Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:56, 18 July 2007

Purge the cache to refresh this page

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Shortcuts

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

Before posting:
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- Try dispute resolution
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354
355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364
Incidents (archives, search)
1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157
1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477
478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
320	321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329
330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Help

Resolved

– Blocked 24 hours by User:Swatjester

User:Symbiote-Spidey keeps making disruptive edits to Spiderman: Friend or Foe. When I warned him several times he is now threatening me on my talk page and his user page. I want someone to help me put a stop to this please.BlueShrek 18:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Symbiotespidey blocked 24 hours for the physical threats. BlueShrek warned for being incivil and biting. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BlueShrek wasnt uncivil Iwent by the rules.BlueShrek 19:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly did not. You were uncivil, biting to the new user (and you yourself are a new user) and you both have ownership issues. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hes still making threats somehow. He just left me a message. I need help against this vandal.BlueShrek 19:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten to click ok on the block. He's blocked now. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New sock of User:Mariam83 blocked indefinitely

I've just blocked indef another sock of this disruptor. Irrer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is waiting for an admin to unblock the account. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more → User:WinterT. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more → User:LeopoldSenghor7. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more → User:FayssalK. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..... → User:IndividualBrain. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is persistent. I have a RV battle with another IP sock (User:68.89.185.223) of this user over several articles. Caknuck 07:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be sending an email to [email protected] today. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock of Mariam83 68.91.101.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has just struck this board. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested full protection for the affected pages. (See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Articles targeted by sockpuppets of User:Mariam83). Caknuck 22:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmbabies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and TV station articles

This user was indefinitely blocked back in February. Since that time, he has continued to edit pages under various Houston-based IPs. The edits are vandalism/nonsense (changing TV station affiliations/call signs/channel numbers) and some threats. After months of this abuse, I send a boilerplate message to the vandal's ISP, but that didn't work. I've placed the Houston TV stations on semi-protection, but the vandal has moved on to Bakersfield TV stations, and WP:TVS members are asking for a range block. As I do not really understand the range block parameters, I'm asking here.

As a member of TVS, I support something of a limited range block--require AT&T users in this range (the Houston area) to create an account before editing. It's unfortunate that it has to come to this, but clearly the ISP isn't taking it seriously (despite the fact that AT&T's TOS requires users to abide by the policies of third-party sites). To refresh some people's memories--he was community banned in part for exactly this behavior, including threats to the life of Christina Aguilera. At the very least, requiring him to create an account would make it easier to keep track of him. As it is, his vandalism is almost a weekly occurrence. Blueboy 96 11:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I don't like blocking a whole city, but it really is necessary. Will ^(talk) 12:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I concur; if AT&T won't do something about it, we have to do something to keep him off for good, or at least, make it harder for him to vandalise. As long as there are loopholes, Mmbabies has the "keys" to the Wikipedia "kingdom". P.S. -- In addition to bakersfield, he also vandalised some Dallas / Fort Worth stations in the past; and his vandalism stunts are actually almost a daily thing. -- azumanga 19:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the IPs he's used is already restricted from editing anonymously ... with this guy's history, it should be extended to the whole range, as suggested above. Blueboy 96 00:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was not involved with the originial block, but this guy needs to be stopped. Sadly, blocking an entire metro area might be the only way. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think all of us are very tired of his nightly "fun", which includes death threats to Christian artist Nicole C. Mullen and Kenneth Copeland's daughter and a 'my way/highway' attitude towards Houston TV and every show airing on Daystar. Sad that it is to block AT&T access for Houston without an account, this guy needs to be reined in somehow. I would give this range block around six months, and then reopen for a review to see if he's finally been discouraged. I have only reverted him a few times since GridlockJoe, Postoak and Azumanga have done an admirable (and probably wearing) job keeping Mmbabies reined in, but I do keep a couple of Houston TV articles on watch just in case he might try something funny late when I'm on. Nate 08:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I don't know how to perform a range block, but hopefully an admin who does will read this. If not let me know and I can make a quick post to wikien-l. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think with the now three seperate death threats, that we should also let perhaps the Houston area police department know. Even though they are the rantings of an obviously disturbed person, we should let the police know. Perhaps they can track the guy down. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Comment:I agree, especially since we already have 131 "leads" as of tonight (7/15), right here. -- azumanga 04:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make it 132 with this new one. Now he's on to using a picture of eggs in a pan and very fuzzy math to insist KETH is on Channel 39, not KHCW, and threatening the life of Juan Gabriel. Why is AT&T not taking this very seriously? Nate 03:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user vandalizing from IP?

Check out this edit from 68.90.62.217 (talk · contribs) before a current vandalism spree diff—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MMBabies (talk · contribs) doesn't exist. Anon misspelled the username, if there was a username. hbdragon88 03:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought -- I suggest putting a freeze on new members with that username, just in case the other Mmbabies entertains any thoughts. -- azumanga 20:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need, Azumanga ... any users with nicknames similar to him will be hard-blocked on sight, per WP:U. Usernames similar to known vandals are verboten. Blueboy 96 22:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmbabies (talk · contribs) exists though. Viridae ^Talk 03:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably what he meant. Where in Houston do you buy guts that big? He exposes the WMF to serious legal danger with his threats and has a large chunk of his hometown unable to edit for some stretches, and he wants to be unblocked????? Blueboy 96 22:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism has continued, albeit on other articles, now that the Houston stations are semi-protected. I plan to start IP range blocks tomorrow, unless there are objections. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious block of DreamGuy by VirtualSteve

VirtualSteve (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) giving this reason, which suggests to me that his main reason for imposing such a hefty block—three days— is that Dreamguy speaks rudely of admins in general. IMO admins should practice ignoring that kind of thing. We have too much power to act out a sense of grievance—collective or individual—with a Power Answer. It also worries me that VS blocks an editor he has just been edit warring with; that he hasn't posted the block on ANI for review; and also somewhat that he signed out as "unavailable" 25 minutes after blocking.[1] [2] I'm quite tempted to unblock without further ado myself, as these actions make it in practice impossible to discuss the block with the blocking admin; but having in the past been perceived as a "champion" of DreamGuy, I feel I'm not the best person for such an action. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As I have said elsewhere, I feel the length of the block to be excessive. At this time I think he has been unblocked by another administrator. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 21:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal.Tesson has shortened the block to 18 hours. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The block has been reduced to 18hours by Pascal.Tesson. I was prepared to unblock had DreamGuy agreed to not attempt to delete the disputed image, but I have deferred to Pascal.Tesson's decision. As there is a discussion relating to the image at WP:FUR#13 July 2007 I think another admin (or PT) might wish to further consider the block length. LessHeard vanU 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about someone removing the block completely with a note that says 'oops. Shouldnt block someone you edit with. It's called COI and admin-advantage.'. Peace.Lsi john 23:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm at it, and since I'm in a pissy mood anyway.. Block comment Attempting to harass other users. What sort of weasel block comment is that? Either he harassed or he didnt. If he 'failed' at his attempt at harassment, thats sufficiently embarassing. Besides, blocking for 'attempted harassment' with someone you are edit warring with? Geez. Peace.Lsi john 23:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... "Attempting to harass..." is a value judgement; are you going to wait until they succeed (one which will work against the majority of editors)? The attempt shows the perpetrator is acting in bad faith. It is the same for attempted murder; you don't only arrest them when they manage to do the deed.

However, the above has nothing to do with DreamGuys situation. If I had known that the blocking admin was previously edit warring with the blockee I would have unblocked without requiring conditions. I don't know the situation but the fact that there was no request for review does not look good. LessHeard vanU 00:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in fairness, yes, we wait until actual harassment occurs. There is a law addressing 'attempted murder', but I'm unaware of a clause for 'attempting' to harass in our policies or guidelines. Either the behavior counts as harassment or it doesn't. If we use 'value judgment' for 'attempted harassment' then (overused or not) AGF says 'value judgment' also says 'not attempting to harass but perhaps overzealous'. Pre-emptive blocking is bad. It creates a 'trail' of block logs which may, or not, accurately reflect a history and lead to excessive escalations. And, I'm not going to pretend that DreamGuy is the most polite editor on wikipedia. But blocking where you're involved, is wrong. Blocking for 'attempted' is wrong. Sorry for my shortness above, I'm tired, it's been a long day and my patience grows short at times. Peace.Lsi john 02:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to Lsi john in relation to his knowledge of the options available in the blocking drop down box here--VS ^talk 08:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provided it is impossible to manually edit or provide your own comment, yes. Peace.Lsi john 17:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To assist in the closure of this matter and so that my comments are made on open record for all other wikipedia editors I have added the following:
Thank you to Bishonen, LessHeard vanU, Hamster Sandwich, Lsi john, Butseriouslyfolks, Pascal.Tesson & Evilclown93 for taking an interest in this matter. I appreciate the views you have provided and understand them all to be in good faith. I detail the following comments for historical purposes:

For the record I do not get upset by comments made towards me on wikipedia. If you feel that I have, those feelings are incorrect, and I wish to go on the record as saying that I do not have any personal issue with or feelings against DreamGuy in any way.
People will have different views on edit-warring. That was absolutely neither my intention nor, in my view a reflection of my actions in regards to Image:Daredevil46.jpg. DreamGuy placed a tag initially [3] on July 5th that said, This images has been deleted probably some 20 times now under various names.... no fair use, not cover art that was used as cover, needs a speedy delete as recreation of deleted image, and the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... I mean, seriously, how many times do we have to delete this thing, he's just stubbornly refusing to listen.
I assume as a part of his admin role Evilclown93 removed that tag as detailed here.

Dream Guy's reply (unknown to me at the time) was to suggest that Evilclown93 was a sock of the uploader.

It was only a few days later that I, also as a part of my admin role came across the speedy delete request and confronted with the above rationale, agreed with Evilclown93 views and removed the request stating in my edit notice: reverted edits by DreamGuy to that of Evilclown93 - who is not a "sock" but an admin. Pls use only correct speedy tags before replacing (if at all).

A further four days later, again just as a part of my admin role (see history of my admin work for that day) I came across the renewed speedy request, again with the above rationale. Confronted by no more information, I removed the speedy noting in the edit summary: Speedy deletion tag removed - awaiting a NPOV request that retains civility! You will note that I was talking about the content of the speedy deletion tag request of which I considered words such as the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... to be misplaced, no matter the frustration felt by Dream Guy. I then left the matter.

DreamGuy it appears renewed his request again and without alteration at which point Butseriouslyfolks removed it, it was renewed and then Butseriouslyfolks put it up at WP:FUR.

I came across it a day later and after I had left an adjusted canned message (which as most of you know includes a welcome to wikipedia line) on DreamGuy's talk page that also said, politely, Please assume good faith in relation to tagging an image for Speedy Delete. The reason that two (and now 3 admins) did not agree with your tag was made more and more obvious to you. Quite simply your request was polluted with a non-neutral POV and did not nothing to assist us in attending to the request. Please do not continue to suggest speedy deletion in this method - no matter what editor is frustrating you with their additions as it belittles your otherwise good work. Keep editing! My warning therefore was in relation to his edit-warring with three admins who did not agree with his method.
In relation to blocking ... Following the posting at WP:FUR - at which I note Dream Guy has commented, he still reverted Butseriouslyfolks' removal of the speedy tag, even after Butseriouslyfolks wrote in his edit summary, Let's discuss it first, please?. Finding another reversion, despite an ongoing request at WP:FUR and noting that DreamGuy has been warned before and blocked before, and most importantly that whatever any admin did DreamGuy would revert, I blocked him for a period which I considered at the time to be commensurate with his previous block and the continued reversions. To the extent that others consider that amount of time excessive I thank you, and particularly to Pascal.Tesson for his revision of the time line.
I note the comments above (on my talk page) that in the opinion of an other editor Dream Guy is not the most polite individual on wikipedia, but he damned sure isn't the most acrid either and I agree totally. Whilst DreamGuy may not be able to accept that my message to him as detailed above was positive - I reiterate here again for all and sundry that I believe he is an otherwise good editor that was confronted by enormous frustration over the image he has been trying to delete. HOWEVER my job as I understand it is to assist in the protection of wikipedia. For those edits that relate to this matter - in my opinion DreamGuy needed to be blocked so that the process of deletion or otherwise of this image could be dealt with, without having to battle his continuing nose thumbing at the Good Faith decisions being made - especially with regards listing the matter at WP:FUR.
I should end by also indicating that my becoming unavailable at the time I did had everything to do with it being 2.00am in the morning at my location (bed and pillow beckoned) and no other reasoning.

Again thank you all for your comments. Please let me know if anything at all needs further explaining. With best wishes --VS ^talk 02:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VirtualSteve, thank you for taking the time to respond. I understand your reasoning and I still believe that since you had been 'fighting' over the tag, you were potentially emotionally involved and should have opened an AN/I for an uninvolved opinion. If for no other reason than for appearance and perception. (Perception is reality). Perhaps DG would have been blocked anyway, perhaps not. Peace.Lsi john 02:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again a helpful and informative comment - thank you - it is noted.--VS ^talk 02:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitated to simply lift the block as well. I reduced it to 24 hours instead (6 elapsed + the 18 I added) because the fact is that DreamGuy was being pretty stubborn in his fighting over the tag and because as an experienced user (who has been blocked a few times before) he should know better than to be overly confrontational and uncivil on such trivial matters. Pascal.Tesson 09:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not quite ready to join the above group hug yet. I just posted a response to VirtualSteve's defense of his block on DreamGuy's page, not realizing that it was here on ANI as well. Since this is the more public place, I'm pasting my request for some more explanation here:

VirtualSteve, I see you don't comment above on your "adjusted canned message" with its "Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia."[4] I can fully understand DreamGuy's irritated reaction to that. Yes, the template includes a newbie greeting; so why use it? Please see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace: "if the template's tone isn't appropriate, don't use the template." There's nothing like leading by example when you call for civility from users, and your "Welcome" template use was not civil and not delivered "politely." And, er, how is it that you get to assume bad faith and tell DreamGuy he deleted your template "to hide the fact"? *I* might easily have deleted that annoying template, if you'd put it on my page, and it wouldn't have been to hide anything.
I didn't mean, in my original block comment on your page, to suggest that you deliberately made yourself unavailable after placing the block. Certainly not! But I did mean that it's a poor idea to place a controversial block at all when you are about to ge to bed. Let somebody in another timezone do it.
I notice that you have nothing to say about your failure to post what you surely knew to be a controversial block on ANI for review. That was one of my main criticisms. Altogether, you scarcely engage with anything I said. I'm sorry to see that. Since you're a new admin, I went to some trouble to make myself clear, and hoped my commentary might be helpful. Bishonen | talk 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your further comments and questions Bishonen. I will answer frankly:

I have provided a detailed set of reasoning to this issue above. Administrators (both new and old) do make mistakes. I appreciate that you feel that I have done so in two or three areas and I will take those views on board. However I also note that others do not feel that I have made a mistake in blocking - other than imposing too long a ban - to which I have already provided a comment and my thanks.
Other editors/administrators have commented on DreamGuy's style of editing and his previous blocking - and of course I note that he continues to bombast his talk page on this issue. I also note the unreasonable hyperbole that he adds to his comments such as the discourse he attempts here. Realistically if that energy had been put in adding an informative and helpful speedy delete request to the image in question (which is what a good editor would have done) - rather than reverting all attempts to remove the item from speedy under its current tagging then this matter would have gone away - to DreamGuy's benefit (in terms of the image deleted or adjusted with appropriate fair use) - at least a week ago.
In terms of meeting your initial question - well to be honest (and of course I acknowledge that you are the first to note this), your comments do come across as *championing* DreamGuy and to that extent they are one-sided in his overall favour. For example what you consider to be edit-warring I consider to be removal of a template and a request for further information. I wonder if you would not also have reverted the speedy tag in the case of any other editor constantly putting it up, especially when that editor was actually reverting the tag against a total of 3 administrators who had an unwillingness to speedy delete the image as it stood. As you probably know WP:CSD is populated by 100's of items a day, to which administrators take personal time (as volunteers) to consider and delete. This is a thankless task - every editor that has created an article or image wants the item kept, and every editor that has tagged an item wants it deleted. That task is not made any easier by the tagging of an image in the way that it has - and please remember I was actually the last administrator to deny its speedy deletion. Finally and to put this point in a nutshell your interest in admonishing me would come across as far more reasonable to me if you also spent some considerable time instructing your friend that as an experienced editor his actions were inappropriate.
I do and have appreciated the point about listing this at WP:ANI - and certainly I can see that it would have been easier to do so. However whilst you say I have nothing to say about this point - I had actually (yesterday) acknowledged this point to Lsi john above.
Finally I tend to continue working wikipedia until I stop - in other words I do not spend the last 30 minutes or 60 minutes etc just looking. There is work to do and I tend to knuckle in and do it.

I have a strong feeling that I will not be able to say anything to totally appease your "supportive of DreamGuy views" on this matter - but I hope that you will see that I have attempted to do so as congenially as possible. Best wishes. --VS ^talk 22:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, so sorry, but has it occured to you that you were very rude with your template, and any editor can remove any template or manually written message whatsover from their talk page? I'm also somehow missing the part where you have any reason at all to block DreamGuy. Please clarify this. "Attempting to harass" (but presumably, failing utterly to actually harass) doesn't seem to appear on the WP:BLOCK page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the template in terms of the *welcome part* was an error insofar that DreamGuy did not deserve another welcome message - unfortunately made when I used an automatic item made available from my monobook items. However the template message was modified by me to include far more pertinent detail.--VS ^talk 22:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Also explained personally at Lsi john's talk page) The BLOCK button automatically provides a drop-down menu in relation to blockable offences - including Attempting to harass other users and is a legitimate blocking offence.--VS ^talk 22:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too fail to see where DreamGuy was harassing anyone. Being blunt and harassing are two different things. Also, please be careful about any blocks you do to established editors you may be having a dispute with...post here or at AN to have a completely neutral admin examine the evidence before a block is done. Why was the original block for 3 days? Lastly, any block of an established editor, no matter what you may think of them, needs to be posted for other admins to review.--MONGO 19:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you know Mongo from recent posts effecting you personally the continued return of items in a particular way is a method of harassment. I was not having a dispute with DreamGuy (I am still not having one) I was acting against his continued return of a speedy tag against other admins especially after he was informed (and added his own comment) that the matter had gone to WP:FUR. I was only going through day to day processing of category for speedy deletion requests and kept noticing that the image was returning to the list with no further information. I chose 72 hours because he has been blocked in the past, he should have known better, he had committed the actions over several days, he had been posted a message that he should wait the few days for FUR to resolve and 72 hours is a few days but not a week. That said Pascal Tesson's adjustment to 24 hours was not disputed by me in any way.--VS ^talk 22:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further questions

As this seems to have been overlooked, I be more clear, as well as adding a few questions I feel have not been satisfactorily addressed:

Why did you block DreamGuy?
DreamGuy was blocked for his continuing lack of civility (in terms of content and edit summary) when returning a speedy delete tag which other admins had removed (and which - despite DG's comment at his final edit summary - can be removed by any user but only requires a (hang-on) from the creator of the article), mumerous times (as a form of harassing and disruptive behaviour), and doing so even after another admin removed it again and put the article up for discussion at WP:FUR
Your comments to Bishonen: "your comments do come across as *championing* DreamGuy" and "supportive of DreamGuy" read like accusations of cronyism or favoritism, an inherent assumption of bad faith of Bishonen. I suggest you apologise.
My post to this point is frank but not rude nor presumptive - Bishonen is the first to admit that he may be coming across as a *Champion* of DreamGuy. I am agreeing with him and reminding him that the person who he is championing did commit a blockable offence. I say this because what appears to be forgotten by him and some others is that another admin checked through my block and agreed with the action. I do not as you now put it make any accusation against Bishonen. I do however make the point that DreamGuy is not undeserving of some comment as to the inappropriateness of his actions by those that wish to belabour this situation further.
While you state "I do and have appreciated the point about listing this at WP:ANI" and that it would have been "easier" to do so, you are unclear on what you mean. Easier for whom? Do you see any reason other than "ease" for doing so? What does "ease" have to do with this at all?
I have commented earlier also on this point directly to Lsi john - I indicated that his suggestion was helpful and informative. He explains the importance of appearence and perception - read that post it reflects my answer perfectly.
What on earth do you mean by "work to do and I do it" - are you saying you don't have time to investigate a situation, or reply to concerns, because you're too busy? Are you implying others aren't working? Please clarify.
Your question here appears surly and again you are putting words into the equation that I do not think nor speak - I will try to attend to your complaint. If you have read through all of this post you will see that I was criticised for going to bed (becoming unavailable) 25 minutes after I blocked DreamGuy. My answer to this part directly followed those points, and specifically that when I am working through wikipedia I work as effectively as possible the time I impart from my otherwise real life time to the tasks at hand. I do investigate issues and reply to concerns - please check through all of my edits and you will see that to be the case. For example as explained above I took several days to deal with this matter. I do not suggest for a moment that others aren't working - and this part of your question is baiting and should require no further response!

KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dif?
Dif's [5][6][7][8][9][10]
It appears to me that Bishonen wished to clarify that she was not championing DG in that sense; you are "agreeing" with that which has not been stated.
Yes I agree with your first point here. My point is that her second post reversed that so she did in effect champion DG as if he was not in some error.
If it answered the question satisfactorily I would not be requesting clarification.
I do not understand what further clarification you personally need - I am agreeing with Lsi john.
My utter lack of comprehension appears "surly" to you? I assure you, I am asking for you to clarify your meaning. I have put no words into your mind or mouth, I have asked for clarification for a completely incomprehensible (to me) statement. And now you have accused me of "baiting", and you most certainly owe me an apology.
KC I do not owe you an apology - it does appear surly. Why? Well when you ask this question, Are you implying others aren't working? Please clarify. you are asking a question that is baiting. I do not now or ever in this process think any less of any other editor and have been at pains to state this. I appreciate that you have the desire to ask further questions but not that you ask questions that simply have no basis in fact expecting an answer that somehow promotes the possibility that I might have been thinking in such a way. Indeed KC you should consider withdrawing that part of your question as an apology to me.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You think I need to apologise to you for considering your accusation of "baiting" inapropriate? This is beyond absurd! Your rudeness and arrogance is appalling. I have ignored your high-handed dismissal of my questions, your condescending attitude towards Bishonen, your total lack of response to MONGOs post (which I specifically directed you to on your talk page), and have attempted to discuss your actions rationally, despite your interleaving of your comments within my post. I will not ignore your accusation of "baiting" nor your claim that somehow I now owe you an apology. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: Please provide a dif which actually demonstrates harassment. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down KC - you are blowing this out of all proportion. I have not dismissed your questions (other than the last one which is unfair). Actually I am frank and not condescending towards Bishonen - I like any other editor am entitled to an honest and reasonably verifiable opinion. And I have responded above to Mongo's post and in fact have supported him when he was recently harassed. Finally the dif's above do show harassment in my view and in the view of other admins (including the admin who removed and then reposted my block on DG). If DG's actions do not come up to harassment in your opinion then that is okay with me and no doubt with many other editors. Take care.--VS ^talk 00:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One or two points: it appears that KC was asking for clarification. Also how can one derive "irritably sullen and churlish in mood or manner (i.e., surly)" out of the written word? What I see are inferences drawn by both sides, one, the question re Are you implying others aren't working? Please clarify. seems supported by implication in the original; the others regarding "baiting" and being "surly" are inferences drawn by personal perspective. In any case, move past the inferences and just resolve the issue. Thanks. Jim62sch 10:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for independent Admin oversight

Recently User:SlimVirgin has become involved in Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan). While I appreciate the assistance of an admin in trying to sort the issue out, I feel that because I already been in conflict with SV on a discussion of Richard Gere/Cindy Crawford BLP, I feel he is not impartial enough to deal with my edits. Notably, he has removed well-sourced criticisms I made of the Baker case (that appear in three independently verifiable newspapers) and has made a long diatribe about my COI even though I have not edited the article directly in some time. He has even asked me not to discuss my proposed edits on the article talk page. He has now threatened to block me, and I feel I am being bullied by an Admin.

I would like to refocuss the discussion on the text to be reincluded, which has strong support from other editors. the discussion is here: [11]

I would like to request that SV recuse himself from the article and that some other independent admins look at the issue with respect to gaining consensus on the disputed text. Thank you for your time. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a she. Have you tried to discuss this with her on her talk page before bringing it here? Viridae ^Talk 01:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have been discussing on the article talk page. I ask that SV refocuss her efforts on building consensus, and not on trying to stifle my ability to comment on the text by saying I cannot discuss the proposed edits on the article's talk page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLP, all BLP restrictions apply to talk pages as well as articles. Crum375 01:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My criticisms of Baker's case were picked up by three independent sources in the UK. They come well withing BLP guidelines. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the issue. The point is that BLP concerns are allowed to 'stifle' anyone's ability to discuss things on the article's talk page. Crum375 02:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support Sparkzilla's side in the content dispute, but don't agree with him that SV has been acting in bad faith. She unprotected the page and the only reason me or someone else hasn't readded the deleted material is that we're still working through the issue on the article's talk page. Cla68 01:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't go into detail here because of BLP. In brief, Sparkzilla has been engaged in a real-life campaign against two individuals for the last couple of years. He has brought this campaign onto Wikipedia, and has repeatedly added details of his allegations against them to a BLP about one of them. The allegations involve legal and financial fraud. Several editors and admins have asked him to stop, to no avail. Therefore, I asked him today, per WP:BLP, WP:COI, and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing to stop commenting on those individuals, whether in articles or on talk pages (he has been posting links to the offending material on several talk pages in an apparent attempt to spread the allegations). Our discussion is here.

As for his claim that I've been in a previous conflict with him, this is simply an attempt to play the "she's involved" game. My only involvement with Sparkzilla is when he arrived at BLP in May and started posting endlessly to the talk page about a dispute he was having at Richard Gere, which I was not involved in. He then tried to change the policy to suit his position. His changes were reverted by myself and others, and he was asked by several of us to take his dispute about Gere to that talk page. That's my only involvement with him, and I didn't even recognize his name when I started dealing with the current BLP issue. I do, however, recognize the same intensity of approach that caused him a problem on the BLP page. I'll be issuing a block if he continues to allude to the disputed allegations, because the situation has gone on long enough, and previous requests from other editors and admins seem to have made no difference. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support Sparkzilla's involvement in the talk page discussion of the Nick Baker article, because his relationship to the subject is stated and the journal that he runs is, in my opinion, a credible English source of investigative journalism here in Japan. SV's opinion in the dispute is also appreciated and, like I said, we're working through the issues involved. Cla68 02:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkzilla runs a free city guide with a limited circulation for English speakers in Japan. It's not a strong-enough source for allegations of fraud. The only newspapers that have picked up on the story are three local advertising sheets (which may also be freesheets) in the UK, and even they didn't repeat the substance of his claims. Contentious BLP claims need strong sources, and in this case that would mean the mainstream press.

Also, as the city guide appears to be self-published (by Sparkzilla and his wife), V also kicks in, which says that third-party self-published sources are not allowed in BLPs. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Metropolis is free doesn't mean that it isn't a credible news source. It does contain a city guide, but every edition usually contains an article or articles on issues going-on in Japan, usually issues that non-Japanese living in Japan might have interest in. The article's author's names are on the articles (as opposed to most mainstream Japanese press stories, which don't state the author's names, but are still considered to be credible) and the article's sources of information are stated. Those local newspapers in the UK also appear to be credible, even though they're not mass-market publications. I believe the sources pass the credibility test. But, why are we discussing this here instead of the article's talk page? Cla68 03:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkzilla, if the fact that a trusted administrator has enforced a particular policy in the past were to mean that she could not enforce it in the future, who would be left to do so? All administrators are expected to enforce BLP. If you find yourself repeatedly in conflict with SlimVirgin over BLP, it is probably a sign that your edits fall too often on the wrong side of that policy.Proabivouac 02:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SV, do not misrepresent our previous conflict. I took the Gere/Crawford issue to the BLP policy page because there was/is a valid issue regarding what I saw was the abuse of the word "sensitive" in the policy. At no point did I change the text of the main BLP page article -- I discussed proposed changes on the talk page only. I suspect you have serious WP:OWN issue on the BLP page so I let it go. After you basically told me to go away I knew it would only be a matter of time until you came back.

Also please do not misrepresnt my magazine. It is a weekly 80-page city guuide with 30,000 distribution. It is the No 1 English magazine in Japan read by 50% of the foreigners who live here. It has already been established that it is not self-published. For god's sake, what else are you going to try?

Even so, my allegations against Baker's support group are in three independent newspaper sources that were published in Baker's home area. They are notable, relevant and verifiable and well within BLP policy. After you deleted the items without reason, the disputed text has been discused by other editors on the page -- all except you. Other editors disagree with your asessment of the content and your attempt to use COI issues on what is basically a content sidpute is not appreciated. I feel strongly that you are trying to stifle discussion of a content issue using the authority of an Admin.

Given your continous denigration of my edits, and my magazine, and the reliable third-party sources which note my criticisms of Baker's case it is reasonable to suggest that you are carrying a grudge and I once again ask that you recuse yourself from further comment on the article -- there are plenty of other admins who can deal with this issue. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkzilla, if you are indeed the publisher of the disputed material, it would seem that it is rather you who should recuse yourself, per WP:COI.Proabivouac 02:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following COI policy I have been discussing the proposed edits on the article talk page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.Proabivouac 02:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkzilla, once you have admitted you are COI, and have been told to back off, you should do just that. Let other neutral editors deal with the situation. My guess is that there is no one there with a POV in the issue, except you. The rest just want to make sure that BLP, V, NOR, NPOV and UNDUE are carefully adhered to. Crum375 02:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above, ith respect to COI policy I am allowed to discuss proposed edits on the article talk page. I am also happy to abide by the consensus of the editors on the page. Actually, I have been working to remove POV by Baker's supporters who like to present claims as facts ;) -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your posts must not attempt to repeat the disputed allegations, or link to websites or previous posts that repeat them. Please be very clear about that. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posts and allegations are well within BLP. Three independent sources. I suggest we both take some time away from this issue and let the other editors discuss the proposed text on the article's talk page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone wants to read my previous interaction with Sparkzilla, given he's claiming it makes me "involved," it was on BLP talk in May, in several sections starting with Conflicting claims, Sensitivity, and Addition of recent paragraph. But most of it is in The meaning of sensitivity, and Proposed text for public figures.

As you can see, I was one of a number of editors who were opposing his proposals and asking him to stop posting so much about Richard Gere. To quote Risker: "Sparkzilla, you have been asked repeatedly, by many editors and administrators, to keep the questions about Richard Gere in either the talk page of that article or the BLPN section with reference to that article. Your continued insistence on discussing it here, in the talk page of a policy that applies to hundreds of thousands of articles containing biographical material about living persons, has become disruptive. Please stop." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you will recall there were actually two discussions: The first was a discussion of the actual Gere/Crawford issue. The second was a discussion of changes to BLP policy that used the Gere conflict as an example (something you clearly did not understand at the time). Each item for discussion was in the correct place for discussion. I was bullied off of the BLP page by you at the time, but chose not to persue it at the time. You have admitted that you were in conflict with me then and given that conflict, I once againa sk you to recuse yourself and to let another admin deal with this issue. -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that Sparkzilla has been warned-off this article by two trusted admins and other editors - I am curious why he would bring this here. He misrepresents that his current position has strong support from other editors. At the latest count three for and three against. He also misrepresents the position of his magazine here. There are over 2,000,000 foreigners in Japan - is he suggesting that his magazine (which is restricted to the kanto area around Tokyo) has over 33 readers for every single copy? An amazing feat!!!David Lyons 09:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read the header; Sparkzilla would like the views of a third party administrator on a particular matter. He then gives his reason, a past history of dispute with the other party. It is quite simple, and this is the correct place to make the request.

It then gets a little muddied by the content of the debate, and the basis of the previous conflict, being bought here by the parties involved. Despite this being an entirely inappropriate venue for the discussion it does give some indication why a neutral admin is being requested (and what said admin is likely to encounter). LessHeard vanU 12:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint regarding unwarranted ban by SlimVirgin - Abuse of Admin powers in content dispute

Sorry this is so long, but I would like to register a strong complaint regarding my recent ban by SlimVirgin. I feel strongly that this ban was unwarranted, and that it was an abuse of admin powers in what is a basic content dispute.

This discussion revolves around the removal by SlimVirgin of text and sources that support my real life citicism of the support group of Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) [12]. This material had already passed through an RFC and was deemed acceptable as long as there were extra sources -- two new sources were subsequently provided by other editors. After the text's deletion without discussion by SlimVirgin I sent a mail to the RFC respondents to ask for their opinion on its removal. A copy of the mail is here

Sending this mail resulted in a six-hour ban by SlimVirgin on the basis of COI and BLP violations. These claims are unfounded. The ban followed attempts by SlimVirgin to stop me discussing the disputed text on the talk page with other editors. In this lengthy diatribe about my COI issues [13] she said, in violation of COI policy, that "I'm going to ask Sparkzilla to stop editing this article and refrain from commenting further about the Bakers on this or any other talk page".

There is no COI issue. Since I declared my COI on the article I have only discussed edits involving sources that reference my commentaries or my magazine on the article's talk page. There is also no BLP issue as stated on the ban because there are three independent newpapers that have referenced my claims and the claims have also been addressed by Baker's supporters. Three editors on the talk page currently think the text should be reinstated.

My points

It is easy to say I have COI issues, but after COI discussions several months ago which ended in me revealing my identity, any proposed edits concerning my own magazine and commentary have only been posted on the article talk page in full conformance with COI policy.
The so-called BLP violation is part of a content dispute which is supported by three independent newspaper sources currently being discussed on Talk:Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan). I have to wonder how we can discuss the sources without linking to them?
The disputed text and sources was removed unilaterally by SlimVirgin without any consultation with other editors on the page and with no reference to the previous RFC [14]
The disputed text (after more sources were added) was deemed acceptable in a previous RFC [15]
Criticisms of the support group have been an integral part of this article since its very early days
There are three editors on the talk page who support re-inclusion of the material
I have been in conflict with Slim Virgin in the past and I have already asked for assistance to stop what appears to be a vendetta against me in the section above[16]- unfortuantely no action was taken.
SlimVirgin refused to recuse herself from the page to let another admin deal with the page. Why is it so important that she alone must deal with it?
SlimVirgin also defensively denigrated my magazine's notability and that of the other sources. Why do this if this was simply a COI/BLP issue?
I was then banned for asking for help from respondents to the original RFC and my mails to those editors deleted.

I did an RFC and I added sources; I have only discussed proposed edits on talk pages. There are multiple independent sources that support my commentary. I have followed policy properly only to find myself banned. I would like to ask once again for SlimVirgin to recuse herself from the article and to ask non-involved admins to check the sources and confirm whether or not is acceptable for me and other editors to discuss them on the article talk page. This is a simple task -- the sources are short [17].

I would also like to ask the following questions:

Is it WP policy to block a user for sending a letter of request for help to previous RFC respondents?
Is it acceptable for an admin to ban someone based on COI issues when they have been following COI policy?
Does BLP policy means that controverisal claims, however well sourced, cannot be referenced in talk pages?
Is it WP policy to use admin powers to suppress participation in a content dispute?

I also sincerely hope that I will not face further sanction for bringing this issue up. The actions of powerful admins should be always be allowed to be questioned in an open environment without fear of reprisals from either them or the people who support them. Thank you for your time. -- Sparkzilla talk! 17:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the above, I'm surprised the block was only for six hours. You seem to have a vested personal COI interest in this case, and it is best for all considered, you in particular, to leave off editing the article. Period. Corvus cornix 20:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not edited the main article concerning my edits at all, in full conformance with COI policy. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Corvus cornix. When you are an obvious COI, you should walk on eggs. Take a back seat, let the neutral editors work on the article, and limit yourself to pointing out obvious factual mistakes, once. Don't lobby or promote your COI POV in any way, and when told to back off, do so. In this case, there are many neutral editors involved, the facts are known, the issue remaining is how to best present the information given our very strict BLP related rules, combined with V, NOR, NPOV, UNDUE, etc. Stop attacking a neutral admin who is simply following our BLP rules. Crum375 22:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly what I have been arguing for. I took an RFC, I added sources, I refrained from directly editing the article, I discussed on the talk pages - all according to policy. Now that the text was arbitraruily deleted any attempt to discuss it on the article talk page or with previous RFC respondents has resulted in a ban. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just learned that user Sparkzilla is the author of the op-ed that started this dispute. On that basis alone, Sparkzilla should not edit that article. He can comment in talk and provide any sources he wants added, leaving other editors to assess the material on its merit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you think of my COI, I have followed policy properly. I have not edited the article directly regarding my commentary. I have commented in talk and provided sources in full comopliance with policy. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, FYI, I've also asked him to stop commenting on talk — and in fact to stop commenting on the Bakers anywhere on Wikipedia — because he was engaged in a real-life campaign against them. He has been posting his opinions widely on various talk pages, urging editors to add material for him, and including links to the disputed editorial and other articles he's written in real life, which is all being cached by Google. I feel he needs to withdraw entirely from being involved in this on Wikipedia for reasons of BLP and COI, and to allow the other editors on that page to write the article and discuss it without his constant requests that material written by him be restored. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you misrepresent me. I have not posted info about Baker "widely" on other talk pages, other than to to discuss this COI issue and to ask for help from the previous respondents to the RFC, who had accepted the text. According to COI policy I am both allowed to cite my own sources, and I am allowed to comment on the talk page of the article. It is also not unreasonable that I should also be allowed to discuss the text with editors who previously approved the disputed text on an RFC without incurring a ban. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I brought the original RFC precisely so that non-involved ediotors could comment irrespective of any COI. This is what the policy says: [18] : Those who feel the need to make controversial edits, in spite of a real or perceived conflict of interest, are strongly encouraged to submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page, or to file a request for comment.

