Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive461

Teresa Cheung

User:Flowerboat has been removing content from this article, claiming that it is "fabricated and defamatory"; however, everything in the article is attrributed to a reliable source (except the birth date, but that can go if it's a problem). I've reverted the changes and warned the user, asking him/her to provide suitable evidence. Since I'm not sure if this is simple vandalism (the user is an SPA), or whether or not this is a legitimate concern, I would appreciate some advice on how to proceed. PC78 (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I issued a warning about edit warring. This looks like vandalism, but if she has a source I'm willing to give her a chance to show it before blocking. In the meantime, please post here if she removes the information again - someone else will revert, and block if necessary. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Aoso0ck editing restriction

In light of the previous discussion and continued disruptive editing I've told this user that I'm going to require them to use edit summaries from now on link. So far they have refused to communicate at all with other editors, and their editing style is becoming very disruptive, so this seems the very minimum necessary. Does this seem reasonable to other people? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This editor, whose first edit was only on 26 July, has been quite busy removing warnings from his Talk page, so you can't get a complete picture from the current version. His edits may be well-intentioned but they require others to clean up after him. In about 80 edits thus far, he has never posted to a Talk page. Four different editors have so far left him warnings or queried his lack of discussion. An editing restriction is more logical for a basically productive editor who just goes astray in one particular area. I would suggest a one-week block that would be lifted if he agrees to leave edit summaries and respond to Talk comments. If there is still no response or no change in his practices after one week, an indef is appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd also be OK with that approach, I suppose it would have the same effect without me having to follow them around reverting their non-consensual edits. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Verbal chat 06:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like he shouldn't be allowed to remove warnings from his talk page. II | (t - c) 06:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Request sanity check and block - Still editing without discussion and now edit-warring again to remove chunks of referenced text from the Licensure article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

update he's finally left a rather cryptic message on the talk page... but then just reverted to his preferred versionI didn't refresh my watchlist! Verbal chat 17:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That was much more difficult that it should have been, but hopefully he'll now engage in discussion. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not, now back to edit warring and deleting text at the Licensure article - I honestly can't make head or tail of their comments on the talkpage. I've reported them for edit-warring. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Heads up - my Yahoo! and my Gmail accounts have been cracked

I've just found out that my someone may have gained access to my Yahoo! and my Gmail accounts. Fortunately, my Wikipedia account appears to be fine. (I've changed the password just in case.) However, if anyone sees any suspicious behavior from this account, please let me know right away.

Also, could anyone with database access please check if any odd IPs have logged on to my account within the last 12 hours?

Thanks. --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• You'll have to ask for someone to perform a checkuser. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Why do a checkuser? Look at your contributions, see if your account did anything funny in the last 12 hours. Change your email address associated with Wikipedia. Change your password. Done. --barneca (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Make sure neither of those e-mail accounts are registered in your Wikipedia preferences. Chillum 22:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I just checked my logs and deleted edits, and there were no suspicious activity. I guess my account is safe. Thanks for you help, guys. --Ixfd64 (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Your account looks fine. If you don't already, you should have different passwords for your email and wikipedia accounts. And you might want to look into Committed identity. Thatcher 22:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. It is much appreciated. :) --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Also see strong password. —Travis^talk 00:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A strong password doesn't do much good if it can be reset (or even obtained in plain text) by answering an easily guessable or dictionary-attackable "secret question". If you cannot disable this feature your best bet is to enter random letters (play a couple bars of Louie Louie on the keyboard) as the answer, rather than the truth which can probably be guessed through brute force, like "What is your mother's maiden name?" (see cheat sheet) or "What are the last four digits of your SSN?" (even easier). — CharlotteWebb 01:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the rule?

Resolved

 – admin continues to learn Toddst1 (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the rule on removing a sockpuppet or ipsock template from one's user page? Is it the same as removing warnings from a talk page (i.e. ok and considered acknowledgement)? I had trouble finding the answer so am bringing it here. Toddst1 (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as my reading of WP:BLANKING it's only confirmed notices that aren't allowed to be removed. –xeno (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I figured it was ok for the supected puppet and hadn't found that rule on the confirmed. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The way I've always seen it, if the IP is an obvious sock of a blocked/banned user and they remove the notice, that's still an edit by a blocked/banned user and should be reverted. Dayewalker (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Selective and partisan policy enforcement by Will Beback

Will Beback (talk · contribs · logs) has a history of turning a blind eye to policy violations by editors who share his POV, while being quick to take action against editors who don't. I have seen this in connection with the LaRouche articles, where Will seems to have a strong personal interest. Recently he chided User:Polly Hedra([1]) for this edit which he called a personal attack and deleted[2], while finding nothing untoward about this edit and this one by User:Cberlet, Polly's antagonist. Another admin stepped in and gave Cberlet a 24 hour block for incivility, which was the subject of a discussion on this board. Will lobbied for a similar block against Polly Hedra, but found little support.[3] In fact, one other editor specifically commented at ANI on the partisan nature of Will's interventions.[4]

Two days ago I removed a link that User:Dking posted to his personal, selfpublished website.[5] Dking has a history of violations of WP:LINKSPAM (cleanup by COI noteboard team member ... Dking coming around again to re-add the spam: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13].) Dking responded by accusing me of "censorship" and branded me a "Follower of LaRouche." I replied by saying "I am no more a 'follower of LaRouche' than I am a 'follower of Robert Mugabe,' even though I have worked hard to keep POV-pushers from using both biographical articles as a soapbox against those subjects. Secondly, if I were a 'follower of LaRouche,' it would still be a violation of WP:NPA to use that as a debating tactic: Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." I am emphasizing this here, because I anticipate a similar argument from Will in his response to his notice. I also posted the examples above of Dking's Linkspam violations. In response, Dking deleted the examples and reiterated his personal attack.[14] When I re-added the examples,[15], I received a warning on my talk page from Will, threatening me with sanctions for "taunting." [16] I looked at Dking's talk page for similar warnings and found none. Will then "prematurely archived" the talk page, supposedly to "foster peace," but more likely to protect Dking's conduct from scrutiny, as was the case with Will's out-of-process closing of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Dking. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Three things: first, can you tell us what the CoI noticeboard's consensus was on Dking's website? And second, could you back up the statement that Will has a "strong personal interest", or withdraw it? Third, where did Will use admin tools in this dispute? Thanks. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

1. See [17][18][19]
2. Let's put it this way, I have never seen a LaRouche-related dispute where Will did not weigh in in support of Cberlet and Dking, going back to the LaRouche II ArbCom case where he was a party.
3. In this instance, Will threatened me with sanctions, while making no equivalent threat to Dking, who actually did make a personal attack, twice. I have seen Will ban editors in the past whom he deemed to be "LaRouche editors," on what I considered to be extremely flimsy evidence. While he has not formally designated me a "LaRouche editor," I take the threat of sanctions seriously; it's not a use of the tools per se, but it does represent an abuse of the office if it is used to intimidate, particularly to gain ground in a content dispute. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• The posting from Marvin Diode which I think was out of line was this, in which he said, referring to the prohibition on spam, "In some cases, it may be just to boost a faded reputation for egotistical purposes."[20] That was a clear dig at Dennis King/Dking. I complained about it on the talk page but didn't get a satisfactory response. I warned Marvin Diode on his talk page that taunting is a form a personal attack and will not be tolerated.[21] Meanwhile Dking and Marvin Diode were bickering and refactoring each others comments on the talk page. I decided the best thing would be to "prematurely" archive the discussion in order to end what apppeard to me to be a pointless and contentious debate.[22] I didn't sanction anyone (though I warned that sanctions may happen if behavior doesn't change) nor did I use any admin tools. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You warned me, you didn't seem to think Dking required a warning. This is what I mean by "selective enforcement." If it weren't such a consistent pattern, I wouldn't bring it up. Note also that Dking made the claim that since he doesn't directly harvest income from his website, it couldn't possibly be a violation of WP:LINKSPAM to post links to it all over the project. This is a misreading of the LINKSPAM policy, which was the point of my comment. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Generic rouge admin abuse complaint, the complainant moves one step closer to a topic ban per the multiple arbitrations on LaRouche and the tendentious editors clustered around that topic. A bit more investigation shows a long-term pattern of activism against Dennis King by Marvin Diode, who has been trying for a long time to get all links to King's websites off the project. While agreeing that they are, on the surface, not reliable sources, he has shown considerable evidence of a deeply vested external agenda against King, and his determination to remove "unreliable" sources appears to apply only to those sources which are critical of LaRouche. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There is only one Dennis King website at issue here, and it is a personal website/blog. Removing links to it should be non-controversial, particularly when the owner of the personal site has very aggressively added and re-added it in defiance of policy. You make a dazzling leap of logic by insinuating that, by calling attention to the excesses of an unusually tendentious editor, I am pursuing a secret agenda of shielding LaRouche from criticism. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There is only one Marvin Diode at issue here, and it appears to be a participant on one side in a long-standing dispute, bringing said dispute to Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

...and only his side ought to be sanctioned for it, while participants on the other side of the dispute are fine and dandy? "Sauce for the goose; sauce for the gander" really needs to be applied; I guess I ought to write an essay at WP:SAUCE if none exists already. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Uneven sanctions are not by themselves evidence of bias. It is neither "selective" nor "partisan" for an administrator to sanction a single side in a dispute. Assuming the administrator is acting in good faith, it is a simple exercise of discretion. The administrator may simply have found that one person's behavior rises to the level where it needs administrative intervention while the other's does not. Moreover, even if both side's behavior is sanctionable there is no administrative abuse in sanctioning only one side - not unless the administrator truly does have a conflict of interest or is using sanctions to further a position on content. It could be a simple oversight. It could even be appropriate. It takes two to fight, usually, so removing one may well have the desired effect of ending the fight. Moreover, as controversial as LaRouche is, it's hard to equate the frustration of people trying to promote him on the encyclopedia with the frustration of people trying to avoid promoting his views. Reviewing the diffs, even though both sides became uncivil out of frustration, Poly Hedra's accusations were direct and personal, whereas Cberlet was expressing generalized disapproval of a group of editors for pushing content bias. It's not obvious who deserved sanctions and who didn't but that's a moot issue at this point, and there's certainly nothing that shows any abuse here. In short, Guy's right.Wikidemo (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

But Marvin Diode is not a Larouchian, but has been unfairly labeled as one, which is a dirty tactic used by some in this fight, which is not simply a case of "Larouchians vs. Mainstream" as it's sometimes portrayed. Anybody who objects to the actions of some of the "anti-Larouche" people seems to get automatically fastened with a political label that might not have any resemblance to their actual position. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Dtobias, have you reviewed Marvin Diode's contribution history? While we can't say if he is a "LaRouchian" or not, all of his edits are either to LaRouche-related articles or, if to other topics, they promote the LaRouche POV. His attacks against Cberlet and Dking are consistent with the decades-long conflict between them and the LaRouche movement. While Marvin Diode may claim to not be a follower of LaRouche, and may choose to be offended if called that, the reality is that he gives the appearance of being a LaRouche follower by his actions and words on Wikipedia. People can follow any religion or philosophy they like, but when they push a POV or use Wikipedia as a battleground then it's a problem. Wikipedia's problem with accounts that push the LaRouche POV goes back at least four years and includes three ArbCom cases and numerous sock puppets. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a standard tactic I've seen Will employ time and again. "Have you reviewed Joe Editor's contribution history? He edits articles on topics of interest to LaRouche." The trick here, as anyone with a slight familiarity with LaRouche knows, is that LaRouche has expressed an opinion on virtually every topic covered on Wikipedia, with the possible exception of the Pokemon characters. If you were to review Will Beback's contribution history, you will find -- shocking as it may seem -- that he edits articles on topics of interest to LaRouche. As far as my edits "promoting LaRouche POV," that's a con job. This goes back to the argument that I anticipated in my initial statement: since LaRouche is a uniquely evil person, anyone who interferes with the use of Wikipedia to denounce him may be treated in flagrant disregard for Wikipedia policy. Which I guess is what Dan T. already said. In response to Wikidemo, yes, I am alleging that Will is using sanctions to further a position on content. I disagree in the strongest terms with Wikidemo's characterization of these disputes as "people trying to promote him on the encyclopedia vs. people trying to avoid promoting his views." I got involved in the first place because I saw a small group of individuals trying to use the encyclopedia as an attack platform against LaRouche, in violation of WP:BLP, WP:SOAP and Lord knows how many other policies. And if someone steps in and says "but what about Wikipedia policy," they are immediately charged with "promoting LaRouche." Again, compare my edits at Robert Mugabe. Would you care to argue that I am "giving the appearance of being a Mugabe follower"? --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed your contribution history, and it is dominated by LaRouche articles, and your contributions to those articles and surrounding debates are dominated by an LaRouche apologetic stance. If you are genuinely trying to be neutral on this subject then you are doing a very poor job of it. You are giving a very strong appearance of a vendetta against King, in fact. Guy (Help!) 09:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

An impartial review of my contribution history will reveal that I have never taken a position either pro or con on LaRouche; my role has been simply to insist on the strict application of BLP and other policies, in any article where I have seen a problem. Your comments give a very strong appearance that as far as you are concerned, policy is nothing, POV is everything. You and Will seem to wish to grant a 007 "license to defame" to Dking and Cberlet. If Wikipedia policies such as BLP are not applied evenly across the board, even to the most controversial characters, the project loses credibility. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

@DanT: I did not say that, I said that partisans coming here to bitch because they are not getting their way in a long-term and largely external dispute is not helpful to the encyclopaedia. It's not clear to me why you decided to butt in in the first place, actually, since your input was 100% unhelpful and unproductive. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm still not sure which sanctions I've applied that Marvin Diode is complaining about. I've never blocked him. All I did was issue some warnings not to post personal attacks. As for Mugabe, Lyndon LaRouche is a strong supporter. LaRouche is anti-British, anti-colonialism, and anti-George Soros, all of which are involved.[23][24][25][26] Marvin Diode has been editing to provide the pro-Mugabe POV favored by LaRouche. However that doesn't mean he's a follower of Mugabe. All that matters to Wikipedia is that POVs, whatever they are, aren't pushed behind their proper weight, and that editors are civil towards each other. I think that this editor has problems with both, as have a string of similar accounts going back some years. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. So, let's suppose hypothetically that author Kitty Kelley were to start a Wikipedia account called Kkelley and post links all over Wikipedia to a site promoting her book, The Family, which is said to be "filled with lurid allegations."[27] If one or more editors were to object, do you suppose that they would be labeled "followers of George W. Bush" and that the conversation would immediately turn to speculation about these supposed "George Bush supporters," ignoring the obvious inappropriate behavior by the hypothetical Ms. Kelley? --Terrawatt (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think there are some valid concerns here. It appears that Will has a long-standing habit of favoring one side in these disputes, and if he is going to take any kind of administrative role in the matter he needs to avoid that. I think it would be best if Will didn't involve himself in this any further, although of course it should still be monitored by someone who is accepted as impartial. Everyking (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

''Everyking (09:22): "monitored by someone who is accepted as impartial"

Will's impartial style is so economical that it's difficult to duplicate. Who else impartial but less economical, wants to waste so much monitoring time – day in, year out – while periodically defending themselves against meritless charges like this, all because of actually being fair?

"It appears ... favoring one side in these disputes"

However, it's not a fact. Based on my many samplings of his actions, Will Beback is among the most neutral editors and impartial admins on Wikipedia. He should be thanked, not criticized.

...um, ok, thanks Will. Milo 06:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• As for being partial to one side, I endorsed the recent block of Cberlet for incivility. Can you point to any action that I've taken which is incorrect? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• While I have no interest in the Lyndon LaRouche article, my experience with Will BeBack is in line with the concerns that Marvin Diode has raised. He takes a non-neutral approach when it suits him. This latest issue makes me more concerned about his actions. I would ask that an uninvolved party review his edits and admin actions with an eye toward either establishing or disproving the bias that Diode and I have seen from him. --SSBohio 18:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• I invite all editors to review my administrative actions. To date no one here has asserted that I've made even a single incorrect use of the tools. As for Ssbohio's assertion, I believe the only article we've worked on together is Justin Berry, so I presume that is what he's referring to. I stand by my work on that extremely contentious BLP. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Even if the tools aren't used, a threat of their use or the use of the bully pulpit are also areas open to concern.
  • Justin Berry, Timothy Ryan Richards, and related topic areas and administrative processes are all areas where we've come in contact with each other, Will. For the most part, I think you do an admirable job with contentious situations, but not all the time, and not with an absolute lack of partiality (SqueakBox comes to mind). Even if it's just Marvin & I, it raises the question of there being a pattern and practice on your part. --SSBohio 20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Based on the articles you list (I think we may have both edited Child sexual abuse and Pro-pedophile activism as well), I presume you think I'm biased against pedophiles/pederasts. I've tried to avoid acting in a biased fashion, but at the same time I've sought to make sure the majority viewpoint is given proper weight, and that minority viewpoints don't dominate. Please explain and document the bias that you allege. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Your presumption is incorrect. I believe you have a bias in favor of anti-pedophile activists, as their grinding their particular axe seems to go unnoticed by you more often than that of the similarly POV-pushing pro-pedophile activists. We both have a bias against pedophiles and pederasts, as do most people. However, we're here to write an encyclopedia, not to fight the good fight against them. Ironically, your defense of hagiography in the protrayal of Justin Berry has the effect of protecting a producer of child pornography. I had honestly intended this to be a simple "I've had the same problem with him" comment, not a rehashing of our history. If you want to get into the details, we can, but it should probably go into a new section; I just don't see the necessity, as my concerns about you don't concern a current issue. As always, I invite you to discuss these matters with me at my talk page. --SSBohio 20:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• If you're going to accuse me of bias and misusing administrative tools then yes, please do document the allegation. It's better to clear the air now than to have you pop up everytime another user has an unrelated complaint. ·:· Will Beback ·:·
  • As to posting diffs, you have the advantage there; Most of the edit histories of these articles have been entirely or partly deleted; You still have access to it, but not me. Still, I'll see what's still available.
  • Concerning your assertion that Marvin's complaint is unrelated, how do you come to that conclusion? He sees evidence of bias in how you carry out your duties and so do I. The conduct in each case seems not only related, but hard to differentiate. --SSBohio 23:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • What is the relationship between Lyndon LaRouche and Pro-pedophilia activism? I can think of one - both topics have long been the targets of editors seeking to promote minority viewpoints, and both topics have been brought to the ArbCom repeatedly. In none of the ArbCom cases has there been any finding of fault regarding my edits or admin actions on those topics. Neither Ssbohio nor Marvin Diode have presented any evidence that I have engaged in "selective and partisan policy enforcement". The community can see for itself where the problems are with these topics. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
      • The topics aren't related; it's the conduct that the two situations have in common; Quoting: Marvin sees evidence of bias in how you carry out your duties and so do I. The conduct in each case seems not only related, but hard to differentiate. --SSBohio 13:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Here are the three edits I've made to Justin Berry in the past year:[28][29][30] Please point to the one which shows the behavior you're complaining about. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 14:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
          • You're refuting an allegation I never made. I haven't said that one of the three edits you made to Justin Berry in the past year was problematic. False logic is no defense of your position. That said, I appreciate your work to revert vandalism as evidenced by the three diffs you provided. --SSBohio 14:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
            • • Again, if you can't document your allegation please drop it. Since I've barely worked on the Justin Berry article in the past year it appears that your claim, whatever it is, must relate to even older editing. This is not a forum for bringing up issues from the distant past. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
                • I already addressed that concern some 19 hours ago: I just don't see the necessity, as my concerns about you don't concern a current issue. As always, I invite you to discuss these matters with me at my talk page. When I have time, I'll look at the diffs you've left available to me and find some examples. Until then, I renew my invitation to take it to my talk page. --SSBohio 16:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
                  • So you decided to pop up in this unrelated issue and add your complaint about something you can't clearly recall that happened over a year ago and may not have involved any use of administrative tools to begin with. Excuse me if I think this is not a step to improve the encyclopedia but rather an effort to pursue an old grudge. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
                    • So you decided to deliberately ignore everything I wrote above about how the conduct I've seen is similar to the conduct that Marvin's seen? Just because you're involved with two different topics doesn't make the issue of your conduct into two unrelated issues.
                    • Your constant refutation of arguments I never made is beginning to look like you're setting up straw men to knock down. I haven't said it was your use of admin tools that concerned me; I've pointed that out twice already.
                    • Why would I bear a grudge against you? I don't know you. I'm here to write an encyclopedia.
                    • To reiterate, I'll provide you with diffs to illustrate my point later, when I have more time. Until then, unless you think my words here require administrators' attention, let's take it to talk. --SSBohio 16:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
                      • Yes, I'm ignoring allegations of inappropriate use of admin tools or bias that don't have any evidence. It isn't helpful to make vague, unsupported, and out-dated complaints. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
                        • I haven't said anything as to whether you're ignoring such allegations, so I'm not sure how your statement is a response to mine. I await your response, nonetheless. --SSBohio 18:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Will has a perfect right to possess a strong POV on certain topics, and to enter into content disputes on those topics. However, my view is that he ought to scrupulously avoid the use, or the threat of the use, of admin tools, when it might be seen as an effort to gain advantage in a content dispute. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Again, when have I done so? Warning a user that they may be blocked for posting personal attacks is not a threat to use administrative tools. Telling a user to stop making personal attacks is not an effort to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Please document your allegations or drop them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a list of instances where I posted requests on your talk page, asking you to use your admin authority impartially:

