Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive660

Resolved

See

An e-mail to the checkusers mailing list might get faster attention on this than the post here. Unfortunately from a timing perspective, also, a number of people are going to be away or busy for the holiday. Nonetheless, hopefully this can be looked at very soon by a CU with the right expertise. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

True. I took your advice and emailed the cu list, and my email was automatically rejected as evidently I'm not allowed to post to it, although it should be open to anyone to post to.

talk

) 15:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

That's bizarre. Please send the e-mail to me and I'll forward it, along with a request to figure out what the heck is going on. (And now I really must be out the door soon or I'll miss my train.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Three different accounts/IPs on three different ranges, albeit similar ISPs. Unless massive disruption occurs a range block doesn't seem possible. Brandon (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Bondiveres (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 64.85.252.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Sgaran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I became aware of this user - and I will demonstrate that it is very likely the same user - when I blocked the IP for 72 hours for vandalism and edit warring at

About 24 hours later,

Several hours to my involvement in this mess, Bondiveres sought help and advice from

But this is why I'm here now: yesterday, Bondiveres started plastering this diatribe on my talk page and the talk pages of several other editors. He also stuck it into Talk:Wim Crusio over several edits. I think he's trying to demonstrate that the Crusio article should be trimmed because all the Nobel laureates' articles aren't as long, or something. I responded on his talk page to not take the size of articles in KB as some weight of importance or notability.

Meanwhile, the 72-hour block of the IP expired, and after it did the IP added the same screed to the talk page of User:Colonel Warden - word for word. Quack, quack, quack.

It's obvious to me that the IP and Bondiveres are the same person. I also suspect that User:Sgaran, the Steven A. Garan of one of the AFD discussions, is the actual sockmaster here. And it's plain that he's not here to add to the encyclopedia - he's here to harass Crusio in both real life and Wikilife. I'd like a checkuser run to see if these three are indeed the same, and if there are more.

In addition, I believe we should restrict this editor at least from User:Crusio, Wim Crusio, and Paola S. Timiras. There may be more articles and problems of which I'm not aware. And it goes without saying that he's not to do this canvassing on talk or user talk pages again.

I'm notifying editors who have received that long message and may know more - Gnowor, Crusio,

This is nonsense and it's spreading. It has to stop. Thanks. KrakatoaKatie 08:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the length of the discussion that started on my talk page and has now moved

here

, I'm guessing it's helpful for a quick summary.

I was

WP:MOS

guidelines on bolding the subject of the article. I reverted. Although the edit was by an IP editor, BV was the one who alerted me on my talk page that it was constructive. I took a closer look, and tried to restore the info without the MOS violation.

Crusio notified me there was history and linked me to the AfDs above. I tried to act as an unofficial mediator between Crusio & BV and also educate BV as to WP policy. Eventually, I proposed a solution that avoided any potential plugging of articles which I believe BV contributed to off-wiki that are not notable (I defer to Crusio on notability standards on scientific articles based on my only physical science class in undergrad being Astronomy). BV had insisted that the name of a device (

AIMS

for short) was very important to Paola S. Timiras prior to her death, and that it was not the same as the ATIS it redirects to. I proposed we change the name on the PST page to AIMS with a cite to one of the non-notable papers for reference. Crusio didn't like the cite. I figured, if BV is really looking out for PST's interests, he won't care about the loss of the cite. He did.

After this, BV started to attack the Wim Crusio article which is a bio of Crusio. Based on the early edits to the page, and subsequent block of that user, it looks like the article's creator was a student of Crusio's (possibly). Regardless, Crusio himself at one point nom'd the page for AfD and succeeded.

Bottom line, despite the gentle hand I tried to treat BV with as he is a new editor, and a fairly stern warning by myself, BV is unhappy that he can't use Wikipedia to plug his non-notable off-wiki work. He's proceeded with a vendetta against a veteran editor who (understandably) lost patience with the situation long ago, as I feel I now have.

I sincerely apologize to the community if my handling of the situation has resulted in this escalating to this point. Please understand I intervened with best intentions. I thought I was dealing with two brilliant and reasonable individuals who would accept a fair solution (and Crusio did). In the future, when I see myself investing this much time in a matter with little progress, I'll hand it over to the pros.

Based on my time invested, I don't intend to return to this discussion, as I feel that is all the background I have. If more information is required, feel free to notify me on my talk page and I'll happily return. Thank you in advance for your time.--

T_C

09:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

BV's actions seem similar to Sgaran's to me, but then, the ips in the SPI seemed similar to Sgaran as well, so take that with a grain of salt. This conversation may be useful for comparison, but other than that I have nothing to add really. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a further demonstration that I don't know when to quit. Interesting tidbit I just discovered: The