I have strictly adhered to this guideline, yet now I have been banned. The policy exists to help editors like me who have a conflict of interest deal with the situation. What is the point of the policy if following it correctly results in a ban?-- Sparkzilla talk! 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that. Disclosing a COI does not eliminate it, and it appears it is going to be difficult for this editor to adhere to WP:NPOV. We're each supposed to write content in NPOV fashion, not advocate our respective self-interested positions to meet in the middle. -- But|seriously|folks 23:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I have not edited the article directly and have conformed with COI policy throughout. I have also provided independent sources to deal with NPOV issues. Please tell me the actual BLP policy that I have broken and tell me why I am not allowed to ask for help restoring the approved text without incurring a ban? -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just do not edit the article. Provide sources and recommendations in talk and let others make the changes if they think that these are necessary. Avoid giving personal opinions on LPs: discuss the article and not the subject, and you will be fine. Wikipedia should not be used as a soapbox for personal opinions of others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I have done. However, given that I have been doing exactly as you say and have been banned for it, I wonder if you can assure me that if I was to comment or assist other editors regarding my sources on the article's talk page or in mail discussions with RFC respondents such as yourself that I would not be banned again? -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sparkzilla: I think you are missing the point. As an admitted COI, the issue is not your editing of the article, but your promotion and lobbying for your own publications as a source for a highly controversial BLP article. As I noted above, you should provide your material once, which you have already done, and then step back and let neutral editors handle the BLP and sourcing issues. When an admin removes your controversial material per BLP, you don't restore it as you've done - you step back. This applies to anywhere on the Wikipedia site. So just sit back, the neutral editors already have your material, let them work with it. And do not under any circumstances restore controversial BLP material that has been removed, or you'll be blocked. Crum375 01:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I took the original text once to RFC. Secondly, after its removal by SV without discussion I did not restore the disputed text to the article, but followed policy by commenting on the text in the article's talk pages, or to ask for help from previous respondents to the RFC. I am concerned that I was penalised for following policy, and concerned that I will be punished again for discussing it on the article's talk page in future, even though this is part of COI policy. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkzilla doesn't seem to be getting it. If this continues, I support another block to get his attention, since the first one just wasn't long enough to provide enough time for proper reflection and reading of the relevant policies is seems. The only question is, how long this time? FeloniousMonk 01:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me the exact policy I have broken. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT for starters. How about WP:HAR as well. FeloniousMonk 01:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not disruptive to ask for assistance regarding a content dispute. It is not disruptive to question the removal of well-sourced material from an artcile. It is not disruptive to discuss a ban, which apears to the the result of following policy. Can you tell me the policy violation regarding COI or BLP please? Also can you tell me who I am supposed to be harassing? -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would add WP:BLP - restoring improperly sourced controversial BLP material that has been removed, after several warnings, is a blockable offense. Crum375 02:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was established in the RFC that the material was acceptable. Confimation that I criticised the support group is available in three independent reliable sources, easily satisfying verifiability and NPOV issues. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkzilla, let me clarify this for you. This is a case of COI aggravated by the fact that you are involved in case about third-parties. COI on subjects you are involved yourself, such as editing an article about yourself, or your newspaper, is difficult enough. When the COI involves comments your newspaper is making about others, it is even more difficult, and to such extent that you simply should avoid any perceptions' that may be construed as improper. So, I would advise you to make your comments in talk page, allow others to make the edits, and avoid any type of canvassing for the material's inclusion. Hey, if the material is notable, significant and and well sourced, I will re-add it myself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I asked for initially was for some external help to deal with the issue. I appreciate your offer to help. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, to avoid making this more difficult for yourself, accept the feedback given to you and take a break. I believe it will do you good. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have kindly indicated your desire to help I will leave the issue for now. Thank you. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkzilla, once an admin, or any established user for that matter, declares controversial BLP material as improperly sourced and removes it, you may not restore it, regardless of any previous RfC decisions. The proper way to handle that is to discuss it, and reach consensus prior to restoring. Additionally, if you are an admitted COI, and in your case also the author of the controversial material, you should not be promoting your COI POV - you should stick to providing raw facts, and let neutral editors discuss the BLP issues. Crum375 02:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was discussing it to reach consensus on the talk page and with previous RFC respondents - but was banned for doing so! It was the attempt to suppress that discussion that I am concerned about. Please note that I have only discussed what is in the external sources and have not promoted any agenda (in recent memory) on WP that is not already inside those sources. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constantly repeating poorly sourced WP:BLP violations is indeed a WP:BLP violation, and given your campaign against the individual in question, you should simply stay away from commenting on them at all on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no BLP violation. The items are not poorly sourced according to WP:ATT. My comments about the case were reported in three independent newpapers in the UK. Three other editors on the page, and the repondents to the RFC agreed that my commentary can be cited as a claim with the sources provided. -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Sparkzilla, you say "There is absolutely no BLP violation" - can you appreciate that as a COI pushing his own contentious BLP material as source, you are in no position to be a neutral judge of that? This is why you must step back and let neutral Wikipedia editors deal with the BLP issues. Crum375 04:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely right. That's why I... 1) took it to an RFC that said that my commentary could be used if sourced appropriately. 2) There is no further COI issue from me as I have discused the re-istatement of the text only on the article's talk page and with the repondents to the COI (and here). I have behaved properly when it comes to my COI. In fact, it is SlimVirgin who has gone against consensus by removing this material, and I would like to ask why it was removed without discussion when it is porpoerly sourced, has pased through an RFC, and why I was banned for challenging that removal? -- Sparkzilla talk! 04:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I am "completely right", then you should just step back. As the author and publisher of the material in question, you are not neutral, hence you can't judge the merits of a BLP case. The RfC, as I explained to you, means nothing, since BLP issues evolve, and an established user removing contentious BLP material can only be reverted by subsequent consensus - certainly not by the COI whose material was removed. So please stop this campaign, as it's becoming very disruptive. Crum375 04:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP#Reliable sources states: Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. There does appear to be a BLP violation. - Crockspot 23:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolis

It also appears that Sparkzilla is controlling the content of Metropolis (English magazine in Japan), a free city and classified-ad guide in Tokyo that he and his wife publish. The history shows him removing negative content and fighting to restore anything positive, not all of which is reported accurately.

For example, the article said: "In 1999 the magazine started "Glitterball", an annual Halloween party at Velfarre, a large club in Roppongi. The party, which has about 2,000 attendees, raises funds for various children's charities in Japan, including Make a Wish Foundation and the YMCA Challenged Childrens' Project."

The edit was sourced to The Japan Times with a dead link. In fact, the Japan Times article is still online, and it does not entirely support the edit. In a March 2006 article entitled "A good cause: Expat charity balls are some of the biggest and most expensive draws on the social calendar. Where does all the money go?, the newspaper writes:

Another popular evening out on the cheaper end of the scale is Metropolis magazine's Glitterball party. The Tokyo-based English weekly holds its annual Halloween dance party at Velfarre in Roppongi.
It is not traditionally a charity fundraiser, but for the October event the magazine advertised that some of the money raised would go to the Make-A-Wish Foundation of Japan and the YMCA.
However, advertisements for the party did not specify how the money was to be raised.
Mark Devlin, CEO of Crisscross KK, Metropolis' publisher, admitted the group was not as organized last October as they had been in previous years.
"We did not have a clear idea of who to give (the money raised) to," Devlin said.
As they have been doing since 2003, 500 yen of the 3,000 yen advance and 3,500 yen door ticket prices was earmarked for charity, while those who received free tickets were asked to give a 500 yen donation at the door.
Devlin clarified the event, which had about 2,000 attendees last year, also makes a "moderate profit" for the magazine.
Crisscross donated 503,000 yen each [about $4,000] to the two charities, according to Devlin.

I've fixed the article so that it sticks more closely to what the source said. [19] SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why bring a mnor edit on a minor page not relevant to this discussion if not to muddy the discussion? Please do not distract the issue. The older edits to Metropolis were already the subject of a COI discussion where Mangojuice said "I feel his behavior on the central articles (Metropolis, Crisscross) was not so problematic, because he's trying to follow policy. I really don't think the removal of negative information was inappropriate: the negative information was out of balance and not well sourced in any of the cases. Generally speaking, as long as they stick to policy, people are allowed to edit with a conflict" -- again my actions were well within COI policy. Personally, the party is not as big a deal as you have made it, but I will leave that to other editors to work with your changes. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're quoting selectively again. It's neither a minor issue nor a distraction; it goes to the heart of the discussion, which is about how you seem to be editing Wikipedia to further your business interests and personal campaigns. You created the article in the first place, which was not a good idea; you're reporting what sources say inaccurately; you inserted a dead link to a source you misrepresented, even though the article was available online, which meant people couldn't easily check what it said; you're removing negative material that appears to have been sourced correctly; and Mangojuice actually said that your inappropriate editing has to stop. [20] That was back in May, yet here we are again. Your actions in several articles are a clear example of a deeply problematic COI, and it really does have to stop this time. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I did not insert a dead link - the Japan Times has recently changed their archive policy to allow non-registerd users to access their archive - so all links have recently become broken. Secondly, my company is notable and has multiple independent sources to say so. Thirdly, the page has been under constant attack by people who would like to insert libelous material, which I have removed according to COI policy and which was confirmed as appropriate by MangoJuice after an extensive COI discussion [21]. I would like to bring this discussion to a close now, and I hope you will also do me the courtesy. Thank you.-- Sparkzilla talk! 02:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC is about SlimVirgin not Sparkzilla

I'm not going to discuss any of Sparkzilla's COI or WP:CANVAS "violations" here. This incident is reporting innapropriate actions of User:SlimVirgin regarding his dealing with Sparkzilla.

Sparkzilla canvassed my talk page, with a valid concern. I have been both for and against some of Sparkzilla's stances on certain webpages.

SlimVirgin promptly removed this request from my talk page saying it violated BLP. I do not understand how it could be violating BLP. WP:CANVAS maybe, but not BLP. Sparkzilla describes his problem and asks me to give comments/advice about appropriate steps.

The removal of another editors talk page comments, and citing an innapropriate guideline is Harassment.--ZayZayEM 03:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Sparkzilla added the WP:BLP-violating content to your Talk: page, which is why it was removed. WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, even User talk: pages. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no BLP violation. SlimVirgin is acting against the consensus of the RFC repondents and of the current editors on the page. As ZayZayEm says this issue is not about my actions, but about the abuse of admin powers to restrict my right to discuss properly sourced material on the article's talk page and with the RFC respondents. -- Sparkzilla talk! 04:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment above, you as a COI promoting your own contentious BLP material to be used as a source, cannot possibly be neutral, thus you cannot judge the BLP violation. A previous RfC does not trump any established user who decides to remove contentious BLP material - there is always new evidence and developments in a case. In any case, it is not for you to determine, but for the neutral editors. Crum375 04:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but BLP supercedes consensus in cases where the BLP limitations and consensus for inclusion conflict. It's that simple. SV seems to me to have enforced BLP zealously, and against some possible COI. I don't see why this whole debate's still ongoing. ThuranX 04:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no BLP violation. The material is sourced appropriately. -- Sparkzilla talk! 04:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkzilla, given your campaign against the individual in question off Wikipedia, please accept that you are in no position to comment on whether or not this material violates WP:BLP. As I said above, going forward it would be best if you didn't comment at all about this individual on Wikipedia, here, on someone's User talk: page, or on the article Talk: page. Focus on other articles - there are about 1.5 million from which to choose. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no BLP violation. The consensus on the article's talk page and on the RFC is that the sources ARE approporiate. Are you really trying to tell me that three independent newpapers that reported on my comments in the UK are NOT appropraite sources? Don't tell me to go away. Even with my COI, I have a right to discuss the removal of properly sourced material on the article's talk page and I also have the right to complain when I am harassed and banned by an admin while discussing the removal of that material against consensus. -- Sparkzilla talk! 04:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This distortion has to stop. The more you write, the more I see how unclearly you describe events, and that makes me wonder even more about using your publication as a source.

The background, one last time: You and your wife publish a small, classified ad and city guide for English expats in Japan. In that publication, you have written very critical material about a living person who was convicted of a crime. You wanted to add to the Wikipedia BLP about that living person that he and his mother had lied to the public to obtain fraudulent financial donations and political support. You claimed that your allegations were based on a defence document that someone had leaked to you, which you published on your website. This had no signature, no date, nothing on it to indicate its provenance. It was apparently originally in Japanese, but someone had translated it; again, we don't know who. You then sent out 25 e-mails to various publications and other interested parties in the hope they would pick up on your story. Three very small classifed-ad papers in the UK did, papers that are local to the area the accused and his mother came from. They are not independent sources, or reliable sources for this kind of claim. They are taking their information entirely from you, and you're not a journalist or professional researcher — in fact, I found an interview you gave in which you explicitly say your magazine doesn't hire people with publishing, editorial, or journalistic backgrounds. Even those papers only alluded to your allegations, but also didn't dare publish them in their entirety. Your publication has no editorial oversight, and apparently the person whose name was on one of the articles doesn't exist.

It terms of BLP and COI, it could not be worse. Despite this, you've spent huge amounts of time posting these claims in one form or another on various talk pages, trying to get someone to add the material back for you, either entirely or in part. It has to stop, and there's no point raising it whenever you can, because it's a crystal-clear case of a serious BLP and COI violation. And in the article about your city guide, an article you created, I see more of the same attempt to talk up whatever you do, and remove any criticism.

The bottom line is that you must stop focusing on self-promotion. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, even I am trying to say stop. Using external sites to validate your own statements, to add to an article you're editing, about something you're working against, is COI of the greatest level, and that COI leads to BLP violations, becaues it's making an end run around basic libel to multi-stage libel. Just move on. ThuranX 04:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Why do you insist on completely misereprenting my publication and the sources? I find it amazing that you can know so much about me and my magazine without having lived in Japan. Firstly, my magazine is the No 1 English magazine in Japan, an 80-page weekly city guide with a certified (ABC) distribution of 30,000 copies/week. Its readership of 67,500 covers 50% of the foreigners in the Tokyo area. It employs 40 staff and has an independent editorial team of four full-time people which has produced hundreds of articles and commentaries over the 12 years it has been in publication, including many, many articles more contentious than Mr Baker's issue. Over the years we have employed hundreds of freelance writers, and currently employ or have employed writers who have worked at NHK, {{The Japan Times]], Bloomberg, The Sydney Morning Herald, Time Out and other well-known newspapers and magazines in Japan and throughout the world. I have been profiled many times as a leading publisher in Japan (see sources on the Metropols WP page). A casual look at the magazine's website will easily show that your claims are bogus.

I also forgot to mention that I also published my commentary about Baker's support group on my news site Japan Today. Japan Today (check on Google - no link so I am not accused of promotion) is the largest news and discussion site about Japan in the world with two million page views/month and an Alexa ranking of approx 20,000 which is equivalent to the website of the Japan Times, Japan's largest distribution Englihs-language newspaper [22]. The site is run by an editor who has 20 year's experience at The Asahi Shimbun.

So I am not just the editor of a "small, classified ad and city guide for English expats in Japan". That is why my comments regarding the bahaviour of a Japan-based support group's media strategy are relevant and notable in their own right.

As an aside, why are you bringing up the removal of the defense documents? I did not contest your removal of the defence documents and it is not related to this issue. My editorial team will shortly make a public statement regarding their authenticity. My claims are not based on that document alone. Even so, the fact that I made such a claim was reported in other sources.

Each of the newpaper sources that reported on my criticism of the case fully statisfy WP:BLP: They are independent of me, they have independent editorial teams and they are widely distributed in Baker's home area. Whether they are free or not is immaterial (although se below). These sources are deemed acceptable by the RFC repondents AND by many editors on the article's talk page.

Further, if you were really concerned about this issue you should have submitted your comments like other editors on the article's talk page as part of consensus building instead of trying to force me off the page and then banning me when I ask for help regarding your removal of the material under the pretext of a bogus BLP and COI violation. In fact on the article's talk page right now you are being asked by two editors why you have gone against consensus in this case.

It is pretty clear given the kind of bogus research you are doing on me and my company that you are not interested in consensus regarding the actual sources, but are instead interested in denigrating and harassing me. I ask you to stop harassing me and misrepresenting the sources (see below) -- Sparkzilla talk! 04:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FACT CHECK UPDATE: I checked the sources website and The Citizen [23], which reported on my criticisms of the case, is actually a PAID-FOR newspaper with a weekly circulation of 32,000 copies (readership 80,000 copies). Pretty reliable source, I'd say. -- Sparkzilla talk! 05:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FACT CHECK UPDATE 2: I checked the Swindon Advertiser, which despite its name is also a PAID-FOR newspaper (circulation around 20,000 every day with 58,000 readers). [24] These sources are clarly reliable. There is no BLP violation. My ciriticisms of the case are reliably sourced and should never have been taken out without discussion. Banning me for daring to object on the article's talk page is an abuse of admin priviledge.-- Sparkzilla talk! 05:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This disruption has gone on long enough. We're long past the point of decreasing returns accomodating Sparkzilla here; there's only so much disruption of this page and the project we're expected to put with for such a trifling set of gripes. It's time for Sparkzilla to drop this and move along: there's 1,885,720 articles at Wikipedia, and if he's genuinely interested in contributing to the project he'll have no problem finding some not related to those that gave rise to the imbroglio that need improvement. Otherwise he simply confirms the objections already voiced here about his method of participation and makes further blocking all the more likely. FeloniousMonk 05:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not distruptive to question the actions of an admin. I want to know, given that there was no BLP or COI violation, if I can expect to be banned for continuing to follow COI policy, or for asking RFC reposndents for help, or for asking that properly sourced material be restored by an admin who deleted it without consensus. This is a fair question. Sparkzilla talk! 05:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But as advised to you on these pages as well as via email, you are not doing yourself any favors in pursuing this the way you are pursuing it. Listen to the feedback given to you by your peers here and elsewhere and take a well deserved break from commenting on this subject, before making it worse for yourself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking, my opinion is that the sources you provided are not reliable sources for the claims made. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss why on the article's talk page and come to consensus with the other eiditors. -- Sparkzilla talk! 05:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkzilla, please stop it. Your amount of posting here, to promote a personal COI agenda, is clearly excessive. I would urge you to start editing other unrelated articles, not connected to your COI, or you could be blocked for disruptive behavior. Crum375 05:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask, most humbly, why I should be further penalised for highlighting an administrator's abuse of WP rules, when I, in turn, have now proven that I have done wrong with respect to COI or BLP policy? I made an RFC, I brought in reliable sources. I only discussed on the talk page. Yet I was harassed of the page and banned by an admin when I asked for help regarding the removal of text without discussion. Surely this request, which has been focussed on my actions for some time now, is actually about SlimVirgin's actions, which were against COI policy, BLP policy and admin priiledge?

I would also like to ask if I am banned again for being so bold to report an admin, where I can take this issue next?-- Sparkzilla talk! 05:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. You're looking for ways to get your opinion into the article. "they quoted me" still presents a COI. Get over it. You know youre' wrong, and almost a dozen editors have told you to drop it and move on. Why don't you understand that no one is going to let you put your own quotes into the article? ThuranX 05:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you are getting frustrated, but it's frustrating for me too. I don't see why I am being penalised when my actions have been in line with COI and BLP policy. If I can get an answer to my question above I will be happy to move on. -- Sparkzilla talk! 05:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkzilla, I believe you would get a more sympathetic hearing here if this claimed 'consensus' that BLP was not being violated by your links was actually demonstrable by support of that statement on this page. I see no such support, and as such am forced to the conclusion that there was no such consensus. Hornplease 06:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)c[reply]

Sparkzilla, amongst all the well-connected journalists you claim write for your magazine, I cannot find one google entry for a "Kirsten Holloway" the reporter who is credited with writing the feature which contains the majority of the contentious material you are trying to include in this article. Why is that?David Lyons 14:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are discssing the wrong item. We are talking about my commentary and its reporting in three newspapers, not the Metropolis round-up of the case. Sparkzilla talk! 14:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Well, one might have thought so, but since you edit of an hour or so ago[25], where you introduced the credentials of the writers working for your magazine, it seems entirely pertinent to raise the question of the bona-fides of the reporter on this Metropolis article to which you attach much importance. David Lyons 14:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She wrote the article for us, with the help of our editor (who had worked on the previous article) and left Japan shortly after. -- Sparkzilla talk! 14:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but given the nature of the feature in question, would it be correct to describe the writer as an 'investigative' reporter, or at least a "journalist"? Am I to understand from your response that Kirsten Holloway, wrote just the one article in her career (where-ever she is now in the world) or was she writing under a pseudonym?David Lyons 15:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but we have had hundreds of freelancers work for us. Some stay a while but most come and go. I have no idea where she is now or what she is doing. However, I was satisfied with the work she and our editorial team did on the article. -- Sparkzilla talk! 15:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You response speaks volumes.David Lyons 15:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hundreds of freelancers work for us That seems to imply little or no permanent staff, doesn't it? It certainly implies non-professional/non-career "freelancers" and not professional journalists. --Calton | Talk 11:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor factoids:

The last two editions I saw of Metropolis were 62 and 66 pages long, respectively, not the 80 pages claimed.
The last figure I heard for the population of foreigners in Tokyo was 360,000 (from Monocle magazine, an actual reliable source), so the claimed percentage of foreign readers is, at best, 1/6th, not 1/2.

Add me to the chorus of those noting the blatant and obvious self-promotion, conflicts of interest, and wikilawyering attempts to assert credibility for what amounts to self-publication. --Calton | Talk 11:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of discussion so far

A brief summary. In the section above I have clearly established that...

I followed COI policy correctly at all times by only discussing the removed text on the article's talk page
I provided multiple reliable sources -- which have been established to be daily paid newspapers with medium circulation numbers)-- therefore there was no BLP violation
My own publications have a very wide readership in the foreign community in Japan
I am a leading publisher in Japan and have enough notability to comment on the media activities of a support group

And that...

The admin removed material without consultation
When I questioned the deletion the admin tried to silence my opinion on the article talk page - a clear abuse of COI guideline.
The admin then blocked me stating bogus reasons (COI and BLP issues) when I contacted previous RFC respondents
The admin defended themselves by denigrating my company, my position and the sources (all of which is bogus)

So I would like to ask my questions once again as nobody seems to want to answer them...

Is it acceptable for an admin to tell me not to discuss an issue on the article talk page in violation of COI guidelines?
Is it acceptable to be blocked for asking for help from RFC respondents using the pretext of COI and BLP issues, when there are no such issues?
Why has no admin here even questioned SV's behaviour - is it typical for admins to stick together when one is accused of misconduct?
Why am I now being warned off of this topic, told to that stop, that this is the "wrong way" and that I am being "disruptive"? I have done nothing wrong, so why am I being treated as the accused?
Is it is typical WP policy to label an editor who is trying to defend themselves against admin abuse "disruptive" so they can be blocked or that they may give uip (and so that the questions remain unanswered?
If I am doing this the "wrong way", what exactly is the right way? Is there a WP oversight process that deals with admin misconduct, or is this as good as it gets?
Is it ever possible to have any action taken against admin abuise - are admins above reproach by ordinary editors?

These are serious and reasonable questions that require proper answers. I appreciate your efforts to answer them. Thank you for your comments. -- Sparkzilla talk! 14:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that derives from an editorial constitutes a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Fact laundering. If a reliable source reported as fact that certain things happened, that is reliable, under our meaning of the word. If a reliable source reports, "John Smith, publisher of the Arkham Advertiser, today accused Dr. Henry Armitage of Miskatonic University of dabbling in the dark arts," that is merely proof that John Smith made a certain accusation. Any attempt to use such a source as proof that Armitge does in fact dabble in the dark arts is merely Fact laundering. Thatcher131 15:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. In accordance with WP policy the text has always been stated as being a claim. That the claim exists can be reliably sourced. Check the discussion on the article's talk page for proposed texts stating it as a claim.[26]. -- Sparkzilla talk! 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very existence as an unproven claim made in an unreliable source bars its inclusion. The fact laundering essay was written in response to an Arbitration case regarding Jack Hyles, a controversial religious leader. One of the issues in that case is that a former colleague had self-published a critical newsletter against Hyles, alleging marital infidelity and other misdeeds. At one point, the Chicago Post, in reporting on Hyles, wrote, "a former friend and colleague has accused Hyles of infidelity and other misdeeds." At the time, I too thought this was sufficiently reliable to include in the article. I have since changed my view, and parties here are advised to read through the case itself. If it is impermissable for Wikipedia to report "John Smith cheated on his wife" because the only source is unreliable for some reason (celebrity gossip magazine, self-published by Smith's political or business rivals, etc) then it is also impermissable to suggest that Smith cheated on his wife by referring to an unreliable accusation. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Vivaldi and especially Quotation_of_material_from_an_unreliable_source. Thatcher131 16:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that was a good answer. I wonder why it has taken so much effort to get here, but I am grateful for your input. Now, would you say 1) that my magazine is a reliable source 2) is my op-ed on the Baker case considered to be self-published? Secondly, there is a follow-up feature story in my magazine which supports the assertions in my op-ed, specifically it mentions the fact that Baker came to Japan two month's before his arrest. I am worried to add the link in case I get blocked again :( The article is the only investigative piece written on the Baker story, and was completed after the trial wehn other media had lost interest. Is this follow-up feature considered self-published, and can it be used as a reliable source to confirm the op-ed? -- Sparkzilla talk! 16:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear the the media had forgotten about the case, the Japan Times has not lost interest - they ran an article on Sept 13, 2005 [27] and also Oct. 21, 2005 about the pending appeal[28]Statisticalregression 18:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not printing an article for two years -- one article being a non verifiable opinion piece another off the kyodo wire -- sounds like they have lost interest to me72.130.169.226 23:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They printed like 5 articles on the subject - I think the lag might have something to do with him being convicted...and they reported on the subsequent appeals in 2005.Statisticalregression 23:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkzilla blocked

I have blocked Sparkzilla without expiry while the community and admins debate how best to manage this problem. Guy (Help!) 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to suggest a ban from editing Nicholas John Baker, Metropolis (English magazine in Japan), or any other article on a topic where his newspaper has taken an editorial stand, including their talk pages, enforceable by blocks, for a period of time (say 3 months at the outset) to see if he can learn and adapt to our culture. However, his last response to me suggests a glimmer of hope. I will write a more detailed answer about the content question on the article talk page. I'm not sure whether to go ahead with a topical ban anyway or to give him another chance. His disputatiousness is certainly a concern. Thatcher131 20:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whew. His contentious arguing per above as well as all over the place were getting exhausting. He either doesn't get what COI and all of the people in this discussion are trying to tell him, or he just wants to try to bully his way through with no regard for Wikipedia policy. He should remain blocked unless he promises to stop editing any article which has any connection to him, whatsoever. Corvus cornix 23:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a topic ban is necessary in this case. Sparkzilla's response to any complaint is to wikilawyer: he must be shown the precise section of BLP he's violating, and then he disputes the wording of it; COI allows him to comment on talk pages and therefore he must be allowed to repeat the allegations whenever he sees fit; and so on. The substantive point he misses is that some of the allegations he wants to make against two living people are serious, and therefore we require a very good source. His publication, Metropolis, is not a good source for this type of claim (though I'm sure it's an excellent city guide), and nor are the three small local newspapers that repeated them (they may be fine local newspapers, but they're not appropriate as the sole re-publishers of serious allegations made by Sparkzilla). I also gave an example above of how he had misused a source in the article about Metropolis.

Worse than the quality-of-source issue is the vehemence with which Sparkzilla pursues having his own opinions added to articles, just because he has published them in Metropolis. If in fact he wants to be a regular Wikipedian, a topic ban will mean he has to explore other areas he can edit in. If all he wants to do is self-promote, a topic ban will mean he'll lose interest in us of his own accord, without the need for further blocks or fuss. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Editors have a right to edit any page regardless of COI if they abide by policy. I am a research student at Central Queensland University, and I monitor it for vandalism and (mostly negative) POV - is that innapropriate?

Sparkzilla should be encouraged to edit articles he has knowledge about. These are probably going to involve quite a few Japanese topics, and given the nature of his magazine, he will have connections to a lot of them.--ZayZayEM 01:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But he isn't abiding by policy. He keeps repeating the BLP-violating text all over the place. Corvus cornix 01:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthmore, his conduct on other articles that his magazine has covered isn't any different from the Nick Baker article. His publication printed a strong anti-union article by a writer that's been proven not to exist, and now he's trying for a second time to get an article about a leader in that union deleted. He has WP:CANVAS'd wikipedians who already voted in the Article for deletion to try and get them to change. like Corvus mentioned, he just tries to bully his way through.Statisticalregression 02:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would a topic ban be effective? In other words, are there topics which Sparkzilla has been able to edit without exhibiting problematic behavior? It appears at the very least he should be banned from all BLP articles and articles related to the magazine, or on which the magazine has a stated position or article. Does this sound reasonable, or is the issue even more wide-spread? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkzilla has shown alot of problematic behavior, as SlimVirgin noted he vehemently pursues having his own opinions added to articles, his WPlawyering, and aggressive behavior seems to permeate pretty much any topic that his magazine has published an article on, not just the ones that are editorials. As XinJeisan comments below, with the absence of Sparkzilla a productive discussion has been able to develop on the Nick Baker article. A topic ban (as SV suggested) that I feel should include subjects that his magazine has covered would be appropriate as the bona-fides of many of the journalists that have written in the magazine cannot be established.Statisticalregression 19:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At talk:Nicholas John Baker we seem to be reaching consensus on everything. However, if people have a legit claim of concern about the actions of user:sparkzilla doesn't process ask for a report to go here WP:RFC/USER rather than turn sparkzilla's own RfC against him? That seems both fair and within process. XinJeisan 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The previous RfC at the Baker article discussed this issue, and Metropolis was accepted as a source. Like XinJeisan said, we're making progress on resolving our differences on the content of the article, and we're agreeing to include some of the Metropolis material. Cla68 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again directing towards SlimVirgin's actions

This incident was to report innapropriate actions by SV.

I would like SV to clearly an explicitly state why the commentary of a leading English publisher in Japan is not verifiable or reliable in violation of BLP. SlimVirgin is consistently misrepresenting Metropolis, and apparently the UK articles being sourced as well. He is continually harassing Sparkzilla who is making his contributions through the appropriate channels of declaring COI and ~~gathering~~ attempting to gather consensus first. Please keep this section to discussing whether SV was appropriately enforcing BLP. Everyone is well aware of Sparkzilla's COI issues.--ZayZayEM 01:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edits in question to not level any accusations at Baker himself. They state:

Devlin has withdrawn his initial support (verified fact)
partly because Nick Baker visted Japan previously (verified fact)
also Devlin attributed accusation leveled at support group (verified claim attributed to Devlin)
also Devlin attributed accusation leveled at Iris Baker (verified claim attributed to Devlin, and mentioned in third party source)

There are no unsubstantiated claims levelled at Baker himself. That a public figure in the gaijin-world withdrew his support is a relevent fact, and is quite obviously verifiable. Editors may take objection to dealing with Devlin as notable figure because he is just another (possibly annoying) wikipedia editor, but that's really irrelevent - He is a prominent public commentator in English-speaking Japanese media and as such his opinion matters, particularly on issues that his publications deal with (english gaijin in Japan). The possible violations of BLP is defamatory accustaions directed at Iris Baker, as the accusations directed towards support group is not a BLP issue (they are a group). Would it be okay to reinsert the material without the accusations directed towards Iris Baker?--ZayZayEM 01:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is a prominent public commentator in English-speaking Japanese media ^{[citation needed]} Corvus cornix 01:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing back at SV is not going to fly, because the major problem is Sparkzilla not SV. It is Sparkzilla who is pushing a personal agenda and using Wikipedia as a soapbox, not SV. Guy (Help!) 06:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin is only doing what any administrator is supposed to do.Proabivouac 07:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with JzG and Proabivouac...this has gone on long enough...either learn about our policies here or scram.--MONGO 07:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+ me. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+ Puppy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"He keeps repeating the BLP-violating text all over the place." Which are the numerous articles in which this has happened? (SEWilco 23:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Note: Some useful, related discussion on this topic has occurred on Sparkzilla's talk page [29]. I believe that there is precedent for allowing an involved source to participate in talk page discussions if everything is "in the open." Cla68 00:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a problem with Sparkzilla's actions then start a seperate discussion. It is very rude to hijack Sparkzilla's complaint to use for what are mostly personal attacks against him and his work (and very little constructive criticism about his editing style).--ZayZayEM 01:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sans personal attacks, reporting here, or anywhere on Wikipedia, is a two-way street. Both the reporter and the reported are scrutinized. This is not "hijacking," but a common and judicious practice. —Kurykh 01:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why is there 0 scrutiny of SlimVirgin's actions? To an outsider it really looks like an all-boys-club closing ranks. SlimVirgin has an agenda against Metropolis - which makes Sparkzilla/Devlin a good target to harass. Metropolis is an independently published leading English-language Japanese magazine. It's a reliable source. Any editor - even Sparkzilla, is able to use it to contribute to articles. Rather than focusing on the crux of the issue which is actually explaining how SZ has violated BLP (which is not at all clear as his op-ed citation does not level any unsubstantiated claims against Nick) and how it could be sensibly rectified - the editors here are coming down on him like a ton of bricks and how dare he cite himself. Being a wikipedia editor does not bar one from possibly having a role elsewhere and that role might actually be important. The majority of editors on the page were working on this in a sensible manner with Sparkzilla on the Baker page until SlimVirgin just jumped in and brandished his admin do-as-I-like badge. --ZayZayEM 01:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When has Sparkzilla cited himself? He says he's been participating in Talk, not in article space. Diffs, anyone? (SEWilco 02:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

here, again, and again. You could probably throw in most of what he's added to Crisscross and Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) -- including links to his own blog and to the text of a speech he gave. --Calton | Talk 11:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only commenting on an erroneous comment of yours. Why others do what they do is not of my remit, as I'm only an outside party with no interest to jump into the cesspool. —Kurykh 03:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bigoted comments on my talk page.

User:Klaksonn made this edit to my talk page. First, his insinuation that I can't edit because I am a Salafi is very prejudiced. Second, Nasibi is a religious slur and was very hurtful. Third, I was only reverting a large edit this user made to the article on Ali, a respected Muslim figure, without discussing it first on the talk page. He then reverted my revert and insulted me again in his edit summary. I request a temporary ban on this user to let him know this isn't acceptable, though I will abide by any decision that is made. Thank you for any help, this is very distressing. MezzoMezzo 01:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 06:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Nasibi is not a religious or racial slur, it is a term applied to people like User:MezzoMezzo, who writes about Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Baz, Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, the Mufti of Saudi and other racist fanatics who called or call for the beheading of what they consider unbelievers i.e Shi'a Muslims, Jews, Christians and Sunnis who refuse to follow Osama ben Laden. You can see what articles User:MezzoMezzo contributes to from his user page. I'm not going to allow this Wahhabi to monopolize articles about Ali, and I don't think anyone should. I suggest you look up Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Baaz, Ibn abd el Wahhab and their works and decide to block this user if ever he tries to insert his POV to the article in question. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I would normally defend myself against the personal insults and attacks you have once again directed toward me here, this is an administrative noticeboard and is not the place for that; please don't start an argument here.