• User talk:Will Beback/archive18#NPA on LaRouche talk pages
• User talk:Will Beback/archive18#Even-handedness
• User talk:Will Beback/archive19#Even-handedness
• User talk:Will Beback/archive20#Mr Keck
• User talk:Will Beback/archive28#Use of your admin powers to intervene into LaRouche-related content disputes

Clearly, we disagree on one point: I believe that informing an editor that he may be blocked does in fact imply a threat to use admin authority, because I have seen quite a few editors blocked by you, after you had first publicly identified them as "LaRouche editors." Obviously, I am not privy to checkuser information, but one case that I found particularly worrisome was that of User:Gelsomina, who was blocked at your instigation two days after posting this statement in a request for arbitration that involved you. It looked to me like retaliation. There were similar cases, such as that of User:MaplePorter. Now, I am willing to concede that there might be compelling evidence to support these bans that I was not able to see. But then I came across this recent statement by you, in which you say about LaRouche/Herschelkrustofsky sockpuppets that "it is probably impossible to find them using Checkuser, and so they can only be determined by behavior." This smacks of banning editors due to POV, and makes me take any implied threat from you very seriously. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, you've made the same complaint before, also without any evidence of error. Yes, socks of Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Cognition (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been blocked in the past and more may have to be blocked again. Also, I was mistaken when I said there's no way of finding the socks with Checkuser. That is not true and I withdraw the statement. Gelsomina was blocked based on checkeuser evidence. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive316#Views of Lyndon LaRouche article fully protected. Maple Porter was blocked due to other evidence of being the same as HK. Even so, the socks of many banned editors are identified by their behavior; there's nothing unusual in that.
• While this discussion is going on other accounts are posting fresh attacks on user:Dking and user:Cberlet.[31][32] If users are going to bring complaints they should keep their hands clean. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There really doesn't seem to be any substance to this discussion, and we're going around in circles. Unless anyone has some direct evidence needing immediate admin action, I'd say we can close this. Anything else should go to WP:RfC. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It is easy to get involved in content disputes as admins, and not realize that we slowly get involved in a manner that compromises our ability to remain neutral. At least, we should be able to accept that fact and be conspicuous in our interactions with users: just claiming that we are above our human frailties only exacerbates the issues and is not helpful. Once thing that we need to remember is that there are always other admins that we can consult with rather than act alone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

John Edwards love child allegations

I'm bypassing the BLP noticeboard and taking this straight here for more immediate attention. We have a new article on the recent allegations about John Edwards here. Does having an entire article about this violate our policy on biographies' insistence that we're not a vehicle for spreading titillating claims about people's lives? What about the neutrality policy's clause about undue weight. The article is quite well and conservatively written, but this issue still merits some discussion here.--chaser - t 17:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The article name is not neutral (if it does survive, it needs to be moved). However, given three-quarters of the references are from either the Huffington Post (blog), the Slate (blog), The National Enquirer (rag), Gawker.com (blog), or (best) the Media Research Center (conspiracy theorists who believe the liberal media is out to destroy the world), what is left amounts to about three reliably-referenced paragraphs that could happily sit in the John Edwards article, which currently contains no mention whatsoever of the allegations, which have been widely reported, and really should. Suggest heavily stripping out the blog gossip, and merging. Neıl ☄ 17:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I say, if someone's really upset, send this to WP:AFD. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The main article had a fairly compact consensus version until recently removed by User:Sceptre. I've asked him to review but so far he has declined to revert. Ronnotel (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The article was written in response to concerns at the John Edwards article that to include details about media coverage of the controversy was a WP:COATRACK problem. The article is intended to discuss the allegations themselves. I don't really care for the title either, but a look at the press references will show that is how the allegations are being pretty much universally to in the mainstream press. Yes, there are blog references, but they are only intended to apply to a discussion of blog coverage of the allegations (a similar situation exists at Killian documents). Any controversial facts are referenced to the mainstream press. Kelly ^hi! 18:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts)I agree with Neil here. Cut out the chaff, to the point of stubbing it even, and merge it to the Edwards' article. There is not enough here for a standalone, per WP:COATRACK. I definitely do not believe this is a CSD candidate (currently tagged as "attack", also tagged with "hangon" as of this posting of mine). The Edwards article doesn't need a "section", it needs a sentence. Suggested sentence to add to the Edwards' article (with a source, of course), to give it the correct weight: Edwards has been accused of allegedly having an extra martial affair that resulted in the birth of a child in February 2008. He denies the allegations. Anything else is reactionary, trivial, nonencyclopedic, and overwrought. (ref, /ref) Keeper ǀ 76 18:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Article has been speedy deleted by ChrisO as a "G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: Blatant POV fork of John Edwards". Davewild (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it may be "quite well written" but as the article name and slant makes clear, along with the general history of the John Edwards article, it's a blatant POV fork and magnet for POV-pushing on this issue. I've speedily deleted it under criterion G10 ("attack page"), given the BLP concerns. If this is disputed, which it probably will be, I suggest taking it to DRV. I believe there is already a line in the Edwards article that alludes to the controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with the "POV fork" claim - I went to a lot of effort to ensure that the article was written from a neutral point of view, and to carefully source every potentially controversial fact. Shouldn't it at least have been taken to AfD? Kelly ^hi! 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, summary deletion is OK under certain circumstances. Email me if you want a copy of the deleted material, Kelly.--chaser - t 18:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• FYI, since the article is deleted, here is a link to an archived copy of the article as it appeared before deletion. I don't believe it was a speedy candidate. Kelly ^hi! 18:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you put some hard work into it and I'm sorry to have had to delete it. Considering the problems that the John Edwards article has had lately, I think it would have been advisable to obtain a consensus on that article's talk page that a fork was necessary and that the topic was encyclopedic. Bear in mind that not every issue in an individual's private life is encyclopedic - Wikipedia isn't a gossip column or a forum for documenting gossip. Something that's appropriate for Gawker or the National Enquirer isn't automatically suitable for a Wikipedia article. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, I just believe you acted incorrectly in this case. The article included dozens of references to the mainstream press. Kelly ^hi! 18:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I can admit that its intrinsic attackness was not completely clearcut, but I share the concerns that the vast majority was not adequately sourced per both RS and BLP, as well as the problems maintaining a balanced unattacking tone would become for the article. That said, no harm has been done here by its deletion; what was both notable and reliably sourced from it fell essentially into the pattern "reliable source A said Edwards' VP considerations have been hurt by blogosphere material B and/or unreliably sourced allegation C". This can reasonably be merged into his main article. At one point, it was. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• For the avoidance of doubt, my tagging the talk page last night with {{BLP}} merely indicated that it was obvious that the BLP policy applies. I didn't have time then to actually read the article and review the sources in use. Nor do I now. I will not offer a meaningful opinion until I have that much time. GRBerry 19:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

While the article may have references that may not have withstood full scrutiny under WP:BLP, I think pre-emptive deletion may have been premature. You don't often have CSD candidates with 80+ references - most from mainstream sources and the rest generally from the higher quality blogs (Slate, etc.). Ronnotel (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Being sourced does not necessarily make it encyclopedic. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a golden number of references for articles. Too little, it's unsourced. Too many, the article writer is desperate to prove their point and becomes a NPOV issue. Q.V. Scientology controversies, which had around 200 references but is a POV landmine. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, I understand that everyone has an opinion, but it really bothers me that people here are saying that I write "attack articles" or "unsourced articles" or that I am "desperate to prove (a) point". The fact is that I have always worked hard to uphold neutrality and the BLP policy, and I challenge anyone to cite an example otherwise. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 19:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying you didn't include not enough references, I'm saying you included too many. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the speedy was unwarranted, as well. It had already been turned down for speedy once, and I'd have done the same - this was more suitable for an AFD discussion. As I am wholly uninvolved and in no way invested in the future of this article I won't bother with a DRV nomination, personally, but such may be warranted in this case. Shereth 19:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, I've been meaning to compliment you on the excellent work you did in helping to form a consensus about this at Talk:John Edwards. The deleted article also looks very well put together, and I'm again impressed with that part of it. Sceptre, your point that the article writer is desperate to prove their point and becomes a NPOV issue is weak and a failure to assume good faith. Kelly knew this would be controversial: that's reason enough to provide a lot of sourcing. That said, I'm queasy about this:

Blogosphere claims of a media "blackout" extended even to the online reference site Wikipedia and its biographical article on Edwards. Several prominent sites criticized the omission of information about the allegations, most notably Gawker.com[66][67] and the Media Research Center's NewsBusters blog.[68][69][70] Another critic was Roger L. Simon of Pajamas Media,[71] whose post was linked by Glenn Reynolds at the high-traffic weblog Instapundit.[72] The Wikipedia biography was later changed to include a mention of the allegations' potential impact on Edwards' political career. The controversy over the Wikipedia page was covered by Wired magazine,[73] and Kansas City Star columnist Aaron Barnhart opined that the addition of the information to the Wikipedia article influenced later media coverage of the allegations.[74]

We need to think very hard about Wikipedia's role in spreading this information. I don't have the time to think through this now, but frankly, I don't feel Wikipedia is capable of handling that kind of responsibility. We need to be a bit more cautious than news organizations, not less. But that's just an initial thought -- more a feeling, maybe. And to a degree it's technical: John Edwards has the ability to stop this in its tracks if it's false. Noroton (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a stranger to controversial biographical articles (I was one of the primary authors of Ashley Alexandra Dupré). With controversies like this, it's important to ask first if it's notable (this controversy undoubtedly is, with coverage not only in the U.S. mass media, but the international press as well). I don't believe the Edwards article is the right place to discuss it, because the story is about much more than John Edwards - it involves other people, and much of the controversy is not over Edwards himself, but over the handling of the story by some portions of the American mainstream media. To try to include this information in the Edwards article would rightfully raise COATRACK concerns. There are two ways to handle this type of situation - either close our eyes to the event, while numerous POV-pushers show up here to stir up drama about it on- and off-wiki, or to get ahead of the power curve, write a neutral, reliably sourced article about the event, and defend it against POV-pushers. I have no doubt the information will wind up in the encyclopedia in some form; obviously I think it's better if responsible editors control the form that information will take. Regards - Kelly ^hi! 21:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Good points. You're right. Noroton (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c, rp to Noroton) To some extent, your concerns are why we have policies like NPOV, RS, and BLP. We follow the reliable sources, not lead them. In the cases where the coverage was impacted by our articles, that would be a symptom that some editing served to lead the story, not follow it. And, to be honest, in principle this also pertains to editing on the Talk pages.

I disagree strongly with your assessment of Edwards' power to stop this, however: Most (by volume; pun intended) of the blogosphere is no better than an infinite number of monkeys at a typewriter. Unlike those trying to type Shakespeare, most fictions that most of those monkeys wish to perpetuate are far less noble. He can only hope to not bait any of them to redouble their efforts. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 21:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we follow the reliable sources. Actually, we are doing that -- describing what reliable sources have said. I guess I was concerned because we've gotten ahead of much of the news media. But as I think about it, that's really not our concern, as long as we follow some reliable sources. As for Edwards being able to stop it -- I think I was getting off topic, so never mind. Noroton (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Somebody claiming that Gawker and Media Research Center are "prominent sites" makes me question their motives and their reliability. Corvus cornix_talk 21:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I do want to emphasize that those sites were only included in a paragraph that discussed the Wikipedia portion of the controversy and were in no way used as references regarding the facts of the Edwards allegations. Maybe "prominent" wasn't the best word - by the time I got to that portion of the article, I was frankly sick of working on it and in a hurry to finish. But since my motives and reliability are now apparently in question, it's best I depart before I say something I regret. Kelly ^hi! 21:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Corvus, assume good faith, will ya? Gawker has been prominent for some time. Media Research Center is prominent as far as media criticism groups go. It's a strain to call that wording reason to "question their motives and their reliability." Please. Noroton (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I think a speedy deletion was hasty, considering the effort that went into the article and the number of reliable references (LA Times, etc) present. I do, however, object to the article title. I think John Edwards paternity allegations may be closer to the NPOV language we're looking for. caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 21:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The title is pretty much the weakest thing about this. If it's not there yet, maybe DRV is the best place to handle this, as Chris O suggests. The people who watch that area are more familiar with this kind of question. Noroton (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the suggested title is much better. I went with what the mainstream press was calling it, but what's appropriate for a newspaper may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia. Kelly ^hi! 22:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A standalone content fork here is the wrong thing to do. Speedying it was the right call, though I think it would be better logged as BLP special enforcement rather than G10 - but the paperwork is the least important aspect here. It's simple: there may or may not be a place for these allegations on Wikipedia. I have an opinion about that, as do many others. Those opinions need to be discussed at Talk:John Edwards. Creating a content fork is an end-run around having to actually reach consensus there, and it's not the way to go. If there's consensus for extensive, highly detailed coverage in the John Edwards article, then a content fork might be reasonable, but this is a pretty clear abuse of content forking. MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at BLP - special enforcement and I'm not sure it applies here. As I read it, that mechanism is meant to deal with problem editors who are willfully ignoring BLP policy. That's simply not the case here - Kelly's effort has been made in good faith (e.g. see the barn star she was recently awarded for her work in this area). BLP - special enforcement is not a Writ of Assistance. If a page violates BLP, then it is still incumbent on a prospective deleter to show how it qualifies under relevant CSD policy. Ronnotel (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, MastCell - I don't know if you're aware of this, but I've been heavily involved in achieving consensus at the Edwards article, so please don't say that I'm trying to circumvent the consensus. As I mentioned above, the article was written specifically to address valid COATRACK concerns there. I'm not sure if you read the deleted article, but much of the content was not directly related to Edwards himself and does not belong in his biography - the majority of the content deals with other people, and with decisions and controversies regarding media coverage, as well as a history of reporting on the story. Examples included the Wikipedia controversy (admittedly a minor part), decisions by organizations like The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and CBS News on coverage, and the whole birth certificate issue. Those events are notable but not directly related to Edwards himself. Kelly ^hi! 22:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to echo what MastCell says above (btw, good point about BLP special enforcement - I'll bear that in mind, thanks). The basic point is that there needs to be some general agreement that the controversy is encyclopedic in the first place. Wikipedia is not journalism; if we include articles on current news stories, they have to be on topics of historical significance. Clearly there's no consensus that this topic is of "historical significance". I think WikiNews might be a more appropriate place for this; if you don't already have a copy of the deleted article, Kelly, I'd be happy to provide one if you'd like to knock it into shape as a WikiNews article. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If the basic point is that there needs to be general agreement that it is encyclopedic, perhaps you could have brought that up for discussion prior to deleting. As it stands, bad delete. Arkon (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really. More harm is caused to us by having an article that is a BLP nightmare and a POV magnet than not having it until a consensus is reached. We're not in a hurry here, are we? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a clear case either way. As far as "historical significance" goes, many have said that this has sunk Edwards' chance to be the vice president. But yes, we are uncomfortably close in time to the news stories. On the one hand we're an encyclopedia, not journalism; on the other, we get updated fast, and we do cover events that happen immediately. Is Wikipedia coverage of the media coverage really encyclopedic? We do that in various articles covering controversies -- articles which have passed AfD. Noroton (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite independent of Edwards and his political fate, the subject is an important controversy in journalism that we cannot avoid covering. If by any chance these peculiar allegation have some truth behind them, then it will be a possibly unique example of the prototypical US tabloid -- tabloid in the pejorative sense--actually publishing against opposition something of national political importance. In the much more likely situation, it will be a spectacular example of that journal's incompetent/biased journalism , in this case adopted by political opportunists, with the added feature of showing the degeneration of the London Times, publishing on the authority of the Enquirer. We will have to cover this separately form our coverage of Edwards. I don't like the title: I would use "National Enquirer coverage of 2008 presidential campaign. " and leave his name out of the title. But I think the version of the article linked to above was acceptable, and I very decidedly would restore it to article space under a better title. I see no intrinsic reason why we cannot start the article now, describing what the E, the LA T, and the T have published, and the major blogs. As for its role in his bio, we should wait and see. I personally would have been reluctant to add that part now, because the difficulties in doing it at present with a NPOV using RSs. But the paragraph in the current locked version of the article is as fair as is possible at the present, and I see no real basis for removing it. On the more general question of our relationship of the press, we will hear exponentially more about it, but the only course is to follow our principles and let them try to follow theirs'. DGG (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

DGG makes a good point about an article on the coverage, and it's helped to clarify my thinking. Whenever these kinds of things come up in the public debate, I notice, the coverage that the media gave a similar situation is brought up (I'm talking about off-Wikipedia). In this case, the similarities and differences with the John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008 have come up. So it seems pretty clear that there is an encyclopedic reason for Wikipedia to describe how the media handled this. This is a separate subject from John Edwards. An article on the media coverage would downplay the birth certificate section quite a bit and would keep the description of Edwards' actions in the hotel rather brief, because it would be background information to the main subject of the article: the media coverage. I disagree that the focus should be largely on the Enquirer. I'd suggest: Media coverage of John Edwards paternity allegations. We have already established on the Talk:John Edwards page that the allegations are acceptable under WP:BLP. This solution avoids the content fork problem that MastCell brought up. Noroton (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A little thought experiment - let us pretend that we are looking back from 25 years later and everyone agrees that this marked the end of Edward's political career. How much material would belong in the John Edwards article in those circumstances? Probably no more than one or two paragraphs, because what he actually did during his career would need to be covered also, and we wouldn't want to unbalance the main biography. Additional coverage about the mess would belong in a sub article. This projection is comparable to how the Lewinsky scandal is handled in Bill Clinton. If no matter how important this becomes, we wouldn't put significantly more in John Edwards than was already there when Kelly wrote this page, than the issues we need to handle definitely do not include it being a POV fork. As one of the admins who is monitoring John Edwards (and the latest to use my tools on the main biography), I'm reasonably well aware of the consensus there (which continues to shift to fine tune the paragraph as more sources become available - just as it should). I'm also highly aware that new editors will probably be back in a couple days (when the current protection period ends) trying to get more material added. Kelly was attempting to get ahead of that forthcoming problem and wrote an article that if it had a POV problem was only going to far towards "this story matters". (I.e., it was neither an attack page nor unsourced, though bits might have needed to be edited to be more succinct.) Kelly definitely does not deserve any opprobium for his/her writing this article.