T_C

12:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Katie for taking this to ANI. I had some tough traveling days here with only sketchy Internet access and only just now got back to my office (you may have heard about the travel problems in France). I think Katie and Gnowor summarized the situation very aptly. Gnowor was very patient in trying to get BV to behave in a more constructive way (see
  User talk:Gnowor/P.S. Timiras, which also has links to the AfDs that are at the basis of this affair). I have removed BVs diatribe from my own talk page. I would appreciate if this personal attack could be removed elsewhere, too, but as involved party will not do this myself. As for my bio, this mess illustrates why I took an earlier bio to AfD. Fortunately for me, that previous bio missed a lot of info, so that the AfD succeeded. I did not take the current bio to AfD, as my experience with academics AfDs tells me that this time around, that wouldn't fly. Despite itching fingers, I try not to edit it and hope some other editors will put it on their watchlist and keep an eye on it. As for its size, I couldn't care less, as long as what is in the bio is accurate. Thanks. --Crusio (talk
  ) 15:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

First I have been asked by Garan to be an advocate for him since he no longer has the time nor the energy to address what has happened. Second I would like to thank Gnowor for his time and effort in this matter. And now I would like to address the issue at hand. This entire issue was started when Wim Crusio's actions failed to redirect the wiki entry Phenomics to Phenotype on April 27, 2010, please look at the edit log for Phenomics to verify the dates and actions. Please look at the change log for Phenomics and you will observe Crusio repeatedly tried to redirect the site and failed. After Wim Crusio lost the "battle" to redirect Phenomics to Phenotype, he started a vendetta against my friend Garan, who advocated for keeping the page, and as of today the page is still there. After this loss Wim Crusio took a sudden interest in deleting/redirecting/removing content from the following entries: Automated Imaging Microscope System, Paola_S._Timiras, Aging Research Centre. I am not sure what the afore mentioned wiki pages have to do with "Phenomics"? Crusio even admitted that "There is a connection", these are his own words. A very long discussion took place with Gnowor regarding the restoration of information that Crusio deleted and as of this time of these comments, the restored item, is still on the site. Wim Crusio has removed quite a lot of information from wiki and this is all documented. He has deleted this information under the false pretense, just as he did with the information Gnowor restored. I have tried to restore the information Crusio has deleted but he has blocked every attempt but for one. Why is it that when Gnowor adds information to a wiki site and when the same information is added by BV it is considered "continued vandalism"? Crusio even removed the following item that was well referanced: "In 2001 at age 78, Timiras and her former Ph.D. student Paul Segall founded the Center for Research and Education on Aging at the University of California, Berkeley[5] of which she served as the first chair". Why would he do this? I am not sure if Gnowor wants to spend another hour of his time on defending this addition and that is perfectly understandable. I started to wonder of Crusio practiced a similar level of editing on his own site. I noticed that his own wiki page, Wim Crusio is more than twice the size of an average Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine from the past 14 years. If people think that Wim Crusio should have a wiki page larger than that of any of the previous 32 Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine, then that is great! I would support that my self. But let the discussion take place, do not delete the question and the responses to them. My posting of this question was deleted by him, and now no discussion can take place regarding this matter. I thought wiki was a place where good information that is referenced, can be posted, so that others can learn from this information, and discussions can take place with out fear of being stopped. I would like to know how I have restore referenced information that Crusio has deleted.? Without him blocking every step? And without people like Gnowor having to spend a great deal of time backing me up? Bondiveres (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not the size of article, which has been explained to you as irrelevant, nor is it the use of phenomics and phenotype. The issue is your behavior. You are causing problems by

notable. Stop it. KrakatoaKatie

23:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, regarding your size of Wim Crusio argument: I believe you have a flawed premise. That premise is that a more important article should be longer. If we accept that premise and act upon it immediately, I'd argue that Wikipedia would be immediately blank. We'd have to have a discussion about what article is most important, 2nd most, 3rd most, etc, and then proceed with restoring pages and trimming to appropriate size. And given that I don't believe the 100k+ active editors are going to come to an agreement on that any time soon, I believe that Wikipedia would remain blank for quite a long time. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Viewing your argument about size of article's in the best light, your conclusion is that Nobel Laureates should have longer pages than Wim Crusio. So take it upon yourself to make them longer. If Katie, Crusio, myself, or many other experienced editors were to make that argument, that is what we'd do. Why? Because it improves the encyclopedia, rather than taking away from it by deleting content from an article.

You're a scientist, BV. I guarantee you're a lot smarter than a lot of the people that Katie and I deal with when we normally fight vandalism. As such, I ask you to take a step back and evaluate your actions. Are you doing what's in the best interest of the encyclopedia? Or are you doing what's in the best interests of BV/Sgaran? I've spent the time engaging in this dialog with you because unlike users that make edits like this I believe you have valuable contributions that you can make to the encyclopedia if you choose to do so. Whether you choose to do so is up to you.--

T_C

23:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Experimental Gerontology, 
Neuro Endocrinology, 
Internation Journal of  Developmental Neurosciene,  
FASEB Journal, 
Linux Journal, 
Neurology & Neurosurgery 

I am sorry for my tone and if seems to be a little too direct, and if I have provided too much information, I only did so, to provide as much information as I have available; but when I see injustice I think it is the obligation of all of us to shed light on it and to educate and to inform, and I feel that is the best way to go forward. Bondiveres (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blanked the section you added (restored within collapse by Gnowor), BV, and it's now apparent you just don't understand. KrakatoaKatie 02:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on topic ban for User:Bondiveres/User:64.85.252.225/User:Sgaran