In addition, this user has once again inserted the same edits and refused to discuss them, instead accusing me of vandalism; my response may be seen here. I don't want to take up time that could be used administrating other issues but I would ask that some admins could keep watch over the Ali article and this user as well, as this is getting out of hand. MezzoMezzo 00:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While neither version is ideal, I see nothing approaching "vandalism" here.Proabivouac 01:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope administrators see the irony in the fact that a Wahhabi is controling the article about Ali, and actually getting away with it. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 01:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klaksonn, Ali, like any other article on Wikipedia, may be edited by anyone regardless of his/her religious persuasion. I also see that you were warned only yesterday to avoid precisely this kind of religious labelling.[30]

This, too, coming after the warning: "rv vandalism - considering your religious affiliations, I do not think it is wise for you to provoke me or other concerned editors. Refrain from further editing this article."[31] Compare this from before:"Undid revision 144860521 by MezzoMezzo (talk), the Sunni fanatic can back off now."[32] Similar ownership issues my be seen in these edit summaries to Fatimah:[33],[34]

We don't need this kind of sectarian hostility here.Proabivouac 01:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Ali is not like any other article on Wikipedia. Again, and again, to allow a Wahhabi Muslim to edit an article about Ali, let alone attempt to control it, is extremely insulting and quite disturbing. I hope any other administrator sees the irony in this. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 02:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klaksonn, I understand exactly what you mean to say and why, and it's completely wrong: Ali is no different from any other article on Wikipedia. That you revere Ali and someone else might not revere him quite as much is irrelevant. If anything, the attitude you've displayed suggests that you shouldn't be editing Ali, because you're too invested in your sectarian struggle to follow basic Wikipedia policies which mandate civility and disallow personal attacks. Salafis, Wahhabis, "Nasibis," Jews, Israelis, Americans, Hindus, atheists and anyone else is welcome to edit Ali, Fatimah or any other article on Wikipedia. If you can't accept that and act accordingly, you will be blocked.Proabivouac 05:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only irony I see is a muslim demanding tolerance from the general group of wikipedians in approving and allowing his INtolerance of other muslims. This is a joke, Klaksonn made a personal attack, of a clearly bigoted nature, after recent warnings, as mentioned by Probivouac, and continues it by implying that 'Salafi' are inherently unworthy of editing articles about the founders of Islam. Block him for 72 hours to a week, and move on. ThuranX 05:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone should be allowed to edit, but allowing a Wahhabi Muslim who follows a certain ideology, to edit the article would be allowing a Nazi to edit and control an article about the Holocaust. This is why not anyone can edit all articles. This isn't about revering Ali less than me or anyone else, it's about hating Ali. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 07:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can edit any article regardless of their religious inclinations. Please stop trolling in the contrary. —Kurykh 07:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Klaksonn has been showing a *lot* of incivility towards other editors and using abusive and threatening language in edit summaries (see history here where he's asking an admin to "f****** protect the page"). I suggest Klaksonn take a breather for a while and go and read up on the policies on civility, NPOV and WP:OWN and come back when he's willing to abide by those. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 08:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Klaksonn (block log) Shows a history of being blocked for incivility - so it doesn't appear he's willing to adapt. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 09:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Klaksonn has been uncivil with me too [35]. I am not sure if ban will be appropriate at this point but please keep him in close watch. --- A. L. M. 09:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re [36] - Wow.Proabivouac 09:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can go you one further: [37] was the original, your posting was him REposting it after ALM blanked that. Looking at Klaksonn's history, I think it's clear he needs an extended block. He's already had an indef(removed after 25 hours), a 24 hour block, a one week (dropped after an hour), three hours later he pulled a 36 hour, then another 36 hour. Given the user's persistent rabid, racist, venomous hatred of all of Sunni Islam, and of the Salafi, I have to wonder if it's possible for him to be a part of this project in ANY form? Can we get a one week block, esp. as he's already broken Godwin's Law, showing he can't civilly discuss the idea. ThuranX 12:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klaksonn has indeed been making unacceptable comments of various kinds recently. it is high time he seriously considers reviewing Wikipedia's five pillars - for his own benefit - because further behaviour of this kind will not be treated lightly. ITAQALLAH 13:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about user Petri Krohn

Diff

A whole long tirade of accusing Estonians of being Nazis based on rumors and without any sources, with in my mind is just an attempt to wage emotional warfare against anybody identifying themselves as Estonian. The final statement however(I would not be surprised if some of the editors contributing to this trollfest were hiding Nazi skeletons in their closet.) is the worst and that in my mind falls under category 'gross incivility'. I Hope something is done to stop these attempts to drive certain editors away sole based on their nationality.--Alexia Death 12:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we somehow ban Korps! Estonia accounts from this noticeboard? It is annoying to spend the better part of a day watching their endless and meaningless diatribes on high-traffic noticeboards. The purpose of this page is not to entertain them on a daily basis. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troll ignored.--Alexia Death 13:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read this case with skepticism because Alexia Death, in my opinion, does a lot of tendentious editing. However, in this case, Alexia Death's claims appear valid. The AfD comment by User:Petri Krohn is off-topic, inflammatory, incivil, and violates WP:BLP if the person he names is still alive (unclear). Rather than bring this case here, Alexia, did you try asking nicely for Petri to strike his inappropriate comment? That's the normal first step. Jehochman ^Talk 13:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at his talk. Theres a discussion about this. He shows no remorse. As to striking, this AfD was archived soon after his comment, so that cant be done.--Alexia Death 13:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the edit is particularly problematic, as Korps! Estonia was indeed exceedingly reluctant to admit the fact of the Holocaust in Estonia and the participation of the Estonians in the extermination of Jews in the country. I will remove Petri's comment to prevent misunderstandings. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I have undone that removal. It is an archived page.--Alexia Death 13:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that your goal is to escalate the problem rather than defuse it. Sigh... --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to my WP:TE violations, i take it quite kindly when proven wrong nicely. So far all I've gotten is flaming. By nature my goal is neutrality. Next time, if I seem to be doing that, I ask that somebody let me know, preferably with sources/reasons and without accusations?--Alexia Death 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthering my message to User:Digwuren acouple of days ago, i must say that your content and personal disputes must have an end. Answering Petri's message at Ghirla's talk page earlier today, i'd say that there are many admins who had balls out there. It just would take time for a single admin to block around 12 editors from both parties. Blocks can vary from 24h to indef according to WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL for starters. As you'd note from Ghirla's talk page, no admin has agreed w/ their actions (i.e. sorting by nationality) as it is the case w/ the opponent side actions as well, and the majority of 1700 admins won't agree as well. I am afraid admins would start to block all the involved accounts once similar and related issues are brought again to the ANI. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So your view is that there are problems, but lets not deal with them?--Alexia Death 13:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been ill advised to bring every petty dispute to this page hoping that your opponent will be blocked. The view that block shopping is efficient has some currency in the project (see Piotr's message above), but I assure you that no amount of ANI bickering will resolve your dispute with history and fellow wikipedians. You are mistaken in believing that regular abuse of this page (look how the heading is phrased) will result in character assassination of your opponents. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im rather getting the feeling that character assassination is being attempted on me... As to abuse or advice, I'm a thinking person, and I believe that seeing wrongdoing and doing nothing is like letting cancer grow, you are spared of radiation therapy, but you will die. Ultimately I believe what I am doing now is to the good of the project.--Alexia Death 13:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have been blocked by now as per my message above. You and others (from both camps) are lucky to be still responding here. As i explained, it is a bit tiring for a single admin to block all the accounts involved in this mess. But, we'll wait for other admins view if they are willing to help in that matter or not. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? Id like to see policies i've violated(with diffs) to deserve a block in your mind. Ive always tried to be civil, to keep my cool and ignore provocations... I'm always willing to have a meaningful discussion without accusations. I'm at a loss for words at this point...--Alexia Death 13:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really. Here's a nasty personal attack on Ghirlandajo, in this very thread where you assert your civility and cool and bemoan the "accusations" and "character assassination" you're victim of. Do you have any idea of of the amount of valuable work Ghirla has done for the encyclopedia? It's shameful, no matter what your present disagreement, to call him a "troll". I've never seen even any of his professed and long-standing opponents/enemies say such a thing. (Piotrus? Am I right?) And it's pretty oblivious to paint yourself as the put-upon innocent in the very same thread. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I admit, Tad uncivil, but block material? I will refine from reacting in the future. If I will be blocked for this I expect that Ghrila is blocked in proportion to his incivility and hostility compared to mine.--Alexia Death 21:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to remember the distinction between being "civil" by using the prettiest words you can find and actually being civil by working to get along with people and minimize drama. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately the second part is much harder to achieve than the first when one party as openly declared that the other should somehow be stopped from even being in the discussion(or getting them to leave WP would be dong the project a favor)....--Alexia Death 21:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support handing out blocks in all directions. This has got to stop, WP admins don't have time to prance around with every incidence of provincial hatemongering breaking out on Afd. Hand out blocks with circumspection (a few hours at first to show we mean it, and after that escalate block lengths until the situation improves). Anyone "pouring some more gasoline on this flamefest" (P. Krohn) should be smacked with a block. Anyone wikilawyering or forum-shopping for blocks, or reverting attempts to defuse the situation [38] (A. Death) should be blocked. I will back any admin taking this approach, even if they err somewhat on the draconic side (but do keep blocks short at first), or if they don't catch every offender at first go. dab (𒁳) 13:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, that I undid the diffusion attempt without reading the advertisement on this page and under impression that editing an archived page was the right of ether the author or and admin. If this was wrong, I apologize and wont do it again. --Alexia Death 13:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another note, As long as blocks are given fairly and on BOTH sides by a neutral admin, I support it. The situation is out of hand, and if the solution is my time out then so be it. As long as this hostility stops.--Alexia Death 13:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more note, I will not own up to wiki-lawering and forum-shopping as I do not see myself having done either. I did not report this to get Petri blocked, i reported this so it would be publicly condemned and he warned from not doing it again.--Alexia Death 14:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs for which each editor is blocked should be presented here, and blocks will be issued if needed. Certainly both sides are to blame, but block duration may vary depending on level of aggreviation and past behaviour.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I here by call ANYONE to post any and all diffs offenses I should be blocked for. How can I learn if if no-one points at my faults objectively. Blanket accusations without diffs are not welcome. If no diffs appear, I shall assume that acusations were made with intent to scare me away.--Alexia Death 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a reply at your talk page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting the admin tools ready

Here we are. I've just issued a block of 48h to User:RJ CG for ~~tedious~~ tendentious editing at Russo-Estonian relations while violating WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Also User:Petri Krohn was blocked for 72h for provocative comments and random accusations at AfD. Shall we stop here or wait for another offender? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to block people for "tedious editing," we are going to be very busy indeed. Newyorkbrad 17:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking inveterate edit warriors (of all sides on all issues) for persistent WP:OR violation (read: trolling!) is in general a very good idea. I think you should pay attention to nationalist namecalling and civility issues as well. Without a tough line against dominant “trolls and their enablers”(Larry Sanger) Wikipedia-like projects will never win reliabilty. I'd suggest that high edit count will not be regarded as giving a sort of immunity. If one has much to contribute he should do it, taking into account that this is not his ego-project, but a collective one. New users should be encouraged to join in by a tolerant and warm atmosphere, which is non-existent as of now.
After all I can only concur with Piotrus's complaint that “it is a sad occurrence... [that] epithets like "nationalist 15-year-olds who coordinate their attacks off-wiki" go unpunished”. I've hear such unfounded accusations - initially by petri Krohn, then by Ghirlandajo - for months now, and there's been no sign of this ever stopping. E.J. 17:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it before and I say it again. I support tough line as long as its dealt fairly by an unbiased admin(s), because its the only way to have order, even if it means that when I am out of line, I get put into a time out.--Alexia Death 17:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To NYB. Have you checked his contribs in question? Restoring non-stop his OR? This case has been brought to the ANI several times lately and as everybody knows about both camps' extreme POV pushing and incivility. Is there any other solution? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't commenting on the substance of the block, just on your apparent slip of typing "tedious" for what I assume was meant to be "tendentious." Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks and sorry for the inconvenience NYB. I've corrected it. By the way, it is tedious indeed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked for a period of a week for their tendentious editing an edit warring at Anti-Estonian sentiment. (i.e. tags and redirects). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Petri Krohn blocked for 72 hours

FayssalF, thank you for demonstrating that block shopping on WP:ANI is so efficient these days. "This case has been brought to the ANI several times lately" - and, given your prompt "reaction", you will see tons of forum shopping on this page from the same accounts. "Tedious editing" - this is a nice justification to block a person who never revert-wars and who alone has the stamina to oppose a dozen one-purpose Tartu accounts in their attempts to white-wash Estonian authorities of charges of Nazi collaboration. I point out that no disruptive Korps! Estonia account has been blocked to maintain some semblance of objectivity. User:Digwuren is happily "at work" on his "new" masterpieces: Anti-Estonian sentiment and Estophilia. Instead, a productive non-Estonian, non-Russian contributor was chosen as a victim. In short, words fail me. This is beyond ridiculous. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LIFO. As i said many times, if we'd go digging the past we'd end up having almost everybody involved being blocked. So i decided to start from today's violations. If there's any other admin willing to go ahead than i'd be helping but i can't waste 48h of my time doing that alone. So, i've decided to block on the spot. Of course, it is ridiculous for you because you are directly involved as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but "if we'd go digging the past we'd end up having almost everybody involved being blocked" is a bad rationale. This is not the approach I expect from experienced administrators. This is both a token of the admins' ineptitude to handle a rather complex editing dispute and a potent signal to the trolls what they are expected to do in order to have their opponent blocked from Wikipedia for a considerable period of time. It was not Petri who started flamefests on this page. He is a contributor with a long history of valid contributions, something which can't be sad about any of this detractors. They stirred up trouble in order to have him blocked, and there you have it. It so happens that I learned about the incident while discussing the ArbCom's latest ruling that "In non-emergency situations, administrators should use on-wiki channels of discussion before blocking, for an extended period of time, long-standing contributors with a substantial history of valid contributions".[39] Could you refer me to such a discussion in the present case? --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the rationale Ghirla. If someone accuses others of hiding Nazi agendas than they shoudl be blocked. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that his comment was deplorable, it should be viewed within the context of the wider debacle which saw trolling accusations flying in all directions. Furthermore, I believe that 72 hours is way too harsh, given that: 1) he had no prior blocks for incivility; 2) did not abuse AN or ANI for forum shopping; 3) maintains the policy of one revert per day; 4) has a long history of valid contributions which have nothing to do with Estonia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FayssalF is doing the right thing. I fully support his approach and the blocks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's too late to support. There should have been some sort of prior discussion. This is no "emergency situation". --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Late? Do you still think that my actions were half legit? Prior discussion? There have been many and we won't waste our time again and again. These blocks are meant to to stop the bleeding in times of "emergency situations". -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to read Ghirlandajo's pontification on the rights and wrongs on this case, but we should not forget his own disruptive and unfortunate actions in this whole sorry debacle. I am referring to his attempted classification of editors by nationality in the course of AfD discussion. If blocks are being handed out liberally, this outrageous action by Ghirlandajo seems qualify him for one as well, if we are to be fair here. Balcer 19:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block shopping again, Balcer? I recall that the relevant discussion was archived. If you need to reopen the can of worms, please go to WP:AN. I see nothing criminal in calling you Polish. People voted along the ethnic lines, there's no denying that. The entire vote spotlighted the power of ethnic cliques in Wikipedia, it is hard to deny that too. When I attempted to put the sad truth to words, three ethnic cliques created an outcry. In other words, we are expected to put up with the ethnic cliques and keep silence, or to be subjected to outrageous accusations of racism. I'm not going to oblige them. Ethnic cliques are a problem that undermines the foundations of Wikipedia's NPOV policies. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously not true as I voted for deleting the article, definitely not along the ethnic line existing in your imagination. Balcer 19:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using the noticeboard to snipe at each other. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Copied from Petri Krohn's talk page

I offer my sincere apologies to Estonian editors who may have been offended by my uncivil comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estophobia. If this was the comment that forced the early closure of the AfD against my vote, I accept the result and take full responsibility.

I ask that whoever sees this will do two things.

Pass my apologies to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Complaint about user Petri Krohn.
Remove the last sentence, starting with "I would not be surprised if some of the editors..." from the archived version of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estophobia, by either removing the text completely or replacing it with (uncivil comment removed).

As to the rest of my comment: I will come back to the issues, with sources and references, but now is not the time for that.

My only other edits for the last 22 hours are saying WikiThanks for boldness to four editors who voted or decided against me in the AfD. Today, I have nothing else to say. -- Petri Krohn 01:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't blocking meant to stop editors writing anywhere else than their talk page? I think correct procedure for this would be unblock request? Although apology is a step in the right direction. Suva 10:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking aims to make wikipedia a better place. They aren't punitive but restrictive. So if a blocked user apologizes i'd see that as a step forward to make wikipedia a better place. I would not care where his message would be posted. Indeed, he is not asking to be unblocked. He's apologizing to the community. That's COMMON SENSE. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste move

[40] [41] [42] Heimm Old 14:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the problem?--Atlan (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The clue is in the title. It's not a cut and paste move, though, Heimm Old; it's a merge. The article List of banks in mainland China has been merged into List of banks in the People's Republic of China. This is fine. Neil ╦ 15:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a merge, but a cut and paste move. Everything in the first list is moved to the latter one. The latter got nothing (except disambig links) before the cut and paste. Heimm Old 12:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the requester is a sockpuppet of a banned user attempting to get other people to flame up his old wars. SchmuckyTheCat

Looking at this short contribution history, its a fair bit of involvement in a queer selection of issues for a relative newbie of three months: definitions of the term China, spelling of Macau, and of course the age old issue of Mainland China. How many will have their virgin edits as sophisticated as this? Not many. I suggest a sockpuppet check soonest possible.--Huaiwei 12:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jem Godfrey/Frost*

The articles for Jem Godfrey and Frost (UK band) are being repeatedly vandalised, in part by Godfrey himself judging by his blog.[43] I've reverted them both to archived pages from some time ago, probably losing some useful edits along the way, but I couldn't see any other way of removing the erroneous content. Would a block on editing be in order? Bondegezou 15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... and see Andy Edwards also, and I suspect further related pages. Bondegezou 15:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've permablocked Gullpepper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for vandalizing the Andy Edwards article among others. Which others do you suggest? From a quick scan, other accounts have enough good-faith-looking edits that I didn't want to block without further details. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not certain. All three articles had become riddled with (good-natured) silliness, some of which was almost plausible. I tried to see where those edits had come from; some were anonymous. Recent dodgy edits were made by Showtimesynergy and Bamber42. Bondegezou 14:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got a hornet's nest that needs sorting out

Last night, I blocked User:Gaimhreadhan for 3 hours after a final warning for WP:Civil and WP:NPA violations, when he used edit summaries to attack another editor User:Vintagekits like "replaced stuff lost by Vintagekits sloppy and careless edits (again) . Why don't you actually read and cogitate on other editors work rather than just spasm your revert reflex, Vinnie?". Combined with repeatedly referring to a fairly new editor User:Brixton Busters as ~~a sock of ~~a user who had previously used his Right To Vanish, after ignoring requests from myself and User:Tyrenius to not do so.~~~~

Since I believe we have now agreed that I have never, ever Witch Hunted by calling anyone a Sock, please would you be kind enough to strike through the relevant passage above, SirFozzie? ...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 01:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Struck through the sock comment, as requested, but seeing as you did call Brixton Busters someone else, I left the rest of the statement up, as it is fundamentally correct. SirFozzie 12:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm peripherally involved (I am Vintagekits mentor from previous editing conflicts in this area) in this, I asked a couple other admins to check it over. They agreed that the incivility and 3RR violation deserved a longer break. of the admin responding to the AN3 report.
User:MarkThomas, who is currently in an ArbCom case of his very own on related issues relating to Northern Ireland/Ireland articles Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine, used the platform to attack me. Since things are probably not going to be sorted out amicably, and as the initiating party on the ArbCom case Mark is in, I would like to have some uninvolved admins take a look at the conversation on User Talk:Gaimhreadhan, and sort things out. SirFozzie 17:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Especially considering the latest comments, referring to Irish Republicans as Green Nazis. SirFozzie 17:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
That’s it as far as I’m concerned on Wikipedia, having had to put up with this crap for long enough with this [44], and being advised not to edit this article. I then get this from an administrator [45], [46], [47], [48], because he disagrees with me. I then have to put up with this [49], and this user is running amok all together on this user [50]. And now this [51]Green Nazis. So what’s it going to be, open season on Irish wikipedians, or those interested in Republican or Irish history. Could someone around here tell me what articles I can edit without being abused? I can take the abuse don’t get me wrong, but only if I’m allowed dish some of it out or at least respond. --Domer48 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an outside/neutral admin, I've been asked to look into this, which I will do later this afternoon. However, in the meantime, I have blocked User:Gaimhreadhan for 24 hours for calling other editors "Green Nazis" shortly after coming off a 3-hour incivility block. That comment, IMHO, is completely uncalled for and quite offensive. More sorting out to come. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Harassment/Invasion of Privacy~~
Since 26 April, User:Sethie (see also Special:Contributions/Sethie) has been demanding I confirm his speculations about my personal identity, has publically stated who he thinks I am based on those speculations, and threatened that upon my refusal to confirm or deny his speculations about who I am, he will remove a link that I had added, which he has now done, see [52] and the dialogue here User_talk:Dseer. There is no policy requiring disclosure of personal identities based on such threats or speculation, no policy requiring removal of a link based on such threats or speculation until I confirm or deny his assertions about my identity, and the point is irrelevant since other editors have supported keeping the link. Furthermore, if all links could be challenged and removed on such a flimsy basis, there would be utter chaos. Such threats to reveal someone's alleged identity and remove material if not done, and then actual removal of material as threatened in retaliation for failure to induldge such extreme behavior, should not be tolerated. I've warned Sethie about his actions to no avail, now I expect strong action taken against Sethie to have the harassment, invasion of privacy, and general intimidation stopped. --Dseer 19:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Warning message left on User talk:Sethie. if you want more than a warning, please provide diffs of behavior justifying such action. DES ^(talk) 14:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Administrator User:FayssalF abuse~~
I would like to report an administrator abuse in the article Anti-Estonian sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The abuse consists in administrator FayssalF (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) blocking one party in the dispute Digwuren (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). The dispute is between the the named user Digwuren, who created the page with the following content:
Anti-Estonian sentiment, also referred to as Estophobia (Estonian: Estofoobia) generally describes dislike or hate of the Estonian people or the Republic of Estonia.

See also

Estophilia

Russian-Estonian relations
~~and the user Mikkalai (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), who redirected the article to Russian-Estonian relations:~~
~~Russian-Estonian relations were established on February 2, 1920, when the Bolshevist Russia recognized the independence of the Republic of Estonia [...]~~
~~Timeline (from page and talk page history):~~
16:50, 10 July 2007 User Digwuren creates the page

18:16, 16 July 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) (40 bytes) (←Redirected page to Russian-Estonian relations), first edit of user Mikkalai on the article

18:58, 16 July 2007 Digwuren (Talk | contribs) (264 bytes) (Undid revision 145046753 by Mikkalai (talk) Reverted blanking.)

18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC) and 19:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Alexia Death (talk · contribs) comments in the talk page that the page move might not be appropriate [53] No person bothers to answer.

17:03, 16 July 2007 Digwuren makes a gramatical comment on a userpage, not related to the subject

17:16, 16 July 2007 FayssalF leaves a message on Digwuren's talk page:
~~Hi. Please avoid commenting at User talk:RJ CG at the time being. Let admins deal w/ that. Otherwise you'd be blocked according to WP:HARASS. Thanks.~~
~~19:15, 16 July 2007 FayssalF blocks user Digwuren and gives reason totally different than that of the warning:~~
~~Blocked for your tendentious editing an edit warring at Anti-Estonian sentiment~~
~~19:17, 16 July 2007 in the article the folloing occures: Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) m (40 bytes) (Reverted edits by Digwuren (talk) tow last version by Mikkalai), i.e. page move~~
There is no sign of warning given to user Digwuren prior to blocking him. (See the history of User talk:Digwuren) As a result, User:Digwuren would be prevented from editting other articles [54].
Requested action:
24 hour block (or 7 day suspention of sysop powers) for User:FayssalF for abusing sysop power (absence of warning for the reason given at the time of block, taking sides in a dispute and blocking one side)

unblock the user Digwuren, due to incorrectness of block (if user Digwuren has be warned for something else, that's a different question, treat it separtaely, and apply the policy as needed)

undo the page move

put a delete tag for that page and start a RfD, discuss it there. :Dc76 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected the redirect of Anti-Estonian sentiment to Russo-Estonian relations. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought about this in length and even tho this particular block is a bit flimsy on the evidence side, I support User:FayssalF in his actions to achieve adhering to the policy, and at least basic Civility. I actually support in these cases the modus operandi of block on sight and then discussion about the length, because certain sections of WP have become near intolerable.--Alexia Death 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what's going on, here, but it seems likely that Anti-Estonian sentiment was going to be built into a duplicate of the recently deleted Estophobia (see afd). – Luna Santin (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I call that a WP:POINTy disruption of Digwuren trying to go on recreating an article which has just been deleted. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digwurren on his unblock request claims that this is not the case and stub was created as a fresh start without the faults of the deleted article... Believing him falls under WP:AGF. --Alexia Death 20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the block time is definitely too long. Comparing it to other editors incivility who got blocked in this digwuren could have earned a max 48 hour block, not one week. So I would request the block time to be shortened. Suva 20:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support extension of Digwuren's block to one month per his long history of incivility, revert-warring, trolling, and disruption. I specifically refer to such attack pages as User:Digwuren/Petri Krohn and User:Digwuren/Petri Krohn's Story of Estonians. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about blocking User:Digwuren for disagreeing with User:Ghirlandajo in a number of previous discussions. The discussion here is not about block of Digwuren, but block of Digwuren for reason of edit warring of the article Anti-Estonian sentiment. Address my objection, not the general relations between Digwuren and Ghirlandajo, in which I am not interested.:Dc76 20:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion that I engaged in discussions with patent trolls does not hold water. I have never discussed anything with Digwuren, because trolling is not a valid ground for discussion. I'm prepared to scrutinise your and Digwuren's concerted efforts to add biased material into Transnistria-related articles. If you are found to have transgressed the principles of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Transnistria, the issue will be reported on WP:AER. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dc76 is asking about my 7 day suspention of sysop powers. I haven't answered you yet as you haven't asked me before! Have you approached me Dc76. Let me assure you guys i never block someone for 1 day if s/he had been blocked before for 1 month. That what would be ridiculous. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not asked you before. Should I have? I thought that blocking without warning was an obvious abuse. You have state 100% clear your reason when blocking, and you can not block without giving prior warning. On the second issue, I fail to understand you comparison 1 day/1 month. Could you explain, please. tahnk you.:Dc76 20:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look. Too many warnings are already TOO MUCH. Please count them a few days ago, and today. Do you believe that we have to warn people every single day when it is clear that their POV pushing and edit warring is so extreme? How many formal or informal warnings have all these 3 people received so far? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What 3 people? Digwuren. What 2 other users you have blocked today? Please, check the links you show me: they tell me nothing. The second link is to the block you applied today. I've seen that. Don't point me agoint to it, point to something new you have to say. The first link ou give me is you sharing oppinion with Digwuren about incivility in the discussion that he and Petri Krohn have. If it is the case, show the exact differences with the exact incivil remarks, and block them for that. Don't give x as reason when you are blocking for y. And no, I do not see evidence of Digwuren "extreme POV pushing and edit warring", I am not telepatic. Give 3-4 diffs. Otherwise, it's talk in vain. :Dc76 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The charges of incivility, revert-warring, trolling, and disruption leveled against Digwuren are irrefutable. That he supported Dc76 in POV advocacy on Transnistria-related articles is not a valid ground for unblocking. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Digwuren never edited Transnistria. Either give diffs, or don't floud this with empty accusations. If you have problems with Digwuren's edits, discuss those part edits. What does all of this have to do with transnisria??? :Dc76 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby feel its appropriate to state that if such heavy handed blocks(witch i approve) are being handed out, they should be handed out to ALL participants. I here currently see one active participant in this whole mess, who is in spite numerous civility warnings still allowed to continue his emotional warfare... I have no doubt however that reminding this will earn me a block as well.--Alexia Death 20:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I told you many times that i can't follow your circus here. Admins are editors as well. There are 1700 admins who had balls out there. If anyone of them is willing to block all of you or unblock the 3 then i'd have no problem. I can't do that alone. I've got plenty of things to do. I can't be blocking and answering your questions in the same time. Please don't label admins as abusers if they do block all the competing teams' members. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support your actions for the most part and I would never scream admin abuse so lightly. Unfortunately what this mess needs is an uninvolved admin with a heavy and fair hand who HAS time to sort this out and place the deserving on the naughty chair. Or it will get much worse, I fear...--Alexia Death 21:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear FayssalF, You blocked without giving proper reason. Anyone reading the reason should be able to find the evidence. You this case, there was not evidence to support the reason you gave. And that says it all. About other behavior of Digwuren, please block him for that, not for something else. And give diffs that can be checked. Am I supposed to just believe you without evidence? Is it so hard to organize things well when you block? This should be a good lesson for you to be better organized. How can you "fight vandalism" when you are unable to properly present the evidence? You are an admin, and people expect you to be an example of shortness and clearness, not longlyness and vagueness. I have nothing against you personally, but the admins are not "to have balls", they first have to have some basic traning.:Dc76 21:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was tendentious editing and edit warring, right? So? "has balls" was an expression used by Petri Krohn yesterday at Ghirla's talkpage. I just gave it a context here! As for my block rationale of Digwuren, then you must keep in mind that he was warned of WP:HARASS 90 minutes before he was found edit warring. So are you satisfied w/ my level of training now and experience? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offence, please, but no, I'm not. :-) Seriously, I am not. You've just shown me one of the diffs that I have presented above when I introduced the case (are you assuming I did not read what I introduced?): your warning at 17:16, given about something else, not about your reason for the block, which based on an edit he did at 18:58. Your warning did not say: "if you edit one more article the way I don't like, you'll be blocked". B/c that's the only thing which, if you would have said at 17:16, would be violated by his action at 18:58. Why do you consider his action at 18:58 was related in any way to the previous disputes you two have? I see no connection, and so will any passer by. If this would have been as part of a long patern of disruptive editting on 7 articles, you would have said so and you would have listed all 7 articles. But you wrote something else: "Blocked for your tendentious editing an edit warring at Anti-Estonian sentiment". So, stop justifying now and waste everyone's time. Undo your actions, and next time, when you block, argument correctly. And yes, I do expect higher quality from you than from anyone you block. :Dc76 21:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have different POVs. I don't agree w/ you. I told you we do block for tendentious edit. We don't have to give warnings to same user everytime Wikipedia is in trouble. So according to your logic i can harass someone once before receiving a warning and go edit warring twice expecting to get another friendly warning? It doesn't work this way and there are admins above who fully endorse my actions. I am not sure if they are of high quality according to your standards.

You haven't even informed me or approached me before coming here. Shall i consider that sommething of bad taste? You said you don't have to. Fine and really it doesn't bother me. Cheers.... -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another one, Fayssalf: I warned Digwuren about a different instance of WP:HARASS earlier the same day.[55] You do the math: the contributions of this editor add up to a net negative. They eat up and deflect the energies of potential actual content contributors. I support the block, and I support briskly lengthening blocks if he keeps up the disruptiveness. The wikilawyering about the warning versus the block is pathetic. Wikipedia is not a system of law, it operates on common sense. The principle to invoke here is quite simple: we don't let people who're not here to build the encyclopedia roam free. In the long round, we don't keep them around. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's not a battleground. Bishonen | talk 22:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It is a nice principle. Now I expect admins to apply this with equal measure on all participants. A start has been made and its a good one, but if it is not followed through then the whole campaign fails.--Alexia Death 07:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are seriously deluded in believing that wikipedians should be treated equally rather than fairly. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You probably refer to this "helpful" comment. Who deleted it and on what grounds? Petri Krohn was blocked for a more civil comment for 72 hours. It seems to me that some editors have a licence to badmouth their opponents. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that Digwuren in the past has been blocked for 3RR mostly, and for incivility related matters up to 3h only, I am suprised with the block duration of a week. The user may have wanted to rewrite the deleted article into something more civil and neutral, and we should not assume bad faith that he was attempting to be disruptive by recreating afd article. Recreation of that article, if confirmed, would indeed merit a block for disruption - although I think 24h would be enough. Currently, however, I am not sure we have grounds for blocking: was Digwuren uncivil, revert warring, or creating content forks? On the other note, there is certainly no reason for blocking of FayssalF, and even if we reach a consensus that his block was too strong, if he agrees with it, there would be no need for any suspension of sysop powers (unless it can be shown that bad judgment was not an accident, but a common pattern).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Piotrus, I recall your similar statements in regard to User:Molobo. Your attempts to shield that troll from blocks (and associated wheel-warring) had a detrimental effect on a large swath of articles for an extended period of time (the issue of "pet trolls"). I don't see substantive differences in the behaviour of Digwuren and Molobo. Furthermore, I am surprized that you can take Dc76's demands seriously. This is not what I expect from an editor of your experience. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LIFO and blocks would be issued on the spot as i said above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think this issue should be left alone. Digwuren has a block review template on his page, that should be enough. — Alex^(U|C|E) 20:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Motion to close the discussion: I have to say one last thing: the issue I've rased by bringing up this case has not been addressed in the dicussion. The answers received from FayssalF are more troubling than I would have thought: instead of admitting it as an error and correcting on the spot (I would have disagreed it was an error -it was not- but well ... it would have been a way out to save face), he only tries to jusify himself, giving me as "new evidence" one of the diffs that I provided when introducing the case, and the diff showing he has put the block in question. This is sign of incompetence (the admin is not able to properly present the case. forget if there is a case or not. not even to present the case correctly!) And what his "blocks would be issued" means, a threat? I expect action as requested when I introduced the case, and if Digwuren was indeed guilty of something, unblock and block him properly. :Dc76 22:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read my response above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to FayssallF: "I told you we do block for tendentious edit." But you did not indicate that when you blocked. You gave a totally differnt reason, and that is my problem. Unblock, and block properly. "We don't have to give warnings to same user everytime Wikipedia is in trouble." And who decides WP is in trouble, you? No. "So according to your logic i can harass someone once before receiving a warning and go edit warring twice expecting to get another friendly warning?" Yes, b/c when you do it the third time, all the evidence is there that you have well understood it but chose to brake it on purpose. Hence noone could contest the block. Every punitive action must be based on clean evidence, so that eventualy all applied blocks are clear and uncontestable. In this case, you could have gathered evidence and applied the block properly, but you chose to trust your lack of temper. Never threat a user before blocking him!! It is absolutely necessary for admins to be the most civil and always speek in the niciest of words. Otherwise, instead of projecting authority you project incivility. "It doesn't work this way and there are admins above who fully endorse my actions." This last one, is the biggest problem I have with you: there is no admin/user "above" and admin/user "below". It is not a monarchy or oligarchy. Every user is equal in rights. <underline>Admins are users that get tools, not rights in order to execute a function.</underline> And your fashion of executing that function is very troubling to me, because you believe yourself superior and defend yourslef by saying "someone supperior than me agrees with me". People do not think like that since 200 years! This is no feodalism, and you are no feodal, plz. That is the problem, not Digwuren. :Dc76\^talk 14:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19:18, 16 July 2007 FayssalF (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Digwuren (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (tendentious editing and edit warring at Anti-Estonian sentiment) (Unblock). Have you seen the reason? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superior? When have i said that? Please stop your uncivil comments such as People do not think like that since 200 years! This is no feodalism, and you are no feodal, plz. That is the problem, not Digwuren and treat people the way they treat you. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Decision of the reviewing admin FayssalF rocks! Tom Harrison Talk^Talk 22:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the evidence which has been presented here, I support this block. Per Dc76, who initiated this thread, it's time to close it as resolved.Proabivouac 02:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, Proabivouac, but it's not for Dc76 to say when the thread will be closed. You don't get to initiate a thread at this board and then, if/when the comments go against you, decide that it's time to "archive" it. Just leave it alone as long as people are still commenting, please. We're all reviewing admins, by the way. (I support the block of Digwuren too, see above.) Bishonen | talk 07:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I just thought that a thread entitled "Administrator User:FayssalF abuse" should be ended once we have determined that there was no abuse by Adminstrator User:FayssalF. Unless there is something else we can accomplish? If so, by all means, carry on.Proabivouac 07:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I expect the thread will die spontaneously pretty soon anyway. But meanwhile, we can comment on the block of Digwuren. That seems well worth doing, and Dc76 isn't in charge of stopping us doing that. Surely nobody cares whether or not they get called abusive admins in the headings here, anyway? It's just too common, and too rarely valid (though certainly it happens). Bishonen | talk 10:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Not surpringly, I have to subscribe to Alexia Death's opinions. Though Digwuren may have been impatient, perhaps slightly immoderate, in that case, I fully understand his motives. One week block is absolutely unacceptable. The root of the problem lies in the fact that Petri Krohn had been allowed to terrorise Estonian users and Estonia-related articles for months. Up to yesterday, every attempt to rebuke him was countered by his enablers amongst our admindom. And it is clearly impartial, that Ghirlandajo, whose misdeeds (incl vandalism of deletion page and continued slander directed against Estonian users, me incl) has once again escaped again without any consequences.E.J. 09:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I forgot to add diffs regarding Ghirlandajo's behaviour. Indeed, I won't add them this time, because I think it would be useless anyway. Everyone can read his comments on this board. Evidently, one fails to draw any conlusions. E.J. 09:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that almost all involved paries are aware of what's going on. They are also aware that my original idea was to block all people involved in this mess. All admins who participated at related threads have agreed. Again and again, one admin cannot deal w/ a dozen of offenders. So my other simple alternative was to get the admin tools ready for offenders on the spot and forget about past offenses. If you are not aware, i first suggested in other related threads above my plan. A few admins agreed. And now other admins have agreed as well. So where is the problem? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is the actions of a particular admin. If Bishonen wants to focus on the behaviour of Digwuren then other mechanisms are more appropriate, such as an RfC, where we can test the assertions above such as "You do the math: the contributions of this editor add up to a net negative." to see if it is actually true. Accountability of admins is an important issue among Wikipedians as this recent straw poll suggests. Martintg 11:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you suggest that Bishonen is telling us nonsense and that our actions have been inappropriate and that of Digwuren are fine. This is what counts here Martin → Blocking policy. Can you prove to us that we are wrong and Digwuren is right? Go on. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe the assertion by Bishonen that the contributions of Digwuren add up to a net negative is nonsense, you only have to look here [56] to see the volume of new material created on all aspects of Estonia. The effect of this so called edit warring has generally had the overall effect of improving the quality of articles because it challenges editors to justify their edits, with reliable sources if necessary. That surely has to be a good thing. I think Digwuren is probably one of the most competent, clear thinking and balanced editors around and a real asset to Wikipedia, hence the ire of people like Ghirla. Digwuren certainly deserves an assumption of good faith. Martintg 13:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. I believe you missed one very important point Martin. Estophobia was deleted via RfC at 07:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC). We have already had Anti-Hellenism (deleted), Anti-Bosniak sentiment (deleted), recreated Bosniakophobia (and deleted again), Anti-Hungarian sentiment (deleted), etc. compiled in exact same way. Digwuren has then went on ewpending Anti-Estonian sentiment at 15:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC) before furthering it w/ an edit warring. I would still AGF but recreating an article (though not technically) under another name is considered as gaming the system (be it in GF or BF). This is what Digwuren added: "Anti-Estonian sentiment, also referred to as Estophobia (Estonian: Estofoobia) generally describes dislike or hate of the Estonian people or the Republic of Estonia." He knew very well that Estophobia wasn't deleted because of the title and would expect someone to come tagging it or redirecting it! Have you had a look at my message to Digwuren a couple of days ago? I hope it is clear. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The voting on AfD was not clear cut, running at almost 50/50 on keep/delete votes. Many of the votes were concerned that Estophobia was a neologoism but the underlaying concept had merit and deserved to be developed if more reliable sources could be found. As the article Nashism proved, deleted articles can be recreated. My view is that Digwuren was operating under good faith, but made the tactical error of not developing a more acceptable article in user space first. Martintg 21:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Martintg: Assumption of good faith is not a permanent license; it does not cover all transgressions; and there surely is a more civil way to state your disagreement with Bishonen's assessment of Digwuren's contributions than calling her conclusion "utter nonsense". Are you trying to insult and start a fight, or just phrasing yourself very poorly? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No where did I use the term "utter", I was paraphrasing FayssalF in response to his question. Martintg 21:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Decision of the reviewing admin:~~
~~User:Eurocopter_tigre is modifying my talk page comments~~
All began when i added an OR tag to a map in the article Chernivtsi Oblast, that claimed to be based on the Ukrainian 2002 census, but actually conflated two ethnic self identification (Romanians and Moldovans) in just one: Romanians. User:Eurocopter_tigre quickly deleted my tag, including a personal attack in his edit summary:[57] Since I did not want to participate in an edit war (another supporter of the Romanian POV began reverting me in the mean time) i decided to discuss the matter on the talk page. However User:Eurocopter_tigre deleted part of my message, changing its meaning: diff. Assuming good faith, i decided to warn him that this behaviour is unacceptable on wiki (using a standard template, as the policy recommends): diff. However, he deleted this warning claiming it's a "false warning", and when i tried to restore my original message, he modified it again, this time using personal attacks in his edit summary: diff. This happened again when i tried a second time to undo his modification, personal attacks in edit summary included: diff. Note that i have nothing against user deleting comments from their own userspace, but this time i considered necessary to note the deletion of the warning by User:Eurocopter_tigre to show admins that the warning was refused and had no effect (on the contrary, after the warning, he began to attack me).Anonimu 20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, User:Anonimu it's well known as an disruptive editor, who is always in conflicts with other normal editors, which are really trying to improve that kind of articles disrupted by Anonimu. The warnings which he did put on my talk page, were a result of an edit conflict, so were removed immediatly (however, I preserve my right to administrate my talk page exactly how I want). Also, I didn't personal attacked Anonimu, he must misunderstood me. When I said the word "communist", I was reffering to his edits (my personal opinion is that his edits are communist - that's definitely not a personal attack), not directly to him. Content added/removed by Anonimu is usually removed/included back by many other effective users. --Eurocopter tigre 20:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the continuos slander by User:Eurocopter tigre.Anonimu 20:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rv of Anonimu (See Romanian Communist Party) come with "per consensus on the talk page", while the consensus there is actually the opposite of what Anonimu does. :Dc76 20:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While this has nothing to do with the above, i must assume good faith and ask you to check again the talk page of the article you refer.Anonimu 20:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, please stop bickering here. This page is not part of our dispute resolution procedure. Don't forget what the ArbCom ruled on the issue: "Accounts whose contributions focus on only a single narrow topic area, especially one of heated dispute, can be banned if their behaviour is disruptive to the project, for instance if they persistently engage in edit wars or in POV advocacy that serves to inflame editorial conflicts". Do you really want reprisals? --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~What i really want is the community to see my comments the way i intended them to be seen (i.e. the way i wrote them).Anonimu 20:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Uh... Anonimu? Just a bit of advice: Don't report other people for conduct that's no worse than your own in the same dispute.
A term like, "communist vandalism" is inappropriate. However, so was, "nationalist vandalism", which was your term, which the "communist vandalism" comment was directly in response to. Don't bait people and then complain when they take the bait.
~~How should i call the disrespect for the self identification of 70,000 people and the imposition of the term those people did not use? (Note that my edit was nothing more than an OR tag)~~

Also, you should know that any and all users are allowed (not encouraged, but still allowed) to remove warnings from their talk pages. It is considered acknowledgement that they've read it. Putting it back after they've removed it is not acceptable. So, don't complain about them removing something that you had absolutely no right to put there in the first place, okay?
where did i put back messages deleted by users from their userspace? This was about another user tendentiously modifying my comment on a talk page of a mainspace article. (of course, if you consider the talk page of Chernivtsi oblast User:Eurocopter tigre's own talk page, that's another matter)Anonimu

Seriously, I'd take Ghirlandajo (did I spell that right?)'s advice and stop bickering. And, especially, stop behaving just as bad as (or worse than) the people you report, expecting people to take your side. Bladestorm 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i hope this was only a misunderstanding due to you not checking the diffs with enough care. otherwise, i expect some excuses for your accusations.Anonimu 21:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, I'll reply all in one block. (You should really try to avoid breaking up other people's comments like that unless it's entirely necessary. It makes it hard to tell who said what, especially considering my name is only appended to one third of my comments now.)