As to whether or not now is the time for this article, I've long been an occasional advocate for taking WP:NOT#NEWS a lot more seriously than we do. (I think if someone were to propose adding that to the policy now the community would reject it, because the evidence is that the community largely ignores it and writes articles whenever a major news story occurs.) So I'd be happier if we now had a Wikinews article, and waited a while before we started a Wikipedia article, possibly just keeping a soft-redirect to wikinews at a reasonable title. Assuming this doesn't linger on - and it might, depending on whether or not any of the mainstream news sources decided to do investigative journalism the way they did years ago and what such hypothetical investigations might find - then in a few months we'll be able to have better encyclopedic perspective. I refuse to predict whether the main story will be about how the media and blogosphere handled this, the substance of the allegations, or something else we have yet to identify. And until we know the main storyline, we are just to close to the event to know how to handle it. So my preferred outcome would be to have a wikinews article instead, and adopt a temporary policy of just waiting a few months here. But if this comes to DRV for a straight up/down decision, I'll have to opine based on those two options. GRBerry 02:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that the majority of discussion in this thread, as I read it, has opposed the idea of this page being an attack page and deserving of speedy deletion, I am about to restore the page, after which I will move it to John Edwards paternity allegations. This I do only because this article has not been taken to WP:DRV; if it had, I would not have restored the article. Because I myself believe that the page would be best be deleted, I am going to nominate it for AFD immediately upon restoration, moving, and justification on the talk page. I will not be restoring the talk page: upon my recreation of the article, I'll make a new talk page with nothing on it save the BLP header and my justification. Nyttend (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As a point of order, then, and given that there is some concern over BLP, why not just take it to DRV? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Simply because the discussion here, reviewing the deletion to an extent, seems to have opposed the speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I scan it now - It sounded more like you were waiting for someone to file a DRV, and then did something else instead of filing one yourself. Got it. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion has begun at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Edwards paternity allegations -- Noroton (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Block of Footballfan190?

Resolved

 – block issued, SSP case updated. Darkspots (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser showed that Footballfan190 (talk · contribs) has used multiple accounts, Titaniumviper (talk · contribs) and 216.93.231.149 (talk · contribs) to attempt to stack the vote on his own RfA [33] and to vandalize a biography of a living person [34] [35]. The admin who performed the checkuser blocked Titaniumviper but didn't block Footballfan190. Should the main account get a short block as well? That seems to me to be what we usually do. I've never interacted with Footballfan190 before and I don't particularly have it in for him—just want to resolve this. Darkspots (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the Footballfan190 account should be blocked for between 1 week and 1 month (probably a week is more reasonable, but cheating like that sure sticks in my craw), and this should be noted in the archived SSP case. Checkuser was pretty definitive. --barneca (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocks noted in the archived SSP per your suggestion [36]. Darkspots (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'd say it's time for an indef block, actually. Footballfan's a long-term problem user who vandalized articles early in his career. While he appeared to have stopped, it turns out that he only farmed the vandalism off to his bad hand account. Moreover, even when confronted with the evidence, he denied. In the meantime, he's nominated himself at RFA after RFA, without ever even making a show of addressing concerns from his previous failures. This user is not here to help the project. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I blocked for 1 month. I will indef the socks. Feel free to overturn the 1 month to indef if you think it's okay. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I was unfamiliar with his early career; I commented after looking at his last 100 or so edits, and it seemed like his article-space contributions were pretty reasonable. 1 month seems ok to me. His future RFA chances are shot to hell, that's probably more a punishment to him than a block. --barneca (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A month or two seems right to me. ("No mop for you!") Tim Vickers (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Threats of Violence

Resolved

An anonymous user User:142.163.22.213 added the following: [37] to an article five times before I managed to shut him down. Frankly, it may not be a serious threat, but it's nervewracking so I figured I'd better report it here. L'Aquatique[talk] 23:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and note he was thoroughly warned before I blocked him. He just blanked the page everytime. L'Aquatique[talk] 23:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Either you got the diff wrong or it's been oversighted. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, threat can be found here, admins only. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's it. He has now started vandalizing his own talk page, so that has been semi-protected. L'Aquatique[talk] 00:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I took care of all the necessary cleanup. — Scientizzle 00:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see this threat, but if it is as nervewracking as you say might you be able to confirm it's been reported to the appropriate authorities? Is that why it has been marked "resolved"? Bstone (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as an update, after discussion Bstone and I have contacted the RCMP out of Newfoundland (he did the calling, I did the digging) and notified them of the threat, the names involved, ip addy, etc. It may have been a hoax, but we're not taking that risk. I believe we can now actually call it resolved. Thanks everyone for the input! L'Aquatique[talk] 06:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Cratylus3 (talk · contribs) baiting me

About three weeks ago, I removed List of Pokémon (241-260) and its associated talk page from my watchlist after I removed the protection on the talk page (I had instated it due to IP vandalism). Recently, however, I looked at the talk page and have noticed that Cratylus3 (talk · contribs) has been using the talk page to accuse me of administrator abuse ([38], [39]) (User:Seresin did indeed state that my protection of the talk page had been, at one month, excessive; I removed the prot before removing the article from my watchlist in order to avoid any forthcoming personal attacks on me). I warned him against trying to provoke me into, what appears to me, using my admin tools against him. He responded thus.

As he'd ignore any warnings from me about trying to bait other users, could we have someone armed with a rainbow trout give him some clue? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 01:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

So you want us to warn him for criticizing your admin actions? Why? People should be free to criticize admins. Also "trying to provoke me into, what appears to me, using my admin tools against him" WTF? If you are even slightly tempted to use your admin tools against someone because they have accused you of abusing admin tools you must walk away from it. Admins cannot be baited, and if they are it is absolutely the admin's fault no one elses. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jéské, but Theresa is dead right - if you're feeling like you're going to block or whatever then just back away gracefully. I think any action or warnings at this point, from yourself or an uninvolved admin, is just likely to stir the pot. Sorry, I'm not unsympathetic, but it's not the worst example of admin bashing I've seen and I'd just move on. Pedro :  Chat  08:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Breaking ban

User:Skinny McGee was banned from editing any article regarding his band Talk:Midnight_Syndicate.

• User was warned not to edit once already

Skinny McGee made several more edits to the banned article and to albums associated with the article after his warning:

• August 5
• July 10
• May 21
• Dec 4
• Nov 7

It's nothing too controversial, just band promotion. Still, a ban is a ban; right? Ebonyskye (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That warning was almost a year ago, and he was not specifically banned by ArbCom. However, Thatcher did make it a bit clear he wasn't to do that... I'll drop him a note making it very clear he is banned, and will be blocked for further editing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The ban has no expiration date, so it's still valid. The case remedy allows for users to be added to the ban list, so Thatcher's ban is valid. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As the editor has an apparent COI, he should be encouraged to suggest edits in Talk. Negative warnings, "Don't edit the article!" should always be accompanied by positive suggestions as to how the editor can accomplish legitimate goals. (But if the editor were uncivil in Talk, that's another story, I have not looked at the original ban, nor at the edits above.) Normally, we don't worry about noncontroversial edits, though. "Band promotion" could be a problem.... --Abd (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a long edit war at Midnight Syndicate between current and former band member(s) (or their surrogates) leading to an arbitration case, and Ebonyskye is not a neutral party but is on "the other side" of the issue from Skinny McGee. Due to the history, the arb case, and to avoid stirring the pot again, it would be best for all editors who have relationships with past or present band members to stick to the talk page. Thatcher 14:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to unblock User:Ottava Rima early

Resolved

 – Withdrawn by OP as no consensus to unblock. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As this user's treatment of me at WQA was one issue cited in User:Nandesuka's block message, I felt that it might be aprapos for me to now suggest an ublock. Based on this user's recent interaction have shown, s/he is very much an asset to the project. I can appreciate the frustration that comes with using this interface for personal communication. And while I do not condone the accusations this user made against me (and categorically deny that I in any way attacked anyone during the issue that led to OR's block), I feel that the good work that Rima could be doing now outweighs the need to serve out the balance of this block. As far as I'm concerned, the accusations that were made are now water under the bridge. As such, I'm proposing that User:Ottava Rima be unblocked immediately, as serving out the remainder of the 8 day block serves no real preventative purpose. (Note: this is not a commentary on the appropriateness of Nandesuka blocking for 8 days. In no way am I saying Nandesuka was mistaken in the setting of the length of the block, just that circumstances have now changed a bit, and I feel an unblock would now be appropriate.) S. Dean Jameson 01:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have notified both User:Nandesuka and User:Ottava Rima of this thread. S. Dean Jameson 02:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support —Travis^talk 01:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't agree that letting this block stand serves no preventative purpose. Ottava Rima needs to stop being disruptive, period. He has been unblocked early before, recently, when it seemed he was going to end his tendentious behavior, and yet here we are again. The way we deal with repeated disruption is by setting progressively longer blocks until the message gets across that such behavior isn't tolerated. If I'm counting the unblocks and resets in his block log correctly, this is OR's fifth such block in six months. Eight days is perfectly reasonable. By unblocking early twice in the space of just over a month we're sending the message that he can get away with quite a lot if he makes nice afterwards. We want to discourage future disruption. -- Vary | Talk 02:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  For the record, he didn't "make nice" with me, nor did he solicit this request for unblock in any way. This block has served its purpose and the situation it was placed to prevent (presumably OR's accusations against me) have long sinced passed, and there's no evidence they will continue. We don't levy blocks to punish people. We do ban those people we find whose disruption outweighs their contributions, but User:Ottava Rima is not one of those people. S. Dean Jameson 02:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it Ottava Rima was not blocked because of his accusations against you; he was blocked because of his reaction when the thread he started on you didn't get the result he wanted. At any rate, I already explained why I think this is a preventative block. -- Vary | Talk 03:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That said, I'm less concerned now I see that the user is apparently going to be mentored, but I still don't think that another early unblock is a particularly great idea in this case. -- Vary | Talk 03:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. As Vary mentions, previous early unblocks have resulted in backsliding. Let the block play out, and he can continue to advocate from his talk page. He seems to be doing quite well from there, and we can hope that the extra time ingrains teh good behavior deeper by repetitition. ThuranX (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose A very long block log just for 2008. I'm not convinced this user will change their ways. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Isn't that a little self-fulfilling - suggesting that the cumulative block length be increased because it's long? --NE2 02:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I must say, this is incredibly disappointing to me. I felt like this should be little more than a formality, since as the aggrieved party I was requesting the block be lifted. I choose to assume good faith on OR's part. S. Dean Jameson 02:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. As long as the proposed mentoring occurs, I have no objections to any admin unblocking Ottava. Nandesuka (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  Would you mind doing it yourself? As the blocking admin, it would be noncontroversial for you to remove it, even with some opposed to doing so. If I had thought this through better, I would have simply approached you at your talkpage. S. Dean Jameson 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons listed above. The user is approaching 6 days through the 8 day block. The world won't come to an end if he has to wait a couple more days. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• No, I am concerned that OR may be subject to baiting when the block ends;[47] [48] one of the admins who volunteered to mentor has been tied up with a personal family emergency, said recently she hadn't yet been able to explore everything, and I'd not like to see her caught by surprise on the mentorship, when she may be counting on another day or so. The Candide FAC that Ottava Rima was responding about on talk is not being held up based on Ottava Rima's declaration (see my talk). The gesture is appreciated, S. Dean, but it may not be in OR's best interest to come off block when a family emergency intervened and the mentors may not have had a chance to sort out how to proceed. (If Karanacs (talk · contribs) and Ceoil (talk · contribs) disagree, my concern is lifted; I will notify them now.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If Ceoil is ready, then I support an unblock. It will take me until the end of the day to read up on mentoring and to become familiary with Ottava's more recent contributions . Karanacs (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm leary on early-releases, especially for a user who has a block log that makes me wince. seicer | talk | contribs 02:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. User:Abd has weighed in with his unhelpful pot-stirring at OR's page, reiterating his claims that OR's initial WQA wasn't baseless, notwithstanding the fact that every editor there said it was. I've asked him to step back from this, as OR and I are seemingly past it, and he's not helping. Would someone else mind asking Abd to poke around for trouble somewhere else? S. Dean Jameson 04:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I ran into an edit conflict, and I wrote what is below before seeing the comment above. It has erased the assumption I was holding with regard to this editor's good faith. That's unfortunate. This is not about OR vs. Jameson, it is about how the community treats OR, and I was reporting the results of an extensive investigation that I have been making into a related incident. But, now that Jameson has done, here, what Jameson did previously, on my Talk page, attempt to stop me from speaking out,[49][50] I'll report it. When I made a consoling remark on OR's Talk,[51] Jameson attacked OR on my Talk,[52] without any necessity, suggesting I investigate (apparently thinking I was excusing bad behavior, though I had not). I did look into it, and found that OR had been correct, and when I reported this to Jameson, he warned me against becoming involved or going to AN/I. This led me to think that there was something seriously amiss here, and, sure enough, the more I looked the more disruptive behavior I found. I did not research Jameson's behavior, but the editor who had triggered this affair, User:Blechnic and what I found was a harassing editor, previously blocked for incivility and harassment, whom Jameson had been defending. I've been focused, the last few days, on undoing some of the damage done, by working to lift the apparent topic ban on User:Wilhelmina Will and otherwise making it a bit more congenial for her around here.--Abd (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

    And you continue. I stand by all my contributions thus far, and maintain that at every turn you've simply stirred the pot, and caused far more heat than light. What are you really trying to accomplish here, Abd? S. Dean Jameson 04:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support I have not had an opportunity to review all the circumstances that led to OR's block, but I have done enough research, in looking into the topic ban that resulted from an AN/I report about User:Wilhelmina Will, to conclude that OR had been correct, that the edit of User:Blechnic that OR had claimed was a personal attack was in fact a personal attack, and that OR had acted properly in requesting Blechnic to retract it, and it was User:S. Dean Jameson's vigorous defense of Blechnic that led to the WP:WQA report that, in my view, improperly, led to OR's block. This does not mean that OR did nothing wrong, but that two major actions of hers, referred to repeated in the AN/I discussion that led to her block, were actually proper. While I'm sure that Jameson intended no harm by bringing this here, he is also correct that the proper course would have been to discuss this with the blocking administrator. AN/I is a terrible place to make these kinds of decisions, because many editors pile in with snap judgments or axes to grind. (In my experience, a fairly high percentage of editors who are later banned have participated here, vigorously arguing that others should be banned.) That's why we have admins actually make the decisions, and then we can sit down, so to speak, with them and work out ensuing process, outside the heat of AN/I. --Abd (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  Heat>light, per usual. This is not about the underlying cause of the block (which you remain a pot-stirrer about, and unnecessarily so), but about whether the block as it stands is necessary to prevent further disruption to the project. It's not a place for you to pontificate about your views regarding Blechnic, me, or Rima. S. Dean Jameson 04:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock once the mentorship arrangements are complete and accepted - The olive branch extended by S. Dean Jameson is an admirable gesture. Nonetheless, it was the view of many that OR would benefit significantly from mentorship, and two very good editors have offered to provide that guidance. It is best, I believe, for them to complete their discussions with OR prior to the unblock so that the desired supports are in place to assist OR in reaching his potential. As a side note to Abd, this is entirely the correct place to discuss a variation in an editor's block; discussing it strictly with the blocking administrator would have been unsuitable in this case because of the community's expressed support for a period of mentorship for Ottava Rima. Risker (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  In all fairness, Risker, I suggested that perhaps I should have went to Nandesuka directly, as an admin reversing their own block didn't seem too controversial. S. Dean Jameson 04:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Support - I felt the block was gratuitous to begin with, so I certainly support its early lifting. Gatoclass (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - except if mentorship arrangements are complete and accepted (per Risker and Nandesuka). Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - user has shown disruptive behaviour in the past; I don't see any reason why this block cannot be served out or why it needs to be pre-emptively removed. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support As per the tenets of WP:AGF. A continuation of the block, in view of the sincere requests for its being lifted, runs a very serious risk of appearing to be mean-spirited. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support dragging this AN\I report on and on, with strawpolls, in-bickering, more back and forth, and other such red tape, so that it lasts for two more days before coming to a resolution to do anything. Then, OR himself, having served out his 8 day block, can come here and add his support to getting himself unblocked. Keeper ǀ 76 15:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, it seems my attempt was a bit misguided, in retrospect. I assure you it was done in good faith, though. I really didn't think it would be that controversial of a proposal. S. Dean Jameson 15:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  • No worries, SDJ. I know you were acting in good faith and "doing the right thing". I just found the whole thing hysterical in it's ironicalness, sorry if I came off overly snarky there. I've seen similar threads started about "end the block early", when the block was only a 12 hour block in the first place. I saw one that was a 3 hour block, and a wheel war, several AN threads, lots of hurt feelings, and an RFAR happened, several hours after. Sigh. I'm pretty sure there are several "wiki-watchers/lurkers" that are having a good chortle over our "efficiency" here :-) Keeper ǀ 76 15:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