Based on his lack of understanding and continued refusal to abide by

Since it's the holidays, I may timestamp this to keep discussion going. If admins want to reword or change my proposal, propose away. I'm very tired and I need to rest a while. Thanks. :-) KrakatoaKatie 03:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Katie,

I thought the purpose of wiki was to share information and not to suppress it. A "Discussion on topic ban" this sounds like something that takes place in China or North Korea. Please restore my comments and let this discussion take it's natural course. I am not sure if your actions are what Jimmy Wales had in mind when he created Wikipedia. Please do not suppress the free flow of information and thoughts. If your reply to my statements are "you just don't understand", you might at least be a little more specific and engage in a civil discussion that pertains to the topics at hand. I have taken the time to discuss the events that are outlined and I think I have brought up a number of valid points. I thought people such as your self would be willing to talk about these points so a mutual understanding can be reached. I am afraid the statement "you just don't understand" is not very constructive. Please outline your point of view and if I am unable to dispute your statements I will, agree with you, and I hope the reverse is true as well. All the best. Happy Holidays. I await your reply. Bondiveres (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support see the following:

I removed the aforementioned content from the Wim Crusio talk page ---,[1], and BV restored it [2]. He began a disscussion on my talk page [3], to which I responded [4]. I again removed the irrelevant personal commentary and attack from the Wim Crusion Talk Page [5].

Hence, based on the discssion in the previous section, and what I have added here, I think an indefinite topic ban is in order, until this user is able to state their case for having the ban lifted. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Steve

Once again, the reason that this entire series of evens has taken place is because of deletion of information. I had hoped the free flow of thoughts and opinions and allowed to be expressed. I fear this may not be the case here. I would hope if someone disagrees with something can freely discuss issues without fear of being censored. If you disagree with someone, then please says so and give the reasons and less the other person reply and so on. That is how a civil society is supposed to function, even one that is online. I await your reply.

I did read your comments on your talk page and can I assume that this is the correct place to discuss this topic and if it is, then why did Katie place a ban on it? If this is not the correct place please let me know where the correct place is. Bondiveres (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support per free speech/China/Korea arguments here. And Bondiveres, if you disrupt this discussion with attacks like that again, I'll block you temporarily so the discussion can proceed in a reasonable manner. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sarek thank you so much,

Thank you for a well put statement. Please tell me how else I can refer to system, where comments are removed from an open discussion? I am open to all suggestions. I only made reference to the afore mentioned regimes, because this is type of information deletion and blockage that takes place on a routine bases, and has been in the news of late. I would welcome your suggestions on how to classify this action. All the Best. And thank you once again from a well put comment. I await your reply. Bondiveres (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support:

By directing BV away from this given topic, it will give him an opportunity to constructively contribute to other areas of the encyclopedia and learn WP policy. Refinement of Steve Quinn's application for lifting of the ban: After several months BV of active constructive participation in other areas of the encyclopedia according to policy, I think that BV should have the opportunity to argue from policy for the lifting of this ban. I propose this as a one time opportunity, with a bad faith request by BV of the lift of this ban being grounds for this ban becoming permanent.

Additional IPs with similar behavior and Articles that might be subject to Topic ban:

(This info found via Article Blamer upon inspection of Articles currently on WP that have cites similar to the ones used by BV)

Thanks for everyone's time on this.--

T_C

04:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Inspection of BVs edit history shows not a single edit that was not related to the Sgaran walled garden or made to harass me. A topic ban would therefore in practice not be much difference from a block. I also add that BV has "seeded" his personal attacks against me over several pages and I repeat that I would greatly appreciate if somebody would remove these. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Note restored after redaction by BV.--
    T_C
    18:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Gnowor, perhaps you would be so kind to restore the redaction that was made by Katie as well. Crusio's comments are false and inflammatory. I would like to place this on the record and hope that these statements are not redacted. Crusio's false statements of walled garden's are personal attacks on me and I strongly protest, and I wish them to be removed. I can not stress this more strongly. I can not abide his presumptuous and false statements. Bondiveres (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. I believe that Katie's removal was to try to keep this discussion short and readable rather than listing several journals. You've asked, I've restored. Your removal was another attack on the user you're accused of attacking.--

T_C

19:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Gnowor for restoring a part of this section. Crusio's statements regarding walled gardens are clear attacks on me and I would like him to stop this reprehensible behavior. I find it perplexing how a man who is purportedly a Director at a french research institute can make false statements and put them on the record. And the evidence of these actions are written by him just above my comments here, and the statements are signed by him as well, and therefore there is no doubt of his guilt. I can not understand how someone like that can engage in such actions. I ask him most kindly in light of the holiday season to reconsider his behavior and to act more becoming of a person of his rank. I ask him most sincerely to stop his attacks. Thanks. Bondiveres (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Walled garden is a technical term used here on WP that you can read about via this link. It is not an attack. His statement that you don't have a single edit outside of the arena is accurate. His accusation about your dissemination of attacks on him and the article about him are also accurate according to your edit history.