I suppose I may have been slightly glib with my take on your adding warnings to his talk page. Twice, within the same conflict, you added warnings to his page, where neither was terribly appropriate. (here and here) I suppose you're right, they weren't the same tag... just two different warnings, related to the same dispute, on the same person's talk page. Wow. Big diff. But, you're right. Still technically different.

As for the more personal stuff, like, for example, how you should take the disrespect etc etc etc... I'll just say this: When you characterize someone's edit as "nationalist vandalism", their response of "communist vandalism" is, in no way any worse than your own. And, though his edit summary wasn't appropriate or to be condoned, it still remains true that it was in direct response to your edit summary, which made your action just a little bit worst. (That is, if I ever say to someone, "you, sir, are a moron!", and he replies with, "No! It is YOU who are an idiot!", then you better believe I won't complain to people about having been called an idiot.)

Also, just a note: You should avoid claiming that people edited your comments. The diff you provided (here) shows him changing the subject heading. That's substantially different. You believe it was nationalist, that's your opinion. However, there's no need to poison the well right in the heading. It's far more appropriate to simply choose a neutral heading, and then address your concerns. Is changing the header necessary? Nah. But it is not the same as changing your comments. Huuuge difference. If he'd changed your comments, then it'd be treated far more seriously. Bladestorm 21:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first warning was about his blind reverts (based only on "x-user reverted it, then i should do it too", as the lack of any discussion indicate) while the second was about him tendentiously editing my comments. The fact that the first warning was partly related to the article on the talk page of which he edited my comments it's just a coincidence.

What's communist in adding an OR tag on a map that doesn't respect the results of a census? Nothing. What's nationalist in deleting a tag, hiding the possible unreliability of a map, i a way that favours you ethnic group? Everything. So, while my edit summary was factual, his was just a personal attack.

The heading was integral part of my comment, and not something else, as you imply. What do you think would happen if i would go around and and delete important words from talk page headings? if that heading happened to be the one put by an admin, i would be banned on sight. And of course that's my opinion. If opinions would be banned from talk pages, we would have less than 10 talk pages that wouldn't be empty. And i still wait for apologies (see the appropiate heading on my talk page)Anonimu 09:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think your tag is communist, b/c it is exactly the communist POV on the issue. I think that erasing the tag is not nationalist, but anti-communist, since putting the tag was communist. Absolutely, you can contest the original map and say it was nationalist. I say no - it is based on census results. The place for that is discussion in talk page. I have nothing to say about whether Eurocopter is modifying or not modifying your comments on his talk page. But neither do you: you address a content dispute, which in the talk pages of the two articles has resulted in consensus against your POV. I perfectly understand your frustration, and I am sincerely sorry, but it is no more than a content dispute, imho.:Dc76\^talk 14:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Request for Action to Protect Coelacan~~
Unfortunately admin Coelacan is the target of an Internet smear campaign by an anon user. [58]. Needless to say, all of the accusations of this anon are false. He was implored repeatedly by Coelacan and others to discuss and not edit war.[59]. However, he kept on moving to other articles which were then rightly protected to prevent his edit warring. In addition, this user may be a previously banned user seeking to harass editors on this project. Perhaps permanent bans and other action is appropriate. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coelacan is an admin. He can protect his userpage if he wants to. There haven't been any edits there since 2 July; conversely, there's no need for anons to be able to edit it. Shalom ^Hello 21:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is not about Coelacan's web page. But rather the continued destructive behavior of this anon. He is going to other Internet sites spreading lies, and may be involving law enforcement in this campaign. Is there nothing that can be done to stop this. I have a strong feeling this is just the beginning. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are kooks out there. This one seems contained to a single website. I don't think it's worth bothering. Georgewilliamherbert 23:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have fully protected User:Coelacan's user page. As is stated above, he is an admin, and can if he wishes unprotect when he returns. I have left his talk page open at present.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that Coelacan consult with the Office to determine if they have any comments or suggestions on this situation. Newyorkbrad 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a conspiracy theory site anyway. Not speaking for the office, but I doubt that there's much to do but ignore it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with Swat... I've had only brief interaction with Coelacan in the past, but that "quote" is absolutely laughable from the interaction I've had with him. I strongly suspect that any law enforcement agency that gets the report from that individual, sans any evidence, is going to simply think that someone forgot to take their medicine today...--Isotope23 17:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparantly there are other sites with this bit of libel on it as well. Let's hope that this does in fact get dismissed as the lying ravings of a kook, and that Coelacan does not suffer any long term harm. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Indefinite block of Dangerous-Boy~~
I am posting for review and comment an indefinite block that I have just placed on Dangerous-Boy (talk · contribs). This user was a party to the recently concluded case of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2, in which the decision emphasized that the parties were immediately to discontinue all forms of harassment of and personal attacks against one another. Nonetheless, on three successive days, Dangerous-Boy placed offensive quotations on his userpage mocking two of his former adversaries in this case. That the quotations were aimed directly at these two users is apparent not only from the selection of the quotations themselves, but from direct evidence including links in the edits and the edit summaries. Dangerous-Boy persisted in this conduct in the face of two strongly worded warnings by this administrator and went so far as to post a link to WP:STALK on his userpage to express his disdain for my input on his edits.
I think it is well-known that I am not quick to block, certainly not to block indefinitely, and view doing so as a true last resort. I have advised Dangerous-Boy that in this context, an "indefinite" block does not necessarily mean a permanent one, and that I will lift the block if he clearly and unambiguously promise to stop this type of behavior. Given the sad history of this overall situation and the clear ArbCom ruling, however, I felt that this behavior could not be allowed to continue. Review of and comments on my action and the reasons for it are welcome. Newyorkbrad 00:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom was very clear that "Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved, such as by blocking others with whom they are in a dispute". You and dboy had a dispute about quotes from macbeth, wild allusions to the Roman empire and some perhaps taunting edit summaries. Since dboy is doing things on his own userpage, not on talk, mainspace, and usertalk pages, I find this block highly inappropriate. However, because you are a fair admin, I'm willing to assume good faith here unlike the situation with another individual that also indef'd this aforementioned user. DaGizza does not seem to have lost sleep about the "offensive quotations" and I fail to see why you would, considering that the arbcom fiasco is over. Its not like Dboy has been sockpuppeting, meatpuppeting, and vandalizing. He's only ranting on his userpage, probably getting something off his chest. I dont see how this he is being "dangerous" (haha) at all. Perhaps time to cool down, but an indef block, especially when he has never been (legitimately) blocked before is a little outlandish.Baka man 00:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I read at the arbitration decision page, the ruling you referred to was about the admins involved as parties in the RFArB. NYBrad seems to be enforcing other rulings from the RFA. The enforcement of such rulings doesn't constitute a "dispute between DBoy and NYBrad". D-Boy has previously resorted to such taunting using quotes about Roman Empires and other literature. The intended meaning of such taunting isn't difficult to understand, and it is quite a mean attitude to continue doing so. --Ragib 01:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you think that indef-blocking a user never legitimately blocked before for some userpage shenanigans is somehow justified? A great solution if you feel offended by Dboy's userpage is to not look at it. Then whatever "offensive quotations" will have no effect, and perhaps when he is less emotionally charged he may take them off. You are treating an innocent user worse than you treat socks and meats of banned users, perpetual vandals, and abusers of admin priviledges. Even some of them don't get indefinitely blocked.Baka man 01:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is NOT that the quotations are offensive. Rather, the issue is that, despite being told explicitly, D-Boy used the user page to taunt the other parties involved in the RFARB. A very clear example is this version, which taunts User:Rama's Arrow (another party involved in the RFARB). --Ragib 01:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Newyorkbrad, I can see no reason that it should be allowed to continue. I also can see no problem with allowing Dangerous Boy to return upon some acknowledgment that this is inappropriate, and a pledge not to repeat it. Userspace blocks are always tragic, for even in the best case scenario, the disputed material accomplishes nothing useful. Hopefully, Dangerous Boy (and others who see this thread) will appreciate the folly of fighting to retain inappropriate userspace content, especially in violation of an ArbCom decision which (as he observed) generally was quite favorable to him.

Bakaman, it doesn't sound as if there was any intention to remove Dangerous Boy from the encyclopedia, only to stop the violation. So, let's focus on how we can help Dangerous Boy help himself, as it were, by committing to stay far away from anything that might be construed as a violation, whether in userspace or anywhere else, and thus get unblocked.Proabivouac 01:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit-conflict)Rama's Arrow left wikipedia weeks before Dboy's emotional outburst. Besides we all have legitimate anger towards the rogue admin (facilitated by many facilitators of admin abuse) who wheel-warred and scarred our block logs. If that is dboy's "sin" its hardly worth an indef-block. I have not seen either Rama's Arrow or DaGizza take any emotional beating from or make any response to the taunts. Perhaps a protection of his userpage may be in order, but an indef-block on grounds this spurious? Definitely not.Baka man 01:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that it's spurious. Rather, it seems that Newyorkbrad means to send a very strong message that the decision will be enforced. The trouble is that Dboy is on the wrong side of that message.

I understand why Dangerous-Boy (and you) are angry. Perhaps you are correct that protecting userpage should have been the first resort. I do not mind if Dangerous-Boy is unblocked. But, the decision should be enforced, and that is what Newyorkbrad is doing.Proabivouac 01:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2#On_notice, an appropriate "stick" is the protection of his user and user talk pages.Baka man 01:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno... the ArbCom decision made it pretty clear that everyone was fed up with this bickering. Starting right back in immediately shows a severe lack of insight. A block is entirely appropriate, and Newyorkbrad is not in a "dispute" that would disqualify him from applying it. A block is suitable as a "stick" in this case; protecting another user's space is more of a last resort to stop a disruptive blocked user, not a first line of prevention. As to whether it should be indefinite, it sounds like Newyorkbrad is willing to unblock him if he promises to shape up. How many last chances can a user expect? MastCell ^Talk 03:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat what I said above and also on Dangerous-Boy's talk: I'll gladly unblock if he'll promise to stop this sort of behavior. Newyorkbrad 03:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The indef block was an overreaction. Blocking someone frome editing Wikipedia forever is always an action of last resort; it's not the default mode of action upon first seeing a violation of an ArbCom ruling. Beit Or 08:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Parties who continue such behaviour, and parties who consider it their moral duty to call out such behaviour, will be hit on the head with sticks until the situation improves" (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2). Newoyorkbrad just implements the ArbCom's decision. It's as simple as that. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing in the arbcom ruling about *blocking*. How hard the hit is to be was left to the enforcer(s). For this exact reason, its *not* "as simple as that" - there isnt a guideline to decide length of the stick.. --soum ^talk 09:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeffing does seem an overreaction to me. He was ranting only in his userpage. It could have been very easily dealt with by protecting the page. Or a short block at max to get the message across. Things could have calmed down more easily that way, an indef might escalate things further. Indeffing only increases frustration, not reduce it. --soum ^talk 09:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an element of subjectivity in "hit on the head with sticks" so I have asked User:Mackensen, the proposer of the remedy and one of the participating arbitrators to comment on this issue. My personal understanding is that the remedy was a strict, last-warning type remedy because personal attacks had been fired by many parties from both sides during the arbitration case. It is important to note that this behaviour was ongoing. It didn't start after the case had finished. During the case he was warned about his behaviour by uninvolved parties too. [60]

Whether the length of the block was too harsh can of course be discussed in more detail. Gizza^Discuss ^© 09:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Baka. From Wikipedia:User page Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere. Article content policies such as WP:OR generally do not. Nobody, which means you, me, Dangerous-Boy, admins, non-admins and even banned trolls, should ever have to deal with receiving a constant barrage personal attacks. There is a difference between a one-off emotional incident, which I understand, and continuing to do it explicitly after being warned on numerous occasions. Gizza^Discuss ^© 10:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse Newyorkbrad's approach to the situation. The nature of the stick was deliberately vague so as to not bind the hands of the community--in that regard, DaGizza's commentary on the situation is more or less on the mark. Indefinite blocks are just that--indefinite. Given a guarantee of good behavior the block can go away. Mackensen (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that D-Boy actionswere a rather juvenile, still ibelieve and indef block is rather harsh. I urge D-Boy to come down from his high horse and apologise to the community... His contributions outweigh his emotional oubursts! AMbroodEY Reloaded 12:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that people here agree about the main point. D-Boy has to consider the case as sensitive. He would stop it definitely and get back to business. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If "the nature of the stick was deliberately vague", then going straight to indefinite blocking was incredibly inappropriate.

I'll admit: When I hear "hit with a stick" online, I think "ban stick". But that's only because I'm a forum geek. Problem is, I don't take them as personal attacks. Some of them may have been little jabs. But a personal attack is saying something like, "Bladestorm is a douchebag!" Or, at least, directly implying that "Bladestorm" is in the process of doing something really bad. Even if you take brad's analysis that he's gloating over someone having fallen, that's neither: a conspiracy theory, an actual personal attack, or (obviously) an ethnic dispute. As such, it isn't covered.

What's more, since I tend to try to 'assume good faith', I tend to assume that d-boy just might be telling the truth when he says that he took brad's advice and stopped trying to gloat, and, rather, decided to put up a nice shakespeare quote instead. (I happen to like MacBeth myself, and think it's a nice one to quote) Taking that as the final straw for an indefinite block (no, not infinite... just "infinite until he decides to never have another quote on his user page ever again, and admits that he was wrong, regardless of whether or not he actually was") is downright absurd.

And, seriously, does this mean that he can never have another quote on his userpage ever again? Seems so.

I mean, holy crap... just look at wikiquote's quote of the day:
Maintain a constant watch at all times against a dogmatical spirit: fix not your assent to any proposition in a firm and unalterable manner, till you have some firm and unalterable ground for it, and till you have arrived at some clear and sure evidence. ~ Isaac Watts

I chose that one only because it's the quote of the day. But, if you were looking for a problem, then even that could be easily taken as an attack against rama's arrow! This is seriously messed up. Bladestorm 15:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Cross-posted from a response to Bladestorm on my talk~~

I appreciate your good-faith concern over this issue and will respond to your comments in the spirit in which you have placed them here, but I believe you have overlooked a couple of aspects.

First, you are right that I wouldn't normally consider it as a personal attack on other editors if a user posted a classical quotation on his or her userpage, in and of itself. But I think I would treat it as a personal attack if you had (1) actually linked from the words "send word to Rome ... Caesar has won" to the text of the arbitration decision, as Dangerous-Boy did here, and (2) posted another quotation about prevailing in battle with the edit summary "[name of another editor who was a party to the case] do you see me." Under these circumstances, as other admins have commented, it was not a large leap to see this context as intended to mock, tease, or troll other parties to the decision and to continue the ongoing hostilities.

I think you may also have your chronology slightly confused, in that the Shakespeare (Macbeth) quotation was the one with the objectionable edit summary.

I was not and am not in any underlying dispute with Dangerous-Boy or any of the other editors in the arbitration case. I am, however, the most active clerk for the Arbitration Committee and one of the admins who has taken a role in enforcing its decisions. I don't see any conflict of interest in the action I have taken. I also did not say that to be unblocked, Dangerous-Boy must never utilize a quotation again, although it will be in both his and the project's interests to use far more discretion in the future if he wishes to edit harmoniously.

Frankly, I am not relishing the position of having had to block a contributor, even one with some well-known rough edges. I regard blocks of contributors as truly a last resort and in fact have often been teased by other admins for my reluctance to use that particular button. I hope that Dangerous-Boy can realize soon that his conduct was unhelpful and promise to stop it, so that I can press the "unblock" button, which I enjoy doing far more. Newyorkbrad 16:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, brad, was it the "personal attack" section of the arbcom decisions to which you were referring? Because I'm not sure how, even if you take it as gloating, that could be construed as a "personal attack". A personal attack would be saying that "Bladestorm is a douchebag", or "Bladestorm sucks donkey balls", not "Caesar has won", or "Gaul has fallen. Pompey has fled. Cato has retired.", or a shakespeare quote. They aren't personal attacks, are they? The arbcom decision (if I'm looking at the right decision) was that personal attacks are a no-no, but that doesn't apply. Your edit summaries call the quotes "offensive", even though they aren't offensive on their face.
So... if they are personal attacks, what insult or accusation are they making? And, if they aren't, how are the quotes covered by the arbcom decision?
(I prefer to discuss the more general issue of quotes on your talk page. You can cross out my comments on that issue here if you like) Bladestorm 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitrators wrote that "[a]ll parties are reminded in the strongest possible terms that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum for conspiracy, personal attacks, nor the continuation of ethnic disputes by other means." The comment about non-complying parties being "hit on the head with sticks" was (to say the least) non-standard wording for an arbitration decision, which I took as meaning that the arbitrators were totally fed up with a situation permeated that had led a couple of arbitrators to comment on the proposed decision page that they had come very close to banning a number of the involved editors, of whom Dangerous-Boy would certainly have been one. The user conduct by many editors, including Dangerous-Boy, throughout the arbitration case was absolutely appalling. In view of the history, Dangerous-Boy's conduct was gratuitous and disruptive even absent a specific ArbCom ruling telling the parties to cut it out. Nonetheless, I will repeat for the umpteenth time that I am prepared to unblock him or for any other admin to do so the minute he agrees to discontinue this behavior and use his access to Wikipedia for productive editing. Newyorkbrad 17:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well now, hold up here. Again (I can't remember where I said this, but even I acknowledge this), his behaviour during the arbitration was inexcusable, but... that was the time to punish him for that. Now's too late. Only his conduct since then, as well as the arbcom rulings, should matter. I don't think that it was unreasonable to interpret "hit with sticks" as meaning potentially any punishment; I don't fault you for that. (though I would've thought that "indefinite ban" is a bit of a jump, especially since it really means, "infinite ban, unless d-boy accepts my personal interpretation of his userpage quotes")

I think it's absurd to say that his behaviour would've warranted a block in the absence of the arbcom. In no other event would quoting shakespeare ever warrant an indefinite block. Absolutely zero chance. It would never be considered "gratuitous and disruptive".

But, I asked you two important questions.

"if they are personal attacks, what insult or accusation are they making? And, if they aren't, how are the quotes covered by the arbcom decision?"

Since it was the MacBeth quote that warranted the final block, I'm especially interested to hear how that qualifies as an insult or accusation. I realize that you said you're fine with an unblocking so long as he stops his behaviour, but you haven't even identified what that behaviour is! Linking to the arbcom is obviously off-limits, no problem. But "personal attacks", which don't include insults, accusations, or even a direct connection? Maybe it'll be easier once you explain how that shakespeare quote, in and of itself, is a personal attack. Bladestorm 17:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brad's block was a good block and I confess that I find Bladestorm's hypotheticals above beside the point. For all intents and purposes, every involved and associated editor was placed on double secret sudden death probation as a result of the arbitration. The idea that ArbCom should have "punished" Dangerous-Boy (or anyone else) during arbitration or not all overlooks this salient fact. To argue that his behavior would not have warranted a block in the absence of arbcom is pointless for that very reason. Dangerous-Boy and others were warned that the previous behavior was unacceptable, and that the continuation of vendettas, conspiracies, and factionalism would be mee harshly. Mackensen (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all surprised that Dangerous-Boy was the first recipient of the stick. One of the biggest annoyances during this entire affair has been many people's inability to just Shut The Hell Up at the appropriate times. D-Boy needs to understand that the appropriate time is now, and (as far as this particular sort of sniping is concerned) for the foreseeable future. He's also got to understand that (a) Wikipedia is not a battlefield; and (b) he didn't win anything in that arbitration; it was a lose-lose situation for everybody involved. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And to facilitate "shutting the hell up", you can protect his user/talk pages.Baka man 22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Or you can block him. This particular incident is the culmination of a long string of abuses of Wikipedia. Rather than wikilawyering it to death, how about admitting there's a problem and agreeing to go the extra mile to avoid conflict (which is what the ArbCom decision was trying to get people to do)? MastCell ^Talk 00:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The block of Dangerous-Boy is appropriate and exactly the type of sanction I intended for the community to take against the parties in this case. All parties were warned to stop their disruptive behavior or they would be made to stop. FloNight 01:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dangerous-Boy has agreed not to post any quotes on his userpage, so I've unblocked him. I shall watch what he does now, but I'm ever optimistic that this one whack with a cluestic will have been enough. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~I have no objection to the unblock and hope that there will be no further issues. Newyorkbrad 14:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Jouster~~
Jouster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
First off, if I had to provide all the diffs of this user's trolling and blatant WP:POINT violations, the page size would exponentially increase, so I'm not; instead, I'll tell you. This user has complained about my userpage, made 6 screenshots of my page's fallacies, with one hosted on imageshack. He opposed my RFA with my userpage as part of his rationale. He stated on User talk:Jouster/open/VPP that he was not on a "crusade" against me, but rather to stop pages from containing so much CSS to the point of being "uneditable" (in his own words). However, his latest thread on my talk page — probably archived by the time you read this — suggests otherwise. I thought I could handle this situation, and I thought Jouster would stop; both notions were incorrect. Please help me solve this dilemma. —« ANIMUM » 02:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Postlethwaite left Jouster a message a few hours back and I see little since then. Hopefully that brings this to an end. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been following this situation with concern as well, with comments on both Magnus animum's page and on Jouster's subpage, but hopefully, as Wknight94 suggests, Jouster will now desist from the problematic behavior. I will keep an eye on this situation. Newyorkbrad 03:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AN/I is not an appropriate forum to air these grievances. To quote from the lead-in:

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks.
— WP:AN/I

So what are you trying to accomplish, exactly? And the hyperbole ("the page size would exponentially increase" is either a ridiculous fallacy or a given for any amount of additional text, depending on how you look at it) is not serving you well. Jouster  (whisper) 13:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This thread does require the intervention of administrators. If you keep on with this behaviour, you will be blocked; not by me, mind you, but blocked nonetheless. —« ANIMUM » 15:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, real quick, out of curiosity, what's so incredibly-offensive about putting an image on Imageshack? I hadn't realized Wikipedia was willing to host screenshots of itself; so sue me.

Back on topic, frankly and bluntly, take this to RFC, where is belongs. This is a content dispute, blown horribly out of proportion by your refusal to yield to WP:NOT#USER and WP:MYSPACE, but it is nonetheless at its heart a content dispute. I'm not taking it to direct action (or, on the one occasion where I made two edits attempting to do so, it was in good faith, as evidenced by the fact that I did not revert your reversion of my proposed "fixes"), and the closest thing that anyone's been able to accuse me of is WP:POINT, where I challenge you to find an example remotely similar to my behavior. I conduct myself entirely within Talk space, only once venturing forth to make one of the changes I suggested myself. Please look more closely at the text of WP:POINT before accusing me of violating it. Now, why are we in the wrong forum for this, again?

It is acceptable to be wrong as an administrator, Magnus; you put this in the wrong place. Let's take it where it belongs. I feel confident community consensus will be strongly against obfuscation on user pages, and yours in particular. Needless to say, however, if it's not, I will stand down. As I said here:

...embolden me that I am not, perhaps, a lone wolf. If it turns out that I am, I will of course respect the consensus of my peer editors. It hardly makes sense to champion the principles of democracy and meritocracy and then unilaterally attempt to enforce my will on others.
— Obfuscation VPP archive talk page

Read the tone of those initial messages, including the first one that I used an Imageshack-hosted screenshot to illustrate, and look back at your user page from the time—to say it was unusable by someone working at 1024x768, or someone working with a screen-reader or other accessibility program, doesn't even begin to cover it. Jouster  (whisper) 18:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was the point of your posting the image to Imageshack? And did you link back to the original at Wikipedia as is required by GFDL? Corvus cornix 20:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I am deeply concerned that this will derail everything else, but) when I posted the image to Imageshack, as I've said above, I was not aware of Wikipedia's willingness to host screenshots of itself. I acted in good faith, and have not repeated the action of uploading an image to that site; please don't swing that particular bat at this particular newbie. I would happily support the removal of the image from ImageShack's servers, its transfer onto Wikimedia Foundation servers, or a technical solution allowing me to, as you put it, "add a link back to the original". As to legal threats—contact my lawyer. I will say no more on this particular matter in this context, for legal reasons, but if you can point me towards a method of accomplishing any of my three proposed solutions, please let me know via email. Jouster  (whisper) 21:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done I have requested deletion of the image in question. Please accept my apologies to the community. The image can now be found here. Jouster  (whisper) 21:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. But you still haven't explained the purpose of the screenshot. Corvus cornix 22:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was used to demonstrate the manner in which a modification to the website that Magnus had implemented on his User and Talk pages was preventing normal navigation. Note that his multicolored "Steptrip" logo, entirety of which was a link to his user page (which is a GFDL violation, but I digress) prevented access to a number of links on the left-hand link bar.

For the original use of the image on the 'pedia, see User_talk:Magnus_animum/2007/March#Talk_Page_Formatting. Jouster  (whisper) 00:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, how is an image-link a GFDL violation if it doesn't even effect the toolbox unless precisely positioned? Another thing: If it did effect the toolbox, it could easily be navigated upon. This is not a dispute about the appropriateness of my page; it is a dispute about your trolling of me. You may deny it, but if you go through my contribs to find frivolous errors and make screenshots of my page's "fallacies", that is absolute trolling. :-/ —« ANIMUM » 02:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have never, to the best of my knowledge, viewed your contributions page at any time since your RfA, when I'd imagine it was at least somewhat de rigeur, no? Jouster  (whisper) 14:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey making threats of legal action by third party~~
User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is engaging in a campaign of (sometimes vague) legal threats by proxy related to American Indian articles. Rather than threatening that he will sue (which would be a direct violation of WP:NLT), he is instead saying that various Indian tribes will sue, shut down Wikipedia, void the Foundation's non-profit status, and so on. Basically, "I'm the only one who can save you from the angry Indian tribes and their lawyers, now let me have my way."
Despite being asked at least twice, Mr. Merkey has failed to cite the applicable Federal law which makes the mere claim of being an Indian a crime when one is not a member of a federally-recognized tribe.
Disclosure: I strongly disagree with Jeff's disruption on Wikipedia, including alleged violations of WP:COI re his Mormon-related edits, WP:BLP re Eric Schmidt, and all of the disruption he has brought into the Federally-recognized tribes issue. I posted comments to an AN/I and his talk page, the second of which resulted in me getting blocked. It took about two weeks to resolve that block. This discussion is not about that block, the reasons that led to it, or the admins involved. However, if I don't mention this, I'm sure that someone will bring it up as a hidden motive for revenge. This is not about revenge; it is about disruptive edits backed by Mr. Merkey's legal threats that if he is not allowed to excise information about non-federally-recognized groups, then the federally-recognized Indian Tribes will sue Wikipedia and shut it down.
~~Here are the examples I could find, showing Mr. Merkey's own words, plus the link to the diffs:~~
"In some cases, impersonating an American Indian for improper purposes violates Federal Law and exposes Wikipedia to liability" [61]

"This is a legal and credibility issue with major repercussions for the Foundation and is not subject to "Wikiality" concensus. There are significent legal issues with allowing these fake groups to misrepresent themselves on Wikipedia." [62]

"... there are no loopholes that expose Wikipedia to Criminal sanctions or damages if you misrepresent yourself as a mexican. People claiming to be indians when they are not is different." [63]

"If any one of these tribes gets their fill of wikiality "fake tribes" on Wikipedia in any area that is an attack on their sovereignty or violates BIA laws or regulations, they can bring an action, criminal or civil in tribal court and the Federal Court will just rubber stamp their orders. There are some cases where they have jurisdiction over non-indians -- attacks on their sovereignty and identity to violate the law is one of them. Next they can potentially void the Foundations non-profit status by claiming its a CCE or affiliated with one and/or impose severe civil or criminal sanctions -- The CDA DOES NOT apply. The 1st Ammendment DOES NOT APPLY. These legal exemptions do not apply because tribes are sovereigns with their own laws and treaties with the US that preempt all of these elborate internet website exemptions. Sticking to the rules on Federally recognied tribes completely eliminates these liabilities, and improves Wikipedia. It's more than just the legal risks, its a credibility issue with the project as a whole." [64]

"I'll just sit and wait for one of these tribes to shut down this nonsense the Foundation level, which they will, because several of them are close to being pushed to do it." [65]

"The compelling interest standard preempts first ammendment and CDA exemptions if one of these tribes goes and gets an order from the Federal Courts." [66]

"This also means that the United States, by and through the Attorney General, can and does have the constitutional power since treaties with foreign powers are involved, to preempt the first amendment rights of US citizens or enterpises within US jurisdiction. In other words, if a website on the internet is stating a group of people are indians and one of the legitimate groups objects, they can invoke treaty powers, and preempt the first ammendment rights of this website or group to post the materials. That is why this is such a touchy subject and we should think through these issues carefully. I know of many cases where several Indian tribes have invoked this power as well as passed tribal legislation to correct false information on the internet and television, such as the case of Harley Reagan." [67]

"Sure. Let's send a letter to the BIA as a third party and ask their input on the matter. I would like to include members of the Foundation in the discussion, since the foundation may potentially be blocklisted from participating in Federally funding from government agencies, groups, or programs" [68]

"But listing them in articles about Federally Recognized Tribes implies they are affiliated with these groups. I know the laws regarding Native American Issues. This is not a typical situation wit CDA 230 exemptions These tribes are sovereigns. They have special legal status with the United States, and any one of these tribes can make the Foundation's and Wikipedia's life unpleasant if we get embroilled in some legal fiasco because some group placed false information onto Wikipedia claiming to be a tribe and then got into trouble. The Feds can shutdown this website or make us remove content .... I have seen them do it in the Mooney case and their is no 1st Amendment, Section 230 CDA, zippo" [69]

"Also does not expose the Wikimedia Foundation to having its non-Profit status pulled by the United States for failing to comply with the law. Additonally, it does not expose the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors/Trustees to criminal indictment and jail time for promoting a CCE (Continuing Criminal Enterprise)." [70]

"Wrong. There is liablity. Falsly representing a group of people as an Indian Tribe is unlawful and exposes Wikipedia to liablity." [71]

"This group also stated that if any of their confidential materials were posted to Wikipedia, it would be considered cultural theft and theft of Native American Antiquities and that they would prosecute any individual who libeled them or posted these materials. ... This group reiterated that if these materials end up on Wikipedia or the internet they would prosecute to the fullest extent of the law." [72]

"They will not request anything. They will take action -- I know this group very well. An individual took a video camera secretly into one of their ceremonies in 2002 and was caught taping it -- he sat in jail for two months and was banished from their cermonies for life along with his entire family. This group is serious business." [73]
~~So, once more, at which step does the crime occur?~~
John Doe is entirely of Northern European descent.

John Doe says, "I am an Indian."

John Doe opens a casino / smokes peyote / possesses eagle feathers, offering his Indian-ness as proof that he can legally do these things.
If Mr. Merkey can provide a citation of Federal law which says that a crime has occurred at step 2, then so be it. Per my original offer, I will owe him - and deliver - a personal apology for ever doubting him. But the time to cite that law was back when he originally started on his quest to rid Wikipedia of "wannabees" (his word), not a few months later after disrupting several articles.
However, if Mr. Merkey is unable or refuses to provide the citation, he should be heavily sanctioned for repeatedly violating WP:NLT.
Oh, and somebody needs to alert Mr. Merkey to this AN/I; while I was negotiating to get unblocked after being accused of WP:STALK and being an SPA, I offered to make no edits to his user or user talk page. When another admin unblocked me, he did not say whether that condition applied. To be on the safe side, I continue to honour that offer, and will not make an edit to either of those pages. Pfagerburg 03:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: I'm sure that someone, either Mr. Merkey, or one of several admins, will point to this AN/I as proof that I am an anti-Merkey SPA. It's true that my most recent edits are to his biography, based on comments that people made in the previous week. Not a happy coincidence then, that I would have gotten to the point that I'm fed up with his disruption of Wikipedia. So, at the moment, I am focusing on his disruption and what can be done to stop it. After this is over, I've got other topics (see contribution history) that I'll go back to.
Anyone is an SPA if you narrow down the time frame enough. Look at Mr. Merkey's history, and you'll see that for a while, he was an SPA against Eric Schmidt. Then for about a week, he was an SPA against all things (and editors) Mormon, lobbing accusations of COI when he himself failed to disclose his repeated conflicts with various Mormons, including accusing a judge of putting his religious connections above the interests of justice.
The disruption has got to stop, and blocking me and everyone else that Mr. Merkey claims is a "SCOX Troll," "sockpuppet of banned user Vigilant," or "wikistalker" (that's still not a word) will not change it; his legal threats, refusal to work towards consensus, and his confrontational editting style will continue to disrupt Wikipedia until somebody puts a stop to the root cause of the behaviour. Pfagerburg 03:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~I've notified JVM of this thread's existence. -- MarcoTolo 03:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Thanks! Pfagerburg 03:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I have never made any legal threats. User:Pfagerburg is an SCOX troll who trolls my bio and me on Wikipedia. He is here to disrupt Wikipedia and attack me as his deluge above demonstrates. I am free to discuss issues with readers of Wikipedia reading bogus content and Wikipedia allowing lawbreakers to misuse its site. These types of issues are open items for discussion. Needless to say, I categoricly deny all of his statements above as inaccurate and yet more trolling. I would like a ban of this troll and his associates and they need to leave me alone on this site. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I believe Pfagerburg, since he comes from Colorado, to be one of the former litigants in the Perens case, and as such, his changes to my bio should be reverted since he just inserted libel and uncited materials and interactions with me should be banned. If he is who I think he is, he is in violation of a settlement agreement and is involving Wikipedia in a previously closed conflict. I need a sysop to revert his edits and block him immediately for stalking and harassment. He is also in violation of WP:COI if he is who I think he is. Thanks. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of his trolling status, you do say that various native tribes (or the government) will sue Wikipedia if you do not have your way with articles. And it's not just one or two times, this is an ongoing thing which you seem to see nothing wrong with. I'm truly sorry that you have a group of people dedicated to making your life difficult, but you can not use that to justify brushing off all criticism as trolling. -Amarkov moo! 05:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's baiting on your part, not trolling, and no I am not biting. I emailed Mr. Wales about the entire situation since I am too close to it, since these same editors now are violating WP:BLP as well. Are you supporting this too? I hate bothering him with yet more juvenile issues with the trolls, but it is better left in his capable hands to sort out, since my bio is now involved as well. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with archiving this, Ryulong. You say "It is never fruitful to discuss Jeff's actions in any forum." ¿como? He's making legal threats, and it's not "fruitful" to discuss it?
"If you have issues with his editting, discuss it with him." I tried, see the two comments I made asking him to lay off Eric Schmidt, the Mormons, and "wannabees." The result was the accusation of "SCOX Troll," "wikistalker," and now "former defendant in a lawsuit I [Mr. Merkey] filed."
Who is going to address his numerous legal threats? Will everyone just stand by while he threatens that any minute now, various Indian tribes will sue Wikipedia, shut down the Foundation, and put various members of the board of directors in jail?
I was never a defendant in Merkey v. Perens. An accusation in another forum that I am someone called "Grendel" from Colorado is false. (The accusation was made by an account named "the_truth_about_linux," whom others in that forum claimed was Mr. Merkey, but I cannot verify this, and so retract my earlier statement that Mr. Merkey made this accusation.) My Wikipedia login is derived from my legal name; why does that beggar belief from some people? Pfagerburg 12:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In his tendentious edits on several Mormon-related articles, Mr. Merkey criticized various (and perhaps rightly so) editors who self-identified as Mormon for using what he called the "look, there's Elvis" technique when confronted with unflattering information. Well, Mr. Merkey is now using the same tactic - "never mind the legal threats I made about Indian Tribes suing WP into oblivion, there's a SCOX troll!" Pfagerburg 12:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear as to why this discussion was archived. It was open for just over two hours (most of which was night time in the subject's time zone). Aside from the submitter and the subject, only one editor had the opportunity to comment. I'm not even clear as to how the archiving editor's summary of the discussion is related to the comments made by the contributors. But, hey, what do I know? — Dave (Talk | contribs) 14:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~People are paying attention to the messenger, and representations of who he is or is not, rather than the message.~~
To paraphrase, "the world's biggest idiot can go around claiming the sun is shining, and that won't make it dark outside." So here I am, the world's biggest idiot, saying that Mr. Merkey is threatening that Wikipedia and/or the Foundation will be sued by Indian Tribes because certain groups which are not members of those tribes are misrepresenting themselves as members. How Mr. Merkey and others view my objectivity does not automatically make what I said untrue.
There are two separate issues here
Am I a trolling/stalking/whatever Mr. Merkey?