    • • Yes, there are. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 20:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • It might be noticed that, while I became convinced a few days ago that OR was probably improperly blocked, I didn't come here with it. This, quite simply, wouldn't be the ideal place to deal with it, until and unless the matter becomes very clear yet a recalcitrant administrator stands in the way. The mess can be cleaned up later, including, if it turns out that the editor was truly innocent -- a conclusion I haven't made yet, but it's possible that the editor's errors were minor -- annotating the block log so that there isn't some prejudice in the future. From other evidence, including later posts above and on OM's Talk and on mine, earlier, I'm far less confident of SDJ's good faith than I was before this report, but, again, that's a matter for later, if at all, I see no urgency, and I only became involved in this mess in the first place because I was trying to console OM to avoid the departure of another productive editor. I'll note, as well, that while OM has been appreciative of my comments, the editor asked that efforts to stop the block not be made. --Abd (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

      I'll ask you again: please stop baiting me, and attempting to make me angry. Your portrayals of me and my intentions are wildy inaccurate, completely unhelpful, and very much not appreciated. S. Dean Jameson 17:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

      • Who's OM? Do you mean OR? Keeper ǀ 76 17:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes. --Abd (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: First, he's actually not making so nice as far as I can tell. From his talk page, he wants to battle every correction or question of an article he worked up for DYK and seems convinced that I was looking for occasions. (I read the main page. A DYK on my field will get my attention.) Anyway, I don't see any sign that things have changed in such a way that the central issue -- being able to deal with other editors -- has changed, and so, if the circumstances haven't changed, neither should the block. Geogre (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about this comment. The user is committing some kind of offense on the user's own Talk page? Are users allowed to have strong opinions and express them in their own Talk? --Abd (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm beginning to seriously regret opening this thread. I apologize for any problems it has caused. S. Dean Jameson 17:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  No, it was fair to bring it up. I think if this were his only block, then (1) your request might well have been honored; and (2) it probably would have been much shorter anyway. It's the pattern of behavior that's at issue with that user, not just whether you feel comfortable with shortening the block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  The opinions are sufficiently varied enough that the status quo will be upheld, someone should close this. –xeno (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at Gender of God

Closing - ArbCom request being considered[53]--Cailil ^talk 16:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Involved parties:

• Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ilkali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• LisaLiel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Teclontz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Would somebody mind over-viewing this issue for me. I've just blocked User:LisaLiel for 24hrs for a blatant breach of 3RR at Gender of God.[54] But I'm concerned that other users may also be edit-warring and possibly gaming 3RR.

Users Teclontz & Alastair Haines may have gamed 3RR.[55][56][57][58][59][60] I have warned all parties at the page to seek dispute resolution and stop edit-warring. But I am also aware that Alastair has been that subject of a recent user conduct RFC[61] and hs received 2 blocks for edit-warring within the since June 2008.[62] However I'm also concerned that there may be an ongoing issue between Teclontz/Tim and LisaLiel - Teclontz has alleged harassment and I am awaiting diffs to demonstrate this. I would be grateful for more sets of eyes on this issue.

Also considering the possible gaming of 3RR should further preventative action be taken? I was considering protecting the page but I'm hoping the warning will make that unnecessary--Cailil ^talk 22:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Alastair Haines is also edit warring at Why Men Rule. I tagged the article and explained my concerns on the talk page. He repeatedly removed my tags without a valid explanation. I requested a third opinion, which User:Jclemens provided. He suggested using inline tags with a rationale for each at the talk page. I did that and User:Alastair Haines removed my tags without responding to my concerns on the talk page. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that cuts both ways JC - you've both reverted each other twice on two separate issues on the same page - you both should stop and find consensus. Open an RFC for the page if after a WP:3O you are both still dead locked. Also please note that your warning is not helpful may escalate rather than a resolve this issue[63]. I can see no evidence of Alastair vandalizing the page--Cailil ^talk 22:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

His definition of consensus is his and only his opinion or something about "silence is consent". If removing tags without responding to the corresponding comments on an article's talk page or achieving Wikipedia's definition of consensus isn't vandalism, then what is it? JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In relation to the history between editors here please see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-07-07_Shituf & Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gender of God (deleted)--Cailil ^talk 23:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with JCDenton2052's assessment that Alastair places his own opinion before consensus. There have been three primary content disputes in the past few days:

• Teclontz makes an edit. I revert it, giving my reason in the summary. Alastair reverts my reversion, telling me to "try using talk before reverting".
• Alastair reinserts text that was removed (per consensus) sometime before the RfC/U (saying that this is "per talk page" despite there having been no recent discussion of the material). I revert his edit. He reverts my reversion, telling me to "discuss on talk page".
• LisaLiel makes a change. Alastair reverts it without discussion on talk page. When LisaLiel does exactly what Alastair has done twice, as documented above, and reverts his reversion, Alastair reverts her again, saying "Undo edit warring without use of talk page".

There is a clear double standard here. When someone disagrees with a change Alastair agrees with, they must argue against it on the talk page before the change can be reverted. When Alastair disagrees with a change someone else is making, they must argue for it on the talk page before the change can be made. In effect, the protocol at work seems to be that Alastair's preferred version of the article must remain until he is convinced that it is inferior. His delusion that he owns the article is even clearer in some of his talk page comments, such as this one, where, when facing disagreement over whether a subheader he inserted should be there, he declares "subhead stays until it can be demonstrated that [...]". This is not the language of respectful, collaborative editing.

Additionally, he is incivil and aggressive. He is quick to make threats ([64], [65]) and personal attacks ([66]), even going so far as to do so on pages he has never edited before. These incidents are all since the closing of the RfC/U and are in addition to the evidence presented there. Neither the RfC/U nor the counsel offered to Alastair by User:Wizardman appear to have had an effect, and he still staunchly denies having (ever) done anything wrong ([67]).

I'm not sure how this can be taken forward. Of the two attempts at mediation made so far, one was terminated by the mediator due to what he perceived as hostility against him from Alastair, and the other was rejected by Alastair on the grounds that it focused too much on content and not enough on attacking me. I believe that Alastair has a great deal to contribute to the project, but he will inevitably cause more and more conflict if he does not learn to deal with disputes in a civil and cooperative manner. Ilkali (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing diffs Ilkali but I'm going to ask you to withdraw your remark about double standards. This thread was opened specifically to ask what else should be done in relation to all parties in this issue. I will remind you once that this thread is for dispute resolution not escalation.

Just a question weren't all many of the issues regarding the above raised at Alastair's RFC/U?--Cailil ^talk 00:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Also I've added you to the list of involved parties Ilkali--Cailil ^talk 00:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Thank you for providing diffs Ilkali but I'm going to ask you to withdraw your remark about double standards. This thread was opened specifically to ask what else should be done in relation to all parties in this issue". My intent isn't to attack Alastair, and I don't think I've been in any way gratuitous in how I've described his actions - I've said only what was needed to indicate the extent of the problem. If Alastair is practicing a double standard regarding edits, isn't that pertinent here?

In response to your struck-out question: All of the evidence I've given is for events occurring after the RfC concluded. Ilkali (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

LisaLiel's view of this issue can be seen here--Cailil ^talk 00:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that someone finally brought this to AN. I tried to mediate this case a while back with medcab, was unable to reach consensus. I attempted to get it moved over to the medcom, but Alastair made some comments that someone took as legal threads and immediately closed down the whole thing. When he redacted his comments, no one ever bothered to reinstate the case. I'm honestly not sure if it would have helped, but I didn't have the patience or strength of will to subject myself to more of the needless drama. Ilkali and Alastair seem to have some sort of vendetta against each other, and Lisa and Tim (Teclontz) will usually disagree on any given topic but I've found that they are slightly more willing to talk- in fact my interactions with Tim have been largely positive. Just my five or six cents... L'Aquatique[talk] 07:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that this has been brought up. Too many editors are following one another into unsubstantiated claims regarding my actions and character. There is in fact not even a single example of me having done anything out of line with either common politeness, let alone Wiki policy, not only at this article, but in two years of editing.

Unfortunately, first Ilkali, then others like L'Aquatique have made not only unsubstatiated, but demonstrably false allegations, in addition to defamatory speculation. This is inappropriate behaviour and needs to be identified and addressed as such.

The result of this inappropriate behaviour has been uninvolved editors reverting text I've contributed, refusing discussion on various presumptions of my bad faith, citing the opinion of anonymous editors like some listed above. That's objective defamation and clearly something the community must address.

As a simple form of evidence of the point I'm making, please note how blatant edit warring by Lisa, opposed by two independent editors is being construed as "possible gaming of the system". The contrary is, of course, the case. Edit warrers have smoke-screened their behaviour with personal attacks, and parties that have attempted to take responsibility to investigate have been deceived by the misrepresentations of character.

As I've mentioned before, this is genuine slander in the legal sense, and while holding the community (and ultimately the foundation) accountable for it, I have confidence that the processes, convoluted though volunteer structures are, will ultimately remedy this situation.

I look forward to this finally being resolved. I also thank, in advance, those who patiently wade through all the misrepresentations in order to fact-check them. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Here [68] is an example for you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have asked Alastair to refactor some remarks made above in view of WP:NLT. I have also unblocked LisaLiel after she committed to not breaking WP:3RR again--Cailil ^talk 11:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Alastair has clarified the remarks above[69]--Cailil ^talk 14:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to make this any more dramatic than it has to be, but the notion that Alastair is patently innocent is complete and utter... well, you know. Apparently, he never read his RFC/U, which was chock full of diffs that showed his edit warring and uncivil behavior. I rest my case... L'Aquatique[talk] 18:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it rather disturbing that Alastiar keeps using the word defamation here. I don't think that's toeing the line at WP:NLT, I think that's running roughshod over it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with both of you. As far as I can see all four editors listed above are behaving improperly. And I have advised Alastair of NLT and of the problem with the post here. I do agree that there is perhaps a letter & spirit of the rules issue, but AFAIK he can't be blocked for this (the above) as he has made it clear he is not threatening anyone with action. (If I'm wrong do correct me.) I would prefer if he removed the remarks & I've advised him about changing the name of his account - he doesn't want to. So all I can do now is take that use of language and refusal to refactor into consideration.
There is also a problem with all of these editors indulging in ad hominem remarks and there may also be a civil pov-pushing issue. None of the editors I've listed at the top are innocent in my view and I'm open to suggestions on ways to resolve the issues with all of their conduct, together at gender of god and separately between Alastair & Ilkali and LisaLeil and Tim--Cailil ^talk 20:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm unwatching this page, I have very little interest in following speculations based on hearsay. When someone can present even one supposed allegation of even a minor infringement of anything on my part, I'll be happy to hear it and discuss it. Until that time, I'll get on with my usual flawless and constructive editing.

When the hoohah dies down, I will pursue having the defamation dealt with, unless someone does this on my behalf without prompting by me, which is the way it should be. The defamation is obvious, serious and someone needs to do something about it.

Please feel free to let me know how I can help, one thing at a time, at my talk page, best regards all. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh. User_talk:Alastair_Haines#This_stops_now.... L'Aquatique[talk] 22:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggested measures

I'm hoping that this dispute cools down after the warnings from myself, Slrubenstein and L'Aquatique. However I'm not 'over the moon' about the way they've all reacted at the talk page or here. These are three measures that I am prepared to enforce to prevent further disruption. I'd like uninvolved editors and sysops to review these proposed measures (please see above and linked pages for case history):

1. Enforce a 1RR restriction on all four editors (for 3 months duration) at Gender of God and treat any "tag-team" reverting as a breach of the 1RR restriction.
2. Place Talk:Gender of God under heightened civility watch for 3 months duration.
3. Ask Alastair & Tim not to post in Ilkali & LisaLiel's user talk pages for an indefinite length of time. And ask Ilkali and LisaLiel not to post in Alastair and Tim's user talk pages for an indefinite length of time.

Any thoughts on these suggested measures? A further measure would be a restriction on all four editors to 3 or less posts per day on Talk:Gender of God, but I'd hope that would not be necessary--Cailil ^talk 22:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm replacing No.2 above with "2. Place all four editors on civility parole" --Cailil ^talk 18:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Also I'm not suggesting we ignore other outstanding issues - just deal with the problem at Gender of God first--Cailil ^talk 22:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Views from involved users

"Enforce a 1RR restriction on all four editors". Sounds like a good first step, but it will do nothing to stop edit-warring in someone who refuses to acknowledge that he is even guilty of it.

"Place Talk:Gender of God under heightened civility watch for 3 months duration". Can you elaborate on what this means?

"Ask Alastair & Tim not to post in Ilkali & LisaLiel's user talk pages for an indefinite length of time. And ask Ilkali and LisaLiel not to post in Alastair and Tim's user talk pages for an indefinite length of time". Fine by me. I think the only time I've posted in either was to give Alastair some advice on edit summaries. Ilkali (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a positive thing to try and be fair and not take sides in a dispute. But there's a point at which treating everyone equally when some people are willing to listen to you and some people basically spit on you just isn't that reasonable. Equal treatment should mean treating everyone according to what they do; not treating everyone the same regardless of what they do. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Listen guys first of all I'm looking for outside uninvolved editors to review these measures; second you all share a collective responsibility for the problem that all of you contributed too (edit warring); and third individual sanctions will follow separately as they go beyond the Gender of God article and thus the remit of this thread and this sub-section. For information on what the restrictions are see Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions (note that in this instance the restrictions will be applied to the 4 of you only in relation to the specified pages). Some people may need further sanctions - but that will be handled separately. If I can get outsiders to find a consensus on these measures (pro or con) we can then move on--Cailil ^talk 14:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I forgot to put this on watch and lost it until a few minutes ago. As for restrictions on talk pages, I think Lisa and I have already toned down our rhetoric on each other's talk pages a few months ago, so I don't think this will be a problem to keep. There really needs to be a way to stop the edit warring long term, though. I think I've been in about 4 edit wars and they were all with Lisa. They were quite unnerving and I had to completely give up on all three pages they involved -- that is, Lisa had to have the last edit in every single case. The first time, the ENTIRE PAGE disappeared. The second time, the ENTIRE PAGE was rewritten by Lisa. The third time is this time, and the ENTIRE SECTION was simply rewritten by Lisa. Whatever measures are taken, all I want is to stop being followed around, dragged into edit wars, and then have to watch as days, weeks, or months of work from numbers of people are all eradicateed in favor of one. If you put a gag on me and Lisa, GREAT! I don't like edit wars. I don't want edit wars. And I don't want to be followed around from page to page. But please, DO SOMETHING. It's getting to be that if I care about the integrity of a page, I need to stay away from it so I don't get followed there and watch helplessly as everyone else's edits are destroyed just because I had the misfortune of visiting the page.Tim (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This morning, I'd made a small edit. To something that Tim hadn't written. Tim reverted it. That's all. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your revert of another editor you yourself had invited in to help! If you didn't want his help, you shouldn't have invited him. But don't call your revert an edit and my restoration of another editor's edit a revert. Technically, they are BOTH reverts. I can't believe I'm in trouble for helping to defend an edit of someone YOU invited to help you defend Judaism against ME! How's that for irony? And I would appreciate a retraction on the Wikiproject page. I am not trying to misrepresent Judaism.Tim (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Yesterday, we had started to cooperate. This morning, I go to the computer, and there are two edits by you. One a reversion, and one an attempt to pick a fight on the WikiProject page. What happened between yesterday and today? -LisaLiel (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Lisa, you went to the Wikiproject Judaism page and made it sound as if I were some co-conspirator in a plot to misrepresent Judaism, and you needed help to defend the faith from me! And then when one of those people you enlisted DID try to help [70] (as you asked him) you reverted his edit [71]. I merely supported it [72], because the page needs more hands than just your own. Honestly, I'd really rather you and I and Alastair and Ilkali ALL be blocked from the page for a month just to let other people do some constructive editing. If you won't let ME edit in peace, at least let the people you enlist to combat me edit in peace. You're even reverting people you bring in!Tim (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, here are today's edits to the WikiProject page: [73]. Judge for yourselves. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, here is your initial edit: [74]. I would appreciate a retraction of "misrepresentation of the Jewish view". But I don't expect it.Tim (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

For crying out loud, I'm entitled to my opinion. And rather than get into another war with you and Alastair, I did what everyone was telling me to do, and pursued dispute resolution. And now I need to apologize because my opinion differs from yours? -LisaLiel (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I've asked for a retraction of the idea that I'm trying to misrepresent Judaism. And I'd like you and I to BOTH step aside from the article and let the people you've enlisted edit in peace.Tim (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2008 (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.

Improper use of NPOV/POV tag on Female Genital Cutting

Resolved

 – Editors warned. — Coren ^(talk) 02:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I need some assistance on the Female Genital Cutting article. Some time back I removed the POV tag from the article, explaining my reasoning on the talk page. There seemed to be no active discussions on the talk page about the content of the article. I was reverted fairly quickly. The person reverting, editor Garycompugeek, stated that he disputed the article title as being non neutral. This despite a previous discussion (now in the archives) about the very topic. The standing consensus has been, for some time, Female Genital Cutting, rather than the other two terms used Female Circumcision and Female Genital Mutilation. The other term point to the same article, and all terms are desribed and part of the history of the terms, in the article as well. All in all very neutral. The most neutral term was used as the article title, and the two terms considered to be represented by extremists on either end of the spectrum use the other two terms.

