitely already? Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not like to say "I told you", but guys wake up. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 05:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If anyone doesn't think an indef block is warranted, please say so. I've been considering pressing the button all morning. Courcelles (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent)I'm for it (already proposed it earlier too). The editor has too long a history of incivility and attacks and has a very large block log to prove that. I believe he needs to be blocked indef as he will be of no help to the community and will only continue to disrupt and attack others.Rgood erm ote 18:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Support an indef - his response when I restored his talk page access and offered to copy comments here indicates that he has no intention of changing. As being slightly involved (one of his targets) I would prefer someone else to pull the trigger. JohnCD (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Courcelles, please please block him. Let's finish this off, forget about this guy and go back to editing. Nobody in their right mind will question an indef. Burpelson AFB (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This is enough, and there is broad support for it. Indefinitely blocked. Due to the history, I left talk page access disabled, and directed them to ArbCom for an appeal. Courcelles (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TWh Energy

Resolved

– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TWh Energy has been closed. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted article whose AfD page is still open. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Closed. In future, you could always

be bold and close it yourself. you don;t have to be an admin to close an AfD. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

18:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That's something I never understood, so I don't mess with it. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't directly related, but thanks for making that clear Mitchell, I had always assumed AfDs could only be closed by sysops. The closing user has to be uninvolved and not have !voted on the AfD though, right? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NAC.—S Marshall T/C
20:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I'll keep that in mind in future, as I've waited for an admin in some of the circumstances listed as acceptable for non-admin closure before now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Self-Admitted Block Evasion?

Resolved

– Blocked by Courcelles SheepNotGoats (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Homem de Letras (talk · contribs)

This user claims on his userpage to have started the Zé Pilintra article "under another username". Turns out the user who created that article (Officer Boscorelli (talk · contribs)) was blocked indefinitely for vandalism. Is another block in order here? SheepNotGoats (talk)

And he highlighted his presence by trying to run for admin! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty blatant admission of sockpuppetry. Indef blocked. Courcelles (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Bans are useless, he will come back anyway. --Hrotovice (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeking admin assistance for disruptive editor

I’ve come here at the recommendation of Elockid. Seeking the best course of action in dealing with a severely problematic editor. Yesterday I posted a request for semi-protection for the Stephen Ambrose article, but it was denied on grounds of insufficient disruptive activity [122]. The disruptive editing is now continuing under a new user ID.

Background: An individual editing via anonymous IPs had been engaging in disruptive editing (RfC writeup begun [123]) and vandalism (e.g. [124]). The user jumped IPs once the RfC was begun, so the editor initiating the RfC stopped pursuing admin action. The user has engaged in severe wikihounding of other editors and appears to have a long history of conflict and disruptive edits (inappropriate deletions, demeaning language, blanking of pages, etc.), that can be readily traced back (in the core articles he focuses upon) for at least two years. Over this time, there have been very frequent complaints from other editors, and at times requests for formal administrative action, but the user simply shifts IPs (and IP ranges as well, making range blocking difficult). At one point this same problematic editor apparently tried to forge an admin signature to terminate a sockpuppet investigation into one of his IPs.[125].

Based on the IPs, the user appears to reside in the vicinity of Stratford CT [126]. All of his IPs map to this area of CT (with only one exception - one of his recent edits appears to have been from a hotel in Jersey City, NJ [127]). IP localizations for his IPs have been posted in the last few days, which appears to have resulted in him registering a new account with which to continue the disruptive edits (i.e. to avoid further IP disclosure). His first edit via the new account was a long screed on the talk page of the Stephen Ambrose article[128], in which he claims to be a new WP user performing an assignment for a class (he uses the posting to agree with all the claims he posted previously via anonymous IPs and to attack other editors, and the language and style exactly match the previous postings performed under IP numbers).

Here are some of the accounts he has apparently used:[129],[130],[131],various IPs in range 64.252.*.*([132][133][134][135][136][137][138]), various IPs in range 12.76.*.*([139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149]), and at least two registered usernames ([150][151]).

The list above is not exhaustive. There appear to be many other IPs he has used. More details (supporting information, etc.) are available on request.

One of his wikihounding targets was advised to go to ANI, but felt that it would be useless (since the user would simply shift IPs). I have no personal history of conflict with this user (have always treated him with kid gloves, not wanting to become one of his targets myself, and have always tried to be fair/evenhanded/supportive), but recognize the severity of the problem, and in the last day have begun seeking administrative action. Eurytemora (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I was also an uninvolved editor concerned about this user's edit history when I got involved. I'm the one that put together the RfC mentioned above. This person has caused over a dozen editors to waste time dealing with his/her disruption. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 00:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The editor under discussion is now back to using an anonymous IP [152], apparently located at a hotel in Jersey City NJ, and is again more or less disruptively editing the Stephen Ambrose article. Example of an edit that (though minor) runs contrary to consensus on talk page (and that renders the underlying article statement incorrect):[153] Eurytemora (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Some examples of prior administrative involvement relating to this user.[154][155][156] User has received multiple prior warnings including Wikiquette Alert.[157] Eurytemora (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am the editor mentioned above whom the anonymous IP user has been stalking for much of the past two months. In a period of just three weeks in May, he/she also started and perpetuated 16 separate threads in various Wikipedia boards and talk pages (See [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173]) in a pattern of
Wikistalking
of me and a number of other editors who had deigned to disagree in any way with his/her personal views of how Wikipedia should be edited. His/her campaign to that end consisted mostly of posting dozens of universally condescending and demeaning comments apparently designed to intimidate, questioning the motives of other editors, making blanket accusations of "vandalism" and "spamming", and demonstrating an unremitting lack of any assumption of good faith on the part of any other editor while he/she repeatedly demands in edit summaries and postings that all of those whom he/she was criticizing blindly owed him/her an unconditional assumption of good faith on his/her part.)

This IP user also engages in a persistent pattern of disruptive editing by trolling through the edit histories of editors he/she is hounding and then altering and/or deleting their long standing contributions from articles to which the anonymous editor had him/herself never previously contributed, and which are about subjects which he/she had never shown any previous personal interest, with the clear intent of drawing those that he/she is hounding into edit wars. In addition to Ambrose, in my particular case, the articles in this category which the anonymous IP user disruptively edited to one degree or another are:
Time Zone, and 1860 Republican National Convention. When challenged by other editors on any of these disruptive behaviors, the anonymous IP editor's usual response is to first feign innocence while claiming instead to be the real victim of abuse by the other editors, and then to immediately charge any editor that he/she has been hounding with many or all of the same unhelpful and disruptive acts (as described above) for which he/she is being challenged. His/her latest ham handed stunt ([174]) of pretending to be a "student" assigned to evaluate the Ambrose article as a class assignment is pretty much beyond the pale, however, even for him/her. Centpacrr (talk
) 10:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm only familiar with this editor's recent contributions to Ambrose. The situation has been exacerbated at Ambrose by lengthy and heated responses by Centpacrr, which are understandable but not helpful. It nardly helps to improve the article to insert the word "FRAUDULENT" in all caps in the subject header of a recent post by the user, which I just removed. The user in question needs to be instructed to edit through one account only, not to edit from IPs, and to stop commenting personally on edits, such as the lengthy "chart" that he/she posted a while back. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Was asked to comment here. Unfortunately, I don't have enough wiki-time to look through all of this, but I should note that I'd made this comment in an earlier incident as to what ought to happen if the IP-user is refusing to change their approach voluntarily. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I just blocked Techwriter2B on the grounds of abusively using multiple accounts. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the myriad IP accounts that are listed, but I have had issues with the sudden appearance of otherwise non-related IPs showing up to post attacks on my talk page and in other forums. If necessary, I could go looking at that. It should be noted that one of the registered accounts listed here, User:Sift&Winnow essentially disappeared after a sock investigation not even related to Sift&Winnow showed conclusively that he had edited as the IP 64.252.140.1 [175] after having been named as a potential sock for another editor. When an administrator approached him asking for an explanation of his having surreptiously edited as that IP, [176], Sift&Winnow disappeared and has made no further edits with that account. That would definitively link that account with at least one of the named IPs listed here, and the fact that many of the other 64.252. IPs are likely related. I suggest that a checkuser be requested and any and all related IPs and accounts be blocked. Sift&Winnow was a disruptive editor. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Sift&Winnow is clearly the same individual as the disruptive anon IP user in question.. This can be determined by his/her many edits to articles relating to Wisconsin which is a hallmark of his/her editing patterns. Centpacrr (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance, SarekOfVulcan.

Additional details. Language in talk pages and edit summaries (word usage, style, syntax, abbreviations, tone) for all the IDs listed closely match one another. All the IPs other than 64.134.243.252 and 64.134.100.231 map to the Stratford CT area. The 64.134.*.* IPs (his most recent edits, other than the edit performed under the Techwriter2B username) belong to Wyndham Hotels, with apparent localization in Jersey City NJ (i.e. relatively close proximity to CT), and were used to carry on the arguments of 75.2.209.226 (after the user stopped using that IP when the RfC was drafted). Also, 64.134.*.* was used to edit

Stephen Ambrose may have become a focus for this user because Ambrose is from WI (and went to UW-Madison for both B.A. and PhD). Also, as Wildhartlivie pointed out, Sift&Winnow edited under 64.252.140.1 (again, localizing to Stratford CT). Most Sift&Winnows edits were to articles somehow concerning WI, but he also made multiple edits to the WP article on Stratford CT. IP 64.252.28.1 was used to forge an admin signature to try to terminate the sockpuppet investigation into 12.76.*.* , 69.120.182.161[179], and 68.198.217.105 [180]. In the sockpuppet investigation, the 12.76.*.* editor denied being 69.120.182.161 and 68.198.217.105, but as editor Dual Freq pointed out “This edit by 69.120.182.161 states that they made this edit by 12.76.154.71

.” All of these IP numbers (including 64.252.28.1) localize to the Stratford CT vicinity.

I honestly have no idea how best to deal with such a case. The user switches IPs/IDs when admin involvement occurs or looks imminent (e.g. sock investigations, RfC, etc.), and apparently persistently seeks alternative points of access (e.g. Stratford public library, hotel, etc.). I’m wondering if some mechanism could be set up to rapidly block or range block IPs on a temporary basis (e.g. two weeks or a month, to minimize impact on legitimate editors) when he shows up, in combination with temporary semi-protection of articles he strongly targets (perhaps converting to indefinite semi-protection if he persists on certain articles). Eurytemora (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggest a full investigation - This is without a doubt one of the most mean-spirited and disruptive users I have encountered, and I am not surprised that they are in numerous violations of core Wikipedia policy. I twice banned this user from my talk page for hostile comments. A complete investigation is warranted by someone with checkuser powers; I will do all I can to urge this elsewhere. I believe Wikipedia can be improved by the removal of this guy's editing rights. Jusdafax 22:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that this thread has already been archived. Probably not worth pulling back out, since the user under discussion has been indefinitely blocked under his Techwriter2B identity. Hopefully any future attempts to evade the block will be dealt with expeditiously (e.g. with appropriate IP blocks or range blocks). One additional bit of information - I just noticed that (among other IPs/IDs) he did use an IP in the 64.252.*.* group (64.252.0.159 [181], again mapping to the Stratford CT area) when editing

Talk:Stephen Ambrose. Eurytemora (talk

) 08:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained edits of demographics figures after a block for the same thing

This edit changes some demographics figures without explanation or source. The editor, SyedNaqvi90 (talk · contribs) had a block for the same problem less than a month ago (see this version of his talk page for the notice; subsequently deleted) which was unblocked with a warning that "violation will result in an immediate re-blocking of this account with no warning".
All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that it would be rather difficult to justify this edit, the previous numbers were just as unsourced. If you can provide a source for the previous numbers and SyedNaqvi90 still reverts them, it becomes unacceptable; right now I'd call it a content dispute. Huon (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just got the article on my watch list (as I fixed some vandalism there recently) and I've no clue what the correct figures might be.

I reverted the change as it looked more like vandalism to me than a helpful edit (I may well be wrong). On going to the editor's talk page I discovered a history of problematic edits to statistics, along with a previous block for that, so I thought this would warrant closer examination. But I see you are aware of this editor and I guess I have been too hasty in my reaction.

Thanks and all the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Resolved

– -Chaser (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

When I was being nothing but civil about an AfD on

talk

) 23:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm... while great care should be taken with the thick or thin skins of other cultures, from the use of 'barmy' I might surmise the user in question is British? Not sure if you are from the UK or not, but barmy isn't particularly offensive; though if that is a delete rationale it's not a very good one - means eccentric or daft. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 23:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

So there are certain personal attacks that are allowed? Maybe I should have called him an idiot.

talk

) 23:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It is just my two cents, but no - no personal attacks are allowed, my point is that I don't think this constitutes more than a colloquial misdemeanour. I would say you might need a thicker skin, but that's just me. I invite another admin to weigh in. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 23:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The amount of personal attacks and harassment towards me got so high that I needed to create another account. Whenever I brought it to ANI, the admins said the same thing as you. Oh, he's harassing you with sockpuppets so basically create a whole article detailing every instance. Or how about when a user kept on reverting my edits and calling me a troll and the attacker was defended by admins? There was also a time when an admin was defended after he said that I was sexually attracted to poop.

talk

) 23:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

One could argue that all regular contributors to Wikipedia have a certain scatological bent. Lustralaustral (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

So now you're saying that all regular contributors are attracted to feces.

talk

) 00:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That's enough, Lustralaustral, stop baiting. There's a difference between a off-the-cuff observation and stirring. Go and do something else. And Joe, I am sorry to hear that you have had a difficult time here. Was any of this previous harassment related to this current report? If so, please let me know and we can take further action against the user. If what has been detailed so far is the grand total then he can consider himself warned. Please clarify. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 00:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't. It was multiple users. I won't name names because it happened a while ago. I just wanted you, the admins, to know how an average user feels about these things.

talk

) 00:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. We get flack too, but I understand where you are coming from. I have advised the user to find something else to do and stop badgering. If he continues, pop back and let ANI know. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 00:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.

talk

) 00:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

block review of admin fastily's indef block of Threeafterthree

I have had a look at this indefinite block of

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedily overturn block: I agree that this is a far too extreme reaction. I haven't looked in great detail at the edits, but based on the discussion, the edits did not appear particularly severe, the user was never warned as far as I can see, and the user also has an extensive history of making minor constructive edits. Unless I am missing something drastic, I believe this block should be speedily overturned and the user warned. If problems persist, by all means reinstate a block: but a fairly short one. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. Your comment "the user was never warned as far as I can see" may have misled some editors. He was warned. Multiple times. He simply prefers – as is his right – to delete warnings from his talk page. That may, understandably, have misled you into thinking he was not warned.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I did also take a quick look over the history and didn't see any warnings; could you provide diffs of these warnings? In any case, my intention was not to confuse other editors, and I would hope that anyone commenting on such a serious matter would check for themselves rather than going by what I've observed, which may or may not be correct. Diffs would certainly be helpful to show recent warnings, however. But in any case this doesn't change my view that the indefinite block was overkill. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand how you could miss them, if you didn't look at his talk page edit history deletions. He removed his warnings from public view. If you look at his deletions, the very day of his block, the following fairly jump out at you: June 17 warning for deleting talk page contents, June 17 warning, and June 17 final warning. The fact that nobody corrected you suggests to me that nobody noted Three had indeed been warned three times the very same day before he committed his last offense (again deleting the comments of another editor, who disagreed with him, from an article talk page). All people had to go on was your (good faith) incorrect assertion that he appeared not to have received proper warnings.

Note, as well, that Three has been blocked for the same "editing/deleting other editors' talk page comments" before. Certain editors have made bald assertions seeking to characterize Three's efforts as otherwise helpful, suggesting that his six blocks don't reflect disruptive activity. But one need only look at his recent post-block behavior to see the opposite is true. And that even prior to his block date, he was warned by other editors for disruptive behavior.

As by DD2K on May 17 "Tom, you need to quit altering other users comments and self-revert. This is not helpful to the project at all, and using the excuse you are using (notaforum) is not backed up by the facts. Just stop deleting other editors comments unless there are grievous violations (BLP etc).", by Scjessey on May 17 "Editing the comments of others ... With all due respect, leave my comment alone. It is a perfectly legitimate response to specific requests for a criticism section. ... selectively removing my comments will not be tolerated" and "Virtually all of the WP:FORUM-related deletions you make are directed toward points of view you obviously disagree with", and Dayewalker on May 17 "Scjessey's comment does deal with the criticism section... Picking one comment from a larger section, and then removing it three times seems one-sided. In any case, Scjessey's comments do actually address the article."

Clearly, these comments from just last month reflect an editor who, having been warned and blocked for removing others' talkpage comments, happily continued his disruptive activity.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There was yet a sixth editor who warned Three within the past month not to remove other editors' comments from article talk pages. Prior to Three doing exactly that, leading to his block. That editor wrote to Three on May 17: "Advice:- do not touch other editors comments unless there is some massive major issue, if there is not, which is the case in this instance then do not touch them, have a quiet word with the editor and say, keep it on topic mate." The warning editor? Off2riorob—the nom here, who said in his nomination that "looking through his edit history there looks to be a degree of constructive contributions". Curiously, Off2 failed to mention his own warning to Three for precisely the same behavior. As well as the other five warnings on precisely the same point that preceded Three's most recent infraction. I'm puzzled.

In short, we have two editors commenting above in a 21-minute period. One incorrectly asserting that Three had not been recently warned. The other claiming Three had a constructive edit history, while failing to mention the six warnings (including his) to Three in the prior month for the same infractions.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This gets uglier and uglier. There was yet a seventh editor who warned Three within the past month not to remove other editors' comments from article talk pages. Prior to Three doing exactly that, leading to his block. Brendan19 wrote to Three on June 12: "I noticed that one of the five blocks on your log is for ... repeatedly removing legitimate talk page comments. Since you recently tried (in vain) to delete my legitimate comment from a talk page I thought I would weigh in here. I agree with the others above who suggest not touching the comments of other editors. It's only going to cause problems for you in the future."--Epeefleche (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this is certainly no personal criticism of Fastily, I have had some interaction with this sysop in the past and I have never had an objection with any of his actions that I've seen, but we all make mistakes and I think he acted a little rashly here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reblocked for 72 hours. Removing talk page comments is something that Threeafterthree has done before and has been warned about, and 72 hours is an escalation of their recent block of edit warring. An indef block for removing two questionable talk page comments is not a proportional response. Fences&Windows 21:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Block was proper, and revert was improper. I think the original block was completely deserved [though I now agree to it being scaled back to a 3-month block]. Three has been blocked a number of times before. Included has been a block for precisely the same behavior that he was warned of here, and continued to engage in, vis-a-vis multiple editors on the same day. He is too experienced, and has been warned and blocked too many times, to be excused as a newbie. Or for this to be seen as anything other than intentional callous disregard for the rules of wikipedia and intentional disruption of the project -- yet again. This is intolerable behavior from a master edit warrior and ignorer of the rules of wikipedia. Not someone who should be coddled, and not someone who Fences should revert another sysop on in the absence of input from the sysop and fulsome input here (Only 21 minutes of discussion?).

Three has been blocked variously for 24 hours, 48 hours, 55 hours, 1 week, and 1 month prior to Fastily's block. Fences railroaded through a reversal of a highly respected sysop's block with 21 minutes of discussion, without input from the sysop, and dialed it back to 72 hours despite that history of rampant abuse, level of punishment, and continued in-your-face repeat of the same disruptive behavior, after multiple warnings, to multiple editors on the same day. See below, as to Three's block history.

21:20, June 17, 2010 Fastily blocked Threeafterthree with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Disruptive editing)
10:32, March 16, 2009 CIreland blocked Threeafterthree with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule: at Sean Hannity)
16:07, November 13, 2008 Tiptoety blocked Threeafterthree with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring: 3RR violation on Barack Obama. Continued disruptive pattern of behavior)
6:21, October 27, 2008 Papa November blocked Threeafterthree with an expiry time of 55 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing: Reverting other users' edits more than 3 times in a 24 hour period at Sarah Palin)
1:31, September 9, 2008 Ice Cold Beer blocked Threeafterthree with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (3RR, repeatedly removing legitimate talk page comments)
19:44, November 20, 2006 Jayjg blocked Threeafterthree with an expiry time of 1 month ‎ (evading blocks with sockpuppets etc., creepy anti-Jewish feel to edits)
- I warned Epeefleche for incivility and treating Wikipedia as a battleground before he posted here. My reblock is of course open to review, but by independent parties, not those directly involved in content disputes. I have also posted a note about the Palestine-Israel arbitration enforcement at Talk:Helen Thomas. Fences&Windows 21:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Incivility? Treating Wikipedia as a battleground? I'm criticizing you for dialing back another sysop's block, on someone who is a repeat offender, and has been blocked (up to a month) and warned a multitude of times. And that's your response? I'm sorry if you're offended by my questioning your judgment here. But that is not uncivil. Nor is it inappropriate, as your comment suggests. First you take the above actions, and now you compound them by trying to bully an editor who criticizes your actions? Not, I believe, what wp:admin suggests an admin should do.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"I warned Epeefleche for incivility and treating Wikipedia as a battleground before he posted here." Note the key word: "before". This was a note to make clear that my warning on your talk page about treating Wikipedia as a battleground and for what I saw as incivility was done before you criticised my change of the block and was not done as a retaliation to your criticism; I was not attempting to bully you. Your criticism of me here is of course allowed (though you are an involved editor, so it will hold less weight than the view of uninvolved editors) and I was not trying to suggest that you were attacking me or being uncivil. Fences&Windows 01:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

First, if your "warning" was unrelated to this, then why are your cluttering this ANI up with reference to it? Second, I don't recall you ever making an appropriate warning to me. Just the opposite. It's yet another example of highly questionable behavior on your part. You -- a sysop -- seek to let off a 6-time blocked editor, who was amply warned multiple times by multiple editors the day of his block -- but at the same time you warn the person who reported him for using the (children, shield your eyes here) word "pup"? That's pretty funny. Third, I think your down-sizing this block from indef to three days, where the editor had half a dozen prior blocks including one for one month, based on only 21 minutes of discussion, is not appropriate. Fourth, only two editors got comments in within those 21 minutes, and one was dead wrong in what he said. That makes your action even more untenable.

Fifth, I see no way to interpret your mention of a "warning" -- likely as baseless as your closing of this discussion was rushed, that is not related to this discussion as anything other than a transparent effort to bully. Very un-wp:admin. Sixth, your posting of the above note followed directly and replied to my criticism of your actions. Your attempt to de-link the two is belied by the timing of my comment, your follow-up comment, and the fact that yours is cast as a reply to mine, directly below mine and indented from it -- which reply is either unrelated (I give you more credit than that) or an effort to bully. Seventh, your effort to deter me from commenting was poor form, as in matters such as these interested parties are notified so that they can provide input. That has the salutary effect of avoiding sysops making decision in 21 minutes of such monumentally different impact with the only input being from two editors, one of whom mis-stated the facts dramatically. This wiki approach of course accords with that of courts of law in the Western world -- we don't say, "we prefer to have evidence from those people who were not witnesses to the scene, and are therefore unlikely to raise actual facts rather than mis-state facts".

In sum, I think your dramatic revision of another sysop's block was not appropriate, was made in a manner consistent with one trying to close off dissent, was based on only two editors' comments--one of which was blatantly incorrect, was followed by your bringing up a likely improper "warning" you placed that is either irrelevant or an attempt to bully me, and which was accompanied by your suggesting you did not want me -- one of the wronged editors -- to comment. What court of law says victims can't testify? For the aforementioned reasons, this has a distinct smell of spoiled fish.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

- Also note that Fastily has posted to say they are on a wikibreak for several days, or I would have discussed this with them before changing the block. Changing an action is not wheelwarring; reverting my new block without discussion would be. Fences&Windows 22:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The block was severe for the edits. I hardly think your description of 3after3 as a master edit warrior is fair either and he does imo attempt to stay within the rules, he is hardly making the wiki wheels drop off. His block log is here, he has only had one 48 hour block in the last eighteen months, to assert that indefinite is appropriate is totally excessive.

Off2riorob (talk

) 22:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled. Put aside for the moment that Three has already been blocked half a dozen times. Including for the same infraction. The longest block being a month. You, Off2, were one of the seven editors who warned him in the month prior to his latest infraction that it was improper for him to delete other peoples' comments on article talk pages. You did this in the midst of a discussion in which others warned Three with regard to the same thing -- so obviously you were aware of the warnings. Yet, rather than mention here that Three was warned by seven different editors, including you, for just this infraction -- in the month prior to his committing it yet again here, leading to his block -- you not only fail to reveal that, but in fact pooh-pooh his disruptive activity? I'm not sure where you are coming from. But IMHO we reach the best result on this page by providing transparency and accuracy.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Like Sox below, your math is off. His last block was 15 months ago- almost breaking his record long time w/out being blocked (21 months), but let's also remember that on 2 separate occasions he has only gone about a month between blocks. --Brendan19 (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)Note also that the last block in that log was over a year ago and all of the blocks have been short-period, for relatively minor offenses (we can't see the circumstances surrounding the 3RR violations without digging into his contribution history, but there is doesn't seem to be any indication that this user is a long-term offender, as I can see many positive contributions in his recent history. I believe that Fences' speedy overturn was appropriate (as I suggested above), and that a ~~72-hour block period is suitable~~ (changed my mind about the block period, see below). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no comment to make at this time about the original block, but reverting an admin action under review at ANI without waiting for a consensus is improper, imo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment (
WP:IAR can be made to apply here. If consensus overturns the reversal by Fences then fair enough, but in the meantime it seems very extreme. Again, I certainly do not believe that Fastily intended to cause an issue, but I do believe he was a bit hasty with the indefinite block. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]
22:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Support - Reduction in block length to 72 hours.
Off2riorob (talk
) 22:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Reduction in block length made after 21 minutes discussion, by 2 editors (one of whom was Off2, the nom, and above voter), with one of those editors dramatically mis-stating the facts of the case (as there were in fact warnings), which was a dramatic departure from indef, to an editor with half a dozen blocks under his belt, including for the same behavior, the longest of which was one month, followed by efforts of the block-reducing-sysop to further chill discussion as otherwise discussed herein.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved, but I agree with the reduction. Perhaps, under normal circumstances, overturning an admin action under review is improper, but if an admin doles out an *indef* block, and promptly takes a wikibreak, I believe it's the correct course of action. 72 hours will provide enough time for a review and consensus to form. Blocks can then be adjusted again if necessary, although I believe 72 hours will prove to be appropriate. --

HighKing (talk

) 22:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've no problem with the block length reduction. ~~Also, an indef block of an established editor with nothing on their talk page except a template isn't good.~~ (I worded that poorly.) Also, making an indef block on an established user, and leaving nothing on their talk page except a template to explain the block, isn't good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reworded 23:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the block length reduction, but we should ask Fastily why he chose to block Threeafterthree indefinitely as opposed to a shorter block. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This really will not do, all these attempts to undermine an entirely proper block. The time has come to take the next logical step, and block all content editors. In particular, long term editors with established track records of useful contributions should be blocked immediately. Some of those creatures actually expect to be treated with some basic human decency; others have expressed dangerous views, even, gasp, challenging the view of an administrator. This must stop. Pre-emptive action should be taken by blocking wantabe content editors who signal their intention by creating an account. It is from precisely this group that future trouble makers arise. Wikipedia doesn't need these people, who seem to think mere content matters, and clearly do not understand that administrators are elected by the RfA, an infallible process which elects the true elect only. It is time to get real and get things back in proportion, restoring to all administrators their rightful glory, and putting an end to those who would question them. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That's absolutely ridiculous. The encyclopedia is built with content editors; blocking them all would lead to the downfall of the project. If we had no content editors, all of the articles on Wikipedia would stay nearly the same, with no new articles added that had significant content in it. That would defeat the purpose of the wiki, block useful constructive editors, cause other editors to retire because of this, discourage newcomers from joining the wiki, and overall produces a bad look of the wiki to the general public if we disallow content editors. If we block the editors all, who are the admins to "govern"? The answer to that question would be "no one", as we would have the rest of the wiki left. Go discuss all about policy if the rest of the wiki wishes to; if we have no content editors, our articles will not be vastly improved if need be, and we will not have lengthy articles about current and important subjects, making the discussion of policy absolutely pointless. Your logic is also flawed: Just because one content editor may have these "dangerous" views does not mean that every content editor would have these views. To summarize: Epipelagic, you are welcome to your ideas, but they seem completely unreasonable. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

My problem with Epipelagic's edit is that I have no idea which parts are sarcastic and which parts are not. This is why it's generally best to state your views clearly. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Um, MC10, I believe that was sarcasm (which works

really well on the internet. --Floquenbeam (talk

) 01:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Epipelagic has a point. We should do as he says -- except, that we should unblock immediately (oh, let's say after 20 minutes of discussion) all editors who have at least half a dozen blocks against them, ranging in time up to one month. In the face of the facts (annoying as they may be), let's ignore them, and knight him a "productive editor". Surely, that will counter-act the annoying fact of his multiple blocks, and umpteen warnings -- at the very least, it may confuse other editors, who take us at our word, and are happy to ignore the facts. It is certain that only by having these useful souls doing their good deeds that Wikipedia can hope to approximate the goals of some. Any editors with fewer than six blocks, and who have not been blocked for up to a month, should -- as suggested by Epipelagic -- be warned and/or blocked immediately, and told that their views at this review are quite unwelcome -- as they, due to their involvement, may actually know something about the matter, which of course could be discomfiting if they were to share it with others. And oh yes -- let's characterize their complaints as to the deletion of multiple editors comments on article talk pages a mere "content dispute" ... we must remember to confuse the masses.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment SNOW close of this conversation since rob brought it forth and is alright with the 72 hour block. I don't think anyone is arguing that a block should happen here, only the time frame. Since that's been changed, let's move on. Three is on thin ice but hasn't cracked through quite yet. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

~~Agree~~. Given the circumstances and involvement of the only editor who is opposing the decision to reduce the block, as well as the clear support for the reduction, I believe this can now be closed per
WP:SNOWBALL. Epeefleche is clearly adamant in defending the indefinite block, but given that he was heavily involved in the most recent incident and the only argument he's provided is that it was reduced after a short consensus discussion, I think the much clearer, ~~not~~ now longer consensus discussion in favour of the reduction is evidence enough that his reasons for opposing the reduction are not per policy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]
08:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If Epipelagic's edit was sarcastic, well, it didn't help much. Sarcasm is

so easily detected on the Internet. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L

) 01:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess it was sarcasm. This is another one of Epipelagic's comments. My fault that I took his comment too seriously. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame the timing is such that Fastily is not here to participate. He does good work, and I had hoped this could be resolved with much less drama. There was much history that could indicate that Threeafterthree was a long term disruptive influence, so I can see how Fastily could conclude that an indef block might be appropriate. I, on the other end of the spectrum, interpreted the facts differently and chose not to block. Consensus seems to be somewhere in-between. I think it best to treat this as a case of reasonable people disagree, but the system still works. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment An indef block, absent consensus for a ban, plus a wikibreak template, is a de facto admission by the blocking admin that someone else may have to reexamine the block. A block log that's been clean for 18 months is a good sign that simply escalating past block lengths is probably not the best solution. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I expect that anytime a sysop goes on wikibreak he believes that his colleagues will pick up in his absence. I don't think that a 21-minute review, including comments by two editors, one of whom was completely incorrect -- and thereupon mislead everyone else -- as to whether Three had been warned, leading to a revision of an indef block to a 3-day block, for an editor who has already been blocked half a dozen times, including for the same violation, and for up to one month, is appropriate. The ram-rod nature of the timing in reverting sysop action suggests to me at least that the sysop was seeking to chill conversation. Poor form -- even AfDs go on for a week; 21 minutes, in the absence of something extraordinary where no judgment is involved, has an odor that is not a pleasant one. We on this page have people being blocked for three months for their first violation. For this fellow's sixth, we dial it back from indef to time served? Perhaps there was some confusion by one of the three editors who were on top of the matter enough to get their comments in within the 21-minute period, who indicated that as best he could see there were no warnings. That was -- though I am certain a good faith comment -- entirely false and misleading to others, as the editor had received a number of warnings, but simply deleted them (explaining why the editor making the statement was confused). 72 hours is, given the many blocks I've seen meted out on this page even this month, way out of line with standar wiki practice that I have observed. There is a wide span between 72 hours and indef. That such a short timeframe should be applied, reverting another sysop, within a 21 minute period in an apparent effort to avoid discussion makes the reverting sysops choice of "term" especially dubious in my view.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You could talk all day and all night and there would be no support for an indefinite block for this issue. I see you are still objecting to the reduction... I see you mention poor form and an unpleasant odor regarding the reduction but I also see other issues, Fastily after the block left a message on your talkpage letting you know about the block and requesting your help when the shit storm starts..Just indeffed Tom for disruptive editing per your report. Would appreciate some support when all hell breaks out. Thanks, .you then (I assume) saw that it was wrong of Fastily to put the request for help to defend the block on your talkpage and you trimmed this part of his comment Would appreciate some support when all hell breaks out. and you then added your battlefield style reply of Thanks. One down; it's a start. .. all in all a dubious exchange at best, you were warned quite rightly for the one down battle-fielding comment by the Administrator that you are complaining about still now and imo you should have a look round and see that there is no support for a longer block. I don't think we have looked at Fastily's comment yet but he was clearly expecting hell to break out and was preemptively requesting your assistance to defend his poor block. In some cases the shit storm you imagine can be the boomerang coming back.

Off2riorob (talk

) 08:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your prognostication that there would be no support for the action taken by sysop Fastily, in indef blocking a six-time repeat offender who engages in continued disruptive activity in the wake of multiple warnings by more than one editor.

I'm curious -- you were well aware that the editor here had been warned three times, the day of his block. Inasmuch as you referred to the discussions detailing the warnings yourself, elsewhere. Why then did you fail to correct the above mistaken statement, supporting your nom here and directly below your comment, that said the opposite? I'm of course certain that you are seeking to get to the correct NPOV result here, but I'm struggling to understand why then you would let that clear misstatement stand.

As to the banning of editors who are blocked six times for disruptive behavior, and yet continue it -- yes, I believe that that is a good thing. And a start. Clearly, given the level of disruption on wikipedia, and support for certain flagrant repeat offenders who engage in further disruption after receiving three same-day warnings, it is not the entire solution ... but it is a start.

BTW, I might add -- that while I believe that an indef block (though I view it as appropriate under these circumstances) is a length that can be legitimately discussed, I think that a reduction to three days is way out of bounds. I note that your first comment was with regard to discussing the block length. I've no problem with that. I believe, however, that three days is unduly short for a six-time repeat offender, previously blocked for the same behavior, who has received three warnings the day of his fourth same-day violation leading to his ban. I expect that those of us who have spent time on wikipedia can quickly see how against-the-norm that time period is; on this page, this week, we have banned first-time offenders for one month. Three days? Doesn't make sense.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering YOU were the one who warned him, you might wish to retract that part of your statement (lest you appear hypocritical). His last block was 18 months ago, perhaps instead of sitting here shit-stirring you could wait for the blocking admin to return?

Soxwon (talk

) 21:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Check your math, Sox. His last block was 15 months ago and before that it was 4 months, and before that it was less than one month, and before that it was one month, and before that it was 21 months (which has been the longest he has gone without being blocked). Anyone else see a pattern here, or is it just me?--Brendan19 (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was one of the editors who warned him. I'm happy to hear what the blocking admin has to say upon his return.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no comment on the merits of the block, but what's up with Fastily disappearing right after performing controversial actions using his admin tools? This is the second time this month his actions have been called into question at this board, and the second time he's gone on wikibreak. AniMate 23:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly many on this page would agree that it would have been better had he been around to discuss his block. Perhaps it might have forestalled his action being reduced to such an incredible extent, on the basis of only 21 minutes of discussion (discussion notable in that it was marked by factual error). Perhaps not.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me both sides here have had their say after raising some reasonable points. I would have to add that, as noted, a three day block seems too short... I have always found Fastily to be a reasonable sort - for an admin ;) - and also look forward to Fastily's return to get some closure. I respectfully suggest to all parties that unless there is further new information that we wait for that to happen, and refrain from further questionable language. Jusdafax 23:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

- I agree with
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 01:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would like to add my two cents. I have noticed a disruptive pattern of editing from 3after3 for some time now and his block log reflects it. He has a long history of antagonizing people and I recently fell victim to it when he deleted my comments from a talk page. Here is the diff of the message I left on his talk page (which he also deleted). How many blocks does it take for this guy to learn a lesson?--Brendan19 (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment I won't pretend I am entirely uninvolved, since I was quoted here admonishing the editor for deleting other editors talk page comments, but there was more than one misstep here, in my humble opinion. First, I respect both admins in this issue(
talk
) 01:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

File:SDBayOverlook.jpg

Gorgeous view from my hotel room

I find the inherent lack of assumption of good faith disturbing - it's the very least I deserve :/ Yes, I really am on vacation - in the wonderful city of San Diego. In regards to the block of Threeafterthree, I blocked indef because I believed that some of the recent behavior by the user had been unacceptable (see diffs provided in the AIV report by Epeefleche) and because this is not the first time Threeafterthree has been blocked for similar infractions. Although Threeafterthree is a great content contributor, I blocked him, regrettably, in the spirit of preventing damage to the project. However, I very much so respect the community's opinions and am more than happy to yield to popular consensus. The original objective of the indef was to get Threeafterthree to stop his unruly behavior in working out the terms for unblock. While my own intentions have been made clear, I would like everyone to know that I have no objection to Fences and windows' block reduction if there is consensus mandating such action. So with that being said, I think I'm going to sign-off and enjoy the rest of my vacation. Best wishes, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fastily, and please enjoy your time in Southern California!

The task before us now is to come to consensus of a block length (though it appears there are some who may think further punishment is unneeded and that we should close this matter, which I very strongly disagree with.) To me, the short version is this: Epeefleche's points, as well as the others who have come forward to complain, seem quite solid, as Threeafterthree has a disturbing repeat pattern of blocks going back to 2006, with mean-spirited edit-warring and talk page comment changing being repeated problems. This user has had more than enough warnings, and clearly has not wanted to learn how to edit within the established rules of Wikipedia. Given the statements here and the past history, I'd say that another one-month block is not unreasonable, with some topic bans worth considering. Jusdafax 08:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jusdafax -- 1 month block, but that applied with time served included. And Fastily must see the Zoo. It's much less impressive than most people say, but it does have some amazing creatures. Shadowjams (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree about the 'time served' proviso, and I hear the Zoo is one of the best in the USA. Also Fastily, if you are into sailing ships the Maritime Museum of San Diego will, uh, float your boat. Jusdafax 08:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Just drive north on US 1 in a convertible. There's nothing quite like it. It's that or Thompson it up and head to Vegas. Shadowjams (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Good block, Fastily, good choice of vacation hotel (I live nearby) and drop in on Coronado Brewing Company for a great microbrewery/pub within a half-mile, Miguel's for good Mexican food. Take the ferry across the bay for a few bucks, and walk the waterfront. →Stani Stani 17:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Three Month Block for Threeafterthree. I agree that Three's block should be at least one month (giving him credit for the three days served). However, I think it should be three months, given:

His extensive history of prior blocks (including for the same activity as here). As further partial background, see this 2006 AN/I which followed his 1-month block and considered giving Three a permanent block, this August 2007 AN/I by RyanFriesling, this December 2007 RfC on Three, this October 2008 AN/I that led to a 55-hour block, this November 2008 3RR report by the Magnificent Cleaner-keeper that led to a one-week block by Tiptoety, this December 2008 AN/I complaint by Wikidemon, this January 2009 3RR report by Jimintheatl/warning for edit warring, and this February 2009 AN/I by Hans Adler (complaining inter alia about Three "censoring other editors' comments").
His longest prior block was already one month.
The fact that in the month prior to his latest infraction, Three was (as reflected above) warned directly no fewer than seven times, by seven different editors (including Off2riorob), not to remove others' comments from talk pages.[182][183][184][185][186][187][188][189][190] And yet that is precisely what Three did here, yet again, the same day as his most recent warnings.[191]
Three's assertion that he is the founder of Wikipedia may lead some editors to not report him for his disruptive activity. [update: I appreciate Giftiger just now removing that assertion, w/the edit summary "Hoax, misleading for editors.." There have been prior efforts by three other editors to address Three's assertion, including Damiens.rf here and another editor here. Each time they have been reverted by Three as here and here and here, however.]
His effort to attack me for reporting him [I appreciate Fences responding to that effort by writing to Three: "Not to create drama": don't be disingenuous. I'd leave Epeefleche alone if I were you, I see nothing wrong with that statement of his", and Off2 also writing to Three: "Your should avoid that user 100 percent."]
His continued lack of remorse and failure to "get it", as reflected by him writing this: "95% (I'am obviously not perfect like most folks on this project) of my contributions are contructive and I take offense that that is somehow not the case.".
The fact that just yesterday, Three wrote (emphasis added): ""I follow the ANI board, but more for laughs than getting involved, and the amount of total BS/nonsense there is beyond mind boggling. I feel like the 5% on my edits which are contensous are so minor, its laughable").

His failure to "get it", in the face of repeated blocks, repeated recent warnings, and this discussion, could scarcely be more evident. All of this suggests that a 3-month ban would be appropriate. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd try to stick with valid points. Point #4 seems like a non-issue IMHO, I'd say joke or philosophical statement as opposed to disruptive. Point 5 I'm not seeing an attack, he pointed something out to the admin, that admin refocused him. Point 6 is a reasonable attempt to defend his overall editing here. Point 7 the 1st two bold parts are the majority opinion of what happens here at ANI.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Block of one to three months. I think 72 hours is too short. Anything between one month and three months seems more appropriate to me, given his long history of unacceptable behavior. --Brendan19 (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The more I look at this case the more I feel that we have a serious problem here. Claiming to be be a founder of Wikipedia indicates a serious effort at fraud. I now think a three months block is more like it, and I think this merits even more examination for long-term patterns of abuse. User seems to see himself as some kind of anti-agenda crusader.
WP:BATTLEGROUND. Jusdafax
21:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I previously supported the reduction to a 72-hour block, but in view of these claims to have founded wikipedia, I am inclined to support the longer, 3-month block suggested by other users and there is serious indication of fraud here; the fact that these survived up until now also suggests that the thus far quite short blocks are not serving their purpose, and it seems unliekly that another short ban will change that. Jusdafax, I removed the userbox as I had overlooked it when I removed his other assertion to being the founder of wikipedia. I'm not an administrator, but I think this is a pretty clear hoax and potentially damaging if these claims manage to mislead new contributors, so I think that this is pretty uncontroversial. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I haven't followed what happened to trigger this block, but Threeafterthree has been a problematic editor for some time, so a longer block would make sense. He used to make edits that seemed overly focused on Jews. For example, he'd go around removing from bios that people were Jews (see here for several examples), but when the person was in some kind of bother, he'd add that they were Jews (e.g. here). In fairness, he may have done the same thing with other ethnicities, but I don't recall seeing that.
He also posted at least once as an anon IP, but pretended it wasn't him, again making arguably contentious edits about Jews. This is one IP I remember. He said it was a friend of his, and that he was standing over the friend's shoulder as the latter edited; see this exchange. An example of that IP's slightly worrying editing (given the context of Threeafterthree's editing) was to insist that Leo Frank—an American Jew who was lynched after being accused of rape, apparently falsely—was pardoned later, but had not necessarily been wrongly convicted. [192]
He'd also get bees in his bonnets—for example, insisting that links in See also be included in the article or removed entirely, which misses the point of the See also section. For a long time he waged a campaign against See also, removing those sections no matter how useful they were, and reverting when people restored them. It got to the point that I knew when his name appeared on an article that there was going to be a problem. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Block for three months: this discussion is quite disorganised so I thought I'd make my views clear here. Though I still stand by my original request to speedily overturn the block, which Fences actioned and replaced with a 72-hour block, in light of the newer evidence here, I now feel that a 72-hour block will not be sufficient to discourage the sort of behaviour exhibited by this user which resulted in previous blocks, and I am particularly concerned about his claims on his user page that he is the founder of wikipedia. I think a block for three months will give the user more time to consider why his actions have caused these repeated blocks to be levied against him, as well as protecting wikipedia from the continued disruption being caused. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

A block of three months for moving some talkpage comment, give over. The user has had only a single small block in 19 months and you think it is nessesary to protect the wikipedia from him for three months, ease up. He is unblocked anyway which is fair enough and lets give him another chance his alleged issues don't seen worthy of what would a totally excessive long block.

Off2riorob (talk

) 22:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the continued claim to be the founder of wikipedia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If he is the founder I am out of here, I haven't sen it but it must be a joke.

Off2riorob (talk

) 22:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Off2, I recognize you initiated this effort to reduce Three's block. I remain perplexed why you failed to mention that you yourself warned your mate, in the month prior to his latest offense, not to remove editors' talk page comments. Precisely what he was later blocked for here. Could you possibly have thought that less than relevant? And your warning to Three appeared in the middle of a host of other warnings against him for that misbehavior. Surely, you were aware of them as well. Yet, in your many edits on this string, you not only failed to mention Three's misbehavior and many recent warnings, but in addition now fail to see any problem in Three's edits.