Is Mr. Merkey threatening that WP will get sued by Indian tribes unless Mr. Merkey's edits and removals are allowed to stand?
~~People seem to be saying that because #1 is true, #2 cannot be true. That's quite the non-sequiter.~~
~~I'd like the discussion un-archived and properly discussed. And here is the best venue, not Jeff's talk page. Pfagerburg 14:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I support this summary and its conclusions. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 14:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Also, regarding the claim that this ANI thread was planned on the SCOX message board, a quick check will reveal that while I have commented in threads that have discussed Mr. Merkey's postings on WP, I have not advocated anyone coming over to WP to troll him, and there are certainly no messages "planning it." This sounds like more "look, there's Elvis," to draw attention away from the issue at hand - the threat that Indian tribes will shut down WP if Mr. Merkey's POV is not allowed to take precedence. Pfagerburg 15:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It comes to mind that whenever someone makes a complaint about Jeff, nothing gets achieved. He comes here, accuses people of trolling, of being sockpuppets, of being against him, etc. Nothing is ever done by talking here. If you have a problem with him, stay the hell away from him. It does not improve Wikipedia or the morale to continue harping about things that won't change.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Ryulong. It seems that certain Wikieditors, no matter how abusive, destructive, libelous or terroristic they are, cannot be touched on Wikipedia, under the aegis of assuming good faith. How many legal threats, personal attacks, and so on, are we going to suffer through? As SOON as I agreed that formal means were needed, I got attacked as a "SCOX Troll". I saw a guy obstructing a simple resolution by citing his special knowledge and asking us to trust him about the facts that only he can see and know, and which we're too dumb to comprehend. I supported other peoples' requests for formal examination, coming here as an uninvolved person. Instead, personal attacks, and NO reprimand from the admins for his actions. ThuranX 02:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryulong, let's AGF about WP itself. The whole reason to discuss the disruption here is with the hope of putting an end to it. I have a problem with "write the article my way or Indian Tribes will sue WP out of existence." And you're saying we should ignore that, because it will never change? Pfagerburg 03:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merkey bio~~
As Jeff alleges that his bio is under attack, I submit these edits by User:Pfagerburg for the review of BLP-savvy editors Though I have reverted them, I've honestly not examined them in great detail, and take no stance as to whether they should be restored. Given the allegation of attacks on his bio, it seemed best to err on the safe side.Proabivouac 07:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can't see how it's a BLP issue, since the contents of the edits are well sourced, the primary source being Merkey's own words in his court filings, which can be picked up from the Utah courtroom or from various places on the net. There might be original research and/or undue weight issues involved, but the talk page is currently hashing that one out. Can you, or Jeff, actually enumerate any supposed BLP issues on the talk page so that the editors know what the actual problem is? --Aim Here 08:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes. Citing allegations from a dismissed legal complaint which have not been issued as findings of facts in a court case is not a good idea. Primarily because they are unconfirmed allegations directed at the subject they discuss. I have no liablity for statements contained in a legal complaint, so if you reference them, there is no exposure for me, but for the poster. For your own sakes, please understand that when you quote allegations from a verified complaint, the submitter is protected by privilege from claims of defamation. People who then take these statements and quote them outside of legal proceedings have no such privilege. This particular allegations were dismissed, which means they were "withdrawn" by the filer. This is no different than a Wikipedia editor withdrawing their own comments -- under the law it negates their affect. However, let's say the poster of them, Pfagerburg, starts posting comments about some of the people named in the action which have not been issued as findings of fact. In the first place, there is no protection if they are posted to Wikipedia, and in the second place, they have not been verified by the Court as true. Thirdly, they may violate WP:BLP. Hence, when someone posts them, they have no protection and are most probably violating WP:BLP with regard to the people or groups they discuss. I am immune to getting sued by any person or group in that complaint, but someone using the statements believing they will "hurt" me in some way is severely misinformed. If they attack someone named in the complaint based on allegations I made, then the POSTER has exposure for posting comments about these people and their content. Most of these types of postings are clearly malicious and appears to be the sort of thing WP:BLP is intended to weed out. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well to rephrase that, what you seem to be saying is that your court filings contained false and defamatory statements about other people, and that repeating those allegations as fact outside a courtroom might libel those people. That's fine. As long as we're careful not to claim that what you say is true, and we don't use your court filings as a source for anything other than what you allege in court (I don't think anyone was going to anyway), then we should be okay. And certainly we'll refrain from using your court filings as a source for anything in the Bruce Perens and Pamela Jones articles. I'm sure Bruce Perens and Pamela Jones are overjoyed to see you trying to stop people spreading malicious rumours about them. --Aim Here 08:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Merkey, I agree with your basic assessment: using the material in your court filings to draw conclusions about the defendants would be libelous. I would never use your court filing as a source for a bio about Bruce Perens, Pamela Jones, or anyone else whom you sued, precisely because the court has not weighed it, nor sifted the truth from the remainder. The court document which you wrote is the source for the statement that "Mr. Merkey claimed ..." The allegations are repeated as having occurred, no more. You see this every day in a newspaper, "the alleged ...," "Mr. X claimed that Mr. Y ...," and so on.
~~I will await the outcome of the BLP review which Pro opened. Pfagerburg 12:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I've taken this to Talk:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey so they can fix the article according to your concerns. --Aim Here 08:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would like feedback from other uninvolved BLP-savvy editors here.Proabivouac 08:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to take this away from your 'uninvolved' editors, I was trying to bring the 'problem' to the attention of the people already editing the article. They probably have an opinion on the matter. --Aim Here 08:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will not edit on that talk page or go anywere near that article. It should be here in the open with lots of eyes to review it. Your comments above are quite a stretch from what I said, and would indicate strong bias. I think you may wish to consider staying clear of that article for your own sake. Responding to you comments, even a ruling from a court, if not provable truth, can be defamation and actionable. The judges comments are privileged, people quoting it out of context are not. It's called "False light invasion of privacy", even if it's verifiable or a court ruled it to be. I have no plans to take legal action against Pamela Jones since I am an editor on Wikipedia, and taking such actions would jeopardize that standing. That being said, I dismissed the action in Federal Court since it would get kicked back to State Court anyway eventually since those types of cases end up there. I have had dozens of law firms review these goings on with SCOX and Wikipedia and a solid case in State Court is there regarding Ms. Jones. However, I have told all these folks I am not interested in taking such action. Jones is a jaded journalist and everyone knows it. I mean really, Novell claimed "Merkey, with malicious intent, took Novell's negative knowledge (his work experience) and used it in violation of his employment obligations". Now how nuts does that sound? What, Novell owns people's work experience? I was also the Chief Scientist of Novell for four years and over NetWare for two years. Novell must be pretty stupid to appoint a psycho as Chief Scientist. Now think about that and how nuts it sounds. I would think the OSS movement would praise someone who challenged Novell's claims they own work experience and what should be free knowledge, not attack them. This attack mode began when Novell got into Linux, and various idiots believed going after me would endear Novell to them and give them money. Keep dreaming -- they could care less and all bring this crap us does is make them look more and more stupid. It has not harmed me. I am going to Germany for a month and own a home there now. I make more money and have more influence now then ever thanks to you folks. So in other words, despite all these folks have done, it's only made me stronger, richer, wiser, and even more prosperous. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 08:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey mr. Merkey. I understand from your post and the prehistory that you don't like Pamela Jones. But you want to be treated with respect here... So do the same to others. Calling PJ a "jaded" Journalist isn't very nice. Try not to be rude, pls... -End of Post
I think it may be notable to reference some of the SCO/IBM news articles, particularly the one that mentions that Jones was paid $50,000.00 by Novell and IBM to write that smearing story about me and the other "attack" stories against SCO. I have nothing to do with SCO and never have. A claimed journalist who writes attack stories anonymously which are nothing more than libel and personal attacks sure looks like a jaded journalist to me. More like a "hired gun." Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Mr Merkey has the facts incorrect: Please consult: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070321144218656 and http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070405123029796

--Kebron 18:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't wise to poke a tiger. As for this matter, the subject is clearly litigious and we should note that fact in the article in an NPOV manner. We should also note his more significant lawsuits. However there is no benefit in documenting the twists and turns of court cases which were not well-covered in reliable sources. Quoting from selected briefs, when the full range of court filings are not available, inevitably will be skewed. NPOV requires that we maintain balance in our treatment of topics, and finding silly things the subject has said doesn't serve neutrality. We can easily summarize the material in a brief, neutral, and verifiable manner. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting court briefs is orignal research, period. If a reporter with expertise had written about the court case, we could report that reporter's analysis. Editors doing such analysis on their own is unacceptable original research. Of the many problems with original research, the one most relevant here is that we do not know the biases of the person doing the analysis. It is one thing when you read an analysis of a proposed gun control law written by the NRA (or the Brady foundation); at least we know where the biases are, and the issue is likely to be significant enough to be covered by multiple analysts. Here, we have no idea what kind of bias Pfagerburg or other editors might have. If the court case was not reported in a reliable third-party source, drop it. Thatcher131 12:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The prohibition on court documents isn't a total absolute.There are some usable secondary sources on the subject of Merkey's court cases, and quoting the court briefs directly in addition to those might be acceptable. For example, if a news source paraphrases the court documents, it might be better for the article to use a direct quote from the paragraph mentioned in the news report, for style or copyright considerations - that would just be a rewrite of whatever the secondary source had selected, and not doing the selection/research yourself. The talk page for the article is dealing with those original research/undue weight issues already, but there's also the BLP considerations that Merkey brought up above, which are entirely seperate. What I think he's trying to say is that we can't mention that he said certain things about living people in his court case, because those people might sue us if we wrote 'Jeff Merkey said XXX about person YYY in court' (even if that was already reported by secondary sources and fits other Wikipedia policies). I think that's a pretty specious argument myself - neutrally and honestly reporting that someone made a defamatory statement surely cannot, by itself, be defamatory--Aim Here 13:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Court documents are primary sources, while articles that report events based on primary sources are considered secondary sources. It might be permissable, if a newspaper article were to report on a court case and paraphrase some of the language of the case, for Wikipedia to use the exact language, citing both the secondary source and the primary document. I can see this might be useful in precedent-setting appellate and Supreme Court cases, perhaps. That does not seem to be the case here, regardless of Jeff's tendency to explain everything with legalisms. Thatcher131 14:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Thatcher131, there is a thread on the bio's talk page (look at the end of that section) about WP:PSTS that may (or may not) address the question of using court documents.~~ Pfagerburg 14:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need legal threats by Jeff, but neither do we need trolling and biased edits. Pfagerburg needs to step back from this article, I think. I do not think this is the first time there has been trouble between Pfagerburg and Merkey, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Pfagerburg&namespace=0. Pfagerburg appears to be an editor with strictly limited interests, one of which is adding this kind of stuff to Merkey's article. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, if you'll notice, I put a short note on the talk page saying that I support Dave's rewrite. Yes, I'm going to step back from the article, and one very good reason for doing so is that Mr. Merkey is using my edits to that article as a diversion to draw attention away from the fact that he has repeatedly threatened WP with legal action by other parties unless he (Mr. Merkey) gets his way with deciding who can and cannot say they are an Indian in WP articles. Despite being asked repeatedly, he has not specifically identified the federal law which supports his viewpoint.
I will be fair-minded and invoke WP:OWN on myself. The bio doesn't say what I think it should say, and despite my appeals to various WP policies, few people seem to agree. Hint taken.
~~Now, about those legal threats. Anyone?~~
"Strictly limited interests" is another way of saying that there are a handful of subjects and articles about which I have some knowledge and want to contribute, provided I can find some sources. See for example the Talk:Atmel AVR page, where I am awaiting someone to voice an opinion as to whether a databook sitting on a shelf in my basement is a reliable source, since the information can't be found on line and easily verified any more.
~~I don't think there is a rule that being a WP editor requires you to contribute to a certain minimum number of articles. Pfagerburg 16:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Back to the orignial topic~~
Merkey certainly has a group of people trolling him. Pfagerburg may be part of this group. And there may be problems with the biography article. These things do need to be dealt with, certainly. But regardless of any of this, he does say "if we don't do it my way, Wikipedia will be sued". He does this constantly. And as evidenced above, whenever someone complains about it, he calls them a troll. This is bad, and it can not be ignored just because other people who don't like him do bad things too. -Amarkov moo! 16:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been involved in these issues with Native Stuff a long time. I know a lot about the laws associated with these topics. I am trying to protect all of the editors on this project and the misinformed public. Wikimedia and Wikipedia editors do not need to get embroilled in the same controversies James Mooney created in Utah. Any dialouge I have had on these topics is to protect all of us -- period. And I have not "gotten my way" on these topics. There has been good dialouge along with some heated debates. These are are quite healthy. As it stands, Wikipedia has higher quality materials in Native American areas and its editors have a broader and better informed view of the issues. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed my point. Saying "we must do it my way because other ways are against the law" is bad, no matter what the motives behind it are. Such a statement by its nature stifles some disagreement, because who wants to be involved with something that could be illegal? -Amarkov moo! 17:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"[P]rotect all of the editors on this project" from what, precisely? Legal action? Mr. Merkey, you've been asked several times to be specific. Once again, please cite the title and section numbers of federal law. Since you "know a lot about the laws associated with these topics," PLEASE share that knowledge with us, with specific citations that can be verified. Nobody says that you've "gotten [your] way" on the topic of who is and isn't an Indian; the claim is that you've threatened that WP will be the target of legal action, and that unspecified laws are being broken, unless of course you get your way and are allowed to remove "wannabees" from various articles about Indian tribes. Pfagerburg 17:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to follow this mess for a couple days, and what I've seen is that Merkey seems intent on citing secret special knowledge to get his way. Like many others here, I ask Mr. Merkey to provide us with the criminal or civil code that he keeps referring to, either with just the 'call numbers', or with the full text. If Wikipedia is in danger of legal retribution for the actions of the editors, then publicizing the danger and the laws which comprise that danger would aid the project immensely. Mr. Merkey, please give us the statute in question. Thank you. ThuranX 18:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could start with reading James Mooney's indictment in Federal Court is Utah. The problem is, there are dozens of statutes. It depends on what the circumstances are. Peyote Laws, Eagle Feather Laws, Gambling Laws, State Laws, its not that simple. Utah has HB 60 which makes it a crime to claim to be in Indian in the Native American Church context. There are also statutes about Native American arts and crafts, grave robbing, etc. There is 200 years of legislation here, and dozens of statutes. It's a large research effort. I suppose the best way here would be to write an article about it and list all of them. This is probably the best approach. The problems arise is someone uses an anonymous account and uses Wikipedia to front for one of these fake groups. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But as I understood you, the simple statement "I am an Indian" is in and of itself a crime. Without any peyote, Native-American Church, authentic Navajo rugs, eagle feathers, casinos, etc. Nobody is arguing that those actions are criminal for non-Indians, but multiple people, myself included, understood you to be claiming that "I am an Indian" is in and of itself a felony when the person saying it is not a member of a federally-recognized tribe.
WP is not responsible for the claims and/or actions of other people. Therefore, the standard disclaimer should cover everything nicely. But you insist that Indian tribes have some über-power to override even the US Constitution, a claim which many (again, myself included) find dubious and requiring extraordinary verification. Pfagerburg 22:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a felony is someone makes these claims then attempts to obtain the special status granted by the United States based on those claims. This could be as simple as offering fake Navajo rugs are as serious as selling peyote for profit. In either case, the United States can prosecute and under the doctrine of unclean hands, were any of the victims of these people to sue Wikimedia, the Foundation would have no affirmtive defenses if they allowed the content to exist. They become liable if criminal laws are violated. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia allowed content saying that could legally run casinos/own eagle feathers/whatever, you might have a case. But people are only wishing to include content stating that they believe they are Native American. There's no need for an affirmative defense there, because there's absolutely nothing to sue for. -Amarkov moo! 23:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Someone has to say "I am an Indian" and then perform some action which federal and/or state laws prohibit except to members of federally-recognized tribes. Then we have a crime. I agree 100%. In addition to the crime (peyote, eagle feathers, whatever), the fraudulent misrepresentation appears to be an "add-on" charge, much like the difference between assault and aggravated assault.

However, the claim that WP is somehow liable seems much more dubious. That's what the WP disclaimer on every page is for.

Unclean hands is a defense against an accusation (see the SCO case, for example, where IBM alleges that SCO's unclean hands prevent them from recovering even if IBM is found to have damaged SCO), not a point for the prosecution. IANAL, but that's how I understand it. Pfagerburg 23:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Merkey.... as requested, Please provide us with the criminal or civil code that you keep referring to. If it is a felony, obviously there must be a reference that we can all read somewhere. --Kebron 23:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~ArbCom?~~
This discussion is getting pretty long and involved for this AN/I page, and the issues are fairly complex—Merkey's history and current behavior, offsite threats of trolling, legal issues, sockpuppet suspicions, BLP, involvement of veteran WP administrators and even Jimbo himself—which all suggest to me that this whole matter should be taken to arbitration. That will at least bring this discussion into a structured process and hopefully provide resolution for the ongoing concerns. Would that be a more appropriate venue? I'd suggest RfC but I think it would be less likely to bring things to a conclusion; to wit, several of the editors involved here have already gone through a similar RfC and it doesn't seem to have had a lasting effect. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alanyst - although Jeff is quick to throw accusations of "SCOX Trolling" about, there's actually precious little evidence that there are actually that many accounts here just to troll him. Check it out. There were a few before, when he first came back, until it became obvious that trolling him here only bolstered his arguments. As such, he's been left largely alone, except for his regular excursions over to the SCOX board to try and actually stir some trolling up. Yes, there's an awful lot of merkey related traffic on there, for various reasons. most of that is laughing at him, though. There's a lot of wild claims, like "I have 15 admin accounts just for trolling him", etc, but that is, as far as I can tell, pure bullshit. my reading of Jeff's editing and clash history here is that the reason people can't get along with him is that his attitude as it comes over in his edits is intrinsically dislikeable, and that he doesn't give a damn about other people's feelings, contributions or opinions, much less consider that he should work with people he so obviously considers his inferiors. There is no AGF with Jeff. You either agree with him, or you're a mormon / freedman / troll (SCOX or otherwise) / someone who he fired years ago / someone he sued years ago / a sock of banned user Vigilant / deserving of a ban for not being Jeffrey Vernon Bloody Merkey.
WP:NPA, please. While some of your points are valid, phrasing them this way only gives another target for "Look, there's Elvis." This is hopefully going to mediation in the next few days.

Also, there is no proof that the accounts on the SCOX board which seem to support Mr. Merkey (the most voiciferous one being "the_truth_about_linux") are actually Mr. Merkey. Weak circumstantial evidence, yes. Suspicion and hunches from board regulars, yes. Proof? Absolutely not. Pfagerburg 20:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alanyst, that sounds like a good idea. I'm very frustrated by the direction of the overall discussion - the issue was legal threats, but it turned into "look, there's ~~Elvis~~ a SCOX Troll!" Through all this, nobody has had a chance to really comment on the substance of the complaint, due to the archive box around it.
Would I need to file the ArbCom, since I started this AN/I? If so, I'd prefer to wait a day or so to let the tempers of all involved parties (that would include me) settle down. I've seen how the AN/I process works, but am not really familiar with ArbCom. Can you provide a pointer to a HOWTO or similar?
To avoid duplication of effort, I propose that the ArbCom case will address not only the "legal threats by proxy" (my wording), but also the accusations Mr. Merkey has leveled at me, including planning this AN/I beforehand on the Yahoo! SCOX Message Board, stalking him, trolling him, and being one of the former defendants in Merkey v. Perens.
Some of these points (BLP and COI) will be immediately mooted as I will begin the ArbCom by admitting that due to my interactions with Mr. Merkey, I now have a COI and should stay away from his bio, thereby avoiding any BLP issues. Pfagerburg 18:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Last chance for a resolution. Pfagerburg is heading for ArbCom. Merkey, do you still have something to say? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
FayssalF, do you think ArbCom is inappropriate? Merkey's actions since his return to WP have been the subject of a few RFC's and several AN/I's. Many people have politely (and some impolitely) requested that he provide more detailed information on the law that he claims supports his position. He has not yet done so, to the best of my knowledge.
~~My edits to Merkey's bio, and some of my comments regarding his behaviour, have also been the subject of at least one RFC and AN/I each, with a block thrown in for good measure.~~
I get the feeling that ArbCom is perceived as "going nuclear," which is not what I want unless/until all other avenues have failed. Is there an intermediate step? Please note that while I will be assembling materials to support an ArbCom, as I stated above, if I file it, it won't be for at least a day, to give things a chance to calm down. Pfagerburg 19:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being patient and thinking twice Pfagerburg. I appreciate that. Well, absolutely. There are other ways and it goes through assuming good faith for starters. We understand very well your good faith motives as much as we do for his own. I know it could be hard but think at his place. Make him feel at ease so he won't go away to make legal threats against anyone. What about designating 2 admins to help sort that out? I mean those admins you'd consult in case you'd be making edits which would start an edit warring. Try to let those admins guide you for a while until you feel at ease. Please note that nothing is formal about what i am suggesting as i know formalities make things too complicated especially in cases such as this one. I am sure there woudl be other suggestions so instead of preparing your draft for ArbCom, wait for others' suggestions w/o focusing on the problem or its subject. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Merkey has already dismissed me as a "SCOX Troll" and a certain former defendant in a lawsuit he filed. The first is debatable, the second is demonstrably false. Requests for him to cite the law upon which he bases his edits have gone unanswered, or been redirected into criticism (whether deserved or not) of the person raising the question.
I don't think I can make him "feel at ease so he won't go away to make legal threats against anyone." He's not threatening me with legal action, but rather all of Wikipedia. And failing to state the basis despite being asked several times. I believe that neither myself nor Mr. Merkey have much GF left to A about each other. That's why someone else needs to step in, someone whom neither myself nor Mr. Merkey can defy, hence my belief that ArbCom may be the proper route.
As for working it out with him on his talk page, as I mentioned above, I do not (cannot?) post anything on his user page or user talk page as a condition of being unblocked. There needs to be a formal dispute resolution which compels him to provide a specific citation of federal law. Attempts to elicit this information through RFC's, comments on article talk pages, and this AN/I have all failed. What do you suggest? Pfagerburg 19:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here → {{dispute-resolution}}. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Fayssal, but I think we're way past that. Merkey's unwillingness to actually tell us what law we could be violating shows he's not interested in engaging in the dialogue needed for DR. ARBcom may really be all that's left. If Merkey were to come here, tell us the law, and let us examine it, perhaps DR could solve the underlying conflicts. but if he won't talk about the law, there's no way to resolve the conflict. Can someone go ask him on his talk page to bring the case law here? ThuranX 20:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
..since we can't crack open the dispute to be resolved without knowing his side.. That's reasonable as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom rules seem to require mediation, or an attempt at mediation, first. Arbitration is listed as a "last resort." So I will open a mediation case on the topics discussed above, and hope that it resolves the issue. Unless Mr. Merkey pops up here with a citation of federal law and shuts down the entire discussion first. Which I would greatly appreciate if he does. Pfagerburg 20:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Be it formal. Thuran? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's still plenty of time for Mr. Merkey to bring his citations of federal law here. It will take me a little bit to put things together and set aside the time to file a mediation case. I'd be most happy if he shut the whole thing down pre-emptively by supplying the requested information, information that he has claimed to have ready for our perusal. Pfagerburg 20:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just an observer, Fayssal. Don't look to me to sign off on such things, but I agree with following procedure. That said, his claim that the Commerce clause trumps the founding documents is, politely, hard to believe. Given that it's a law formulated under the constitution, it can't trump it's own support. But that's for the Mediator and /or DR to solve. ThuranX 21:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The arbcom is free to get invovled here, but consider the motives of the requesters. These are people with agendas off Wikipedia bringing them here to harrass. It all just harassment. This account is a troll, Pfagerburg. He reverts edits and posts violations of WP:BLP. You have an editor here who minds his business and edits articles. Then out of nowhere the troll brigade and other mission posters show up and go on the attack. You can certainly attempt more time wasting attacks but that's all they are. Remember to, Wikipedia and the world are watching, and I am not a teenager living in my moms basement, I am a person with vast resources who can take care of themselves. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 21:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is the problem here. If anyone says you've done something bad and wants action taken, you just assume they are trolls who enjoy harassing you. It's certainly true that there is a group of trolls who enjoy harassing you, but that doesn't mean that everyone who criticizes you is part of that group. -Amarkov moo! 22:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't assume everyone who offers criticism is here to harrass, just those accounts who cross post on SCOX and plan then execute forays to disrupt Wikipedia and troll me, like the one above -- Pfagerburg. These people are after $$$$$ -- MONEY -- from me or Novell or thay have some other angle. In your case I would consider you conduct more "pestering" and "baiting" than trolling. That's why I ignore you most of the time. I never have seen any constructive edits from you Amarkov, just time wasting rants. At any rate, have a great day. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that I want money from you or from Novell is ludicrous. I want you to stop throwing around baseless accusations on or off WP. I want you to stop pushing your POV re Indians, Mormons, Eric Schmidt, James Mooney, and John Cornsilks. That's my "angle," to get you to stop disrupting WP. Pfagerburg 22:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, you consider criticism pestering and baiting. It doesn't matter. The point is, whenever you are criticised, you brush it off. You don't respond, you don't think about it, you don't even consider if it was made in good faith. Instead, you say "This criticism is trolling/harassment/baiting/something like that, and thus, it doesn't matter." Always. -Amarkov moo! 22:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are many times I have been wrong and have apologized to other editors. That's different from being a target of online harassment, which is clearly the case here. And once again, I have to ask, you support this conduct by egging on this troll above? Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen no convincing proof that he is a troll. Even if he is, though, you should not get a free pass on your actions because a troll happened to dislike them. -Amarkov moo! 22:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then check the SCOX message board. I am not going to waste anymore time responding to you. Get informed before hitting the "enter" button on your edits. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Indeed, please check the SCOX message board. I mocked you there, but never once suggested that people should troll you here. Pfagerburg 22:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Forget this. He's going to accuse me of being an off-wiki cash-motivated cabal troll, and not get told to knock it off, I'm done with this. I don't need it, goodbye. ThuranX 22:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only call people trolls if they have an account on SCOX with the same name and post all day about how they are going to disrupt wikipedia by harrassing me. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Post one link, just one, that shows I said I would disrupt WP. Pfagerburg 22:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's drop the issue of whether or not pfagerburg is a troll. Assume that he is, if you like. You still have not explained why you should get a free pass on your actions because a troll criticised them, or why you think everyone else is baiting or harassing you. -Amarkov moo! 22:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To address the remainder of Mr. Merkey's statements above:
Pointing out what you believe to be my motives ("Look, there's Elvis") will not change the fact that you have threatened that WP can be shut down, Foundation BoD members can go to jail, individual editors can be sued, etc. unless you get your POV enshrined in those articles.
And despite being asked for specifics, the closest you appear to have come is to say "read James Mooney's indictment." If you know so much about the relevant law, why not spare us the effort of sifting through the legal document?
"He reverts edits" — My most recent revert was vandalism to AN/I. A previous revert earned me a warning on my talk page, which I heeded. Further edits to the article in dispute were discussed in detail on the article talk page, and then eventually made to the article with calm and clear edit summaries.
"posts violations of WP:BLP" —
I am staying away from your bio, due to what is now a clear COI. Therefore, I can commit no further violations of WP:BLP with respect to your bio.

Mind your glass house.
I submit that you do not "mind [your] business," but rather accuse anyone who disagrees with you of trolling, harassment, sock puppetry, conflict of interest, etc. That's why this AN/I is here regarding legal threats, and why other AN/I's and RFC's have been opened by others opposing what they perceive to be your disruption of WP in pursuit of purging "wannabees" from all articles related to Indians, ridiculing Mormons, or libeling Eric Schmidt.
Mr. Merkey, if I open a mediation case in the next few days, will you participate? The topics to cover include your accusations against me (trolling, etc.) and my accusations against you (NLT). Pfagerburg 22:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest bringing this matter to ArbCom. There have been many attempts to settle this dispute, and none have worked. Because of that, I don't see why mediation would work. All sides are convinced that they are right. If we don't act, this will only come up again. And again. And again. Let's just get this over with. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably best. Meditation spelled definitely wouldn't help, because the problem is not that we can't come to agreement on some content issue, it's Merkey's conduct. -Amarkov moo! 23:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that we are making some progress, however miniscule at the moment. If that progress stalls, then I will initiate formal dispute resolution. I'm still not certain that ArbCom is to be preferred over mediation; ArbCom specifically says it's a last resort, but also mediation specifically says it's not a "try-out" for ArbCom. Pfagerburg 23:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you think meditation could accomplish. There's the position that Merkey is being disruptive, and the position that he is not. Nobody would accept a compromise between those, and that's all that meditation can really do. -Amarkov moo! 03:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~SCOX Message Board~~
I disagree with the actions of others who are posting regular updates of this AN/I, as well as any other articles which Mr. Merkey is editting. THAT IS NOT HELPING. I want this resolved through proper channels, not through "bait and snitch" from off-wiki. A careful review of my posting history will show that I have made incivil comments on that message board regarding Mr. Merkey, but have not advocated anyone trolling WP, nor "planned" troll forays onto WP. The other posters on that board are simply providing Mr. Merkey with fodder for "look, there's Elvis" to distract from the legal threats that I believe he is making.
An admin once said to me, "we do not want your off-wiki battles here." And so comments I have made about Mr. Merkey, unless they relate directly to disrupting WP, are relevant only as they help establish one reason that Mr. Merkey would have to dislike me. I don't think that they help prove Mr. Merkey's assertions that I am stalking him, trolling him, trying to shake him down for money, or am trying to get revenge for being a defendant (I wasn't) in a lawsuit he filed.
Per comments on my talk page, I think it's best to cool down for a bit. I'd like to continue the progress that was made in identifying exactly what sort of crime is being committed when someone claims to be an Indian, but not if it gets out of control again with accusations flying from all parties. I may still take this to dispute resolution.
Would the SCOX message board folks please lay off the WP goading? Criticise WP all you want for what you perceive are uneven applications of policy (I'm very much with you on that one), mock Mr. Merkey all you want, but please stop suggesting that people come here to disrupt WP, and please stop falsely claiming to be certain people who have been involved in some way, e.g. Proabivouac, Kebron, ThuranX, etc. Thanks. Pfagerburg 02:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, isn't that sort of like asking a bear not to take a shit in the woods? I understand the intent of your request Pfagerburg, but you are basically imploring trolls at an external site to stop trolling (and by "trolls" I mean those claiming to be the editors you mentioned or claiming to edit here; not everyone at the SCOX board... though I imagine this clarification can be ignored if someone wants to cheerily character assassinate me there). You'd probably have a better chance of getting everyone involved in this to hug, make up, and break into a spontaneous round of Kumbaya.--Isotope23 02:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least I'm on the record as having asked them to cut it out, and disagreeing with their methods. My point is that following proper procedures will accomplish a lot more than baiting him until he explodes. I advocate the former, but others are pursuing the latter. So you're probably right, fruitless. Pfagerburg 02:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, and to defend my rep, such as it is, I am NOT a SCOX troll, I don't know any SCOX trolls, and until about 20 minutes ago, I thought this was an anti-scottish thing. Instead, it's a FUCKING FLAME WAR off wiki!!! I can't say any more, because <sarcasm>OBVIOUSLY</sarcasm>, that would make me a SCOX troll. Why is an off-wiki flame war getting any real attention? Also, I'm ready for your apology, Mr. Merkey, as I am not a 'SCOX Troll'. ThuranX 03:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did Merkey call you a SCOX troll? What Pfagerburg refers to above is a SCOX poster who claimed to be you - another claimed to be me. It's really unfortunate if anyone believed that.Proabivouac 04:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. He did when he accused ALL who oppose him in any way as all being a part of the Anti-Merkey SCOX cabal, just above.[74] That was in response to a set of comments, right above, about his behavior, including where I opened my mouth. ThuranX 04:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Trollfest 2007~~
I am going to ignore this thread and go back to working on Native Herbal Articles, which is my project for this month. It would be nice for one of Wikipedia's admins has a sudden and uncontrollable epiphany and block these trolls and their threads of disruption. I think everyone had a clear picture. Now Pfagerburg is cross posting between SCOX and Wikipedia (to spam the search engines). I will not respond to this thread any longer. Here is the list:
User:Pfagerburg