More importantly, your continued contributions to this discussion focus on Crusio. This discussion is currently about your actions, and in every post, you try to deflect by saying "he did it first". Regardless of who started what/when, you need to take responsibility for your actions, which are in violation of a number of concrete Wikipedia policies, and for continuing to take up the community's time.

Also, notice: Despite having every opportunity to present your case via this discussion, users with no prior involvement are siding against you. This should be another reason to reflect on your actions.--

T_C

19:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban BV's conduct seems to be the problem at the moment. He appears to be using this internet site as a
  CNRS. That is completely at odds with the purpose of wikipedia. Mathsci (talk
  ) 19:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

One more note. Crusio's dislike of my comments regarding the size of his personal wiki was greeted with thanks by the user Katie. She wrote the following after a very nice comment that explained the issue, she wrote: "Thanks again for the message." Please refer to my talk page in order to see her comments, they are very well thought out and written down. Thank you Katie. Bondiveres (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• It should be clear to all involved and uninvolved editors by now that BV is just playing with us. Somebody block him already, this has gone on long enough. --Crusio (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Bondiveres, why don't you go see how many times I've typed 'Thanks again for the message.' It's called 'courtesy', not 'I agree with everything you've ever said'. KrakatoaKatie 20:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sgaran#24_December_2010. I was so tired I forgot to hit the save button and request the CheckUser. That's fixed now. :-) KrakatoaKatie 20:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Crusio, Please do not refer to me as "this guy", I take the greatest offense, from your comments. I can not imagine using such a term, in order to refer to you, because I have more respect for the people that have taken time to look at the issue at hand. Once again I would hope that others can see the level of your discourse. I ask most kindly to change your tone. All the best. Bondiveres (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

BV's manner of posting comments here is unhelpul. Using the phrase "this guy" was clearly not an attack. Mathsci (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci, I beg to differ. It is a most offensive form of disrespect. I am quite certain you would not refer to Dr. Wim Crusio as "this guy", I most certainly would not. Please comment. Bondiveres (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That is an unreasonable interpretation, particularly when referring to non-native English speakers. Mathsci (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

"This guy" is slightly pointed slang, but it's nowhere close to a breach of civility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Crusio was listening to Jimi Hendrix and got in a romantic mood ;-). Anyway it's about the last thing I'd get upset about. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to say that I have devoted a great deal of time and energy in order to participate in this forum. I respect all those that have taken the time to do so as well. I find it very very offensive that Wim Crusio says otherwise. There are many other activities that I could be engaged in at this time of year, but I feel very strongly that I can not just bow to injustice. Once again I ask you please stop your attacks on me and try to act more in accords with the members of this forum. All the best. Bondiveres (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a

WP:FORUM. You have been told that on multiple occasions. Mathsci (talk

) 20:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely hope your next comment, BV, responds to the last two lines of this post by me.--

T_C

20:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear from you Gnowor. I tried to look for the two lines you referred to, but I can not see which are the once the you mean. Please post this here, or just post a few words so I can search for them in your link. Thanks Bondiveres (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments below.--

T_C

20:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Support:

1. As nom.--
   T_C
   20:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
2. I honestly thought a topic ban would do it, but he just doesn't understand how much disruption he's causing and he shows no signs of backing off. He's made no article edits since October and he's using the servers to cause trouble instead of improve the articles he claims don't have enough detail. We've tried to show him the light but it's futile, it seems. KrakatoaKatie 21:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Per almost everybody else commenting here, BV simply does not get it. His attitude towards wikipedia seems to be disruptive at the moment. Unfortunately an indefinite community ban seems to be the only alternative at this stage. Mathsci (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
4. I have no prior involvement with this editor or this specific issue, but I've read the commentary here and on various talk pages referenced here. Either BV doesn't get what he's been told over and over again, or he's deliberately ignoring it to press his agenda, but in neither case does it help the project to have such a person editing. My feeling is that unless he shows immediately that he's capable of editing in a collegial manner according to our policies, he should be shown the door until he can prove that he can. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Neutral/Comment:

1. I respectfully disagree. I have put forth a large body of information that supports my position. I am willing to answer any questions that are put forth, but I only ask this they be put in a respectfully manner. I have taken a great deal of time to provide as much information as possible. And ask that you consider both sides to this issue equally. All the best. Bondiveres (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It so happens that people who edit Wikipedia and are wiki-

Tijfo098, as you can imagine I would like nothing better than have to reply to comments that are posted here. But the fact is, is that comments are being posted here and I assume that you expect a reply to them. Please do not chide me for responding to comments directed towards me, and say me time would be better spent updating wiki. I would like very much to do so. I hope you understand this, I think most people would. 64.85.252.225 (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• "I would like very much to do so". Well, then start doing that and show us what you can. I have worked today, went shopping, posted here on this board, and in between created 3 new articles and edited/expanded several others. You can do that, too. --Crusio (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • So you're admitting, IP, that you and BV are one and the same? Because if not, your comment here is a little odd since you haven't responded to anything as yet. KrakatoaKatie 01:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I would not support a permanent ban, because BV is very capable of making useful contribution here, once he learns not to make edits on his own projects and not to engage in quarrels with other editors. But at this point I see no prospect that a topic ban will work, for too many other pages are getting involved. In order to prevent further disruption, and what seems to amount to harassment of at least one of our best editors, I suggest a block for one month, including ip addresses used, and the ip address above. At the end of that time, if the ed. should return and make useful contributions--great. If he continues as he is doing now, a permanent ban will be in order. I am slightly involved as I closed one of the afds in question, so I ask any other admin to review and do the block. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

First I would like to thank Crusio for his comments and I agree with him, and as a result I would like to propose the following:

1. I will honor and adhere to a 6 month self imposed moratorium on any changes to the wiki pages that are in question.
2. I will devote my time and energy to upgrading other wiki pages.
3. In 6 months time I will start a dialog with Crusio and work with him in order to arrive at a status quo that both of us can agree with.

I sincerely hope this proposal meets with your approval, and if so, I hope all of us can consider this matter closed. All the best. Bondiveres (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• BV, I am personally willing to accept this (let's keep the spirit of Christmas alive). However, you might first convince us of your good faith by removing the personal attacks on me that you put on several talk pages (insofar they haven't been removed yet). If you do that, I will support this solution and I'd even be willing to help you edit articles in the coming 6 months with advice on WP policies/habits/guides (but there are many good editors all over the place, so I'd understand it if you'd rather work with them than with me). However, despite all holiday spirit, I do want to add that I have no more patience with personal attacks, so at the first recurrence, we'd be back here. I don't like to be at ANI (for one, all the changes here clutter up my watchlist), so I do hope that you're sincere: WP can use more academics willing to share their knowledge. --Crusio (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that BV should remove the inappropriate material placed on several talk pages. After that I support BV's three part proposal, with one exception. Although, Crusio is willing to help out, there are many good editors from whom advice and guidance can be sought. Hence, there is no need for BV to focus soley on Crusio for this, especially given the situation. I have to admit I have misgivings about BV "starting a dialog with Crusio and working with him in order to arrive at a status quo that both of them can be happy with". The status quo appears to be is Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and from experience I know that Crusio supports these. Editing is not really about what certain editors are happy with; and being in agreement with guidelines and policies is satisfying. I am sorry to bring that up, but in advance it may be best to bring it out in the open. Problematic editors in the past have used this "happy" justification, or a some similar variation, for contradictory editing and argument. I bring it up so Crusio, and other editors don't get caught up in having to fend off additions or deletions that each can be "happy with", as a justification. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• Wise words, Steve. You're right that just a compromise between BV and me would not be enough to restore any of the deleted material. After all, I didn't delete that stuff, I proposed it for deletion and after hearing the arguments from both sides, the community decided to delete. Anyway, let's see whether BV shows good will and removes those personal attacks. If that shouldn't happen, then I won't have much faith in this solution either. --Crusio (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• I started removing the inappropriate material from the User talk pages. I had to make sure I have definite grounds for removal. My justification is "Remove inappropriate content. Please see edit history and content removal per
  WP:TPNO, and User:Bondiveres/User:64.85.252.225/User:Sgaran
  , specifically no personal attacks, and do not misrepresent other people. It might also be considered vandalism.

So everyone can see what I am doing, here is the first removal [12]. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

As per Crusio's request, I have initiated the removal of the material he has requested, starting at his talk page. I then went to a subsection of Gnowor's page and the message says "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.". Please advise me as to what to do regarding the afore mentioned message. I await your reply. but in the mean time I will continue the clean up. Bondiveres (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed all the material I could find, excluding the material in the Gnowor subsection, because of the message stated above. I will deleted the material, but I await your instructions on this matter. Bondiveres (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies that I haven't been able to participate in this discussion over the past couple days. Been a bit busy with Christmas. I'm assuming that BV is referring to the dialog

I have also changed one of the points of my proposal, and replaced the words: "happy with" to "agree with". I reference to Steve Quinn's and Wm Crusio's comments. When two people agree upon a compromise, it is not always the case that one or both are "happy" with the agreement, but it is something that they can accept in order to move forward. Bondiveres (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Gnowor for your guidance, I have removed the material. In response to your comments regarding an agreement between Crusio and my self. This is to avoid the voluminous amount of discourse that has taken place thus far regarding the contentious wiki pages. If we can agree on the content of a page or if it should be re-instated, it then will be commented on by the larger Wiki community. I very much would like to avoid, and I am sure Wim agrees with me, this endless stream of content that does not enlighten the general public. Bondiveres (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I also apologize for coming in late today (Santa brought Katie one of these and she's still setting it up! such problems Katie has, I know... :-D) Looks like the spirit of Christmas has sprinkled charity and goodness all around! That's what I hoped would happen by bringing this to the attention of the community, and the community didn't let me down. BV, I could give you a kiss, and I'll shut up now so I don't mess up the work! Yay! :-) KrakatoaKatie 02:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Katie, but please don't tell my wife. :-) To all; it's getting late here and it's time that I get to sleep since my better half is already partaking in that activity as I write these words, and tomorrow we head for the mountains for a few days of skiing. I wish all a very happy new years. Bondiveres (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the Glenn Beck article page is the subject of editbullying and a place where many well meaning editors are driven off by partisans on both sides. There is a small group of regular editors there, who essentially police the page, and remove reasonable content. Given the controversial and public nature of the subject, I suggest more rigid third party mediation on that page. As it is now, it is essentially impossible to contribute anything meaningful. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Has mediation been considered, either via the

Mediation Committee? –MuZemike

03:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The other participant in the Glenn Beck discussion refuses to enter into mediation. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing, personal attacks, and a general lack of attempting other solutions does not leave me inclined to participate in any such process with the editor.Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Then the article continues to be at the mercy of Cptono's blockage. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You do wonders for my ego. And you continue to canvass, BTW. Cptnono (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! Thanks to everyone for helping keep us sane over the past year and for allowing for fun on this noticeboard. Have a great holidays!

Off topic canvassing. This should be a the miscellaneous village pump, you won't get any support by canvassing here. </sarcasm> Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Cavalry's off-topic vote (for this user is clearly voting, which violates at least 18 acronyms that I can't be troubled to remember now) and encourage Santa and his elves to leave Cavalry a very large lump of coal. :P Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

On the 1st day of Wikipediamas, my stalker linked to me: a

WP:CANVASS

!

On the 2nd day of Wikipediamas, my stalker linked to me: 2

WP:CANVASS

!

On the 3rd day of Wikipediamas, my stalker linked to me: 3

WP:CANVASS

!

for the curious, AAANID is similar to

WP:AADD

.

On the 4th day of Wikipediamas, my stalker linked to me: 4

WP:CANVASS

!

On the 5th day of Wikipediamas, my stalker linked to me: 5

WP:CANVASS

!

I'm out of ideas now. (

@988

 ·  22:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Aye, and a Merry Yaksmas to all! —

talk

) 22:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all and to all "where's the ham?" :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that "WP:AAANID" stands for "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in A.N.I. discussions". X-D Who knows, we may even need something like that. :-D ;-) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, everyone! Hope Santa was kind to you all!

[majestic titan]

06:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The RfC, which was started by me on Dec 22 [13], has been closed on Dec 24 [14]. The user who closed this RfC referred to the fact that initial discussion started on Dec 2 [15]. This rationale is flawed in my opinion, because the normal RfC duration is 30 days (calculated from the first timestamp after the RfC template), this dispute has not been finished and the discussion was not dormant. More importantly, the RfC has not achieved its initial goal, namely, the outside input was minimal by the moment of its closure (mostly those users who took part in the previous discussion expressed their opinion there). My requests to self-revert the RfC closure have been ignored [16][17].
In my opinion, the RfC, which has been closed prematurely, should be reopened and the user who closed this RfC should not be considered as an uninvolved user any more.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Please tell the whole picture, you started this topic on December 2, you made no progress let the discussion be archived because you where the sole person with your point of view which goes against policy. You re-started the same discussion again and others have stated its just beating a dead horse which I agree and why I closed it.

WP:SNOW may also be relevant too. ΔT _{^{The only constant}}

20:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: I commented on both discussions. Yep. The issue has been debated on and off for 23 days (for anyone else looking,

WP:DEADHORSE is being invoked here is correct. Black Kite (t) (c)

20:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The RfC is supposed to proceed according to some formal rules, and these rules state the time is calculated based on the the first timestamp after the RfC template. In addition, the reference to the discussion that lasted from Dec 2 is quite illogical: obviously the reason behind RfC (that, by the way, was initiated following the advise of another participant of this discussion, Hammersoft) was to involve new users, whereas most users who expressed their opinions during this two-days-long RfC were the same users who participated in the previous discussion. In addition, from my previous discussions on other talk pages I know that the point of view expressed during this RfC is not shared by a significant part of WP community, however, I couldn't address directly to those users, because that would be canvassing. However, we definitely need to give enough time for these users to join this discussion.
Obviously, the RfC hadn't achieved its primary goals by the moment of its closure, so to close it now is both against the rules and common sense. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I wouldn't object to it being re-opened on purely procedural grounds, but I do feel that the discussion has run its course, because the RfC has just ended up re-hashing all the viewpoints from the previous (longer) discussion - with the same result. (Incidentally, if you really wanted more eyes on the issue, it would've been better to post it at

WP:CENT). Black Kite (t) (c)

21:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that during the discussion about the same subject on other talk pages the opinions differ considerably from those expressed during this discussion. Based on that I conclude the preliminary results of this RfC hardly reflects the opinion of WP community.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the close was fine, per Black Kite. From what I've seen, there is nowhere near consensus to change the NFCC, and this has been made clear since earlier this month. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

From your comment I conclude you hardly read the discussion carefully. I never proposed to change NFCC.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Effectively you are, though, because your proposed NFCI#9 (and remember NFCI is only a guideline, not a policy) would conflict with various parts of NFCC, notably #8. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid you are wrong. I explicitly wrote that the proposed NFCI #9 (as well as already existing examples) is supposed to deal with only those images that meet all NFCC criteria, including the criterion No 8, so such conflicts are impossible by definition. The problem is that current NFCI list covers not all major cases of acceptable use of non-free images, and this leads to prolonged disputes on other talk opages.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

If an image meets all the NFCC criteria, including 3a and 8, why does it matter if that type of image is explicitly mentioned at NFCI anyway, though? And NFCI is only a guideline anyway. Could you give an example of such a dispute over an image that meets all of NFCC? Black Kite (t) (c) 22:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Good question. The reason is simple. I faced the situations when the NFCI #8 has been used as a pretext for removal of non-free images that had a strong contextual connection to the sourced discussion in the article's text and served as an illustration for significant historical events. These images were removed because they were not a subject of commentaries per se, despite the fact that NFCC were met (and despite the fact that NFCI is a non-exhaustive list of the examples of acceptable use of NF images, so if they do not meet NFCI #8, it is not an argument per se). To avoid similar problems in future, and because the cases described by me are the examples of acceptable use (per NFCC policy), I propose to include this example into the NFCI list. If someone believes that NFCI #9 can be misused (only good things are possible to misuse), let's re-word it to make it stricter.
In addition, the

WP:NFC#UUI #5 is that the combination of these two examples simplifies the life of those users who specialize on removal of inappropriately used NFC: these rules are rather formal and, as a result, they are easy to implement without going into the details of the concrete article's content. However, this medal has a reverse side: these examples create problems for the users who work on historical articles, and the balance between the interests of these two groups (which currently is shifted towards the formers) should be observed. --Paul Siebert (talk

) 02:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I simply made a typo. Is that a crime, now? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

No crimes, I just thought you made your conclusion without reading the discussion carefully. I am glad I was wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The objective of RfCs is to attract outside editors if there is a dispute. In some cases this results in a change in consensus and should be allowed to run its course. If the editor making the RfC is clearly wrong then the RfC will establish that. I would let it run its course. However it could be rephrased because it seems hard to follow. TFD (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I feel I fall on the same side of opinion on the issue of the RFC like with Black Kite or Delta, as Four Deuces points out above, the RFC is to gain wide consensus on an issue instead of limited set of editors (in this case, most that have strong interest in maintaining the NFCC the way it is). NFCC and NFCI reflect consensus, and while I know how most of the NFC regulars feel, they're not the only voices. The only thing we have to watch for is the Foundation Resolution on non-free images, what Paul is asking for doesn't seem unreasonable to consider within that. (This situation is reminding me very much of the date delinking issue with a limited set of voices claiming they were right). This is not to say Paul's attitude is helping, but the RFC should run the course. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I've only just become aware of this discussion, and I'd like to comment on it. I'll go and ask the closer if they are willing to re-open the discussion to allow comments to be added. Carcharoth (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Carcharoth. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I blocked

Looks fine to me - stopped the edit warring. KrakatoaKatie 04:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – I should have read up the page. Kelly ^hi! 05:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed an increased incidence of internal errors from the servers tonight? I have been doing a lot of fast editing on images and am seeing it pretty frequently. Kelly ^hi! 05:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

See the above thread "Internal Server error wikipedia", which has been closed, as the discussion is currently at

Wikipedia:VPT#Weird_error_on_loading_WP:VPT. Regards. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs

|] 05:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. My bad. Kelly ^hi! 05:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – Mbz1 (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely by Gwen Gale (talk · contribs). HeyMid (contribs) 12:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

but reviewed below. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 (talk · contribs)

6+ months ago, this user was banned from interacting with me, and I guess that interaction ban has now ran out.. Noting this, Mbz1 immediately jumped in in an issue they were not, by any stretch of the imagination, involved in, with the sole purpose of baiting me with a

Per the above, I request that they be given a short block for a clear

Editor has been notified and removed the notice.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 06:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Make that a long block, since they aren't going to leave this issue alone. Either that, or they are banned indefinitely from interacting with me. I haven't uttered a word since the 6 month ban all those weeks ago, and yet here, some time after the ban, they try to start another fight?— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 06:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 removed a templated message notifying him of this thread with the edit summary "removed garbage"? That's interesting behavior right there. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 06:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Which is fine. I left him a note asking him to avoid interacting with Daedalus969 unnecessarily, which I is something I expect Daedalus969 to follow as well. Prodego ^talk 07:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Does that really do enough to address the complaint, though? She (not he) fresh off the interaction ban just went and...interacted. When users right off a topic ban go back to the topic and engage in the same behavior that let to the ban in the first place, that's usually leads to something more severe. Tarc (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, agreeing with Tarc -- I think a block for

I'd support a block, and I would suggest a substantial one. Another incident where Mbz1 seems to be digging up long-dead incidents is currently

talk

) 17:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

And yet more WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality... assuming bad faith and describing another editor's conduct as "disgusting" because they suggested controversial material shouldn't go on the Main Page on a sensitive date [18]. (Surprise surprise, this too is related to the Israel/Palestine/Arab topic area.) --

talk

) 17:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Counting on my fingers, ok,