Well, So GaryComputerGeek said he added the POV tag because of the article title. He submitted a change request to rename the article "Female Circumcision". He started a survey, and there was a number of people who responded and gave their views (10-12 depending on the way you look at it.) I left the POV tag to stand, based on waiting for the results of the survey. Well, after a few weeks, the name change failed, and GaryComputerGeek, and cohort, editor Blackworm failed to generate a consensus for renaming the article. They had neither a majority, nor a consensus for their view that the article be changed to "Female Circumcision". Read the talk page for the reasoning of various people who offered opinions, should you be interested Requested move and Survey.

So, satisified that the issue of the title had been resolved, I removed the POV tag again, since there is/was no active discussion or dispute on the talk pages, the issue of the article title gaining closure.

The removal of the tag was reverted by editor Blackworm, no explanation given. I discussed on the talk page my reasoning and explained my view on the proper use of the WP:NPOV and the tag. I removed the POV tag again. This time I was reverted by editor Garycomputergeek. I explained again why there should be no tag, and asked if there was any open dispute regarding the neutrality of the article. Garycomputergeek basically said that because he and Blackworm both disputed the article title (still, even though their consensus change failed) that the POV tag should remain. Maybe they do not perceive that there was a standing consensus already, as they did not participate in that (see archives).

I explained that putting the POV tag only because one or more editors disagreed in unspecified ways (that they weren't willing to work through) was not appropriate use of the tag, and that I felt that they were trying to be disruptive.

As I have been reverted twice on the POV tag, I am not going to get in an edit war about it. It is not like it is that important of an issue. I would just like the WP:NPOV policy properly applied. Anyonewho can explain to those editors (and perhaps to me, should I be mistaken) the appopriate use, would be welcome.

The section where we have been discussing this is at removal of POV tag.

Enforcing the POV tag as a form of protest because you didn't get your way doesn't seem like appropriate use to me. Atom (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't. I have removed the tag and will warn the editors. — Coren ^(talk) 01:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read the talk page and make your own opinion. Don't be so easily guided by Atom. He has been making false claims since I have encountered him which are easily verifiable by reading Talk:Female_genital_cutting. Notice he didn't notify Blackworm or myself of this post. I would say nothing further and ask that you draw your own conclusions. Would it be possible for another uninvolved admin take a peek as I have lost faith in Coren. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why this issue needs any further discussion at ANI, since the proposed rename of the article failed to gain consensus. See the closed debate here. JPG-GR is one of the regular move-closers at WP:RM. Disagreement with the result by a minority of editors doesn't appear to be sufficient reason for an NPOV tag. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no disagreement with the closing of the Request for name change. It ended in "No consensus" and I'm fine with that. The issue is the use of the NPOV tag. The tag is being used for its purpose. To draw attention to unresolved debate. Perhaps new editor will see the tag and help with a solution. If my logic is incorrect I apologize but can point out many pages where seems to be the case. (see Circumcision) Garycompugeek (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed, I'm afraid. The debate was resolved as "no consensus to change the title." Perhaps in a few months, it might be worth bringing the question up again, but adding the Disputed tag is not correct at this point. As to other pages with the tag, other articles do it isn't a valid argument in this matter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok but not sure point is being understood... Tag was there before the Request to change was made. I reverted Atom's removal of the tag because "No consensus" means there were editor's for and against name change. Revert to keep tag in place was not added for any type of disgruntlement but to bring attention to the debate. Other editors agree tag should stay besides myself. Shouldn't we have some consensus from involved editors before removing it? Garycompugeek (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I believe you're approaching it from the wrong angle. If we did as you say, then tags could never be removed from the article as long as a single editor considered it disputable. The tags aren't meant to stay in place once the debate is resolved, and "no consensus" is considered a resolution. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I see Garycomputergeek's view, but as I recall, I checked the article to see if there was any active dispute occurring, and seeing none, removed the POV tag. It was reverted, on the grounds that the article title was not perceived to be neutral, as was being disputed. Immediately following that, the name change request and survey was submitted by Gary. I let the POV tag stand on the article based on that. A few days after the completion of the name change discussion, which ended in no consensus for change, I removed the tag, as again there was no current dispute on the neutrality of the article. Atom (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

New process page?

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet Investiagtion Unit
• User talk:Blackwatch21
• User talk:DJS24

The spelling typo aside, I should note that the two (one?) involved have been enthusiastic, though somewhat combative, editors. The jury's out whether they're trying to help or if this is intended for disruption. I'd like to lean towards "help", but there are a few edits that concern me somewhat. Note also that one of them has claimed that the two of them are brothers. (And has edited under his brother's username "by accident".)

Just thought others should know, and would like others' thoughts on this and the editors edits/actions in general. - jc37 15:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Now at MFD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet Investiagtion Unit. MBisanz ^talk 15:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser is inconclusive but plausible that they are brothers rather than sockpuppets. Thatcher 15:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've worked with them both closely within the Xbox project, and I don't think it's sockpuppetry. They do have a penchant for continually creating new projects however, some with very limited scope or overlapping with other projects. –xeno (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, looks like Special:Contributions/Blackwatch21 some bizarre copy-paste moves going on, can someone fix them? MBisanz ^talk 16:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're just talking about the proj and the MFD page, this is  Done –xeno (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 16:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Even though this should probably continue at the MFD, I've notified Blackwatch21 & DJS24 of this thread. –xeno (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm upset that I'm just finding out about this report sumitted earlier today, thanks Xenocidic informing me. I'm not quite sure I understand the reason why Jc37 needed to summit this notice and why (he/she) didn't feel the need to inform me of this situation. Also, under what reason or evidence given; was a checkuser used. Last time I checked, you needed good reasons/evidence to even request a checkuser - I don't even see a request. I'm sure Thatcher remembers me from before when I request a checkuser a couple of months ago. When I did that I needed to give a request and reasons/evidence. I would like to hear some answers. Like why this was even sumitted.--DJS24 17:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Also; Jc37 - The jury's out whether they're trying to help or if this is intended for disruption. What jury?? Who's talking about this situation outside of this notice. You make it seem like this is a huge situation and a huge discussion. You seem to be the only editor concerned w/ our "helping" edits and creations--DJS24 17:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I was (and am) asking for WP:3PO here. It's what (I believe) admins commonly do. And sometimes notifying the editors that they are being discussed "can" be more disruptive, especially if the concerns turn out to be less than they appear. If not, then I assure you, I would have cross-posted a notice to your and your brother's talk pages. (As I commonly do, and have done in other cases, including an unrelated situation with a different editor earlier today.)

Second "the jury is out" is a euphemistic turn of phrase, meaning that I have not formed an opinion about this myself, and am still thinking about it.

Third, I am far from the "only editor". But then I also disagree with the premise of your statement. My "concern" happened due to other editors having concerns at WT:CMC, and then I decided to (as I am wont to do) go through your (plural) edit histories. And I found some things that were concerning. Some of which was confirmed by your brother. (Note that his claim has not been confirmed, and that whole situation can be considered concerning.)

If anything, I tried to start a discussion, when others were suggesting a bit more direct action. (If you want links, I've got 'em - but I really don't think you want me to link to some of your comments and responses. Indeed, even some of your comments here have been, I would presume, less helpful than you might have thought or intended.)

I won't comment about the CU, since I think Thatcher conveyed it well enough already, below.

As a final thought, I'd suggest that while you may be an enthusiastic editor, someone who, I would presume, we all would be happy to have around positively contributing to the encyclopedia; your current choice of "tone" in "discussion", and your over-enthusiastic boldness that's apparently been bordering on disruptive behavior, may cause Wikipedia to lose the benefits of your enthusiasm and contributions. Not a threat, just an observation from a fellow Wikipedian whose seen such happen in the past. - jc37 07:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree w/ just about everything you just said. I interpret the jury is out a different way, however we're not here to discuss that.

First of all, let me just point out, I have great respect for Wikipedia Admins, however when an (editor/admin) throws out a claim/notice like this I get defensive, especially when I see no point to it. Now from what Jc37 just said, I'm very confused. I don't know what a single thing means in your parentheses (claim, what claim?/unrelated situation/my comments, what comments?) I don't know what possible comments or responses you could possibly be talking about unless they we're from months ago. Let me just point out, that I've only talked to you once, I believe before this whole notice.

Second - choice of "tone" in "discussion", and your over-enthusiastic boldness that's apparently been bordering on disruptive behavior, I don't like to tell admins what to do, but you need to explain this stuff, what disruptive behavior and my "tone" is the "tone" of me defending myself against false claims (in my opinion). As far as my tone goes, my tone is getting right to the point. I don’t communicate by dodging the issue or writing things that have nothing to do w/ the situation (not accusing anyone of that), I’m just saying. I don’t write a lot of BLAH, if you like to call it that, I’m right to the point. --DJS24 15:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

<--Checkusers have broad discretion to investigate potentially disruptive editors and situation, and there is no requirement that check requests be made publicly. Having two editors who are "brothers" and who have "accidentally" edited from each others' accounts suddenly propose a new bureaucracy to investigate sockpuppetry certainly qualifies as potentially disruptive. As I said, the results are inconclusive but plausible. Thatcher 17:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Another new process page

• Wikipedia:Page protection patrol
• User talk:Aldrich Hanssen
• User talk:Mboverload

Looks like a similar situation (with two editors of possibly similar tone). But is there already such a process in place? (And for that matter is that something that would be wanted?) Thoughts welcome. - jc37 08:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Spuh, 72.218.42.26, and StreaksOnTheChina

A little too complicated for AIV, but we need some blocks handed out here. 72.218.42.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) started out this morning by insulting Raven-Symoné‎'s weight ... the edits would have been borderline, but the misleading edit summaries put them clearly into vandalism camp. Spuh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) then takes up the charge, with edits that get him warnings from both Bongwarrior and myself. Unfortunately for him, he forgets to log in while editing Spuh's talk page, revealing our IP vandal and Spuh to be one and the same, which he later admits. No sooner than that admission is over, when a shiny new account, StreaksOnTheChina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) launches into a personal attack on me for having warned Spuh against vandalism, and also takes onto the talk page responding to year old comments about her weight
Kww (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Warned the streaker. Toddst1 (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why you warned him that he should AGF about a demonstrated vandal. Isn't the appropriate action to block him for creating an alternate identity just to battle with himself in public?
Kww (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have warned Spuh for BLP violations, but the edits are very, very close to vandalism, especially considering the edit summaries. I will monitor for any further bad edits and block if warranted. —Travis^talk 01:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Spuh is not battling with himself. Spuh is battling with me. I can understand Kww's suspicions here, but I can assure you that we are not the same user. I did create this account for the sole purpose of making the comments which I have made on this issue, but it is simply not the case that we are the same person. In addition, I did not create this account to make "personal attacks" on anybody. I made this account to supply a rational viewpoint on what I find to be a wholly inappropriate debate. Please refrain from making any undue accusations. StreaksOnTheChina (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ultimate results here: Spuh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked 48 hours by Toddst1 for sockpuppeting 72.218.42.26, StreaksOnTheChina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely as an abusive sock of Chalkieperfect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Chalkieperfect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked 48hours by Toddst1 for sockpuppeting. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Spuh confirmed both relationships.
Kww (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat

• SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs)

Removed CSD tags even when he was warned against doing so, removed himself from AIV when reported, and then went "speedy keep" asserting my nominations of several criticism articles to be disruption (I did not intend disruption in any case). Requesting admin intervention. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, you and I haven't exactly seen eye-to-eye on many things, but you had to have known what an awful idea it was to attempt speedy deletions on criticism pages (CSD G10 no less) and mass AfDs on others. Slow down...reporting SchmuckyTheCat for vandalism wasn't exactly a smart move either. Any editor other than the author can decline a speedy deletion request, and your repeated retagging (using rollback) was more problematic than his removal of the CSD G10 request. - auburnpilot talk 14:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-admins should only remove it in clear-cut circumstances (e.g., I tagged The Beatles with {{db-band}}). As it wasn't, he shouldn't've removed it. I rollbacked because I knew there was a warning template for removing speedy tags, and reporting to AIV was just natural progression. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You slapped up warning templates that you clearly DID NOT READ and don't know how to use. What is this "non-admins" junk? Admins have no special authority on judgment. It isn't a speedy candidate and any user can remove wrongly placed CSD tags. Calling that vandalism, and continuing to maintain it here, is a slap to my face. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Anyone that didn't create the article can remove a speedy notice. Arguing that people shouldn't remove them from articles that aren't clear cut is very counterintuitive. If they aren't clear cut, then they definitely aren't speediable. Also, natural progression for an AIV report goes beyond two warnings. And it's kind of trollish to give a user who has been on Wikipedia for 5 years a "Welcome to Wikipedia" template that says "Do not remove speedy notices from articles you have created yourself" when they didn't do that. --Smashville^BONK! 16:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, You might want to read {{Uw-speedy1}} again. It's for people removing tags from articles they created. SchmuckyTheCat was not vandalizing the articles. - auburnpilot talk 14:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad removing myself from AIV, but it was plainly put there as retribution for calling out your WP:POINT AfD's and removing of your CSD. Wrong thing to do, but no apology about it. Removal of CSD tags from non-CSD candidates is welcome behavior, not a wiki-crime. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Yes you shouldn't have removed yourself from AIV (hence my note to you). And yes, you should not have been reported in the first place. Pedro :  Chat  14:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

These were not speedy candidates and SchmuckyTheCat didn't do anything terribly wrong by removing the tags. If you ask me, it was pretty evident that they did not qualify as speedy candidates and thus any non-admin would be well within the right to remove them. As to the AIV removal, that probably should have been left for an admin (or at the very least someone uninvolved) but it would have been removed. I don't see anything here requiring a remedy, except perhaps to trout-whack SchmuckyTheCat for removing his own AIV case and Sceptre for being a little tendentious with shaky CSD noms. Shereth 15:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre has started to become a troll. I am sad to see it, as he used to be a decent guy. After he had a big pointy brainfart and decided to tag WP:CIVIL as historical the other day, he is now tagging any and all "Criticism of" articles for speedy deletion or AFD, and edit-warring over his pointy speedy tags by misusing rollback ([75], then reporting editors who removed the tags for vandalism(!). A block is starting to look appropriate. Neıl ☄ 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's rare around here that WP:POINT is used in it's correct context but many of Sceptre's recent edits have been nothing but pure disruption. It is getting to the stage that his edits have become more a hinderance than benefit, and a preventative block would be required. This would be deeply regretable but this situation cannot continue as is. Pedro :  Chat  15:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we walk a judgmental tight-rope by saying a user is unfit to use "rollback" or "twinkle" or any other task-specific editing tool, but still fit to edit in general. Abuse of such tools really amounts to "[using them to make] edits which annoy people". If his edits are disruptive enough for a block it really doesn't matter how they were done. Take away the guns they'll swing knives, take away the knives they'll throw rocks, take away the rocks they'll fling dung... it's all downhill from there and almost always a symptom of a deeper problem. — CharlotteWebb 16:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Downhill from dung? That I do not want to see. --Rodhullandemu 17:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed him being completely unreasonable a couple days ago. Doesn't look like it has stopped. Friday (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a polite warning. Maybe he'll listen to me, I don't know. I hope so. Neıl ☄ 15:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd advocate a formal warning prior to taking any action. If he continues to edit in a disruptive, pointy manner after Neil's warning then a block may be warranted, but given the user's long-term history I'd be hesitant to take punitive measures yet. Shereth 15:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No one will take any punitive measures. I'll speak to him on MSN. I think it'd be a bad idea to block him. He's just... angry... about the whole Kurt episode. I'm sure he'll get over it soon, apologise to the people he's upset and just move on to building our encyclopaedia. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Let him calm down a bit, if this is actually the case. Synergy 15:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No punitive measures, of course. A warning's been given, and unless Sceptre continues, that'll suffice. If he does continue, then a block would be preventative, not punitive. Note Mbisanz has (appropriately) removed Sceptre's rollback rights for 30 days. Neıl ☄ 15:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

How is that not punitive? I honestly thought Schmucky's edits were rollbackable. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the tags would arguably have been worthy of a revert if Schmucky was the creator of the article, but he wasn't. It was created a few years ago by Saravask, using content which was previously part of the main article. — CharlotteWebb 16:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the view that rollback should be used only in vandalism cases is outdated. While it isn't explicit, the use of rollback is viewed as acceptable by most people for any cases where the edit would be exempt from 3RR (e.g it's used all the time to rollback in a user's userspace and banned users, and neither of that are in WP:VAND). Sceptre ^(talk) 15:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• If you believe that, then you should update the policy page that points out that the tool is only to be used for reverting vandalism and talkpage cleanup. S. Dean Jameson 15:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  WP:RBK actually does allow it in the case of reverting banned users and in ns-2-and-3, but not for obvious copyvio or BLP violations. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  Rollback isn't the problem. I believe we would be having a nearly identical discussion if you had repeatedly added the speedy deletion tag by making manual reverts. — CharlotteWebb 16:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with some of your ideas, Sceptre, maybe you really should step back and look at your tactics. If several editors/admins on here (me included) who are generally well-respected in the Wikipedia community think you are being disruptive, maybe you are. Tan ǀ 39 15:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Tan. It may be a good idea to actually take that wikibreak you've mentioned on your userpage. Come back with a clear head. –xeno (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, I don't think it is widely accepted that the use of rollback in one's own userspace is universally acceptable for non-vandalism, non-banned-user edits. I'm pretty sure it's still seen as both inappropriate and extremely rude to use rollback to remove comments from one's own talk page, for instance. (Exceptions may exist where comments are spam or ongoing harrassment.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:UP#OWN and WP:3RR explicitly allow reversion though. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is a software tool, reversion is a kind of edit, they're not the same things. Rollback is meant to be used only on vandalism. The last chapter has not been written on rolling back comments on one's own talk page (I think it is almost always taken as rudeness). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not as rude as "fuck off, troll". Sceptre ^(talk) 16:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe it can be, since the tool is meant only for reverting vandalism, its use will strongly imply that the reverted edit was taken as vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for not checking everybody's edits but is this an actual quote relevant to this discussion i.e. did somebody call you a troll and tell you to fuck off? If so you should have mentioned it from the get-go. — CharlotteWebb 16:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible continuation of User:RiverRubicon

RiverRubicon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently blocked for vandalism and sockpuppetry (RFCU). Just now, I declined an unblock request from User talk:Tammie120, who had been hit by an autoblock from RiverRubicon. Upon looking into things, I saw that Tammie120's account was brand new, and the first thing she did was make five additional accounts: log. I declined the unblock on the suspicion that she was RiverRubicon again and blocked the five socks, but I haven't directly blocked Tammie120 yet as I wanted a double-check to make sure I'm not just going really paranoid. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the autoblock just expired a few seconds ago (expires at 17:23, current time is 12:34), so no action necessary. Blocks of other accounts look fine to me; creation of five accounts so soon after account creation is kinda'.... odd. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mynameisstanley