User:Aim Here

User:Kebron
They have been repeatedly told to stay away from me, but have not gotten the message. I will be out of town until next tuesday on business in Texas. I may check in, but not at this page.
Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 03:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ongoing problems with User:Cjmarsicano and WP:NFCC~~
~~See previous report further up the page, and this latest attack on Quadell's talk page. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
It appears he has left the project due to his disagreements with the non-free content policies.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, I left because of ongoing problems Wikipedia has with itself. Might as well get one last piece of truth out on this godforsaken website. --CJ Marsicano 05:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it's obvious you left because you can't deal with the fact that the non-free content policies prevent you from using non-free photographs of living peoples. There are also questions concerning the actualy copyrights of photographs you claim are free to use.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left because WP:NFCC has no basis in reality. If there were questions about the actual copyrights of those photographs, that should have been addressed to me, but instead you simply joined in on the witchhunt. Not cool. --CJ Marsicano 05:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:NFCC is based on fair use law, which is built upon at WP:NFC#Law.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I have trouble believing that the current policy is really based on fair use law? Every image WP:H!P uploaded met with all criteria mentioned yet was still deleted. I don't think any of the witchunters who were attacking those images even knew what the real deal was with them or just didn't give a shit because they secretly liked the power that the new policy of sanctioned vandalism gave them. --CJ Marsicano 05:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Because, fair use law formed the policy before it was caled "non-free content." However, the criteria concerning living individuals was always there. It is just now being checked on. Free images of individuals solely to depict them such as Ai Kago are possible, and as such, the promotional photograph that is currently on the Ai Kago article should not be used, and that is why it is to be deleted, because a free image that performs the exact same purpose could be made.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Enough of the talk (and the doubletalk). If those so-called "free" images are there, then YOU are more than welcome to try and find them or take them. You'll find out how impossible it is firsthand, just like myself and the rest of WP:H!P have found. Go right ahead and try. You know who WP:H!P was covering. Do some Googling and try and find those images! When you find out the hard way that I was right all along, you know exactly how I can be contacted. -- CJ Marsicano, 06:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Although not necessarily in the specific instances you address, our fair use policies are on the whole more restrictive than they need be under United States law and, some of us believe, than they need be from a practical perspective (I, for one, have argued that there exist some broad classifications of media our blatant, untoward infringement of copyright relative to which is likely to pass without action, such that the benefit the project might derive should be greater than all of the prospective harms that might entail), but they are consistent, one supposes, with the principles of the licensing policy of the Foundation, as most prominently expressed in this March resolution, a generally accurate restatement/expansion of which is that free is more important than good, such that an image may be considered replaceable even where it is not readily or foreseeably actually replaceable. You may think this to be an eminently bad idea (I do), but it is one consistent with which one must edit (or, as you apparently [unfortunately] have elected, not edit) until the Board is convinced to reverse course or to permit individual projects more latitude to determine how they might prioritize "free" and "good". Joe 06:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I misunderstand you Joe, because it makes me sad to see you say that you would wish the Wikimedia Board to abandon its entire mission. .. and thats really what it seems like you're saying. The mission of the Foundation, and indeed Wikipedia itself, has always been firmly grounded in free content. While I would agree with the notion that within this mission of free content there is room for diverse behavior, what I wouldn't agree with is the notion that there is room to say that it is okay to compromise the freely licensed status of our works simply for the purpose of a nominal increase in quality. If I am misunderstanding your position, then perhaps you are misunderstanding the Foundation position, since the Foundation's only real hard position in this subject area appears that free content needs to be our priority. If the foundation were the sort of narrow viewed folks you seem to be suggesting they might have just prohibited non-free materials entirely (just as the French, Spanish, Portuguese, and German Wikipedia communities have chosen to do on their own).--Gmaxwell 16:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the template at the bottom of his page {{WikimediaNoLicensing}} ~~a real~~ an authorized template? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page of that template has further information about it. --Hemlock Martinis 06:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Full protection pending release of Harry Potter?~~
~~Copied from WP:RFPP for a fuller hearing.~~
~~Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~
Full Protection - It's been IP-protected for a while, but recently a lot of registered users have been making bad edits to the article. Also, a partial copy of the book has been released in the past 24 hours, and if people read the first half of the book, they should not be able to edit in the plot to the article before the book comes out (they obtained the info for the article illegally, after all). I know this happened at least once yesterday, and no matter if the info was true or not (no way to tell, since the book is unreleased). The article should be locked until Saturday the 21st, when the book is released worldwide, and the plot can be edited in then. Miles Blues 06:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Actually, the book has been fully released, although there is no way of reconciling this with V. east.718 07:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
If people can't get away with semi-protection on Doctor Who episode articles, full-protection isn't happening for a popular book. The point of editing is that people can clean up the crap some IPs add, assuming it has merit. The point is for Wikipedia to be updated. That becomes impossible with full-protection. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot information from a leaked copy is probably not verifiable. Revert, warn and block aggressively, but full protection doesn't look like the right thing to do for such a hot topic. Kusma (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Protection isnt pre-emptive, besides it a dispute thats resolvable with the need for sourcing from WP:RS so watch revert warn Gnan garra 07:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~(ec) Wasn't the sixth season of 24 lcoked down fully after a leaked episode came out? hbdragon88 07:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~My limited experience with this situation was with the leak of The Wire, and nothing happened there. east.718 17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I think semiprotection should be sufficient. Just make sure lots of people are watching, and if anyone adds plot info before July 21, revert it. It's not verifiable. --Masamage ♫ 19:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with full protection (and almost requested it a few days ago). Just to put this into perspective: GameFAQs got DMCA notices about the leak. And yes, hbdragon, the sixth season page for 24 was full-protected due to the leak. Will ^(talk) 20:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with protecting it until the book release. In the event that this won't happen, can editors who aren't interested in the Harry Potter stuff add it to their watch list for a couple of days? Many of the people who are normally interested (if they're anything like me that is) are no longer looking at it until the book comes out. I would do it, but not at the risk of spoiling the book for myself. R. Baley 21:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support full protection on two counts: increased vandalism eager for false spoilers, and unverifiability of leaked info pre-release. Both give incentives to make others miserable by 'ruining it'. Also support Full Protection on the pages of the Characters Harry Potter, Snape, and Voldemort, as they will all be getting smakced with the same sets of vandals, I suspect. We've seen a vandal hit all pages related to a topic before, there's no reason to expect different, and some common sense to expect higher than average incidences. ThuranX 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
+ me. On the run-up to the book's release, it is undoubtly going to attract a very high ammount of vandalism. Nip the problem in the bud. Great # 8 21:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per ThuranX - full protection. The leaks, the hype, and the vandals are going to make babysitting this article a real pain. Rklawton 21:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the full protection of the Deathly Hallows page. In addition, I'd recommend a set of protections for main or prominent character pages like Harry Potter, Severus Snape, Lord Voldemort and so on. Then again, if it were up to me I'd full-protect the important ones then semi-protect every single Harry Potter article we've got until Monday. I can guarantee the vandal-fighters will be working hard all weekend across the encyclopedia, and I'll try to finish the book as fast as possible so I can assist. --Hemlock Martinis 21:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Full protection sounds good to me too. We're not in such a rush to scoop anyone- a few days of not much editing won't hurt anything. Friday (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
We can revert things easily enough. We don't do preemptive protection (much) and we don't want to make it a habit. So I don't see protection as justified yet, since it seems to be an entirely hypothetical problem right now. I added this to my watchlist, though, to help watch for vandalism. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No no no. High profile articles will attract vandals, yes. But they will attract many many many more curious readers. Semi protecting them is bad enough; for many it will be their first look at Wikipedia articles. They may get interested and want to contribute. They will not be able to if the first article they are interested in is protected with a big "keep the fuck away" banner. Semiprotection will stop the drive-by vandals. Any sleeper vandal accounts can soon be blocked (this is a good way to flush them out), I'm sure there'll be plenty of vandal-fighters and admins watching the article, especially at the weekend. Me, I'll be reading the book, but whatever. And I hope you won't consider people wanting to post the plot vandals if they do so properly. Wikipedia is not censored, and does contain spoilers. It's an encyclopedia, not TV Quick. Neil ╦ 21:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An uneditable page is a minor annoyance at best- what's the rush? Unwelcome spoilers are potentially quite irritating. Unless you're suggesting that anyone reading the article before the book gets what they deserve.. which is probably true. Friday (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They do get what they deserve, but that's not my point. Every month or so we go through the same debate on our highest-profile article of that day (the featured article), and we never fully protect (unless it goes batshit mental, and even then only for 15 minutes). We don't fully protect George W. Bush - even at the time of the last election - and that article gets more attention than the Deathly Hallows article ever will. The main thrust of this drive to full-protect the DH article seems to be to avoid spoilers, not because of vandalism. If that's the concern, don't read the bloody article 'til you've read the book. Neil ╦ 22:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that within minutes of the book release a plot summary will appear. As long as it's in a section labeled "plot" I think most people will skip it if they (1) don't want to be spoiled and (2) nevertheless want to read the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. You could even hide it in a hidey box for a week or so. Neil ╦ 22:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose a hidden box - we don't promote the book, we describe it like an encylcopedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kusma that information from an as yet unpublished book is not verifiable, and therefore should not be included. But is it relevant how the editors acquired that information? Does it matter for WP:V and WP:CITE that editors may have "obtained the info for the article illegally", as Miles Blues (talk · contribs) says? A ecis^Brievenbus 22:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~I don't see that it does. But unverifiable info does have to go, and before the book is officially released the plot is unverifiable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Neil, that (spoiler reduction) may be true for saturday morning, but we're talking about friday morning, BEFORE the release. Once it's 12:01 Sat AM Hawaiian ST, I'm fine with cracking the Full to Semi, which ensures that experienced editors can give a good plot, and only Manchurian Accounts will rise up to vandalize. Those are easiest to find and block once they activate. Full Protection till say, 6 AM saturday, ensuring that from Maine to Hawaii, it's not vandalized before release time, and then Semi for the weekend? New users can use the talk page to ask about inclusions. Neil is right that this will be an opportinity to show off Wikipedia. Let's show them that we can manage a major page traffic event in a way that keeps kids from seeing 'Harry Potter did hermoine in the butt' spammed up 1000x, while leaving the plot sumamries available. (And yes, I know Wikipedia's not censored, but neither is it a wall for graffiti, which is what 'Harry Potter and the Brown-Eyed Starfish' would be. NOT censored applies only to valid inclusions.) I think that having a clean, well monitored HP page would be a great way to show that parental concerns brought on by the media have been heard by the community, and our approaches are changing till we find what really works best. I hope that this expresses my opinion without seeming to denigrate any other views. ThuranX 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to please the media we are here to write an encyclopedia. Aditionaly the release time would appear to be 11.01 on the 20th UTC. No sure where the 6am number comes from.Geni 00:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is talking 6:01 AM EDT. Smartyshoe 01:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do Hawaii, Maine, and Manchuria have to do with the release of a British novel? --Tony Sidaway 00:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no need for full protection. The article is already headed by a "future book" tag and it's been semi-protected for weeks now. On historical precedent, I'd say that our Harry Potter-related problems are most likely to be "Snape-kills-Dumbledore"-style spam turning up all over the encyclopedia for a few days, and possibly attempts to use Wikipedia as a repository for pirated copies of the entire source. --Tony Sidaway 00:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need for protection; I agree. On the other hand, accounts like this one can be blocked on the spot--obvious bad faith, no need for the usual warnings game. Chick Bowen 00:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as has been clear from today's edits, there are still potentially worthy topics regarding the book which may yet come to light before the release other than the book's contents. The nature of this being a book release and not a film or tv show thus precludes any attempt to reconcile the leak's actual content with the plot thru WP:V - as of yet. The possibility also still exists that this leak may be verified by a reliable source. While I doubt that and would guess that the PR machine will deny it to the last, this in no way diminishes the fact that other sections besides the plot may very well warrant editing. Girolamo Savonarola 02:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think full protection is justified. Granted, spoilers are going to be appearing on the article, so if you want to find out how the series ends by actually reading the book, don't go near that article and let other admins who don't care about Harry Potter handle the cleanup. --Cyde Weys 03:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I will say is this. We follow the spirit of the Wikipedia policies, not the letter. The reason the protection policy says "don't protect from anticipated vandalism" is so that overeager admins don't go around protecting articles they think might possibly be vandalized some time in the future, maybe. It's a sensible policy. However, we can say with 100% certainty that many vandals will be attacking Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and similar articles in the next 5 days, if not more (they've already attacked it several times while the page was semi-protected). Why should we sit on our hands and say "well, policy says we can't protect this page" when common sense says we would be doing many people a service by protecting the page? Now, I personally don't care about the spoilers (in fact I've already seen what I know to be the legitimate spoilers) but millions of people around the world do. Okay, not all of them read Wikipedia and even fewer of them will read this article before the book comes out, but to me it seems arrogant to say "well, this is an encyclopedia - why should we care about such things as spoilers?" Well, more than an encyclopedia, it's (supposed to be) a service to the world, and to me the benefits of protecting the page outweigh the negatives. But you know, I've said a lot of stupid idiotic things in the past so maybe it will turn out that not protecting the page was the correct option. At least I hope so... ugen64 04:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Ugen, what's to prevent us protecting the page after the vandalism starts? We're not sitting on our hands--we have our hands at the ready. Chick Bowen 04:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see 8 obvious instances of vandalism in the past 24 hours (only counting the ones where the vandal blanked the page and replaced it with stuff, which are easy to see - didn't look through every single revision). This is after semi-protection. Obviously that kind of vandalism is easy to handle (it only requires 1 user to be active at #vandalism-en-wp, since this site is on the watchlist), but there's still 3 days to go until release and news about the spoilers just broke on the major news outlets (which means even more people will read the spoilers, and of course some of those people will decide to post them on Wikipedia...). ugen64 05:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are still substantive edits going on, even today. Apparently, despite the protection request being declined on RFPP, someone decided to pull the trigger on this one. I don't think it's warranted - the number of vandals is outweighed by the incumbent semi-protection and large number of eyes watching and watchlisting the article. Myself among them. Girolamo Savonarola 06:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Protection seems like a bad idea to me. If people are so keen to vandalise Wikipedia with plot info from the book, they're going to do it. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is going to be the focus and people who don't want to be spoiled will be avoiding that article like the plague. If we fully protect it that vandalism will spread to other articles - which will make it far harder to keep people "un-spoiled". It seems to me better to keep that article open to editing so that vandalism is contained as much as possible to a highly watchlisted page (which people can avoid if they want to make sure they don't find out what happens before they read the book). WjBscribe 06:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The book is completely available online, and people will edit the article to include such details, and given that the book is, in fact, available to a number of people to read, it will have been read and processed. This seems to me like people who don't want the book spoiled, yet they seem to really WANT it spoiled given that they're reading the article, which will invariably contain Snape kills Dumbledore style stuff, in addition to the actual plot summary. The plot summary should be marked as a spoiler, but that's it. Wikipedia is not censored and doesn't care if it spoils stuff for you; don't read pages on Harry Potter if you don't want it spoiled until you've read the book. Titanium Dragon 06:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Bot reversed real change. Bot info page linked to here~~

~~Resolved~~
I am user:72.8.105.17. I edited SmartMove (see the log) and a bot reversed my changes saying it was auto-fixing things it thought were Spam. Not being Spam, my comments want to get back in the article. 07:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Done. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Tenacious editing claim~~
Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was asked by me to not post my name in a talk page heading as I feel it is being done just for the purposes of harassment. I asked him to not do this here, here, here and and after he changed it to "with one editor who insists on being unnamed here" I again changed it back to eliminate the heading and told him to stop being a tenacious editor here. He has decided to reinsert the childish comment in the talkpage heading again here. This editor constantly skirts just this side of 3RR, and edit wars to the point of ad nauseum constantly to WP:OWN articles. He has been blocked for 3RR and other reasons more than 15 times, including sockpuppet use to evade 3RR in the past and as I mentioned, his efforts now are barely contained by the arbitrary 3RR rule which he constantly just squeaks under as if it is an entitlement. He has broken 3RR adding this stupid finger pointing to the heading and frankly, I am tired of his tenacious editing. I'm not looking for an indefinite block, but something needs to be done here to address his baiting commentary, his soapboxing and his neverending edit warring.--MONGO 09:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the offending title, and deleted the whole of the off topic bickering. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) *Personally looking at these edits - I consider the guideline at WP:3RR that states Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive to be valid. I appreciate Theresa's removal at this time however if Giovanni33 reverts and given Mongo has informed us that he has been blocked before for violation of this rule, and that the record shows such - and that his edits are disruptive I will be prepared to block if the content is returned. --VS ^talk 09:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As would I. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had plenty of arguments to deal with his comments on the talkpage, but was spending all my time reverting his fingerpointing....how does one deal with such tenacious and constant edit warring on every single article he edits on?--MONGO 09:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My advice would be to ignore the baiting and add the arguments instead. Taking the higher ground is always a good move (although often difficult). Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to do that when there is no evidence he is willing to compromise. He constantly edits to 3RR and not over and reverts any efforts to really make articles neutral. He was protected thrice recently from 3RR since they were "borderline" cases and he knows that.--MONGO 09:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well you could start an rfc. If the community backs you up, he can be asked to drop down to one revert a day. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict again) As you know I have recently had similar difficulty with an editor. It's not easy because some others will consider that you are edit-warring ... however as an apparently wise editor suggested to me recently post here or at AN to have a completely neutral admin examine the evidence ... and I guess the sooner you do that the better.--VS ^talk 09:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome admins to review the content dispute and Mongo's behavior (as well as mine) to attempt to resolve it. The article is Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki [[75]] [[76]]
When I saw Mongo had followed me to the article to revert my addition, I did not edit war with him. I went to talk and added this section titled, appropriately "edit conflict with Mongo over use of term state terrorism". This I felt was a fair characterization. I wrote the following to resolve the dispute on talk: "I added this characterizing term, as many have used it, and as such is notable and fair to state, in the following opening sentence under the opposition section: "A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes, crime against humanity, and/or state terrorism. " Mongo has reverted my addition, even the softened compromise version added by another editor (which I accept). I have reverted Mongo, as I feel his justification is not valid. He states "POV" but that is exactly what NPOV calls for--that we report on all the notable POV's, using reliable sources. To suppress some POV's that you don't like, in fact, is POV pushing itself. But, in the spirit of discussion and not edit warring, I bring my case here and invite Mongo to make his. I'm sure we can reach consensus on the dispute."[[77]] I think my tone was rather civil, and I assumed good faith, looking for consensus on that matter, and avoiding edit warring, as a good experienced editor should.
The section title, I thought, was fair, as it was clear it was just Mongo who was disputing my edit. Note that two other editors reverted Mongo as well, and restored my edit, but Mongo kept reverting, a total of 3 times--3 different editors, instead of using the talk page to resolve the dispute, as an experienced editor should know to do. To have the title section on talk simply say there was a dispute about the term, I thought would give undue weight, that it would be more accurate to represent the conflict as just one editor who was reverting everyone else (the fact). So I said "edit conflict with Mongo." There was nothing harassing about that. Mongo should assume good faith. Finally when he ordered me to not use his name, even though he ignored my question asking him for a reason why he objected, I did what he wanted and removed his name in good faith. Still, it’s important to point out its still just one editor who this conflict is about (but did not name him). [[78]] When Mongo finally responded to the content dispute, I was looking to resolve amicably, he choose instead only to attack me, and bringing up my past block log of last year, and other irrelevant issues--talking about the editor instead of the content of my edits. This I feel was wrong as it was disruptive, and counter productive.
As I stated,, this kind of response from Mongo has been, sadly, typical: instead of addressing the argument itself, he instead engages in an ad hominem fallacy by attacking me, and threatening me with an indef. block. Bullying and edit warring in place of reasoned argument to advance his POV is also not appropriate. Raising red herrings, and attacks on the editor, at attempts to poisoning the well, may be the result of a lack of argument over the content issue, but do not belong on the talk page of the article. As another editor told him on talk after leaving that off topic attack to stop it: [[79]], Mongo ignored this request, and continued along the same lines by avoiding the content of my edits, seeking to resolve the dispute, and instead talking about my past, making threats, and generally being disruptive.
I will point out that last time I was blocked for making more than 3 reverts within 24 hours, was last last year. As anyone who following my edits, I use the talk page extensively and work with editors of all points of view to reach common ground, and with an improvement of the article and NPOV at heart. As is evidenced by this very incident, I edit by consensus. See the other articles where disputes were similarly resolved in proper fashion. Mongo, on the other hand, seems to not be able to conduct himself properly on controversial articles. Not only does he regularly edit war, but also he is not civil, attacking other editors instead of addressing the dispute. I invited him to discussing and make his case on talk (as I did) but his choice was to edit war. His sole use of the discussion page was not to discuss, but to attack the editor he disagreed with. I suggest if Mongo would simply start using and applying the WP policies that he often accuses others of violating, we'd have a lot less problems and a lot more progress. As far as his other attack on me here, I wont dignify them with further response except to say that he appears to be objectively describing his own behavior--not mine.Giovanni33 10:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the dispute on the article, but I do know that edit warring over the title on the talk page was childish. Being able to pick your battles is a key skill to cooperative editing. The title was a battle that wasn't worth fighting over you were foolish to edit war over it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, which is why I removed his name, as he asked, and asked that he instead talk about the real issue, which he was avoiding. Thanks for removing the rubbish that never belonged on that talk page, btw. I do hope Mongo will discuss the content dispute, instead. I look forward to working with all POV's, and think articles benefit best that way.Giovanni33 10:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be pedantic. I asked you four times to not edit war over adding my name to the heading which you were doing just to be disruptive. One other editor, not two disagreed with me...all in the space of a few minutes...lets see how many come along to disagree with you before you continue to try and own articles and add edits without a real consensus to do so.--MONGO 10:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only one editor disageed with you? Really? Then why are you reverting these two other editors, in addition to myself? That a lot of reverting (with no use of the talk page, other than making attacks):

You revert this editor, who agreed with my edit:[[80]]

And this one:[[81]]

And this one:[[82]]

This shows its you who edits by edit waring and reverting and not by discussing and seeking consensus. Its shows you think you OWN the article. The proof is the talk page and your actions. You edit warred with all and any editor who opposes you. And you had zero attempts on talk to even attempt to address the problem you had with the edit despite my repeated attempts to get you to address it. Instead you choose to pick on the title of the section, which I explained to you my good faith reasons for its description--and asked you to explain your objection (which you ignored). I'm sorry but the evidence here about who is the one being disruptive is rather clear. You say you don't have time to address the actual content of article you are edit waring over, but you sure do have a lot of time to attack the editors instead (including starting this ANI.Giovanni33 10:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wake up call...this is about you repeatedly adding my name to the subheading on the talkpage...that was what I was complaining about. I asked you nicely at first, less so the second time and even less so the third. By the time I had to ask you the fourth time it became necessary to clarify that your edits were tenacious. I'm not the one with three close call lately for 3RR, you are. I'm not the one with a block log which shows more than a dozen different people who have blocked you for various reasons. I'm not the one who has been proven by checkuser to have used socks to evade 3RR. My comment that you routinely edit war right up to 3RR is not some kind of delusion on my part. As I said, the edits to the article in question happened in a very short period of time...so lets see if they stand.--MONGO 10:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guys , stop it please. The both of you. This is not the place.Mongo came here because he was unhappy about his name being used in a talk page section title. That issue has been resolved. Let it be now. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~I second Theresa's comments above. Suggest you both move to different corners of wikipedia for a while - plenty of other articles to concentrate on for now.--VS ^talk 11:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I tried to stop this by using archiving templates but MONGO reverted them. Looks like the arguments will continue for a while. --Deskana (talk) 11:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not by me. I listened to Theresa knott. Mongo did not, and keeps going at it, but I although I'd love to respond, I'll not take the bait for the sake of the greater good of WP and this board. Its not the place and I dont want to contribute to his disruption of it.Giovanni33 11:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now at 3RR as I said...added, 1 revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert...when shall it stop, Giovanni33? Just in 10 hours, just on this one article alone...see WP:TE for guidance.--MONGO 11:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you forgert that you hit 3RR way faster than I did on that article (with no use of the talk page to boot)--so does that mean that what you claim of me, more applies to yourself than it does to me? You were at 3RR in less than just only 3 hours.Giovanni33 11:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has someone filed an RFC on this user yet? Clearly a problematic user (good community members don't get blocked 15 times, sockpuppet, and edit war ad nauseum). The Evil Spartan 00:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm sure editors on here don't need me to point out that The Evil Spartan's comments need to be taken with a grain of salt. I note here he has requested a user check and made some rather serious allegations, such as that "I have it out for Mongo." [[83]]Let me first say that while this user check request is really without any valid basis, actually, I'm perfectly open with any user checks done on me--for any reason, and any time. I feel I made a promise to User:Musical Linguist, an admin I now greatly admire for her fairness (I'm sure those who know her feel exactly the same way), and never again would I ever even consider breaking the rules, getting unfair advantages on content disputes. I, ofcourse, regret my past rough learning curve on getting "broken in" to the norms of the WP community concerning its rules, but I've come out of it rather grateful with a new found respect for WP and the very rules I, shall I say, took casually. In any case, any suspected Socket puppetry inquires against me, has my complete support. I stand now and shall forever remain free of such behaviors. So all this talk of my past block log, socks, etc. is ancient history, stuff of last year, bring brought up by POV warriors, due to losing article content disputes. Its a special case of argumentum ad hominen--poisoning the well fallacy. I guess they feel that rather ugly block log gives them some capital. However, if you look closely, you will see only 6 blocks for 3RR and all from last year. Also, there are some false blocks that were quickly overturn by other admins. Anyway, this is all old news, and not relevant to anything happening now.

Regarding Spartans claims, I have nothing against Mongo personally, but I have spoken out against his behaviors, esp. when he is uncivil to other users (esp. just because they are not from the US). I hate all forms of bigotry and do my part to speak up against violations of CIV, esp. along such unacceptable lines as I've seen engage in, which apparently is a pattern with a long history:MONGO (rv, antiwar foreigners pushing their POV)[84] MONGO (rv...the australian news piece is mostly opinion from a foreign newspaper, the wording was clearly POV in the remainder of the information.)[85] The most recent, he reverts a content dispute, and called it “vandalism,” when it was clearly just content dispute. But, he did an IP trace to make sure to attack him/her for where he was editing from—his country. And, used a nativist assumptions based in rather ugly bigoted reasoning in an attack on the users national origin, as indicative of proof that he was “anti-American"--judging him based on his nationality:"06:04, 4 July 2007 MONGO (Talk | contribs) (61,303 bytes) (revert vandalism by anon IP, soon ot end up blocked...shoul we belive than an editor from Brunei Darussalam is not anti-American? I think not.)"[[86]]I understand he has strong POV issues, and has friends who share his conservative POV (and thus edit war together), on article content, with other editors, including myself. But, I have not violated the 3RR rule on article content and instead work with editors from all POV's to reach consensus for the good of the article. Needless to say, to claim that I "have it out for Mongo," is a rather absurd and paranoid claim because I don't take anythign on here personally. However, I call a spade a spade and stand up for editors who are unfairly attacked. If someonr bullied and attacked Mongo the way he has done so to other users, I'd stand up for him and call out the other users incivil behavior as equally unacceptable. For me the onlly issue is following the communities rules, applied equally to everyone. Civility, Assuming Good Faith, No Personal Attacks, are not optional luxuries, they are core policies no one is above. If Mongo doesnt violate them, I have no problem with him at all. I only oppose certain behaviors that are inconsistent with the rules we should all be following, and that includes behaviors like this--the most recent examples-- which I find rather shocking that he is not already blocked for it:[[87]]Giovanni33 01:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go figure...you never work with other editors who have a contrary set of information than you do. All you do is edit war and if you don't get your way, you billboard the article talkpages with lengthy rants about why your edit is right and the ones aren't. I have no doubt I could easily detail your edit warring on virtually every article you work on, your POV pushing, soapboxing, baiting and attempts to OWN articles. Don't tempt me.--MONGO 06:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's enough for me. MONGO, if you want to file an RFC, I will sign it, if I'm around. The Evil Spartan 16:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~User:Smatprt violations~~
At least six editors including myself have complained here [[88]] about the user smatprt and his mission to mention the Earl of Oxford in all the Shakespeare articles. When his edits are deleted he restores them ad infinitum. Unless he is banned he will ruin the Shakespeare project. (Felsommerfeld 09:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Not being a Shakespeare buff can I ask - are these edits vandalism or some other blocking offence such as three revert? If so a report to WP:AIV may be more worthwhile? If not then I suggest your put a citation request template next to those additions where he mentions the Earl of Oxford and if it is not verified shortly it can be removed (probably with a talk page comment to keep us all in the loop) at any time by any editor.--VS ^talk 11:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try clicking on the link to WP:AN, VS. Bishonen | talk 16:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Yes I did click on the link Bishonen - the detail does not come up as conclusive. I also noted no recent warnings in relation to this issue on the editors page and no recent dif's provided above since the AN discussion to assist us in coming to a quick conclusion.--VS ^talk 00:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)PS And I note that no apparently no other admin has acted on this request to ban the editor?--VS ^talk 00:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Jat78- Misusing Wikieditor Powers~~
Please investigate this fellow. He is pushing a POV on many Jat related articles. He is pushing a POV and threatening people with bans and calling them idiots when challenged. This is not the impression one wants to give to the outside world the wikipedians are pushing POV and abusing those that are giving a valid contribution to wiki articles.--Sikh-history 10:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Diffs...? Viridae ^Talk 11:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~User:Dhaval akbari persistently spamming on Laser~~

~~Resolved~~
On 17 July 2007 User:Dhaval akbari and User:61.246.200.90 have been persistently putting spam into Laser, including links to http://www.sahajanand.co.in/ , and repeatedly after being reverted. These two users have done no edits except to Laser and to upload two company logos. Anthony Appleyard 11:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Warn appropriately (WP:UTM), report to AIV if necessary. Next. Viridae ^Talk 12:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the {{uw-spam}} series are appropriate for this matter. Sala Skan 12:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Minutes to Rise sock~~
Minutes to Rise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently indefblocked because Checkuser confirmed he was a sock of a vandal. Minutes to Rise was an SPA intended to provoke edit wars over music genres, and now he has continued under the IP 87.167.210.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I'm sure it is him because he continued trolling over the same articles as Minutes to Rise did, and his IP is in the same range as a confirmed sock of his (87.167.226.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)). Sala Skan 12:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Epeefleche taking Tecmo's indefinite ban a little too well--attempting to undo everything--comments, edits, etc~~
Epeefleche (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Epeefleche struck through all of Tecmo's comments on the Shoeless Joe Jackson talk page. His reasoning was that since Tecmo was now indefinitely banned (community ban), and his comments were no longer relevant. I undid the edit and left him a note about it, reminding him that talk pages were archives of previous conversations. He struck through comments going back two weeks and has made the talk page unreadable, at least for me.
He's done this on the talk pages of Dummy Hoy, Trading card Baseball card, Ichiro Suzuki, Frank Robinson, Mel Off and that's just from a quick look.
He's also going through and undoing a lot of Tecmo's old edits with edit summaries like "Restored ELs deleted by user now banned indefinitely for disruptive editing" [89]. If you look at the link in question, it's obvious that Epeefleche is again wholesale reverting on the basis that Tecmo made the edit. Four of them are called fan sites by the article description--that doesn't even require going to the site to see if it belongs there or not. Just reading the section would tell you that there's something to the removal.
Tecmo was a very distruptive editor--that's why he was indefinitely banned. But a lot of his edits were worthwhile, and using the indefinite ban of a user you lost a content dispute to is not ok. Epeefleche and Tecmo got into a major content dispute over removing ELs while Tecmo was around, and since Epeefleche would never say what his issue was with Tecmo's edits, I eventually got involved as a go between, and after that and a User_talk:Epeefleche#Third_Opinion, Epeefleche stopped, for a short while anyone, reverting Tecmo without explaining why. This isn't a content dispute--it can't be since Epeefleche has refused steadfastly to state what his issue was with Tecmo's cleaning of ELs (besides for the fangraphs, we know that one).
I'm trying very hard to assume good faith, but Epeefleche's actions look like, and sound like he's just going through and undoing Tecmo's presence here:

“ Is there any "automatic delete of all edits ever made by person x" function? That would be a good feature for admins, to deter people like Tecmo whose personality traits make it difficult for them to control their sock behavior. ”

[90]
Last time Epeefleche went on a Tecmo reverting spree, he reinserted dead links, vandalism, etc. It appears that much of the same is happening. Tecmo removed a florida marlins mlb EL from the Juan Pierre article "(as he is no longer with the team)". Epeefleche re-inserted that EL on his undoing Tecmo train. His edit summaries are either blank, or refer to Tecmo's ban or sockpuppetry, and none of those are helpful to editors of articles--the content, not the editor is what's supposed to be important.
This has been going on since the end of May and it's ridiculous that's it's going on even after Tecmo's been indefinitely banned. I'm requesting that Epeefleche be told to stop messing up talk pages (his endless notifications of Tecmo's indef ban should be more than adequate) and to undo the ones he's already done. Also, any edits related to Tecmo should provide an edit summary that refers to the content, not the editor. A lot of Epeefleche's edits are good, even one's related to this issue. But there's a clear editor related bias here, and if Epeefleche continues to go through Tecmo's old contributions and revert him, he should provide content related reasons for doing so (not personal reasons)--that means actually looking at the material and going through it. So if Epeefleche sees that Tecmo removed some good ELs, he doesn't put back in dead links, irrelevant links and sites removed for good reason (open wikis, commercial, fan sites, no unqiue content, etc).
I'd attempt to talk to Epeefleche about this myself and work things out, but I don't see a point, considering his recent accusations toward me.
Tecmo is banned, his talk page is protected--I don't know why I'm still seeing grievances about Tecmo this and Tecmo that everywhere. I said on the community sanction noticeboard that nothing would change with Tecmo's ban unless the other editors changed as well. Tecmo is gone--it's really preposterous that he's still the reason behind everything problematic. Miss Mondegreen talk 12:57, July 17 2007 (UTC)
Comments made by banned users after they are banned are reverted to enforce the ban, the relevance of a comment has nothing to do with it. Striking comments through, from before the banning at that, with a "no longer relevant" reason seem to serve a whole other purpose. --Van helsing 13:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Van helsing--Thanks. I agree with you that Wiki guidelines state that banned users comments after they are banned are revertable, without regard to may the merits of the edits themselves." I would add that the banned users' user pages (including, presumably, comment they may have made on them) may be replaced by a notice of the ban and links to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages. "The purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned user's edits." (emphasis added) As to your reaction to the "no longer relevant" language that Miss M attributed to me, that is not what I said -- what I did say, consistent with the rationale in WP:BAN, was as she subsequently accurately quoted, that the strikethroughs were made "to reflect that Tecmobowl is a former user who was banned indefinitely for disruptive editing." That accords with the rationale clearly stated by WP:BAN underlies the replacement (not, as here, the softer strikethrough) of comments by a banned user, on his talk page, before he was banned.--Epeefleche 23:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments made by banned users after they are banned? Technically--is that possible? The only striking out of others' comments that I see regularly is during voting--sockpuppets, users with 2 edits--that sort of thing. Miss Mondegreen talk 14:39, July 17 2007 (UTC)
So on the same vein, striking through the comments of convicted Tecmo sockpuppets is also inappropriate? Obviously, there the commenting is inappropriate, but striking it through or deleting it really destroys talk pages as records. Miss Mondegreen talk 20:49, July 17 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if a user circumvents his ban through using multiple accounts, or logged out edits, and this isn't found out immediately. Also, sometimes the decision of a ban has been made but not been implemented as a block yet. >Radiant< 14:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Epeefleche has a history of hounding and harassing people he disagrees with; this appears to be another symptom of the same. Generally his response to a "please don't do that" is an lengthy answer that based on his reading of some particular policy page, he can do just that, either missing or ignoring the point, and continuing unrelentingly. I'm not sure how to tackle this, but the general point is that just because a user got banned at some point doesn't mean that he never made any worthwhile contributions (if he had, he would have been indefblocked much earlier). >Radiant< 14:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about Epeefleche but I'm getting concerned about what I might find if I look hard enough. From my early dealings with Tecmobowl, he was an editor with good intentions but his combination of extreme boldness and a short fuse made an indefblock almost inevitable. But for the most part, I tended to agree with the actual edits he made and even asked his opinion on content-related matters on an occasion or two. I regret that I was not watching closely enough when the Tecmo pot finally boiled over but I may start looking more closely. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Talk page edit warring~~
There's now edit warring on the talk page of Shoeless Joe Jackson. Epeefleche made the initial edit, and Baseball Bugs has kept reverting everyone who undoes it. I've cited Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (don't edit someone else's comments and talk pages are records) and User:Van helsing cited Wikipedia:Banning policy (it is inappropriate to bait banned users or take advantage of their ban to mock them), and reverts are still being done with edit summaries like "There is nothing in the policy to support your statements."
Additional, Epeefleche added the following comment to the top of the page, supposedly to deal with my concernt that when someone looks at a comment that's been stuck, they assume that they editor struck their own comment:
**NOTE Regarding Strikeouts Below: All strikeouts below of Tecmobowl's comments have been made by others to reflect that Tecmobowl is a former user who was banned indefinitely for disruptive editing.--Epeefleche 14:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Not only does this seem to be real piling on, but it also seems really inappropriate that the talk page of an article is prefaced with information about a user. This also has brought the entire talk page to a halt, which doesn't help the article--which has been protected for over a month for an inability to discuss anything related to Tecmo in any way shape or form without losing all sensibilities. Two editors currently are at three reverts (including me, btw), and this is just a recipe for disaster. I'd even take temporary full talk page protection right now--that would be better than attempting to use the talk page as a talk page and a battleground. Miss Mondegreen talk 20:38, July 17 2007 (UTC)
He's banned, but that isn't carte blanche to revert everything he's ever done here; that is just disruptive and vindictive. If he socks and returns his additions can future additions can be reverted per WP:BAN and WP:DENY; but that doesn't apply to previous content. I left a message at Talk:Shoeless Joe Jackson with fair warning that future disruption may lead to blocks.--Isotope23 20:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvolved Admin's Comments Should I presume that it is my unfamiliarity with the history here that gives me the impression that User:Epeefleche is acting in a similar manner which got User:Tecmobowl banned - editing to an individual agenda, removing content on the basis of the source and not its notability, and not engaging in discussion? LessHeard vanU 21:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvolved Editor's Comments Sure sounds like it to me. This sounds like a ridiculous vendetta, out to thoroughly discredit all of Tecmo's contributions to the project, which is NOT what a ban necessarily represents. As noted above, he had good contribs but a bad persona for the project. That doesn't invalidate all his efforts, and I would like to flat out clearly request that an admin roll back each and every incidence of strikeout as being in and of itself bad faith and incivilty of the gloating sort, and further disruptive to the project by making it unnecessarily hard to read the whole discussion in any section Tecmo contributed to. ThuranX 22:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Epeefleche now editing archives~~
~~Epeefleche is adding messages like this one to archives (ANI, Community Sanction, etc):~~

~~“ Tecmo has been banned indefinitely for disruptive editing. In addition, subsequent to his ban a sockpuppet of his was created and banned indefinitely as well. ”~~