In fact, you above characterized his edits as follows: "looking through his edit history there looks to be a degree of constructive contributions". That could of course leave us with the impression that you had disinterestedly reviewed Three's comments, and found nothing amiss--just a constructive editor. But surely you were aware that the opposite was evidenced even within this past month. And certainly you know that Three just yesterday reflected a manifest disregard for not only wikipedia's rules, but others' views of his continued breach of them -- by writing to you that the breaches he is accused of "are so minor, it's laughable". Yet, now you pooh-pooh others' sensitivity to Three's repeated violations of wikipedia rules. I'm puzzled.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

He had both a userbox and an explicit statement on his userpage where he claimed in no uncertain terms to be the founder of wikipedia. This could be extremely confusing and damaging for new editors who believe him, and I have a hard time believing that this is a joke: take a look at the diff where I reverted the statement: [193]. There was also a userbox, which I might have accepted as a joke if it wasn't for the separate, explicit statement written as part of his introduction about himself (though even then, the userbox should at least imply that it's not meant to be taken seriously). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi Folks, Can I please start by apologizing to the community for all the different issues that seem to have been unleashed here. Most importantly, I want to say I do get it and will NEVER touch another user's comment(that is how this all started, right?), period. If I have a problem about a user's comment, I will advise an admin or bring it to one of the notice boards for input. Is that fair? As far as founding Wikipedia, that is now removed from my user page and will not return. That was not intended to "intimidate" anybody or trick them. Wow, what else. I have been blocked 6 times now, as has been pointed out over 20 times in this thread unless you missed it, over 5 years and 18,000 edits. I wish that was lower, or even zero, but I have tried to learn from those and do better and stay out of "serious" trouble/conflict. I do remove See also listings if they are already linked in the article,but if people revert, I do try to use the talk pages. Jews? I tried to remove ethnicity from 1,000s of bios where it was placed against MOSBIO. I did have a block, my first (a month) almost 4 years back, but have actually worked well with that admin since. This is a start, thank you, --Tom (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, that should be the end of this now. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption and not be punitive. If says

talk

) 22:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My main concern was with the claim on your talk page that you founded wikipedia, and I am pleased to see that you have specifically addressed this issue and promised not to readd this. I would like to ask, however, why you added this in the first place; I would expect it to be a fairly obvious point that impersonating the founder of wikipedia is a fairly serious violation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It goes to more about what is allowed on one's user page. Does everything on a user page need to be sourced/accurate? --Tom (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

AgF is a presumption that is rebuttable. Three just yesterday wrote his mate Off2 that the breaches he is accused of "are so minor, it's laughable". Yet when I brought to light his complete absence of contrition, one day later--facing a three-month ban--he suddenly says the exact opposite just now? Which Three am I to believe? The circumstances (coupled with Three having of course been blocked numerous times and warned at least 7 times in the prior month for the behavior he continued to engage in) suggest powerfully that Three is simply gaming the system with the result-oriented goal of reducing his impending ban.

Did he have to be blocked more than six times previously to "get the message"? How many is enough? Did he have to be warned by more than seven different editors within the month prior to his latest offense? How many warnings is enough?

There's little room, especially given his honest comments of yesterday, I believe to view this any other way. I'm not arguing for a permanent ban (though there is room to argue for that). But I think that what has been outlined above strongly supports a three-month ban (at minimum).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well now. Sure seems to me like you go right back to

WP:BATTLE with that question you post ("It goes more to what is allowed...") about your talk page... hardly the effort of someone who feels humbled before the community, as I see it. And in your opening statement you go right to sarcasm with "I have been blocked 6 times now, as has been pointed out over 20 times in this thread unless you missed it"... here again, a combative, defiant statement with obvious lack of contrition. If this is your attitude in ANI coming off your latest block, I suggest we go back to discussing a longer one for you, because it appears to me that you still haven't learned a thing. Jusdafax

23:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jusdafax, 1)I was going to remove the user box, but was beaten to the punch and said it should be left off since Wikipedia should not be a battleground. I removed another box which could be seen as combative as well, so I do get it. Am I allowed to be a little irked that an editor has been pounding on my block log by pointing it out close to 25 times now in this single section? I think folks get that. I wish we could meet in person since my feelings/contrition are obviously not coming across in my posts/ether, which are not always the most articulate. Also, there really is nothing funny about this since it takes away from improving/working on the project which is what we all want. Do we always agree in lock step? Anyways, if I can anwser or take advice I am open and welcome it. --Tom (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to correct off2riorob and soxwon (see above), but I can see that the correction wasn't noted. 3after3 wasn't blocked 18 or 19 months ago as off and sox suggested. I will say it again...His last block was 15 months ago and before that it was 4 months, and before that it was less than one month, and before that it was one month, and before that it was 21 months (which has been the longest he has gone without being blocked). Anyone else see a pattern here, or is it just me? I would add that I have been on wikipedia since 2006 and I've never had a block. I have also edited at contentious articles, so that shouldn't be a factor. --Brendan19 (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes sorry your right, the last block was 14 or 15 months ago for 48 hrs. So the pattern I see is the the editor improving.

Off2riorob (talk

) 00:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

@Off2--Ummmm .. your mate Three was warned seven times for the same violation in the past month, yet he engaged in the same misbehavior again, and then followed that up by writing to you yesterday that the breaches he is accused of "are so minor, it's laughable". Not, perhaps, the sort of "improvement" some of us would hope for.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin’s 21:49, 22 June 2010 post mirrors what was on my mind. Given his track history—and while a 72 hour block certainly seems *pretty*—Wikipedia will just get more of the same soon enough after the block expires. A three-month-long block will properly protect the community from what is flat-out, intentional disruption. Greg L (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
A block, certainly, but a timed one, not an indef, please. I find Fastily's reasons for the indef insufficient. Indefs should be used only in dire circumstances: they often bounce back on the project, as you all know. Tony (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC) PS Anger is clearly an issue here, with six blocks, OMG. If admins can stop the block cycle by reducing the user's anger level so that when s/he returns the project is protected, I would applaud that achievement. That is the only lasting solution. Blocks are not working, although a temporary block here is necessary. Tony (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
3 Month - boy, this is really long to read through. I agree with a number of editors here. Dave Dial, oh, I could list many others. So as not to add to the length of this page, let me just say I agree with those seeking the 3 month block, unless the guy convinces people he won't be driving them crazy anymore. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Support 3-month block: I agree that despite what initially appeared to be admission of wrong-doing, I agree with Epeefleche and Jusfadax above, Threeafterthree's comments give me the impression that he is simply playing the system, this being his sixth block, it seems he has learnt that blocks go away if he says he's learnt his lesson. His comments do appear to have immediately returned to being confrontational, and I note also that though he said he won't reinstate the claims that he is the founder of wikipedia, he never did reply when I asked him why he chose to make that claim to begin with. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Per Threeafterthree's comments in this thread It appears like the block has served it's purpose. We have clear indication that he intends to deal with further issues properly. Only time will tell if he follows through, however at this point i'm unconvinced that extending this block is preventative as opposed to punative.--Cube lurker (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As Three himself has pointed out in the past, inasmuch as blocking does prevent disruptive editors from doing further harm, "it serves the purpose". And then, of course, we also have Three's comments just before on his talk page to the effect that his infractions "are so minor, its laughable". That is a clear indication that the block and AN/I have not served their purpose in the least. He has been in this situation before, been warned before, and continues to engage in the same conduct. "Only time will tell"? For years now Three has edit warred, reverted, socked, and otherwised disrupted himself into a large number of warnings, AN/I and 3RR appearances, and blocks. "Time" has told.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I've provided further background above as was requested of me, at item 1 the above listing (as I try to keep like info together), of some of the AN/I, RFC, and 3RR reports re Three, some of which led to his aforementioned blocks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Leave as an indefinite block To repeat for those who keep forgetting the definition, an indefinite block is simply a block with no set period. It can be lifted in 3 minutes, three months, or never. However, unless things change before then & another Admin believes the right thing to do is lift the block, we should revisit this in three months. Taking this approach reduces the Wikidrama while sending the same message a three-month block would. -- llywrch (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Support 3 month block - OK, I admit to a growing sense of futility here. I strongly believe Wikipedia is broken if we let problem users treat Wikipedia like a game to see how much they can get away with, which is my sense from revisiting this case after a few days away. Let's send those with a lengthy block record to the virtual woodshed when they persist in unacceptable activity. Three, come back in the fall and then see if you can stay out of trouble. Learn to walk away. It really isn't that hard. Jusdafax 23:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Massive damage by User:76.31.217.148

I just blocked this IP for three months. The user has been placing a lot of rapid-fire, false information in any number of music-related subjects. He/she refused any attempts at contact and kept going on. The damage is just unreal. I don't have Twinkle or any other one-key rollback tool, so would someone so equipped please take a gander at this? Thanks. --

talk

) 04:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you want everything reverted, cause some of it (like the addition of dates) I am unsure of. If you want it all reverted, I have rollback and can go nuts. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dayewalker (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dayewalker...I was slow on the draw there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And I was even slower. Can't get the script to show up :P NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What about the edits from the 16th and earlier? Want those gone too? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I love you guys. :) Yes, please just revert everything to be on the safe side. --

talk

) 04:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Rolled back everything that I could. The other stuff that has been edited over might require an admin. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Credit goes to Tim Song as well, he helped out alot as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You're positive this fellow is a villain? With a lot of his edits, he's correcting typographical errors in a legitimate fashion. - Varlaam (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I seen alot of unsourced additions of dates. But if anyone feels any of my rollbacks were in error, please let me know and I will be glad to revert back to the previous version. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the lack of sourcing is rather frightening and warrants curtailment.

However I saw nothing that looked like an out-and-out falsehood.

Varlaam (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I just did the rollbacking that was asked. But if you see something that you feel was and is correct, please feel free to revert or let me know via talk and I will revert. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked a couple of things of the typo kind already.

He changed an inappropriate use of a given name ("Desi") to a surname ("Arnaz"). He took a vague date (month only) and changed it, correctly, to something precise (day and month). I'm not seeing a lot of malice in that.

He might be somebody with access to a good music database.

Regardless, he needs to learn to footnote, and stop scaring us.

Varlaam (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

On a strange sidenote - PMDrive1061, how come you're an admin but don't have Rollback? There was a recent discussion here about another admin, where it was firmly stated that it was impossible to remove Rollback rights from an admin, because it was part of the toolset. Just curious. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

He does, and it is impossible (well you coud use javascript or something to remove the rollback button, but he would still have the rollback right.). I think what he was meaning was a rollback tool that allows him to revert all the edits a user has made with one click. --Chris 11:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Fairy snuff. Thanks for the clarification. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to hawk my own creation too much, but I started the

Subtle Vandalism Taskforce for exactly this kind of issue. We need more discussion and interest. I'm working on some scripts for this sort of thing (edit filter has some inherent limitations) and would like any additional support, and suggestions. Shadowjams (talk

) 06:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment - thanks all, this cleanup is what I was asking for on his talk page. I manually undid a dozen or so more that couldn't be rolled back because of intervening edits. And yes, he is a villain and IMO should not be allowed back. --CliffC (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with 3 month block, and suggest discussing a ban - First off, thanks to all those who helped on this case. I was one of those who early on questioned this character's validity, as I kept seeing the unsourced edits to dates come up over and over while using Huggle. Tommy 2010 and I worked together to try and verify the dates (he did a LOT of good work), and while some edits were actually good ones, many were either vandalism, or unsourced and made very quickly. We (and others) left numerous warnings and questions, but as 76's talk page record shows, the user has never replied once to any of the questions regarding the sourcing for the dates added into Wikipedia. Here's the psycho part: mixing some good edits with some bad poses a real nightmare for vandal reverters, and this character was great at seeming plausible. I also urge a final investigation for socks as this user shows a fiendish determination to corrode Wikipedia with bogus information. Bottom line: User never responds to questions, is sneaky and in the long run has no redeeming qualities for the project whatsoever. Jusdafax 02:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree with 3 month block, sock check, and suggest discussing a ban, per Judasfax.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

Wrong venue. Please move to

WP:AN3

– NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs

05:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This article has been put on a 1R restriction [194] by

talk

) 21:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be on the edit-warring noticeboard? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No idea, I assumed as he had broken a 1R restriction it had to be brought here?

talk

) 21:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Just in relation to his second revert, he is correct in his assertion that it has been discussed in talk and there appears consensus reached. At that point I would consider the bickering over the 1RR in relation to that to be wikilawyering. The intent is to prevent edit warring between parties wanting their preferred version. He did one of those. He did a second, separate revert unrelated to the first to maintain consensus.

۩ Mask

21:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Giftiger. Right church. Wrong pew.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Unresponsive administrator, will not discuss serial block of user

On 25 May I asked administrator

User:BoogaLouie by another month, but received no answer. Khoikhoi actively edited five pages on 26 May, and ten more in the first week of June, but did not respond at his talk page. On 21 June, Khoikhoi extended BoogaLouie's block for yet another month, with the edit summary of "discovery of sleeper accounts, possible sockfarm; still under investigation; block reset pending the completion of ongoing investigation". This was a serious new accusation! After poking around some relevant articles (topics related to Iran) I could not discover any evidence of a sockfarm or sleeper accounts. I did not see any history of participation by Khoikhoi in an investigation. The same day (21 June), I asked again

for an explanation but received none. It looked to me as if Khoikhoi intended to hold BoogaLouie in limbo forever, and was not willing to discuss it.

I feel that Khoikhoi's extension of the block was unwarranted and should be examined in light of administrator guidelines. Khoikhoi is a major contributor to Iran-related articles and is thus not impartial.

Note that BoogaLouie appears to have blown his cool; he apparently posted a threat to Khoikhoi; if it was indeed him, he likely lashed out in frustration at seeing no prospect of ever getting unblocked. I am not defending BoogaLouie's outburst—I am instead questioning Khoikhoi's fitness in the related administrative actions. I would block BoogaLouie for that outburst alone. ^_^

If there has been a checkuser report or any other investigation related to BoogaLouie's suspected sockpuppetry, please let me know. Such information would settle my mind. Binksternet (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This does seem rather fishy. However, if you look at wikistalk, it's somewhat suspicious that out of 13 edits 11 were on the same pages [199] NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen that tool; it's interesting. It provides a good clue adding to an eventual solution to the question "is RevolutionExpert a sockpuppet of BoogaLouie?" It is clear from the 21–22 May timing of RevolutionExpert's edits that Khoikhoi concluded he was. It still doesn't answer the question of what kind of ongoing investigation was making it worth extending the block on 21 June, without discussion. Binksternet (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It is bizarre, I can't find anything at SPI. Although until he contacts us nobody is in a position to do anything about it, honestly. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a chat with somebody who used to have offwiki contacts with Khoikhoi and I was told that Khoikhoi is currently on vacations with very limited internet connectivity. I guessed we could conclude this from his very low edit count unusual for a long term administrator. I was also told that Khoikhoi is in contact with a number of checkusers doing a sockpuppet investigation involving BoogaLouie. I am obviously not in the position to provide other details but I hope Khoikhoi would explain his actions after he returns from vacations. I think that if the author of this in indeed BoogaLouie then BoogaLouie should be indefinitely banned. The personal attack like this is unacceptable for an experienced user. There also legal threats in this message. I have blocked the IP for three months but it appears to be a proxy of some kind. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As the alleged puppeteer I would like to deny with the last breath in my body any connection with User:RevolutionExpert (or the obscene threat against Khoikhoi, or any block evasion of any kind since April), my arguement here --

talk

) 16:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

Resolved

– Cleared.

There is a minor backlog on AIV. If an admin could take a look, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Massive damage by User:76.31.217.148

I just blocked this IP for three months. The user has been placing a lot of rapid-fire, false information in any number of music-related subjects. He/she refused any attempts at contact and kept going on. The damage is just unreal. I don't have Twinkle or any other one-key rollback tool, so would someone so equipped please take a gander at this? Thanks. --

talk

) 04:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you want everything reverted, cause some of it (like the addition of dates) I am unsure of. If you want it all reverted, I have rollback and can go nuts. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dayewalker (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dayewalker...I was slow on the draw there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And I was even slower. Can't get the script to show up :P NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What about the edits from the 16th and earlier? Want those gone too? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I love you guys. :) Yes, please just revert everything to be on the safe side. --

talk

) 04:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Rolled back everything that I could. The other stuff that has been edited over might require an admin. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Credit goes to Tim Song as well, he helped out alot as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You're positive this fellow is a villain? With a lot of his edits, he's correcting typographical errors in a legitimate fashion. - Varlaam (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I seen alot of unsourced additions of dates. But if anyone feels any of my rollbacks were in error, please let me know and I will be glad to revert back to the previous version. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the lack of sourcing is rather frightening and warrants curtailment.

However I saw nothing that looked like an out-and-out falsehood.

Varlaam (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I just did the rollbacking that was asked. But if you see something that you feel was and is correct, please feel free to revert or let me know via talk and I will revert. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked a couple of things of the typo kind already.

He changed an inappropriate use of a given name ("Desi") to a surname ("Arnaz"). He took a vague date (month only) and changed it, correctly, to something precise (day and month). I'm not seeing a lot of malice in that.

He might be somebody with access to a good music database.

Regardless, he needs to learn to footnote, and stop scaring us.

Varlaam (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

On a strange sidenote - PMDrive1061, how come you're an admin but don't have Rollback? There was a recent discussion here about another admin, where it was firmly stated that it was impossible to remove Rollback rights from an admin, because it was part of the toolset. Just curious. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

He does, and it is impossible (well you coud use javascript or something to remove the rollback button, but he would still have the rollback right.). I think what he was meaning was a rollback tool that allows him to revert all the edits a user has made with one click. --Chris 11:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Fairy snuff. Thanks for the clarification. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to hawk my own creation too much, but I started the

Subtle Vandalism Taskforce for exactly this kind of issue. We need more discussion and interest. I'm working on some scripts for this sort of thing (edit filter has some inherent limitations) and would like any additional support, and suggestions. Shadowjams (talk

) 06:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment - thanks all, this cleanup is what I was asking for on his talk page. I manually undid a dozen or so more that couldn't be rolled back because of intervening edits. And yes, he is a villain and IMO should not be allowed back. --CliffC (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with 3 month block, and suggest discussing a ban - First off, thanks to all those who helped on this case. I was one of those who early on questioned this character's validity, as I kept seeing the unsourced edits to dates come up over and over while using Huggle. Tommy 2010 and I worked together to try and verify the dates (he did a LOT of good work), and while some edits were actually good ones, many were either vandalism, or unsourced and made very quickly. We (and others) left numerous warnings and questions, but as 76's talk page record shows, the user has never replied once to any of the questions regarding the sourcing for the dates added into Wikipedia. Here's the psycho part: mixing some good edits with some bad poses a real nightmare for vandal reverters, and this character was great at seeming plausible. I also urge a final investigation for socks as this user shows a fiendish determination to corrode Wikipedia with bogus information. Bottom line: User never responds to questions, is sneaky and in the long run has no redeeming qualities for the project whatsoever. Jusdafax 02:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree with 3 month block, sock check, and suggest discussing a ban, per Judasfax.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

Wrong venue. Please move to

WP:AN3

– NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs

05:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This article has been put on a 1R restriction [200] by

talk

) 21:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be on the edit-warring noticeboard? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No idea, I assumed as he had broken a 1R restriction it had to be brought here?

talk

) 21:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Just in relation to his second revert, he is correct in his assertion that it has been discussed in talk and there appears consensus reached. At that point I would consider the bickering over the 1RR in relation to that to be wikilawyering. The intent is to prevent edit warring between parties wanting their preferred version. He did one of those. He did a second, separate revert unrelated to the first to maintain consensus.

۩ Mask

21:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Giftiger. Right church. Wrong pew.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Unresponsive administrator, will not discuss serial block of user

On 25 May I asked administrator

User:BoogaLouie by another month, but received no answer. Khoikhoi actively edited five pages on 26 May, and ten more in the first week of June, but did not respond at his talk page. On 21 June, Khoikhoi extended BoogaLouie's block for yet another month, with the edit summary of "discovery of sleeper accounts, possible sockfarm; still under investigation; block reset pending the completion of ongoing investigation". This was a serious new accusation! After poking around some relevant articles (topics related to Iran) I could not discover any evidence of a sockfarm or sleeper accounts. I did not see any history of participation by Khoikhoi in an investigation. The same day (21 June), I asked again

for an explanation but received none. It looked to me as if Khoikhoi intended to hold BoogaLouie in limbo forever, and was not willing to discuss it.

I feel that Khoikhoi's extension of the block was unwarranted and should be examined in light of administrator guidelines. Khoikhoi is a major contributor to Iran-related articles and is thus not impartial.

Note that BoogaLouie appears to have blown his cool; he apparently posted a threat to Khoikhoi; if it was indeed him, he likely lashed out in frustration at seeing no prospect of ever getting unblocked. I am not defending BoogaLouie's outburst—I am instead questioning Khoikhoi's fitness in the related administrative actions. I would block BoogaLouie for that outburst alone. ^_^

If there has been a checkuser report or any other investigation related to BoogaLouie's suspected sockpuppetry, please let me know. Such information would settle my mind. Binksternet (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This does seem rather fishy. However, if you look at wikistalk, it's somewhat suspicious that out of 13 edits 11 were on the same pages [205] NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen that tool; it's interesting. It provides a good clue adding to an eventual solution to the question "is RevolutionExpert a sockpuppet of BoogaLouie?" It is clear from the 21–22 May timing of RevolutionExpert's edits that Khoikhoi concluded he was. It still doesn't answer the question of what kind of ongoing investigation was making it worth extending the block on 21 June, without discussion. Binksternet (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It is bizarre, I can't find anything at SPI. Although until he contacts us nobody is in a position to do anything about it, honestly. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a chat with somebody who used to have offwiki contacts with Khoikhoi and I was told that Khoikhoi is currently on vacations with very limited internet connectivity. I guessed we could conclude this from his very low edit count unusual for a long term administrator. I was also told that Khoikhoi is in contact with a number of checkusers doing a sockpuppet investigation involving BoogaLouie. I am obviously not in the position to provide other details but I hope Khoikhoi would explain his actions after he returns from vacations. I think that if the author of this in indeed BoogaLouie then BoogaLouie should be indefinitely banned. The personal attack like this is unacceptable for an experienced user. There also legal threats in this message. I have blocked the IP for three months but it appears to be a proxy of some kind. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the IP is

Likely User:RevolutionExpert. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As the alleged puppeteer I would like to deny with the last breath in my body any connection with User:RevolutionExpert (or with the obscene threat against Khoikhoi, or with any block evasion of any kind since April), my arguement here.

As for sleeper accounts and sockfarms, I confess to using one other edit name quite a bit a few years ago --

talk

) 16:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

Resolved

– Cleared.

There is a minor backlog on AIV. If an admin could take a look, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

IP block for unblocked editor - how to fix?

Resolved

– quickly

Not really an "incident" but could do with being quickly resolved...

I've just unblocked an editor (Rrius (talk · contribs · count)) I'd blocked too hastily. I'd left the "Autoblock any IP addresses used" option checked (never paid it much attention in the past, to be honest). I've now unblocked the editor, but the IP block is still in place. What's the best way to fix this? It occurs to me I could assign the editor to the "IP block exempt" group, or I could attempt some nasty "reblock-and-then-unblock-and-pray-I-don't-mess-up-the-IP-block".

Help! TFOWR 13:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

http://toolserver.org/~eagle/autoblockfinder.php - ran it for you and unblocked him. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Got Afterwriting for you too, as per your suggestion on their talk. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic, many thanks (and URL added to my toolbox, too... with a note about checking IP block checkboxes when I block, in future...) TFOWR 14:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And if you use the {{

talk

) 04:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

...also added to toolbox, ta! TFOWR 08:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Edgar West

Resolved

– Blue turned to red; hoax put to bed. TFOWR 09:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

*Deleted article that still shows up in Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax articles for some reason. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

- Disregard; looks like someone fixed it already. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Rude IP, and BLP violation

This IP user posted this confrontational message [206] on my talk page. I am not the only user he/she has attacked: see [207], [208], and [209]. This user keeps spouting conspiracy theories about a "liberal cabal" and in general being disruptive, despite receiving a 31-hour block a few days ago for this type of behavior.

As if that wasn't enough, he/she also inserted this major BLP violation: [210] into the Al Gore article. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:RBI. There's nothing redeemable in this IP's edit history. Tarc (talk

) 14:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"There's nothing redeemable in this IP's edit history." You sure about that? A look at my edits prove you wrong. "Spouting conspiracy theories about a "liberal cabal" Actually you are proving my point with your whiny, weepy meeting of the minds to see how you can GAME the system to SILENCE yet another conservative from contributing to wikipedia, comrade. 68.41.55.171 (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I also got a lovely reply to my final warning. Quaint. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one: [211]. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've given the IP a time-out to reconsider their words. TN X Man 15:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I would also mention that information on Al Gore was sourced and a quick search does show a lot of news results about the alleged assault. TN X Man 15:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean the one that was "...dismissed by local authorities" ? When absolutely nothing results from such an allegation, I don't believe it becomes all that critical to anyone's biographical article, be it a liberal or conservative or athlete or socialite. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm only saying that it made the news and the statement was sourced. Whether or not it should be included (or if there are

weight issues) are best discussed on the talk page. TN X Man

15:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If this were a named user, would anyone think twice about an indefinite block? I would like to propose a community ban for this individual. Obviously, for technical reasons, we don't indefinitely block IP addresses, but this same individual has obviously been on the IP since at least March 2, so we could hard block the IP for some reasonably long amount of time (like 6 months) with the understanding that the person behind this IP is banned and is not welcome to return under any name/IP. --B (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- I would support such a ban; his/her edit history shows no intent to contribute constructively. Look at his/her comments about Wikipedia and it's clear what this person's attitude toward Wikipedia is; it's pretty clear he/she disdains Wikipedia and is only here to cause trouble. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- I too support a community ban. I've just looked over the links on this page to the personal attacks the IP has made, and also randomly dipped into the IP's other edits. The personal attacks are unprovoked and egregious, and article edits are mostly unhelpful POV pushing edits. Given the IP's attitude, and his penchant for editing BLP's to introduce BLP violations such as this one [212], a community ban is more than justified. LK (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt that a community ban would make much of a difference in this case. If the IP is static and the individual comes back and starts frothing again like they have been, we can block for longer periods of time and carry on with life without the need of a ban, can't we? Tony Fox (arf!) 17:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree it does not seem rational to community ban an ip address. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The IP address would not be community banned - the person behind it would be. And I believe it does make a difference - it eliminates the wikilawyering over 3RR (reverting edits by banned users editing in defiance of a ban is exempt from revert limits) and it eliminates wikilawyering over whether an admin dealing with his conduct might be "involved". (Plenty of disruptive users pick fights with admins just so that when they get blocked, then can cry "involved".) --B (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

- Support ban on person behind the IP- Sure, whatever it takes. Seems to me that this type of mean-spirited agenda-monger has got to to be sliced out of the body of Wikipedia, just as surgeons would excise a malignant tumor. Jusdafax 18:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page material by Fat & Happy

I was on an ongoing discussion on the Obama Birth Conspiracy talk page and Fat & Happy decided to delete sections of the talk page.

One of the deletions follows

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories&diff=369952350&oldid=369951014

As wiki puts it, this article is about a "fringe conspiracy theory" and any objections that what I was discussing was "fringe conspiracy theories" does not hold water as the article is exactly about a "fringe conspiracy theory".

I went to Fat & Happy's talk page to get him to undelete his third deletion, as I had already undeleted his deletions twice before and I was in an ongoing discussion during all those deletions. Fat & Happy declined to undeleted his third deletion after my warning, so here I am.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fat%26Happy#Please_restore_the_Material 96.237.120.38 (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're arguing the merits of the conspiracy theories rather than engaging in discussions about article editing. Article talk pages are neither

hatted rather than outright deleted, but either way, you're just picking fights over there, and contributing more heat than light. Tarc (talk

) 18:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Before I engage in editing that particular article I would like to see what notions have already been run through, and rejected. I don't mind wasting my time learning about something, since I don't consider learning to be a waste. However If I attempt to edit an article by including a point, when that same point has been rejected umpteen zillion times before, I would be wasting my time by being reject number umpteen zillion and one. I hope you see my point. I especially don't like the fact the Fat &Happy deleted the material as the conversation was going on. I would not have minded much if he had done it after the conversation was over.96.237.120.38 (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You are using the talk page as a

talk

) 19:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No question that the deleted material shouldn't be left on the talk page - but do I recall a semi-recent discussion in which it was concluded that archiving posts which don't conform to

WP:NOTAFORUM was a better option than deleting them? Beyond My Ken (talk

) 19:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with that, if nothing else but to keep a record of everything. I would also recommend hatting the discussion, but the anon ip seems to be very persistent and I don't think the hats would last.

) 19:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Why was the removal of the comments by User:JamesAM done? I see nothing wrong with his comments, which are on point in the discussion. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Mundilfari's continual removal of sections of articles without consensus

Resolved

– Accounting4Taste:talk 15:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This user has been subject of discussion here before. An admin has fired an initially gentle warning shot, but has been ignored.

Mundilfari repeatedly and

being bold

there comes a point when the shield of boldness evaporates and the conduct becomes a campaign.

I have no quarrel with removal of any item with proper consensus. My serious concern is that this user is leaving a trail of destructive edits behind him that is extremely time consuming to correct. Rather than give individual diffs I ask admins to view the totality of this user's contributions, edit summaries, and talk page content. My suggestion is that a substantially stronger warning shot be fired which may include a limitation on removal of trivia. I am content to leave this to admins familiar with this type of issue to discuss and decide. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Note, please, that I have let those users who commented on the prior discussion know that there is a current discussion and invited them to comment should they choose. I have taken care to invite them in a spirit of neutrality, recognising that their opinions may diverge from my own. I have notified Mundilfari on hsi talk page that this discussion is taking place. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with the statements made by Fiddle Faddle, I have tried on numerous occasions to persuade Mundilfari to discuss potential deletions rather than simply delete pop culture sections wholesale both on the grounds that simply because something a presented in list / bulletpoint form does not mean that it should immediately removed and that Pop Culture sections are not unnecessary by definition. I think that Mundilfari is doing good work in getting rid of a lot of the needless Star Trek references, but he goes over the top, deleting entire sections without considering whether there is anything in there that could remain or be worked into the body of the article as a whole.

I and several other editors and Admins have pointed him towards

here) without any consideration as to consensus, nor any apparent review of the reverts' edit summaries. When such sections are blanked without discussion or a useful edit summary I consider this to be nothing more than vandalism. Fenix down (talk

) 18:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel that Mudilfari has made good choices in much of his

WP:TRIVIA with perhaps too much extreme prejudice. I have also noted that he has next to zero talk or user talk edits, and is not acknowledge our advice, which suggests ignorance of consensus. S.G.^(GH) _ping!

18:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I differ slightly from

WP:POINT campaign he is waging against articles here. A positive outcome would be that he ceases his disruptive edits and becomes a productive editor. Whatever happens, the blanking of sections must stop. Fiddle Faddle (talk

) 20:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(sigh) inline referencing, especially with secondary sources/commentaries, is generally a good start in this.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if you would clarify your meaning, please. There is scope for some ambiguity, and it would help if that could be solved. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

In a strange twist, Mundilfari appears now to have begun adding his / her own unsourced snippets to pop culture sections, as here, even acknowledging it is unsourced as well! Fenix down (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I noted this and decided that it must be irony. Those following the discussion here should note that there has, so far, been no response from this user, who appears to plough a lone and unusual furrow. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped him another note, but patience is wearing thin. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a perverse logic here. By adding unsourced statements to articles, things that will quite reasonably be reverted, often as vandalism, a

WP:POINT

argument can be made that "gosh, look, I must be right after all because folk are now treating me as a vandal." However I have considered this editor to be a vandal for quite some time and have no hesitation in reverting either of his disruptive editing tactics. The addition of these statements may be an attempt to divert the discussions here to the sourcing or otherwise of the statements.

Instead we need to be clear that it is the editor's overall disruptive and

WP:POINT behaviour that we are discussing, and not the sourcing or otherwise of the items deleted and now, perversely, added. Fiddle Faddle (talk

) 19:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems he is doing it to a number of articles. In my mind this makes it even harder to assume good faith, particularly given his repeated refusal to enter into any form of discussion either here or on his talk page. I would go so far as to say that this is really nothing more than a vandalism account and should be blocked as such. Fenix down (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As time passes I an tending towards your view. It is a clever set of vandalism in that it has the ostensible appearance of valid behaviour, but t is not valid behaviour. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts. Whilst many edits may be useful to wikipedia as a whole, the almost complete absence of consensus-building, edit summaries and talk page activity makes me believe more and more that the sole purpose of the account is to delete other people's potentially useful work because of personal tastes and whether an edit is of use to wikipedia, does not mean that the intentions of the editor were in line with accepted wikipedia behaviour. Fenix down (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So.... what are we looking at? With no responses from the user are we looking at 12/24 hours or what? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the frequency of his posting is sufficient that that would make a great deal of difference to him, but I wouldn't say he should be completely blocked. Fenix down (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Because of the low frequency I would suggest a seven day block or a topic ban on anything

WP:TRIVIA related, or a mixture of the two. I think a topic ban would be more effective since a breach would show a determination to disrupt. A week's block could be viewed as harsh by those who have not viewed hsi edit pattern. Fiddle Faddle (talk

) 21:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Could this be a single purpose account that is a sock of a genuine account with a wholly different edit pattern? A Checkuser request might have some validity here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Fiddle Faddle has been wikihounding me for a few months. It seems every edit I make is undone by this user. This is a clear violation of the rules. He should not be following me and undoing what I have done. It was only this past week that he alerted the administration about my removal of wikipedia trivia sections. I would like to formally accuse Fiddle Faddle of wikistalking. His behaviour is obsessive and disruptive.Mundilfari (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have a response at least, but not to the substantive issue, which is this user's disruptive behaviour. You are all welcome to make whatever investigations you wish with regard to the accusation against me. My edit record stands as my defence and I will take no other part in any such investigation save to point at that record.

I think what we can see, here, is that this user intends fully to disregard any advice given to him, to disregard any warnings given to him, and to bluster his way to continuing his disruptive behaviour. Instead he goes onto the attack and seeks to bring irrelevance into the discussion. He has obvious enthusiasm and energy, and it would be useful to our encyclopaedia were he to choose to use those in making constructive and consensus based edits. To seek to ensure that I believe we must topic ban him from edits to popular culture or trivia areas or areas that can reasonably be interpreted as those areas. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The only thing worse than no response is a response that completely disregards what is by now an obvious community concern. It evidences the user has been reading this topic, but for some inexplicable reason does not acknowledge that several editors have concerns about his or her editing. S.G.^(GH) _ping!

Mundilfari, if you would bother to read what has been written by a number of editors and admins in both this discussion, and the previous discussion of your behaviour as well as the numerous comments and warnings from editors and admins over a period of a number of months on your talk page, you would see that this has nothing to do with wikistalking. As has been stated on numerous occasions, although there are many examples of useful edits you have made (such as getting rid of needless start trek references), there are also a number of incidents stretching over a considerable period of time, where you have been noted blanking whole sections, not seeking discussion or consensus, and / or providing either blank, insufficiently detailed or sarcastic edit summaries. As a result, a number of your edits have justifiably been considered vandalism by a number of editors. It is because of this that there are now people who monitor your contributions, as they are concerned that a significant number of them may be considered to be unconstructive.

Fiddle Faddle's complaints about you and monitoring of your edits are not disruptive, because his actions, as well of those of other editors have been solely to monitor your disruptive edits. Any reverts to your contributions performed by me, Fiddle Faddle or any other editor have been accompanied with proper edit summaries, notifications and repeated attempts to discuss the issue on your talk page and on this noticeboard. Your refusal to enter into any discussion other than to throw unfounded accusations around seems to me to be the disruptive act here.

In addition, I might add that it is a bit rich for you, an editor who has been deleting pop culture sections to accuse another of being disruptive, when you have recently started adding unsourced trivia points to articles yourself! Fenix down (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban for User:Mundilfari

Resolved

Taking the preceding discussion and the prior discussion plus User talk:Mundilfari and his entire contribution record into account, it is proposed that a particular topic ban is issued against User:Mundilfari to the following effect:

That

WP:POINT campaign by User:Mundilfari

. The duration of the topic ban should be indefinite, subject to review on request. The penalty for breach of the ban should be an increasing duration block, with a suggested minimum time of one week

Support as proposer, for all of the reasons I have stated in the discussions now and previously and in the proposal itself. This user is disruptive and bordeline
uncivil. With the topic ban in place I hope he will devote his energy and enthusiasm to substantive and consensus based edits to other areas of our encyclopaedia. Fiddle Faddle (talk
) 12:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Support but perhaps with a shorter minimum of 48 hours - he does have a clean block sheet. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I am only suggesting the longer period because of the infrequency of his visits with edits, thus the feeling that a shorter period might be missed by being in an edit gap. The week was not suggested as draconian, but pragmatic. I am unconcerned if the initial block period is shorter. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment I have just reverted over a dozen
WP:POINT edits make in quick succession by this user. I have made a report for vandalism to ARV. I am tending towards the idea of a community ban. Please see his contribution record. Fiddle Faddle (talk
) 16:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

He has violated 3RR at

Dutch oven (practical joke) can an uninvolved admin (ideally) block him for this please? S.G.^(GH) _ping!

16:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User:JamesBWatson beat you to it by a minute. :) --Golbez (talk

) 16:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the block sounds like this. I don't know why. HalfShadow 16:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Disruptive and uncivil, yes, but the edits in question should not be characterized as vandalism. "Trivia" and "in popular culture" sections are filled with fanboy-ish cruft that should be dealt with, just not dealt with via his edit-warring and reverting. Seriously, what does the fact that two Sopranos characters has a passing conversation about farting under a blanket add to the article? Tarc (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with trimming trivia, especially the vastly over-represented video game and anime trivia. However, the edits mentioned on his talk page in the block notice are indeed vandalism. --Golbez (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  - Comment We need to be careful not to get diverted into the subject of trimming trivia, usually laudable, but stay on the topic of failing to reach consensus, failing to heed requests to reach consensus, failing to respond to friendly warnings, and a flurry of edits, some of which flouted the three revert rule to make a
    WP:POINT. This editor, until today, had been extremely careful to appear to be a valuable editor while conducting a massive trivia removal campaign with no response to civil requests to stop and discuss his actions. The proposal for a topic ban is not because of removal of trivia. It is because of his behaviour and indifference to community requests to stop, build consensus and to talk. Fiddle Faddle (talk
    ) 16:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Such edits as this and this are pure vandalism. Quite apart from the other issues, this sort of vandalism has to be prevented. I issued a 48 hour block before I discovered this discussion, but I have now lifted the block to allow consensus to be reached. However, I think the vandalism edits justifies a block, quite apart from the other issues. Under the circumstances I would favour 48 hours initially.
talk
) 16:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I had hopes that your block and then unblock would allow him to come here and add his comments. A recent addition to his talk page indicates that this is unlikely. If anyone wishes to investigate his allegation against me there I simply present my own contribution record and will allow you to judge my actions from there. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition, it should probably be noted that the incidents I described above where he was adding unsourced trivia to articles here and here (to which he then added the unsourced tag!) concern racial pejoratives. This I think is a more nasty issue. Whether or not the statements are true, making unsourced contributions concerning racial epithets is a different sort of vandalism to simply spamming pages or blanking sections. The vast increase in vandal edits since the start of these suggests he is goading an admin into blocking him. I think that this immature increase in activity warrants a significant ban. Fenix down (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment and request I have no idea, not being nor wishing to be an admin here, how these things are closed and by whom, and I have no desire to be seen to attempt to steamroller any process by suggesting that the community makes a decision on it. Even so, since there seems little chance of User:Mundlifari contributing to this discussion, which I think is a shame. I feel that his flurry of what I and others perceive to be vandalism yesterday does seem to require some substantive and speedy action. A block was handed down and then lifted to give him the chance to make a case for himself here and for this discussion to reach a conclusion. It also seems to me to be against natural justice to leave this hanging for much longer. Despite professing no interest I think he will at least be curious over the outcome. So am I out of order in requesting that an uninvolved admin looks this thread over together with all the contributions of all involved editors, and brings it to a reasonably swift conclusion?

Note replaced from archive. Some action is required here before archival Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it needs dealing with. "I don't really care to engage in the kangaroo court which is Wikipedia disciplinarian system" so says the user, well... tough. Disciplinarian system it is not, but nevertheless there is a misuse of

WP:TRIVIA, acute distaste for consensus and no time for criticism, so it seems. I must confess I am unsure why he was unblocked, a 3RR break is a 3RR break. S.G.^(GH) _ping!

23:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Support topic ban as proposed. What he's doing is not so bad, but the way he's doing it, scoffing at any attempt at discussion and trudging onward, is contrary to consensus-based editing.--Chaser (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Accounting4Taste has been asked to come in as an uninvolved admin, with a view to closing this discussion, and has asked for my opinion on the proposal of a topic ban.

My own involvement in this particular case has been limited. The reason I became involved at all was that the user was reported at

Point

. I think the editing restriction should be accompanied by an admonition against any disruptive editing, and it should be made explicit that any further examples of vandalism or disruptive editing will be likely to lead to a block. Clearly this will not be part of the topic ban/editing restriction, but it is worth making explicit, as past behaviour suggests the possibility of retaliation by deliberate disruptive editing not covered by the terms of the ban. Then there is the question of the length of such a restriction. Fiddle Faddle suggests "indefinite, subject to review on request". I would not object to that, though I think an initial fixed term of of (say) a year would also not be unreasonable, still "subject to review on request". The disruptive behaviour has been going on for about nine months, and generally speaking it seems that blocks, bans, etc are commonly ineffective if they are on a significantly smaller timescale than the existing disruption. The question has been raised of how long a block should last if the ban is ignored. I am doubtful whether a 48 hour block would have a lot of impact on an editor whose unconstructive editing has taken place over a timescale of about nine months: losing a couple of days would be trivial, especially since there are many gaps of that size or more in the editor's edit history. A week would seem to me to be long enough that it would be felt by the editor.

Finally I should like to add my own agreement with something which has already been said. Mundilfari's editing has not been entirely harmful. Much of the material removed needed to be removed. No doubt opinions will differ widely as to how much of it should have been removed, but the real issue is persistent unilateral action without considering consensus or willingness to discuss the issues.

talk

) 09:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to have a look at this situation because I had had no interaction or involvement with any aspect of this situation or any of its main players, and agreed to do so; I spent quite some time yesterday reading through the history. I asked

JamesBWatson said, this is not about the content, this is about the unwillingness to consult. Accounting4Taste:talk

12:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth pre-handling any idea of asking for a review ridiculously frequently while leaving excellent room for the user to request a review at sensible intervals. My objective in suggesting this is to be scrupulously fair to the editor concerned while setting his expectations correctly that being overkeen to issue review requests will be frowned upon. I ought to have included this when I drafted my original proposal, for which omission I apologise. I would think that "Reviews will be considered no more frequently than monthly" would do the trick. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with JBW's comments, such action would seem to solve both the

WP:POINT issues. Hopefully! Fenix down (talk

) 13:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

After communicating this decision on the talk page of the editor and entering the decision at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, I have marked this as "Resolved". Should anyone have any questions or comments, please feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoriah Miller again

Hi, there's some serious sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/IP-hopping going on at this page (again), can an admin take a peep, please? Thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►high seas─╢ 09:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a peep and blocked one open proxy voting delete, and I have suspicions about another. I'll keep a look out for further proxies - other sockpuppet or SPA accounts will be obvious and given their due weight. The AfD is a bit messy, but I don't think there's much else for an admin to do at this time. It's often better to let a consensus build with the occasional sock or SPA participating, rather than ban them all, close up early, and let them scream foul. I don't currently see them getting in the way of consensus. More edits from regular editors versed in policy would be welcome though. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks and BLP violation

OUTING). This is presumably the same individual as 61.17.231.192 (talk · contribs), who was blocked yesterday for making similar statements, and possibly Fanatic Handler (talk · contribs), who reverted another of my edits.[217] Assistance?--Cúchullain ^t/c

12:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. for 72 hours. Best, Mifter (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Cúchullain is not bringing the main point here. Many other editors get frustrated and offended because of his pro-catholic and fantic edits. Just a peek into the past 6 months contributions will let people know, how Cúchullain , has poslished the history of catholic church in various articles and have used only pro catholic sources. Extreme fanaticsm is not good for an administrator. The Talk:Ahatallah, shows, how, other editors are frustrated because of his adamant mentality. Fanatic Handler (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

So whose sockpuppet are you? Syrthiss (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely it's just a coincidence that they showed up making personal attacks at Talk:Ahatallah just after 122.172.118.114 had been blocked for making personal attacks there, and then stumbled upon this discussion as their fourth edit.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Their are no sockpuppets.Cúchullain, why do you want to silence your critics by blocking them? Will their be smoke without fire? Your are indulging in fanatism and you are blockin people who question it. Fanatic Handler (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC).

Cuchullain didn't ask you, I asked you. Whose sock are you? Syrthiss (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I am no sock man. I am just another disgruntled editor, thanks to the article edited by Cúchullain, which will bring in a influx of new editors to wiki. Fanatic Handler (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC).

It's pretty clear that you are using this account to either circumvent a block, avoid scrutiny of a main account, or harass another user. You've been blocked accordingly. TN X Man 18:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

RFA needs closure or deletion

Resolved

– G5'd. –xeno^talk 15:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Can another admin or bureaucrat please close or delete Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FetchFan21? The user in question is a clear sock of User:Simulation12, which I just indefinitely blocked. –MuZemike 15:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

unban of User:Drsjpdc?

Resolved

– He was unbanned over 24 hours ago.

talk

) 20:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

talk

) 01:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not take an initial course of engaging with Drsjpdc on his talk page (unblocking it if need be) and see if the community can form its own judgment on this? Jimbo is very likely to be right, but if the community is being handed this, the community should do its due diligence.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I follow your logic there, Walt. I brought this here exactly because he was banned by a discussion here so another discussion here is the best way to discuss lifting the ban. If I was just going to disregard the community, take Jimbo's word for it and lift the ban myself I would have done that and been emergency desysopped by arbcom already...

talk

) 22:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just as a technical point, there is no way the ArbCom would desysop anyone for that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not a technical point, it's your personal opinion of what Arbcom would or wouldn't do. Anyway emergency desysops are to allow time for discussion, and are not permanent. DuncanHill (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I tussled with this editor once but believe he could be a good editor if allowed back. Its been almost six months, so I think the ban has served its purpose at this point, and the editor is respectfully requesting to return.--Milowent (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have also considered welcoming him back as I was on friendly terms during his time here. I'll alert him to this discussion just in case anyone hasn't done so already.

talk

) 01:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I never read that, nevermind. I still support him though.

talk

) 01:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The tone seems respectful enough, and there are editors vouching for him. Some sort of probationary or provisional unblock therefore sounds like a good idea. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC).

This discussion here serves as a community unban discussion. As nobody has posted any substantial reasons not to unban, and there appears to be support for unbanning, I am going to unblock the user (on probation). Should the discussion take a sudden turn in the other direction, the user can be reblocked. Please feel free to continue discussing. Jehochman ^Talk 12:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that is fine. I just wanted to make sure that this didn't wind up in a lot of drama.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Support unban - But the ban should be immediately reenabled if the editor in question resumes their disruption. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Support unban despite quite a list of infractions, it looks as if he went through the proper channels, I look forward to dealing with this user in the future, so long as the editor does not resume with the behaviors in question! --Rockstonetalk to me! 02:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Deceased WikipedIans

Is it usual to block the accounts of deceased users? There has been a report at

WP:EAR that Pete Fenelon passed away in 2008 and the account has not been blocked. Checking the memorial page, I discovered JuJube, Nitelinger, and David Shear have also missed being blocked. Just thought I should let y'all know since I don't think any admins patrol the EAR board. Thanks. --Diannaa ^TALK

19:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

All blocked. Thank you. We need a process for this. JohnCD (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely we've discussed this process before, somewhere. Didn't we remove the tools from deceased admins, at some point? Might be worth discussing again. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 22:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There was this a few months ago, [220], I don't think there is any full discussion about it, just going on common sense I think--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a much more thorough discussion of this and the related issues, with some valuable input that might point to some areas of consensus. Steveozone (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I blocked because it seemed to me an obvious precaution - passwords might have been written down or be stored in the computer, and by definition any use of the account would be not under the control of the owner. I wasn't aware of

WP:DWG, linked to above, which says "As a symbolic gesture of respect, accounts of deceased Wikipedians should not be blocked unless they have been compromised"; nor do I see how that represents the consensus of the discussion here on which it is based - there are two discussions, one with 21 voices for blocking and 16 against and one with 10 for and 9 against, mainly because reports of death might be in error or because family might want to use the account to post messages. In these four cases the date of death is at least five months ago, so neither of those reasons should apply; but I will not object if anyone chooses to undo my blocks. JohnCD (talk

) 21:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Strange unblock requests via email for Tallicfan20

I've been getting a series of emails from

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) asking to be unblocked. As far as I can tell, they aren't blocked and there are no autoblocks in place, and as far as I can recall I've never had anything to do with this user. My intention is to continue to ignore the emails, but I'm just noting this here in case anyone else can shed light on things. EyeSerene^talk

10:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be blocked, but why not message the user and tell them that? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Good question :) Two reasons really: one, they've edited since their last block (August last year); and two, the nature and circumstances of the messages set my "something's not quite right here" radar pinging (unpunctuated one liners in broken English that don't really match their posts on WP). I've now sent them a note via their userpage email link though. EyeSerene^talk 15:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like phishing to me. Step 1(A-Z), break into a Wikipedia user's account. Step 2A, get the e-mail address of an admin. Step 2B, phish them... Is there a checkuser-type process to see if the e-mail and/or password of that account has been changed recently? Thundermaker (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anushka Wirasinha

Resolved

– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anushka Wirasinha has been courtesy blanked, closed, and fully-protected. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a doubt that you are running Bleekers9 and Muthuwella sock puppets accounts . The person Anushka Wirasinha will be Running Both. it was deleted deletion review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anushka Wirasinha .And advice him to not make personal attacks. I invite to make an investigation about this situation to Administrator --Wipeouting (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

the AfD has been closed, hidden and protected. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Admin abusing authority

Wrong venue. Please move to

Audit Subcomittee

– NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs

21:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Resolved

– Complaints about checkusers go to the Audit Subcommittee. If you feel I have abused my checkuser rights, complain to them. Contact information is

here. --Deskana (talk)

20:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Deskana has blocked me indefinitely with no rationale whatsoever. He gave me no means by which to appeal for unblock and when I asked for an explanation, he blocked and ignored me. Forgive my appearing here as an IP but I didn't know what else to do. Could somebody please talk to Deskana and find out why he blocked me and perhaps even persuade him to unblock me because I really don't know what I've done wron. During my brief stint on Wikipedia I've made many positive contributions and would like to continue to do so. --User:The Oh-So Humble One —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.231.236 (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The block rationale claims that it was a checkuser block, so the assumption must be sockpuppetry but he hasn't cited what CU that is or who you are supposed to be a sockpuppet of. You can post an unblock request on your talk page if you believe it is in error.--

Crossmr (talk

) 15:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've asked them for clarification. It looks pretty unusual, there being no block template or anything. Hopefully Deskana can provide some insight. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've put a block template on their user talk page. Recall that checkusers have the ability to place blocks without giving reasons if they're based on private checkuser evidence, and this is one of those cases. Rest assured that I wouldn't have placed the block if I wasn't sure about it. --Deskana (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not denying the ability to do so, but nothing is lost by greater communication. I myself was wrongly identified and banned as a sock, and I know what a frustrating experience it can be. At any rate, Humble is well within his rights to place an unblock template on his talk page. Thanks for the clarification. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

He is indeed allowed, and if he does then I'll ask another checkuser to check the block but I'm confident they'll agree with me. So far all he's done is evaded his block though. That doesn't work in his favour. --Deskana (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not consider a single edit to AN/I block evasion. He hasn't edited the encyclopedia. Obviously, we'd prefer an unblock template in the right place, but I think starting this thread is forgivable.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

He's evading his block, so it's block evasion. It's not particularly troubling or worrying block evasion (as evidenced by the fact that I've not blocked the IP for block evasion), but to say it is not block evasion would be incorrect. Also, the checkuser evidence clearly showed this person is not as new as they say they are, so they're probably well aware that they're not supposed to evade their block in this manner. --Deskana (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Deskana, could you (or another CU) elaborate as to whose sock this account is so we can out the matter to bed? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Firstly, remember that checkusers are identified to the WMF, and they are required to keep with in the bounds of the privacy policy (and the checkuser policy), failure to do so could result in at least on-wiki effects. As such, checkusers are at liberty to exercise discretion over what information they release publicly, if they decide not to release something, pressing them on it is probably not advisable. They are elected and trusted to deal with such situations. Although of course, if you feel there has been abuse here then you are welcome to bring it up with the CU directly, and a second checkuser may review the situation, which Deskana has already suggested as a resolution. Secondly, posting on AN/I whilst a block is active against you most definitely qualifies as block evasion. Given the circumstances, the user should be told how to appeal their block in the appropriate manner, which they have been, however, the IP is still evading the block, and the block against it for evasion was appropriate. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, in order to answer your question, I'd have to reveal information in direct violation of the WMF Privacy Policy and against the general advice of the AUSC. So no, I'm afraid I will not tell you anything. You'll have to trust me. --Deskana (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Deskana, since HJ Mitchell and Wehwalt are admins, you could email them with the information from the checkuser you did. This would be admin-to-admin communication and that would be allowed. One could call it an "independent review of the information" and would put the matter to rest. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That'd be a great idea. If Deskana wants CU rights permanently removed that is.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The WMF privacy policy can go hang. We don't indef people and then say "It's a secret" when people want to know why. Jtrainor (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really, I have had checkusers give me information via email and I am not even an admin. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Depending on what kind of information, that's fairly alarming. –xeno^talk 20:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(

Audit Subcommittee. –xeno^talk

20:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Administrators are not WMF-identified and as such cannot receive information protected by the privacy policy from a checkuser. As a checkuser, I will not ignore the WMF Privacy Policy. Anyway, we're finished with this thread. If you feel I have behaved inappropriately or abused my checkuser rights, report me to the AUSC. Contact information is

here. --Deskana (talk)

20:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

How could anyone possibly form a view as to whether you have behaved inappropriately or abused checkuser rights? No-one knows why you have done what you have done. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Since Deskana (who I have nothing against) is hiding behind the "it's a secret" and will tell no one what they have found (even an admin or another checkuser), I request that the block be overturned and Deskana admonished for not even attempting to give any user information. Bad block. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Administrators are not allowed to undo checkuser blocks without explicit permission from a checkuser. Any administrator who undoes this block does so at their own peril. Additionally, I've said above in no uncertain terms that I'll ask another checkuser to check the block if the user submits an unblock request (diff). --Deskana (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just above an IP address posting about a user being blocked as a sockpuppet of another user. If Deskana tells us which account was blocked, that would provide a direct link betweeen an IP address and a username - a violation of our outing policy, not to mention the Wikipedia:CheckUser policy, which various posters here might benefit from reading. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

- - Sorry Deskana, when I can, a lowly editor, can be emailed with checkuser information, I believe a fellow admin can as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
    - The fault there is with the other CU('s) who are apparently acting in direct violation of the privacy policy they agreed to follow rather than Deskana. All depending on what information they actually shared with you. Would you care to elaborate on who gave you the information, and what it was? Reso lute 21:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I trust Deskana. It would be nice, for purposes of transparency, to know the name of the master account, but if Deskana says it's a privacy violation, then that's good enough for me. I'm sure "the powers that be", ie the AUSC and the ombudsman are aware of the relevant details and they are best placed to handle it. That should be the end of this thread. As Deskana says, complaints about CU go to
WP:AUSC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
20:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That's my point. It's not a master account. It's a master IP address. I cannot reveal IP information due to the privacy policy and the general advice of the AUSC. Where is the issue? --Deskana (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

So far as I'm concerned? There isn't one. You made a block based on information I don't have so I'm not in a position to question that. That's what we elect CUs and arbs for. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reservations about transparency and fairness, but I'm with Deskana on this one. Linking an IP to another, currently unknown, account would be a violation of his duties. Let the checkusers sort it out. Having been in Humble's position before, however, it might be considerate to at least email him detailing some of the charges against him. It was a bitch to get my block overturned, and it was only possible because I happened to realize that the person I was accused of being was editting from my university. I had to go to the network administrators and pull IP logs to clear my name. I can see exactly why J.Delanoy made the original block, and it would have been very hard for me to defend myself without the information and access that I had. Having no information at all would make it impossible. Deskana, whatever information you might be able to provide to Humble and Humble alone so that he at least knows where he stands would, I'm sure, be greatly appreciated. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Problematic situation at 2001 anthrax attacks

Wiki-ny-2007 (talk · contribs) has restored content to 2001 anthrax attacks, which contained, among other questionable wording, the phrase

At least four newspapers have commented upon this information: The New York Times^[1], The Washington Post^[2]^[3] (which got a lot of the information wrong), The Register in the UK^[4] and The Frederick News-Post^[5].

^ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/20/us/20anthrax.html

^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021902369.html

^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/02/20/GR2010022000200.html

^ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/02/anthrax_feds_report/

^ http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?storyID=101651

I have contacted Wiki-ny-2007, but the user has not responded yet to my post. (The user has not responded to any of the other queries on his talk page either.) The user may not have been aware of the extent of the ongoing discussion on the issue.

The references to secondary reliable sources have been added by EdLake (talk · contribs), the original contributor of the content, after he was advised by three editors, including myself, to use the DOJ report on the Anthrax investigation, the source he initially has cited exclusively, as well as independent secondary sources, but to do so in a way that follows the relevant policies and guidelines.

Controversial content should be discussed at the talk page, before an agreed wording is added to the article itself. EdLake was advised to follow this approach, and he participates actively in the discussion at the talk page of the article. Currently, the issue is being discussed at this section of the talk page.

More discussion of the issue is at the talk page of 98.144.51.230, the IP from which EdLake has edited before he created his account, and at EdLake's talk page (see also the following section on that page).

It would be helpful if an experienced uninvolved editor could have a look at the situation. Cs32en Talk to me 20:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In what way does this require administrator intervention? Also, you are required to inform both editors of this discussion, which you have not done. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)ETA - I have now informed both editors.

I have left a note at the this section of the article's talk page. I'll also contact the editors now. I don't want to revert the edit, as an involved editor, and in order to avoid edit warring. I don't think any blocks or other such measures are necessary or appropriate at this point. Nevertheless, this is not a content issue only, but also a user conduct issue. Unfortunately, there is no "Experienced editors' noticeboard", which would be the best venue for my request. Cs32en Talk to me 21:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed that you have already informed both editors. Thank you! Cs32en Talk to me 21:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the main editor (EdLake) is trying to do a good job, and has expertise in that field, but he is but is very unfamiliar with Wikipedia. I think that Cs32 got him more confused by deleting material citing only the (arguable and weaker) basis that an FBI report was a primary source, when in fact, there were many other problems with the material. Not being familiar with Wikipedia, EdLake is not understanding the input being given, and is misinterpreting CS32's input as being opposition to his content or FBI report source. Then Wiki-ny-2007 (who I think has not been involved) reverted CS32's deletions thinking that CS32 was trying to suppress an idea / theory. I think that the underlying material that EdLake is trying to put in there is reliably sourceable, but what he wrote has many wiki-problems. Wiki-ny-2007's reversion derailed a process where EdLake had put the material on the talk page to be reviewed and worked on. This is just my take, I could be wrong. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like everyone needs to go back to the talk page. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It looked to me that CS had an agenda in mind. Maybe I'm right, maybe wrong.

This too, shall pass.

22:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-ny-2007 (talk • contribs)

sorry about not signing....., something is hiccupping when I enter the tildes.. wiki-ny-2007

22:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-ny-2007 (talk • contribs)

I agree with

talk

) 00:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I could very well be having trouble understanding Wikipedia policy. The argument is that the FBI Summary report is a "primary source" and cannot be used. But, a "summary" by definition is NOT a "primary source." The "primary sources" would be the original FBI interviews, the anthrax letters and envelopes, the anthrax and possibly the original FBI field reports. And the rules just say that "primary sources" should be used "carefully." Their use is NOT forbidden. I believe I used the FBI Summary very carefully.

Also, at first I just cited pages 56-64 of the Summary report. But then I was told that that wasn't enough. So, I added citations to specific pages for specific quotes. But I was then told that that just made it difficult to read and understand the section. So, I'm going to go back and delete some of the more confusing citations to specific pages. (Added note: I went back, but I couldn't figure out what to delete. Sorry. I'll just leave the deletions to others.)

I'm open to suggestions of how to do things better, but the suggestions so far look to me like I should write things the way someone else would write them and using a different point of view. I don't know how to do that. EdLake (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that "secondary source" refers to something coming from a third party which is at least one step removed from the originating primary source. As both the FBI report and the FBI summary report were generated by the same institution, they are both primary sources, and, as such, must be handled carefully. Use of primary sources on Wikipedia is not forbidden, but care must be taken that they are not given undue weight, and that they are not used via editor-generated analysis or interpretation, which would be considered original research. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a very important point and seemingly needs clarification by administrators. When doing any kind of research or analysis, a "primary source" cannot be an entire government organization. It can only be as I described it: "original FBI interviews, the anthrax letters and envelopes, the anthrax and possibly the original FBI field reports." However, a "primary source" can be interpreted to be an entire government organization if you wish to weigh what "they" say against what someone else says, giving both equal weight. But, is that the Wikipedia way? EdLake (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

An example might be relevant here: How do we weigh the DOJ/FBI's Summary report against The Washington Post information about the hidden message in the media letters? The Post says:

"The new documents also suggest for the first time that Ivins, who was known to have a fascination with hidden codes and ciphers, might have sent a hidden message in the handwritten labels on the anthrax envelopes sent to NBC anchor Tom Brokaw." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021902369.html

and in their illustration they say:

"Investigators isolated the bold letters and got an A and two T's. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/02/20/GR2010022000200.html

The hidden message was NOT in handwritten labels on the envelopes, and it did NOT consist of only an A and two T's. I pointed out that both of those statements by the Post are WRONG. Is that an "original analysis" on my part? Or is it simply clear to anyone looking at the DOJ/FBI's report that the Post was careless and wildly misinterpreted the facts presented by the FBI/DOJ? Is the Post to be given equal or greater weight anyway because they are a "secondary source?" Am I showing bias by stating that the Post was wrong? Or am I showing care to make sure no one believes the Post's errors? EdLake (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ed: the reason this summary is considered a primary source here is that it's the FBI's summary of their own investigation. In other words, it's not the FBI evidence viewed through another set of eyes -- it's the FBI investigators summing up the evidence that they found themselves. It's as if I wrote a report on my own investigation into the attacks and then published a synopsis of my own report. The fact that it's a "summary" doesn't change the fact that it comes from the same original research that the report itself was based on. If a newspaper or journal then analyzed my report and published their summary of what I found, that summary would constitute a secondary source. I don't think I agree that an entire government bureau cannot be considered a primary source. In this case it seems implausible that the authors of the summary report are far enough removed from the initial investigation to make them a secondary source.

talk

) 15:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing if your interpretation of "primary source" is the interpretation of most editors or the administrators of Wikipedia. Either way, the rules do not FORBID the use of "primary sources," they only advise that "primary sources" be used "carefully" - which I did. EdLake (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I also have no way of knowing if everything I'm adding to the anthrax article will be someday totally deleted because one editor believes it's "primary source" material that was not used "carefully." I'm putting a lot of time and effort into updating the article with new information released on February 19, 2010. I'd hate to see it all go to waste. EdLake (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, there is never any guarantee that some editor in the future won't object to the some previous edit -- that's rather the nature of the beast -- but if the information is well-sourced and pertinent, other editors will, presumably, revert those edits and restore the material. There's no guarantee of that, though, and no possible way that a guarantee can be issued. If you don't want to contribute under those circumstances, then you shouldn't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not worried about people deleting things, I'm worried about arguing with people who are using totally illogical and irrational arguments. See below:

Here is Wikipedia's definition of "primary source" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source which agrees with MY definition:

"Primary source is a term used in a number of disciplines to describe source material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied.[1]

"In historiography, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study. If created by a human source, then a source with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Similar definitions are used in library science, and other areas of scholarship. In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person.

Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources, though the distinction is not a sharp one. "Primary" and "secondary" are relative terms, with sources judged primary or secondary according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied.[2][3]"

So, the arguments I'm seeing here disagree with Wikipedia's definition (and every other definition) of "primary source."

A simple question might help clear things up for me: In the anthrax attacks article, in the section about the National Academy of Sciences review, there is an interview of Dr. Henry Heine by the New York Times. Who is the "primary source" and why? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks#National_Academy_of_Sciences_Review EdLake (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the question needs to be a little more complex. If the person being interviewed by the New York Times is the "primary source," why isn't the person being interviewed by the FBI also the "primary source?" EdLake (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually no, the arguments conform to WP policy because:

"Primary" and "secondary" are relative terms, with sources judged primary or secondary according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied.

If the FBI summary of the FBI report had been done by an outside organization, or, possibly, even by another disconnected agency of the government, such as a Senate investigative committee, it would be a secondary source; but since it was created by the same agency, with presumably the same precepts and prejudices, it's not. It might even be acceptable as a secondary source if it was generated by a semi-independent arm of the same agency, such as an ombudsman or an inspector general. Is any of these the case? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, it looks to me that this discussion should be taking place on the article talk page, in regard to the content dispute, or on

WP:RSN in regard to EdLake's misunderstanding the difference between primary and secondary sources on Wikipedia, as there doesn't appear to be anything for admins to do here, unless someone edits against consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk

) 21:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like a BASIC problem with the definition of "primary source" which only administrators can resolve.

From my perspective, you are being illogical. You are saying that if the FBI interviews Dr. Heine, the FBI is the "primary source." But, if The New York Times interviews Dr. Heine, Dr. Heine is the "primary source" and the New York Times is the "secondary source." And the reason is? Historical context? What "historical context"? Is history different for the FBI than for The New York times? EdLake (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. WP:RSN is yet another discussion page? Could we get some clear decision on where the definition of "primary source" should be ironed out? EdLake (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes,

WP:RSN and raise it there, and discussions with other editors will determine what the current consensus is in regard to your request. I'm almost certain that you will find that you are wrong in your interpretation, and that both the original FBI report and the subsequent FBI summary are primary sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned -- that is, after all, what a number of editors have told you here already. Beyond My Ken (talk

) 01:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Zombie433 keeps on original research

He is often creating hoax or read wrongly and then create a very wrong information. Other problem is provide a transfer fess but not citing any reliable source, Or he wrote a sum with cite, but the references material itself did not say the sum (

A.C. Rodengo Saiano. And for Mayola Biboko

, the source his cite, just wrote Visé against Union Namur, but he wrote Mayola Biboko current club is Union Namur!

And look at his talk page he receive enough afd and message to warn him. Matthew_hk t c 22:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Zombie433 (talk · contribs) for linking purposes. -- 220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 06:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"often creating hoax"?, Matthew_hk I think you need to provide diffs so we can see what the (AGF)alleged problem is. -- 220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs06:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Zombie433 likes to add imaginary/unsourced playerstats to infoboxes. An example of how he works, look at this: [[221]] he later changes it into this [[222]] when he finds new details of his career. I've posted the real stats here: [[223]] Cattivi (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Still Biboko: he adds 1 cap for Benin [224] (unsourced)in previous edits he added category Camerooniaan footballers (unsourced) These are examples from 1 page I'm afraid there arre many, many more to be found with the number of edits this user makes. Cattivi (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

moreover, i think he had many socket puppet, or the group of accounts are used by a group of people. Matthew_hk t c 13:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting allegation. Do you have any evidence to support this? Can you, at least, provide a list of accounts? MER-C 13:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have only this account and an account in the German wikipedia, not more. I am knows not one people outside from here. I knows only the people like you (Matthew) from the History or talk page. t Zombie433 12:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't socket. It's sock, as in the sock-based puppet you wear on your hand.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 22:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I will collect info on sockpuppet on separate request. Focus on original research. I will check every recent edit (may be 500) and made a list on his talk page and here. Matthew_hk t c 23:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Resolved

– BLP violation removed, no block is coming, OTRS is handling the rest. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

[225] What do you guys think? Indef block or not? -- œ ^™ 03:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Aren't editors meant to be given an opportunity to withdraw the statement or something like that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I just added the NLT warning template to the talk page; it seems to me he should be warned before being blocked. Actually, for that matter, you need to notify him that there is a discussion here pertaining to him; I'll go do that now.Qwyrxian (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm no softie as far as NLT is concerned, but in this case it seems that he actually has a good case on the merits, and isn't familiar with how our system works. I don't think a block is necessary at the moment, as long as he withdraws the threat it should be fine.

talk

) 03:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I posted a helpful link on his talk page. I also revised the information as one of the sources provided was from user-submitted blog content and therefore not reliable. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

But if there is no retraction in 24-48 hours, a block is not unreasonable, as I see it.
WP:NLT is a big deal. Jusdafax
04:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Judasfax. It's a very big deal; this isn't just an interpretive reaction to some unimportant vague wiki guideline.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this a textbook case of the relevance of

WP:DOLT? 70.120.175.157 (talk

) 04:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. And I see the user in question has re-edited [226] what I presume is this article about him. Since he still may not fully grasp the importance of responding/retracting his threat, and appears to have a strong desire not to have some particular sourced information about him in this article, I'll see if I can't leave a message on his page that will make it clear that his statement is a matter of concern. Jusdafax 05:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It seems exactly like that (

WP:DOLT) to me. The information User:Burpelson AFB added was completely wrong--he misread one source, and the other was a personal blog that he had to withdraw. It's reasonable the User:Oepps, assuming he is in some way involved with the subject in real life, might have had a serious concern about an error in the subject's BLP. Furthermore, since (according to my understanding) blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, and since we have no indication that User:Oepps is intending to continue making legal threats, I don't see any reason for a block here. Qwyrxian (talk

) 05:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree and noted, and so I am writing my statement to the subject with that added perspective. Thanks Qwyrxian. Jusdafax 05:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE With what I hope is a firm yet tactful statement [227] I hope for a fast resolution so that all parties are satisfied. Qwyrxian correctly observes the blocks are not supposed to be punitive, and yet

WP:NLT is why this was reported. If the user shows up here, says they understand the issue and won't do it again, fine. If not, well... I'm not sure doing nothing at all is an option. As I see it the part we are concerned with is "Legal action will be taken..." Jusdafax

05:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the common sense approach would be to block the user for NLT (while making it clear they'll be unblocked as soon as they withdraw the threat), but at the same time do whatever it takes to either source or remove the objectionable content from the article. Just because a user is blocked for legal threats doesn't mean we can't see if their claims have any merit. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC).

Nah, the common-sense approach is not to make a mountain of a molehill. The IP was right, they were removing BLP violations, the other users involved have apparently understood that the info was wrong and the BLP violations are gone now. Case solved. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite so sure... but I'm leaning away from a block, at this moment. Jusdafax 09:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Nah don't block. I'm handling the content side of it via OTRS. I can certainly understand why the subject was angry - content was restored under the guise of "being sourced", despite the fact that the sources didn't say the things that we did. I believe the issue is resolved now. Daniel (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Good, glad that's settled via OTRS. Suggest an admin or really confident regular at this board give this the big ol' green checkmark then. Jusdafax 11:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved

Ummm, User:Oepps is still edit warring over the reference. Can we get the page protected for the time being? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise has protected it. It would really help if people didn't keep restoring unreliably sourced info, especially where the subject is complaining. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I saw another legal threat here from him

Yo

14:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And I saw a load of BLP violations from established editors who should know better. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. –MuZemike 14:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

But with a revert and a block, both have been taken care of. Blocking for legal threats is not a punishment: "it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels". S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That probably wasn't necessary. As I said above, I'm corresponding with the subject via OTRS. They are very understandably pissed off that users, experienced users, are restoring clear BLP violations cited to references that don't include the content that they're referencing. I ask that you unblock the user. Daniel (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, correspondence or not, the way to deal with BLP violations is to discuss, not edit war and make legal threats, and the user had already had

WP:NLT explained to them, and policy states that if he wants to pursue the legal route he cannot edit in the mean time. If he wants to discuss the content in wikipedia, then he can retract the threat and discuss it. He cannot do both. S.G.^(GH) _ping!

15:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the way to deal with BLP violations is to remove them. Period. A number of editors, including an adminstrator, restored unsupportable material - they are the serious problem here, not an article subject (or representative) who is understandably annoyed. CIreland (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Or you could just add a different source such asthis one which directly reference the contested information. --Smashville^talk 15:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly the high quality sources mentioned in the BLP policy, when you look closely. I notice the same source from a year earlier source credits "Celebrity Baby Blog reader Tomika" for the information. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Where does

WP:V? --Smashville^talk

18:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

From BLP: "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources." V does not have that instruction. Active Banana (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. And if a piece of info from a source of questionable or unknown reliability, such as a celebrity gossip site, is contradicted explicitly by the article subject, and the piece of info is of a personal, private kind and of next to no public encyclopedic value, the safer choice is to decide that the source must be unreliable rather than that the subject is lying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've went ahead and unblocked Oepps (very irritably, mind you), knowing that this is being handled via OTRS. I just hope he doesn't continue to intimidate and/or harass others like he has been doing. –MuZemike 15:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I made it pretty clear he needs to stop that in future edits or he'll be reblocked, and I probably won't be able to help get him unblocked if it happens again. That being said, and as I told him, now that the article is locked in the proper state and there's a large admin contingent watching the article (I hope), he probably won't have to edit Wikipedia again in relation to this issue. Daniel (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone posted a note on my talk page that I was being discussed here... I already knew about this thread, I even posted to it up above. I modified the entry and posted an appropriate link for the OTRS team to the talk page of Oepps. He revised the entry somewhat to remove the name of some ex girlfriend and I figured that would resolve it, guess I was wrong!

EDIT: Interesting... if you look at the last entry on the associated article talk page, it looks like this has been going on for like 2 years. This is exactly the kind of thing that would benefit from flagged revisions, or whatever we're calling it now. This could have turned into another Ron Livingston, kudos to OTRS for resolving it. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

With respect, when a non-autoconfirmed account is correcting information, and one sysop, two reviewers, one rollbacker, and another editor with nearly a thousand edits are all blindly reverting and one of the reviewers is even warning the editor for vandalism, I'm not sure what difference flagged revs would have made. What would help is if everyone paid particular attention to the content and references, and to

WP:BLP, when they see someone complain about a BLP, instead of reaching first for the revert and block buttons. -- zzuuzz ^(talk)

21:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The BLP violations were all inserted by Anon IPs. The IPs were whining about their BLP violations being removed from the article as long ago as 2008. Flagged revisions would have prevented them from being seen by the general public, would have likely prompted them to be reviewed more closely and removed, and perhaps none of this would have happened in the first place. Anyway, I'm glad it was resolved. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mac

Mac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nudecline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
)

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

As the admin who ended up processing the above SPI request, I'm requesting the input of the community in determining what action should be taken. These users are suspected of being the same person in the above sockpuppet investigation. (Nopetro == Nudecline by own admission.) There are substantial evidence of them being the same user:

The following observations by Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs), which I am quoting verbatim from the SPI case:

“

I think these are socks. User:Nukeless was also suspected. I've made some charts to show editing from all four accounts. Same timezones, patterns, interests.

The contributions also fit very well together. Take a look at June 30, 2008 in the more detailed summer 2008 chart. On that day, Mac was mostly editing, except for some spells when Nopetro was editing. They both voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. presidential candidates position on plug-in hybrids within minutes of each other. An even better example is June 24, 2008. On this day, Mac was editing from 0541 pretty much continuously until 1357, except for a one-hour gap from 1003 to 1108. On the same day, Nopetro was editing from 1006 to 1106. Given their shared interests and common editing times, I don't think this is a coincidence. I think all four accounts are piloted the same user.

”

The following observations by Good Olfactory (talk · contribs), which, again, I am quoting verbatim from here:

“

User:Mac had a habit of creating improbable redirects that ended up getting deleted. These tended to be about "alternative energy" topics. Some of the last ones the user created on 10 November 2008 were All-back-contact solar cell, Silicon solar cells, Carbon dioxide emissions reduction, etc.

After that, nothing is deleted from either account until 1 December 2008, when User:Nopetro's creation of Solar Roadways is deleted, which was also a redirect. Later in 2009, Nopetro's redirects of Green garage and Lithium-ion phosphate are deleted.

I perhaps overstated in my offhand comments when I said that this alone is enough to convince me. I should clarify—I personally wouldn't be comfortable blocking the users for sockpuppetry based on this evidence alone. I guess what I really meant to say was that this is further evidence that they may be the same, and that a checkuser could probably be justified, because this evidence, combined with the other points initially made in the CU regarding improbable energy-related redirects, is enough to raise my suspicions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

”

The overlap in pages edited between Mac and Nopetro includes a whopping 782 pages, including 730 articles. This is something I have never seen before in two users with ~20k and ~10k edits, respectively.

I requested input from others at SPI on what action, if any, should be taken; however, none appears to be forthcoming, hence this posting.

talk

) 06:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

- Yeah, I saw that at SPI, but really the information set is so huge... I'll check back tomorrow, and see what we can figure out. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a very sad situation where an editor who has contributed very low quality content to WP has evaded an indef block and continued to struggle on. But in doing so he is continuing to damage the project, so he must be stopped. Johnfos (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If all this is confirmed, as I believe it will be, this sickening case of abusive editing should of course be blocked asap, then banned asap. A flagrant misuse of editing privileges, and reading this fills me with disgust... a slap in the face to those who play by the rules. And if I seem over-angry, it's because, in my opinion, it now gives those editors here with a genuine interest in alternative energy topics a whiff of taint, which this cheating editor failed to think about before committing wiki-fraud. Throw the book at 'im. Jusdafax 08:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Here appeared the real problem: I am editing about "alternative energy" (this only can be said by a person that thinks that petroleum is the main energy and the other ones are only residual). The real problem is that Wikipedia is better petrified. All new edits can be considered a risk for people that wants that the real world and the encyclopedia do not have any evolution. I have also created and written in other article, but of course, to say only the part that interest, they are not mentioned. They also write about "alternative energy" (i.e. Camry Hybrid), but do not like other contributions (Wikipedia is theirs), not to Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The have been some tries before by some of the same that writes here, but I was declared innocent. But they have the eternal right to same the same thing, specially if they think that non-neutral articles are good for the encyclopedia (and that they don not have mistakes - I can give some of caused by them). Or accusse people of suckpuppetry if they edit the same page (sic!). On the other hand, there are shame lynch calls to "friend" editors from one of them. --Nudecline (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

To quote an editor responding to you on your talk page: "Your response is very cryptic at best." Let me get this straight... do you deny you also edit under "Mac" and another name, "Nukeless"? I understand that you say you have edited as "Nopetro". The evidence against you that I've read seems quite solid, but it is really important that we get it right, since we are talking about major issues here. Jusdafax 10:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Tim for raising this here. I've been following this editor and this case closely over the past few weeks so I guess I ought to weigh in. After much attention to his various edit histories, and much thought, I've come to the conclusion that the only way he would be a net positive for the project is if editors continue to watch him and clean up his ill-advised edits on a regular basis. If not, the harmful stuff will just pile up to the point where it becomes a huge task to clean. Anyone who's been following my CfD work on his categories will know what I mean. I'm amazed that he got away with it as long as he did, over a period of years. I've successfully nominated dozens of his categories for deletion or merging, usually unopposed (except at times by Nopetro himself). What we need are editors who can police themselves, who can learn when not to create or do something. Over the years, he still gives no sign of being able to do this. And that is a key point, imo. This doesn't seem to be a situation where someone is willing to be tutored, either (not that I'd be volunteering for the job). Even in the face of inanely wrong,
talk
) 14:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well... still waiting for a reply to my direct question to them above, and for any additional confirmation about the socks. As I say, if the stuff about the multiple identities voting in Afd's etc. is proved to be true, we have no choice but to throw the book and throw it hard, at least as I understand it. I thank you Shawn, and as you note, 'Tim' (I assume up mean the OP here) and the others taking the time in this issue. Jusdafax 17:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, Tim is me. (Hint: check my username)

talk

) 18:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'd never noticed him voting simultaneously in AfDs, I must say. He seemed to me assuming these identities sequentially. 18:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate response is indef block. Block evasion and ongoing disruption, even with good faith on the part of the evader, isn't ok. The community has spoken on the acceptability of the contributions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm more interested in hearing how this person, if all the accounts really are them, has engaged in abusive sockpuppetry. It looks like they votestacked once or twice, which isn't good, but is there a longstanding pattern of abusive sockpuppetry? I think the quality concerns are somewhat subjective, as the
<>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk
) 18:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If he could be mentored by someone, I for one would be okay with trying this approach. I don't think it will prove successful. His comments above are a good indication of the level of incoherence, one that I suspect goes beyond a mere language barrier, but if people want to try, sure. I would not have prodded Child computer, either. The editor can usefully add content: problem is, he's caught between a lack of basic competence in English, and pasting copyrighted text to circumvent that. What are we to do: teach him English? More seriously, imo, is what happens when he moves into logical thinking related to category structure. Then it really gets wild and woolly.
talk
) 18:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with
WP:COMPETENCE in the past contributions. The sock charges might go away if User:Mac would confess everything and apply for unblock under his main account. However I would not favor that unblock. The following remark, from one of the CfD pages, could be a veiled confession: "I have announce in my page that I use my right to change my name to Nudecline. Of course this is not sock of any class, as the mentioned Mac, that is also closed. This is your bad faith." This conveniently overlooks his evasion of the indef block on Mac. EdJohnston (talk
) 19:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know where he's from? Maybe we could steer him towards improving the wiki in his native language. I've had a look at a few of his article contributions and he is submitting some good topics. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He speaks Spanish and I think may be a Spaniard. He has been active on the Spanish-language version. I know this from following some of his interlanguage links.
talk
) 00:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Constructive and compassionate thoughts, and there may indeed be some hope in this somewhere, but the lack of a reply looks increasingly like my direct questions above to the subject, regarding full disclosure of their sock identities (or a flat denial), may go unanswered. Standing by. Jusdafax 01:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletiion of spam advertising edit

Please can the following be deleted as it is just a spam advert [228] many thanks. --Lucy-marie (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing in there that needs deletion. Deletion isn't supposed to used for trying to clean up edits otherwise there would be a lot of things here that could be cleaned up. Normally spam edits aren't deleted unless they could compromise the integrity of an individual or something more serious.

talk

) 23:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

block review of admin fastily's indef block of Threeafterthree

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

Block length reduced and the editor is currently unblocked and editing. There's been narrow interest in enacting another block without further problematic actions by the editor. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have had a look at this indefinite block of

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedily overturn block: I agree that this is a far too extreme reaction. I haven't looked in great detail at the edits, but based on the discussion, the edits did not appear particularly severe, the user was never warned as far as I can see, and the user also has an extensive history of making minor constructive edits. Unless I am missing something drastic, I believe this block should be speedily overturned and the user warned. If problems persist, by all means reinstate a block: but a fairly short one. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. Your comment "the user was never warned as far as I can see" may have misled editors. He was warned. Multiple times. He simply prefers–as is his right–to delete warnings from his talk page. That may, understandably, have misled you into thinking he was not warned.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I did also take a quick look over the history and didn't see any warnings; could you provide diffs of these warnings? In any case, my intention was not to confuse other editors, and I would hope that anyone commenting on such a serious matter would check for themselves rather than going by what I've observed, which may or may not be correct. Diffs would certainly be helpful to show recent warnings, however. But in any case this doesn't change my view that the indefinite block was overkill. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand how you could miss them, if you didn't look at his talk page edit history deletions. He removed his warnings from public view. If you look at his deletions the very day of his block, the following fairly jumps out at you: June 17 warning for deleting talk page contents, June 17 warning, and June 17 final warning. The fact that nobody corrected you suggests that nobody noted Three had indeed been warned three times the very same day before he committed his last offense (again deleting the comments of another editor, who disagreed with him, from an article talk page). All people had to go on was your (good faith) incorrect assertion that he appeared not to have received proper warnings.

Three has been blocked for the same "editing/deleting other editors' talk page comments" before. Certain editors have made bald assertions seeking to characterize Three's efforts as otherwise helpful, suggesting that his six blocks don't reflect disruptive activity. But one need only look at his recent post-block behavior to see the opposite is true.

As by DD2K on May 17 "Tom, you need to quit altering other users comments and self-revert. This is not helpful to the project at all, and using the excuse you are using (notaforum) is not backed up by the facts. Just stop deleting other editors comments unless there are grievous violations (BLP etc).", by Scjessey on May 17 "Editing the comments of others ... With all due respect, leave my comment alone. It is a perfectly legitimate response to specific requests for a criticism section. ... selectively removing my comments will not be tolerated" and "Virtually all of the WP:FORUM-related deletions you make are directed toward points of view you obviously disagree with", and Dayewalker on May 17 "Scjessey's comment does deal with the criticism section... Picking one comment from a larger section, and then removing it three times seems one-sided. In any case, Scjessey's comments do actually address the article."

Clearly, these comments from just last month reflect an editor who, having been warned and blocked for removing others' talkpage comments, happily continued his disruptive activity.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There was yet a sixth editor who warned Three within the past month not to remove other editors' comments from article talk pages. Prior to Three doing exactly that, leading to his block. That editor wrote to Three on May 17: "Advice:- do not touch other editors comments unless there is some massive major issue, if there is not, which is the case in this instance then do not touch them, have a quiet word with the editor and say, keep it on topic mate." The warning editor? Off2riorob—the nom here, who said in his nomination that "looking through his edit history there looks to be a degree of constructive contributions". Curiously, Off2 failed to mention his own warning to Three for precisely the same behavior. As well as the other 5 warnings on precisely the same point. I'm puzzled.

In short, we have two editors commenting above, in a 21-minute period. One incorrectly asserting that Three had not been recently warned. The other claiming Three had a constructive edit history, while failing to mention the 6 warnings (including his) to Three in the prior month. for the same infractions.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This gets uglier. There was yet a 7th editor who warned Three within the past month not to remove other editors' comments from article talk pages. Prior to Three doing exactly that, leading to his block. Brendan19 wrote to Three on June 12: "I noticed that one of the five blocks on your log is for ... repeatedly removing legitimate talk page comments. Since you recently tried (in vain) to delete my legitimate comment from a talk page I thought I would weigh in here. I agree with the others above who suggest not touching the comments of other editors. It's only going to cause problems for you in the future."--Epeefleche (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this is certainly no personal criticism of Fastily, I have had some interaction with this sysop in the past and I have never had an objection with any of his actions that I've seen, but we all make mistakes and I think he acted a little rashly here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reblocked for 72 hours. Removing talk page comments is something that Threeafterthree has done before and has been warned about, and 72 hours is an escalation of their recent block of edit warring. An indef block for removing two questionable talk page comments is not a proportional response. Fences&Windows 21:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Block was proper, and revert was improper. I think the original block was completely deserved [though I now agree to it being scaled back to a 3-month block]. Three was blocked a number of times before. Included has been a block for precisely the same behavior that he was warned of here, and continued to engage in, vis-a-vis multiple editors on the same day. He is too experienced, and has been warned and blocked too many times, to be excused as a newbie. Or for this to be seen as anything other than intentional, callous disregard for wiki rules and intentional disruption—yet again. This is intolerable behavior. Not someone who should be coddled.

Three has been blocked variously for 24 hours, 48 hours, 55 hours, 1 week, and 1 month prior to Fastily's block. See below, as to Three's block history.

June 17, 2010 Fastily blocked Threeafterthree with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Disruptive editing)
March 16, 2009 CIreland blocked Threeafterthree with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule: at Sean Hannity)
November 13, 2008 Tiptoety blocked Threeafterthree with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring: 3RR violation on Barack Obama. Continued disruptive pattern of behavior)
October 27, 2008 Papa November blocked Threeafterthree with an expiry time of 55 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing: Reverting other users' edits more than 3 times in a 24 hour period at Sarah Palin)
September 9, 2008 Ice Cold Beer blocked Threeafterthree with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (3RR, repeatedly removing legitimate talk page comments)
November 20, 2006 Jayjg blocked Threeafterthree with an expiry time of 1 month ‎ (evading blocks with sockpuppets etc., creepy anti-Jewish feel to edits)
- I warned Epeefleche for incivility and treating Wikipedia as a battleground before he posted here. My reblock is of course open to review, but by independent parties, not those directly involved in content disputes. I have also posted a note about the Palestine-Israel arbitration enforcement at Talk:Helen Thomas. Fences&Windows 21:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Incivility? Treating Wikipedia as a battleground? I'm criticizing you for dialing back another sysop's block, on a repeat offender, who has been blocked and warned a multitude of times. And that's your response? I'm sorry if you're offended by my questioning your judgment. But that is not uncivil. Nor is it inappropriate. First you take your above actions, and now you compound them by trying to bully an editor who criticizes your actions?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"I warned Epeefleche for incivility and treating Wikipedia as a battleground before he posted here." Note the key word: "before". This was a note to make clear that my warning on your talk page about treating Wikipedia as a battleground and for what I saw as incivility was done before you criticised my change of the block and was not done as a retaliation to your criticism; I was not attempting to bully you. Your criticism of me here is of course allowed (though you are an involved editor, so it will hold less weight than the view of uninvolved editors) and I was not trying to suggest that you were attacking me or being uncivil. Fences&Windows 01:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

First, if your "warning" was unrelated to this, then why are your cluttering this ANI with reference to it? Second, I don't recall you ever making an appropriate warning to me. Just the opposite. You seek to let off a 6-time blocked editor, who was amply warned multiple times by multiple editors the day of his block—but at the same time you warn the person who reported him for using the (children, shield your eyes here) word "pup"? That's funny. Third, I think your down-sizing this block from indef to three days, where the editor had half a dozen prior blocks including one for one month, based on only 21 minutes of discussion, is not appropriate. Fourth, only two editors got comments in within those 21 minutes, and one was dead wrong in what he said, while the other failed to reveal his own warning. That makes your action even more untenable.

Fifth, I see no way to interpret your mention of a "warning"--likely as baseless as your closing of this discussion was rushed, that is not related to this discussion as anything other than a transparent effort to bully. Sixth, your posting of the above note followed directly and replied to my criticism of your actions. Your attempt to de-link the two is belied by the timing of my comment, your follow-up comment, and the fact that yours is cast as a reply, directly below mine and indented from it. Your reply is either unrelated (I give you more credit than that), or an effort to bully. Seventh, your effort to deter me from commenting was poor form, as in matters such as these interested parties are notified so that they can provide input. That has the salutary effect of keeping sysops from making decisions in 21 minutes of such monumentally disparate impact, with the only input being from two editors, one of whom mis-stated the facts dramatically. This wiki approach of course accords with that of courts of law in the Western world—we don't say, "we prefer to have evidence from those people who were not witnesses to the scene, as they are therefore unlikely to raise actual facts rather than mis-state facts".

In sum, I think your dramatic revision of another sysop's block was not appropriate, was made in a manner consistent with one trying to close off dissent, was based on only two editors' comments (one of which was blatantly incorrect), was followed by your bringing up a likely improper "warning" you placed that is either irrelevant or an attempt to bully me, and which was accompanied by your suggesting you did not want me—one of the wronged editors—to comment. What court of law says victims can't testify?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

- Also note that Fastily has posted to say they are on a wikibreak for several days, or I would have discussed this with them before changing the block. Changing an action is not wheelwarring; reverting my new block without discussion would be. Fences&Windows 22:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The block was severe for the edits. I hardly think your description of 3after3 as a master edit warrior is fair either and he does imo attempt to stay within the rules, he is hardly making the wiki wheels drop off. His block log is here, he has only had one 48 hour block in the last eighteen months, to assert that indefinite is appropriate is totally excessive.

Off2riorob (talk

) 22:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled, Off2. Put aside for the moment that Three has already been blocked half a dozen times. Including for the same infraction. The longest block being a month. You, Off2, were one of the 7 editors who warned him in the month prior to his latest infraction that it was improper for him to delete other peoples' comments on article talk pages. You did this in the midst of a discussion in which others warned Three with regard to the same thing—so obviously you were aware of their warnings. Yet, rather than mention here that Three was warned by 7 different editors, including you, for precisely this infraction—in the month prior to his committing it yet again here, leading to his block—you not only fail to reveal that, but in fact pooh-pooh his disruptive activity? I'm not sure where you are coming from.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Like Sox below, your math is off. His last block was 15 months ago- almost breaking his record long time w/out being blocked (21 months), but let's also remember that on 2 separate occasions he has only gone about a month between blocks. --Brendan19 (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)Note also that the last block in that log was over a year ago and all of the blocks have been short-period, for relatively minor offenses (we can't see the circumstances surrounding the 3RR violations without digging into his contribution history, but there is doesn't seem to be any indication that this user is a long-term offender, as I can see many positive contributions in his recent history. I believe that Fences' speedy overturn was appropriate (as I suggested above), and that a ~~72-hour block period is suitable~~ (changed my mind about the block period, see below). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no comment to make at this time about the original block, but reverting an admin action under review at ANI without waiting for a consensus is improper, imo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment (
WP:IAR can be made to apply here. If consensus overturns the reversal by Fences then fair enough, but in the meantime it seems very extreme. Again, I certainly do not believe that Fastily intended to cause an issue, but I do believe he was a bit hasty with the indefinite block. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]
22:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Support – Reduction in block length to 72 hours.
Off2riorob (talk
) 22:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose – Reduction in block length made after 21 minutes discussion, by 2 editors (one of whom was Off2, the nom, and above voter), with one of those editors dramatically mis-stating the facts of the case (as there were in fact warnings), to an editor with half a dozen blocks under his belt, including for the same behavior, the longest of which was one month.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved, but I agree with the reduction. Perhaps, under normal circumstances, overturning an admin action under review is improper, but if an admin doles out an *indef* block, and promptly takes a wikibreak, I believe it's the correct course of action. 72 hours will provide enough time for a review and consensus to form. Blocks can then be adjusted again if necessary, although I believe 72 hours will prove to be appropriate. --

HighKing (talk

) 22:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've no problem with the block length reduction. ~~Also, an indef block of an established editor with nothing on their talk page except a template isn't good.~~ (I worded that poorly.) Also, making an indef block on an established user, and leaving nothing on their talk page except a template to explain the block, isn't good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC) reworded 23:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the block length reduction, but we should ask Fastily why he chose to block Threeafterthree indefinitely as opposed to a shorter block. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This really will not do, all these attempts to undermine an entirely proper block. The time has come to take the next logical step, and block all content editors. In particular, long term editors with established track records of useful contributions should be blocked immediately. Some of those creatures actually expect to be treated with some basic human decency; others have expressed dangerous views, even, gasp, challenging the view of an administrator. This must stop. Pre-emptive action should be taken by blocking wantabe content editors who signal their intention by creating an account. It is from precisely this group that future trouble makers arise. Wikipedia doesn't need these people, who seem to think mere content matters, and clearly do not understand that administrators are elected by the RfA, an infallible process which elects the true elect only. It is time to get real and get things back in proportion, restoring to all administrators their rightful glory, and putting an end to those who would question them. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That's absolutely ridiculous. The encyclopedia is built with content editors; blocking them all would lead to the downfall of the project. If we had no content editors, all of the articles on Wikipedia would stay nearly the same, with no new articles added that had significant content in it. That would defeat the purpose of the wiki, block useful constructive editors, cause other editors to retire because of this, discourage newcomers from joining the wiki, and overall produces a bad look of the wiki to the general public if we disallow content editors. If we block the editors all, who are the admins to "govern"? The answer to that question would be "no one", as we would have the rest of the wiki left. Go discuss all about policy if the rest of the wiki wishes to; if we have no content editors, our articles will not be vastly improved if need be, and we will not have lengthy articles about current and important subjects, making the discussion of policy absolutely pointless. Your logic is also flawed: Just because one content editor may have these "dangerous" views does not mean that every content editor would have these views. To summarize: Epipelagic, you are welcome to your ideas, but they seem completely unreasonable. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

My problem with Epipelagic's edit is that I have no idea which parts are sarcastic and which parts are not. This is why it's generally best to state your views clearly. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Um, MC10, I believe that was sarcasm (which works

really well on the internet. --Floquenbeam (talk

) 01:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Epipelagic has a point. We should do as he says–except, that we should unblock immediately all editors who have at least half a dozen blocks against them, ranging in time up to one month. Faced with the facts (annoying as they are), let's ignore them, and knight Three a "productive editor". Surely, that will counter-act his multiple blocks, and umpteen warnings At the very least, it may confuse other editors, who take us at our word. And, oh yes–let's characterize complaints as to the deletion of multiple editors' comments on article talk pages as a mere "content dispute". We must remember to confuse the masses.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment SNOW close of this conversation since rob brought it forth and is alright with the 72 hour block. I don't think anyone is arguing that a block should happen here, only the time frame. Since that's been changed, let's move on. Three is on thin ice but hasn't cracked through quite yet. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

~~Agree~~. Given the circumstances and involvement of the only editor who is opposing the decision to reduce the block, as well as the clear support for the reduction, I believe this can now be closed per
WP:SNOWBALL. Epeefleche is clearly adamant in defending the indefinite block, but given that he was heavily involved in the most recent incident and the only argument he's provided is that it was reduced after a short consensus discussion, I think the much clearer, ~~not~~ now longer consensus discussion in favour of the reduction is evidence enough that his reasons for opposing the reduction are not per policy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]
08:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If Epipelagic's edit was sarcastic, well, it didn't help much. Sarcasm is

so easily detected on the Internet. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L

) 01:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess it was sarcasm. This is another one of Epipelagic's comments. My fault that I took his comment too seriously. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame the timing is such that Fastily is not here to participate. He does good work, and I had hoped this could be resolved with much less drama. There was much history that could indicate that Threeafterthree was a long term disruptive influence, so I can see how Fastily could conclude that an indef block might be appropriate. I, on the other end of the spectrum, interpreted the facts differently and chose not to block. Consensus seems to be somewhere in-between. I think it best to treat this as a case of reasonable people disagree, but the system still works. – Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment An indef block, absent consensus for a ban, plus a wikibreak template, is a de facto admission by the blocking admin that someone else may have to reexamine the block. A block log that's been clean for 18 months is a good sign that simply escalating past block lengths is probably not the best solution. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I expect that anytime a sysop goes on wikibreak he believes that his colleagues will pick up in his absence. We on this page have people being blocked for three months for their first violation. For this fellow's sixth, we dial it back from indef to time served? There is a wide span between 72 hours and indef. That such a short timeframe should be applied, reverting another sysysop, makes the reverting sysop's choice of "term" especially dubious in my view.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You could talk all day and all night and there would be no support for an indefinite block for this issue. I see you are still objecting to the reduction... I see you mention poor form and an unpleasant odor regarding the reduction but I also see other issues, Fastily after the block left a message on your talkpage letting you know about the block and requesting your help when the shit storm starts..Just indeffed Tom for disruptive editing per your report. Would appreciate some support when all hell breaks out. Thanks, .you then (I assume) saw that it was wrong of Fastily to put the request for help to defend the block on your talkpage and you trimmed this part of his comment Would appreciate some support when all hell breaks out. and you then added your battlefield style reply of Thanks. One down; it's a start. .. all in all a dubious exchange at best, you were warned quite rightly for the one down battle-fielding comment by the Administrator that you are complaining about still now and imo you should have a look round and see that there is no support for a longer block. I don't think we have looked at Fastily's comment yet but he was clearly expecting hell to break out and was preemptively requesting your assistance to defend his poor block. In some cases the shit storm you imagine can be the boomerang coming back.

Off2riorob (talk

) 08:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your prognostication.

I'm curious. You were well aware that Three had been warned three times, the day of his block. Inasmuch as you referred to the discussions detailing the warnings yourself, elsewhere. Why then did you fail to correct the above mistaken statement, supporting your nomination here and directly below your comment, that said the opposite? I'm of course certain that you are seeking to get to the correct NPOV result here. But I'm struggling to understand why then you would let that clear misstatement stand.

As to the banning of editors who have been blocked six times for disruptive behavior, and yet continue it–yes, I believe that that is a good thing. And a start. Clearly, given the level of disruption on wikipedia, and support for certain flagrant repeat offenders who engage in further disruption after receiving three same-day warnings, it is not the entire solution. But it is a start.

While I believe that an indef block (though I view it as appropriate under these circumstances) is a length that can be legitimately discussed, I think a reduction to three days is way out of bounds. I note that your first comment was with regard to discussing the block length. I've no problem with that. I believe, however, that three days is unduly short for a six-time repeat offender, previously blocked for the same behavior, who has received three warnings the day of his fourth same-day violation leading to his ban. On this page, just this week, we banned first-time offenders for one month.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering YOU were the one who warned him, you might wish to retract that part of your statement (lest you appear hypocritical). His last block was 18 months ago, perhaps instead of sitting here shit-stirring you could wait for the blocking admin to return?

Soxwon (talk

) 21:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Check your math, Sox. His last block was 15 months ago and before that it was 4 months, and before that it was less than one month, and before that it was one month, and before that it was 21 months (which has been the longest he has gone without being blocked). Anyone else see a pattern here, or is it just me?--Brendan19 (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was one of the editors who warned Three.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no comment on the merits of the block, but what's up with Fastily disappearing right after performing controversial actions using his admin tools? This is the second time this month his actions have been called into question at this board, and the second time he's gone on wikibreak. AniMate 23:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me both sides here have had their say after raising some reasonable points. I would have to add that, as noted, a three day block seems too short... I have always found Fastily to be a reasonable sort – for an admin ;) – and also look forward to Fastily's return to get some closure. I respectfully suggest to all parties that unless there is further new information that we wait for that to happen, and refrain from further questionable language. Jusdafax 23:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

- I agree with
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 01:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would like to add my two cents. I have noticed a disruptive pattern of editing from 3after3 for some time now and his block log reflects it. He has a long history of antagonizing people and I recently fell victim to it when he deleted my comments from a talk page. Here is the diff of the message I left on his talk page (which he also deleted). How many blocks does it take for this guy to learn a lesson?--Brendan19 (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment I won't pretend I am entirely uninvolved, since I was quoted here admonishing the editor for deleting other editors talk page comments, but there was more than one misstep here, in my humble opinion. First, I respect both admins in this issue(
talk
) 01:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

File:SDBayOverlook.jpg

Gorgeous view from my hotel room

I find the inherent lack of assumption of good faith disturbing – it's the very least I deserve :/ Yes, I really am on vacation – in the wonderful city of San Diego. In regards to the block of Threeafterthree, I blocked indef because I believed that some of the recent behavior by the user had been unacceptable (see diffs provided in the AIV report by Epeefleche) and because this is not the first time Threeafterthree has been blocked for similar infractions. Although Threeafterthree is a great content contributor, I blocked him, regrettably, in the spirit of preventing damage to the project. However, I very much so respect the community's opinions and am more than happy to yield to popular consensus. The original objective of the indef was to get Threeafterthree to stop his unruly behavior in working out the terms for unblock. While my own intentions have been made clear, I would like everyone to know that I have no objection to Fences and windows' block reduction if there is consensus mandating such action. So with that being said, I think I'm going to sign-off and enjoy the rest of my vacation. Best wishes, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fastily, and please enjoy your time in Southern California!

The task before us now is to come to consensus of a block length (though it appears there are some who may think further punishment is unneeded and that we should close this matter, which I very strongly disagree with.) To me, the short version is this: Epeefleche's points, as well as the others who have come forward to complain, seem quite solid, as Threeafterthree has a disturbing repeat pattern of blocks going back to 2006, with mean-spirited edit-warring and talk page comment changing being repeated problems. This user has had more than enough warnings, and clearly has not wanted to learn how to edit within the established rules of Wikipedia. Given the statements here and the past history, I'd say that another one-month block is not unreasonable, with some topic bans worth considering. Jusdafax 08:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jusdafax – 1 month block, but that applied with time served included. And Fastily must see the Zoo. It's much less impressive than most people say, but it does have some amazing creatures. Shadowjams (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree about the 'time served' proviso, and I hear the Zoo is one of the best in the USA. Also Fastily, if you are into sailing ships the Maritime Museum of San Diego will, uh, float your boat. Jusdafax 08:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Just drive north on US 1 in a convertible. There's nothing quite like it. It's that or Thompson it up and head to Vegas. Shadowjams (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Good block, Fastily, good choice of vacation hotel (I live nearby) and drop in on Coronado Brewing Company for a great microbrewery/pub within a half-mile, Miguel's for good Mexican food. Take the ferry across the bay for a few bucks, and walk the waterfront. →Stani Stani 17:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Three Month Block for Threeafterthree. I agree that Three's block should be at least one month (giving him credit for the three days served). However, I think it should be three months, given:

His extensive history of prior blocks (including for the same activity as here). As further partial background, see this 2006 AN/I which followed his 1-month block and considered giving Three a permanent block, this August 2007 AN/I by RyanFriesling, this December 2007 RfC on Three, this October 2008 AN/I that led to a 55-hour block, this November 2008 3RR report by the Magnificent Cleaner-keeper that led to a one-week block by Tiptoety, this December 2008 AN/I complaint by Wikidemon, this January 2009 3RR report by Jimintheatl/warning for edit warring, and this February 2009 AN/I by Hans Adler (complaining inter alia about Three "censoring other editors' comments").
His longest prior block was already one month.
The fact that in the month prior to his latest infraction, Three was (as reflected above) warned directly no fewer than 7 times, by 7 different editors (including Off2riorob), not to remove others' comments from talk pages.[229][230][231][232][233][234][235][236][237] And yet that is precisely what Three did here, yet again, the same day as his most recent warnings.[238]
Three's assertion that he is the founder of Wikipedia may lead some editors to not report him for his disruptive activity. [update: I appreciate Giftiger just now removing that assertion, w/the edit summary "Hoax, misleading for editors.." There have been prior efforts by three other editors to address Three's assertion, including Damiens.rf here and another editor here. Each time they have been reverted by Three as here and here and here, however.]
His effort to attack me for reporting him [I appreciate Fences responding to that effort by writing to Three: "Not to create drama": don't be disingenuous. I'd leave Epeefleche alone if I were you, I see nothing wrong with that statement of his", and Off2 also writing to Three: "Your should avoid that user 100 percent."]
His continued lack of remorse and failure to "get it", as reflected by him writing this: "95% (I'am obviously not perfect like most folks on this project) of my contributions are contructive and I take offense that that is somehow not the case.".
The fact that just yesterday, Three wrote (emphasis added): ""I follow the ANI board, but more for laughs than getting involved, and the amount of total BS/nonsense there is beyond mind boggling. I feel like the 5% on my edits which are contensous are so minor, its laughable").

His failure to "get it", in the face of repeated blocks, repeated recent warnings, and this discussion, could scarcely be more evident. All of this suggests that a 3-month ban would be appropriate. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd try to stick with valid points. Point #4 seems like a non-issue IMHO, I'd say joke or philosophical statement as opposed to disruptive. Point 5 I'm not seeing an attack, he pointed something out to the admin, that admin refocused him. Point 6 is a reasonable attempt to defend his overall editing here. Point 7 the 1st two bold parts are the majority opinion of what happens here at ANI.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Block of one to three months. I think 72 hours is too short. Anything between one month and three months seems more appropriate to me, given his long history of unacceptable behavior. --Brendan19 (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The more I look at this case the more I feel that we have a serious problem here. Claiming to be be a founder of Wikipedia indicates a serious effort at fraud. I now think a three months block is more like it, and I think this merits even more examination for long-term patterns of abuse. User seems to see himself as some kind of anti-agenda crusader.
WP:BATTLEGROUND. Jusdafax
21:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I previously supported the reduction to a 72-hour block, but in view of these claims to have founded wikipedia, I am inclined to support the longer, 3-month block suggested by other users and there is serious indication of fraud here; the fact that these survived up until now also suggests that the thus far quite short blocks are not serving their purpose, and it seems unliekly that another short ban will change that. Jusdafax, I removed the userbox as I had overlooked it when I removed his other assertion to being the founder of wikipedia. I'm not an administrator, but I think this is a pretty clear hoax and potentially damaging if these claims manage to mislead new contributors, so I think that this is pretty uncontroversial. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I haven't followed what happened to trigger this block, but Threeafterthree has been a problematic editor for some time, so a longer block would make sense. He used to make edits that seemed overly focused on Jews. For example, he'd go around removing from bios that people were Jews (see here for several examples), but when the person was in some kind of bother, he'd add that they were Jews (e.g. here). In fairness, he may have done the same thing with other ethnicities, but I don't recall seeing that.
He also posted at least once as an anon IP, but pretended it wasn't him, again making arguably contentious edits about Jews. This is one IP I remember. He said it was a friend of his, and that he was standing over the friend's shoulder as the latter edited; see this exchange. An example of that IP's slightly worrying editing (given the context of Threeafterthree's editing) was to insist that Leo Frank—an American Jew who was lynched after being accused of rape, apparently falsely—was pardoned later, but had not necessarily been wrongly convicted. [239]
He'd also get bees in his bonnets—for example, insisting that links in See also be included in the article or removed entirely, which misses the point of the See also section. For a long time he waged a campaign against See also, removing those sections no matter how useful they were, and reverting when people restored them. It got to the point that I knew when his name appeared on an article that there was going to be a problem. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Block for three months: this discussion is quite disorganised so I thought I'd make my views clear here. Though I still stand by my original request to speedily overturn the block, which Fences actioned and replaced with a 72-hour block, in light of the newer evidence here, I now feel that a 72-hour block will not be sufficient to discourage the sort of behaviour exhibited by this user which resulted in previous blocks, and I am particularly concerned about his claims on his user page that he is the founder of wikipedia. I think a block for three months will give the user more time to consider why his actions have caused these repeated blocks to be levied against him, as well as protecting wikipedia from the continued disruption being caused. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

A block of three months for moving some talkpage comment, give over. The user has had only a single small block in 19 months and you think it is nessesary to protect the wikipedia from him for three months, ease up. He is unblocked anyway which is fair enough and lets give him another chance his alleged issues don't seen worthy of what would a totally excessive long block.

Off2riorob (talk

) 22:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the continued claim to be the founder of wikipedia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If he is the founder I am out of here, I haven't sen it but it must be a joke.

Off2riorob (talk

) 22:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Off2, I recognize you initiated this effort to reduce Three's block. I remain perplexed why you failed to mention that you yourself warned your mate, in the month prior to his latest offense, not to remove editors' talk page comments. Precisely what he was later blocked for here. Could you possibly have thought that less than relevant? Plus, your warning to Three appeared in the middle of a host of other warnings to him for that misbehavior. Surely, you were aware of them as well. Yet, in your many edits on this string, you not only failed to mention Three's misbehavior and many recent warnings, but also now fail to see any problem in Three's edits.

In fact, you above characterized his edits as follows: "looking through his edit history there looks to be a degree of constructive contributions". That could leave us with the impression that you had disinterestedly reviewed Three's comments, and found nothing amiss—just a constructive editor. But surely you were aware that the opposite was evidenced even within this past month. And certainly you know that Three just yesterday reflected a manifest disregard for not only wikipedia's rules, but others' views of his continued breach of them–by writing to you that the breaches he is accused of "are so minor, it's laughable". Yet, now you pooh-pooh others' sensitivity to Three's repeated violations. I'm puzzled.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

He had both a userbox and an explicit statement on his userpage where he claimed in no uncertain terms to be the founder of wikipedia. This could be extremely confusing and damaging for new editors who believe him, and I have a hard time believing that this is a joke: take a look at the diff where I reverted the statement: [240]. There was also a userbox, which I might have accepted as a joke if it wasn't for the separate, explicit statement written as part of his introduction about himself (though even then, the userbox should at least imply that it's not meant to be taken seriously). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi Folks, Can I please start by apologizing to the community for all the different issues that seem to have been unleashed here. Most importantly, I want to say I do get it and will NEVER touch another user's comment(that is how this all started, right?), period. If I have a problem about a user's comment, I will advise an admin or bring it to one of the notice boards for input. Is that fair? As far as founding Wikipedia, that is now removed from my user page and will not return. That was not intended to "intimidate" anybody or trick them. Wow, what else. I have been blocked 6 times now, as has been pointed out over 20 times in this thread unless you missed it, over 5 years and 18,000 edits. I wish that was lower, or even zero, but I have tried to learn from those and do better and stay out of "serious" trouble/conflict. I do remove See also listings if they are already linked in the article,but if people revert, I do try to use the talk pages. Jews? I tried to remove ethnicity from 1,000s of bios where it was placed against MOSBIO. I did have a block, my first (a month) almost 4 years back, but have actually worked well with that admin since. This is a start, thank you, --Tom (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, that should be the end of this now. Blocks are meant to prevent disruption and not be punitive. If says

talk

) 22:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My main concern was with the claim on your talk page that you founded wikipedia, and I am pleased to see that you have specifically addressed this issue and promised not to readd this. I would like to ask, however, why you added this in the first place; I would expect it to be a fairly obvious point that impersonating the founder of wikipedia is a fairly serious violation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It goes to more about what is allowed on one's user page. Does everything on a user page need to be sourced/accurate? --Tom (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

AgF is a presumption that is rebuttable. Three just yesterday wrote his mate Off2 that the breaches he is accused of "are so minor, it's laughable". Yet when I brought to light his complete absence of contrition, one day later--facing a 3-month ban—he suddenly says the exact opposite just now? Which Three am I to believe? The circumstances suggest powerfully that Three is simply gaming the system with the result-oriented goal of reducing his impending ban.

Did he have to be blocked more than six times previously to "get the message"? How many is enough? Did he have to be warned by more than 7 different editors within the month prior to his latest offense? How many warnings is enough?

There's little room, especially given his honest comments yesterday, I believe to view this any other way. I'm not arguing for a permanent ban (though there is room to argue for that). But I think that what has been outlined above strongly supports a 3-month ban (at minimum).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well now. Sure seems to me like you go right back to

WP:BATTLE with that question you post ("It goes more to what is allowed...") about your talk page... hardly the effort of someone who feels humbled before the community, as I see it. And in your opening statement you go right to sarcasm with "I have been blocked 6 times now, as has been pointed out over 20 times in this thread unless you missed it"... here again, a combative, defiant statement with obvious lack of contrition. If this is your attitude in ANI coming off your latest block, I suggest we go back to discussing a longer one for you, because it appears to me that you still haven't learned a thing. Jusdafax

23:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jusdafax, 1)I was going to remove the user box, but was beaten to the punch and said it should be left off since Wikipedia should not be a battleground. I removed another box which could be seen as combative as well, so I do get it. Am I allowed to be a little irked that an editor has been pounding on my block log by pointing it out close to 25 times now in this single section? I think folks get that. I wish we could meet in person since my feelings/contrition are obviously not coming across in my posts/ether, which are not always the most articulate. Also, there really is nothing funny about this since it takes away from improving/working on the project which is what we all want. Do we always agree in lock step? Anyways, if I can anwser or take advice I am open and welcome it. --Tom (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to correct off2riorob and soxwon (see above), but I can see that the correction wasn't noted. 3after3 wasn't blocked 18 or 19 months ago as off and sox suggested. I will say it again...His last block was 15 months ago and before that it was 4 months, and before that it was less than one month, and before that it was one month, and before that it was 21 months (which has been the longest he has gone without being blocked). Anyone else see a pattern here, or is it just me? I would add that I have been on wikipedia since 2006 and I've never had a block. I have also edited at contentious articles, so that shouldn't be a factor. --Brendan19 (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes sorry your right, the last block was 14 or 15 months ago for 48 hrs. So the pattern I see is the the editor improving.

Off2riorob (talk

) 00:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

@Off2--Your mate Three was warned 7 times for the same violation in the past month. Yet he engaged in the same misbehavior again. And then wrote to you yesterday that the breaches he is accused of "are so minor, it's laughable". Not, perhaps, the sort of "improvement" some of us would hope for.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin’s 21:49, 22 June 2010 post mirrors what was on my mind. Given his track history—and while a 72 hour block certainly seems *pretty*—Wikipedia will just get more of the same soon enough after the block expires. A three-month-long block will properly protect the community from what is flat-out, intentional disruption. Greg L (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
A block, certainly, but a timed one, not an indef, please. I find Fastily's reasons for the indef insufficient. Indefs should be used only in dire circumstances: they often bounce back on the project, as you all know. Tony (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC) PS Anger is clearly an issue here, with six blocks, OMG. If admins can stop the block cycle by reducing the user's anger level so that when s/he returns the project is protected, I would applaud that achievement. That is the only lasting solution. Blocks are not working, although a temporary block here is necessary. Tony (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
3 Month – boy, this is really long to read through. I agree with a number of editors here. Dave Dial, oh, I could list many others. So as not to add to the length of this page, let me just say I agree with those seeking the 3 month block, unless the guy convinces people he won't be driving them crazy anymore. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Support 3-month block: I agree that despite what initially appeared to be admission of wrong-doing, I agree with Epeefleche and Jusfadax above, Threeafterthree's comments give me the impression that he is simply playing the system, this being his sixth block, it seems he has learnt that blocks go away if he says he's learnt his lesson. His comments do appear to have immediately returned to being confrontational, and I note also that though he said he won't reinstate the claims that he is the founder of wikipedia, he never did reply when I asked him why he chose to make that claim to begin with. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Per Threeafterthree's comments in this thread It appears like the block has served it's purpose. We have clear indication that he intends to deal with further issues properly. Only time will tell if he follows through, however at this point i'm unconvinced that extending this block is preventative as opposed to punative.--Cube lurker (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As Three himself has pointed out in the past, inasmuch as blocking does prevent disruptive editors from doing further harm, "it serves the purpose". And we also have Three's comments just before on his talk page, to the effect that his infractions "are so minor, its laughable". That is a clear indication that the block and AN/I have not served their purpose in the least. He has been in this situation before, been warned before, and continues to engage in the same conduct. "Only time will tell"? For years now Three has edit warred, reverted, socked, and otherwised disrupted himself into a large number of warnings, AN/I and 3RR appearances, and blocks. "Time" has told.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Leave as an indefinite block To repeat for those who keep forgetting the definition, an indefinite block is simply a block with no set period. It can be lifted in 3 minutes, three months, or never. However, unless things change before then & another Admin believes the right thing to do is lift the block, we should revisit this in three months. Taking this approach reduces the Wikidrama while sending the same message a three-month block would. – llywrch (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Support 3 month block – OK, I admit to a growing sense of futility here. I strongly believe Wikipedia is broken if we let problem users treat Wikipedia like a game to see how much they can get away with, which is my sense from revisiting this case after a few days away. Let's send those with a lengthy block record to the virtual woodshed when they persist in unacceptable activity. Three, come back in the fall and then see if you can stay out of trouble. Learn to walk away. It really isn't that hard. Jusdafax 23:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment. I think an admin assessment of the consensus of the most recent comments, and action thereon, might now be appropriate. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Epeefleche's Comment - I also call for resolution here. An admin should step up and make a ruling now, it has reached the top of the page and there seem to be no further comments incoming. Jusdafax 09:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur with both Epeefleche and Jusdafax. This needs to be dealt with immediately. Feedback (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

How to find the contribution of an ip range?

79.53.229.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) edited several pages in April but i find all were vandalism. I can check every pages in Category:Italian footballers to find him out, or just pages i created. But it is time consuming. Matthew_hk t c 23:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In the standard skin, go to My preferences → Gadgets and check Allow /16 and /24 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions. I think you can also go to Special:Gadgets or something like that. See Classless Inter-Domain Routing for how to use the results, and use the links under the contributions history to narrow your search parameters to the relevant range. If the range in question belongs to a university, be prepared for a lot of results.

Related question: does anybody know of a way to filter that result list by time of last edit? - 2/0 (cont.) 01:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There's also a toolserver tool by X! called Range Contributions. It can be found at toolserver.org/~soxred93/rangecontribs/index.php. --Bsadowski1 06:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:DUCK block

SPI is hopelessly backlogged, so I'm bringing this blatant sockpuppetry here. It's classic DUCK. Bell Partners, Inc. is a spammy article about a non-notable property management company. It was written by an SPA User:Bsumme whose only contributions have been to this article. I tagged it for speedy and shortly thereafter another brand new account User:Docgrl85 with no other edits came along and blanked the speedy template [241]. It should be pretty obvious that the second account is a sock of the first, or if not then a meatpuppet. Both should be blocked. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Go back to SPI, we do peruse these cases once and a while. Besides, this post isn't an incident and would be better suited there. Sorry for appearing as a jerk but evading us might backfire someday. You could always try the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-spi for rather quick results.

talk

) 01:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI has been a useless mess for a week. Several people including myself have posted at AN asking for help but the backlog just keeps growing. It seems counterproductive to add to an already huge backlog with an obvious DUCK. Also, I don't use IRC and have no interest in doing so. It would be nice if admins willing to work at SPI would work at the SPI page instead of chatting on IRC. If nobody is willing to block blatant sockpuppets then just leave them unblocked, I guess. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the backlogs are a big pain. Unfortunately the populace here doesn't want to add more checkusers to fix this up and get more interest in the non-checkuser section. Try pinging Timotheus Canens (Tim Song's IRC nick) there as he is useful with things like that. Looking there, did even create an investigation for the user or am I missing something?

talk

) 01:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked one, warned the other. Not really worth an SPI on this. On somewhat related news, SPI has been unbacklogged by

talk

) 03:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times and the Holocaust

The New York Times and the Holocaust
... now I'm a Holocaust denier

The page is currently protected from editing, but the hostility of one of the editors has just gone way over the top. The content disagreement is clearly outlined on the rambling talk page (if anyone cares). The current version of the article is the result of a massive cleanup i did on the article in January -- look at the series of edits i made then and the summaries to understand my reasons. Content disagreement, whatever. However, I and a few others have been consistently attacked as having an agenda over there by

talk

) 13:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Severe problems at The New York Times and the Holocaust Page

I was trying to get help on the proper way to seek relief from wiki administrators, but as two complaints were immediately posted against me for how I did it, I am going to proceed as best I might. I apologize if this is longer than it is supposed to be or if i have missed a step.

We are having severe problems at the New York Times and the Holocaust article. The topic is a small but for Americans, significant, part of the history of the Holocaust. Like history of the Holocaust in general it is well documented, incontrovertible and not controversial among decent people. It is very well known in the field of Holocaust studies, but unknown by the general public. The information in the article could be based on references from the New York Time’s 100th anniversary apology and especially their full-page, 150th anniversary apology for purposefully burying news of the Holocaust on its inside pages (see [244]; the founding director of the U.S. Holocaust Museum; the founding director of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center of Journalism; the founding director of the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies; the top academic who has written in detail on the subject, Laurel Leff and other academics. The Time’s itself called its policy to not report adequately on the Holocaust ‘tragic’ and “the century’s bitterest journalistic failure”, that it had significant impact on the failure of the U.S. to rescue Jews from Hitler, and concluded that generations of journalists have learned from it not to underreport genocide.

Unfortunately, this topic has attracted the attention of three malicious editors who are very experienced in all the procedures of Wikipedia: bali ulimate, Phgustaf and loonymonkey. They claim the topic is an original POV by the wiki editor who first introduced it; that it is ‘trivial’; that it is fringe; that the Times apology is ‘just one man’s opinion’; that we can’t use quotes from the founding directors of the U.S. Holocaust Museum, Harvard’s Shorenstein Center of Journalism or the the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies because they all come from one source (the script for a History Chanel program written by the Newseum called “The Holocaust: the Untold Story”, available in its entirely on the web here [245]); that the New York Times ‘may have dropped the ball a little’ but that the topic is worth no more than a couple of sentences on the New York Times page.

These same wikipedians previously blocked a paragraph on the subject on the New York Times page, where the topic is currently reduced to a few sentences buried in the section ‘criticism of the Times’ next to a paragraph on a minor editor who plagiarized. In short, wiki is being manipulated by these three hostile wikipedians to recreate in a microcosm the burying of information on the Holocaust.

When the original version of this article was posted it needed more work. Instead of collaborating to improve it, these three hostile wikipedians first tried to have the topic deleted entirely. As part of that discussion they suggested at most it should be a stub. When they were voted down on deletion they proceeded to delete the entire article anyway and substitute a polemical and inaccurate stub, which is what appears on wiki now. They have been belligerent, name calling and working together to drive constructive editors off the page and to impose complete control. They have not once replied to constructive attempts to reach consensus. Repeatedly calling for balance, they have not once produced a reference to provide such ‘balance.’ (There are no opposing references they can produce. There is complete consensus on the basic facts of this topic, just as there is consensus that the Holocaust happened.) They have now changed their tactic to a proposal to merge the article back into the New York Times page, which is a transparent ploy to delete it by another name. The page is frozen and there is no possibility of working on an improved version as long as these three wikipedians are playing the role of spoiler.

I am fairly new to wiki. I am frankly having trouble following the gazillion rules, each with subsets and complex definitions. Baliultimate and his cohorts are very well versed and use wiki rules like insults and weapons to hurl at their opponents. There is something very abusive to me and other sincere editors in the way the wiki consensus process is playing out on this page. It is not fair to us to be asked to collaborate with what are functionally Holocaust deniers. They are denying the validity and facts of this small chapter of Holocaust history, not working sincerely to produce a good article. I respectfully request they be permanently banned from editing this article.Cimicifugia (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2010

Another allegation of holocaust denial against me and two others who happen to disagree with him on content. "It is not fair to us to be asked to collaborate with what are functionally Holocaust deniers." Wikipedia is entirely too tolerant of this kind of stuff. I've also been dealing with insinuations of this very thing from other editors who are smart enough not to cross the line. Absolutely poisonous.

talk

) 14:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Could we merge these last two sections together here? The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, though I suspect there's some cunning {{anchor}} magic I've missed out... TFOWR 14:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Other editors' comments

Cimicifugia, I appreciate you may be new to all this, but accusing other editors of "holocaust denial" is hugely, hugely offensive. See

WP:AGF

. Would you agree to apologise to all editors to whom you've made that claim for making that claim, and conditionally drop your complaint against Bali ultimate (see below)?

Bali ultimate, would you agree to drop your complaint against Cimicifugia if they in turn dropped theirs, and agreed to avoid "holocaust denier" claims in future?

Cheers, TFOWR 14:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

He accused two other people of same. I'm absolutely furious, and justifiably so. He has no evidence to support the disgusting allegation whatsoever.

talk

) 14:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've amended my request - big bit added - to clarify what I'd like to see Cimicifugia do. As a good faith gesture, and I do appreciate that claims like this are incredibly hurtful, would you be prepared to accept an apology from Cimicifugia if they were to apologise to all insulted parties and undertake not to repeat this? TFOWR 15:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment

{{helpme}} requests about this on their talk page; I gave some generic advice on remaining calm and civil, etc, but I did not look into the specifics; I said that, as the incident was now on this noticeboard, they should comment and respond here. Chzz ►

15:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of "holocaust denial," "malice," etc... continue. i don't think it is appropriate to use mediation with what are functionally Holocaust deniers.

talk

) 15:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for persisting in attacks, even after it was pointed out how offensive they were. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that I attempted to intervene in the dispute and help the two editors resolve the dispute peacefully. Cimicifugia was willing to accept neutral intervention, and had asked me for advice on how to properly request intervention. I told Cimicifugia that it was best to talk with the user first before reporting them. I then tried talking to Bali Ultimate explaining that I would attempt to mediate. Bali was unwilling to compromise or talk to me on the matter and told me "You have no standing to mediate anything and you're hereby invited not to return here again to discuss the content issue" also in the editing summary to "Go back to editing Star Trek Articles". I informed Cimicifugia that my attempt to talk with Bali had failed and the only option left would be to report Bali here with a neutral post. By calling Bali a holocaust denier the post was obviously not written neutrally. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Full quote from me to the trekkie who barged onto my talk page with an offer of "mediation." "I suggest you go the relevant talk page and participate. You have no standing to mediate anything and you're hereby invited not to return here again to discuss the content issue best dealt with over there."

talk

) 21:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with an uninvolved editor trying to mediate? Isn't that the basic premise of Wikipedia:Third opinion? Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion is to give a third opinion, not mediate. We have an actual mediation project here.--

Crossmr (talk

) 23:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the third ANI filed by Bali. Each report he's filed is against editors who oppose his POV. I was the victim of his last report just a few days ago. How many more innocents will Bali bring to ANI? When do the games stop? Let me remind folks here that Bali is the true problem. He's highly disruptive, uses vulgar language, is incivil, rude, attacks others and never gives any straight answers to those who question him. Just have a good look at the article's talk page and you'll see that he has done plenty that deserved a block long ago. Have a look at his own talk page and you'll see how mean he can be. How this guy gets away with such bad behavior is a mystery to me. Unless of course it's true what they say on WR. Otherwise, I have no clue how he gets away while others are blocked for less. Caden ^cool 00:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I tend to agree with Burpelson AFB: What's wrong with an uninvolved editor trying to mediate? Dealing with problems in a way which will minimise drama is a positive thing. Avoiding further escalation is a positive thing. TFOWR 10:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment First, Bali ultimate & I are hardly friends: last time we interacted it was on opposite sides of a content disagreement of some sort (I honestly don't remember what it was, sorry). That said, calling anyone a "Holocaust denier" who has not explicitly denied the holocaust existed is a personal attack. Stick that label on any Wikipedian, & people will refuse to extend good faith to that person. I find Cimicifugia's edit to be one instance of doing just that: accusing not only Bali ultimate but also Looneymonkey and PhGustaf of denying the existence of Holocaust. That was the only instance on the page; if there are any other instances elsewhere then we have a problem with Cimicifugia. But until they are provided, nothing can be done. -- llywrch (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan blocked Cimicifugia for repeating the attack in a later post, but I'm inclined to agree with Llywrch in principle. (Good block: prevented immediate disruption; but there's not yet any indication of long-term behavioural issues). TFOWR 10:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we're well on our way to that now though, given the latest invective from this morning. The unblock request contains lines such as "To me, it is Holocaust denial in action", and a followup contains "...you may disagree with my use of this term, but it is a use about which reasonable people may differ. i am not going to apologize for using it. the apology is owed to me for being abused for speaking out for the truth about Holocaust history". This is a user who has clearly dropped others perceived as

battleground opponents into the category of Holocaust deniers; his entire premise here is that he is the aggrieved party. Unless someone can convince him to do a 180, this is a block that should be extended to prevent further disruption, IMO. Tarc (talk

) 12:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, that's very poor. I'm personally reluctant to extend the block (involved, newbie admin, blocked editor venting etc, etc) but would not object if the block were extended. TFOWR 13:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

His unblock request boils down to saying me and two other editors who disagree with him are, in fact, holocaust deniers. The votes arguing for merge on that page are now running at something like 9-2. An outside editor came in to say both that he doesn't like me but that I was right on the substance. Commenters in some of the AN/I threads on this have agreed that the shorter version was preferable; the admin who reviewed his unblock request tells him that there was a problem with his content; are all these people Holocaust deniers? And now i'm expected to merrily collaborate with him? He's branded me and others as something particularly vile because we have the temerity to disagree with him. And he continues to poison the well. From his unblock request: they denied the use of experts such as the founding director of the Holocaust Musuem. what do you call behavior like that? To me, it is Holocaust denial in action: it wasn't true, it wasn't significant, it wasn't six million only half a million, don't believe those giving you the facts. It's all small scale as in a petrie dish, around this one small piece of Holocaust history, but the germ is the same. This is from a note he left on his talk page after the unblock request: the apology is owed to me for being abused for speaking out for the truth about Holocaust history. the fact that bali admits he has been called a holocaust denier before should be an absolute red flag. this is not an accusation people make for no reason. I have never been accused of this before and have never said I was.

talk

) 13:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So the message is clear that it's okay to treat newbies (and experienced editors) who oppose Bali's biased POV like dirt? So it's okay to be disruptive (as long as your Bali) and censor historical, truthful facts, that are and can be sourced? It's okay to be abusive to other editors and break the rules just as long as your like Bali? It's okay to protect the NYT, (who admit they were wrong) by censoring the truth in order to not make them look bad? In other words, editors like Bali are valued and respected? Wow! No wonder all the good newbies quit! Caden ^cool 21:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As I believe you have been told already, if you believe another user's actions requires admin intervention, then you are cordially invited to file a report here...of course with evidence, diffs, etc... This vague "but but but he did it too!" hand-waving, like some footballer protesting a yellow card, brings more heat than light to the situation. Tarc (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Bali ultimate is certainly not a Holocaust denier. If Cimicifugia doesn't straighten up and fly right, an indef is in order. I've not looked all the way through this, but from what I am seeing, we're prolly past that point. The diffs offered by Tarc above are quite damning. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend anyone calling another editor a Holocaust denier without solid evidence. Cimicifugia was rightly blocked. However, it might be worth reflecting on how Bali ultimate's editing could have lead someone to make such an inflammatory charge. The persistence by some editors in trying to delete, cut down or merge this material was quite confrontational, and on such a sensitive topic as this it was probably unwise to characterise the topic of the NYT's coverage of the Holocaust as 'fringe' or 'non-notable' (the subject has had one book written about it, and appears in many other sources, e.g.[246][247][248][249][250] from a quick search). A more compromising approach might have been to widen the scope of the article to contemporary American coverage of the Holocaust in general. Cimicifugia was infuriated to the point at which they were convinced they were dealing with editors who were historical revisionists. Lacking an understanding of the tendency of Wikipedians to doggedly persist in trying to remove content they object to, they could see no motivation for wishing to downplay this content other than Holocaust denial. Fences&Windows 20:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What that suggestion of yours essentially amounts to though is special treatment be given to Holocaust topics, to treat them with kid gloves. There's no shortage of hot-button, controversial, and emotionally-laden subject areas that this encyclopedia has to deal with each and every day. Yes, Cimicifugia was infuriated, but the the responsibility for that is his and his alone. Some people simply cannot handle criticism or dissenting points of view, especially when it comes to religion, and IMO this one. This user needs to check his emotional baggage at the door if he wishes to edit collaboratively, and not see Holocaust deniers behind everyone who holds a different opinion. Malcolm Shoshsa (the socking 173.52.182.160 IP that infested this article's talk page) went down a similar road, calling his perceived opponents, myself included, antisemites. Tarc (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I was offering an explanation, not an excuse. I said Cimicifugia was rightly blocked: he should not have accused anyone of being a Holocaust denier. We are all agreed on this, but do we not wish to learn how to avoid antagonising other editors? Yes, on controversial topics we should be careful not to belittle the concerns of good faith editors. The AfD in January closed as keep (Bali ultimate called the article "effectively a topic made up one day by a wikipedia editor"), but editors including Bali ultimate persisted in trying to remove the content. Bali ultimate said things like "You seem to be peddling the Truth", "your earlier screed", "filled with lies and distortion", "such edits are deceitful, the acts of an agenda driven editor or editors, or merely irresponsible and incompetent ones", "numerous lies were told in the original writing of this article." This is not just about "dissenting points of view", persistent hostile editing was occurring. If you look at the original version of the article it was scrappy and went into too much detail on Arthur Hays Sulzberger, but it does not resemble what Bali ultimate said about it. The editing and talk page of this article do not put Wikipedia in a good light. Fences&Windows 17:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Some people would be quite pleased to be called a Holocaust denier. Many would not -- Bali among them. As such, use of the phrase here is inflammatory. If Cimi wishes to make a point, I would suggest he in the future use different phraseology that is not so inflammatory to Bali (and many others), though it might be longer -- such as, "Bali, who has IMHO deleted perfectly reasonable RS-supported information about the Holocaust". Or something on that order -- I expect others' here could come up with a shorter phrase, that would also pass muster. I believe that if he were to do that, that would allow for the parties to continue in their merry conversation within wiki rules, and focus on the merits of edits, in a more civil environment. In short, Bali has every right to object to being so labeled.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for Relief from abusive editor

Some feedback: this has not been a good experience of fairness, equality before the law, innocent until proven guilty, a thorough review of all the facts, or any of the standard practices through the centuries to prevent abuse of power.

I respectfully submit that bali’s complaint that I called him a holocaust denier is misleading. I used the term ‘functional holocaust denier’ – which means he is not literally a holocaust denier, but his behavior has the same effect as one. It was an analogy. It was also used in a question on my talk page where i was trying to get help in formulating a clear description of the problem with hostile editors. I will try again without using that term.

I do respectfully protest, however: it seems there is a double standard when bali's repetitive insults and name calling get a pass. Why would my one instance alleged name calling be a worse offense than his vandalism? A worse offense than his long time pracice of bullying, abusive tactics? Look at the discussion page – my record is a model of self control and politeness. His model is a scandal. Yet his histrionic ‘I am livid’ response to being compared to a holocaust denier was considered the big problem.

People, like bali, phgustaf and looneymonkey, who find mainstream, impeccably referenced facts about the holocaust not worthy of inclusion in Wiki because the topic is a lie, trivial, just an opinion – such people are not at all likely to be welling meaning. I gave the hostile editors on this topic the benefit of the doubt for months, trying to answer the valid parts of their demands for more references. First they didn’t like just having Proessor Leff as a reference. Quotes to show she is respected as the top authority were met with silence. Then they didn’t like the actual apology of the NYTimes itself – just an op ed they said. They wouldn’t include the fact it was a full page op ed in the 150th anniversary edition. Then they didn’t accept the fact the Times acknowledged their failure in the 100th anniversary edition as well. They claimed the Newseum reference wasn’t usuable, so I found the entire, intact script the newseum wrote for the history channel. Then they insisted the material wasn’t to be used because it was from a single source. they claimed the program wasn't about the topic, even tho' the Times is mentioned over 50 times. They wouldn’t allow those of us who wanted to use information from the Holocasut Museum, the Wyman Institute on Holocaust studies, or the Harvard Shorenstein center on journalism. They accused the constructive editors of cherry picking, but when invited to provide the balance they claimed was missing, they provided nothing. At this point it was clear that their claims this was a trivial, fringe topic with no validity that didn’t belong in wiki was not from ignorance with the references. They now had all the references, top references, exact quotes, Cambridge University Press. They still wanted a misleading stub. They are not sincere. They are not well meaning. They have a Holocaust problem – call it what you will. I ask for the three of them to be permanently banned from working on this article, since all they doing is sabotage.Cimicifugia (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)cimicifugia

You just essentially repeated the attacks that got you blocked previously. Do we have to permanently block you to ensure that these attacks stop? If you cannot

without making personal attacks you cannot participate in Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert (talk

) 20:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I consider the screed above a work of fiction. You'll notice the absence of diffs supporting any of his assertions.