User:Mynameisstanley has started an edit war on John Gotti, violating WP:3RR. He has a history of disruptive editing, see this and this. He uses a double identity to do so, operating as User:Sdhilio as well (see here) He did the same in Talk:Greenwich Village, which was resolved without him participating in the dabate. He rather seem to start edit wars, rather than resolving them. - Mafia Expert (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What is this edit war about? You both seem to be swapping one picture for another. Why? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Mynameisstanley (talk · contribs) and Mafia Expert (talk · contribs) both blocked 12 hours for edit warring. This was brought to ANI a couple of days ago as well. Please try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR next time. Toddst1 (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse double block. People are willing to fight over the lamest things. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 20:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Assistance with Darimore

User appears to only exist to add spam links. Although the link is to a specific organization, the spamming is appearing on almost random pages - anything to do with food. Warnings have been placed... Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV if it continues. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Forget "assume good faith"

Hi. Previously, I've reported this user because of abusive language 14:40, 4 Aug 2008 [76] (he called me "snide arsehole").
Since then, he got two explicit warnings, by admin user:Gb 16:15, 4 Aug 2008 [77] and with friendly notice of user:AniMate 23:31, 4 Aug 2008 [78].
However, that user showed no improvement of behaviour.
See his response to user:AniMate (that followed) from 10:36, 5 Aug 2008 [79]. "Maybe you would "refactor"" (Kirker messed up; still, he still puts the blame on others) "...the words I used pretty much express what I was trying to say...So being blocked or banned holds no terrors for me.". Does this mean that we, decent contributors, have to be his "punchbag" until some admin finally recognises the problem and gives him proper sanction?
In fact, here, he openly admitted his guilt and showed no wish for improvement of behaviour, and even more, he showed his intention to continue with such behaviour, despite warning by an admin and an user.
This answer of Kirker to admin Gb [80] "So I might be blocked. Oh dear." Comparing this with his messages above, we could treat this like disrespect of admins; sounds like "Who gives a damn about you". Admin is not a punchbag, and admins are not here so that some users annoy them or use them to cure their anger, frustrations. An admin can use his time more efficiently, than to spent his precious private free time on playing someone's ....
This message, that user Kirker sent to me 10:03, 6 Aug 2008 [81] is ordinary taunting and provocation.
"Surprise, surprise! Rjecina, the King of sockpuppet referrals, has decided that this is one case he dare not pursue. So get on with it. Or have you lost your nerve too?". Even more, this is inflammatory content. I find this an intentional perpetuating of fruitless discussion (I gave him previously explanation of one of my previous messages, that referred to him, but he doesn't want that to end). He's annoying me.
This is not that repeated only once. Instead of understanding, he sent provoking messages to three users (AniMate, Gb and me) and provoking four users (add user:Rjecina to that list).
We can forget WP:AGF here. Provocations don't belong here. Wikipedia is not a forum. We came on en.wiki to contribute, not to waste our time with persons that annoy us. We are not here to be a punchbag as a mean of killing someone's frustrations. Kubura (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The user in question is Kirker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

hey, kubura, you made a little speling mistkae on your first post: it should have been "a user" instead of "an user". Cheers! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs)

To be honest, I've had worse thrown at me. Whilst his attitude is unhelpful, Kirker does appear to have refrained from personal attacks since the one he was warned about. I see that the contributions at Talk:Miroslav_Filipović are getting a little heated, and when I get a moment will have a read through. In the meantime, though, I don't that there's sufficient specific activity to warrant any more action at this stage. _Gb^T/c 18:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the rather ironic message from Smith Jones, there really isn't any admin action necessary. Editing in areas related to the Balkans is tricky, and considering all of the sockpuppet allegations and circular editorial requests related to Miroslav_Filipović, being called an arsehole really isn't all that bad. This strikes me as an attempt to gain an editorial edge. AniMate 06:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you're getting into the wrong direction.
I'm not speaking about the articlecontents.
Things 'd be the same, even if it was the case of Greenland, Oregon, Canada, pudding, banana tree or goldfish-related articles.
Problem is (recent) behaviour of the user Kirker on the talkpages.
Insult, provocations and inflammatory content, persistent perpetuation of arguing (the latter can be serious problem, such trolls have "stopped the production" on hr.wiki last year).
The last one might not necessarily require heavier admin's sanctions right now, but the pile of problematic behaviour is growing. We have to recognise the problem in the beginning, so the admins won't be unprepared in future. This way admins'll already have prepared dossier.
So, I've notified you about his behaviour. You can put "resolved" here, we don't have to waste time on discussion here, there're bigger problems right now, but keep an eye on him.
The user who names others as "snide arseholes" usually never improves; things only get worse, unfortunately.
Thanks for your attention. Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Block review for User:Lenerd part 2

Resolved

 – No objections. WODUP 08:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive456#Block review for User:Lenerd

Lenerd (talk · contribs) has been away for a few days since I last left him a message:

"I can understand how you feel. While I don't completely agree with the blocking admin, and I don't think it's necessary for you to have to spell it out, it looks like they just want some reassurance that you'll be more cautious about leaving vandalism warnings for other users. Personally, I think it was just a matter of miscommunication. So rather than asking you to say that you did something wrong, which I don't think you technically did, I think it is more appropriate to ask this: Do you think you will be more cautious with user warnings? -- Ned Scott 03:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)" [82]

He has now since replied to that message:

"Yes, of course. (Lenerd (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC))" [83]

Does this suffice for an unblock? -- Ned Scott 03:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be looking over this in more detail, soonish, and will revise my opinion if I find any skeletons in the closet, but I notice that several users in the previous thread seemed to indicate they'd be willing to support an unblock if the user indicated a willingness to move forward on good terms (or finite block of about a week, which would be passing about now) . Unless we're in the practice of demanding shrubberies, this seems to be such a promise. Some, I believe particularly Sandstein, seemed to be concerned the user might have been acting in bad faith... that might preclude an unblock, in these circumstances, but it did not seem to be the overriding opinion. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As in the previous discussion, I'm leaving the decision whether or not Lenerd should be unblocked to other admins. What I, personally, am looking for is a good-faith committment to productive editing, which I think has not yet been forthcoming, but others may view the matter differently or be willing to give Lenerd a second chance regardless.  Sandstein  05:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got the diff right here. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition to that, he sent me an e-mail: "I've been away for the past week so I haven't been able to respond to anything but concerning being cautious with user warnings, of course I will. If I am unblocked I will be more cautious in everything I do. It has been hard enough fighting this block I don't want to do anything that might put me in this situation again." August 4, 2008 11:20:35 AM GMT-07:00

It's pretty clear to me. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse an unblock - per Luna, it seems pretty clear, and I don't see why there should be a drift from normal practice here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've pulled this back out of the archive since there was no other comment within 24 hours. Are there any objections to an unblock of User:Lenerd at this point? -- Ned Scott 21:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock him. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. -- Ned Scott 08:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Need block of IP sock of indef blocked editor

User:Enforcing Neutrality was recently indef-blocked as a sock of User:Klaksonn, and since then related IPs have been popping up and reverting on articles that the former account was involved in such as Umar at Fatimah's house. One, 77.42.134.185, has been blocked already but another has appeared and continued in its wake on the same article topics and in the same manner: 218.213.226.210.[84] [85][86]. Requesting a swift block of the IP in question. Regards, ITAQALLAH 01:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The ip appears to have been blocked since upon incivility issues, so hopefully the above purpose is also served. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Entry's references are mostly from blogs

The article in question is 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies. It relies almost entirely on slanted political blogs to make highly controversial insinuations; primarily that many of the photographs coming out of the 2006 Lebanon conflict were staged or fabricated.

Blogs are not reliable sources according to Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources and WP:SPS.

I'm not even suggesting the article should be deleted. Simply that it needs to be rewritten more neutrally and that the bulk of the article shouldn't be written around the claims of these dubious sources.

Thanks. Kitrus (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the subsection which details the controversy and the blogs are being used as sources for statements made on those blogs, further supported by verifiable reliable sourced material from CNN and the AP which did stories on these blog postings. The subject of the section is the posting to the blogs and using them as the primary source, supported by secondary sources, is completely in line with the policies of Wikipedia. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:StewieGriffin!, WP:RADWP "ownership", disruption to other podcast, etc.

This is sort of a long term dispute that has been to ANI before on a different subject, but it seems I have no choise but to report SG again being disruptive to the community. Previously, SG started a Wikipedia "podcast" called Radio Wikipedia, and invited others to join in the project. HE then began to "own" the project by doing things like: removing user from "staff", after showing interest in joining, again, but changes "requirments", turning a joke into "owning", also giving himself a more "powerful" look, more ownership on an idea, same situation gone way too far. This was then take to ANI, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive444#Violation of WP:OWN on WP:RADWP by User:Shapiros10. Following the dispute and over the past few weeks,, StewieGriffin! had been still "owning" the project (acting like an "owner"). All of this made me want to end all the drama and start my own podcast (WikiUpdate), to which StewieGriffin! disapproved of in a way that he began to be more disruptive. Anyone should be able to change/contribute. This is Wikipedia!. He also nominated the page for deletion (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiUpdate), and I assume that he did so so he wouldn't have "competition". Like I said, this is Wikipedia! Everything and everyone should be able to work together, and be able to be built upon/worked with. There is no "owning" here! I think we all (Shapiros10, Xenocidic, discussers on talkpage/MFD, etc.) have tried to stop this drama and end the dispute, but to no avail, and believe this is the only way to go now. RedThunder 22:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have offered to delete both podcasts as they're just causing petty, bitterness with no real positive for the project. Personally, I believe that deleting these would be more preventative than blocking a user (or two or three). Metros (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a contributor to WUPDATE, but i'd advise shutting this AN/I down for now. I had a talk with stewie griffin (basically saying "if the two 'casts cant get along let's simply avoid each other) and he hasn't done anything since then. Other than the MfD action none of the stuff really affects WUPDATE; it's all internal crap on radio wikipedia that shouldn't really be dealt with here. If he messes around more, fine, but bringing it to AN/I simply messes things up whoever "wins". I've left a message with WUPDATE contributors basically saying "please don't feed the tiger" and i'm hoping this should resolve on its own. Let's focus more on getting the podcasts/pages done and less on scoring points against each other. Ironholds 23:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)No need for admin action. I forcibly closed many of the discussions earlier, and there's been no activity since. This seems like an attempt to "win" the argument. I suggested they both stay away from each other, and they have, so why bring this here now? PeterSymonds (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't truly say that I've been a neutral party in this entire situation, as I've been a listener to RWP, was witness to all of the drama that occurred as a result of the actions of both parties, and am now assisting with the production of WikiUpdate. But, I have attempted to take a backseat to everything that's gone on, as, saying this in the utmost manner of respect for both parties, I believe neither side has approached the situation with the utmost regard of maturity and mutual respect. StewieGriffin has, as mentioned, taken on a tone of ownership and immaturity throughout the situation, while the other side in this argument has filed in what my honest opinion is two premature and unnecessary ANI reports. Does this mean either side has acted "bad"? No, only a bit immature at most. My recommendation is for both parties involved in the situation to frequent opposite sides of Wikipedia, so to speak, to let each other be as they are. Again, with the utmost respect, it seems like the actions of both parties have been unintentionally "one-upping" each other, and although I'm sure that both hold animosity toward each other over the entire situation, I'm also quite sure that nothing would be solved by deletions, blocks, etc. Maybe both parties can reach a mutual agreement, maybe they cannot, but any blocking made would would anger and possibly force those blocked to leave the project for good, possibly losing two valued contributors, and in the same way any deletion made would lose the encyclopedia one or more projects. Are podcasts directly beneficial to the encyclopedia? Unless you podcast about what you're currently doing to improve it, I'm afraid not. But does this mean that they aren't? Certainly not. It seems I've gone off in a tangent, so as to sum up my recommendation, please try to quit the bickering and realize that nothing done against another can truly improve the encyclopedia. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 02:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - No offense but the attempted "radio show" is very elementary, literally. I've stopped listening becuase it is really unorganized and the voices of little kids seem to divert my attention of whatever is being said. Anywho, maybe in the future I will tune in again. Sorry. --eric (mailbox) 03:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

These podcasts aren't affiliated with Wikipedia in any capacity that I can see, so it seems to follow that their owners -- yes, owners -- can run them any which way they please, either succeeding or failing on their own merits. Whether they're entitled to the same level of control on Wikipedia pages (or, indeed, entitled to pages on Wikipedia at all) is an entirely different question. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, per above^, quality control is debatable. Although this could create tension between fellow editors. Hopefully, a consesus can be made appropriately. --eric (mailbox) 03:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

ReL EricV89, Ageist!! And Ironholds, don't think you are better than me because your older. Like I've said, I have my views and you lot have yours. When Will It End? You obviously want to change my views, but why are we here making silly little ANI reports instead of making the podcasts? And that diff sbove where I striked out head reporter says I am owning this how? StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 10:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh and that comment on Xenocidic's talk page. It was better! You changed the whole concept! StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 10:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we please shut this AN/I down, it's getting ridiculous. The longer it goes on the more people seem to keep digging a deeper hole for themselves. Ironholds 12:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

<-There are some arguments that are worth pursuing, and there are some that are not. This is one of those examples where a battle to win an argument can cause more disruption than the end result, and I hope that both parties now appreciate that, rather than perpetuating it. There is no administrator action required here, as PeterSymonds has already discussed. I agree with Ironholds on a motion to archive this topic. Gazimoff 12:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

First Baptist Church (Hammond, Indiana)

Not sure if this belongs here or in "Arbcom enforcement". The article in question is on Arbcom probation, and "The expectation is that Vivaldi, Arbustoo, and other editors of these articles will in the course of editing remove poorly sourced controversial material." However none of those people have touched the article for months, and it currently contains a "Controversy and Criticism" section that massively violates the rules for biographical material concerning living persons, not to mention other bad things. Looie496 (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If that were only it! First, 80% of the article seems to be a copy of the church's publicity materials, and 20% is backlash. Eeek! The whole of it could go into a pot and get rendered down to 1. It's a church, 2. part of this part of the denomination, 3. has a congregation of X, 4. has made news with good and bad things (vague), 5. it's located at. I mean, at this point it looks more like a matter for AfD than AN/I, but it's really a content question rather than a matter of user misbehavior. Geogre (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think Arbcom probation would prevent the removal of advertising. Not to mention, it's been 2 years since the arbcom case. --Smashville^BONK! 18:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Probation really means be extra nice and extra careful when editing the article. It should not be either a coatrack to attack its founder nor an advertisement for the wonders of the church. Thatcher 20:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The person who added the 80% of the material taken from the church's website was Looie496[87][88], which is the same person who removed all the cited criticism.[89][90] If you read the talk page there is a long consensus of supporting the inclsuion of these notable controversies. If you view the history of the article, you'll notice a long history of IP whitewash. Lastly, the church is not a BLP as the above person claims. This seems more like vandalism. Feerzeey (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Can an adminstrator step in? Looie496 (the person who white washed the page) again added tons of non-encyclopedic material at removed all the categories.[91] The book reference, "First Baptist Church 120th Anniversary," according to google and amazon brings up nothing- no books or mentions at all. Therefore, its not a WP:RS and a clear attempt to white wash the page. More non-critical material needs added, but not like this. Feerzeey (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A vandal-bot reverted him so he removed all critical WP:RS.[92] Feerzeey (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You are misreading. I never added anything to that article. It was User:Jonsuh who added the spam. Yesterday I removed the spam and the libel, then saw the probation notice, and immediately reverted my own changes. Today I brought the matter up here. Meanwhile you and Jonsuh have been warring over the spam. I have nothing to do with that. I think the spam should be removed, but I haven't touched it today. All I did today was to remove the libel, after which you reverted my change. It looks like you are trying to keep the libel, and Jonsuh is trying to keep the spam. In my opinion both the spam and the libel should be removed, and the article should then be protected. Looie496 (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is User:Jonsuh that is removing the material despite being warned about 3RR twice.[93] I was confused because you and he was misreading WP:BLP. You removed it only once.

All the criticism comes from WP:RS. It is not "libel" when it is reported in the press repeatedly and when it talks about someone who was convicted of child molestation. BLP is about living people. The church is not a living person and neither is Hyles. Even it they were, all criticism is backed with WP:RS and has been for over two years. Feerzeey (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Looie496, All the criticism in the church article is backed by WP:RS. BLP deals with living persons. What claim, and subsequent source, about a living person are you calling not a WP:RS regarding BLP? Please don't wholesale remove cited material. Feerzeey (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've protected the page pending some resolution between the parties on the talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I may be crazy, but is any of it actually notable? I mean, all of the controversy seems to revolve around a person that already has an article. --Smashville^BONK! 03:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like the editing controversy is one of emotions, and that's why the two sides won't find middle ground. I really think a vast stripping down would be in order. There isn't much to this church that sets it apart from other Baptist churches, except that, at least locally, it has achieved some controversy. Well, we avoid localism and newspaper-like coverage, as we're supposed to look for things that have at least some life to them or broader effect. At least that's how I've always edited. If it's your high school's gym teacher boffing a student or your college's new recreation center, we need something more than a local furore and more than a local good, it seems to me. (N.b. I'm far more anti-granular than others lately.) Geogre (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going to think about it for a few hours and possibly send it to AfD...it looks like it's not as much as either side wants it to be. --Smashville^BONK! 16:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done the deed. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:63.87.6.102 Continuing nuisance and personal attacks

Resolved

User:63.87.6.102 Is the fixed IP of a well known nuisance editor aka: User:Yamchaken User: 6 synth pop

Previous misconduct includes Vandalism, POV pushing, Removal of content, Inappropriate remarks on talk pages and edit warring. User has had numerous warnings from editors about their conduct:

User talk:63.87.6.102

Recently the IP was banned for vandalism for one week. Concurrently two accounts by the same individual were blocked indefinitely for proven Sock puppetry:

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yamchaken

Now IP ban has expired User has returned to edit warring. I gave individual a WP:3RR warning on their talk page to warn of consequences of continuing this course of conduct. This has resulted in personal homophobic abuse on the talk article which I referred to, this is clearly unacceptable:

"andi064 is very gay. he is cop so he can frisk other men touching there butts and doing other nasty stuff. stay away from this guy at all cost."[94]

Talk:The_Human_League/Archive_1

I have not responded to the abuse, as this will just evolve into a personal dispute. This IP is nothing but a nuisance to Wikipeda and user is obviously is not getting the message from warnings and short blocks. Please consider a longer block and Admin warning for the personal attack. Thanks andi064 ^{T . C} 17:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months. I have templated the account, but don't feel it necessary to warn after the fact; they know why they are blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank You for your prompt attention. andi064 ^{T . C} 10:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by User:ROH Historian

ROH Historian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There seems to be some disruption going on with this user. He has been adding material that violates WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTABILITY, [95][96][97] despite being warned on his talkpage see here. See also this discussion at WP:PW. In response to the comments left by Tromboneguy0186 (talk · contribs) and Nikki311 (talk · contribs), ROH Historian accuses them of going on angry outbursts, which isn't the case. He also left a troubling statement on his userpage, which has since been blanked, with accusations directing towards other users. I think admin intervention might be needed here. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be a troll. I'm gonna' go leave him a civil message on his talk page, see if I can get him to stop. Will block if these things continue, as they're highly disruptive. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(e.c.) Also note [98] and [99] - D.M.N. (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Back and doing the same. Blocked for 24 hours. lifebaka++ 18:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

189.192.xxx.xxx

IP range block needed here again - two prior blocks but more and more and more vandalism on a daily basis. I have been doing temp blocks on the IPs as I find them but obviously this really doesn't help much. Can a larger range be blocked this time? This person is a real nuisance and nothing s/he has ever modified has been a legitimate or constructive edit. IP addresses so far found here: [100] Thanks...... eo (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you narrow it down any? Thatcher 18:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I checked and there is almost no one else on that range, so blocked one month anon/ACB. Thatcher 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin. Jfdwolff has repetitively deleted my addition to Diabetes

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here

I cannot leave a warning, because the User talk:Jfdwolff page is semi-protected. He systematically deletes from the lead of Diabetes my sentence adding monogenic diabetes (with a NIH reference) and its example MODY (wiki-linked), but he does NOT offer alternatives and just says I do not like it to be there. Monogenic diabetes constitutes 1-5% of all diabetes ([[101]]) 18 M cases in US; see [[102]] (230 M worldwide; see [[103]]), so - 180,000-900,000 cases in US (2.3-11.5 M worldwide), and he claims that it does not deserve a mention in the lead. So, how people will find its existence otherwise, please? Just one little sentence reading "Less common is a monogenic diabetes, e.g. MODY.".

I explained at User talk:162.84.184.38 that "your point of view on the INTRO is not supported by WP:LEAD; deletion with a frivolous explanation (e.g. yours "I really think...") qualifies as Blanking of WP:VANDALISM, because it was based on a private opinion, and additionally it contradicted the guidelines provided by WP:LEAD, because MODY is a distinctive type and monogenic diabetes is a distinctive group, without which diabetes is not presented completely" and repeated it on the Diabetes talk page. Why from 180,000 people with monogenic diabetes in US to 11.5 M worldwide have to be discriminated against in easy access to a basic info at Wikipedia, because sir Admin. Jfdwolff selected such fate for them (not popular enough), please? Is he God or eugenics is back or worse?(162.84.184.38 (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

This is a content dispute, work it out on the article's talk page. There are no actions taken by anyone involved that seem to need admin attention. lifebaka++ 15:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, the IP may want to check out WP:DR for some other ideas regarding dispute resolution if s/he feels the discussion on the talk page is not going anywhere. Shereth 15:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both of the above but wanted to add that I placed a notice for the admin, whose talkpage seems to have been recently infinitely semi-protected. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

JFW has provided more than reasonable explanation of his reverts here. Please be kind enough to review them before reinstating the information. It is not him reverting your edits which is the problem, it is you readding the information before consensus from other editors has been sought after. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 16:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

After reading the page history, I'm inclined to side with Jfdwolff here. However, this should be discussed on the article talk page. Please don't expect such a major addition to be accepted at face value; consensus for this should be gathered on the article talk page first. Stop forum shopping. Tan ǀ 39 16:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed a content dispute and I have already involved WP:MED, which is the WikiProject most closely associated with the topic. My talkpage is temporarily semiprotected after recent harrassment. I have encouraged 162.84.184.38 to get an account, which would have avoided this situation. JFW | T@lk 18:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ward Churchill talk page

I have been in a dispute with another editor concerning a substantive addition to the Ward Churchill article. The other editor is threatening have me blocked etc. if I don't back down from calling his derogatory comments of the Creek Nation "ignorant" "prejudiced" etc. I will not back down. He is threatened to have an admin block me. So I'm here for the blocking. I know that his threat violate Wikipedia policy but I know that it never gets enforced also. The dispute is outlined below.--InaMaka (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not want InaMaka blocked, and have never indicated that I did. However, I would like him/her to remove the extremely abusive comments (mostly about me) that s/he has recently added to the mentioned talk page. WP:CIVIL matters. LotLE×talk 19:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith

In particular, I've seen disruptions in some other articles recently that have heightened my appreciation of the important of Wikipedia:CIVIL#Removal_of_uncivil_comments. If InaMaka wishes to participate in this article discussion, I very strongly request that s/he read the WP policy, and thereby remove those comments s/he makes above in violation of policy.

I'm not removing the comments that I made. I still believe that your comments about how the Creek Nation makes membership decisions arbitrarily is an effort to the sovereignty of the Creek Nation. I find that comment to be ignorant. I find that comment to be paternalistic. I find that comment to be elitist. I find that comment to be prejudiced. I find that comment to be unfair and it is not something that I want to hear. I stand by my comments. I'm sure that you will find an admin that will block me, etc. But I'm willing to take the block because I did and I still do find your comments to be disrespectful to all Indian Nations and the people that work in them. Also, you stated that I called you a "racist" and that is not true. It is a lie. Let's get the admin so we can get this over with. I also realize that you are going to get an admin to punish me so that you can continue to dominate the debate on this article. It is easier to vanquish people that disagree with your opinions than it is argue substantively. It is easier to simply dismiss their opinions with the comment that their statements are "silly" than it is to provide solid evidence for claims, such as your claim that the Creek Nation banned Churchill from the tribal rolls because they were mad at them, etc. I can live with your aggressive behavior toward others that don't agree with you. I can live with the blocks and the Requests for Comment and the other forms of punishment that the bullies of Wikipedia are willing to throw at me. It ain't no big thing. Let's get an admin so you can feel that taught me a lesson not to even dare to disagree with you. Just keep in mind, just so you know, even after the punishment is over I'm going to continue to monitor the article and make changes where I see fit.--InaMaka (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That said, trying to read past the abuse, I think Kanguole makes a reasonable observation about the Dawes Roll. Reading through that lens, the Creek statement can be seen as having some relevance to ancestry, which would give a plausible ground for inclusion of the footnote. I'm not convinced is genuinely needed or relevant, but I'm happy to live with in the article (as a footnote). LotLE×talk 18:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note to other admins - I am personally dealing with this. I have left gentle civility reminders on all the users involved. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia article

Resolved

 – semi protection is not being lifted at this time, for obvious reasons explained below

Should semi-protection be removed from that article, because by policy it should not be used to settle content disputes.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.4.106 (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Which article do you mean, do you mean Russia? Keeper ǀ 76 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Because if you do, that was only protected today, and only for a week. I'd be very hardpressed to undo another admin's actions. What edit do you want to make? Keeper ǀ 76 20:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This is part of a long list of rotating IP socks that I was made aware of at the still pending case at RfM. There were multiple reverts conducted by multiple IP addresses, and the above IP address is just a part of that. seicer | talk | contribs 20:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

But there is no vandalism or anything like that. Its just a content dispute. And by this block you encourage other parties to stay away from RfM and continue brute force reverting. By the way, other party did not try even one of the ways of normal dispute resolution process, only did forum shopping and edit warring. 91.122.95.180 (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And there is a several meatpuppets from other side doing constant reverting: Miyokan, Krawndawg and couple less active others. 91.122.95.180 (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering, or failure to see the bigger picture. The article has been subject to much edit warring recently (see the history and count the "undid edit by..." entries). The edit warriors have all been IP addresses. Since we always protect to the lowest level we can in order to keep the largest number of people editing, semi-protection here was both proper and smart. ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 21:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The edit warriors have not all been IP addresses. There at least Miyokan, Krawndawg. Those users just changing the comments from default "undid edit by..." to "corrections" or something like that. Please, take a look at that more carefully.91.122.95.180 (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The protection was entirely proper. There's only so many ways to say this. So, from an administrative point of view, the subject is closed. You can, of course, discuss your proposed edits on the article talk page and try to gain a consensus. Until then, there's nothing more to be said. ➜ REDVƎЯS has nothing to declare except his jeans 21:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Protection will not be lifted, and if this nonsense continues, it will be lengthened. Take it to the talk page and gain consensus on your proposed changes. Until then, nothing can or will be done. seicer | talk | contribs 21:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You are not answering me at your talk page. Neither do Miyokan at the article talk page. And he refuses to participate in mediation. I'm going through dispute resolution process WP:NPOV/N, RfM. And those users only edit warring. 91.122.95.180 (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Sponge417

Resolved

 – Homosexuality and teenage relationships aren't against policy or illegal, and the COPPA cutoff is 13, not 18. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sponge417 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) says that he is:

1) Under age & 2) Has a "boyfriend" in banned user AlwaysUnderTheInfluence (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

For security reasons I do not feel that this is appropiate. This is not a place to "hookup" or for adults to "troll" for underage sex partners.

Thanks,

Ann M. Haralambie, JD

Private Attorney and Author, Tucson, AZ— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.18 (talk) 21:19, 6th August 2008 (UTC)

• The user you mention has no edits of any kind, including to his/her userspace. Where are you getting your information? NawlinWiki (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be a slight error in the {{user}} tag causing that confusion, I think...now fixed. _Gb^T/c 21:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The userpage of Sponge does appear to have been edited by AUTI here to say that the latter is the former's boyfriend, and given the other edits it would be my presumption that they're all socks of the same account, by the look of it - Sponge's former "boyfriend" is a sock of AUTI too..._Gb^T/c 21:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, this is too much information for a child of legal status. Thanks, Ann — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.18 (talk) 21:32, 6th August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, well, what's the age of consent in New York...? _Gb^T/c 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

17, but California, where Wikimedia's offices are, it is 18. Don't split hairs. Thanks, Ann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.18 (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you think that's splitting hairs, you're going to be a bit miffed when I tell you that its servers are hosted in Florida, which would potentially be the relevant state law if any state law had actually been broken. Your "security reasons" aside, and working on the assumption that the person concerned posted the information about themselves, what law do you assert has been broken? And by whom? _Gb^T/c 21:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Do any US states actually prohibit 17 year-olds having boyfriends? DuncanHill (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous and smacks of prejudice. Teenagers have boyfriends and girlfriends. No mention of illegal activity has occurred. Being gay is not a crime. Toddst1 (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As no one else did, I have informed Sponge417 of this thread. DuncanHill (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing what so ever to do with sexuality. This is a child privacy issue. This page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:User_page, states: "What may I not have on my user page?: Personal information of other persons without their consent" Since children cannot "give" consent, that means you must obtain a release from their parents. Since websites do not want to obtain this consent, the just keep personal information, like what high school they attend and what city they live in, off of the site. Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Meier and don't make this about prejudice or sex, it is about child safety. Also, Florida is 18. I don't have time to keep discussing this with you. Just do the right thing. Please post the name and address of Wikimedia's attorney's in your reply. Thanks, Ann, or and these four tildes: 209.86.226.18 (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

IP address blocked for 1 week for making legal threats in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Legal info provided in block notice. Toddst1 (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

All he says is that he has a boyfriend - there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Now go away and stop being silly. DuncanHill (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Do the right thing? Okay. I'll do nothing about it then, because no administrative action is required. Your frivolous comments is hurting my sides. seicer | talk | contribs 22:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like a second opinion on the length of the block of the IP: Wikipedia:No legal threats says:

Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding.

Is 1 week appropriate? It's an IP address, so I don't think indefinite is the right answer. Toddst1 (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a concern on the IP talk page that it may be used by a blocked editor. Is there any similarity between that blocked editor's behaviour and the behaviour today? DuncanHill (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user is requesting unblocking. Toddst1 (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

All that aside, the user page gives the kid's name, his date of birth, the name of his high school, the names of the middle school and the elementary school he went to and his father's place of employment. Until recently, he even had a note on his page telling all and sundry what summer camp he could be found at. If he were 13, I'm sure we'd delete and oversight all that, but he's 17, so ... how should we handle it? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You might leave him a friendly note advising so many identifying details may not be wise, then let him respond as he chooses. Many people younger than he have even more personal stuff for public view on myspace or whatever. Jonathunder (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

IP editor improperly blocked, this report was not a legal threat per WP:NLT

The IP editor who started this thread appears to have been, in good faith, concerned about a possible violation of law. Whether or not there is actually a violation would properly be a question for an attorney, though we may have, if what is above is correct, sufficient information to dismiss the report as not requiring administrative action, and allowing the IP editor to go ahead and contact the Foundation attorney as WP:NLT advises -- what's the problem with giving contact information for Michael Godwin? -- however, there was no legal threat here, asking for the address of the Foundation attorney is not a legal threat by any stretch of the imagination. Rather, on the face of it, it is one attorney, not representing a client, wanting to discuss the matter with another attorney. "Legal threat" as described in WP:NLT refers to an individual threatening to sue, not to simple information provided about a possible legal problem not accompanied by any threat. From WP:NLT, at the top of the page:

If you do choose to use legal action or threats of legal action to resolve disputes, you will not be allowed to continue editing until it is resolved and your user account or IP address may be blocked. A polite report of a legal problem such as defamation or copyright infringement is not a threat and will be acted on quickly.

This was a "polite report" of a possible problem involving, allegedly, child endangerment. The post is not at all what one would see from someone contemplating legal action against Wikipedia or any Wikipedia users. So it was an error to block this IP, unsupported by WP:NLT which was given as a reason for the block and as a reason for the denial of the unblock request. --Abd (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure she just wanted the attorney's name to have a beer with. Toddst1 (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This was a failure of the ability of Toddst1 to WP:AGF. The writer was, no the face of it, an attorney, and saw that her issues were not going to be addressed here, with users debating over irrelevancies, such as sexual orientation. So, I can easily assume -- it is by far the most likely explanation to me -- she simply wanted to talk to an attorney for Wikipedia. She wasn't threatening a lawsuit, she wanted to provide information and analysis, just like she provided here.

If she had been making legal threats, she'd have written quite differently. Occam's razor, though. She is what she said she was, and simply wanted, as an attorney acting on her own, not on behalf of a client, simply trying to be helpful, to talk to an attorney who would, she thought, better understand what she was saying. And I'm sure Mike Godwin would have been happy to explain the issues to her, I'm pretty sure he's an expert on this. Instead, we may simply have made one more person out there who thinks that this place is crazy and administrators are power-mad. Nice work. Not. There is a reason why we block for legal threats. It did not apply to this case, at all. --Abd (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

We have blocked for "vague" legal threats in the past -- much more so than is alleged in this case. The slightest inclination of legal threat usually prompts administrators to question the motive of the editor, and as it escalated to the point of the OP requesting Wikimedia's attorneys, one must play it safe here. What possible good could come out of requesting an attorney? A possible lawsuit because we are acting within policy or bounds? Or would the OP actually talk to the attorney to see if our policy was actually legit? The OP was hesitant to actually discuss the matter further, only stating that we needed to do this, and needed to do that, and was being very vague in the responses. The OP can still request an unblock, or a comment fur further review -- and I would be happy to unblock if she retracts the statement and actually become involved in the discussion so that we may possibly reform the policy on situations like this. We already have some vagueness in the policy as demonstrated in the postings in this thread, so it is something that needs to be clarified. seicer | talk | contribs 01:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There was no legal threat whatsoever, and the IP should be unblocked. The block was unfounded in any Wikipdeia policy or guideline. Since when is contact info for Godwin such a deep dark secret that anyone who requests it must immediately be blocked? Unblock the user and point him to Godwin's user page. Edison (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that way, perhaps you could explain what the "the name and address of Wikimedia's attorney's" would be needed for besides legal issues. Toddst1 (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The editor wanted to do what she did here, and there is utterly no reason to suppose otherwise. She wanted to discuss the issue she raised. That is not a legal threat, period. Attorneys talk to each other all the time, about legal issues, with no lawsuit being threatened. If contacting Wikipedia counsel with a comment like she made here -- and there is no reason to think she would do otherwise -- is "legal action," well, we'd better make that far more explicit at WP:NLT and, in fact, some of WP:NLT is dead wrong in that case. Really. Read it! It says that raising legal issues civilly without threats is not a "legal threat." It is really very clear, and I can imagine the frustration of this attorney looking at that and saying "But I didn't do that! I just wanted to talk to someone who'd understand what I was saying. Don't they know that if I wanted to sue, I'd know exactly what to do, I wouldn't go to AN/I and raise the issue and politely ask for the name and address of counsel. Have you ever seen an attorney who was preparing to sue ask someone for the name and address of their attorney? People do that to avoid lawsuits, even if they have some problem, and this person did not allege any personal problem or problem of a client, and would have had no standing to sue based on what she alleged at all. --Abd (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Toddst1's block of this IP editor per WP:NLT. The "threat" does not need to be an impending lawsuit; simply contacting Wikimedia's legal team would be considered "legal action" and, until we obtain a reasonable explanation of why this editor wants the contact info, all editing should be constrained to his/her talk page. There's a reason we have this policy, and being even the slightest bit lax with it could cause serious problems. I can see blowing off a few other policies once in awhile for common sense reasons or turning a blind eye to a minor civility issue - but this isn't one of those issues to ignore. Tan ǀ 39 02:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The policy is actually very clear, and simply did not apply here, because there was no threat, no reasonable possibility, even, of legal action involving this user who was, on the face of it, simply trying to be helpful by reporting what she saw as a problem. And the plot thickens. As I note below, there is an attorney with the name given in this report, who is a published author in the field,[104] she has over 3,000 ghits. If we were worried about her motives, wouldn't it have been interesting that she was an expert trying here to give expert advice, and then wouldn't this have explained why she wanted to talk to a fellow attorney? In other words, it was possible to figure this out without demanding that she provide the answer. And, in fact, she wasn't asked the question. Seicer did not ask her, "why do you want to talk to WP counsel?" He said, "this could be construed as a legal threat." Weasel words, by the way, taking no responsibility for so construing it.--Abd (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

His name is Mike Godwin. He has a user page User talk:MGodwin. He has a Wikipedia article Mike Godwin. Martindale Hubble at [105] contains the mailing address of most attorneys at [106]. That article provides contact information as well,all of which is public information no one has complained about. Why are you so afraid that the IP MIGHT make a legal threat that you preemptively block to prevent it from happening? Edison (talk)

You can't answer the question, can you? Toddst1 (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That still does not answer the question. seicer | talk | contribs 03:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The contact address for the Wikimedia Foundation is given at [107]. Why are you so afraid for anyone to know it? I do not pretend to be a mindreader, so there is no more basis for me answering the question than there was for you answering it. Edison (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There are online instructions for me to file a lawsuit, too, but if I come on ANI and specifically ask how to do it - and mentioning Wikimedia - it would probably be construed as a legal threat. The point, Edison, is that we just want to know why. Yes, perhaps we could have sussed that out here without the block, but if you read WP:NLT to the letter, this block was valid. If there's a perfectly reasonable explanation, as there probably is, the block can be lifted and minimal, if any, harm will have been done except maybe a bruised ego or two. Tan ǀ 39 03:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The block was a preemptive one, and invalid, based on mindreading. Edison (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You still have not answered the question, and you seem intent on dancing around it until the cow jumps over the moon. People whine and complain when a block is punitive rather than preventive; in this case, we were too preventive instead of punitive? seicer | talk | contribs 03:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What was being prevented? WP:NLT exists so that legal actions and potential legal actions aren't prejudiced by communications here while they are unresolved. The block would not prevent a legal action. There was no threat or reasonable possibility of a threat from this user over what she reported here. So we block not in response to legal threats but to prevent legal threats based on an administrator's inability to imagine any legitimate motive, other than, what, making legal threats?, for talking to Foundation counsel? But we don't prevent people from "making legal threats to Foundation counsel," and it would be Foundation counsel which would decide, in that case, if a block were necessary. We block for legal threats, much more commonly, simply because they can be uncivil and disruptive, plus we essentially take them seriously. Planning a lawsuit, eh? Okay, but, of course, until this matter is resolved, you can't edit here. But now we block *before* someone indicates they are planning a suit? It's going to be interesting to see what Mr. Godwin has to say about this, if he replies. --Abd (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"WP:NLT exists so that legal actions and potential legal actions aren't prejudiced by communications here while they are unresolved." - no, that's absolutely not the reason. See the rationale section. We forbid legal threats because they can be used for intimidation, hinder free editing, and poison the atmosphere. We are not concerned with the effect for legal cases (that is for the parties to worry about), but with the effect on Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to see a reply from Mr. Godwin on the situation, to see what the threashhold should be for cases such as this. We have an equal discussion, it seems, on both sides of the camp that both condemn and praise the block, for varying reasons, and since this is not the first time that NLT has been questioned for its usage, it should be clarified.

I'd also like to extend the discussion to what should be appropriate for the userpage that deals with those under the age of 18. We seem to have a murky policy, based on this discussion and prior discussions regarding different cases, about what is acceptable. Name? Age? Should we exclude information that may be personal in nature? As long as it is not MySpace-y? There are some clear boundaries already penned, but I think we should be more specific in the future to prevent the run-around. seicer | talk | contribs 03:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(Shrug) Take action, then. I've said my piece; do as you will. Tan ǀ 39 03:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) This is a tough one. On the one hand, it might've just been to clarify the jurisdiction/age-thing. But on the other hand, I can see why alarm bells went off - my first reaction was to think it was a legal threat. I think a block was valid. But, I do think the IP should answer the question, and then that'd make it much clearer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I've made over 2,000 blocks an a couple of them have been bad (right Ned? 8-). This was not one of them. However, I had unblocked several minutes ago in good faith. Again, I feel it was a solid block. Here's to good faith and de-escalating drama. Toddst1 (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's hoping the IP edits in good faith and in compliance with WP:NLT as well as other policies and guidelines. Thanks to Toddst1 for his great energy in admin work. Edison (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• FYI, Some time ago I dropped a note at User talk:Mike Godwin, and sent him an email, because I suspect he might want to know that someone was blocked simply for asking for his address without threatening anything.[108]. I'm glad to see that Toddst1 unblocked, good move. --Abd (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Gee, maybe he'll give you a cookie, Abd. Drop a note on Jimbo's page while you're at it, see if you can be made a hall monitor. Tan ǀ 39 04:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not really necessary or constructive. --jonny-mt 04:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The above is uncivil and uncalled-for. —David Levy 04:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• And I finally did what I wanted to do quite a while ago, and I don't see that anyone else did it. The IP editor, if it isn't impersonation, is an expert in the field.[109] That doesn't mean she is right, because she may not be familiar with rules as they apply to the specific situation of Wikipedia, but, nevertheless, I'd be far happier with her discussing this with Godwin rather than on AN/I, and I think she came to the same conclusion, hence her request. Because she can email Godwin -- his address is visible on his user page User:Mike Godwin -- the block isn't really harmful, just a bit of an insult. Hair-trigger block, maybe not a bad idea, but, of course, it can do social damage, so, really, the unblock shouldn't have been grudging but apologetic. I.e., I'm sorry, it looked like a legal threat to me, and we'd rather be safe than sorry, so please accept my apologies for any inconvenience. But, for the future, someone asks, without creating a context of legal threat, for who the Foundation attorney is, don't block them! Give them the address politely. If they say, I'll sue your ass, what's the name of your attorney, well, that's another story! (And you know what you should do there? Block them *and* give them the name of the attorney *and* politely explain to them that until the matter is resolved, our policy requires that they don't edit, and that Wikipedia counsel will inform us of when there is no longer a problem, and we apologize for any inconvenience.) --Abd (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm late to this discussion, but I'd just like to note my strong disagreement with the (thankfully lifted) block. The above request for contact information doesn't remotely resemble a legal threat. There is absolutely no indication that the user in question wanted anything other than to contact a Wikimedia attorney to discuss her concerns. That's exactly what someone is supposed to do when he/she believes that a legal issue should be brought to the Foundation's attention. This block, while issued in good faith, was completely and utterly inappropriate. —David Levy 04:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)My thoughts exactly, David, thanks. There was another error here, a technical one. The blocking administrator was engaged in a dispute with the blocked editor, arguing against what she had stated, denying the validity of her report. I've been seeing that one a few times recently, which is the only reason I mention it. I still assume good faith on his part, he really did read it as a legal threat, because he couldn't imagine anything else. That worries me, though. It's circumstantial evidence, only worse. Editor does A. Admin can't imagine that A could mean anything other than B. And B would require a block. Okay, so far, maybe the admin should block. But then other editors start saying, no, that wasn't a threat. At that point, the administrator should have done an abrupt about-face. Instead, it was repeatedly demanded, well, then, what did it mean, huh? huh? The existence of a mystery does not prove something bad is happening, and, if someone was, in fact, on the verge of considering legal action, but hadn't decided, and hadn't threatened it, blocking them could precipitate the action. WP:NLT should be followed as written. Legal threat equals practically automatic block until threat disappears. No legal threat, no block. Vague threat? Well, "vague threat" means, in this context, a statement which is vaguely threatening to someone or to Wikipedia, specifically, like, "You might regret that. Lawyers are expensive." On the other hand, suppose this was someone attempting to give you advice about a criminal offense that the person thinks you might be committing. Or about the possibility of someone else suing you. They are not threatening you, they are pointing out a "legal threat." It is not their threat. You don't block them, they are not engaged in a legal dispute with you or Wikipedia, they are, on the face of it, attempting to protect you or Wikipedia. --Abd (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As a fellow latecomer (hooray for timezones!) who's spent the last twenty minutes or so reading through everything that happened, I'm definitely with David here. I'm glad to see that the block was lifted, and while I don't agree 100% with everything Abd said about the future application of WP:NLT, I just wanted to note that he did a great job helping to sort this out. --jonny-mt 04:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of you nay-sayers has been able to answer my question about what possible activity other than legal issues might involve the need for a lawyer. Given that and all you smart folks, I feel pretty justified. Thanks for those who had the courage to support me. To those that opposed (all of you) without being able answering my question, I bid you a good night. Toddst1 (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I must say that this last comment makes me worried about the competence of Toddst1 to handle his admin bit. I've given, several times, an explanation, on my Talk page in response to his comment there, here above, on Mike Godwin's Talk page, as to why the editor would ask that question. He now responds as if nobody was able to answer his question. Has he noticed that the user he blocked was apparently an expert in the field? Numerous editors have stated, again and again, that the comment wasn't a threat. Yet he persists in defending the block. The block is understandable given that he perceived the comment as a threat, we could say that WP:IAR actually required him to make the block first and ask questions later. However, as is common with IAR, questions of competence can arise. Let's hope that a night's sleep allows him to think a little more clearly about this, because if it doesn't, I'm truly worried.--Abd (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind my reordering the comments to make it easier to respond. Wikipedia:No legal threats is named that for a reason--someone who threatens legal action on-wiki is to be blocked. Someone who wants to speak to our legal council about a concern they have is not threatening any legal action; last I checked, it's entirely possible to speak with an attorney without suing anyone. Yes, of course that means legal issues will be involved, but your arguments make it sound like we should apply WP:NLT to everyone with a question about copyright. --jonny-mt 04:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a straw man argument; you're demanding that people justify the nonexistent claim that the desired contact doesn't pertain to a legal issue. Of course it does, but as has been repeatedly noted, discussing legal issues ≠ making legal threats! People who believe that legal issues regarding the Wikimedia Foundation should be brought its attention are supposed to contact Mike Godwin. That's why he freely distributes his official contact information.

And really, let's not divide people into the categories of "courageous" and "non-courageous" based on their opinions. Everyone discussing this matter (irrespective of his/her viewpoint) has done so in good faith. —David Levy 04:42/04:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - How inappropriate. Other than biased opinions toward homosexuals, I support the block. Anywho, it was most inappropriate and "gangbanging"(jumping on?) an admin's block decision was uncalled for too. Hopefully, he stays blocked. Just my thought. Thanks --eric (mailbox) 04:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Gangbanging? Really? —David Levy 04:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

....... LOL. --eric (mailbox) 05:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree that someone simply expressing a desire to speak to wikipedia's lawyer should not be blocked, although I recognise that the block was done with the best intentions. There is a simple explanation as to why someone would wish to make that contact without necessarily having it in mind to take legal action: they may be contacting wiki's lawyer, so that he can be alerted to an issue, which he may want to take action over. Ty 04:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Any manager would know that if your employee wishes to talk to the companies legal team or HR department about something the business is currently allowing that (s)he fears might be illegal they would give her/him the number. They would have a tough time defending themselves in court if they suspended that employee for that question. (S)He could sue the company for retaliation. If criminals have the right to talk to an attorney cant wikipedia allow those with legitimate concerns to contact wikipedias legal experts with those possible concerns? -- Phoenix (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparing anonymous editors to employees of a corporation is a little naive. Tan ǀ 39 05:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention, it would make no sense. (^_^) --eric (mailbox) 05:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the main point of the analogy that someone can consult a legal department not to take action against the company, but to take action to safeguard the company. Ty 05:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding and for backing up my example! -- Phoenix (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

IP editor improperly blocked,section break 2

I don't like confrontations, so I'd just thought I would comment and go. Thanks :) --eric (mailbox) 05:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, this seems to be turning into a big thing. Hopefully a consesus can be reach in the appropriate time. What'cha think? --eric (mailbox)

Would everybody agree that WP:NLT should be updated to say those with reasonable/legitimate concerns that wish to consult wikipedias legal team should be allowed to do so without fear of blocking? -- Phoenix (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment -- Mmmm, I'm not too sure. It really all depends on the tone of the person. Irate people may seem more or less inapproachable, ya know? --eric (mailbox) 06:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

From a quick google search for Ann M. Haralambie, I find it a little odd that someone with such qualifications and expertise [110] would be acting like the IP was. There really shouldn't be an issue with the seventeen year old, right? -- Ned Scott 06:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any issue with the user. So no, I believe. Yup. I take everything I said totally back. Per Wildartlivie on the paragraph regarding the James Garner edit on my talk page, per this edit and a related edit to the same article with this edit which leads me to this edit by the suspected HarveyCarter sock puppet IP, it would seem that Sponge is a sock puppet of User:HarveyCarter -- does it not? Just take a look at Sponge's contributions to the Paul Newman article and that of this IP, Sponge puts back the exact same information the blocked IP did. Hmmm.. --eric (mailbox) 06:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mean about the sock stuff, but about the concerns of the IP. -- Ned Scott 06:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL, sorry. --eric (mailbox) 07:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My two cents on the IP blocking: I think one of the problems here is that we don't normally expect a situation like this. Most people who are asking these kinds of questions are doing so via OTRS or directly to someone else using the contact information on the site. We seem to assume that people who want to take legal action against Wikipedia are doing so because they don't understand how Wikipedia and/or the law works (and this is probably right, but maybe that's just my bias). It also seems somewhat rare for someone find ANI and be able to follow our discussion system (which is out of the ordinary for most of the internet). Here we have someone who was able to understand enough of Wikipedia to get here, and understands the law. I'm not saying the block was good or bad, but this doesn't seem like our average situation. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. You go to bed for a few hours and look what happens. I have to say, there are a few things that strike me as slightly odd about how :

1. the person making the original post claims to be Ann Haralambie, a sole practitioner from Tuscon Arizona, yet their IP resolves to Georgia. My US geography isn't particularly hot, but I reckon they're what, 1,500 miles apart?
2. an attorney, a sole practitioner, in the middle of the afternoon on a working day, decides to do a bit of tinkering with some articles on World War II related topics (although later declares that she hasn't got the time to keep discussing her "security concerns" with us) before chancing across (how, exactly?) the userpage of a 17 year old boyfriend of a banned sockpuppeteer and deciding to raise a stink about it.
3. the attorney signs her name, giving her status, etc., in quite a full-on manner ("Ann M. Haralambie, JD Private Attorney and Author, Tucson, AZ). Exactly the same, in fact, down to the punctuation, as one would get if you copied and pasted her information over from this page.
4. I'm not a great believer in coincidences, so would someone mind explaining why Sponge417's only recent edit was to Paul Newman, and why the history of that article shows, 24 hours previously, it being edited by IP 209.86.226.15 which is in precisely the same range as the current one?
5. The format of Sponge's userpage follows exactly the format of all of the sockpuppets of a prolific sockpuppeteer, even down to the presence of an IMDB account....

Anyone else get the slight feeling that there's a possibility someone's jerking our communal chain(s)? _Gb^T/c 08:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but...

1 + 2 + 3 <> blockable offenses

4 + 5 <> anything about blocked user

There is a massive gap between "This person's story is a bit odd" and "Block."

brenneman 08:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, per above. --eric (mailbox) 13:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand - I wasn't putting forward 1 - 5 as reasons for a block (and don't really think they should have been blocked in the first place). I was looking at the wider issue by saying, in effect, that it's not entirely impossible we're just being trolled by the same sockpuppeteer here... _Gb^T/c 08:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In many of my comments on this issue, I've noted that it is possible that the IP editor was impersonating the attorney. However, As Gb implies, that is actually irrelevant to the block issue. Besides, suppose the attorney is travelling, visiting Atlanta. Maybe this person has an account, but didn't want to log in from a public computer. Etc. Really. Single issue here: was a legal threat made? Nobody has presented a cogent argument that it was a legal threat, the defense of the block has mostly been on the order of "Well, it might have been a legal threat, and better safe than sorry." However, that's a seriously bad argument. We block for legal threats for reasons that don't apply, indeed might militate directly against, blocking for possible legal threats. "Veiled threats" are another matter. If a reasonable person would feel personally threatened by a comment, that can be taken as a legal threat until safety is verified. Did anyone here feel that they were being personally threatened? It looks like the editor was asking for the information to be removed because (1) it endangered a minor and (2) it thus endangered Wikipedia. People here focused on mostly irrelevant arguments, and the editor obviously thought, "Well, I should talk with someone where we can cut through this and directly address the problem."

The blocking admin dropped a note on my Talk page saying I shouldn't make it personal. I haven't. When an admin uses their bit in a way that can be alleged to be incompetent (very different from "bad faith," which nobody has alleged), it is not "personal" to express concern about it. Competence is, indeed, a personal trait, but one which must be addressed in considering fitness for admin privileges. My concern isn't that the admin made a mistake, it is practically impossible to be an active admin, serving the project diligently, without making mistakes. It's that he defended the error long past any reasonable position, thus raising the competence issue. If he can't recognize that it was a mistake, he could make it again, and, we might wonder, if he's made 2000 blocks, how many problems might we not have noticed? ArbComm desysops admins who make block errors and don't recognize them. Most blocks take place under the radar. I'm raising the issue, my style is not to go after editors and admins unless there is an immediate and serious risk, so I'm not pursuing it. Besides, I'm travelling for a couple of days -- and AN/I would not be the place to seriously address this, if that is to happen. --Abd (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have posted an apology on behalf of Wikipedia to the IP Talk page. Please be careful with it. My goal there is to limit damage to Wikipedia's reputation for fairness. I can imagine someone who supports the block going there and arguing, NO! Which would cause further damage. --Abd (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not your place to apologize on behalf of Wikipedia. Please retract that. You may make your own opinion clear, but you don't speak for Wikipedia. I would also like to ask why an attorney from Tucson, Arizona is editing from an IP address in Atlanta, Georgia. Corvus cornix_talk 21:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's none of our bloody business why! Have we completely abandoned the concept of assuming good faith in favor of an instant block followed by interrogation?

The editor, even if (s)he impersonated the attorney in question (which we don't know to be the case), made no legal threats. None. At all. The block was issued when the user expressed a desire to follow the correct procedure.

Did you read Adb's apology? It opens with "On behalf of the Wikipedia community (though on my own initiative)", which makes it entirely clear that he isn't communicating in an official capacity.

Frankly, this apology should have come from Toddst1 (whose insistence that he was right and dismissal of contrary opinions as cowardly "nonsense" is quite troubling). —David Levy 01:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Really civil. Has anyone bothered to send an email to the real lawyer to let someone know that somebody is using her name here? Corvus cornix_talk 01:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Really civil.

Are you implying that I'm being uncivil? If so, how so?

Has anyone bothered to send an email to the real lawyer to let someone know that somebody is using her name here?

That's a good question. Someone probably should. —David Levy 03:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, I have spoken to attorneys literally tens of thousands of times, and have even requested addresses of attorneys many times, and have never once sued anyone or filed a criminal complaint against anyone. I object to mind-reading based blocks, or to demands that I prove what some IP was thinking before an unjustified block is lifted. Blocks should be based on actions which violate policies, not the suspicion that someone might be contemplating such an action. Even if someone blocked for a thought-crime turns out to be blockable for some other reason, that does not justify the mind-reading based block. Edison (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)