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive257 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive257 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive259 Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive10
This is getting seriously out of hand. Can we just declare that he has a COI in re Tecmo and say hands off? The number of edits needing to be undone is mounting--he moves fast. I hate to say this, but this is, in many regards (speed for one) Tecmo-like editing. Miss Mondegreen talk 21:02, July 17 2007 (UTC)
~~Archives not ongoing discussions and not subject to editorializing. I've undone his edits there. I agree with your suggestion. >Radiant< 08:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Miss M Misstatements~~
Miss M makes certain misstatements above.
First, as background, Tecmo was banned indefinitely for disruptive editing (after a number of shorter bans, for repeated sockpuppetry, disruptive editing, and 3RR). At nearly every step of the way, Miss M defended Tecmo and attacked those who brought his disruptive editing to light, including the admins who banned him. Her behavior appears to be continuing here, even after Tecmo's indefinite ban.
Even after his indefinite ban, Tecmo has come back as a sockpupet, and Miss M had defended the sock. The sock has now been banned as well.
Tecmo left behind his comments on article discussion pages, and user talk pages. Many state his positions as to what Wikipedia policy allows, in an authoritative manner (akin to that struck by Miss M). Others are disruptive comments, in which he engages in conflict with other editors. Another editor, an admin I believe, first struck though some of such comments after his ban. I followed in kind, with a note on the history page that they are comments of an editor who was banned for disruptive editing.
Miss M quarrelled with that approach, fighting for the banned user's comments to remain without strikethroughs. Another user just joined her. They reverted my strikethroughs on a number of such pages. I am referring to Tecmo's comments from before the ban -- but it was of course Tecmo's disruptive comments and actions before the ban that led to Tecmo being banned. I have not reverted/deleted Tecmo's comments. Nor archived them. Simply left them there, with strikethroughs -- and the explanation, so later readers can (de)value his comments appropriately.
WP:Ban does not provide direct guidance. It does provide background to this issue, in that it addresses appropriate treatment of the banned user after the ban. It states that any of such edits "may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves.... Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users."
It also provides support for the "replacement" of the banned user's comments, and those of others, on the banned user's user page. That page, of course, is a talk page that can be anticipated to include comments by the banned user before the ban was put into effect. The rule states: "Banned users' user pages may be replaced by a notice of the ban and links to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages. The purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned user's edits. Unlike editors who have been temporarily blocked, banned users are not permitted to edit their user and user talk pages." [emphasis added].
The rationale for the strikethroughs is consistent with the above Wiki guidelines -- the purpose being "to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned user's edits." It is even less draconian, in that strikethroughs allow the reader to still see the banned user's edits. This is a softer approach than the reversion and replacement approaches that the guidelines suggest in the above instances.
Miss M's misstatement that I "would never say what [my] issue was with Tecmo's edits," is so great that it makes it difficult to assume good faith. One need only look at the extensive exhaustive discussion at [91], [92], the mediation page (where the mediator faulted Tecmo's behavior, citing it as the bar to effective mediation),[93], [94], and the Tecmo ban discussion[95] to see this -- as well as Miss M's other misstatements. Happily, the admins did a good job, and each case the bans were applied. It is troubling, however, that Miss M is again blatantly mistating facts in discussions.
Furthermore, as is reflected on those pages, that was not a one on one dispute -- as Miss M suggests. 17 editors were involved in the mediation case. Tecmo was a vociferous party of one who refused to follow the consensus of the vast majority of the number of editors who were involved in those discussions. And Miss M, supporting him and attacking all others who pointed to his disruptive activities, was a proxy of one.
Tecmo deleted 100s of good ELs. Miss M defended him. Tecmo was banned for his disruptive behavior. Miss M does not seem inclined to put back the good ELs that Tecmo deleted.
There is nothing whatsoever wrong in referring to the editor, by the way, as being banned when undoing the edits. Tecmo was always bothered by it, and for some reason Miss M appears to be. As the policy suggests, who the editor is bears upon his edits.
And yes, when Miss M said that her problem with striking through the edits was that other editors might not know why they were stricken, and assume the editor himself struck them (despite my having explained this in the edit summary), I responded to her concern by putting a note on the page indicating why the strikethroughs appear. She now protests that.
I'm puzzled by why Miss M has defended Tecmo and his disruptive edits each step of the way. She has attacked the admins who blocked him. She has attacked those who have reported him. She has misstated the facts. And even now, after all this, she seeks to keep his disruptive statements and edits in place. I don't know why, but I could imagine other more helpful endeavors for her than to act as a proxy might for a user who has been banned indef for disruptive behavior.--Epeefleche 22:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite an impressive speech. I note that it relates more to the editor who brought attention to your recent edits, however, and not the question in hand. Now, could you please confirm that you have been striking through all content and discussion by an editor (now banned) and why? I searched (and it would have been easier, folks, if somebody had provided the editors full username - Tecmobowl - at some stage) and found the appropriate page, and could find no consensus or even suggestion that Tecmo's other edits and comments should be actioned. Obviously, those specific actions which led to the indef block required resolving, but everything ever contributed by that individual? If there was the relevant wording in the decision, ~~or you could point me to the rule, policy or guideline,~~ advocating or agreeing your action I would be grateful if you could provide the diff(s). LessHeard vanU 12:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Blocked STEALTH RANGER~~
STEALTH RANGER (talk · contribs) has been blocked for a week for incivility, harassment, and being a pest. He's been warned numerous times. He's also threatening to write a bad newspaper article, or something like that. Here is a previous ANI thread.-Wafulz 13:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He blanked the contents of the talk page, so I've restored them temporarily so someone else can review them. He claims journalists are monitoring his talk page, so I've also posted contact information.[96] This is ridiculous.-Wafulz 13:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Image:Wikipedian protester.png~~
I have slapped a CSD13 tag on this image, as I'm pretty sure the uploader is not the creator of the cartoon. He does however state that, since it is licenced under CC Non-commercial, it cannot be used on any article, but it can be used on his own user page. That strikes me as odd, as non-free images can never be used in user space. --Edokter (Talk) 13:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original source is here [97]. Licnese appears to be correct.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted per WP:CSD#I3. Garion96 (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone else think that is absolutely hilarious? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Fva, and it's fairly true too. On a related note, this spawned a lot of vandalism on Hand.-Wafulz 14:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of the webcomic occasionally edits here as User:Xkcd. -- Merope 14:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had an email from the cartoonist on Saturday saying that he has relicensed the cartoon to CC 2.5 - if anybody is interested I can forward the emails to them. it is as funny as hell! Mike33 03:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~User:Stillstudying~~
I've had enough of attempting to put up with this user now. I believe User:Stillstudying is a sockpuppet of User:Oldwindybear, but I am giving Oldwindybear a chance to respond to the accusation before I bring it here. However, Stillstudying is now being disruptive in his own right. In the above thread, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block on New England, Stillstudying was irrationally demanding an apology from New England for claiming it wasn't Stillstudying that nominated Oldwindybear for adminship. In the middle of complaining about New England not apologising on User talk:Stillstudying, he then proceeded to vote oppose on an RfA that New England had supported, giving vague concerns about a lack of experience. Stillstudying now has a nice rant on his user talk page claiming how I retaliate at anyone who "dares to speak up against me". I've had about enough of this now, and I need uninvolved admins to help with this situation. --Deskana (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify- I need uninvolved admins to do something about this user before I do something I may later regret out of anger. --Deskana (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was an SSP on oldwindybear and Stillstudying in May '06 that never seems to have been addressed once it devolved into a mess. MSJapan 13:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't a checkuser being done? Or was there and I missed it? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deskana is probably stressed due to reasons that are partially my fault. Yesterday, I asked him to help me deal with my suspicion that Stillstudying is Oldwindybear's sockpuppet. I was (and am) not terribly familiar with the SSP/RFCU process, and don't have a lot of time to devote to Wikipedia this week, so he seems to have tried to pick up the slack. It isn't fair of me to hide behind him, and is probably adding to a large workload. Plus, it makes me out as a bit of a coward.
Please note that this is not a simple Deskana vs. Stillstudying dispute. I will officially file an SSP or RFCU report or something as soon as I get a reasonably long break from work today, and as soon as I can figure out how to do it. Deskana, you need not deal with this anymore, and sorry I dumped it on you. My own suggestion is to temporarily put his RfA comment back (no rush, it closes in the future), close this thread, let him yell at the top of his lungs on his user talk page, and wait for me to get my bearings. --barneca (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm clearly the evil guilty party, I've unstruck Stillstudying's vote from the RfA. No doubt Oldwindybear will agree with Stillstudying, as he always does. For the record, User:DeskanaTest agrees with me. But meatpuppets aren't allowed... or so I thought. --Deskana (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will respectfully suggest that given the past history here ([98], [99]), this is not an accusation to be bandied about lightly. Presumably you have some evidence for this beyond the fact that they're both quite upset over what happened with the recent RfA? (It's not like they're the only ones, after all; they just happen to be the most vocal.)

In any case, the better approach here is to try and defuse the situation rather than inflaming it further. Following Stillstudying around and publically striking his comments—in a case where they aren't likely to matter, no less—is rather unhelpful, in my opinion. Kirill 14:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone please close this thread and nip it in the bud? I promise I will file an RFCU before Oldwindybear starts posting this evening. I don't see how this thread helps anything. --barneca (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have advised User:Stillstudying of this thread, as it would appear no-one else has, which I find a bit discourteous. Pedro | Chat 14:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Pedro, and you're right, I'm sorry, wasn't planning on doing this today and am a bit flustered. --barneca (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problems at all. Pedro | Chat 14:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some significant evidence of sock/meatpuppetry can be found but contrib evidence alone is inconclusive. They seem to edit many of the same articles, often ask each other for help, agree with each other and there have been previous concerns raised, very suspicious first edit. Also, both start replies to comments with the sig of the user they are replying to. I would perhaps not consider this evidence as significant as I have if it were not the case that one of the users is an admin who seems to have only a single action so far. To sum up, very concerning but inconclusive and I would support a checkuser being carried out. GDonato (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that both do indeed start replies by using the name of the user they are replying to. However I note the OWB tends (not always but mainly) to use the unadorned signature (i.e. Pedro) whereas SS tends to cut and paste the code of the sig out (I noticed this as he misses the <span> style from the HTML of my sig, resulting in it going large and losing the padding.) So it would seem reasonable, on that at least, that SS ran into the way OWB starts his replies and just thought he'd follow a "convention". Pedro | Chat 14:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFCU filed I have filed a request for check user. It can be found here. I have notified the suspected accounts. barneca (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Open question, since this thread isn't going away: Am I supposed to file an SSP now, or wait for the RFCU, or what? --barneca (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, an SSP was opened up previously (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oldwindybear). It doesn't look like it was really fully investigated, though. -- Merope 15:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and a claim was made he was Pocklington Dan, also. I am sort of bemused by how I got involved in this. I do not approve of Stillstudying's comments, and do not support him in what happened yesterday or today. I support check user if it will resolve this. I do not use sock puppets - my only question echos kirill's, which is, how did I get caught up in this? I cannot see any evidence I am doing anything. (This is my only posting, let the system work! I trook off to go to the Library of Congress to research my Republic of Texas series, and am going, though I will not edit till this is resolved) {sorry! had to change computers, and forgot to sign in!} old windy bear 16:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to jump in with oil on the fire, but... having examined oldwindybear and Stillstudying's contributions back as far as I can, I can find no overlap at all. Now, I may have missed an edit here or there, but it's extremely odd that two people in the same time zone would never be editing simultaneously. Stillstudying tends to contribute in blocks in the middle of the day (UCT) - and interestingly, contributes primarily on weekdays and rarely on weekends or holidays (e.g. July 4th). A little odd for a grad student, but maybe they like to get outside. Oldwindybear contributes heavily in the evening and on weekends, and occasioanlly states he can't log in because he's at work. A suspicious person would add this up: their contribs never overlap despite living in the same time zone; one contributes on weekdays and the other on weeknights, weekends, and holidays; they follow each other around; Oldwindybear won't log on with his account from work; one logs in from DC and one from suburban Maryland ([100]); they're overly defensive about who nominated whom... there are rational explanations for any of these in isolation. Together they concern me. If these are two accounts, one being used from work and one from home, then checkuser is going to have a tough time. Something doesn't smell right here. Hopefully I'm just being overly paranoid. MastCell ^Talk 17:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Puppy is paranoid too, then. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Possibly un-checkuserable as noted, however, unless one or the other has slipped up in the past few weeks. Thatcher131 18:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to give in to my tendency to sarcasm, because innocent people are involved in this. Please do checkuser. It will show that the last year and a half, over 500 edits, I am no one but me. I have concentrated on books and movies. My only involvement with sites used by the bear is where he asked me, such as military history. One thing is clear to me: this situation is intolerable. People are now saying that checkuser won't show the truth. I am leaving wikipedia, today, and this is my last edit. I do ask you do checkuser to show the truth. But I am not going to be harrassed, and I don't want innocent people harassed. Stillstudying 18:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at this, too. To be even more paranoid - on the days when both edit - 17 July, SS edits 79 minutes after OW's last edit. 16 July - 59 minutes. 12/7 - OW edits 81 minutes after SS's last edit. 10/7 - SS edits 64 minutes after OW's last in the morning, OW edits 102 minutes after SS's last in the evening. 29/6 - 85 minutes... etc. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see User talk:Barneca/Draft SSP report. This is what I've been trying to organize in coherent form. --barneca (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
barneca (talk Well Barneca, I looked over your "evidence" and the fact that you say - and I am not convinced, I have not looked at every edit - that SS and I do not edit at the same time is "evidence" we are the same person. I ask in return, what about the pattern of editing? We don't edit the same topics, except where I tried to get him interested in military history, AS I DO FOR MANY EDITORS. (ask Jonas and Ewulp, to name two I did the same thing for!) A detailed look at his contributions show a different style, and different interests, his are primarily movies and books, while mine rarely enter into those areas. If I understand you correctly, you are trying to override check-user by saying it is possible, since we both, admittedly, live in the same metropolitan area, (by our talk pages), to be the same person. To support this, no offense, and to override the fact we had different basic interests, you say since he edited during the day, and I the evening, that we must, epso de facto, be the same person. No offense, but that is CRAZY. Would you like to offer a thought what I had to gain by editing over 500 edits, in different areas, over a year? 66 people, 64 if you discount the two you have identified, thought enough of me to vote me unopposed for admin. You pretty much concede that check-user will not support any charges, so you say to heck with that, if they didn't edit the same time - never mind they were editing different things most of the time - they must be the same person. I am sorry, but that is plain crazy. Finally, I will offer that if anyone contacts Jonashart, he will verify that while SS was arguing with people in wikipedia, I emailed him, telling him no good would come of it, and asking him to post a message asking SS to email me from my profile. Are you also saying then that I was similitaneously emailing Jonas to leave messages for myself while answring them? I am sorry, but you pretty much concede there is NO evidence except we may, if the two talk pages are correct, live within the same general metropolitan area. I am sorry, but that is really stretching it, and as Kirill says, this has become a fishing expedition. I have tried to be patient, but this has gone into the realm of the downright silly. Bluntly, you have not even offered enough real evidence to even warrant check-user, but as you probably know check-user won't show us to be the same, you are now saying, ah-hah, they planned this out, and what evidence is there? Where are the same interests, the same type edits? His shining achievement was a rewrite of The Searchers, the film, and if you study that rewrite, and the peer review, it is totally different from my style of writing. We are supposed to assume good faith, to override it, to go big brother, to quote you, to have compelling evidence. You have NO evidence, except the admitted fact we may live within the same 10 million person metropolitan area! This is sad. old windy bear 23:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Oldwindybear:
" Confirmed that Stillstudying is the same user as Finishedwithschool. (Not too surprising, given the names.)
Jonashart and Oldwindybear are Unrelated -- no IP-relationship exists between them or the other two. Other than Jonashart, they're all in the same major metropolitan area."
See Herefor the diff. New England ^{(C) (H)} 03:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Stillstudying and Finishedwithschool both supported OWB at WP:RFA. That's sock abuse. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also double voting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macrohistorical battles tied to the existence of European civilisation and consensus stacking here and here and here. And now the little exchange at User talk:Finishedwithschool#Please look at The Searchers is a bit spooky. No wonder Stillstudying apparently left Wikipedia. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does that open up the possibility of OWB going to Arbcom. And the argument could be made that OWB is a Meatpuppet. New England ^{(C) (H)} 03:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow that line of reasoning. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First the arbcom thing: since his RFA was initiated by a sockpuppeteer who commited vote fraud, it could mean his RFA was "not kosher". And OWB and SS could be meatpuppets, or not the same user but two different users acting together. New England ^{(C) (H)} 03:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to the RFA, an extra vote doesn't overturn a 66-0-1 RFA.--Chaser - T 03:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Should the template {{sockpuppet}} be added to SS and JFS user pages? And what, if any, punishment will SS/JFS be subject too? New England ^{(C) (H)} 03:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~We don't punish, as we're not sadomasochists. —Kurykh 03:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Shouldn't one of them be blocked so this activity doesn't happen? And what about template {{sockpuppet}}? New England ^{(C) (H)} 04:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I've blocked Stillstudying for 24 hours and Finishedwithschool indefinitely. (Other admins: please adjust the former as appropriate, as I don't usually block in this area.) This isn't punitive. It's more of a warning, but it seems to be standard practice to block for some time.--Chaser - T 04:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like MastCell, Killer Chihuahua and others - and having supported Oldwindybear's successful RfA - I can only concur that on its face this is all very suspicious. The CU result only increases the appearance of impropriety by showing that Stillstudying and Finishedwithschool are the same user, while confirming that all are in the same Metropolitan area - a result totally consistent with the work/home scenario suggested above. I suggest relisting the WP:SSP report and linking it to this thread. I will closely examine the report, as will others. That page needs more attention, anyhow, and we need a method to identify sockpuppets when Checkuser can't or won't give the answer.Proabivouac 06:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make too much of the Metropolitan area thing. I live in the Tampa Bay area which consists of more than two million people - including Wikimedia. I.e., I'm in the same metropolitan area as Jimbo Wales! That doesn't mean that I am Jimbo Wales or that I know Jimbo Wales or anyone else that runs this organization... Let's not get paranoid. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to put this, and I don’t want to spam multiple pages. Since this is more or less addressed to everyone, I’ll put it on this page and copy on OWB’s talk page; anyone interested will likely have one or the other watch listed.
First, and most important, I truly apologize to the community, including Oldwindybear, for bringing this up before I had all my ducks in a row. I was originally trying to avoid drama, and quietly do just that, but I managed (through a combination of inexperience with the SSP/RFCU process, concern I had put Deskana in a bad position, adrenaline, and run-of-the-mill stupidity, not necessarily in that order), to do exactly the opposite. I dislike wikidrama, and apologize for creating it.
I feel a little like the boy saying that the emperor has no clothes; it really amazes me that what I am saying is not readily apparent to everyone else. A wise person would take this as evidence that they should at least re-evaluate their opinion. I am doing so. But this is not a reason to go along and say that the emperor does, indeed, have a magnificent ermine robe.
OWB says he is vindicated, so he’s happy. I assume he can survive without a direct apology from me for thinking him a puppeteer; he will have to settle for the apology above. At least one sock puppet was uncovered, so there is some tiny silver lining. I also see Deskana is back, which was a concern of mine.
I’m going to delete my draft SSP report from my user space, and do it on my own computer, in word, so it isn’t a magnet for anyone, or possibly interpreted as an attack page. The way I should have in the first place. OWB may want to save the rebuttal he inserted there someplace else; it may come in handy. I’ll db-user that page this evening, when I think he’s had a chance to do that. If anyone wants to handle it on-wiki in some other way, be my guest.
OWB, I had never heard of you before I took a fleeting notice of your RfA, and had no real interest in your editing habits until you exploded and misused your admin tools and piqued my curiosity. Therefore, it is safe to assume we will not cross paths editing the same pages in the future, and will not need to discuss anything. Even when you are acting politely, I think it best if we have no further contact, including on my talk page. It distresses me, and will do neither of us any good.
Once more, I’m sorry to everyone for the drama. I’ll leave the spotlight for a while. --barneca (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Mentors wanted~~
LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is involved in a content dispute on American Family Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and has for several days now engaged in a pattern of disruption, primarily consisting of his insisting that those who do not share his opinion are vandals. He has been informed repeatedly that this is not the case and that he is violating NPA by his rampant accusations and vitriol, and encouraged to discuss the article content, not accuse fellow contributors, yet he has continued. I attempted to discuss this with him (examples here and here). He continued his characterizations of other editors as vandals[101], which again resulted in more talk page space taken up by others attempting to clarify to him that content disputes are not vandalism[102][103]. I warned him clearly to cease disrupting the talk page with such accusations[104] after he made a post in which he used the word "vandal" or "vandalistic" no less than 35 times.[105] He responded by making a post in which he used "vandal" or "vandalistic" a further 17 times[106]. I blocked him for 24 hours for disruption. His campaign of making tediously long posts which are almost entirely insisting that people with whom he disagrees is "ongoing vandalism that has to be brought under wiki control", has derailed the talk page almost completely. Several editors are valiantly working to improve the article and resolve content disputes, but every section sooner or later becomes filled with LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's incredibly long and redundant polemics against his fellow editors. He seems to have decided that I have blocked him at another admin's behest[107] ignoring his own divisive and hostile behavior on the article talk page. Please note that although I have offered difs and examples from the talk page only, there has been edit warring with hostile edit summaries as well. The block is for 24 hours. Could someone, anyone, please try to explain to LAEC what is wrong with his position and actions? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone? Comments? Anything? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin, just an uninvolved user, but I looked over the links you provided and quite a few of the comments on his talk page and diffs. In many instances I see him 'arguing' instead of 'discussing'. Diatribes don't add to a productive discussion and his polemics either against individual users or addressing them as a group disrupt collaboration. I know AGF means 'assume good faith' but there should also be an 'act in good faith' guideline. Statisticalregression 23:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for the feedback! There is AAGF as well as AGF and so on, but all of those presume actually applying the principles. If you have any suggestions for making any headway with this editor, please feel free to attempt them or post them here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~User:Astrale01~~

~~Resolved~~
This legitimate user seems destined to be caught in a series of autoblocks, but I'm uncertain how to help him without softblocking what seems to be a really problematic IP. See User talk:24.4.25.168. I recently blocked User:Thy true power, a clear sock of someone who was taunting users to block him. A hard block seemed appropriate. It seems that I can't just unblock User:Astrale01 and I think softblocking the IP will just lead to more trouble. Is there a solution here that I am missing? Cheers Dina 17:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~After a discussion wiht User:Luna Santin who blocked the problem IP several times, I decided to lift the autoblock. Cheers. Dina 18:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Considering extended block~~
I blocked 150.108.156.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just now for making hoax edits. I see that the same IP was making the same kinds of edits in May, and targetting related articles (Jaleel White/Family Matters (TV series). Perhaps an extended block would be in order? Note that some of the edits are of a particularly vicious, BLP-violating sort. Thoughts? Chick Bowen 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IP appears to be a dorm room, incidentally, not, I don't think, a Fordham public computer. Chick Bowen 18:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that? I got it was Fordham, but how do know it's not a public computer. Because it doesn't have a reverse dns listed? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know it--I was guessing based on the editing pattern. I could be wrong; if the DNS is correct it resolves to Dealy Hall, which is not a dorm. So beats me. Chick Bowen 18:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth dropping a note to Fordham's IT department. Mackensen (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Chick Bowen 18:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fordham replies: "We are trying to locate the perpetrator to put a stop to it, however the implied IP is on a DHCP net and we were wondering if you had a MAC address on record with that IP"--does anyone know? I presume the answer is no, without developer intervention--is that right? Chick Bowen 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Poll attempting to be used to evaluate consensus for guideline change~~
Recently, User:Jheald started a poll at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Straw_poll_1:__Re-wording_the_.22images.22_section "to poll consensus" on a wording change for our fair use guideline at WP:NFC. I closed the poll, noting m:Polls are evil and Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion [108]. Two minutes later, I was reverted by User:Wikidemo, with edit summary "No contentious editing of talk page, please" [109]. I left a message with User:Wikidemo regarding this [110], and am now bringing it here. Would an administrator please step in and close this poll? It is not helpful to consensus and undermines our efforts there. Thank you, --Durin 19:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the proponents of the poll is now asserting its result is binding [111] "the results of a consensus reached this way ... are binding". This is directly against Wikipedia:Polling. Please, someone shut this nightmare down. Thank you, --Durin 20:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would second that this poll is a disaster in the making. As an involved party, I won't close. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin wants to close, you can use {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}. --Durin 20:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So there's a few editors who don't understand that consensus can change - what do you want an administrator to do? Any editor can close (or open) a poll, no special admin tools are needed. Surely you're not suggesting we lock the talk page? WilyD 20:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was not advocating locking the talk page. I want consensus to develop, and the poll directly interferes with that. User:Iamunknown summed of some of my thoughts rather well [112]. --Durin 20:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what are you asking an admin to do? You want to close a discussion - but I cannot use my admin tools to close a discussion with any more force than you can with your editor tools -- Unless I lock the talk page as "discussion closed" or start blocking editors - neither of which I can do. Is there something else you need an admin to do you can't do yourself? WilyD 20:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked here because I already closed it and was reverted. It's been closed now anyways. Moot point. --Durin 20:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can consensus change Foundation policy? Corvus cornix 20:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i had to wait for Jheald answer to my question. A courtesy matter. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Polls are no substitute for consensus, but are helpful. I would oppose closing a poll before it has run out. All opponents of 'polls are evil' are welcome to get rid of polling in RM or RfA (both...) first.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, Durin. A poll on that guideline would have been a bad idea, and not conductive to consensus-building. I endorse its closure. >Radiant< 08:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Does this constitute canvassing?~~
I noticed user Sumnjim on an AfD I was viewing, and looking through his contribs I saw some questionable activity in terms of soliciting input on AfDs (incidents include [113] [114][115][116][117] and at least three others for that AfD); I thought that this violated the spirit of WP:CANVASS, which the user flatly rejected. Thoughts? David Fuchs^(talk) 20:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It depends in large measure on the reason he selected those particular users to request input from. If it is because they are wiki-friends of his and he expects them to support whatever he writes, that would be undesirable canvassing. If they are acknowleged subject-matter experts in the topics of the articles, or long-time contributors in the relevant field, I might feel very differently. Newyorkbrad 20:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re Newyorkbrad: Ostensibly, the user picked them at random, however at least one of the users he has ahad a contining relation with. David Fuchs^(talk) 20:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment on an AfD once by Sumnjim, though for none of the reasons stated above, I don't believe, maybe just because I'm a familiar face there.--Ispy1981 20:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be why he canvassed me as well. I haven't had any contact with him outside of AfD and was a bit surprised to be canvassed. --Charlene 22:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to depend on the kind of Canvassing - looking at the posts they are very neutral, indeed why he selected those users should be looked into (i.e- if they are friends or if they share the same point of view). If those users have asked to be alerted to issues on the article or not should also be taken into consideration. Statisticalregression 20:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though the tactics of the AfD nominator, User:Sumnjim, may be questioned on policy grounds, the end result of the AfD was 'Keep' due to his withdrawal of the nomination, and the results for the article are a night-and-day improvement. EdJohnston 20:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning the AfD, although some of the user's actions on AfDs appear to violate WP:AGF; I'm more interested in the mass sending of identical forms trying to drive people to the AfD. It seems at least like advertising your own nomination, if not looking for identical opinions. David Fuchs^(talk) 22:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A fair attempt to get a reasonable number of people to pay attention to an afd should be encouraged. This was an interesting question that does not frequently come up at AfD. DGG (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Possible User:Komodo lover IPs~~
202.151.195.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 58.71.169.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) reverted some edits. The first diff was made by the first IP I mentioned. The edit the IP reverted involved reverting an edit that a Komodo lover sock made. The second one reverted my edit on Animal Face-Off, which involved reverting User:58.71.168.171's edit (that IP was blocked for being Komodo lover). Pants^(T) 20:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~All of these IPs mentioned above belong to Maxis Communications and can be traced back to Malaysia. Pants^(T) 20:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Both IP's blocked for 31 hours, though they appear dynamic and it may not slow him down too much. I also semi-protected Animal Face-Off as a common Komodo lover target. Anyone interested in looking through the IP contribs and undoing the damage? MastCell ^Talk 21:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Image deletion nominators not following procedures~~
Image deletion templates ({{ifdc}}, {{di-no license-caption }} and {{deletable image-caption}}) are available which have to be inserted into the article where an image is being used. This helps notify people that the image is being nominated for deletion. If these templates are not used, image deletions practially go unnoticed and uncontested. This leads to some genuine images being deleted where rationale could have been provided by users, had they known about its IfD. One day the image is there, the next day there's a red link. Admins including Quadell (talk · contribs) (did not use templates for this image in James Plunkett) and howcheng (talk · contribs) (did not use templates for this image in Ann Richards) and users like Videmus Omnia (talk · contribs) (did not use templates for this image in Holly Hallstrom) are not using these templates to notify the public about these image deletions. The templates exist for a reason. Whats up with this? What if I nominated an article for deletion without putting in a template (assume for a moment its possible)? When that is not acceptable, why is this? Please enforce policy and procedures and tell these people to start using these templates. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you talked to these people? They may just be honestly forgetting. -Amarkov moo! 21:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've talked to them. Quadell responded with this:
Thanks for the free advice. But, like everything, I'm sure some people will follow your advice and some people won't. That's life. and:

Making the nominators go through extra "paperwork" merely slows down the process

And he's an admin. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those selective quotes do not accurately portray the gist of my comments. I would invite any interested parties to read my entire comments. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The in article notices are often strongly opposed by folks who are against doing anything that exposes internal operations to readers. With a minor mediawiki feature we could get around these issues and easily make a deletion mark visable to everyone who wants it: See 9616. --Gmaxwell 22:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a great feature, but until that feature is made, they should use the templates to notify editors. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is not acceptable. If the admin wants to change the procedure, he should suggest it.DGG (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OMFG, he finds the one time I forget. How about [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] etc etc etc. Please be sure to examine contribution histories before launching into such tirades. howcheng {chat} 06:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People, people, people. This is an important issue and 'both sides' have valid points. From where I sit, I see that these points are not as mutually exclusive as some seem to think. If we focus on working 'together' on the issue and not in combat, I am sure we can find a solution where everyone is happy. Why don't we finish up here - at least for now - and return to the issue at Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion in a collaborative, rather than combative manner, and try and surprise ourselves. Be civil, even friendly, and try to see each others legitimate points, and find a way where we can all be satisfied. I will now comment shortly on the issue at Wikipedia talk:Images and media for deletion. Thanks. --Merbabu 07:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Personal attacks and general incivility~~

Resolved
– blocked for 31 hrs for disruption and personal attacks
~~Alterego269 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor has done the following:~~
made personal attacks.[123][124]

has made generally uncivil edit notes, including typing in caps (i.e yelling). [125][126][127][128][[129][ [130]

has made a strange comment on my talk page, including a false accusation of vandalism.[131]

has left comments on another editor’s user page instead of talk page. [132][133]

has deleted every single comment and warning on his or her talk page (including a block message from an administrator.[134]
See the editor's full edit history for more details.Spylab 22:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to another choice comment that he wrote on his talk page (before blanking the whole page once again)[135]
It is very clear that this individual is not interested in being a cooperative and civil member of the Wikipedia community. Spylab 22:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a final message on his talk page. Beyond that, I think he's deserving of a block. David Fuchs^(talk) 22:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear God. How has the user not been blocked already? Some good edits, sure; it's probably only because he's blanked every talk page message he's gotten. Wikipedia will do just fine without someone who vandalizes it every third edit (and, on the other two, is presumptive, rude, and WP:OWNy). The Evil Spartan 23:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~For review: User:71.235.81.32~~
71.235.81.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been grossly abusive on a number of article and article talk pages. Earlier today, he got himself indef'ed by admin User:BrendelSignature, which is unusual for an IP but not unprecedented. Brendel had also semi-protected the talk page. I unprotected it on general principles, but they went on another abusive rant on the talk page after I did that. They also sent an abusive email to unblock-en-l.
At this point, I have re-protected the talk page. The IP appears to be static, and extremely abusive, along with 71.235.81.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) where they appear to be also operating. The IPs are Comcast in Connecticut. I am posting to ANI for uninvolved review, given the unusual indef of two IPs and unusual talk page protection of an IP editor. I think these actions were reasonable, but review is good. Georgewilliamherbert 22:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything wrong with it. Being blocked multiple times, along with the fact that it appears to be a static ip seems more than justified. (Just wait 'till we deal with IPv6 vandals) David Fuchs^(talk) 23:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IPv6 lets us block on MAC address, fortunately... well, theoretically. We'll need to extend the block syntax. Georgewilliamherbert 23:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear goodness, they're going to come around with a protocol that lets us block MAC addresses. This will be heaven... The Evil Spartan 23:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, I might block for 6 months, which is a long time in Internetland. People do change ISP's etc. As far as protecting the talk page, I think that's an excellent idea. MastCell ^Talk 00:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree, however, I'm personally now getting the nasty emails on this which started on unblock-en-l, so I am not personally inclined to change the duration. I would agree that another admin setting it to six months would meet policy. I'm inclined to deep-fry them personally, so I'll just sit on my hands for the moment. Georgewilliamherbert 02:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User has now threatened to attack me several ways in email, as well as continue attacking Wikipedia. Look out for other nearby IP addresses, etc. Fun fun. Georgewilliamherbert 03:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~User:Lcnhop~~
This user keeps formatting the Immortal Technique article incorrectly, he adds album covers in the article, which is not allowed, fixes redirects which are not broken, and also he is being uncivil, with rude edit summaries, insulting comments on talk pages, and he left me uncivil messages, please at least give this user a warning. --- Realest4Life 00:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~He also just added false information to the Matisyahu article. I just asked Stephen, an administrator, to block this guy. Alex 00:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I also suspect that this is another account of user Hoplcn. That user was already blocked for these formatting issues and rude behaviour in the past. --- Realest4Life 00:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Update: User has now been blocked for 24h, however, please consider extending the block, considering his uncivil behaviour, and considering he was engaged in another edit war at the same time, and also considering he has done this before on "Hoplcn", and now he is continuing this edit war as an anonymous user, see here. --- Realest4Life 01:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, he has used rude edit summaries, this one simply because I was ordering the links and categories alphabetically, I didn't remove any information whatsoever, ~~other than some sort of advertising for a forum, and some sentence that sounded like a promotion for a song~~. --- Realest4Life 15:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And AGAIN, he insists on his preferred version, after I CREATED AN ARTICLE FOR THE DISCOGRAPHY SPECIFICALLY DO AVOID ANYMORE EDIT WARRING. Something must be done. Please help. --- Realest4Life 15:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again. --- Realest4Life 15:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, look at this, he has done this just because he doesn't agree with the article formatting. Please help. --- Realest4Life 15:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~RookZERO vandalizing again~~
Please check out these edits done by RookZERO. He is removing 5k material off an article without prior discussion on the talk page and without reference to Wikipedia policy. I call this vandalism. This user has a long history of such edits and got blocked several times for it. I don't know what to say, but Admin intervention did not help much so far, also his edit summaries are quite hateful still. I'll pull out for now and watch Wikipedia Administrators doing their job.
Diffs (another 3RR, BTW) on Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia
18 July

17 July

17 July

17 July

10 July Step 3/3

10 July Step 2/3

10 July Step 1/3
~~Diffs, messing up intro section of Church of Scientology into incomprehensible english~~
17/18 July

17 July
~~Diff, Scientology unfounded claims in edit comment as a "reason" to nuke a reference which does not conform with his ideas on the subject:~~
~~17 July~~
~~Misou 01:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Neither is this vandalism, or is that 3RR above (4 reverts within 24 hours). You can't call good-faith edits vandalism, nor interpret it as vandalism because you disagree with it. Go to his talk page, and discuss it with him. And according to this [136] which you just called "incomprehensible English", this editor is stating in the edit summary that you are removing nuetral citations because you don't agree with him. I suggest you honestly not come here switching good-faith edits with vandalism. — Moe ε 02:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am baffled. Ok, 4 reverts in 24 hours are not 3RR but _4RR_, so what's the difference. Do I understand this right? You are ok with someone removing 5k of genuine text from an article simply because he disagrees with it, you are ok with him removing neutral citations because he does not like them and you are ok with 4RR without consequences for the offender? Cool. I wish I would be treated the same way as RookZERO then. As for incomprehensible English, well, two half sentences without verbs are what I say is incomprehensible English. I don't disagree with RookZERO, I disagree with his vandalism and destruction of articles and I disagree with whitewashing his actions. Can some Admin please look at this and give some reference to Wikipedia policy? Misou 16:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Possible vandalism-only account~~
Mr.wang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be a vandalism-only account. In light of this editor's contributions (moving Chichen Itza to Chicken Pizza [137], repeatedly creating the Marespitt article on Asian/Hispanic terrorism, repeatedly adding the Hollywood sign to the New Seven Wonders article [138], changing POOP into an operating system article [139], adding Fair User images to templates despite instructions not to [140], etc., etc. ad nauseum), I can hardly fathom that this editor is anything but a vandalism-only account. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Blocked. -- John Reaves (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Block of Jeffrey Vernon Merkey et al.~~
As this post will most likely get lost in the cesspool up above, I have blocked Kebron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Pfagerburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Aim Here (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for trolling and disruption. Simply reading the mess above leads me to believe that these users are not here to work constructively and are currently trolling AN/I and causing a massive waste of time. I read through the situation and felt that while it may not have been the letter of the law, it what's best for the encyclopedia. If someone disagrees and wishes to reverse me, I won't attempt to wheel war. Thanks, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merkey probably needs to be reblocked, but blocking everyone substantially involved (except me, thanks for that) isn't the way to do it. He was previously banned, of course, so due to the odd way people work, there's going to have to be an Arbcom case before he can be indefblocked again. -Amarkov moo! 03:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the sentiment behind this, I have to question the usefulness of the block. It's like adding kerosene to burning embers. I guess it will now end up in the ArbCom's playing field. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would anyway. I fail to see how something else could happen when every complaint is dismissed as disruptive. But this did definitely squirt some kerosene on. Or maybe a barrel of crude oil. -Amarkov moo! 03:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It probably was going to burn. It was likely going to burn. Now, it is certain it is going to blow up. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before, we need to stop babysitting people who are being disruptive. If they're not directly here to write the encyclopedia or help with the facilitation of that (via meta aspect such as xFD, adminship, etc), then they need to find somewhere else to go. If they won't go, then they need to be blocked, plain and simple. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with you. Unfortunately, some people don't. And some of those some people are admins who will reverse the blocks, thus inflaming the dispute. Or at least the Merkey one, the others are iffy depending on who sees it first. -Amarkov moo! 03:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just got an e-mail from Pfagerburg, asking if I could remove the block come Monday, so he can pursue proper dispute resolution via ArbCom when Merkey gets back in town Tuesday. I am willing to lift the block on them Monday, so this avenue can be pursued. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)~~I fully support this. Merkey isn't apologizing to anyone, continues to withhold key evidence by which we can engage in DR. That said,~~ I'm sure this will be overturned soon. and I was right. How frustrating. ThuranX 03:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~I tweaked the blocks to auto-expire on Monday. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I endorse User:^demon's actions. These are off-Wiki disputes that appear to be more about extending old conflicts than improving this project. An indefinite block may have been unnecessary, but time-off will at least keep things quieter here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the need to block Merkey. He's got his problems, but he's not made a career of trolling anyone listed here, and he certainly didn't start it up here on the noticeboard. Basically, he's being blamed for being targeted so relentlessly that others conclude he's more trouble than he's worth.Proabivouac 04:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec x2)They're all expiring Monday, so I suggest we just leave them in place and allow all of the parties involved a chance to cool down and then approach ArbCom with a clear and willing mind. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proabivouac, if Merkey's behavior were wholly attributable to provocations by trolls, you would be entirely correct in objecting to Merkey being blocked along with those suspected of harassing him. However, I think the history shows that there's plenty of unwarranted and unprovoked disruptive behavior on his part as well. This is why I think an ArbCom proceeding is necessary to sort things out—there's a nasty brew of bad behavior, outside influences, suspicions, accusations and refutations, and a whole bunch of history behind this ongoing problem. I think this whole thing needs a fair hearing by people with the responsibility to protect WP from such problems and the authority to make the solutions stick, and that's ArbCom. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although for the most part I agree with the actions taken here, I have to admit that I don't understand the inclusion of Aim Here (talk · contribs) in this big block. The only part he seemed to have in the discussion was discussing the possible BLP issues, and he seemed to be doing it in a fairly balanced and rational manner. He seemed to be honestly concerned with simply improving the encyclopedia. Then when the discussion turned into a flame war of who's a troll, and who's pointing at Elvis, and all the other disruptive stuff, he dropped out of it and didn't make any comments at all. In fact, the only mention of his name outside of the BLP stuff was Merkey requesting he be blocked. Now I'd like to AGF and assume that you didn't include him in the block simply because Merkey said so, so could you please point us at the diff that you found to justify having to block Aim Here along with the other three? Thanks. --Maelwys 13:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Notice of block~~

Resolved
– BC is unblocked Chick Bowen 04:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just blocked Betacommand (talk · contribs) for running a bot on main account. See contribs for evidence. As far as I am aware, that is not allowed per WP:BOT. Viridae ^Talk 04:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:BetacommandBot normally performs the functions Betacommand was operating on his main account. I'm sure he'll tell us what happened. Someguy1221 04:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might have been a mixup, I don't know how hard that would be to do. The block is only 24 hours. Viridae ^Talk 04:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I unblocked him per his request. It was a simple mistake on his part on his bot's configuration. It's since been recified. Can we mark this resolved? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Yes. In future, Viridae, please ask questions first and shoot later. Chick Bowen 04:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
3rd damn edit conflict. I was not sure wther betacommand was still and admin and it took me a while to fiind the suerrights log, by which time head had been unblco9ked Viridae ^Talk 04:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what ever happened to being nice? Instead of a talkpage message asking of what is going on all I now get is a rude block message?.