WP:BATTLEGROUND with Daedalus, Supreme Deliciousness, Chem Ed, and I would point to even a fourth Wikipedian Bali_ultimate here and here, all examples just from the first 100 of Mbz1's Contributions linked to above. betsythedevine (talk

) 18:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It would have been nice if somebody is to block user:Demiurge1000 if for nothing else then for canvasing--Mbz1 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Betsythedevine is also [canvasing once and canvasing 2. Is this only me who sees something strange here? Just asking.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yet another instance of not knowing what canvassing is. Bulldog123 20:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You are supposed to notify people when they are under discussion at ANI or elsewhere, or am I mistaken about this? betsythedevine (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to inform everyone, Mbz1 created a sockpuppet case for this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

And why haven't you blocked exactly? Seems like a fishing expedition to me— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 18:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 has been blocked for a week by Gwen Gale for harassment and disruption, and I've closed the SPI case. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we seriously consider a community ban on this user? Checking her block log, we have a whopping 10 blocks already. If this doesn't exhibit a

WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, I don't know what does. A few days ago, I got a mysterious message [19] on my talkpage. Mbz1 (a user I never interact with outside of AfDs where we always disagree) "reverted" it as vandalism [20]. Considering she doesn't seem to have any association with this troll account (or at least I hope not), I can only assume she regularly patrols my talk page. This "patrolling" has been going on ever since I actively participated in the AfD for List of Jewish Nobel laureates (a list she has contributed to significantly). Thereafter, she's been hounding my contribs, jumping in on discussions she has nothing to do with only to reprimand me whenever I make a mistake, like this unintentional case of outing. Bulldog123

20:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing about these other editors, but if Daedalus969 doesn't receive a very long block for his various actions then the system has failed.

talk

) 20:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Back up your accusations or they are personal attacks. You also know nothing of this situation, so your request for a block can really be taken as a grain of salt. You're only here because I dared tell you that your actions were attacks themselves.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs}

20:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm here because the extreme hostility you continually display towards other editors is disruptive.

talk

) 20:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Diffs or it didn't happen; you can't just claim something of someone and refuse to back it up;

it doesn't work that way. I left your thread alone, I dropped the stick, but now you have chosen to pick it up again.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs}

20:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Gwen Gale changed the block on Mbz1 to be indefinite. Now can we put an end to this discussion? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No problems here.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 20:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Long overdue. Bulldog123 21:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I imagine this discussion will be moved to a different forum, because the ban by Gwen Gale, the ban's upholding by a different admin, the ban's extension by Gwen Gale, the examples I gave at Mbz1's request, and perhaps other matters as well are all being strongly protested on Mbz1's talk page, with calls for uninvolved sysops to step in. betsythedevine (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Like Black Kite (talk · contribs), Prodego (talk · contribs) and Jehochman (talk · contribs) (see here), I too agree with the block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This outcome is sad and grotesque. At her best, Mbz1 is a luminous Wikipedia contributor. She is also volatile and periodically high maintenance. But that is a small price to pay for the value of the content she adds to Wikipedia. Genuine content editors are now bizarrely at the bottom of the Wikipedia food chain. They should be at the top. It would be great if Wikipedia administrators had the motivation to identify editors who, although sometimes problematic, are nonetheless high performing contributors, and if these administrators had the skills to accommodate such editors. Instead, administrators too often treat such editors with contempt, as Mbz1 has been here, as though they were mere vandals who should be squashed.

Personally I feel embarrassed and ashamed when I see stuff like this. It is such a conflict. Wikipedia is a massively significant project, yet our administrators are letting the project down so badly. No doubt there are many benign administrators who simply don't intervene because they are afraid. But other administrators seem to have the goal of blocking (demeaning) as many high performing content editors as they can. Most content editors will not speak out now about stuff like this. They are afraid. They know how vulnerable they are now.

Mbz1, if you happen to read this, you need a rocket up your arse for the silly ways you overreact. You definitely need a severe rapping on the knuckles. Grow up. But you were, are, still one of the more creative valuable content editors Wikipedia has had the privilege to attract. Ultimately, the value of Wikipedia is just the sum of genuine and creative content editors, such as yourself, that it was privileged to attract and nurture. We attract a lot of such editors, but then we most dismally and stupidly fail to nurture them. Instead we savage them. If Wikipedia lacks the skills to create a space where content editors such as Mbz1 can flourish and continue to contribute her periodically luminous offerings, despite her somewhat flawed interpersonal complications (and don't we all all have them, however we cover them up), then really, what hope do we have as a species. Why do our administrators make mere interpersonal flaws so fatal? This is a collective craziness and failure on the part of our own unaware Wikipedia administrators, and not for the first time, a jewel creative editor, has stupidly and unnecessarily been strangled. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

But not that unusual in cases where user conduct and content contributions conflict dramatically. See User:Ottava Rima, (this was brought up on WP:AN for review not so long ago.) Tijfo098 (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Let the celebrities get off with a slap on the wrist, and treat the common-folk harsher? That doesn't sound right; treat them the same as everyone else. Content contributions don't make you exempt from the rules.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 21:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Block review