It happens that I am not running the script on the toolserver like I normally do. (Im using it for non-posting data gathering that is already gotten from the IRC feed that the bot uses) and am logging that on my personal PC. Because I also have several Non-bot python scripts that use the same file sets (pywikipeda) I forgot to change the config file from usernames['wikipedia']['en'] = 'Betacommand' to usernames['wikipedia']['en'] = 'BetacommandBot' so instead of using the bot account it was using my account, I did not even know it was happening until you blocked me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betacommand (talk • contribs)
Given firstly your history of running unregistered bots (the most recent unaproved bot task run occured only a few days ago I believe, for which the bot was blocked), and secondly the potential to be running an admin bot (couldnt remember wether you were still an admin) the block first ask questions later approach was in my opinion justified. The block message was simply a notification, and was in no way rude. Simple mistake made, move on with your life. Viridae ^Talk 04:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Viridae, considering your unfamiliarity with The State Of Things (you didn't know he wasn't an admin? Really?), your block wasn't appropriate. If you find yourself in such a position of KNOWING that you're missing a bunch of the facts, don't panic, either ask someone else to check it out or hold off and let eventualism deal with it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure Betacommand wasn't an admin, I couldn't recall wether he had been de-sysopped or not. Given the potential for a faulty admin bot, and that blocks are totally reverisble, I hardly think that 5 minutes blocked is really going to do any damage to him. A faulty admin bot has the potential to do far far more damage. Viridae ^Talk 05:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paranoia, if the bot were faulty (assuming he was an admin) it would likely not work. Did you consider checking his admin logs, thats one click from the contribs log? —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 05:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~The contribs showedmore than a dozen other bot edits...~~ Viridae ^Talk 05:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Misread that. Is it escaping anybody here, that no harm has been done by being blocked for about 5 minutes? Viridae ^Talk 05:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The block becomes a part of his permanent block record, actually. I'm assuming you're not aware of this by your repeated insistence that no harm is done by your mistake. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous, of course I am aware of that. However a (not incorrect) block that was undone minutes later is hardly permanent harm. Viridae ^Talk 08:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and that was hardly panicking. I saw the username report from the wrong account name. Checked the history of the page to make sure it had happened more than once; checked the accounts contributions to make sure of the same and convince myself that it wasn't a automated script, not the bot; blocked (now convinced that there was a bot running on a normal account); posted a notification here and on betacommand's talk page and went in search for the user rights log. By the time I had found he wasn't an admin anymore and was about to ublock, I had been notified by demon that betacommand had replied explaining the mistake and he had taken the liberty of unblocking. Viridae ^Talk 05:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Block first, ask questions later" is a dangerous approach, please consider making an attempt to talk to the person first in the future. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with any other one of my blocks, or can see a trend, feel free to berate me on it. But this is an isolated incident where a bot was clearly running on what may have been an admin account. If i had known it wasn't an admin account, I would have not blocked. However I didn't. Mistake made, user quickly unblocked. all finished. Get over it. Viridae ^Talk 05:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem to be an isolated incident. Since you accept this was a mistake on your part Viridae, you might want to drop a note of apology on Betacommand's talkpage. WjBscribe 05:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. It wasn't running on an admin account, 2. It wasn't performing admin actions, and 3. You don't appear to have made any attempt to contact the user before blocking. If you're unable to accept input on your use of admin tools, you may wish to evaluate whether or not you have the temperament for the job. BC was de-sysopped because he didn't, what about you? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus christ. The first 3 points were already answered so you will have to content yourself with those answers. I am perfectly happy to accept input into my use of admin tools, and I don't think you will find any other incident where I am not. HOWEVER this situation was ridiculous. I was acting in what i felt to be the right course of action and made a mistake, leaving a user blocked for approximately 5 minutes. GET OVER IT. Mistake made, user apologised to and blocking without discussion/warning is not something I typically do... as I said, if you believe this is not an isolated incident then bring that up, but it is in my opinion so drop it. Viridae ^Talk 05:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree obviously the bot was not causing harm. (or did I miss that memo?) It was making about one edit per hour. your actions here show a lack of AGF since when can an admin block an established user without so much as a word to the user before blocking? I always thought that the rule was talking before blocking I guess not. Instead of using common sense and ASKing what the issue was you just flat out block and post to ANI. instead of treating other users with respect its just block then later talk when the user cannot post to the discussion on ANI since they are blocked. or do the rules of common sense just not apply to me? ^∆ 05:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be snippy. You seem to have adopted a remarkably unrepentant tone during this mini-drama. We're held to a higher standard, and when we screw up, we're supposed to offer something better than "no harm has been done by being blocked for about 5 minutes". - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am being "snippy" because you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Seriously, get over it: mistake made, mistake rectified, problem solved, user apologised to. I justified why the block was made, I have admitted i made a mistake and if i had been quick enough i would have reversed the block myself. Viridae ^Talk 05:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Viridae ^Talk 05:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~MONGO incivility, part ∞~~
Why are things like this even remotely acceptable? Most people making that edit would be either blocked on the spot or severely warned. Why are we accepting it here? -Amarkov moo! 04:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amarkov appears to have a serious problem. He just aborted an effort to Rfc me without ever once trying to work a single thing out. I think the following posted by Tbeatty in an discussion on my talkpage sums the matter up pretty well:"Here is MONGO's original comment [141], Here's the trolling reversion and snarky edit summary by SevenOfDiamonds [142] and immediately after reverting he followed up with a troll warning [143]. I think it's pretty clear who the troll is. Defending that action as an admin in any form, including harassing the victim on their talk page, is unacceptable. --Tbeatty 04:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)" SevenOfDiamonds has been seen as a sockpuppet by myself and a number of other editors and he has been wikistalking my edits almost since he first started editing here.--MONGO 04:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You convinced me that an RfC is premature. Surely that is evidence that I am reasonable, not that I have a problem. And he may be a troll, but as I've had to tell far too many people lately, that does not mean you can troll back. -Amarkov moo! 04:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think your effort to file an Rfc without ever trying to resolve anything with me is trolling. You stated you tried a "year ago"? Hum.--MONGO 04:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's MONGO. Like Jeffery Vernon Merkey, MONGO is untouchable, undisciplinable, and free to get away with anythign, any time, any where. He'll give his justification for it, then promise to ignore all responses. We'll rant and rave here about what SHOULD be done, nothing will happen after all that, and in a few days, another MONGO is incivil section will be opened, restart cycle. ThuranX 04:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus christ MONGO, that was in no way justifiable. Viridae ^Talk 04:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the sockpuppet that has been wikistalking me. Adding the trolling template to his talkpage right after I warned him is pretty inexcusable.--MONGO 04:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gah. NOBODY is saying here that his actions are excusable. They are almost certainly not. That does not mean you can troll back. -Amarkov moo! 04:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suprised anyone still thinks Mongo is untouchable, he was desysopped after all. I'd wager all the money in my pocket right now that anyone editing this section that got half the harassement Mongo gets would go sideways in a big way in minutes. Should he be more civil, sure....should he get more support when socks and trolls start on him, yes. If the latter happened more often maybe the former wouldn't be such a big deal. RxS 05:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. If there's one thing I've learned during my time at Wikipedia, it's that you may not under any circumstances question MONGO. If you do, a team of editors will descend upon your talk page, your email, and numerous noticeboards doing everything they can to justify MONGO's atrocious behavior while simultaneously discrediting you. This will be given a pass too, as will MONGO's next fit. - auburnpilot talk 05:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It's already happening here. ThuranX 05:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is? Where? RxS 05:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he is referring to that "It's your fault for not supporting him more!" comment. -Amarkov moo! 05:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I'm the team of editors. And just as a note, I think I what I wrote was a little more nuanced then how you characterized it. RxS 05:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. But the point is still that part of the problem is us not supporting him enough. -Amarkov moo! 05:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who really cares?! Now we're just getting into "he said, she said" and not accomplishing anything... Spawn Man 05:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think MONGO is really an uncivil kind of guy, on most occasions I've dealt with him he's been nice, but I do agree that the edit does look like trolling back towards the other editor's edits. I do find some editors get away with a lot & when I've engaged in an agrument with them, I'm the one who ends up getting blocked. However, I don't think MONGO's edit warrants a block and as I said, I've never had a personal civilty problem with him before... Wouldn't a warning suffice? Spawn Man 05:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He most definitely is an uncivil kind of guy. I don't think even he disputes that, only justifies it by saying that he's being trolled. -Amarkov moo! 05:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~MONGO, if it is a troll, what do you win by feeding it? I'm gasping at straws here. Both actions are equally condemnable. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I don't think the fact that numerous editors have seen that this editor has been stalking me and is a sock, likely of a banned editor, should be ignored. I have been around here a long time and probably as much as anyone on this website, I have done a lot for my fellow editors to defeat harassment on and off wiki and my investigations have led to bans and more which I will not detail. I very rarely ask for assistance, but have gotten little in the way of dealing with this SevenOfDiamonds character, so all I have left to do to defeat his wikistalking since Rfc's are a waste of time, and arbcom isn't needed when we are dealing with the obvious, is to aggressively demonstrate that his actions are intolerable. It gets to the point where it cannot be ignored when I comment somewhere and every single retort by this time waster is baiting or other nonsense. Efforts by Tom harrison to get him to stop acting up were summarily removed by SevenOfDiamonds (from his SixOfDiamonds talk page) just as he has done with my warnings. AutumnPilot acccuses me of incivility after I tried to defend myself from another sockpuppet stalker, yet that same sock he was defending was blocked. If people are kind to me, I always reciprocate in kindness. If they stalk me, harass me or treat me like crap, I will do what I can to ignore it for a while, but if it persists, then AGF goes out the window.--MONGO 05:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is asking you to assume good faith, and that's not at all the point. I'm now convinced that you're deliberately ignoring the constant statements that there is nothing which justifies trolling, not even a sockpuppet trolling you. -Amarkov moo! 05:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think MONGO may be trying to prove trollish behavior by feeding it. To me it looked like he was pointing to hypocrisy in the nature of said sign. Editing another user's talk page signage is the wrong way to do it though, it would have been better to leave a message about it instead. I'm not defending his actions but rather want to point out that the trouble started with that particular user in the first place.
Whatever happens to MONGO, SevenOfDiamonds needs to account for his/her reasoning in following MONGO, an editor whom he/she is having a disagreement with to pages where MONGO has been editing but he/she has not in order to continue the disagreement[144], for example Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These kinds of actions often result in what we are seeing here, a report about a "retaliation" not the initial problem. Anynobody 05:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's focus on the issue which should have primacy here -- when are you going to block the Cplot/Rootology ED sockpuppet troll SevenOfDiamonds? That's the correct subject. MortonDevonshire Yo · 06:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, make a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. --John 13:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The abuse that MONGO takes from trolls is unbelievable. From what I've observed, however, MONGO unnecessarily feeds the trolls with his emotional reactions to their baiting. I hope MONGO can learn from the comments in this thread to take a different approach that may save him some grief in the future. Cla68 14:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey look, I called it! Total shift to blamign everyone else, including those commenting here, MONGO's going to walk away... See you all here next time. ThuranX 14:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly did MONGO walk away with? I suspect that you are correct, though. We will be back here because the persons trolling MONGO will continue to file these frivolous complaints in the hope that if enough mud is slung, some will stick. You can either support this MO or help him fight it. --Tbeatty 14:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you nuts? I want MONGO blocked for incivility. He does this all the time. He makes himself a giant fucking bullseye. Then he comes here. And half of us tell hiim to stop being such a giant fucking WIKIDICK to people, so he doesn't bring this shit down on himself. And his response is always "fuck you all, I'm MONGO, and the trolls just hate me, it's a cabal'. And the other half of the people sit here saying "But he's MONGO, and he's our HEEERO" and he walks away. Block his ass till he learns that provoking idiots to bigger and bigger acts of trolling is a DICK move. He needs a good thorough block, and some time off wiki to learn to cool off. I'm so sick of people protecting asshole editors like MONGO, Merkey, And he who shall not be named, lest he get you fired at work, sue you for your home, and inspire drive-bys by outing you. Wikipedia would be a better project if a half dozen or so giant DICKS would get blocked. Start here, today. Block MONGO till he learns that revving up the trolls is as bad, or worse then, since he knows better, the stupid variosu assholes he encounters. ThuranX 16:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~User:Cuddly Panda Image violations:~~
I'm not sure this is meant to go here, but I asked a some admins and they said I could go here. I recently stumbled accross the user Cuddly Panda through the Portal:Jurassic Park. I was worried by the use of fair use images in the portal without any fair use rationale and found that Cuddly Panda was the only contributor. I went to the user's talk page a day or two ago and placed a note saying that one should generally avoid fair use images except when needed and to always give fair use rationale. I also gave the user links to visit, but I never recieved a reply. I revisited Cuddly Panda's talk page & noticed numerous automated bot warnings and notices in regard to images the user had uploaded (For examples, see the user's talk page - you can't miss the numerous bot notices). Sure this could be over looked if the user was new and didn't know the liscencing rules well, but this user has been active for nearly a year now (In October) and has been provided with numerous links and pieces of advice from bots and other users. I'm concerned also becasue the user's edits relate predominantly to video and computer game articles, articles which almost always never have free use images. If the user is editing these types of articles, they definitely need to understand fully the rules of fair use, free use, uploading and rationale - I've tried giving the user advice, but it seems it hasn't been heeded and thus, I thought an admin would have better luck in showing this user the ins & outs of uploading. If this isn't the place to put this request, please excuse me and if you'd be able to place a link to the page I need to go on my talk page, it would be appreaciated. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should not even be using fair use images in a portal anyway. In the articles if you can justify them sure, but not a portal (I can't think of a reasonable justification) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuddly Panda I do want to thank you for your work on the portal, just please use free images. Those would be images released to the public domain, GDFL or Creative Commons. There are other free licenses as well. If you have questions on if an image is free or not feel free to ask me. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ummm... Cuddly Panda hasn't edited here or seen this discussion - I'm confused by the fact you're referring to me as Cuddly Panda.... Spawn Man 06:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Improper upgrading of protection status~~
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Full_protection_pending_release_of_Harry_Potter.3F above. Apparently an admin has decided to upgrade from semi to full protection despite the noted lack of consensus. I'm not against re-instating full protection should opinion go that way, but the discussion - as far as I see - does not seem to indicate enough support. In short - please return to semi-protection ASAP. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola 06:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just reading the article's history it would appear the full protection was put in place only to eliminate vandalism from sleeper accounts circumventing the semi-protection. Someguy1221 06:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you read his post, he said that it was the only way to prevent SPOILERS. This is clearly against Wikipedia policy. If you don't like spoilers, don't read articles on subjects you don't want spoilered. Titanium Dragon 06:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someguy, every semi-protected page I've kept on my watchlist still does receive vandalism - the object is not to eradicate it but to attenuate it. The page has been swiftly reverted in every instance today. The more important point is that the discussion seemed to favor NOT fully protecting it. I'd like to ask you to please see the discussion (linked above). Girolamo Savonarola 06:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually well aware of that discussion, but was of the mindset of the post below me. Someguy1221 07:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Vandalism is vandalism. An admin judges that too many sleepers are being thrown against the article to get some muck to stick, and protects. That was predicted in the previous section on this (in fact, I mentioned sleeper accounts specifically as a problem), and it came to be. So they protected it based on actual occurences, instead of the previous section's topic of pre-emptive protections. Now the previous section can be closed, as the events predicted came to pass, and like those above who said don't protect unless there's trouble, then we can protect like normal said, we protected once vandalism occured. They argued B not A, got B, now they argue C? Forget it. leave it locked for a few days. ThuranX 06:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's a much bigger problem - the protection policy contradicts this. Girolamo Savonarola 07:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring the the fact that temporary full protection does not list vandalism as an appropriate cause, or something else? I see it as you can leave it unprotected and block the vandals one by one, or you can ignore that policy and protect it for a few hours to see if it stops. Someguy1221 07:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, vandalism is not a cause for full protection. We can ignore everything but process is important in my belief, and so is consensus. And the vandalism was easily being controlled. (With the number of us putting this on our Watchlists, it's hard to believe it wouldn't be.) Girolamo Savonarola 07:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the protection will even last that long, but I reset it to expire roughly at the same time the book is released (the release is time zone-dependent).--Chaser - T 07:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not our job to "protect" the book from spoilers. It is our job to protect the article from vandals. We were doing that fine. No one is asking for no protection at all, we're just asking for a return to semi-protection. Once again, the consensus is right above on this page! Girolamo Savonarola 07:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not right; you're protecting it from plot information which is legitimate, NOT from vandals. There's no reason to protect it until the book is released; that's censorship and clearly against Wikipedia policy. This article needs to be unprotected; if people are putting properly cited information from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows on the page, clearly removing it is vandalism and preventing them from posting it is censorship. There is NO wikipedia policy against spoilers, and indeed, every book on Wikipedia has spoilers in its article. If you don't want to see spoilers, don't read the article. Titanium Dragon 08:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bloomsbury etc have not commented on the leak - the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, and its impossible to verify these edits before the book has actually been released legally - how can we tell the leaked version is the real version? I wouldn't put it past the publishers to have released a fake for some extra publicity. RHB - Talk 08:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm indifferent to protection, but since another admin protected, I thought the expiry should have been sooner.--Chaser - T 13:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think protection is a good idea. As I said in the thread above, concentrating the vandalism at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - which will be avoided by those who don't want to be spoiled - isn't a bad idea. If we fully protect it, the spoiler vandalism will spread elsewhere - to other Harry Potter article or high profile pages. Either way it makes it harder for people to avoid the spoilers. Better to have loads of people watchlist Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and revert as necessary so we can contain the problem as much as possible. WjBscribe 07:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We had a few very number of vandals tonight, and the funny thing was that we seemed to all be jumping to revert at the same time! :) Girolamo Savonarola 07:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though I personally want to see this article unprotected, I still think it's a good idea wait for responses from the administrators who have protected this page. Peacent 08:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows protection status~~
(thread moved from WP:AN)
Despite a consensus emerging - with much actual discussion - at WP:ANI that the page was best left at semi-protection, a straw poll was quickly drawn up at the article's talk page to request full protection. This poll was only left open for approximately 12 hours (during which time yours truly and several others were not online), and contained no discussion aside from very brief votes. It also was not mentioned on the ANI discussion (even though ANI was linked to on the talk page to invite comment), and it made not even a glancing mention of the fact that the protection policy explicitly excludes vandalism from full protection. The article was being adequately protected by editors and what little vandalism was received was swiftly reverted. Additionally, there were still many substantive edits being made to the article, and the increasing news coverage suggested more to come.
Nevertheless, the article was unilaterally given full protection by an admin, who did not respond to my request for further discussion. My request for downgrading the protection level was denied at WP:RFPP because a second admin had decided to modify the full protection to end at the exact time of the release of the book. I believe that the admins' actions were wrong for several reasons:
It violates WP:NPOV by endorsing the publishers' desire for a lack of activity on the article

It violates the protection policy

The article was being more than adequately protected by editorial watchlists

There are still considerable edits happening

It will diffuse the vandalism across many other Harry Potter articles instead of concentrating it at one location where it can be effectively and quickly dealt with.
Unless compelling policy can be found in support of the continuing full protection, I would like to strenuously request that this article be restored to semi-protection.
Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola 07:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a thread on WP:ANI which you started. Stop forum shopping. Viridae ^Talk 07:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, but I am not getting any response there. Furthermore, the RFPP is refusing to consider anything that an admin has already touched. I thought opening this up to a general audience of admins (and users) and making an enumerated case would be clearer. Girolamo Savonarola 07:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You will get the same response here as there, so either go along with the consensus there or try and change people's mind. Viridae ^Talk 08:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is my point - there was consensus! For semi-protection. Girolamo Savonarola 08:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP wasn't refusing to consider anything that an admin has already touched. It's just a good idea to be more patient and wait for responses from those administrators. Peacent 08:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my misunderstanding. But what I'm saying is that if they refuse to respond, then what? What I'm asking for is a general discussion amongst all curious admins. Surely if all of us are (and were - in ANI) discussing this and coming to a consensus, then the previous editors' actions should be disregarded and reversed. Now I've linked to this discussion several times. And no one seems to be touching it. Girolamo Savonarola 08:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict - PeaceNT seems to be better at saying what I want to say before I can write it out) I agree that protection of any kind is against policy in this situation unless there is edit warring. IMO, the proper solution to the spoiler question is to cite the AP article from Yahoo News about spoilers. Specific spoiler information can be removed as unverifiable information. Prior to book release, spoilers are inherently unverifiable unless they are published in a reliable source. Blogs and personal websites don't count.
Technically, the online version of the book is not verifiable or reliable because, in theory, someone could have changed one or more pages of the illicitly photographed book.
My recommendation is that we should unprotect the article and block anybody who engages in an edit war over spoilers. However, I am also one of the admins who declined the request on WP:RPP to override the decision of another admin. My advice is to wait 12-24 hours and see if the admins respond. Also, consider re-opening the straw poll and specify an appropriate time period (24-48 hours). I agree that the previous straw poll was closed too quickly. Take the time to make your case and form a consensus. If you have to, issue a request for comment to bring in more neutral opinions.
The key here is patience. Decisions to override admins should not be made hastily. That just leads to hurt feelings at best and wheel warring at worst. While I agree that policy is not being followed here, no one will die if we leave protection in place for a couple more days while we hash this out. I am highly reluctant to override an admin's decision without discussion and formation of a clear consensus.
--Richard 08:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. But I'd like to point out also that time is an issue here because if nothing is done shortly, the decision will stand either way. And I would like the policy to be respected. Not the least because this situation should not be regarded - IMHO - as a precedent. While no more Potter books may be released, these issues will arise again with something else of large hype. I don't believe it is our job to "protect" the book as per the publishers wishes. Our job is to protect and enhance the article in accordance with NPOV and V policies. Semi-protection and vigilant editors were doing that just fine yesterday, and adding substantial content to the article too.
I understand the concern for the other admins' feelings and wheeling potential and so on, but clearly if we are all discussing this here, and have the WP:ANI discussion on record too, then can this not be pretext enough? I don't mean just yet - it would be nice to hear at least a few more opinions - but by this evening at the latest? Time is a factor, and if neither admin responds, are we really going to do nothing, regardless of how many others also continue to discuss? In any case, thank you all for your time, Girolamo Savonarola 08:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, ok, I lost track of the fact that the 21st is really right around the corner. Maybe 48 hours is too long. 12-24 hours might make more sense in this situation. The real problem that I have is the existence of that prematurely closed straw poll that looks like a clear consensus in favor of protection. It's bad enough to override an admin but to do so against a putative consensus looks to me like a free ticket to ARBCOM. Please restart a straw poll, make your case and issue a request for comment. If there is a clear consensus to lift protection, overriding the admins is defensible. Without that consensus, it's one admin's interpretation of policy over that of another admin. That kind of behavior is what shows up at ARBCOM quite often. I'm in no mood to take a trip to ARBCOM over this.
I'm headed to bed. I'll take another look at this tomorrow. Good night. --Richard 08:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~WP:ANI#Full_protection_pending_release_of_Harry_Potter.3F - consensus is already here. (Why does no one acknowledge this?) Girolamo Savonarola 08:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Yes, you can say there was no consensus for full protection in that ANI thread. However, it should be noted that the latest discussion on ANI doesn't appear to have a clear consensus for unprotection, either. Let's wait to see the outcome of the current poll on the article talk page. Peacent 08:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've returned the article to semiprotection as per the consensus that was already arrived at. Polls are evil and do not countermand policy - see WP:PROTECT#Full_protection for our protection policy - "to stop spoilers" is not on there as a valid reason for even temporary full protection. Just because it's a Harry Potter book doesn't grant it special status differentiating it from every other upcoming released movie / game / book / TV series, which we do not fully protect. Neil ╦ 10:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Full Protection is an emergency procedure to stop vandalism. It's not something for a talk page's "consensus" to decide. I disagree with this, this is a 100% complete endaround of the proper method of going to WP:RFPP and making a request there. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 12:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~It was at WP:RFPP initially. I moved it here (the thread way above) to get more input.--Chaser - T 13:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I think I will avoid the internet from when I get the book till when I have read it. Viridae ^Talk 12:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Actually, the Full Prot does permit the FP on 'high profile pages', which I'm sure some can argue DH's page will be. That said, I stand by my argument that the chance is here to show that Wikipedia grows and learns, but that we're losing that chance, and when some kid instead goes to that page and reads 500 pages of Harry on Ron porn culled from some dumbass internet site, and the parents kneejerk and call the cops and the tv stations, well, I'll be the one saying 'Told ya so'. It's even more likely that some TV station will feature Wikipedia's article being filled with the spoilers to ruin it for little kids, or in some other unflattering light. This is what we can avoid, but hey, I'm ust a SCOX troll, so what do I know? ThuranX 13:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's one thing that people haven't actually included in this discussion: the publishers sent GameFAQs, which is about 1000 times less active, got DMCAs on Friday due to the leak. It's almost certain that Scholastic and Bloomsbury will be keeping a watch on the wiki. Until 23:01 UTC on Friday night, it's unverifiable and a potential copyvio. Will ^(talk) 13:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Unverifiable, yes. Copyvio, no, unless we actually transcribe the scanned text into our article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Comment. I've already blocked two sleeper accounts for spoilers.-Wafulz 14:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further to Walfuz's point, since I took it back down to semiprotection some 5 hours ago, there has been a whole three vandal edits, and one to the talk page. All of which were reverted within 60 seconds and the perpetrators blocked. That is hardly unmanageable. Neil ╦ 15:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~User requesting deletion of their talk page?~~
User talk:Jtm71 is currently up for speedy deletion, with the reason "it is my wish". The user doesn't seem to be invoking m:right to vanish, so this would just delete all talk page history. Is this allowed?-Wafulz 14:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~No. I have declined the speedy request. Also, this is one of the few times I've ever seen someone give themselves a template warning. --Deskana (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
No it violates the GFDL. Rlest 14:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How? Provided you delete every revision, there's no GFDL concerns. --Deskana (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~In which cases can a talk page be deleted? Peacent 14:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
To remove libelous material in the history, or to invoke m:right to vanish.-Wafulz 14:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I must have misread that bit, deleting a page to removed certain revisions violates the GFDL but not deleting to vanish or to remove the full history. Rlest 14:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Provided you remove all revisions after the one you delete, there is no GFDL concern. Or, if it was libellous and reverted straight away, simply removing the libellous edit and the reversion (not even the reversion is necessary) will do. --Deskana (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is for example when Qst left some nasty edit summaries when he was upset his talk page was deleted then restored without them revisions included and it had to be restored as to how it was per GNUFDL. Rlest 14:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This may be too much of a topic shift but I've heard it's okay to keep vandalism edits out when doing a restore of an article saying that the vandalism isn't contributing to the article and so doesn't need to be credited per GFDL. Is that true? Same for talk pages? Just curious... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People are getting confused here. GFDL requires attribution for all derivative works. So were I to delete the last 20 revisions here at ANI, there'd be no GFDL issue. However, were I to delete the original post to this thread, without deleting the rest, that would be a GFDL violation, as the original post author isn't properly attributed. If vandalism is reverted immidiately, then the revisions can be removed without creating GFDL violations, as none of the content added was ever used to create derivative works (ie, the next revision). I'm not a lawyer, but I'm reasonably confident that I'm correct. --Deskana (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But if you deleted an article and restored just the non-vandalism edits, leaving out even old vandalism, that would be a problem? That's different than the answer I heard last time I asked. I had asked in reference to removing old vandalism with particularly bad edit summaries. I guess I'll change that practice in the future. (It didn't come up that often anyway...) —Wknight94 (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provided the vandalism is reverted straight away, then there is absolutely no problem in removing the diffs. The problem is when you delete diffs of contributors. Were I to delete a single random page version from the page history of an article, the software would assign that edit to the next person in the page history, creating an attribution problem. --Deskana (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will create two examples in my userspace, to better get across what I mean. --Deskana (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Concerns about GFDL, in the context of a user talkpage, strike me as too hypertechnical to worry about. Newyorkbrad 16:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I'd have to go with Newyorkbrad especially as talkpage edits are attributed by signatures. Saying that I would have thought the oversight people deal with those issues all the time, so an answer from them might be a good idea. Agathoclea 16:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that in the context of a talk page, the page history isn't terribly important since the signatures are on the end. --Deskana (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~User talk:STEALTH RANGER~~
Anyone interested in taking a look at this? STEALTH RANGER (talk · contribs) got into a bit of a dust up with Wafulz (talk · contribs) resulting in an ANI report last week, which I offered to look into. I warned STEALTH RANGER about incivility and modification of other editors' comments/headers rather than blocking the account, and left it at that. STEALTH RANGER requested on his talkpage that I do a more complete review of his and Wafulz interaction, which I did. In the mean time, Wafulz blocked User:STEALTH RANGER for 1 week for harassment. I posted my opinion at User talk:STEALTH RANGER, which can be summed up as "nobody owns their contributions, be prepared to be edited mercilessly, Wafulz probably should have left the block for someone else to do (though I note that Wafulz did post here at ANI with a notice he had blocked), and continuing to soapbox about the situation is counterproductive". Essentially I didn't find that Wafulz had done anything wrong, he'd been polite (up to the point where it was fairly clear his buttons were being pushed) and his edits after STEALTH RANGER were upfront and in line with WP:MOS. My findings apparently didn't sit well with STEALTH RANGER (talk · contribs) who was now purporting to be working with a newspaper on a story about Wikipedia, and the coversation continued. In the course of this conversation, the tone of the messages changed and the account/individual editing were referred to in the third person or with "we". I asked if I was speaking to more than one person and the response I got indicated to me that more than one individual was editing from the account, so I extended the 1 week block to indefinite per WP:USERNAME. A few times now the individual(s) there are asserting that it is not a role account and that I've blocked the account for helping the paper with an article. Despite this, at this time it appears clear to me that more than one person has edited from this account, though only in the user talk space (mainspace edits would all appear to be consistant with one individual). I've instructed him/them to request an unblock via template or email, but if someone else wants to review this, feel free. I'm disinclined to go back to the 1 week (or 6 days at this point) block without some discussion as it appears WP:USERNAME was violated, but likely only in the talkspace and only in regards to this conversation. The previous 1 week block should definitely stand if the indef is deemed unecessary or excessive though; the primary editor pretty much earned that one.--Isotope23 16:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of followed this case with interest in the last couple of days and I've seen no misstep on an administrator's part. The user has been consistently uncivil and downright rude all the time. Having "ALL CAPS TANTRUMS" and acting like a complete 4 year old... I'd say undo the block if the user promises to stop consistently doing what he has been doing... but I don't see that happening... If he really wants to open up another account, let him. I'm fine with the indef block personally. Sasquatch t|c 16:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed some soapboxing from the talkpage because it was a text dump of a copywritten Guardian article. For a project purporting multiple editors, there seems a lack of understanding of policy here.--Isotope23 16:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also fairly certain he's bluffing about having journalists monitoring anything. First, there's the initial "why should they give a damn argument" - the majority of his edits are trivia-type additions to pop culture/comic articles, or outright insults and bursts of outrage when someone disagrees with him. Next, he's clearly still editing at the exact same time of the day as he has been for months. Finally, I offered my e-mail for communication, and he promotes communicating with me. To date, I have not received any e-mails.-Wafulz 16:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Block check~~
I've blocked Putmedown (talk · contribs) as a disruptive sock/meatpuppet after his creation of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/67.87.225.29 and edits to my talk page. [145] It seems this user is connected to AFUSCO (talk · contribs) via 67.87.225.29 (talk · contribs) (AFUSCO's sock) as can be seen by the current unblock-auto request on the IP's talk page. They are also self-labeled socks of MWACHTENDONK (talk · contribs) [146]. So, my question: is this worth sending to checkuser, or is this enough to place a long block on AFUSCO for continued sockpuppetry? Also note AFUSCO's page moves on the 16th. - auburnpilot talk 16:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Lucifugum~~
This is a now-salted article. A user, User:Sasha13666 was recreating the article more than five times. After getting blocked for a week by FisherQueen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), the user created a sockpuppet account User:Qweasd111 which inserted the same material. I have blocked both accounts indef. Special:DeletedContributions/Qweasd111 This and Special:DeletedContributions/Sasha13666 this are useful links. Feel free to discuss this if I overreacted, as I feel indef is justified because it's a clearly distruptive user that has started violating policy by introducing another account. --Evilclown93 16:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~(Mutual) frustration with another editor -- would appreciate some feedback~~
Hiya. User:38.119.112.187/-188/-189/-190 and I have been at loggerheads off-and-on for a while now about a handful of very dorky, probably-would-not-pass-AfD-if-anyone-looked-real-close articles. Our civility is less than exemplary and I'll readily fess up that I've antagonized him when I've been frustrated with some of his edits. I and at least one other editor have accused him of being a departed user now editing anonymously, which in and of itself is antagonizing -- and, if we're right, our confrontational editing has an even longer history. I offer the prologue to make clear that I've made my own share of don't be a dick violations when it comes to this editor.
That said, I'm curious as to whether the second sentence of this edit is appropriate. It asserts some somewhat personally identifiable information. Anyone who's looked at my since-deleted userbox page or old talk page archives can figure out plenty about me, including my profession, and make a hypothesis about where I work (although I don't think I've stated it on this site) -- but, I'm not particularly comfortable with this apparently baiting and off-topic flag about what I do when I'm not at Wikipedia. Is it just moderately irrational for me to be bothered by this, or wholly out of my freakin' mind irrational? And is it possible for someone to go into the edit history and erase that second sentence? --EEMeltonIV 16:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Inappropriate. I'll delete it. Dina 16:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Blatant violation of fair use rules in place~~
OK, this is really getting on my nerves. Several people continue to add a fair use picture of a living person to the infobox of David Duke, including an administrator. This is a blatant violation of our fair use criteria. Can I please get some help here? The Evil Spartan 16:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,736: / Line 1,736: @@
 :::Hey look, I called it! Total shift to blamign everyone else, including those commenting here, MONGO's going to walk away... See you all here next time. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] 14:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 ::::What exactly did MONGO walk away with?  I suspect that you are correct, though.  We will be back here because the persons trolling MONGO will continue to file these frivolous complaints in the hope that if enough mud is slung, some will stick.  You can either support this MO or help him fight it.   --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 14:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
+:::::Are you nuts? I want MONGO blocked for incivility. He does this all the time. He makes himself a giant fucking bullseye. Then he comes here. And half of us tell hiim to stop being such a giant fucking WIKIDICK to people, so he doesn't bring this shit down on himself. And his response is always "fuck you all, I'm MONGO, and the trolls just hate me, it's a cabal'. And the other half of the people sit here saying "But he's MONGO, and he's our HEEERO" and he walks away. Block his ass till he learns that provoking idiots to bigger and bigger acts of trolling is a DICK move. He needs a good thorough block, and some time off wiki to learn to cool off. I'm so sick of people protecting asshole editors like MONGO, Merkey, And he who shall not be named, lest he get you fired at work, sue you for your home, and inspire drive-bys by outing you. Wikipedia would be a better project if a half dozen or so giant [[WP:DICK|DICKS]] would get blocked. Start here, today. Block MONGO till he learns that revving up the trolls is as bad, or worse then, since he knows better, the stupid variosu assholes he encounters. [[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]] 16:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 == [[User:Cuddly Panda]] Image violations: ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards