Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
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

Disputants deleting each others' posts on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus

Wikipedians who dispute whether Copernicus's nationality was Polish or German have for the past few days been deleting, reverting, and restoring one anothers' posts on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus (edit history). The dispute has been raging since last year at least, as the Talk page and that page's archives and the subpage Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Nationality and the subpage's three archives illustrate. However, eliminating an opponents' comments is unacceptable. The pretext for some of the deletions is accusations of sockpuppetry, but so far as I can tell the alleged sockpuppets have not been blocked or banned. This same nationality warring caused the Nicolaus Copernicus article itself to be protected since 23 September 2007 and on 12 prior occastions since 7 February 2006 (protection log). And that is especially shameful in view of both the importance of Copernicus as an historical figure and the sub-standard quality of Wikipedia's article on him (partly due to nationality warring edits of the article).

I do not believe that protecting the Talk page of a protected article is a good solution. Rather, I suggest that the several Wikipedians who are deleting others' comments be warned and, if necessary, blocked or banned.

This board may not be the perfect place for this incident, but the problem is that parts of the incident fall within scope of several other notice boards. So, this seemed to me to be the best place to address the overall problem. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 01:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Support. The sub-standard quality of Wikipedia article on Nicolaus Copernicus is a result of a relentless campaign of a small number of deletionists interested in promoting their own POVs. I believe this issue will never be resolved and so at least some preventive measures have to be taken (and upheld) in order to maintain the principles of an open source format. --Poeticbent talk 18:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've expressed my views on the matter here. Raymond Arritt 01:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmph. User:H.J. was being disruptive about all Prussian/German/Polish matters back in 2001, Copernicus just one of them. Corvus cornix 02:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the remarks of User:Finell are hardly understandable to me. He should know better, he encountered one of User:Serafin's sock puppets here. Serafin made a mess out of the Copernicus article, and continues to do so on the talk page. Please have a closer look at Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Serafin, and regarding "so far as I can tell the alleged sockpuppets have not been blocked or banned", also Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Serafin and User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       03:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The deleted comments originate from a banned user. Doesn't policy require that we remove them? --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree at all to the description of the problem, which I not even consider a problem. I believe to understand this thread, it is essential to read Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus#Shame on you. It is not hard to find out that 131.104.219.176 is Serafin, is it? Contrary to Finell's above assumption that "the alleged sockpuppets have not been blocked or banned", they have, except for the most recent one, User:Lobby1 (just compare the time of the account's creation to another puppet, say User:Buggo1). I would like admins reading this to place User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin on their watchlists and act upon new reports. I have also wanted Finell to report them and I explained to him the wrong implications that are likely to be drawn if only those who hold another view are forced to report and remove the comments of a banned user, but Finell did not grant my request the way I had hoped for. Sciurinæ 15:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sciurinæ: If you want to report suspected sockpuppets, go ahead, but don't expect me to carry out this chore for you. I have no idea who Serafin is (although I did confirm for myself that he was banned), and have no expertise in recognizing his sockpuppets. However, it is clear that one editor's, or even a group of editors', suspicion of sockpuppetry is not justification to delete another editor's posts. Report it to the admins and let them deal with it; that is what admins are for. The Wikipedia community will not tolerate vigilantes deleting other editors' comments, especially when the deleters are partisans in the dispute: that is the road to anarchy. Admin Raymond Arritt expressed this view clearly, and those who ignore his warning do so at their peril. Finell (Talk) 23:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Arritt is an admin, he issued that warning, and was made aware of the watchlist User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin which was set up to "Report it to the admins and let them deal with it", yet he did not do "what admins are for" within the last days.-- Matthead ^discuß!     O       12:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I just read the talk page guidelines and unfortunately, they are stunningly vague about deleting talk page comments. They allow "deletion of prohibited material" which one person apparently interprets to include "sock puppets", and "deletion of irrelevant material" which certainly includes some of the recently appearing off-topic comments about more modern German-Polish relations, and they even speak softly of the "refactoring" of talk pages, which opens the gates to anything that might not have been allowed by the first two policies. Under the circumstances it seems wrong to ban anyone, or protect the page, to prevent violations of a policy which is at best unclear and perhaps nonexistent. If this controversy gets the attention of an admin, perhaps that attention is better spent nailing down the policy first. At least one person in the discussion sounds like he'd follow it if he knew what it was. 70.15.116.59 18:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and to top it off, they're talk page guidelines. Can you even ban or block based on a violation of guidelines that "are not set in stone" etc.? Is there any policy at all on talk page deletions? 70.15.116.59 19:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The policy which applies is WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. User:Serafin's comments should be removed and those who seek to obstruct tackling him persistently should be blocked. Sciurinæ 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The absurdity of Finell's suggestion to block or ban users who have removed comments of the banned User:Serafin on Talk:Nicolaus_Copernicus becomes clear when it is applied to Finell himself. Maybe he forgot that he, too, removed one of Serafin's comments (ie as often as I have) and one could now easily recall Finell's rhetoric about vigilance and the wikipedia community and anarchy; the only difference being that a person can only speak for their own motives and that means a lot given that Finell speaks of bad faith in deleting an opponent's comments and has deleted a then opponent's (otherwise ally) comment although he does not know or care whether it is a banned user or not. Finell also did not report the user as a possible sockpuppet of Serafin, leaving this "chore" to those he now wants to get blocked or banned if they delete Serafin's comments restored again and again by Serafin's sockpuppets that were blocked shortly afterwards. Surely, a victory of Serafin in this issue is further encouragement for him to continue ban evasions. Sciurinæ 19:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sciurinæ: Please do not misrepresent what I said; that is dishonest. I have no objection to deleting the postings or edits of a blocked or banned user. What I object to is someone deleting posts becasue of an unconfirmed (by an admin) suspicion or accusation of sockpuppetry. Finell (Talk) 21:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I consider your entire thread a misrepresentation and there's no honesty when I explain to someone how something might be mistaken and that someone comes to AN/I and tries to convince everybody of that this mistake was the truth. You should make clear in which way you have been misrepresented.

So what is your problem? Most of the time, the comments of the banned User:Serafin have been removed and rightly so. Should you seriously discover anytime in the future unbanned people who remove each others' comments, like you claimed, you might have a reason for a thread like this. It's a real shame that those who share Serafin's POV connive at his block evasions, but one cannot force people to do something against those they agree with. Still, you refuse to participate against (rather than for) the banned user, though I think that might be a fair chance for you to make up for this thread. The indifference of admins towards this thread at least should show you that it's not the admins alone who are going to clean up the mess of banned users. Oh, look - now that he's got his comments back in place, Serafin also wants the sock-tags removed ([1]). Sciurinæ 21:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't start the thread, but the problem I see is that an admin actually said he was going to block the next person who removed on-topic talk page comments. While I don't think that would be a bad policy it doesn't exist yet. So either this threat should be retracted or somebody should start writing a policy. 70.15.116.59 03:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Solution?

What's the denouement? Are we really forbidden to remove the posts of a banned user under pain of immediate block? I'm asking because User:Raymond arritt still has left the sharp warning on the article's talk page and still does not respond, and admin attention has obviously completely faded away within an hour of the thread's existence. Sciurinæ 22:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still watching. The goal was to get the disputants to discuss the matter amongst themselves. The basic point has been well stated by others: removing comments by confirmed sockpuppets of banned users is appropriate, but removing comments because someone thinks that a person might be a sockpuppet is not (much less simply removing comments that one doesn't agree with). Raymond Arritt 22:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You are still watching? What, or whom? Which ones of Serafin's dozens of sockpuppets do you expect to discuss the matter amongst themselves? You issued a First and only warning to good faith editors, and have been courteously asked [2] [3] to have a second look at the matter. You did not respond to these messages within the last days, and made only the statement above. During the last month, myself and others had tried to keep the Copernicus talk page readable, reporting numerous new suspects to User talk:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/Serafin and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Serafin, but admins are not keeping up, there's a backlog to sort out. You jumped into this and posted your warning five days ago, but apparently you have not done anything about the real problem since. Did you overlook the links? Do you think sockpuppetry and repeated disruption is of low importance? Do you have other priorities as an admin? I ask you to start working on the sockpuppet issue, either confirming the suspects and moving them to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Serafin accordingly, or clearing them of someone thinks that a person might be a sockpuppet accusations. As you issued the warning, you should also put the necessary effort into the issue. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       12:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Serafin, there has never been any doubt whether a puppet of him was actually a real user. There may be some cases in which the banned user's comments have been removed before he has been blocked, but the puppet has been later confirmed. There would be no point in undermining one's credibility by accusing a wrong user and jeopardise Serafin's case, who is a long-term disruptive force to be reckoned with (see history of Bureaucracy). Is there any policy saying that banned users' accounts have to be blocked first before their mess is cleaned up? Sounds to me like having to wait until a vandal IP is blocked before being allowed to remove its insertion, say, of some vulgar words in an article, but then again even that is sometimes reasonable when the other person is probably still glaring at his or her computer, ready to undo should anyone revert. Many or most "comments" are simple restorations of his older comments that were removed, which would even allow removing them if genuine users have restored them (see the Everyking case). I can't criticise people for their first impressions and your warning would be suitable in other contexts like in a scenario told by Finell. Here, the warning would just deter from keeping Serafin at bay and be an encouraging victory for his guerilla revert tactic, which needs to be discouraged. I'd therefore appreciate it if you could retract it. Sciurinæ 23:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Views of Lyndon LaRouche article fully protected

I have just full-protected the article Views of Lyndon LaRouche indefinitely (no expiration set). I wanted to notify other administrators and explain this action, for community review.

This article subject has been the subject of a long-running sustained edit war, and three completed Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others) and one pending (WP:RFAR#Cberlet and Dking) Arbitration Committee cases. An extremely persistent LaRouche supporter User:Herschelkrustofsky has been banned and returned repeatedly (most recent sockpuppet Gelsomina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked last night based on CU and editing; had been a participant on the article but not the primary one).

The specific case findings I believe apply to this action include:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche - Principles 1, 2; Remedies 1, 4; Enforcement 3
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 - Principles 2, 3, 5
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others - Principles 5, 6, 11

Normal policy allows administrators to protect pages to end particularly tedentious edit wars. This edit war has been actively ongoing since 2004.

Under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche Enforcement 3 administrators are allowed to protect articles on other topics in a version without LaRouche content added. I am going to trivially extend that ruling and protected the article in a version which was not the last, but the last non-LaRouche-supporter-edited version. I believe this action is in accord with the spirit of the Arbcom ruling.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche have clearly been attempting to turn that article (and others) into soapboxes for his political views. These activities have been persistent. They have broken WP policy to the extent of four separate arbcom cases in 3 years. They have utilized sockpuppets to an extent which is at best difficult to follow and monitor.

The common hope that two opposing camps on an article will over time come to an agreeable middle solution which is NPOV (and so forth) appears to be false related to articles on this topic.

I have left advice on the article Talk page for editors who want changes in the article to leave a talk page note detailing the change desired and discuss there; changes which appear consistent with Wikipedia policy can then be made by administrators watching the talk page. I will continue to watch the talk page to monitor for such requests, and I hope other admins will do likewise.

It may be appropriate to apply this solution to other related articles on the same topic. At this point I have no firm intention to do so but I am going to review them in more detail.

As always, I am open to input from other administrators and editors on any of my admin actions, either here on ANI or on my talk page. Georgewilliamherbert 01:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I forwarded your WikiEN-L message to the arbcom list. I find this initiative against dedicated COI POV-pushers and their sock drawer most heartening - David Gerard 01:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! El_C 08:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

He's going to "trivially extend" the arbcom ruling? He's rewriting it altogether! --Marvin Diode 14:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Echoes of El C. Three cheers, stopping a massive edit war, showing initiative, and an action that shows exactly why IAR is policy. My mood has been lifted. It's Oktoberfest, Bratwurst and beer for all! -M^ask? 15:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yay. Tenacious POV-pushers give us much bigger headaches than simple vandals and trolls. And they strike at the heart of the project by consciously making our content unreliable. Raymond Arritt 15:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The nice thing too is that "indefinite" here does not mean "forever" - the FlaggedRevisions extension, should it prove fit for purpose, will serve nicely to keep pages like this under control - David Gerard 17:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a new and innovative approach that renders Wikipedia:Dispute resolution obsolete. Where there is a protracted content dispute, an admin may simply decide that he prefers one gang of POV pushers over the other, then join the gang that is to his liking and enforce its version of the article. No need for consensus, either. And what is more, there is no further need for the arbcom, now that User:Georgewilliamherbert has ignored all rules, stepped up to the plate, and simply done their job for them. --Marvin Diode 20:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That you have been a pro-LaRouche POV pusher on this article has no bearing on your opinion, of course - David Gerard 20:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to provide some evidence to substantiate this personal attack? --Marvin Diode 12:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

your removal of critical information and removal of his anti-semitism from the article linked here would seem to make it less of an attack and more a statement of fact. -M^ask? 18:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In your first example, I hid a twenty year old comment by the Post which might belong in the article but not in the lead, since I doubt that it is still accurate today. In the second example, I removed OR by Dking, which puts words in LaRouche's mouth in a defamatory way. Any responsible editor would do that. NOR and BLP are core policies. --Marvin Diode 14:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Violation of page protection policy

Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes says that:

During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people.

User: Georgewilliamherbert has been a participant in a recent content dispute at Views of Lyndon LaRouche. Today he reverted to his preferred version of the article, then protected it, in violation of policy. --Marvin Diode 05:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Except he's ignoring all rules to end a pernicious edit war on this page. It makes sense in this context, and is buttressed by the ArbCom rulings on the topic. See the above section — the pernicious LaRouche edit-wars have already led to special provisions against pro-LaRouche versions of articles, against regular policy. This is a logical extension thereof. --Haemo 06:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom decisions don't say anything of the sort. They say that if someone adds references to LaRouche to an article where it is inappropriate, then admins may protect the version that doesn't mention LaRouche. This is an article about LaRouche, and it appears to me that GWH is protecting a BLP violation (which is never supposed to happen.) --Marvin Diode 14:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to enter the BLP discussion on the article talk page. If a reasonable case is made to that effect then I or another administrator can fix the article text. Protected articles are not frozen; they are just not currently world-editable. Georgewilliamherbert 22:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully support Georgewilliamherbert in this. (If you would really prefer, I'll go unprotect it and protect it myself, since I've not been involved.) POV pushes need stopping, period. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Same here. It's not an IAR, it's entirely per the spirit of the arbcom ruling. - David Gerard 17:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Three cheers for User: Georgewilliamherbert and common sense. WAS 4.250 18:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is full protection required? What's wrong with semi-protection and liberal blocking of edit warriors? --Tango 00:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, all the edit warriors here have long-standing accounts. --Carnildo 01:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what the blocks are for. If certain people are persistently edit warring on an article, it is generally best to block them, rather than protect the article - protecting is good for forcing discussion and resolving the war, it doesn't sound like this war is ever going to be resolved, the people involved just need to be stopped. If you are worried about them just logging out or creating new accounts and carrying on, then you can semi-protect. --Tango 14:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert's page protection was an appropriate way to deal with an increasingly difficult situation, and might make some progress possible. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What the arbcom decision actually says, versus User:Georgewilliamherbert's "trivial extension"

If an article is protected due to edit wars over the removal of Lyndon-related material, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which does not mention Lyndon LaRouche. (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche) The essential thrust of this decision was to prevent User:Herschelkrustofsky from adding references to LaRouche to a variety of articles where LaRouche or his opinions were not notable. What User:Georgewilliamherbert is attempting to do, is to write his own arbcom decision, which says that if an article about Lyndon LaRouche or his views is protected due to edit wars over the removal of material which is alleged to violate WP:BLP, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which is the "the last non-LaRouche-supporter-edited version." A "LaRouche supporter" is defined as anyone who disputes the edits of User:Cberlet or User:Dking, who habitually violate WP:SOAP, WP:FRINGE, WP:COI, and WP:BLP on a broad range of articles, not just the LaRouche articles. I have added little or nothing about LaRouche, either positive or negative, to the LaRouche articles, or any others -- my role has been to object to policy violations by Cberlet and Dking. In the course of doing so, I have become quite familiar with the LaRouche arbcom decisions, and User:Georgewilliamherbert's "trivial extension" of them is in fact an entirely new policy which should not be represented as in any way related to what the arbcom decided. --Marvin Diode 13:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You may notice the lack of interest and support for your wikilawyering on this point. I wonder why that is. - David Gerard 14:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No one cares and we're all to happy that someone got out the clue-by-four to solve a legitimate problem in a unique, innovative, and emminently reasonable manner? Oh silly me, you were being rhetorical and I should have avoided using this moment to bask in the glow of a confidence-inspiring action that lets me know the project is in good hands. Whoops, there I go again. -M^ask? 18:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I seem to be belaboring the obvious, but I get the feeling that there are one or two admins here who are either oblivious, or indifferent, to the core policies that they are supposed to be implementing. --Marvin Diode 00:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. The other admins seem to be supporting Georgewilliamherbert's actions though. Fram 09:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh! El_C 09:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the decision by Georgewilliamherbert to protect Views of Lyndon LaRouche indefinitely. He is correct that it has been the subject of tendentious edit warring since 2004 The latest round has been particularly unproductive. An alternative solution would have been using Enforcement provision #1 of the first LaRouche ArbCom case, which would have resulted in the banning of Marvin Diode and others. However that probably would have been more disruptive and time consuming. The page protection is a reasonable and necessary step to bring stability to a contentious topic. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a neutral encyclopedia and all of its rules exist only to further that goal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've contributed to Wikipedia for a day short of five years now, & of all of the nasty, prolonged "we're bringing machine guns to this knife fight" edit wars on Wikipedia I've seen, the LaRouche-related one has been the worst. Worse than dealing with Scientologists, Neo-nazis, circumcision, or even the proper name of Danzig Gdańsk that port city on the Baltic sea. If his action ends this dispute, then GWH deserves all of our thanks. -- llywrch 19:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite ban for Herschelkrustofsky

The main LaRouche editor has been Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), currently a moderator at Wikipedia Review. HK has been the subject of three ArbCom cases resulting in various short bans and probations, and finally a one year ban. In the course of those investigations it was found that he'd been using sock puppets from the start of his editing career. Desptire his ban, he's never stopped using them. The non-stop sock puppetry has resulted in the ban being reset several times, most recently this month, and has become a de-facto indefinite ban. I propose that we end the charade and make the indefinite ban official. It won't stop him from using more socks but it would make the situation clearer. Any thoughts? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Sadi Carnot

Sub page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Sadi Carnot. Perhaps as this subpage develops, any new sections can be noted here. (Just a New section created with title "TITLE" ~~~~). At time of archiving 102 kb long. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 02:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin User:Mikkalai blocked for 48 hours, review requested

I have blocked Mikkalai (talk · contribs) for 48 hours, after a warning for edit warring which was followed by a personal attack and a clear statement of intent to continue edit-warring with Ludvikus (talk · contribs) over the article Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War. See my extended reasons at User talk:Mikkalai#Personal_attacks_and_edit_warring.

Mikkalai is an admin, so I would be grateful if other admins could review my actions here. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block - edit warring with a clear statement that it would continue. Viridae^Talk 08:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the revision histories, you gave Mikkalai a final warning at 19.04 on 20 October and Mikkalai last edited the article at 18.30. You blocked him at 09.35 this morning. This doesn't really sit right. The block appears to be because Mikkalai refused to agree to stop disrupting but since the last warning no further disruption of the article has taken place. This can't be the right way to deal with this situation. Reading the talk page quickly it appears that the other engaged user is also being very disruptive. Have they been blocked? NO it appears not. And the article was protected at 3 am this morning - 6 hours before this block was issued. Since the article is protected I fail to see what disruption this block is supposed to prevent? Frankly this strikes me as a very poor decision given that Mikkalai had over 100,000 contributions to the project last I looked. Sure he can be difficult and uncooperative but how does this block help us build an encyclopaedia? I have unblocked Mikkalai. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, might that be a rash and quickly made decision? Would it not be better to wait until there has been more discussion before defying the block? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps but I took the view that this was manifestly not the right way to deal with this that an unblock was the right way forward.Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, we only ever block users for what we can infer about their future behaviour from their past conduct. Typically an intention to continue edit warring is inferred from recent edit warring, but a statement to that effect serves just as well. Furthermore I find your implication that having a large number of edits excuses such behaviour to be quite disgraceful. How many edits would you say are necessary to excuse wheel warring? --bainer (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Where am I wheel-warring? I have overturned the block once. That's not a wheelwar that's a difference of opinion. If there is a consensus that I was wrong and someone reblocks I won't unblock again so that's hardly a wheelwar. In all cases we need to consider the impact on the project of any block. Mikkalai is a long term standing editor whose contribution to the project is enormous. Of course we give editors like him more rope - just look how much rudeness and incivility and all round disruption that the arbcom accepts from other well established editors. The edit that he was blocked for took place around 9pm last night and he was blocked aprox 12 hours later without further disrupting the article. Sure we can infer but a quick look at the page history and the protection log tells us that the disruption has ceased and will not resume. Did you also see Mikkalai's request for the page to be protected to end the edit war? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

. You overturned another admin's action without prior discussion: that's wheel-warring according to WP:WHEEL.

You are also wrong about the timing: the edit for which Mikkalai was blocked was made at 04:35 this morning, 7 hours after the page was protected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No it's not wheel warring. It's an application of Bold, Revert, Discuss to an admin action. It would become a wheel war if you re-blocked, which I trust you won't do. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I now see what you mean. I still stand by my point. I don't accept that I was wheelwarring and I do not agree with the block as protecting the article has ended the disruption. Blocks for incivility are rarely effective and in this case have no value with someone like Mikkalai who is otherwise an extremely valuable contributor to the project. Especially as the problem is excacabated by his having to deal with an extremely disruptive user who has just returned from a 6m block. You seem to have decided that his being an admin means he deserves blocking more than a non-admin and that's simply not right. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know it, Ludvikus is a known troll who since his return from a 6 months block has been badgering Mikkalai to the point where I'm amazed that he hasn't resorted to incivility yet. This is Jacob Peters all over again. Are we going to block the troll or the people who correctly reverts him (Mikkalai in this case) ? EconomicsGuy 09:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus is indeed highly disruptive, and is under final warning, and the article is protected. But that does not alter Mikkalai's stated intention to edit war, which as it stands we can expect to resume when the protection is lifted. When other admins have already intervened and issued warnings, it is highly disruptive for an editor to states their intention to continue edit warring, and an editor who has been an admin for more than 3 years really has little excuse. I think it is highly regrettable that Spartaz lifted the block without further discussion. I don't intend to wheel-war, but having come here to discuss my actions, I expected that other admins would extend me the courtesy of discussing the block before lifting it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)What was your block preventing? Your message on Mikkalai's talk page says that he has been blocked for personal attacks. If that was the case then why did you say that you would unblock him if he promises not to disrupt the article further? That doesn't make sense unless the reason for the block was the threatened further disruption. Since the article has been protected what benefit does the block achieve? It can't be to prevent personal attacks because you were willing to unblock if the disruption stopped. Secondly, why are you treating him differently because he is an admin? Sure, we all expect admins to behave a bit better then non-admins but imposing different block standards because if this gives admins an unwarranted extra status that we do not have or deserve. This is manifestly wrong - especially in a case where Mikkalai was not acting in his admin capacity. Finally, I thoroughly agree that Mikkalai has serious civility problems but punitive blocks are not the answer.Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, did you actually read what I wrote? When I issued the block, I did indeed say "A block is a preventive measure, so I will of course lift the block immediately if you can promise that to stop edit warring". The threat was that Mikkalai explicitly said "I am at war with this person", which means that the differences are unlikely to be confined to one article. "You also seem to have missed that this was explicitly not a punitive block, which was why I promised to lift it if the threat of edit-warring was withdrawn.

I'm really rather annoyed abut this. I brought the block here for discussion, and rather than discussing it, you promptly overturned it. What on earth is the point of an admin bringing their own action for review if they are supported by one other editor but then promptly reverted without further discussion on a mistaken understanding of he nature of the block? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 11:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you are upset about this. I have had my blocks overturned before and I agree its not always nice but I honestly believe that you made a dud call here. Firstly, if you are not familiar with Mikkalai, he uses very stark language that often reads very aggressively. Stuff that he has done to me in the past has left me fuming and early on in my wiki-career I got blocked after edit warring with him that happened because I was so incensed by the way that he was responding to me that I totally lost my call. I'm certainly not his friend. I do however recognise his value to the project and I have very rarely found his admins actions to be anything other than spot on. Sure he used intemperate language in the heat of the argument - and your adding a templated warning to his talk page was probably not the best way to get his attention - But you surely must have read his own request for the article to be locked to halt the edit war. The article was locked 6 hours before you blocked Mikkalai - did you notice this? - because it was the first thing I noticed when I went to review the block. In this case, what could the block have prevented? by Mikkalai's own words the edit war would have ended at that point. How could a block be anything other than punitive? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You are quite entitled to believe hat I made a dud call, but you should have discussed before overturning.

And yes, of course I noticed that the article was locked before I blocked Mikkalai. The reason he was blocked (rather than warned again) is that his statement that he was "at war" came about 9 hours after the page was protected. I'm sorry, Spartaz, but you really have acted very poorly here, by overturning a block when you were wrong in your understanding of the reasons for it, and wrong in your assessment of the timelines. I have therefore reinstated it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

EconomicsGuy, please take a look at User talk:Ludvikus. Admins Banno, BrownHairedGirl and Until(1 == 2) have all been in contact with Ludvikus over the last few days over this very issue; Banno particularly gives some very sage advice here. Ludvikus is under close attention and will not escape sanction should he continue to edit war or engage in other disruptive behaviour.

We don't accept provocation as a defence here. Yes, we often expect administrators to put up with all sorts of crap from disruptive editors, and maybe sometimes that's unfair, but that's just the way it is. A measure of understanding should of course be extended in this type of situation, but in no way does that go so far as to entirely excuse declaring an intention to edit war. --bainer (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I offer no defense against those valid counter arguments. I'm simply puzzled by why an editor who returns from a 6 months block for trolling is only blocked for 24 hours for disruption of an AfD where as an admin is blocked for 48 hours for the intention to disrupt (sorry for the borderline wikilawyering but it puzzles me greatly how this happened.) EconomicsGuy 10:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. The edit in question was made in the heat of the moment but we then had 12 hours of no disruption and the page was protected. Where was the consideration there? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL please Spartaz. In response to EconomicsGuy, the purpose of a bloc is to prevent disruption, not to punish. The 24-hour block on Ludvikus solved the problem at AfD; I selected 48 hours for Mikkali because as an experienced editor, Miklalai can have have been in no doubt out the unacceptability of edit-warring. However, I am open to suggestions of the appropriate length of block for Mikkalai if 48 hours is considered excessive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

CIVIL? Beg pardon? Exactly what did I do that was uncivil? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Referring to another editor's contribution as "rubbish", above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

o_O That's a very interesting interpretation of incivility. Saying something is Rubbish isn't uncivil in the UK - it simply means that you strongly disagree with the point made. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block, actually. The edit warring, the personal attacks, and the statement of the intent to war more really makes me think a (48 hour) block is indeed justified. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Bad idea. Mikka is here to build the encyclopaedia, and in my view solves many more problems than he creates; he is trolled by many POV-pushers as a result. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know Ludvikus, but if EconomicsGuy's statement (Ludvikus is a known troll who since his return from a 6 months block has been badgering Mikkalai to the point where I'm amazed that he hasn't resorted to incivility yet.) is correct, then I would say it makes complete sense to me to unblock Mikkalai and perhaps discuss Ludvikus's recent edits instead. --Aminz 11:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I think Mikkalai shouldn't have reverted BrownHairedGirl's edit-warring notice without any explanation. Instead he could have discussed the situation with BrownHairedGirl. --Aminz 11:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that - I'm certainly not defending Mikkalai's civility here as he could certainly benefit from improving his interaction with other editors. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As a fellow grumpy old bastard I can quite see where Mikka comes from on this, and my experience with him is that he will always give a straight answer to a straight question. Warnings to admins are rarely a great idea. Requests to clarify or reminders that they may be getitng a bit heated, with an offer to help if needed, are much more likely to be productive. Unlike many of busy admins, Mikka is a prolific editor of content. We absolutely do not need to lose people like him. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

We wouldnt lose people like that if they didn't go around edit warring and making statements to the effect that they will continue to do so. Edit warring is inexcusable in EVERY situation and most certainly inexcusable in an admin. Viridae^Talk 12:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you tone it down a notch. El_C 12:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And while you're toning it down, you take a look at Ludvikus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the user Mikka was talking about reverting, you'll find masterpieces like this: [4]. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I make it no consensus that this block should stand. BrownHairedGirl says that she reinstated it. Since I'm accused of wheelwarring for my actions, would anyone care to comment on whether reinstating the block is a wheelwar and whether it reflects the consensus on this page? Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Undoing the block unilaterally would be a wheel-war. Even if groups of admins and non-admins agree with each other, those groups can still engage in a wheel-war regardless of who does the actual admin actions. That's my view, anyway. When is consensus reached? Who knows? It does seem silly to let the block run down, but the best thing to do would be to persuade BrownHairedGirl that her action in reinstating the block was inappropriate and ask her to unblock. Equally, you can ask for a separate review of her action in reinstating the block. My view is that even if BrownHairedGirl had seen a case for reinstating the block, she should have said that and let others take the decision, not her. The one thing wrong with all this is that short blocks can have expired before any consensus is reached. Carcharoth 21:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Block reinstated

As noted above, I have reinstated the block, because it has become clear through discussion that the Spartaz (who lifted the block) had misunderstood the reasons for the block and the timing of the actions leading to the block, and had not even seen that at the time of the block I closed my comments to Mikkalai with a promise to immediately lift the block if Mikkalai withdrew the satement of intent to edit-war.

I'm going to leave it that. I think I have said what needs to be said, and I will leave it to others to see if they can reach a consensus on where to take this situation. However, I stand by my promise to Mikkalai that "I will of course lift the block immediately if you can promise that to stop edit warring", and invite any other admin to lift the block if they notice such an assurance before I do ... or, of course, if there is a consensus here to lift it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, that's not good, since, technically, that does count as Wheelwarring, which, itself, greatly escalates this incident. Please reconsider. El_C 12:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I most strongly disagree with this action. Its wheelwarring and there is no consensus that the block was correct. Please reverse yourself. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The re-block was completely unnecessary; I've unblocked Mikkalai, per consensus, and per the fact that he stopped hours ago, and is discussing on the talkpage. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 12:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What consensus????? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In addition to what I wrote above, I will lift my re-block if you also agree to reverse your lifting of the block, since your initial lifting of the block was based on a failure to understand the reasons for which it was applied. I came here to seek a review of my actions and to seek a consensus, not to invite the unilateral overturning of my actions by admin who didn't fully read the extended explanation which I provided for the block, despite the fact that at the time of overturning the only other commentator supported the block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What happened to try to make an encyclopedia better, no matter what rules there are? Mikkalai cares for the encyclopedia, and actually writes it, we need more admins like that. Blocking him, especially for 48 hours, isn't going to solve anything. And what's the point of me reblocking him so you'll unblock him?! Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 12:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that if you have issues with my actions you take them out on me and not on Mikkalai. Your original block was harsh and isn't supported by a clear consensus in the discussion. Reblocking was pointy, petty and wheelwarring - which is staggering given that you had criticised me for wheelwarring shortly before it. I suggest that you go and do something else before this gets even more out of hand. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, it really would be a very good idea for you to try and do some basic reading of wikipedia policies and guidelines before participating in discussions on issues like this ... as well as trying to read a blocking admins's reasons before you overturn a block. I'm sorry if that's difficult for you, but reading is kinda crucial around here.

I'm not taking out on Mikkalai my genuine frustration and disappointment at your failure to read before acting or or even to understand why it is a good thing to read before acting. Mikkalai was blocked for his clear statement of intent to be "at war" with another editor, when the other editor was already under warning and the page concerned had already been protected. When you have done your reading, please can you kindly tell us all where exactly in any guideline or policy it says that edit-warring is acceptable behaviour from someone who makes good contributions elsewhere?

It'd be good to know what you come up with, for future reference. Is there a quota of acceptable edit wars for those who you think of as good editors, or is there some threshold at which disruptiveness is given a free license? I look forward to the links. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

o_O That's called playing the man not the ball where I come from. If I wanted to continue this argument I might also say that you can start yourself with reading up on WP:DTTR, WP:CIVIL, WP:WHEEL and WP:AGF and WP:BLOCK since we don't do punitive blocks. I'm still very confused. Did you block Mikkalai for being uncivil or for threatening to edit war in an article that was locked? If its the latter, the threat is really meaningless given that Mikkalai had already said that he wouldn't mind the article being locked in the wrong version . Prolific good faith editors have always been given more latitude then the policies strictly allow. I don't think this argument is healthy so I'm going to step out. Perhaps I was wrong to unblock but can you honestly say that your reblock was correct given that at that point the count was 3 in favour of your block and 3 against? Feel free to have the last word but please try and address that last question. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The ball here is the admin who unblocked without taking the time and trouble to actually read the blocking reasons, or to check the facts before making a whole series of demonstrably false assertions about the course of events. After all this time, you are still asking questions about why Mikkalai was blocked, the answers to which are clearly set out in the detailed reasons I gave for the block. If you haven't read and understood those, five hours after you impetuously lifted the block, please don't waste time citing anything at anyone else. Read before acting, eh? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. Your block was challenged, you need to justify it, not simply re-impose it. Several people have suggested that why is unliekly to help. You have not addressed those concerns. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. If you re-read the discussion, you'll see that most of the points raised in objection were simply wrong. It was alleged that block was punitive, when it was explicitly preventive; it was claimed that the page was protected after the threat to editwar, when the protection had taken place 9 hours before the threat; I was told that the block was lifted because I should have promised Mikkalai not lift the block if the war-threat was withdrawn, which I had done. And so on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And if you read it you'll see that your block was widely reckoned to be wrong. And reinstating it was wheel warring - something which you know to be wrong, even if you assume that only people reversing your actions are doing it. So that's two mistakes. I recommend you stop at that. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This was not a situation that required blocks, and nor was it a situation that required wheel-warring - and yes, BrownHairedGirl, wheel-warring is exactly what you did. Nor am I seeing an explicit promise to continue edit-warring from Mikka, or even an implicit one. Blocking by rote is unlikely to help matters in any situation. A more holistic approach is needed sometimes. Moreschi ^Talk 14:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ludvikus was being a disruptive menace, and is in the last-chance saloon; I and a few other admins have been trying to deal with the dispute by acting even-handedly. Edit-warring is always deplored, and nobody here has provided a plausible explanation of how or why it is acceptable for an admin to announce an intention to proceed with it. However, I'm not going to argue this any longer; someone else can take the trouble of dealing with these two edit warriors, and take whatever action they feel like. On the basis of what I have read here, and the jibe about blocking-by-rote, I have to wonder whether that will bear any resemblance to policy or guidelines, but if some admins want to make things up as they go along, I'll leave them to it. Have fun with Ludvikus and Mikkalai! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wheel-warring is always deplored as well, you know. You are in no position to lecture anyone about policies and guidelines, particularly as they related to admin actions, so let's cut the hypocrisy, shall we? Moreschi ^Talk 14:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, let's see. I engage with the parties to a conflict follow policy and guidelines, apply a block, set out the reasoning at unusual length, go the extra mile by asking for comments at ANI, and then someone who didn't even bother reading what I had written (let alone do some of the more onerous work of actually checking the timelines before pronuncing on them) unblocks in the face despite the balance of views at that point being 2:1 in favour of the block ... and I end up getting called a hypocrite because I insisted that an unblock should be done on the basis of a consensus? Thanks a lot, pal. Now, are you going to deal with that edit war, or did you just pop in to criticise after the fact? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What's the point in asking for a review if you're not prepared to receive criticism? ~ Riana ⁂ 15:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I expected to receive informed criticism, or . The first section of this review consisted mostly of one verbose editor who wouldn't read and who acted on that basis, and I object strongly to that. There were several more thoughtful contributions too, on both sides, which were welcome. I accept that that there has later appeared to be an emerging consensus that prolific editors should be allowed to edit war, which I accept, even though I think it is a very unwise approach. What I don't accept is the sniping, which is why I would be delighted to now leave this whole situation for someone else to sort out, safe in the knowledge that there is no penalty for inaction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the biggest pile of BS I've seen outside of a really big barn. You didn't just insist upon the supposed incorrectness of the unblock. You yourself darn well reinstated your original block, which you are not allowed to do under any circumstances. Have you actually read Wikipedia:Wheel war? If not, I highly recommend that you do so. Oh, and accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being mysteriously "wrong" apriori doesn't look good either. Moreschi ^Talk 15:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The principle of fairness doesn't always work on Wikipedia, sometimes, to keep the content contributors happy, you have to be sensible, but unfair. Blocking an excellent contributor such as Mikkalai just to be fair to someone who's being extremely disruptive, probably is fair, but it's completely devoid of any application of common sense. Nick 15:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not just fairness, it's also a matter of actually resolving the situation and calming the was which make some areas of wikipedia into no-go zones for anyone but the most battle-hardened. I don't see how it helps to defuse a content dispute for an editor to declare war on another editor/. There are plenty of content contributors who add a lot of content to to the encyclopedia and don't feel entitled to go around stoking conflicts, and their ability to work effectively is undermined if others appear to be given a licence to stoke conflict. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth I think the block was justified, and that the unblock was a little confusing. 1 != 2 15:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, saying that you are dealing with the situation even-handedly is just another way of saying you were successfully trolled -- a troll initiated a conflict, drew a productive editor into it, and then you treat both parties as if they have the same motivation, or as if they are both acting in good faith, when they don't and aren't. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I intentionally avoided making any judgement on the content; there are other channels to examine content issues and I have rarely found it helpful for an admin to try making a rapid assessment of the merits of different views of a subject with which they are unfamiliar: that's what dispute resolution is for. Ludvikus's histrionic approach makes it very difficult to determine exactly what the underlying issues are, which was why he was repeatedly warned by me and others to be civil and to set out his concerns clearly if he wanted other editors to engage. However, both editors had already been warned to take time out.

Mikkalai had not even responded to my earlier warning on his talk page, merely deleting it without comment, before making his declaration of war. Where in that is the evidence of good faith?

Mikkalai's talk page is routinely blanked, so there is no quickly-readable record of his interactions with other users, which often helps provide a picture of someone usually well-behaved who has had a momentary outburst. The evidence before me at the time (without spending hours researching Mikkali's contribs history) was of someone not just rejecting all attempts at problem-solving, but with a previous record of edit-warring on the same page and without the support of other editors on that article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In the future, I will do my best to listen very carefully to what User:BrownHairedGirl has to say in order to avoid any possibility of disruption. Although I do not agree with her assessment as to my alleged disruptiveness, I very highly respect her actions in practice - particilarly that she has been even-handed and imposed a 48-hour Block on such a very powerful, influencial, Administrator, such as User:Mikkalai. At the moment I see no other Administrator anywhere near her calaber. You should all learn and absorb her example. She is a great asset to Wikipedia. From what I see going on here - where the majority is ganging up on her - just because she apparently sided against one of the good old boys at Wikipedia makes me really want to leave Wikipedia forever. Nevertheless, in the immediate future, I promise to go out of my way to listen very carefully to her counsel so as to avoid any possible disruption on Wikipedia. At this stage of my experience at Wikipedia, I know no other Administrator whom I respect more than her, or vwho comes anywhere near her in fairness. I can promise you all this. All that will be required in the future from me, is a simple message from BownHairedGirl, and there will not be any indication of "disruption" whatsoever from me. As for you all, I think you should look very carefully at the amazing Conflict of Interests which clearly manifests itself when Editors are also Administrators.

Cheers, Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack by said Administrator after 48-hour Block was Unblocked

It seems to me that Administrators' are just too powerful to have their misconduct curtailed. Here's the latest "personal attack" on a fello Wikipedian:

“ This remark is a clear demonstration of the unfitness of the person to logical reasoning. We have thousands of books that say nothing about the topic. Imagine if we start quoting all them in articles about a topic. `'Míkka 17:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC) ”

It seems to me that this Administrator has so many friends in the Administration at Wikipedia that he will not desists in personal attacks. Why should there be two standards for that kind of misconduct, one for Administrators, and one for the rest of us. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Peace offering rejected - edit waring to continue

Certainly not by me, User:Ludvikus.

• Here's my Peace offer to Administrator User:Mikkalai which he has summarily rejected as trolling:
• For the sake of the Article, here's my Peace offering which Mikkalai rejected as trolling.:

“

P.S. About "even handed". Reminds me of an old Jewish joke. Abraham and Chaim are in big quarel. Shouting, tufts of payot in the air. Here comes a reasonale Issac. "Oy vey, Abram and why this ruckus? You go to rabbi, he will judge you" So they go to rabbi, shouthing, tufts of payot ion the air. The rabbi frowns: "Now stop all tha noise, this is not kahal here. Talk your turns, you, Abraham, first". - Abraham: "Rebbe, it was this and that". Rabbi, after long thinking, "You are right, Abraham". - Now Chaim speaks, "No. rebbe, it was such and such". Rabbi, after long thinking and looking into thick books: "You are right, Chaim". - Now Isaac, baffled: "But Rebbe, how can it be possibe: Abraham is right and Chaim is right?" - Rabbi nodes wisely: "And you, Isaac, are right too" ... `'Míkka 15:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mikkalai, I don't understand what you are trying to achieve here. if you are not prepared to give a brief explanation of the situation as you see it, why should admins take the time to read up the whole history of a dispute in an attempt to infer your position?

If you believe that you are being let down and need to be defended from a troll, why will you not either respond to admins who intervene or post to WP:ANI? It's fine want help, but why are you so reluctant to help those who might want to help you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I heard that joke too, but I never heard that it was a Jewish joke. Neither did I hear it as a Biblical joke.

Anyway, I would like to make Peace with you.

Is that possible? And let's skip the Rabbi above, he will not help, just telling us that we are both right.

I'm even willing to go to a Polish priest (maybe he will do a better job than that Jewish Rabbi above), if that helps.

But maybe - just maybe - that Rabbi was right: I am right, and you are right. Or am I crazy to say that?

Unfortunately, the great Polish Pope is no longer with us. Peace? & Cheers! Yours truly, --Ludvikus 16:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

”

I truly would like to make Peace with Mikkalai. But I cannot figure out what I should do - except that he implies that that I need lessons in logic or visit a shrink - both of which I disagree with. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 19:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

focus on the main block

Rather than arguing about wheel-warring, we should first resolve the main issue: should the block on Mikkalai be lifted early? The reasons for the block are listed here. I see opinions in both directions (lift vs. let stand) above; it should be possible to reach a consensus, possibly by compromising on a shorter block length. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes it should be lifted, and then we should talk to Mikka about what the problem is. Guy (Help!) 15:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: A block because of promised action ("war") until confirmation of good conduct is obtained, is a correct use of a block. To unblock isn't wheeling, but was rash, especially given that 1/ someone else had endorsed so far and 2/ the matter was brought for discussion. The fact that uses "stark" language is his/her lookout... if he states, as an admin, he is "at war", he must expect this will be taken as such unless confirmed otherwise. Editors and admins are not expected to be perfect, but their general judgement is expected to be good.

That said, BrownHairedGirl was deeply incorrect to reinstate. The fact that in her perception and view, "it had become clear" he was in error is not the same as consensus (if consensus had existed, others would have acted too). That reinstatement is a canonical example of a wheel, though not the worst degree of it.

So now we have two issues,:

1. An administrator who has stated as hyperbole that they are "at war" (but is also a "prolific creator" of good content), who knows well that policy prohibits disruptive approaches and that this will be taken as provocation, declaration or incitement, and whose words were reasonably and predictably taken at face value, and
2. An administrator who acted on reasonable grounds, sought additional eyeballs when appropriate, and then due to feeling others had not read the matter and were in clear obvious error, has wrongly wheeled by reinstating their block when reversed.

That is where it stands. The concerns are likely to be future conduct. Would anyone object if both administrators were asked to comment if they will avoid such actions in future? I think that is one of the first things that needs to happen to resolve this. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• An admin has no need to promise good conduct before being allowed to get on with controlling the disruptive edits of a tendentious editor. Ludvikus is the problem here, as a look at the history of the dispute will immediately establish beyond any possible doubt, and right now I imagine he's laughing up his sleeve. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find widespread disagreement with the notion that such statements are a necessary, desirable, acceptable or essential aspect of being "allowed to get on with controlling the disruptive edits of a tendentious editor". Administrators have to deal with far, far more disruptive editors than Ludvikus. I've never found such wording to be other than inflammatory and unhelpful. The purpose of blocks is to prevent disruptive conduct. It is hard to argue that words which inflame a situation (are likely to cause a reaction, will probably provoke), won't be perceived reasonably as "disruptive" by many admins. Invariably the best course for any experienced editor is to be WP:CIVIL and calm as they do their necessary actions. So you are right that no promise is needed before controlling a disruptive editor. But the question wasn't that at all. It was: "The concerns [of others] are likely to be future conduct. Would anyone object if both administrators were asked to comment if they will avoid such actions in future?" FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

We're getting hung up on Mikkalai's use of the word war here. When read in context it's more along the lines of "I'm not going to let a troublemaker defecate all over this article." Wikipedia has a long history of protecting trolls and troublemaker's right to disrupt, for months on end, and then hammering the admins who get momentarily exasperated dealing with them. In hindsight, if anyone should have been blocked it's Ludvikus, not Mikkalai. By the way, thank you BrownHairedGirl for asking for this review. --Duk 19:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that Mikkalai's response was more than a momentary outburst, (see for example his reaction to a warning from another admin that the page would be protected) but I respect the right of other admins to differ on that point.

Thanks, though, for your your kind words about bring the issue to review; you are the first person to do so. From the way this request was received though, I can only say that it was a damn fool mistake on my part to bring it here. Not because people disagreed, but because after an initial spat of outbursts from those who someone who didn't want to read block reasons but felt absolutely entitled to denounce others as rubbish, much of the rest of it has made feel like I had arrested someone's dying granny on a trumped-up charges rather than taking the latest in a series of steps in an escalating content dispute. We could have had a perfectly sensibly discussion about how to deal with a conflict between between one histrionic and hyperbolic editor and the determinedly non-communicative edit-warring we-all-hate-police admin, but what's not what happened.

Next time I block an editor, I'll set out my reasons again on the user's talk page, and leave it all to whoever picks up the unblock request to do whatever they feel like. Coming here has been much more grief than it's worth, so I'll follow the example of the vast majority of blocking admins, and stay clear. I hope that whoever else deals with Mikkalai and/or Ludvikus has a lot of luck. They'll need it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that over the last week botyh Mikkalai and Ludvikus have been acting in a manner that justified a block. Both have been staying just under 3RR several times now. I implore the admins here to watch this page and act fairly to both parties as neither is really coming out as "more right" in this situation. 1 != 2 15:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Promise to make every effort not to cause "Disruption"

Cut & Paste to be here on the Bottom:

In the future, I will do my best to listen very carefully to what User:BrownHairedGirl has to say in order to avoid any possibility of disruption. Although I do not agree with her assessment as to my alleged disruptiveness, I very highly respect her actions in practice - particilarly that she has been even-handed and imposed a 48-hour Block on such a very powerful, influencial, Administrator, such as User:Mikkalai. At the moment I see no other Administrator anywhere near her calaber. You should all learn and absorb her example. She is a great asset to Wikipedia. From what I see going on here - where the majority is ganging up on her - just because she apparently sided against one of the good old boys at Wikipedia makes me really want to leave Wikipedia forever. Nevertheless, in the immediate future, I promise to go out of my way to listen very carefully to her counsel so as to avoid any possible disruption on Wikipedia. At this stage of my experience at Wikipedia, I know no other Administrator whom I respect more than her, or vwho comes anywhere near her in fairness. I can promise you all this. All that will be required in the future from me, is a simple message from BownHairedGirl, and there will not be any indication of "disruption" whatsoever from me. As for you all, I think you should look very carefully at the amazing Conflict of Interests which clearly manifests itself when Editors are also Administrators.

Cheers, Yours truly, --Ludvikus 15:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment from a non-admin

I just wanted to say that the above discussion cost the 1,400+ administrators on Wikipedia a good deal of credibility in my book. It's like watching a police abuse video. Not the underlying incident but the discussion and the aftermath here are disillusioning. I won't call anyone out because I'd rather all of you guys think about how you handled yourselves but I see wheel warring, harsh language, name-calling and other incivilities, faction forming, and rashness on the part of multiple administrators. More than that I see a lack of dignity and cool-headedness. When administrators fight among themselves, how am I supposed to respect the legitimacy of their actions out in the field? I sometimes come across uninformed decisions and abuse of privilege by admins and I'd like to think it's an aberration. Ideally you should be on best behavior, rising above personal matters, because people look to you for an example. If you lose the respect of those you serve you undermine not only your own effectiveness but the whole system you're trying to uphold. It's probably a perennial proposal but this and some other incidents are a strong argument that all admin appointments should be probationary, for a limited duration after which reappointment is necessary, and/or subject to a lot more scrutiny. Wikidemo 16:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's in the system. Admins have to work their way down to the level of qualification for ArbCom. (SEWilco 16:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

I would like to mostly agree with Wikidemo. This sort of thing costs the project lots of good will. I don't know about specific reforms to the admin system (I have my ideas, that don't seem like they'd get much consensus were I to propose them at this time), but I think we are headed on one of two directions 1) an increase in this type of "wheel-warring" disruption and erosion of community goodwill or 2) an arbcomm subcommittee to deal with admin actions and conflicts only. --Rocksanddirt 17:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A brief perusal of the contributions in the last few days has been over the top. Squabbling like children is not attractive, especially when an admin is party to it. --Haemo 06:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sad to say, I have seen this analogy of the law enforcement officer before. Despite claims that the position of administrator is janitorial in nature, the connection to police misconduct seems to come up more often than I care for.

One person's mop is another person's firearm, I guess. --Aarktica 17:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason is simple. Power over other people, without appropriate oversight, leads to abuse. Also, power corrupts. That's as true for custodians as it is for law enforcement (and truly, if you ignore the gun and handcuff aspect and just concentrate on the desk work, admin duties are closer to law enforcement than floor mopping). Wikidemo 03:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Resumption, as Promised, of Edit War by Administrator after 48-Hour Block Terminate

This is to inform you that this Administrator /Editor has done precisely what he has promised. And more than that. He has now unilaterally Reversed for the third time. I do not see an interest in staying on at Wikipedia much longer, if there is this kind of double standard - one for Administrators, and another for the vast majority of the rest of us editors. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 18:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Will I be weeping tears? Crocodile ones, perhaps. Given the outright nonsensicality of your edits, my sympathy is non-existent. Chinese shadows, indeed...Moreschi ^Talk 19:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi is an admin? If so I find the tone of the preceding comment highly inappropriate as per my comments in the above section.Wikidemo 20:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Bah. I'm no longer calling BS anything other than exactly that. Moreschi ^Talk 21:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of Ludvikus's complaint, he is being nearly disruptive enough (in my opinion) to earn another sabatical away from wikipedia (another 6 mo ban/block). --Rocksanddirt 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Moreschi has already been to the article and to the talk page, so his "BS" comment is not "unhelpful". Basically, this article survived two AfDs. In the first one people from all over Eastern Europe were very embarassed to find that for the first time in years they all agreed on one thing: that the article should not be deleted. Now [User:Ludvikus|Ludvikus]] is trying to kill the article by having it renamed (and he is succeeding, they are actually voting on a new name at the talk page) and therefore is trying to get in a text which has no connection at all with the topic, except that it mentions the word "Chinese". It might as well have been "Chinese cooks", "Chinese astrologers" or even "Chinese checkers" - he would still try to get it in. I was thinking of leaving English wikipedia, but this is so over the top, I think I should stay on a little. Paul Pieniezny 21:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what the quotes around "unhelpful" are for - I don't see that anyone used the word. Inappropriate tone is more like it. IN this section's discussion an administrator is condescendingly called hypoctical and her comments here a "pile of BS." Whoever is right or wrong about the disputed article, the editors' behavior, and what is blockable I don't know and I don't really care to know. I'm just pointing out that bickering, off color language, etc., erode one's confidence in administrative deliberations.Wikidemo 01:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's news to me. I had no idea that Eastern Europe was so interested in the Chinese in the Russian Revolution. For the sake of salvaging the interests of Wikipedia (whatever they might be) I'm certainly prepared to let the article's name stand as it is. I always thought that "a rose by any other name smells just as sweat." I had no idea that the interests of Eastern Europe turned on the name of that article. As I matter of fact, I just offerred to leave the article in the hands of Administrator User:Mikkalai. I certainly do not wish to start World War III over that article. But why hasn't anyone told me that that's what is meant by disruptiveness at Wikipedia? Cheers. --Ludvikus 05:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Ludvikus is blocked now, for better or for worse. It is probably a good thing. But he was right about one thing, Mikallia did show an intent to continue edit warring, was blocked for that, unblocked because of some reason I don't understand, and then continued as indicated to edit war. I am glad that one disruptive editor has been blocked, thought I think for too long, but we have another who has been unblocked, and has continued since. Now that Lud is gone perhaps the disruption from Mik will stop, but I want to make it clear that we do not benefit Wikipedia by letting established editors edit war. 1 != 2 17:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on the double standard applied to certain editors. I think the position that experienced editors are entitled to be uncivil (which is what you're saying if you say they should not be blocked for incivility) is tantamount to biting newbies, because newbies are deprived of that privilege. If anything, experienced editors should be held to a higher standard, because they have been around long enough to know better. I also find it ironic that Mikka was unblocked without a legitimate effort to discuss the block with the blocking admin, because Mikka certainly feels free to undo other admins' actions without any discussion with them. Right or wrong, admins are entitled to an opportunity to defend their actions per our blocking and deletion policies. I know there's no cabal, but certain editors have managed to put themselves in a position where it is very difficult to criticize their actions or block them without people jumping down your throat. Disclosure: Mikka has been very uncivil to me in the past and also reverted my admin actions without prior consultation with me. (And I acknowledge that my actions were erroneous, but they were done in good faith and I deserved a chance to discuss them first before being reverted and attacked at ANI. -- But|seriously|folks  00:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been terribly active here recently, but on reviewing the whole procession of events I actually support BrownHairedGirl's judgements on this occasion. If one takes the step of bringing it here for an honest review only to be crapped all over by those who disagree simply because they think the blockee was somehow justified in breaking policy, all that is going to happen is that admins won't bring blocks here for consideration, which will be a sad day for transparency. Orderinchaos 12:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka/LTTE blocks - reviewed

The following is a joint statement made by admins chaser, Haemo and FayssalF:

Following this archived thread and based upon a review of the evidence presented and in consultation with some other administrators about the technical details of Allocated Portable IPs and checkuser, the blocks of User:Lahiru k, User:Netmonger, User:Kaushini and User:Arsath will remain in place. The other evidence presented via emails and the CheckUser case page is either unpersuasive or of tangential relevance. It must be noted indeed that Wikipedia editors are not in a position to assess the legitimacy of a scanned document. Therefore, the "confirmed" checkuser result remains the most powerful piece of evidence available to us.

We suggest that no other accounts be created to evade this finding, as future sockpuppetry cases will be pursued thoroughly, with checkuser if necessary. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC) --chaser - t 01:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Haemo 01:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

fayssal, I and others have so far given you/haemo/chaser reasons why this block is unfair and erroneous. With all these evidences isn't it obvious that the original Check user had made a mistake and Lahiru_k and Arsath are not the same person ? So, your decisions to back up that wrong decision and to keep them blocking for something they didn't do, is like condemning an innocent person to death while knowing his innocence,　isn't it ? May I ask you ,after going through all the evidences and contributions of the users(mainly lahiru_k and Arsath), do you still believe they are the same ?? Could you please explain us how the confirmed check user results confirmed lahiru_k and arsaths the same(with evidences 100% contrary to it)?? This is a serious issue, which might led to the blocking of all the Sri Lankan based editors coz anyone could be labelled as Lahiru_ks socks. Only new' and comprehensive check could give a comprehensive details regarding matter.Quite frankly don't see why shouldn't we do it? After all wikipedia is not a dictatorship,is it? We don't unfairly block editors, do we ? Your attention and actions is highly appreciated here. Than you Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 02:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Histrionics comparing a website to capital punishment and a dictatorship have no place here. Checkusers are well aware of the technicalities involved in IP allocation, and a "confirmed" checkuser result means a solid IP relationship. There's enough evidence of similarity in their contribution history to corroborate the checkuser result.--chaser - t 02:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And thats the same thing we dispute here. We can clearly see all the contributions made by the disputed IP, and we see not a single edit made by lahiru_k there!!! And there are strong,credible reasons to believe the earlier check user was erroneous. And I don not any reason to make argument based on an erroneous report(if we were to trust wiki scan) And we have a wikipedian article disputing your claims regarding IPs,and we have strong case of discrimination against Sri Lankan Institutes.To sum up this, there is no evidence that Arsath and lahiru_k the same, hence blocks are unfair. There is no evidence kaushini is lahiru_k, kaushini just uses gate way computers just like hundreds of other students at her school and if we allow Cambridge students to use shared IPs ,why don't we do the same for SL students? Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 00:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the emails that FaysaalF, Chaser, and Haemo have seen, but I've looked at the SSP case and the Checkuser requests, and I agree with the blocks. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Some emails are really so private and contains personal data (Passport and ID documents of User:Lahiru k and meatpuppet User:Kaushini). I was the only one who has seen that (at Lahiru's request) and noticed days after that the immigration date stamped is mid-February 2006 while the metadata of this image uploaded to Commons by Lahiru k shows February 2005. Lahiru tried to prove that he is one and not a sock master. But was Lahiru k lying? I believe he is lying because after i informed him about the inaccuracy he said he forgot to set the time of his camara. Ummm! What Chaser and Haemo have seen are other details including off-wiki activities of Lahiru k which amount to campaigning and recruiting meat puppets. There's also this thing about sharing accounts (Lahiru's English goes from bad to good). In his emails Netmonger says he is Mystìc (talk · contribs) and Arsath (talk · contribs) and a muslim while Lahiru is not. I know that Muslims in Sri Lanka speak Tamil but here Netmonger does say that his mother tongue is Sinhala. Months later he said his mother tongue is Tamil. You can speak a dozen of languages but you can't have 2 mother tongues especially in the Indian subcontinent where "mother tongue" is used to indicate the language of one's ethnic group (ethnic tongue). I see no reason to assume good faith anymore and listen to weak "evidences" of innocence.

P.S. There a real issue of shared passwords. Both sides are believed to practice this unacceptable behavior. Please see this total mess. I am looking at it as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Both editors use Sri Lanka Telecom as their ISP, which randomly assigns IP addresses to their customer. As proof of this, Lahriu k edited his sandbox without logging in, disconnected from the internet, reconnected and edited his sandbox again. He did this more than 30 times over 20 minutes and got assigned a different IP address every time.[5] There is no way he could have faked that, and it proves that there is an undeniable possibility that Lahiru and Netmonger could easily have been assigned the same IP address at different times.

The only "behavioral evidence" presented an the SSP case is that both users have voted on a number of AFDs, both users have referred to WP:DGAF, "which not many people know about", and they both used the phrase "I'm not going to waste my time". As the comment has noted, apart from the IP addresses, the remaining evidence is "not persuasive" to indicate they are the same person.

So the only proof that FayssalF has to justify his block is that both Lahiru k and Netmonger were assigned the same IP at different times. Given the circumstances, that is no where near enough evidence to block two users. Also both users are willing to come on IRC with any admin who wishes, to confirm that they are two separate people and let the admins ping their IP addresses via IRC to prove that they both edits from SLT IPs.

Note that all three of the above admins have been involved with the users they blocked before this case came up. And when I questioned the block FayssalF promptly archived his user talk page without replying to my last post, so the opinions of uninvolved administrators will be appreciated. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 03:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You've already gotten the opinion of one uninvolved administrator (me). The IP evidence is quite compelling. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe you have read AmiDaniel's technical opinion at the Village pump (technical). We are not supposed to go further than that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read what he said?

"For the most part, no individual will be the custodian of a single portable address. I would actually say that, quite on the contrary of being static, most portable IP addresses are likely shared by multiple individuals or entities,"

Lahiru's edits to his sandbox confirm that IP addresses are shared by multiple SLT customers. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 04:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And how many IPs there are to be allocated? Too many. How many Sri Lankan wikipedia editors are out there? Only a few. Do the math.

From AmiDaniel --> you're far, far more likely to find out the exact nature of how this IP address is used by contacting Sri Lanka Telelcom than you are by asking me :) This is not the problem of Wikipedia. This should be dealt w/ between Sri Lankan editors and their providers.

From what i know --> allocated address space is address space that is distributed to IRs for the purpose of subsequent distribution by them. And this is tricky and disturbing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand how you are contradicting yourself? The edits to the sandbox confirm that SLT assigns different IP addresses to its customers every time the reconnect to the internet. Do you dispute that, or are you just trying to ignore it? So how could it be that there a greater possibility that the same IP was assigned to the same person twice, than that it was assigned to two different people?

"This should be dealt w/ between Sri Lankan editors and their providers."? Do you understand how ridiculous that comment is? AOL has a similar system, where they change the IP address they assign their customers every few minutes. Has anyone suggested everyone who users AOL stop editing Wikipedia or all the thousands of users will be banned as sockpuppets? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 04:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything i've just said may sound ridiculous to you but i clearly explained it above --> And how many IPs there are to be allocated? Too many. How many Sri Lankan wikipedia editors are out there? Only a few. Do the math. Most people know about dynamically assigned IPs but assigning the same IP to 2 users (who happen to edit the same articles) out of 20 million people is enough to say "hey, weird". -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that there is a bigger possibility that an IP will be assigned to the same person twice months apart than the possibility that it be assigned to two different people?

And again, given the evidence, do you acknowledge that SLT assigns different IP addresses to its customers every time they log in?

Also, no, you haven't explained why you basically said you're going to block everyone who edits from SLT as sockpuppets, unless they some how sort it out with the ISP. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 04:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, if SLT is assigning different IPs to its customers when they log on, they're behaving like most ISPs. This removes the "allocated portable" concern, and means that the Checkusers were dealing with the same type of IP evidence they deal with when the suspected users are using Verizon, Roadrunner, SBC, et al. If anything, this should increase our confidence in the Checkuser results. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What checkuser? There was no checkuser run on this case. Both editors were blocked long before a checkuser could be requested. And if you acknowledge that different IP were used, how could say that they were the same person? Because they used the same ISP? That's not how things work. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 05:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you are totally wrong. All accounts were blocked on late October 14th and early 15th. The CU case was opened at Oct. 14th afternoon w/ quite compelling evidence. There have been around 10 admins reviewing this case and i think you are just wasting your time here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That comment says so so much. We have an admin blocking two users for sockpuppetery, when he doesn't even know the difference between a sockpuppet case and a check user request. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 05:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That is what you think and this is what i found. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

One, the only reason you can have to block the two editors is if Lahiru is Netmonger. The other accounts have no relevance to this case as Lahiru was already blocked for one week with regard to them.

Two, the only evidence you have to say Lahiru is Netmonger is two edits on November 22, 2006 and July 17, 2007 from an IP address which has been proven to be dynamically assigned to different people all the time. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 07:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop asking these same questions repeatedly, Snowolf, because that can be disruptive. You're not going to get the answers you want to hear, and you are just filling the page with comments. If the results here make you unhappy, file an appeal with Arbcom. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My ISP assigns a different IP every time you reconnect, but since I'm on DSL I rarely get re-assigned. I don't think the fact that Lahiru k demonstrated IP switching shows anything - it could be that he's learned how to disconnect his modem for five minutes to get a new IP address.--chaser - t 05:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Way to assume bad faith there. And its 32 different IP addresses within 23 minutes. Even if you have to be disconnected for "5 minutes", the edits by IPs shown to prove this were made months apart. That could easily mean the same IP was assigned to different users. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 05:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a closer look at the Checkuser case on Lahiru k; Lahiru k and Mystic (among other sockpuppets) were votestacking on a TfD discussion--that wasn't "months apart". --Akhilleus (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Lahiru k was blocked for sockpuppetry for one week after that case in November last year. End of story there. Where's the checkuser you're talking about for this latest incident, where FayssalF is claiming Lahiru k and Netmonger are sockpuppets? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 05:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to make it clearer exactly what you're disputing. Checkuser showed that Lahiru k = Mystic (and others); other evidence shows that Mystic = Netmonger. I don't have to link to the transitive property, do I? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What "other evidence"? The fact that they were assigned the same IP address by an ISP whom everyone here has pretty much admitted assigns IP addresses randomly to its customers? Do you have any other real evidence that the two users are the same? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 05:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There's one evidence and we do not care about "other evidence". We tried to review this and accepted some explanations by email BUT most of those explanations were too doubtful and in many times inaccurate(Passport stamps and Metadata at Commons, English usage, etc). Bear in mind that whether an IP is "static" or "dynamic" is determined by the way that a service provider assigns addresses to subscribers, not by the way that the IP addresses are allocated by the IANA. I already mentioned to you that allocated address space is address space that is distributed to IRs for the purpose of subsequent distribution by them. Please stop it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop it? Why don't you stop ignoring the evidence presented here that SLT does assign different IPs to its customers everytime they reconnect?

You want more proof? Straight from the SLT website

'SLT has commenced offering ADSL facilities in some parts of Colombo since April 2002. It intends to expand its coverage during the year to other areas of Colombo and its suburbs. Speeds offered by SLT are 2 Mbit/s download and 512 Kbit/s upload, or 512 Kbit/s download and 128 Kbit/s upload with dynamic IP.

And from IP address as to what a dynamic IP address is

...in situations when the computer's IP address changes frequently (such as when a user logs on to a network through dialup or through shared residential cable) it is called a Dynamic IP address.

The fact that IANA assigns ranges to ISPs "for the purpose of subsequent distribution by them" does not mean the ISP also assigns different IP addresses to its customers. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 06:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am getting more detailed updates from emails supposedly belonging to Lahiru k and Netmonger. I am waiting for some other details from those email accounts. I see that you are more concerned about this mess than they do and probably you need to tone it down. I've been using ADSL for years now and i never saw someone (editing wikipedia) being assigned the IPs i am assigned. My point is that there are probably millions connected in Sri Lanka and the chance for a same IP to be assigned to 2 or 3 particular wikipedia users is close to zero unless they are the same users or they are based at the same place which is not the case. That's my whole point of the story. You never answered that. So please wait for the upcoming details. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

First, you have absolutely no right to tell me what I should be doing right now. If I see you unfairly blocking a user, I'll take it as far as I can. So if you made a mistake you aren't going to cover it up that easily. Second, to put it bluntly, you need to stop trying to mislead the community. How would you know if another user was assigned your IP address? Do you have checkuser privileges to find out who's using what IP? And again, more falsities, "there are millions of people using ADSL in Sri Lanka"? Nope. Coverage is limited to certain areas, and the number of users from Colombo can't exceed more than 10,000 - 20,000.

I don't want to, but I can keep saying this all day if you don't listen, the two edits you cite to show Netmonger is Lahiru k were made more than 7 months apart. So unless lahiru was connected to the internet throughout, never disconnected and was therefore never assigned a different IP address, why do you think the chances were greater that the IP would be assigned to the same person rather than to someone else? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 07:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you assuming bad faith? I fear you are disrupting by accusing me of "falsities" and "misleading the community". Please behave better and let us work. As you have seen, more than 10 admins have seen and reviewed the case. What i asked you to do is to stop your accusations and wait. I have the right to do so while waiting for new updates. Bear in mind that i was the one who opened this case to be reviewed and it took us days to come up w/ this final review. And once more, i am reviewing it again while you are ranting. Do not disrupt the process or else you'll be blocked for disruption. You told us about your mind but do never again assume bad faith and accuse people of "falsities" and "misleading the community". -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you disputing that Netmonger=Mystic/Arsath? Arsath/Netmonger confirmed that in an email to me. If you're still arguing about the checkuser connecting those accounts to Lahiru k, then that's rather pointless speculation, considering only Dmcdevit knows the details that went into the "confirmed" result, and even he has probably forgotten those by now (assuming they're not logged when a check is performed).--chaser - t 07:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I assuming bad faith? The guy who blocked two editors based on some very sketchy evidence without even giving them a chance to argue their case is actually asking me that? And if you have any respect for this process, you'll answer this; Are you saying with 100 percent certainty that no other editor has even been assigned your IP address?

Also, then why did you open this case? Hoping that everyone will agree with you? And now that someone is disputing your decision all you can say is basically "shut up and go to sleep"?

Chaser, you say "Arsath/Netmonger confirmed that in an email to me". Did he also "confirm" to you that he was not Lahiru? Are you intending to selectively believe what he says, based on whether it agrees with what you want? What I am saying is the only proof you have that Netmonger = Lahiru are two edits made by the same IP (which is dynamically assigned) 7 months apart. That is just not good enough to block genuine two editors. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 08:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't let them argue their case? We've probably exchanged 30 emails! As to the connection, we have a checkuser result that you seem to be ignoring. And yes, I presume that people's statements against their own interests are credible. It's their statements in their own interests that I'm always skeptical of, especially in light of the aforementioned checkuser. The reason we opened this thread was to indicate that review had taken place - not to request review.--chaser - t 08:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You exchanged 30 emails after you blocked them. They didn't even have a chance to explain the dynamic IP allocation system to the community. So you're saying he was so stupid that he was truthful in claiming that he was he was a permanently blocked account, but lied in dening he was another account which wasn't blocked?

Yes, the checkuser case said Lahiru k was Mystic, but how many times to I have to keep repeating this, he was already blocked for that. (coping from above) The only proof you have that Netmonger = Lahiru are two edits made by the same IP (which is dynamically assigned) 7 months apart. And the only reason you have to block the two users is if they are the same. No other accounts come into the picture.

First FayssalF confirms he doesn't know the difference between a suspected sock puppet case and a checkuser request. Now you seem to think that three users can decide on something and expect the community to blindly follow their decision. Coming from an admin, I find that comment astounding. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 08:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

- They didn't even have a chance to explain the dynamic IP allocation system to the community. Misleading. Check their user talk pages and see what admins who reviewed the cases thought and decided. When a CU come up w/ positive findings we block as a preventive way and then we discuss.

- First FayssalF confirms he doesn't know the difference between a suspected sock puppet case and a checkuser request. Nonsense.

- expect the community to blindly follow their decision. The community has been verifying this mess as well and all they know is what those bastard 3 admins know.

- No admin and no user (except Iwazaki for obvious reasons) has agreed w/ you. Iwazaki is so intelligent in asking for what he needs. The blocked accounts are handling civil discussions w/ me via emails. Ask Lahiru to forward to you the emails and read them carefully. You are just disrupting, shouting, ranting and accusing admins of lies and "misleadin the community" instead of handling a cool discussion. You are not far away from an appropriate block snowolf. I am not going to repeat this more than enough. You spoke and now you wait and see. Unless you keep it cool instead of disrupting and accusing admins of lying you'd certainly be blocked. Think about it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal my friend, You says its only me(for obvious reasons !!!) and snowy are defending them here. Isn't it sad ?When people are unfairly blocked and no one here defending them? Even if it is only one, shouldn't you think justice should be done for, good wikipedian editors like lahiru_k and Arsath(just see there contributions).Its a great insult to them to compare them with the other side and say both sides are disruptive. Take a look at the other side, most of them have no edits other than their nationalistic range. And to call both sides shared passwords is also erroneous, when we clearly have one user named tabrobanus who was the only accused here(I ll take that case as soon as this one finishes).And you have made some comments regarding mother tongue of Arsath, yes I believe he could either say Sinhalese,Tamil or both, his mother tongue. He is a muslim and muslims in SL are ethnically muslims, regardless of their mother tongue. SO its not really a big issue for them.Finally, I can see that those block users have put an utmost trust on you and even sending their highly confidential info to you.All I can see from this are these editors are genuine and there just merely want to come here and contribute to the wikipedian success. SO to block them based on erroneous report and wrong assumptions, is a great insult to wikipedia it self. And we don't hang innocent people, do we? Hope the whole wikipedian community take a deep and careful look at this problem and immediately remove these unfair blocks.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 00:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And I would appreciate it, if you stop calling kaushini a meat puppet.Because she is not what you call her.She wanted to be a genuine editor but only after 2 months

she was blocked unfairly,so you can't expect much contributions from her.People need some time to adapt to wikipedia(I needed and I am sure kaushini needed that too). There are hundreds of other students at gateway(her school) and I am sure most of them uses school computer and who knows some even may editing wikipedia. And to call them all,lahiru_ks meat puppets doesn't make any sense,does it? IF we were to allow Cambridge University to share IPs, why discriminate a poor country like SL ? Not many people have Internet at home in SL and they use school computers.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 01:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've just blocked indef a sock of someone. He was speaking of the same story i mentioned above (sharing and hacking passwords). I don't care to whom it belongs but it is just obvious and unacceptable. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Netmonger

It's probably worth noting that on his User talk page Netmonger acknowledges that he was previously Mystic/Arsath. He also notes that 222.165.157.129 is an IP he uses at his office; this IP is unlikely to be dynamically assigned, so Snowolf's complaints about dynamic IPs (which are uncompelling in any case) don't apply to this address. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

BUT, could you please show us that IP was used by lahiru_k? We have one erroneous check user which claims that was shared, but I have proved ,thanks to the wikiscan that these IPs were never shared! Why don't you take a look at the IP contributions and let us know whether it was shared by them ? Also, why do you think snowolf remarks of IP addressing is uncompelling ? Did yougo through what I and snwofolf wrote here and at SSP page ? Did you even read the IP address article at wikipedia ? It clearly says IP alone shouldn't be used to identify users, because of DHCP. And yet, we have a sad situation where people are intentionally ignoring those facts. thank you Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 00:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Other than IP, lahiru_k and Netmonger are pronouncing a unique expression Well opinions change overtime don't they? [6][7].Laeber 02:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet another obvious sockpuppet of someone. This is truly intolerable. --Haemo 04:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock them

Ok.. now. I've been following this case for the last week or so.. and not everything seems right. Lahiru and Netmonger both have been very good contributors to wikipedia and have hundreds(if not thousands) of constructive edits against their name. This is no way to treat such valued contributors. If they've done something wrong, then they should and they will pay for it. On the one hand we have users like Wikiraja who have been blocked for sockpuppetry, obscenity, vandalism, disruption, 3RR and almost every other wiki-offence under the sun roaming free under the noses of these very admins who've blocked L and N; the longest wikiraja ever served was 3 months! I am sure there're dozens of other wikirajas roaming free. otoh, we have overzealous vigilantism in the case of L and N who by any yardstick are far more valuable to the community than the likes of Wikiraja. And what do they get for that? Indefs!! This is hypocrisy at its worst. If all that a multiple repeat offender like Wikiraja can get is 3 months then L and N should get a lot less.. even if they're guilty!

I request that admins immediately unblock both Lahiru and Netmonger so they can argue their case themselves. They can be 'topic banned'(no editing SL-Tamil related articles and no edits other than minor cleanup or simple vandalism reverts, spell check etc.,) or even prohibited from making any edits at all other than argue their case. And dont tell me they can argue their case from their talk pages. that is nonsense. This case has spilled into many talk pages and across wiki spaces already and is getting increasingly difficult to keep track of or make sense of. If they have to argue their cases from their talk pages, then I demand that the admins take it upon themselves to copy and paste every single comment of theirs in every relevant discussion. This is of course not going to happen and therefore, the admins should unblock them. Blocking and especially indeffing is not a joke and certainly not when it involves editors of long standing. Admins should be more circumspect in handing indefs and indeffing L and N is seeming like a knee-jerk reaction. Also Fayssal's past involvement in conflicts with the blockees render his blockings highly inappropriate.

Chaser says he exchanged thirty mails with the blockees. It is fair that the community knows what transpired(except of course, things which could violate their privacy). Just saying.. "I exchanged 30 mails and it didnt convince me" doesnt fly. If it was so unconvincing, I want to see what that is. Just as I'd have liked to know what it was if he'd found it convincing. Blocking at the first chance without a fair trial in full view of the community is just a case of overzealous admins eager to gather 'trophies' throwing their weight around. Similar misplaced machismo on part of a certain admin a few months ago laid waste WP:INDIA - that had until then been one of the most prolific wikiprojects around. Also, in this case, it is plain as day to anybody who has followed the SL wiki debacles that both sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry is rife from the Canadian tamil club. I guess even one or more of the admins involved here said just that. That being the case, admins should treat this case with more caution and be more consistent. I have myself in the past noted Taprobanus' english go from excellent to average to bad. So? Indeffing without the consent of the community is a very bad thing to do and can only exacerbate things. imo, indeffing without community consensus should be a strict no-no. Wikipedia is no oligarchy. Indeffing and then asking the blockees(who happen to be editors of long standing) to argue such a complex case from their talk pages is ridiculous and humiliating. Sarvagnya 23:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sar, please refrain from Personal Attacks. Your allegations on wikiraja are not only personal attacks but you seem to accuse him without proof. I know that the admins have asked for both parties to take it easy and cool off, however, this is in direct violation of WP:NPA. Sar, you should immediately come to the point without pointing , without proof, your finger at anyone. Another problem here is the attack on Taprobanus. While what you may say maybe true, there is no evidence to your claim. To throw accusations around without proof is Personal Attack. Sure, everyone mistype letters and on certain occasions people do make spelling errors. However, to accuse people of sock puppetry or meat puppetry is against the core rules of wikipedia. Admins please take note of this. This is provocation of users who have been friends (Taprobanus) of Lahiru and netmonger and accusation of wikiraja who, even now, to my knowledge, has not even said a single word about this mess. I would also fiercely demand an apology for saying sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry is rife from the Canadian tamil club. This is an attack on only the Canadian Tamil editors, but to the whole community. This is tantamount of attacking an ethnicity. Sar, if you have proof of any of your allegations go ahead and show it to the community and admins but if you don't just leave others out of this. Watchdogb 00:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not about WikiRaja, or anyone else. The Sri Lanka-related issues have been rife with bad behavior on all sides. If either side abuses sockpuppets, they will be blocked — community patience is running out with this group of editors as a whole. If you disagree with the assessment above, which has been reviewed by a number of different admins at this point, then there are remedies above you can pursue. --Haemo 01:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You say some good points and fail to understand others. Admins are editors and most of them treat cases after being posted here. When you use the word "hypocrisy" you should be sure that it concerns the same admin treating related cases while failing to apply similar measures for somehow similar violations. Most of the time, it is not the same admin who treat the other related cases (i.e. WikiRaja). It is not FayssalF, it is not Haemo and it is not Chaser who dealt w/ WikiRaja.

Another point. You claim that i have had past involvment w/ the blocked users which render my blocks more innapropriate. This is totally and absolutely wrong. I've received a barnstar from Lahiru k For being BOLD without getting BOWLED on Sri Lankan issues :) while i have never been in direct contact w/ Netmonger. So your Fayssal's past involvement in conflicts with the blockees render his blockings highly inappropriate is really unfounded and inappropriate itself. If i had blocked WikiRaja, i'd have been accused of the same. It is just everytime is the same. Admins accused of bias when most of the times it is not the case.

Back to the good points. I've asked the blocked accounts to post their defense in compact way so people would understand easily. The idea was to copy and paste them here.

Back to unblocking those accounts. All admins (w/ no single exception) who reviewed this case decided that the evidence that Lahiru k and Netmonger are one is clear. See the archived case. See the talk pages. See it here. So in order for me to unblock i must have the same degree of consensus from those admins and the community. In order to achieve that i asked yesterday those accounts to leave a clear and compact defense at their talkpage so we can paste it here. Since i've been recieving emails from those accounts pledging for an opportunity to defend themselves i have no problem to copy and paste what they have to say here. The problem w/ unblocking them now in order to do so is the potential drama we would be having here. All pro and non pro Sri Lanka/LTTE editors would gather here and make this place another arena for their dispute. So my idea is simple. We'll do that but i'll urge involved editors not to participate here in order to for the community to sort this out for once. I've just pasted it below. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Netmonger's talk page

I am blocked on the basis, that my account is a sockpuppet account of Lahiru_k, earlier I used to edit with the name Mystìc I created this account in January 2006 see log.

• I admit I am Arsath aka Mystìc aka Netmonger
• I am not Lahiru_k (repeating it for the millionth time)
• Arsath account was renamed to Mystìc
• Once Mystìc account was blocked I recreated Arsath account to make my case for the SSP report filed against me.
• I stopped using the Arsath account and switched to Netmonger since I wanted to remain anonymous. I've not used the Arsath account for anything except for the arbComm case I opened at that time see contributions, so I was not sockpuppeting and I have clearly said that I am Mystìc.
• I edit from this ip 222.165.157.129 from my office and at home I use ADSL. Lahiru_k and I have never shared this ip you can check this as well.
• Sri Lanka Telecom ADSL connection IP's are assigned dynamically (mostly to safeguard there leased line market). this could be verifed by checking other users who edit from Sri Lanka, who are confirmed (in a rather bitter way) not us, please run a checkuser on my account and User:DoDoBirds,User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam,User:Rajsingam and User:Lahiru_k, you would find the same IP ranges. Admin FayssalF would bear witness that User:Rajsingam is not Lahiru_k or Netmonger or Arsath.

• Also check the SLT Website which says http://www.sltnet.lk/adsl/index.htm that they assign dynamic ips to customers

• About my language skills, I speak native level of English, Sinhala and Tamil, I dont want to be divisive, I have said this before see my user page Check the user boxes of Mystic, if you want to know why, I'll forward my explanation to Fayzal.

• if you guys have any more questions please email me or post them here I am more than willing to answer them.
• Could an admin with checkuser privileges get involved in this case? Please.

NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 20:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Why my Mystìc account was blocked in the previous occasion

Point one

The first checkuser case Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Lahiru_k blocked not only the Mystìc account it blocked the accounts Psivapalan (talk · contribs),Sri119 (talk · contribs), Mama007 (talk · contribs),Ajgoonewardene (talk · contribs) and Snsudharsan (talk · contribs) as well. I really dont know how the checkuser concluded they are socks but looking at the pictures of the checkuser tool here I think Dmcdevit would've seen the similarity between the Dynamically assigned IP addresses of our ADSL connections, which would be shared by many other Sri Lankan ADSL users. And as far as I know Lahiru_k admitted that he is the sockmaster of Snsudharsan (talk · contribs) account. And Lahiru's account was blocked for some time (I dont know for how long) for sockpuppeting.

This particular account was never used to vote on the template deletion discussion.

• Ajgoonewardene (talk · contribs) please see his/her contributions,

the last edit of course was very contentious and would have hurt lot of feelings of the LTTE sympathizers check it out, but the grammar I must admit, is far far better than of Lahiru ( I am sorry I had to say this :-))

Point Two

At that point as far as I know nobody knew whats my ip's are, my office IP address which is 222.165.157.129 was revealed only when I edited some of the user talk pages and arbComm case WHICH I OPENED without logging in. They opened the SSP case after I proposed one of RaveenS dearest templates in wikipedia for deletion for its biased nature, please see here Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_15#Template:State_terrorism_in_Sri_Lanka, the template was eventually deleted and replaced with a template I CREATED .i.e Template:Sri Lankan Conflict.

• A humble request to sympathizers of Lahiru and Me

please dont bite the admins, I know Fayzal and Haemo were little fast in blocking our accounts, they were not to be blamed for anything, it's the people who filed the request. I am in touch with Fayzal and Chaser through email and they have been very patiently reading all the emails I've sent them, I dont know the exact details of the communications they have had with Lahiru but I am sure they are listening to his side of the story as well. I sincerely thank him for taking their precious time on this matter. And the rest of you please don't take my equest as an attempt to butter the admins to get my work done; thats the other clubs style and not mine. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 20:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I would really like you to address, clearly, the circumstances surrounding the prior confirmed checkuser that explained Mystic was a sockpuppet of Laihru. Because that's the contentious part here. Checkusers are aware of dynamic IP issues, so that doesn't sufficiently explain what happened. --Haemo 18:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, if u have anymore questions let me know, and please post this at ANI NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 19:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing but a wiki version of the Sri Lanka civil wars. Can't they just all learn to get along? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I would just point out that I didn't block either of your accounts. Nonetheless, what I'm looking for is some explanation of the situation surrounding the confirmed checkuser. See, the thing is that a confirmed checkuser is very compelling evidence — checkusers are aware of problems that dynamic IP addresses face, and would not confirm on that basis. --Haemo 20:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This drama must come to an end

Ok fair enough. The problem w/ this wiki conflict is its originality and thus its complexity. Well, now i can almost be sure that both parties (pro-Sri Lanka and pro-LTTE editors) edit sometimes while they are together. I mean some accounts here gather at schools and this is why the history of ALLOCATED PORTABLE has been hard to swallow and why the CheckUser is accurate. At least, the video that i watched recently (featuring User:Lahiru k and User:Kaushini) live or study together. Well, i am personally still AGF and believe that the ids are not faked and , as i said before, we should assume we are dealing w/ normal people and not criminals. In the video you can see Lahiru and Kaushini gathering at a school lab (it may be an internet club). By the way, Iwazaki, this is why (see other details below) i've been labeling Kaushini's account as a meatpuppet. It is not for nothing. You can see the IDs and the passports in detail again.

In a prior case, back on March 2007, User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam who was the subject of a deleted article stated at Netmonger's talk page that pro-LTTE editors shared passwords which was denied by User:Taprobanus (ex User:RaveenS). He had also stated that they [pro-LTTE editors] are schoolmates.

After reading many emails and analyzed the writing styles, i now personally believe that User:Netmonger is not Lahiru k. They probably edit(ed) from the same place sometime(s).

Well, we got a situation where both parties of the dispute are most probably editing from the same place (camps separated of course) and sometimes they correct each other's grammatical errors (at least in some cases) and that's the reason why sometimes you see different styles but contributing w/ one account. It may also mean that sharing passwords is another alternative since both camps don't accuse each other and make no fuss against this possible practice.

All in all, the story and the puzzle is more complicated than we've believed and i am really feeling that i, probably other admins, we have broken the limits of adminship (becoming detectives somehow). I really dislike it but well, at least we could get a more clear understanding of how stuff works in the Sri Lanka / LTTE wikispace. Probably the same is happening in other wiki arenas but i won't enter there.

This is my synthesis of this whole mess and therefore i'll leave now the decision to my co-admins to whether block further accounts of the other side after digging more into suspecious password and meatpuppeting allegations or unblock all the accounts which were blocked recently. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is my advice, FayssalF, just because you get bombarded by scores of emails from Netmonger and lahiru_k with new and wild claims doesn't mean its relevant nor its true. There is checkuser evidence, according to you and other admins, the best means of verification within wikipedia and there is other evidence as you had earlier mentioned. The sheer number of rebuttals and seriousness with which this is being pursued by those deemed sockpuppets just raises more suspicions and is very unusual. How is this claim of password sharing between a certain other user have anything to do with the blocks of lahiru_k and netmonger. This is not at all evident from your post. It looked like an investigation was pursued and seemed to have gone stale, though I wasn't around then to know any of the details. If something merits investigation, then it needs to be pursued no doubt, but such an investigation shouldn't be coupled to any other cases. Whatever outcome from that case can't and shouldn't have any impact on this case. I also want to stress that your characterisation of "Sri Lanka/LTTE wikispace" is overly simplified, dare I say wrong. I also think accepting or tolerating any such breaking of rules, under the banner that this "how stuff works" in certain wikispace will only erode the equality with which the rules be applied. The people within certain so called wikispaces should be treated no differently than any other wikipedian, no matter how harsh it may seem for the good of the community as a whole. Being an outsider who got to know some members of the Tamils editing here, I can tell these are just a group of unorganized individuals interested in editing a subject area closer to their background. I certainly haven't witnessed any "camps". Its also easy for outsiders to think there are simply two binary sides, but its more nuanced that and I wish everyone else makes effort to understand that. Whats more, the main user account in question regarding this supposed password sharing case claims (though I am not sure his account was hacked ?). Now surely anyone must very very careful to discern the facts from the clutter of rumours, innuendo and slander from parties that may have a motive on getting innocent wikipedians blocked as payback. That angle must be explored atleast as vigorously as an angle that assumes good faith on the part those accepted to be sockpuppets and reviewed by 9 or so admins. Sinhala freedom 05:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Faysaal, you are missing something. User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam denied the diff was not posted by him here. You should first use checkuser from which IP that posting came with other. If the IPs differ from the IPs of Netmonger/Lahiru_k, go ahead with your other plans.Laeber 03:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

On the basis of your assessment, I'm willing to unblock. This is getting ridiculous though. The above sockpuppet is indicative of how ridiculous this whole mess is. --Haemo 05:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding brutal: Even if they are not socks, keep them blocked, and block the rest of both their opponents and their friends too. At this point I no longer care what reason they are formally blocked for. They've caused so much disruption with carrying their ethnic warfare into this project we really ought to get rid of the whole gang. These overenthusiastic schoolboys shouldn't be the people who get to write our coverage of sensitive political topics like this. If they are unblocked now, it will only mean more work for the Arbcom case that's sure to come if we don't act now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok.. easy now. Your suggestion to keep them blocked "..even if they're not socks.." is preposterous. They're volunteering their time here too. Respect that. Serious editors from small countries with small populations arent exactly a dime a dozen. It is not these editors' faults that the articles they edits are inherently contentious. All said and done, they should be appreciated for their perseverance. These are no mickey mouse articles and editing articles like these(and these are very important articles) isnt a joke. Frayed tempers are understandable, if not justifiable. They're human, after all. There's no kind way of putting it, but just stop trying to throw your weight around (yes, seriously. that is how it appears to normal non-admin editors). I've seen an admin repeatedly cussing and swearing on an arbcom, in the presence of a dozen other admins. And I dont remember that he was ever blocked for that. How many of you were standing by and watching the defecations on Essjay's page? Why was the Essjay mess allowed to spill all over wikipedia? How many did you block for disruption? Or was it because many of those puking all over that page were admins? Do the rules work differently for admins? Sarvagnya 06:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make an indefinite block for disruption, that's a separate issue. Based on what I've heard, I might support it.--chaser - t 09:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to unblock these two accounts because we never got a satisfactory response to the checkuser; Lahiru k and Netmonger indicated they were editing from different institutions, which makes me suspicious of this shared computer lab theory. That said, behavioral evidence, or the lack thereof, is perhaps even more powerful. I saw some similarities, but not enough to block independent of checkuser. I strongly reject the idea of people sharing accounts in this area. Policy seems against and letting people do that makes confirming sockpuppetry by behavior impossible. Confirmed checkuser - "We use the same computer lab." - Behavioral similarities - "We trade accounts." That's a nightmare.--chaser - t 09:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not fair unblocking these account just because people come and complain about the block. What is the point of having rules in wikipedia if you are not willing to follow it. It does not matter as the bottom line is that they are proved to be socks. As said before just because the evidence that they are socks out weight the ones that prove they are innocent. If they are unblocked, then you guys are in fact encouraging other SL editers and other editors in general to use socks. This is not following rules. If these accounts are unblocked, then you must unblock Elalan also. Faysaif, you can hide behind the fact that someone else blocked Elalan, however, the rules are clear. If you let one side violate sock you should also let the other side violate sock. Elalan's account was shut down for the very reason as here-abusing socks. There is no proof that clearly connect anyone else of sock or meat. IF this was confirmed, then go ahead and hand out blocks appropriately. If you have no proof then you should keep this block as a reminder that sock is not the answer. If this block is undone others who have been blocked for sock in all of wikipedia should also be unblocked. This is bottom line. If this is not done I am sure others can easy get an IP that is AP and then I am sure there will be more edit wars in wikipedia. Watchdogb 10:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am responding here to some of the comments made above:

• Sinhala said ...The people within certain so called wikispaces should be treated no differently than any other wikipedian, no matter how harsh it may seem for the good of the community as a whole. Yes, this is what we are trying to do or in fact doing already. Some other admins are facing the same degree of resistance from other wikispaces but that will not last forever. I've dealt w/ the Estonia/Soviet/Russia nightmare before (see ArbCom case) and i'd assure you that what i said (back on July) to the now 1 year banned editors turned out to be right and true. So, yes we deal w/ all wikispaces w/ the same strict way. Same as the admins dealing w/ your cases.
• Laeber, and yet you come sockpuppeting. However, i'll still answer you for the sake of clarity. I just don't buy that. I can't trust neither the allegation nor the denial.
• Fut. Perf, schoolboys shouldn't be the people who get to write our coverage of sensitive political topics like this. They can do if they are very good students. I don't know about them but the revert war and personal attacks damages Wikipedia. We don't want this place to become the main internet forum for debating and clashing over SL/LTTE issues. WP:BATTLE. We have no more other clear policy other than that. That part of the policy is very explicit and reflects well this issue. I agree w/ you that unblocking them would not a good solution to this mess. Probably, we can just forward this issue to the ArbCom now before it gets more complicated. Not sure yet.
• Sarvagnya said Your suggestion to keep them blocked "..even if they're not socks.." is preposterous. Please refer to the below and the above notes.
• Watchdogb said If this block is undone others who have been blocked for sock in all of wikipedia should also be unblocked. I am not sure if i have to agree w/ you. Every case has its own circumstances. This one got the Alloc. Port. story involved and the schools editing. Refer to the ArbCom case i mentioned above and see a similar case of yours. I'd probably support now the idea to pass this mess to the ArbCom. There you'll explain in much more detail your view because here we don't have enough time. We won't spend 2 or 3 months here. You'll not be satisfied. They won't as well. The sock is not the problem. The real problem is your polarized political positions. Even if there were only 1 editor from each side here, we'd be having a wiki conflict though in a smaller scale. So why not deal w/ the mess at once? ArbCom anyone?
• chaser said That's a nightmare. True and i believe that is a good reason to get the ArbCom involved. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Send to Arbcom now

Let's just send this to Arbcom now, because that's where this is headed if they can't learn to get along, a la this case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There really is no pressing need to send to arbcom after the storm has passed. Admins have anyway painstakingly sorted it out. Two of the three investigating admins have, after much deliberation expressed a willingness to unblock. What new evidence will the arbcom get if this was taken to arbcom? Arbcom will deliberate over the same mangled and confusing evidence and come to the same conclusions that the admins have come to here. The issue boils down to this - even though there is no sockpuppetry, there is plenty of violation of WP:BATTLE. That is hardly something that the admins cannot handle themselves. Sending it to arbcom is unnecessary red tape. Also, I am not sure sensitive evidence like passport details etc., should be passed around indiscretely among arbcom members (which is what it will boil down to, if takent to arbcom since every arbcom jury member will want to be personally convinced). Also, an arbcom can have a chilling effect on all involved and will seriously disrupt editing. Many of the parties may never come back - this is the story of almost every arbcom. I am sure all involved here(both sides) have been jolted by this CU and ANI case and will be much better behaved in future. Isnt that what we want, anyway? Admins can issue a stern warning to all involved parties and let this go. Like Fayssal said, we're dealing with normal people, not criminals; this is wikipedia, not real life. Sarvagnya 17:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? "even though there is no sockpuppetry" You need to read the whole SSP and RFCU cases. Arbcom or community bans are exactly what is needed as this mess has been going on for a long, long, time with no sign of stopping. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've painstakingly read all the CUs and SSPs. In addition, I've followed this mess closely in the past and continue to do so. I am familiar with all these users' editing patterns and behavioural traits. I am familiar with the subject(the SL conflict) also. And putting all this together, I can say that there is no sockpuppetry. Also arbcoms are needed only when there is reason to think that arbcom action will improve the situation, not because something has "been going on for a long time". In this case, I dont see an arbcom achieving anything other than wasting hundreds of man-hours. If these users wont listen to admins on ANI, why do you think they would on arbcom? otoh if they will listen to admins, you can jolly well warn them here (or perhaps on the Srilanka wikiproject talk page). And all the inappropriate behaviour you see in these SL pages is sadly, par for the course. The only way to fix it is to line up all members of both sides' and serve them equally stern warnings. Just singling out the two hapless users who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time will only worsen things and pave the way for more accusations of bias. Anybody who knows the history of articles will vouch for the fact that socking, meating and password sharing is rife from canadian ips. Anybody can put two and two together, even if there is no smoking gun. Sarvagnya 21:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sarvagnya. No need for Arbcom since two admins concur on unblock.Dineshkannambadi 17:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The unblock is a mistake too. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The case already went to Arbcom in the Mystìc (talk · contribs) case and was declined and the case has got only more complicated and hence any unblock now should be done only them.Netmonger admits he is user Mystic and Arsath and created the Netmonger account a day after he was blocked and when his case was in arbcom which a user is not allowed to create a account to and edit after he is blocked and his case is in Arbcom.Arasth ArbcomHence was the suggestion to take it to Arbcom.Further earlier he was unblocked on AGF later it was found out that he lied and the email from sent which it was sent was his[.[8].A user account Elalan was blocked with much less evidence.Further if anyone is doing on the otherside he should also be blocked .Already we are seeing high number of edit war and page protections it will go up if any unblock is now done is now done .As per Rlevse an unblock now is bigger mistake.Let it be cleared fully once and for all either in a block or unblock in arbcomPharaoh of the Wizards 17:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sending it to the ArbCom is not WP:BURO. There arbitrators deal w/ the whole picture and not this tiny tip of the iceberg (sockpuppetry). You acknowledge that there is plenty of violation of WP:BATTLE. Until when we have to wait for those "plenty violations" to become none? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting pretty confused by this. The Checkuser result that Lahiru k = Mystic was thoroughly examined at the time (including in the ArbCom request that Pharaoh linked to above); I'm not really sure why we're questioning it now. I don't support unblocking anyone, and I only support sending this to ArbCom if it's to sort out all the user conduct issues in the Sri Lanka/LTTE disputes. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, note that Snowolfd4 and Lahiru k were saying the same things about Dynamic IPs in the ArbCom request that Snowolfd4 has been saying in this thread; no one found their objections convincing at that time, and I don't see any reason why they should be found convincing now. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to keep out of this conversation so that neutral people can take action on this but I have been forced to make a couple of points. I have a lot of faith in User:FayssalF and I don’t doubt for a second doubt his intentions are here to clear up a mess and undo alleged injustice if it was an injustice. But we need to keep a couple of points clear here.

• First his characterization of me as pro-LTTE editor. The insinuation being that I am a supporter of a Terrorist group and to make it clear for every one I do not support not even .001% the terrorist methods used by this internationally banned terrorist group. My interest in Sri Lanka is related to Human Rights violations only. But as my user page indicates my interest range from South Africa, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Subaltern issues. So that characterization has to be withdrawn unless substantiated.
• Second we should stick to on wiki evidence for any decisions we make. Once we open ourselves for off wiki evidence then this becomes a court of law and we really do need an open system so that all of us can see the evidence.
• Third this is a good case to be heard by an arbitration committee even if that institution is broken because the issues are that complex It is not just WP:SOCK but also WP:STALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:BATTLE and WP:NPA . All these may have been potentially violated.Taprobanus 18:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, what do we have here? The ring leader of the "pro-Tamil" side of the fence pontificating as if he has nothing to do with this mess?! Sarvagnya 21:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

May I add that your account is part and parcel of this mess too (part of dirty dozen as refered by an admin here), any community sanction should and will include you especially with respect WP:TROLL, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. That will be the day and thanks for involving yourself in Sri Lanka conflict related issues. Taprobanus 22:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This support my explanations above. People are editing from the same place (schools, internet clubs, etc...). Call it sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry or whatever you like. The bottom line is that all this mess is disrupting the Wikipedia smooth process. Everybody says he is right (blocked, unblocked). I made a synthesis which i believe is correct but was refuted partially by both sides. It is clearly the right time to pass it to the ArbCom, otherwise we'd be back here after 2 weeks arguing about the same (disruption, edit warring, personal attacks, etc)... Netmonger/Lahiru/Kaushini will be unblocked in order for them to participate at the ArbCom case along with every involved party in this mess. I am really fed up of admins being accused of bias when it is clear we hear both sides stories and act accordingly. Toprabanus has just requested to be identified as a pro-Tamil instead of pro-LTTE. I had to explain everything. Yes. I had to to explain to him that i accept his request and reiterate my denominations above as it doesn't matter to me. Anyway, seriously, you'll never end. Time for real and clear measures to be taken. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify that my comment above was referring to FayssalF's assessment of the situation here — not my personal assessment of the evidence. I've, apparently, totally lost the thread of what's going on in this situation — apparently there are photographs, and stuff, involved? In any case, I'm going to defer to their opinion here, in whatever they decide, since this has gotten way, way too complicated. I personally haven't seen any evidence here that would cause me to override my block, but the situation appears to be much more complicated than I could have ever anticipated when I first looked at it.

In my opinion, it would be nice if we could avoid ArbCom, since it is slightly defective, and backlogged, and just eke out some behavioral restrictions from some of the editors here. It's clear that they've been engaging in some behavior which is at best dubious, and at worst, violates our user policies. The goal would be that the disruption ends — if we could do that without ArbCom, all the better. --Haemo 19:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

How ? or what do you suggest instead ? My suggestion, How about probation such as 1 RR, come clean with other socks (there are other socks that I know of that some of the accuse have), stop violating WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, you just have to look at Nertmongers user page where he is accusing everyone of bad faith under a seperate section. All this has to stop but how do you enforce without an Arbcomm ??Taprobanus 19:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, people agree to it, and then we block those that violate it. --Haemo 19:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK then let's start proposing, you admins are the neutral guys here why dont you start with the list of offenders ? and proposals ? Thanks Taprobanus 20:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I have noticed things are quieter on the pages themselves after the indef block of the three accounts. Nevertheless, what about something a little harsher, 1RR over all articles, pre-discussion and consensus before addition of anything new to any of the affected pages (the affected pages will be tagged to indicate its under construction or in dispute), zero tolerance on WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, SOCKS, MEAT, blatant bad faith from this point forward and keep the existing blocked users blocked with accesses to editing on talk pages turned off all for a period of 3 months. Advocates (from set of users outside of the affected list) be appointed to represent the blocked users if needed. I am willing to justify point by point the reasoning for each of these probation conditions . After good behavior, each affected individual may resume to having full editing rights and appeal for the blocked users may resume. Alternate idea is a forced partition of what articles each groups of editors can edit. Sinhala freedom 19:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the few dissenters who will not agree to an agreement that has significant backing within the community ? Sinhala freedom 20:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• ONLY IF...I can see the above proposal, which is basically a community ban/self imposed arbcom, working ONLY IF ALL the key players-of which there are at least a dozen, maybe two dozen, agree to all the stipulations and actually follow them. Admins, preferably but not limited to, ones familiar with the background (there are at least four of them) need to agree to key an eye on things. Any violations would need to be dealt with swiftly and per the agreement. Those editors not following the agreement or complaining about legitimate admin actions should be indef blocked and banned from editing Sri Lankan articles. In my humble opinion, this is the only way to avoid arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For potential complaints about admin action, how about affected users have to get an advocate willing to raise the complaint, allowing for a measure of accountability. This will take out any chance of wp:battle occur with an admin being pulled in, but will keep such discussion with proper decorum. My point is that, whether its legitimate or not maybe be a point of dispute. Sinhala freedom 20:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see that, but the advocate needs to be an admin, I think. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree Taprobanus 21:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

On the admin side, there needs to be at least one admin with checkuser privileges,so that activity of users on probation be monitored. Sinhala freedom 21:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That'd be great, but the check users can't even keep up with arbcom, much less RFCU, so I wouldn't get your hopes up. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you guys are going to have to come together here and agree to some kind of behavioral restrictions on these topics to avoid what would probably be a messy ArbCom case. Everyone has got to really behave well for this to work, and you all have to legitimately want to fix this. I would suggest that change begins at home. --Haemo 22:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Something like:

Any editor working on topics related to Sri Lanka, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. The restriction shall specify that, should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for a specified duration. Before the restriction shall come into effect for a particular editor, that editor shall be given an official notice of it.

However, we can't possibly implement something like this if there isn't some broad consensus for it — and I mean that in the broadest possible sense of the term. --Haemo 23:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am really satisfied w/ these ideas. I agree w/ the concept. I only think it is hard to have an admin w/ the CheckUser tool for logistical reasons. If that is possible then it would be great. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Faysaif, you suggested that we should go to Arbcom-I agree. However, as you claimed earlier, the most powerful tool available to wikipedia says that these accounts are socks and are confirmed socks who are allowed to edit wikipedia. Whatever the case maybe, you also claimed that you were not in position to decide if documents/pictures/other evidence were legit or not. I agree with that. However, what I don't agree with is that the fact that you are willing to unblock repeated violator of Sock (Lahiru). Watchdogb 00:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Watchdogb, I believe you innocently missed what we have been talking about here, the focus has been to figure out how to stamp any further disruptions to wikipedia due to ongoing problems we are having. It had been suggested to goto arbcomm, but there is general preference not to go there, but do something short of that will effectively resolve the issues. Hence Taprobanus, Haemo, myself and Rlevse, with FayssalF's support have been suggesting a series of steps that would affect a dozen or so users related to Sri Lanka edits. The idea would imply some sort of voluntarily approved or (imposed ?) editing restriction or pledge. The details are still to be worked out. Anyone please correct my summary of the present status if you deem appropriate. Sinhala freedom 02:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This means that all this thread means nothing to you. How many times have we explained and re-explained that? Please add yourself to the party which would not support measures proposed above. If you don't like the proposal, fine. There is nothing more to explain after all what have been said (almost 2 weeks now). There is no more place for drama. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would to thank you admins for doing a difficult and Thankless job where you in a lose-lose no matter what you do and how well you handle it.Thank you very much

1. The first issue is of the use of socks by Lahiru and Netmonger and this was confirmed by Arbcom.If socks were indeed used ,I feel unblocking would led to encouraging sockpupporty.They should be unblocked only if they are found innocent of socks.As like the elanan case future sockpupputery will be justified based on this unblock.

That they were unblocked even through found guilty of using socks after Arbcom held so. I agree with Akhilleus writes

I'm getting pretty confused by this. The Checkuser result that Lahiru k = Mystic was thoroughly examined at the time (including in the ArbCom request that Pharaoh linked to above); I'm not really sure why we're questioning it now. I don't support unblocking anyone, and I only support sending this to ArbCom if it's to sort out all the user conduct issues in the Sri Lanka/LTTE disputes. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

1. The larger issue with is Sri Lanka-Tamil-Dravidian where the same group of team taggers edit wars leading to a large number of pages being protected etc with a few additions and deletions edit war.The sad fact is it is established users who are doing it and use of socks.Attacking new users as socks without evidence and warning them

   This should be dealt separately and if there is any evidence against any other user of using socks that user also should be dealt firmly but no reward for those using socks against particurly against whom evidence exists particurly where edit warring is going as it would set a very bad example.Pharaoh of the Wizards 02:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Pharaoh apart from the fact blocks have been handed out and that all this has been done, there is general frustration in here perhaps rightly so that we haven't had an end to disruptions. So the topic now is what voluntary or imposed plans are we considering short of going to arbcomm, for the other editors (not ones blocked) because nobody feels happy about that option. Please read the proposal by Taprobanus, myself, Haemo and Rlevse on this. Sinhala freedom 02:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternative measures

It has been proposed that this issue can be resolved the following way:

Yeah, you guys are going to have to come together here and agree to some kind of behavioral restrictions on these topics to avoid what would probably be a messy ArbCom case. Everyone has got to really behave well for this to work, and you all have to legitimately want to fix this. I would suggest that change begins at home. --Haemo 22:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Something like:

Any editor working on topics related to Sri Lanka, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. The restriction shall specify that, should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for a specified duration. Before the restriction shall come into effect for a particular editor, that editor shall be given an official notice of it.

However, we can't possibly implement something like this if there isn't some broad consensus for it — and I mean that in the broadest possible sense of the term. --Haemo 23:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin edit rights privilege abuse

• Omegatron (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A while back, the above admin made a content edit to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a page protected due to edit warring and currently under mediation. Furthermore, that edit was to a section under specific discussion on the mediation page. The admin was notified both on his talk page, and here on WP:ANI, that his actions were improper. The mediator, chair of the mediation committee, user:Daniel, agreed that edits to those sections should not occur until the mediation was completed.

Today the admin deliberately unlocks the page in order to continue his editing, even though the mediation is ongoing, although thankfully, progress is being made.

This article is a most tendentious and difficult one to keep appropriate. There has been discussions, debates, and mediation attempts on this article for years now. Recently, we have actually been having success hammering out some of the issues. Keeping the article stable during this discussion is of great importance in allowing all sides to discuss what should and should not be there. Omegatron has been informed of this AND has been invited to join the discussion and mediation process, which he has not done in earnest before using his admin rights to unlock the article. At this point, one can no longer assume good faith as the admin has been informed, and warned, about this activity before. I believe some action needs to be taken. -- Avi 12:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not all interested parties *have* to agree to mediation. :S —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 12:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but i don't think protecting an article for months at a time is the right way to go. Why can't parties have the mediation without the protection?Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well during mediation it does help to have a stable article. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 13:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I will say unprotecting so that you can edit a page is probably not the best way to be using the mop, but I'll let others have fun with that. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 13:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that having a page protected for months on end is not good. There are several minor edits that could be done. For example, on my display the references section is messed up by the sister links box protruding in from above. A simple {{clear}} would sort that. I also note that while one of Omegatron's edits was to do with neutrality, the other (here) was a simple formatting edit, and that should be reinstated. I also note that although Omegatron unprotected the article, he didn't continue editing. See here: "Unprotected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: no justification for protection. mediation has been ongoing for months and is not a reason to lock the page. we don't leave entire articles in a protected state for months because of a dispute about one statement.". I'm going to add an {{editprotected}} request to the talk page to see if minor edits are being accepted or not. Carcharoth 13:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that among the edits he wishes to make is one that is at the heart of the current mediation, please read the mediation page Carcharoth. Yes, it is frustrating; it is frustrating for all of us involved, but making changes to the very portions that are under discussion is not the way to do it, especially when after being invited to partake in the discussion, Omegatron demurred. -- Avi 14:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read the mediation page, Avraham. If you re-read my comment, you will see that I link to the edit by Omegatron that I think is non-controversial. It is this one. Have a close look. It is only a formatting change - no content has changed. Note the edit summary: "trying to make long list of refs easier to navigate around". I completely agree that the other edit, seen here, should have been discussed at the mediation page first. My concern was whether minor edits were being ignored. I left an edit protected request, and you only partially fulfilled it. Possibly you misread what I wrote, but it wastes your time and my time if minor edits have to be done in this back-and-forth manner. If editors of the article can't control themselves, and engage in edit wars, then the conduct of the editors should be looked at, rather than protecting the page. Carcharoth 15:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Since general editing to that section, which being in the lead is under scrutiny and mediation now, should be curtailed, changing the structure to facilitate editing-only ease, which is invisible when reading the article, can wait. Regarding editor conduct, sometimes, certain articles require patience by all involved. Yes using {{editprotected}} to suggest changes is a pain, but having articles in edit wars is worse. This article, obviously, is among our most tendentious. So if it requires a bit more understanding and patience than most people in today's "instant gratification" world find bearable, that is a small price to pay for working out a firm consensus. As important, it is part of the dispute resolution process here; which will only work if respected. -- Avi 15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then I read this wrong, I don't think there is any admin misconduct here, at least not of the egregious sort. I think we could debate for a while whether or not full protection for months is a good thing or not, but I don't think this admin has done anything horribly wrong. I could be mistaken, but best to wait for him to comment I think ;) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 14:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation has been ongoing since May. Biased editors cannot use this as justification to lock down an article in their preferred version, and then stall in mediation to prevent others from making changes indefinitely.

Please unprotect the article. There's a lot more work to be done, and Avi cannot be allowed to assert ownership of the article in this way. — Omegatron 14:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is an integral part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Showing disrespect and disregard for the process will in no way shape or form help the project. Wikipedia will be around for a long time; sometimes, patience is required for the community to come to a reasonable consensus and compromise. Making edits to sections that are at the direct heart of the ongoing mediation shows a complete lack of respect for the process, the project, and the editors involved. Those of us actively involved in the mediation have been editing this article for years, and we do know what the "hot-buttons" are. Join us in working to fix the article on a long-term basis instead of ignoring all of us, wikpedia process, and the project's integrity by making unilateral decisions and edits despite ongoing dispute resolution. You have been asked to work WITH the process before. Why do you choose not to? -- Avi 14:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• You can request edits by posting them on the talk page and use {{edit protected}}. This might be the best way to proceed with noncontroversial edits and after demonstrating consensus among different editors for more substantial changes. Thatcher131 14:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Out of interest, does the same "edit by committee and keep protected while discussion takes place over months" process apply to articles where editing behaviour is being examined by the Arbitration Committee? Carcharoth 15:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• I would recommend unprotection. Ahmadinejad is a controversial public figure and is in the news often. It is quite likely a high-traffic page. Leaving such a page protected for long periods of time is extremely undesirable. If people involved in the dispute ignore the mediation discussion and continue to edit the disputed statements, take it up with them. Mr.Z-man 05:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • That has been tried. This started when Omegatron, perhaps initially unknowingly, edited one of the major parts of the article under mediation, ignoring said mediation. -- Avi 15:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Locking a high-traffic and uncomplimentary article about a national leader like this one for long periods is bound to appear to be partisan. I (misleadingly) advertise a likely POV - and did so in the full expectation that even this suspicion of partisanship would exclude me from ever wielding admin powers. PR^talk 08:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Avi: And did you bring it up on his talk page before coming here? What's wrong with just reverting and warning? Why does the article have to be protected so that almost no one can edit it just because a few people should not be editing a couple statements? Mr.Z-man 18:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding previous communication see User talk:Omegatron#Your edits to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Regarding protection, please realize that there are 18 archives stretching back over two years that have been trying to hash this out. We are in the last phase of Dispute Resolution that does not require ArbCom. Getting ArbCom involved would be to no ones benefit, as that certainly will last months. If protection helps us solve the issues here, as having a stable article undergoing mediation does, then that is a good thing. -- Avi 18:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well during mediation it does help to have a stable article.

So Avi's allowed to protect the entire article in his preferred version because it's "under mediation", while simultaneously keeping it "under mediation" for months at a time by refusing to reach agreement with other editors? (See smb's mediation comment from Sept 25, a month ago.) How is this not wikilawyering and an abuse of admin privileges?

This undermines the entire editing process. Wikipedia is edited by people working cooperatively to achieve a neutral point of view. If someone makes an edit that is not neutral for some reason, someone else can fix it. If there's a long drawn-out dispute about a specific part of the article, then you can go to dispute resolution, but that doesn't mean the entire article should be locked down indefinitely. In this case, the dispute is only about one particular sentence in the intro. When mediation has reached an agreement, the sentence can be updated accordingly, and people who make further changes can be referred to that decision.

But if that mediation process is going to take many more months (as it already has) then the article should remain editable in the meantime. Even if there's a moratorium on editing that particular disputed statement (and there shouldn't be), during such a large amount of time, the article's topic is sure to change drastically. — Omegatron 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I will say unprotecting so that you can edit a page is probably not the best way to be using the mop

...because the only reason I would have unprotected it is so that I could make a number of controversial edits immediately afterwards without getting tattled on?

And what if someone is "unprotecting so they can edit the page" because it was wrongly protected in the first place? — Omegatron 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been asked to work WITH the process before. Why do you choose not to?

Whatever are you talking about? I've left many comments on the article's talk page and the mediation page, and am not "unprotecting the page in order to edit war" or any of the other things you've made up about me. The page should not have been protected in the first place.

See the comments on my talk page, Riana's talk page, and the previous AN/I (which includes a list of my "unilateral" edits) for further information.

Will someone else please deal with this behavior and unprotect the article? — Omegatron 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is this, the page be unprotected, and a notice be placed at the top of the page stating the page is under mediation. This way new folks get fair warning that this is controversial, and you best make sure your edit won't cause a shitstorm, while allowing for others to edit. Also it might be wise to engage in the mediation. If parties in the mediation want to edit the page disruptively, there is arbcom. Put simply the parties in the mediation, if they agree to not edit the article and one of them chooses to edit the article to advance a POV, then we have problems with editors. A suggestion would be to place the whole article under 1RR if editing gets really nasty. (Admins can warn parties on the talk page that reverts past 1 revert a day will be viewed as disruptive). Just my two cents here... protection for 4+ months because people can't agree is just problematic and is getting in the way of others improving the encyclopedia. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 01:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

POINTy revert warring by MONGO

The Wikipedia:No personal attacks page is currently fully page protected. This is directly and deliberately caused by MONGO's revert warring behavior on it. Over four days, MONGO has reverted the page ten times with useless name-calling edit summaries. It is a textbook example of gaming.

I put this on the 3RR noticeboard as it involves MONGO walking up to the 3RR electric fence and pissing on it for multiple days but never crossing it. El C closed it as non-actionable because gaming 3RR isn't 3RR [9]

So ANI, what is it then? 10 reverts over the span of a few days, often three reverts in the span of an hour, than waiting a day and doing it again. This policy page has been protected 7 times this year because of this crap.

Action, or another free pass for MONGO? SchmuckyTheCat

To be fair to El_C, he didn't say that "gaming 3RR isn't 3RR". He just opined that such cases are better dealt with here rather than on WP:AN3. As far as blocking MONGO, it's pretty straightforward. The page in question is already fully protected, so the edit war is over. Blocks are preventive, not punitive. Blocking someone for edit-warring after the page in question has been protected (and the edit war thus ended) would be punitive. I doubt you'll find an admin willing to do it. MastCell ^Talk 16:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The full protection has to end sometime. Do we have any assurances from MONGO that he won't continue this edit war as soon as it does? Why should he stop when he knows that he can get away with it? -Chunky Rice 16:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The disruption caused by his unprovoked personal crusading needs to stop as well as the edit warring; protecting won't solve that. Milto LOL pia 17:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that citing edit warring as 3rr violation on an3, when one knows that, technically, there hasn't been a 3rr violation, is problematic, and unnecessary. We don't need the 3rr for that. One can be blocked for edit warring, wp:point, or gaming the system (including 3rr) violations without 3rr being cited in the block, or an3 being used. Leave an3 for 3rr violations which are, in fact, 3rr violations. El_C 08:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

El C's non-action is neither here nor there, I'm just pointing out why this is being posted here instead of there, and there has a diff history for anyone that wants to look. 3RR gaming should be actionable on the 3RR noticeboard, but that's a general admin discretion issue, nothing with any individual.

Full protection for a page isn't appropriate when it is primarily one contributor making it into an edit war. MONGO's actions have caused that page to be under PP multiple times this year. When does it end? SchmuckyTheCat

To be honest, I think it was a kneejerk reaction because you and Miltopia are ED editors, and he's already got enough reason to hate ED. Still, I'd block for 3RR. Will ^(talk) 16:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it against WP:NPA to use outside affiliations, "mainstream or extreme", to dismiss any editor's views? *Dan T.* 17:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not explicitly, but commenting on the contributor vs the content they add is. MONGO violated that quite awhile ago with edit summaries like [10], [11], and [12] are. Spryde 17:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes explicitly. It's been (sensibly) a consideration for a while. The language comes right from the page. And for good reason, as you can see by this situation... Milto LOL pia 17:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No one is dismissing Mr. Cat's views by noting that he is an adminstrator of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website. We're just putting it in context. MOASPN 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is what intent seems to be. Otherwise, why keep mentioning it in edit summaries, the talk page, etc at every moment possible?

Can you read minds? I'd like that power. Are you an adminstrator of ED also? MOASPN 17:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, I give up.

On second thought. No, I am not giving up. I can't read minds. But I can take what appears to me to the be the intent (and it is fully my opinion) for bringing it up. To disparage the contributor instead of his or her argument itself. You are doing the same thing, in my opinion, here by explaining what ED is and what role that person may or may not have had. Accusing me of being an editor there is the same action as above. What part of my argument is faulty? Did my diffs not show that the person was reverting based on who the person is and not what the argument was? Did my diffs attempt to disparage the person by commenting on the person rather than their argument? I don't think so. If I might have missed it, please show it to me. Spryde 17:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of anything - I'm asking you if you are an editor there. You seem to think I'm attributing motives to people by noting they are adminstrators of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website. Since they are, in fact, adminstrators of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website, it seems that you are able to draw connections between their being adminstrators of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website and their actions with respect to external links and MONGO. Why would you do that? I'm shocked, shocked that you would violate WP:NPA by assuming that adminstrators of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site dedicated in part in harassing and hounding MONGO and other editors of this website would be harassing and hounding MONGO. MOASPN 17:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Nope, been there, read a few pages, did not like it have not been back. Let me ask you a question, what is the point of repeating the same phrase over and over except to make a point? And to comment, the recent edits by the ED people have been mostly constructive in my opinion. Their recent contributions may have not been to MONGO's liking but IN MY OPINION, he is quick to react and has a temper which got him into trouble in the first place. He contributes quite a bit towards the project but he also grates on many people's nerves with the "fuck off" edit summaries, accusations, and basic way he steamrolls people which he suspects of being someone else. This causes valuable editors to leave/be banned/etc. Spryde 17:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you get the chance. please produce evidence that I have steamrolled a single "valuable" editor off of this website...on the contrary...I have seen a lot of valuable editors steamrolled off this website by ED supportors...I can name a half dozen that have left due to the harassment that has been written on that website about them. If you are going to make accusations, then you best gather your facts to substantiate them.--MONGO 06:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

MOASPN, I don't edit stuff about Wikipedia on ED. I've been editing Wikipedia going on several years now. You're not contributing to the discussion by maligning my intentions. The issue is whether MONGO's daily edit warring is disruptive. Is it? SchmuckyTheCat

Please can we not argue over who edits ED on this noticeboard. It's not relevant to anything, ever. Take it to user talk or something. Milto LOL pia 17:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please focus on the edit warring, not the name calling, please.

It's been shown for two years that MONGO has carte blanche to be incivil and call names. Nobody cares anymore. It's me he's calling names and I'm asking everyone to please focus this only on the edit warring behavior. SchmuckyTheCat

Who is he edit warring with? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends on who's online when he signs on. Last night it was myself, Privatemusings, and Schmucky. Meanwhile his only input at the talk page was the sort of insults that have disrupted the page for a while now. I'm not making an issue now of the name-calling, only that his lack of meaningful input on talk makes it clear he won't stop this warring. Milto LOL pia 17:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it worse for him to revert than for you to revert? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it seems to me at least that there is a burgeoning consensus building and he opposes it. Spryde 17:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And, as I've said before, because of his lack of discussion on the talk page. His only input there is to sidetrack others with personal remarks. Milto LOL pia 18:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave MONGO a polite final warning on his long, continuous pattern of incivility and personal attacks the other day; he rebuked my warning and continued as usual, so I blocked him. The block was overturned within minutes, and he's only continued the same behavior. It seems clear at this point that the community has basically given MONGO a free pass to be as disruptive as he pleases. --krimpet⟲ 17:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Rebuking an administrator is not grounds for a block. Though if that ever changes, I'll be all over it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not the case at all. You blocked me because I removed your warning with the comment "Bye"...that was an abuse of your admin tools, period. Furthermore, Schmucky reverted my change back to the older version which used wording directly from an arbcom case which states that ED is not to be linked to. Schmucky is a contributor to ED, as is Miltopia...so there is a definite COI when these two are removing information to the NPA policy which details that we don't link to that website. Schmucky's revert also seemed, at least at first, to be random as I had not seen him making any effort to participate in the ongoing discussion on that policy talk page. Lastly, Schmucky seems to be forum shopping at this point...not getting a block for 3RR (which I have not violated), he then marches here to complain further...Nevertheless, I will self impose a 1RR restiction on myself on that policy henceforth.--MONGO 18:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The page is currently protected. I'll add it to my watchlist and help out when I can. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh whatever, Tom, you're proxy reverting for him and all you ever bothered to do on the talk was "vote" on the poorly-attended RfC that was made obsolete by my rewrite oft eh section. Milto LOL pia 18:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, it's not forum shopping when the closing admin says it belongs in a different forum. kthx. SchmuckyTheCat

Let's remember-- these edits happened at WP:NPA. It isn't an article-- it's a policy. Regardless of what you think the policy SHOULD be, it is NEVER okay to knowingly take some highly contentious proposal text and just edit it into a policy page. If you know it hasn't gotten consensus, you should NEVER put it into policy. You just shouldn't do it-- not even once. Policies reflect consensus-- if you take a rejected proposal and even ONCE add it into a policy page-- you're being disruptive-- and I've seen people blocked for less.

Now, by my count-- MONGO has taken highly-disputed text, text he KNOWS is highly disputed, and he has added it into policy TWELVE times. Not once, not twice-- TWELVE times.

How many times are we gonna let him do this before we stop treating this as if it were "just another article content dispute" and start seeing it as a disruptive editor trying to edit-war a rejected proposal into becoming policy in order to circumvent consensus? --Alecmconroy 19:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm encouraged that MONGO has pledged to abide by 1RR in the future. This is very encouraging. But the point my comment stands-- even 1 revert is too many if you're using that revert to re-add highly disputed text into a policy. --Alecmconroy 20:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's easy to claim to only do 1RR yourself once you've organized your posse to join in. SchmuckyTheCat

Schmucky, press the extra tilde and help us all out. As far as MONGO's editing of this page goes, yesterday I asked him why he chose to revert an IP's good faith edits ([13]), and his reasons were that in his view, IP editors should not be allowed to edit policy pages ([14]). This is also a concern. As best I can see, MONGO is loath to allow this policy to exist in any form which does not include the link to his ArbCom case, I think because it expressly forbade ED linkage. This, despite it now being made defunct by the more recent and general ArbCom attack sites ruling (and the meta blacklist). The majority of editors participating see having both as pointless and potentially confusing, MONGO wants it there and thus far he has reverted 2 or 3 times a day every day using various edit summaries, but all with the same end result. Neil ☎ 21:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Schmucky and Miltopia joining up to complain about MONGO? Is this the right Wiki for this crap? Close down this thread and stop whining. --DHeyward 22:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's just not helpful. As I've said before elsewhere-- MONGO needs help from his friend to DISCOURAGE bad behavior, not to egg him on. With feedback from those he respects, MONGO could spend 100% of his time helping the encyclopedia-- instead of the case now, where despite incredibly positive contributions, a fraction of his behavior is highly disruptive. Help him to see this and you help him to become a better editor, and one day again, an admin. Egg him on, dismiss complaints like these as the `whinings of trolls` and you only make the problems worse for Mongo in the end. --Alecmconroy 23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, DHeyward, I feel the wikilove. My three years of contributions here are meaningless because I've dared to call MONGO on his disruptions? I can see my presence is appreciated. SchmuckyTheCat

We just had an ArbComm case in part because of edit warring on WP:NPA, and now we have more edit warring about WP:NPA. Something needs to be done to put an end to this, and I am starting as an admin to believe that the right solution is to invite certain participants to go away and not return. MONGO's reported behaviour in this matter is not acceptable. GRBerry 02:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The bad behavior is that of ED and WR partisans who have tried to get the NPA policy altered so that they can link to their capricous websites and not be blocked doing so. Did everyone miss the part that Miltopia reverted three times as well, or is that not a big deal? This is the same song and dance I have had from this crowd for some time now...they contiue to mischaracterize my efforts and comments when I have repeatedly shown that they have a serious conflict of interest when they remove prohibitions about linking to malicious sites and they are active participants in these very same sites. In article space, we block or end up doing topic bans for COI...why is this any different? I recommend a topic ban on the partisans of these websites. In addition, the external links policy proposal so many are boasting about is still a proposal so there is no reason to remove current arbcom case of from an existing policy until (if) that external links proposal passes.--MONGO 06:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't bode well that you can't refrain from slinging insults even in a thread discussion the disruption you've caused by slinging insults.

Here's the facts-- I'm not an ED member, I'm not a WR partisan, and I have no interest in promoting ASM. The same holds for almost everyone else involved in this debate. And it's my feeling that you have tried very very hard to spread lies suggesting that I am affiliated with those psychos-- and I'm pretty damn sick of it.

• At the arbcom case, we were all having a very civil discussion about the many important issues raised. You chose to present "evidence" that said nothing of the actual issues, but just instead accused me of being part of a campaign of harassment.

• I raised concerns on the WP:NPA talk page. I politely explained my point of view, in great detail, and explained why the BADSITES text was disputed. Many valued community members expressed similar points of view. You reinserted the disputed text explaining "the only dispute is by those who contribute to WR"

• GTBacchus, a very valuable and respected member of the community, joins the discussion. You dismiss him by saying "GTBaccus is also an ED contributor and always comes to the defense of his fellows." When he takes offense, you stand by your statement: "says I 'lie'...how odd, 'cause I always see whenever ED is brought up, there he is, defending present and past editors of that website...I am not a liar, thanks!"

• When your disruption and personal attacks are reported to ANI, your justification for the disruption you've caused is simple: "Schmucky is a contributor to ED, as is Miltopia".

• Your actions are criticized, and you are given several warnings to cease making personal attacks. Your response is to declare the entire dispute to be the work of ED partisans. Think about that just for a second. When we take time to ask you to stop slinging personal attacks, you dismiss the whole lot of us with another vile personal attack????

How DARE you try to justify your own misbehavior by fabricating some link between me and ED just because I disagree with you about a content policy. How DARE you take an important discussion over the fundamental nature of this project, in which practically everyone on all sides is acting out of sincerity, and try to pass it off as just a trollish campaign to promote some hate sites.

It seems you will justify any actions whatsoever merely by alleging that one of your opponents is affiliated with ED. And if that behavior is so ingrained in you that you can't cease it even for five minutes, in the midst of a discussion about how you need to cease it-- I truly fear that in the end, you're gonna have to go.

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this little tactic of dragging people's names through the mud every time you get into a content dispute-- it's gotten real old, and I'm quite sick of it. Stop it. Stop it right now. Don't do it again. Seriously....

The sad fact is, however, I don't think that you can stop. I bet dimes to doughnuts, even after I've warned you, even after I've asked nicely, even after I've told you I think you're unable to stop attacking people-- I bet you your response, and the responses of your allies, will still be to imply, allege, or accuse people of being trolls, ED partisans, WR loons, or ASM stalkers. --Alecmconroy 08:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I have nothing whatsoever to do with ED, Wikipedia Review, or any other of these sites, and to be characterised as an "ED and WR partisan" and my comments dismissed is insulting. Right now the "ED and WR partisans", or as I like to call them, all the Wikipedia editors who disagree with MONGO, are coming out of this a whol;e lot better than MONGO. Neil ☎ 08:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry...I guess since Alecmconroy feels that I "have to go", I might as well.--MONGO 09:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. While I have no wish for MONGO to leave, the lies about other editors' motives and offsite activities must cease. Milto LOL pia 09:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Lies?--MONGO 09:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Lies about myself and Schmucky being active ED contributors. Lies about me and several others advocating support for ED. Lies about me or GTBacchus or several others being "ED partisans". Lies about me wanting to allow links to ED. So yes, I'd say lies. Milto LOL pia 09:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Just checked ED...you still contribute there. Inactive to me at least means no edits, nada, zero...not occasional = inactive...whats this...was this true?...I'm inclined to believe it was trolling. I think we're done here.--MONGO 09:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you perhaps notice that both of those diffs were from april? Viridae^Talk 09:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why, yes I did...but was he a newbie then?...he started editing in Ocotber 2006...oh darn, I can't complain about other editors...this is actually the AN/M (Administrators noticeboard/MONGO)...but wait, I already have a board of my own...and no one wants to play there lately, even though I have promised barnstars that are really nifty!--MONGO 09:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point MONGO has once again receded into incoherent rambling about me. That or he is just blatantly trolling, but I'm inclined against believing that. This is pretty much how every dispute MONGO has thrown himself into with me has gone. Milto LOL pia 10:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, during either the most recent, or next most recent, previous MONGO thread on AN/I, he accused me of being a WR/ED troller as well. It really is becoming his standard reply. And, in the interest of full disclosure, After being attacked like that, and after he refused to take it back, I went and looked. I've never registered as a member of either, and only started reading ASM last night, in regards to another thread on AN/I. So now, MONGO's made someone else into a reader of his most hated sites by accusing them. It's only a matter of time til he's a one man membership drive. MONGO needs to see the substance of their complaints, not be dismissive of them using personal attacks on them. ThuranX 11:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)The accusations don't matter in any case. Let MONGO throw out his accusations. They are meaningless. Offsite actions aren't important to Wikipedia. Which, fwiw, was another ArbCom finding in a MONGO case that he chooses to ignore so he can continue to sling the accusation around. SchmuckyTheCat

Here is an interesting comment on a very similar issue from one of our most experienced and influential editors. I completely agree with the sentiment expressed; civility is non-negotiable here as without it the entire community becomes unworkable and the project fails. On the plus side I see good signs of progress here and here and MONGO's statement that he will adhere to 1RR on the policy page in future. --John 19:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty clear harrasment sites will not be tolerated. Nor will restoring deleted links to harrassment sites be tolerated and the solution is indefinite ban. It seems the policy ought to reflect this since unsuspecting editors might find themselves on the wrong end of the ban hammer after reverting harassment link deletions. Misinterpreting BADSITES Arbcom or misinterpreting rejected BADSITES policy or WP:NPA will not save them so it's a service to include this in the policy so no one is confused. Hopefully this will end the discussion on MONGO's reverts since if User:Ombudsman read MONGO's version, he would probably be an editor today. --DHeyward 00:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood the thrust of my message then. Jimbo Wales reduced Om's block to a week; but he also laid down a clear marker that incivility will not be tolerated, even from experienced editors, a message I heartily applaud. --John 00:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I understood where you were coming from but I thought you missed the forest for the trees. Schmucky and Miltopia are generally upset that MONGO doesn't want to soften the WP:NPA policy and limit it's extent to badsites and offsite harassment. You could argue that is why Miltopia took up Ombudmsan's cause on Jimbos talk page. Schmucky claims that off-site contributions have no bearing on Wikipedia but it's clear that if it creates a hostile editing environment on wikipedia, that editor should find another hobby. Jimbo went out of his way to ban him when he restored links to harassing sites. MONGO is simply trying to reflect this reality in our written policy so editors understand what harassment is and what will get them blocked. --DHeyward 01:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the others dissatisfied with MONGO's gaming and personal attacks have equally nefarious motives. Let's hope they at least understood my comments about Ombudsman better than you did. Milto LOL pia 01:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. I did't even talk about motives of Ombudsman and certainly never mentioned any nefarious motives. The truth is I don't care what his motives are. I don't really care what your motives are. I only know it's disruptive and time wasting to hear you constantly complain about MONGO. It's an extension of your "todo" list on ED and it's tiresomely predictable. --DHeyward 04:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for editing ease

If the revert warring and incivil edit summary problem with WP:NPA is still ongoing with the same offending party(s), I would say that you've exhausted this, ANI, as the first step in the conflict resolution process. I would suggest, then, that the aggrieved editors, and there appears to be more than two of you, go ahead and co-sign an RfC on the offending parties' behavior and leave that open for a week or so. If that doesn't take care of problem, then take it to the next level- RfAr. It's a long and frustrating process, but that's how the "system" works and it has worked before which is one of the reasons why one of the offending editors mentioned above is no longer an admin. Cla68 01:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The system doesn't work, though. Not matter how many WP:CIVIL policies, statements, decisions, redactions, RfC's, RfAr's, AN/I's, AN's, and so on MONGO goes through, no one's got the balls to give him any amount of blocking that sticks. Instead, admins engage a series of delaying tactics until things cool off on the relevant pages, cite 'blocks are preventative not punative, and it's been too long', and MONGO walks off to do it all again. There's a pattern here of disruptive editing and incivility, and he never ever gets blocked for it. Not really. All those blockings that get undone in 2 minutes don't count, they aren't supported blocks. I'm not on ED, ASM, or WR, though I admit to HAVING READ them. I'm just a wikieditor who thinks that it's not fair that most editors get blocked far faster for far less, far more often, than MONGO. MONGO does get special treatment here. It's pretty undeniable at this point. Some editors love him so much they bend policy and procedure with big piles of bureaucracy, and it's incredibly frustrating. I'm sorry MONGO can't talk his issues out, but maybe he needs to leave to get help. My attitude twaors him is well known, and after this, it's a damn guarantee that he'll trot out my last screed against him as 'proof' of my WR/ED alliance and my membership in the great conspiracy against him. No, I'm just one more editor tired of a double standard. He needs a blocking. It's been promised for 'the next time'. Never happens. Not fair. frustrated. ThuranX 01:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If the system did work, you would have been blocked for your comments [here... but you weren't so be grateful the system failed to do what it should have done when you made those comments...which are much worse than any I have ever made.--MONGO 01:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Called it, didn't I? Every time I speak out against MONGO, he brings this up. Ironically, while I've learned from that, and my warnings, he has not. it's enough to start insulting him all over again. Hell, I'd take a 24 hour block for that in exchange for never having it brought up against me again, and a 48 hour block in exchange for that AND the full block Viridae would have hit MONGO with. However, none of those things can come to pass. Even if I did get a block for it, MONGO will still drag it up as proof that rather than being a WP editor dsigruntled by his 'special' treatment, and I've have to counter with my block log, and then it'd be a bigger disruption. Further, go digging, you'll see that before that, I'd spoken out civilly over, and over, and over against his getting off the hook. He'd been condescending to myself and many, many others. It's not coincidence that fewer and fewer editors speak out against it, most have realized that speaking out makes you MONGO's target, and speaking out does no good.ThuranX 02:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are others, but that one was so outrageous, I was really taken aback by it. You seem to constantly yell "block" all over the noticeboards about numerous editors...so I guess we can all be grateful you don't have that capability.--MONGO 03:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That was sad Thuran and a huge mischaracterisation. You presume he is guilty of all these transgressions yet the evidence shows otherwise. In fact, the lo9ng list of accusations without consensus of wrongdoing speaks more to MONGO being harassed than it does about him getting away with anything. This is just you repeating a bunch of stuff that has already been adjudicated. Wh ydo you keep bringing it up? Here I'll call it: there is a particular list of editors that will bring MONGO to ANI for every content dispute and you will show up with your "MONGO is above the system because one time in bandcamp they didn't block him like I wanted them to" bullshit. I'm sorry you didn't like the consensus of the community but give it a rest. --04:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For the love of god MONGO - that was July - this is late october, live in the present. Viridae^Talk 01:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well gee, it's really hard to live in the present when responding to the comments that is about the past. Maybe Thuran could talk about the present instead of the past. Thruan complaining about how MONGO didn't blocked for all his past transgressions is kind of pointless. --DHeyward 04:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I experienced this sort of "impeccable memory for past slights" also. Mongo got very very angry with me once for asking too many clarifications about the MONGO case. I was a relatively young wikipedian at the time, I was acting in 100% good faith in that discussion, but I did acknowledge I should have had that discussion in a different venue and with people who hadn't been so personally attacked. I very quickly and very sincerely apologized for accidentally upsetting him and not picking up on his stress level.

Naively perhaps, I assumed that with my apologies, the matter was settled, and that was the end of that. To the best of my knowledge, I didn't say another word to Mongo or interact with him for the next year-- perhaps I did, but i didn't have any interaction that was sufficient for me to remember it now as I type.

But when I decided to contribute to the Attack Sites arbitration, Mongo quickly showed up and started screaming about this once isolated incident, a year old, in which I did nothing but act in good faith, and in which I had profusely and sincerely apologized for inadvertently upsetting him.

It would seem that MONGO has mentally compiled an "enemies list" of sorts, and that I was still on it, and at the first sign of a dispute, Mongo was eager to unload personal attacks on me with both barrels, as the saying goes. --Alecmconroy 02:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If anyone isn't interested in letting go of past disputes, it seems to be you, not me.--MONGO 03:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you sincerely feel that, but I promise you MONGO, it's really not true. I've never held the 2006 incident against you-- it's clear you'd been through a lot, and when I complained about it, it wasn't because I wanted you destroyed, it really was because I wanted you helped. You basically snapped in the middle of an otherwise civil conversation, and it was clear to me that we didn't do something to help you, you couldn't continue to function as an admin. I still wish there has been something I could have said that might have been able to reach out to you and help you see, and helped you avoided the consequences that ultimately befell you.

When I, a year later, participated in the Attack Sites case-- it wasn't out of any desire to 'get back at you', it was out of a sincere concern for the integrity of the project. If I had been motivated by some desire to attack you, I could have easily done so in that forum-- you would have made an easy candidate, having been de-admined for bad behavior, but I never crossed that line, I never made it personal, and I kept my remarks as focused as I could on principle, not people. To the extent I even mentioned you, it was almost exclusively in rebuttal to your attacks on me-- and even then, I didn't harshly attack you.

You've been a real puzzle for me. I've sincerely wanted to try to find some way to help you out of habitual assumption of bad faith that I assume was created by the harassment you were subjected to. I don't think you're a bad person, I don't think you're a mean or cruel or suffering from character flaws on anything like that. GTBacchus has talked about "considering everyone children of God, and therefore aspects of God", which is why he's someone I look up to, and that very very vaguely approximates what I feel towards you. You're not a bad person-- you're a good person who just has a problem, and it saddens me to no end that I can seem to help you.

I know you probably are convinced otherwise, but I've never for a second been "out to get you" or anything like that. Even here when I speak harshly too you, I have to confess, I'm not really experiencing anger-- my heart doesn't pound, my blood doesn't boil-- I just figure maybe speaking directly and imperatively will let you hear me in a way that you haven't been able to hear me when I was peaceful and philosophical.

I know it's probably futile for me to say this, because I'm sure you think I'm trying to scam you, or project false compassion or something-- but I'm really not. --Alecmconroy 04:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well had I noticed that it had been 12 reverts in 4 days he would have had a lengthy 3RR block - but as it happens I had just seen a lot of watchlist so I had a brief look at the history and protected the page. The irritating thing is I had hope the people involved would have taken the chance to engage in discussion on the talk page, but very little has taken place. I feel that once the protection is lifted the cycle will start again - and should i see any more than two reverts in a short amount of time I will once again protect the page. Viridae^Talk 01:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Lengthy? You can only block for 3RR for 24 hours. Furthermore, if you were to block me after the disagreements we have had, would be a really bad abuse of your admin tools.--MONGO 03:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was not in disagreement with you over this matter, it was a clear cut case of gaming 3RR. Call abuse all you like but no reasonable person is going to look at that evidence and see anything but gaming 3rr. Furthermore, an admin can block for a length of time they feel appropriate. If it was straight up 3rr and your first offence then it would have been 24 hours - but because this was 12 reverts over four days it would have been a minimum of 48 hours. No block length is set in stone, they are all subject to the blocking admins discretion. You can call admin abuse all you like, but as long as I am not directly involved in that dispute then I see no problem with blocking an editor who clearly deserves it. Viridae^Talk 03:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Careful, no doubt, your protection of the NPA policy was on a version you have argued in favor of on the policy discussion page. I would have sent a request to WP:PP even if I was an admin. Furtherore, since I have been on the opposite side of the dispute in that matter from you, any block you were to do on me in the near future would be a violation of the block policy.--MONGO 05:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Viridae has just given a clear shot across the bow that anymore of the type of disruptive behavior being discussed here in the WP:NPA debate won't be tolerated. If it continues, however, I repeat that you should use the escalating conflict resolution system to try to correct the behavior of the offending editors. It's not true that the system doesn't work if you utilize it correctly. If you look at some of these cases here you can see that the ArbCom has given plenty of editors enforced wiki-breaks to reconsider their behavior or to help them break their addiction to drama or dissembly. Cla68 03:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I doubt you are in a position to talk at this point...you seem to have been an advocate for banned editor Wordbomb for some time now and your ongoing accusations regarding SlimVirgin have been pretty bad. I really would give it a rest since you have just emerged from a block on this matter.--MONGO 05:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Give your threats a rest Viridae. You're an involved editor and since your last block warning against MONGO was wholly inappropriate I don't see how this one is suddenly above board. Put the admin tools down and step away. --DHeyward 04:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Mongo again falsely accuses me or any other good-faith editor of being affiliated with harassers or of being a participant in a campaign of harassment, I'm gonna take whatever steps necessary to get the behavior stopped. Falsely accusing good-faith editors of engaging in nearly-criminal behavior is just not acceptable. For a long time, I'd hoped that unflappable peacefulness towards Mongo would convince him of our good-faith, but that didn't bear out. Now I hope that a little bit of tough talk and some clear warnings will stop the behavior. Hopefully it will stop and that will be the end of it, and, speaking for myself, all will be forgiven. If the behavior doesn't stop, it seems we'll have to turn to methods of last resort. --Alecmconroy 04:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually of the people who commented on that block warning, only yourself and MONGO found it to be inappropriate - everyone else thought it was justified. Whats more it wasn't a block warning, it was a NPA warning. Viridae^Talk 06:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, WR, ASM and ED are compaigns of harassment. I am not sure what peacefulness you speak of nor do I know who continues to participate in those campaigns on those websites. However, I do know that trying to relax policy to allow links to those site has the de facto result of continuing harassment whether or not it's intentional. opposing harassmnet and opposing policy changes may increase harassment is not the same as accusing the editors of engaging in that harassment. --DHeyward 04:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

SO, given the multiple responses here, to many editors who oppose special rules for MONGO, you're in fact saying he shouldn't be blocked for 3RR violations, gaming 3RR, or incivility. Right. No special MONGO rules, except for the special MONGO rules.ThuranX 05:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is protected so there is no edit war, whence no need to block. Blocks are not punitive so once the edit war is stopped there is no blocking. I have not seen incivility that was worth blocking. So I don't support a block on you or MONGO though the constant rehashing of previously adjudicated incidents is bordering on disruption. If you believe there is a pattern of misconduct, bring it up on an RfC and stop bringing it up every time MONGO is mentioned on any noticeboard or talk page. It serves no purpose and doesn't shed any light on the current situation. It's just whining. --DHeyward 05:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, reply to DHeyward) No, no-- let me apologize for miscommunicating. The edit warring and personal attacks exhibited by MONGO is completely completely unrelated to any opposition to linking to some sites. Many, many good faith editors have very valid concerns about links like that-- I think we all do, really. Supporting a BADSITES-esque policy is NOT a problem, it's a valid opinion, and one we should all take seriously. I have no problem whatsoever with MONGO or others supporting BADSITES-- I think BADSITES has been motivated by compassion.

The behavior problems I'm discussion here are Mongo's edit warring, his inserting rejected proposals into policy pages without consensus, his incivility/personal attacks, and his falsely implying or stating that other good-faith editors are linked to harassment campaigns. Mongos support for a BADSITES policy is most certainly NOT a behavior problem-- it's an opinion, and one that should be taken seriously. --Alecmconroy 05:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know...I find your threats made a few posts above to be alarming and unwikipedian. Telling me to not DARE and other threats like that are unacceptable. I find that you have also edit warred on the NPA policy pages, so acting as if I am the only guilty party is hypocritical. The facts of the case are that many excellent contributors have been driven away from the NPA discussions by editors who seem to have a single mission, and are not on this website for the purposes of ehancning encyclopedic content. A lack of mainspace contributions by SOME (that is SOME, not all) editors is worrisome...furthermore, the fact that SOME (that is SOME, not all) who have been arguing against strong wording prohibiting attacking our contributors via external linking to malicious sites are also either present or past contributors to these very websites is a definite COI. Soon as one of the "silent persons" makes a comment on the NPA policy stating they are against linking to websites such as ASM or WR, a post shows up, usually on WR, condemning that person. So they have instead decided to give up, and let editors that have what appears to be an agenda at times determine and make our policies. I find this situation unacceptable. Some may think I have an agenda...well they are correct...my agenda is to do all I can to ensure our contributors edit this website in peace, and not have to look over their shoulder when someone wants to barge onto their talkpage and say...hey, did you see you're article on ED, or what they said about you over at WR...as if what is said on a silly blog dominated by mostly banned editors matters one iota..it doesn't.--MONGO 05:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(after ec's)For something that matters so little... we sure let it get to us a lot. If it's trivial and boring, then why are we up in arms to write special policies about it? There's no problem removing the links you want to remove, because they lack any possible encyclopedic value. That's sufficient. Let's not give them any more significance than that. Let's not reward trolling behavior with emotional reactions; that's the very definition of feeding. It's just another site we don't link to, like all the porn and online pharmacies and random blogs and.... the part of the Internet that sucks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"my agenda is to do all I can to ensure our contributors edit this website in peace, and not have to look over their shoulder"

Do you like to go to the beach and pound the sand for not resisting the tides as well? You can't control what people do on external websites. Our issue is to decide on a policy that makes sense on how to react to these sites. Pounding your preferred opinion into the page with an edit war is not going to accomplish your goal. SchmuckyTheCat

On incivility/personal attacks, frankly I think a lot of people are simply taking MONGO's comments much too personally and confusing them with a WP:PA. Take for example this comment:

"GTBaccus is also an ED contributor and always comes to the defense of his fellows." When he takes offense, you stand by your statement: "says I 'lie'...how odd, 'cause I always see whenever ED is brought up, there he is, defending present and past editors of that website...I am not a liar, thanks He is simply pointing out that GTBaccus may have a conflict of interest based on observed behavior. This is not in my opinion a PA, if it was, WP:COI should be deleted because to say someone has a COI is automatically a PA which initself is forbidden. Anynobody 06:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Anynobody, please note how the screen name is spelled; thanks. I'm not offended at this point by anything MONGO has said about me; I believe we understand each other to an extent. I don't blame him for not trusting me implicitly, knowing all of the history. Whether or not one thinks I'm editing with a conflict of interest, I think my arguments stand or fall on their own merits. I'm concerned with MONGO that he's largely disengaged from the conversation, participating more in policy page reverts than in talk page discussion. On the other hand, he's been through the same thousands of words as the rest of us, and if I were he I'd be sick to death of it.

What I would most like for MONGO to believe is that he can get the protection he desires for our editors without the paragraph of policy to which he seems attached. That paragraph is not the protection; it's an empty symbol of it. The actual protection is in our core, core policy WP:ENC. There's no encyclopedic value in linking to the harassment that you want to legislate against, and it can therefore always be removed as simple encyclopedic work. It won't suddenly become worthwhile and relevant just because we don't draft a rule targeting it. In fact, such a rule would make it more relevant, because here we are, discussing it in our policies.

We really can trust the boring procedures of encyclopedia-writing to protect us better than all the policies we can write. Those policies... they're attempts at word-magic; they tend to backfire. Think about WP:DENY.

Check it out: if a link has no encyclopedic value, then it may be removed at any time, because it makes no contribution to the project. If someone persists in adding material of no value, they may be blocked, as a common vandal, and that's just normal and undramatic. Removing the link and blocking them "per BADSITES" is terribly misguided when we could just do it "per sweeping the floor".

MONGO, I entreat you to consider - where in that process is a special policy required or desirable? I'd like to hear an answer from anybody on that point - on my own, I can't imagine how a special policy would do anything but raise the heat, increase the drama level, feed any and every troll....

If you'd like to think that I'm only arguing this point because I have a conflict of interest, then my question to you is: why would I work to undermine a project, Wikipedia, that I have poured so many hours and months of my life into improving. Why did I sit there today, reading comments of contributors, and weeping at the sheer beauty of it, if I want to support harassment of our contributors. I love this website, and I'm confident that MONGO knows that. What I'm asking him to do is to trust me a little further on this point - we can get what we need without that paragraph - this is not a about paragraphs. It's about trusting each other because we care A LOT about what we're working on here. Will you join me, MONGO? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So why doesn't it work in reverse? Just leave MONGO's version of words in the policy if it's not going to change anything in practice. Since he's been a prominent victim of off site abuse, I would think helping victims by not symbolically stripping them of protection would be of paramount concern. It's like a court order of pretection: it doesn't stop abusive husbands from hitting their wives, but it certainly makes their wife fell safer. Why not just go with it since, as you say, it doesn't make a difference? --DHeyward 06:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm saying it "doesn't make a difference". I'm saying that having a special policy raises the heat, creates conditions for drama, encourages useless ad hominem arguing, and empowers ("feeds") those who would harass and troll by rewarding their behavior with defensive action. How exactly did you get "doesn't make a difference" out of that?

I'd still like to know what concrete good this proposal would do that makes up for these disadvantages, especially when we would be so much better to prosecute these cases as simple content disputes and not as part of some kind of internet war. That's a terrible idea; this is an encyclopedia, not a soap opera. This is not the wiki for drama - you know where to find that one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I paraphrased your comments that his protection is in WP:ENC. If all the protection is there and the policy MONGO wants is just redundant, then it doesn't make a difference whether it's duplicated or not. There's not a lot of drama over "revert, block, ignore." The drama is added when three months from now an editor claims that ED is encyclopedic and should have an article. The drama starts when an editor thinks an article inside of ED become encyclopedic as some sort of notable internet meme. Or when an editor thinks that Blu Aardvark is a notable person and deserves a biographical stub with links to ED and WR. Why not give the "block, revert, ignore" guy as big an arsenal as we can so we don't have to fight this silly drama. Today it's this silly policy section which whether it stays or goes doesn't change anything about the project. No article will be improved or created tomorrow no matter which way the policy goes. So the choice give me is a) make a longstanding prolific editor happy or b) try to reduce drama by changing link deletion edit summaries from WP:NPA to WP:ENC. I don't really see b) working and I think making the editing environment more comfortable for valuable contributors as paramount. This seems like a no brainer. --DHeyward 07:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, it is not a "no-brainer". I see your choice (a) as misguided and likely to create more trouble. I see your characterization of (b) as missing my fundamental point. We don't enforce encyclopedic standards because we want to reduce drama; we do it because we're an encyclopedia. The fact that trying to add the quest for justice to our project here creates volatile situations is taken into consideration as part of that project. Please note as well that my suggestion also amounts to "block, revert, ignore". I'm just suggesting we do it because the links have no encyclopedic value, and not because they're determined to come from some kind of bogey-site. I would see it as a no-brainer, except there are clearly intelligent and rational people on both sides, so I can't call it that in fairness. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's an attack because of intent to discredit. Being called an "ED contributor" on Wikipedia is an attempt to discredit the other person, and not engage in the issues at hand. That's why it is incivil and an attack. It doesn't address the issues, it addresses the person. SchmuckyTheCat

A COI violation is always ad hominem. The person's arguments are at fault because the person making them has a COI. The merits of the argument are secondary to COI. If that's incivil or a personal attack, then you should address it on the WP:COI policy page and change the policy. --DHeyward 06:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't really see the point in exposing COIs, although I'm happy enough to acknowledge my associations. Why talk about the person's COI when you could just talk about verifiable material in reliable sources? In the case of a policy discussion, why discuss COI when you could just discuss the arguments being advanced based on their merits, and not on who makes them? Seems kind of... off topic, to start talking about whose idea we agree or disagree with. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Couching Mongo's habitual personal attacks as merely "speculating about COI" is all well and good, but we may well remember that some of the most vile personal attacks we've seen here have also been couched in terms of "speculating about Conficts of Interests". If MONGO had politely commented, once or twice, on potential COI concerns, we would all be fine with that. In reality, he has brought up speculation of bad faith in practically every discussion on this subject. He has gone far beyond merely point out potential COI, he's crossed the line into persistent namecalling. Worst of all, he's made accusations that were utterly false, made speculations based on little-to-no evidence, and has cast aspersions at every turn. --Alecmconroy 06:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that your constant insinuations that I am incivil smack of incivility as well. The ongoing character assassinations you seem to enagage in are not helpful either. I am not making false accusations when there is no doubt that SOME editors have a COI. If an editor is a participant in a malicious website and has made efforts to minimize policy which bans linking to these websites, then that is indeed a COI.--MONGO 07:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel I'm being incivil in expressing my concerns about your behavior, but I don't know how else to solve the problem except to raise them here, and to try to convince you to stop attacking others. I might point out, for example, that even the very post I'm responding to is another instance of the problem-- you invariably respond to good-faith disagreement by attacking the character of others-- accusing me of performing an incivl "character assassination". That's kinda what we're trying to get at here, and find a way to stop. --Alecmconroy 07:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To respond to your other statement: "I am not making false accusations when there is no doubt that SOME editors have a COI." If you accuse 100 people of being communists, and only 2 of them are-- you've been making some false accusations. You've often implied that EVERYONE who opposes you has a COI, ED affiliation, and bad-faith. ED is like any open forum-- there are some very bad apples and some fine people. Absent evidence that they were involved in harassment, merely having once edited ED is not, in my eyes, a scarlet letter that classifies a person as worthless or immoral.

The clear truth is that vast majority of participants in the BADSITES discussion have no COI when it comes to ED-- but that's a truth you either don't see or that you try to bury. Furthermore, COIs don't justify not listening to people's comments, or responding rudely, or inserting policy texts that have consensus. Even if a few of the people who opposed BADSITES have a conflict of interest, that just means you should scrutinize their arguments more closely-- not that you should ignore them, revert them on site, or use it as a tool to attack them at every turn. You may want to make people aware of it, if they're not already-- but a COI is NOT a community ban, as you seem to wish it were.

Even someone with a COI deserves to have their opinions judged on merit. I might add, Mongo, that I practice what I preach. There is not a single person on this encyclopedia who has bigger conflict of interest in regard to ED and BADSITES than you, Mongo. You have been vilely attacked by ED, and as such, you have a vested interest in prohibiting links to ED (and promoting BADSITES). If I were really as "out to get you" as you think I am, I could easily allege that your only interest is in preventing people from seeing the attacks that have been made on you, and that as someone who is so utterly conflicted, you should have no input whatsoever into ED or BADSITES, because you have such a strong personal interest in minimizing ED's traffic. But I've never tried to do that, and I'm not trying to do it now. Your views on BADSITES and ED aren't self-serving, and they're not for yourself, they're for the next person who might be their victim. --Alecmconroy 08:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be a COI, but that does not mean that the editor's arguments should not be considered on merits. I'm frustrated by a refusal to engage what I see as my substantial arguments by some on the pro-BADSITES "side". The fact that I may have a conflict of interest does not automatically make me wrong. That applies to everyone here, right?

For the record, I have no desire to "minimize policy which bans linking to these websites", I have a desire to avoid destructive and redundant policy which hurts our project in a real and concrete way. My way involves all the same links being removed, but for the right reasons, and minus the disadvantages. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest is not an issue here. It's just another red herring meant to discreit those MONGO disagrees with. Having told MONGO directly on multiple pages now, explicitly, that I don't want to see links to ED anywhere, I think I can safely conclude that this assertion is no longer being made with anything that could be confused with good faith. Milto LOL pia 08:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not worried about MONGO's good faith. He's at least as frustrated with the situation as you are. While I agree that conflict of interest is not an issue, I don't mind answering those who ask about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind answering questions about it either but this is not MONGO asking us if we have a conflict of interest, or even asking us to be sure that we're not motivated at all by wanting to link to that other website. I'll leave it at that before I rescind into whining, but MONGO if you're reading this then I'm more than willing to take it on faith that you're making this claim sincerely if you're willing to ask me to examine my own motives and then take my honest answer about it on faith as well. But one way or another the issue needs to be settled. If you're not willing to take me up on my offer please post to WP:COIN, get some administrator input, and then drop it. Milto LOL pia 19:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember that old article?

Do you remember when we had an article about ED? It was nominated for deletion something like 18 times, and kept closing as no consensus, or being speedy kept as too soon after the last AfD, or being deleted and then recreated... the point is, it didn't go away. After the last AfD, it finally went away. Do you know why? What was different about that one? Well, enough people finally decided that we needed to delete the article for boring encyclopedic reasons, and not because we find its subject offensive. Everyone (ok, many) managed to leave their moral outrage outside the room for a few hours. We managed to get a group of people to look objectively at sourcing, and whaddya know, there wasn't sufficient sourcing to have an article.

For a few more months, some of us guarded the deleted-again, back-again talk page, and make sure that it was always explained to inquirers that the page was deleted for lack of sourcing, and not because those racist, homophobic, baby-eating, so-and-sos appall us so much. It can't have anything to do with being "appalled".

Now, it appears that people are arguing that we not learn from history. Shall we conduct ourselves as we did at the 17 unsuccessful AfDs? Why not give the encyclopedia a chance; what's going to happen? Will Wikipedia Review suddenly become a reliable source, linked at the bottom of every article like the IMDb? Look at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia#Link to WR?. That's the idea. I got a bit frustrated in that case, but I hope you can see what I was pointing towards, and that it worked, and will continue to work. Let's try it. Let's learn from the past.

DHeyward, thanks for putting a succinct phrase to "symbolically stripping protection". That helps me understand the perception that I don't want to project, because that's not remotely my idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the attention it got from when I was being harassed by the contributors there ensured that the article was deleted...beforehand, whenever the article was nominated for deletion, ED partisans showed up in enough numbers to keep it from being deleted. In the end, their tactics worked against them, and this website finally enforced guidelines on the matter via relaible sources, and there were none. It failed notability.--MONGO 07:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It failed notability, not on some moral or defensive grounds. It failed for the right reason. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Like inditing Al Capone for tax evasion.—AL ^FOCUS! 16:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't (in my opinion) need to have a special policy against linking certain sites; as GTBacchus points out we already have sufficient means in policy to remove any links which are unencyclopedic, and without creating the drama and free publicity for these sites that MONGO's course of action seems to have precipitated.

However, the origins of the frustration that led to the edit-warring and incivility are moot. It needs to be clearly understood that all users, especially experienced ones, are bound by our policies. Anyone unable or unwilling to conform to that needs to be blocked. I would hope we can all agree on that. --John 22:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a new wikipedian - well, I say new, I've had this account since 2004, and I've been an avid reader, and only just recently decided to become a frequent editor. From a purely outside perspective it does seem that MONGO has, time and time again, pursued a relentless anti-*something* agenda, an agenda not unlike editors convicted by ArbCom or the community got slapped with an indefinite block because of. I do think it is a double standard. Again, I am a new editor here, and my opinion is not worth much. But I think someone objective needs to look at this situation - which will be hard cos nearly all of the community has been involved in this issue from the beginning - and decide whether to block MONGO or not. My opinion? A block is needed, and an indefinite one. But I am likely to be wrong. I just wish this issue would go away so we can concentrate on editing for once. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

BLP violation protected by an admin boy

Please check the last dozen or so edits on this talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sonia_Gandhi&action=history No edit war was there, warranting protection. Nishkid a Hindu fanatic supporting ultra rightist politics in India just desires to keep the insinuations on Sonia Gandhi. 59.91.253.175 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This section should be removed as nothing but personal attacks. Corvus cornix 17:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, there was no edit war - there was a SINGLE edit (as four section edits, uninterrupted) and a SINGLE revert (as a series of undos). I haven't even so much as looked at the content of the section and I can tell the protection isn't warranted yet. I'll note, also, that WP:BLP says These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. (emphasis mine), and one of the edit summaries appears to be asserting this is not the case. —Random832 18:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I like how "admin boy" isn't a red flag at all that this is trolling. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I like how claiming you're just innocently asking if there's any truth to it gives people carte blanche to post unsourced negative speculation. Regardless of who this 59 is, or what his intentions are, that section (and its reinsertion) were blatantly inappropriate. —Random832 18:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've looked further and can see that this user is clearly a sockpuppet of a banned troll as was stated by the protecting admin - however, the one section that I linked the diff for should still not be kept on the talk page per WP:BLP (the others that he removed don't seem to be the same sort of thing, and can probably be kept) —Random832 19:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. Unprotection and excision soon, please. Relata refero 19:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the semi-protection was unwarranted anymore - just that the particular section I linked to should not be kept. —Random832 20:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Does Admin Boy wear a cape? What are his powers? Neil ☎ 21:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

He's the sidekick to B'cratman ;^). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Throwing block-erangs, I think. shoy 13:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing discussions contrary to apparant consensus

I thought it was an isolated incident when looking at this delete decision, but after looking at other discussions closed by this user, it appears he is using the same rationale on others as well - in short, "I can choose how to weight arguments, and I chose to simply ignore most of them", regardless of whether that action reflects any apparant consensus, policy, or anything else. I've been advised by another admin that this should be posted here for discussion, so here it is...

On the above cited discussion, there was only one delete argument - that of the nominator - and a relatively weak one as well (later stating that all categories used for collaboration should be replaced with userboxes!). The other "delete" vote was simply "Delete per nom" with no actual argument. There were five "keep" votes, all with well-reasoned arguments, including one pointing to all the past discussions for keeping the category, one stating how this category had greatly helped a user collaborate, etc., and generally completely outweighing the (single) delete argument, in terms of number, strength of argument, refutation of the single delete argument, and every other metric possibly used to determine consensus.

However, User:After Midnight closed it as "delete", providing the rationale that, in essence, he can chose to ignore any arguments he disagrees with. Since there was only one actual delete vote, this means he decided to simply ignore every keep argument, as no other action could have resulted in a delete decision.

Were this an isolated incident, it probably wouldn't belong here, but it appears to be a trend, and not isolated to this admin either. Other discussions ended in "delete" despite an apparant consensus to keep as well, and one that was kept despite an apparant consensus to delete, but the above-mentioned discussion is the most obvious example, so the one I chose to discuss here.

While we should appreciate that admins are tackling these often backlogged pages, the closer's job is to ensure the decision reflects community consensus, not to apply his or her personal opinions to determine the outcome. Regardless of these personal opinions on whether the categories mentioned should exist or not, something needs to be done about mis-closing dicussions based on them. DRVs have generally proved fruitless - no one bothers making arguments on whether the discussion was closed correctly, instead it just turns into a repeat discussion with content-based rather than process-based arguments - and the DRVs are then subject to the same mis-closings that happen with the original discussion.

For this example, the response seems pretty obvious (it was closed in error, reverse it; just need to find someone with a bot to repopulate the category, as it'll take a lot of edits!), but what should be done about this in the long term, and for other debates? Should other users make more of an effort to watch closings to ensure they reflect consensus? The one mentioned above is so blatant that I suspect someone could have immediately overturned it and discussed it later, regardless of their opinion on whether the category should exist or not. Perhaps some effort to make sure deletion reviews only discuss process-related arguments? As much as I'm not a fan of even more policies, should we create one on exactly what leeways a closing admin does and doesn't have when evaluating a discussion? Or maybe we need more guidelines on categories, rather than the-whims-of-any-discussion-and-its-closer, preventing so many extra debates? Thanks for reading (and your ideas), Bushytails 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

In this particular case, it appears that the closer reviewed the opinions and didn't find the argument of "building community" to be a compelling reason to keep based on the goal of building an encyclopedia. Given that XfD is not a numerical count or vote, Closers are usually give some level of leeway on closing provided they justify their decision. We have DRV explicitly so these decisions can be reviewed if someone feels they were not correct. Personally I don't think we need more "rules" on AFD closing... but that is just my opinion.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

But the closer shouldn't be able to arbitarily decide to ignore all arguments on one side of the issue based on a personal opinion - doing so is no different than simply deciding the outcome based on ones opinion. Unless there is foundation policy or other strong reason to invalidate arguments, they can't simply be ignored. Bushytails 01:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

But if the community consensus is that "buidling community" is a valid reason to keep, on what grounds can an admin over-ride it? Unless it is in direct opposition to policy, I think that an admin is bound to determine consensus, not to substitute their own judgment for that of the community. I don't think we need more rules, but I do think that admins need to keep their own opinions regarding an article in check when closing an AfD. -Chunky Rice 18:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think 7 participants in a CFD really adequately represent community consensus either way... Regardless, I still am strongly of the opinion that additional guidelines and policies concerning XfD closure are not demonstrably warranted off of one CFD close. This is a case for DRV if the participants feel the closer got it wrong.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing admins need to be able to make judgment calls when, say, there is consensus to keep "Furry wikipedians" but also consensus to delete "identification categories". They also should take strength of argument into account: not all arguments are created equal. --Kbdank71 19:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to delete self-identification user categories? I can respect the decision (but think we need to visit the issue) if there's a strong policy against grouping wikipedias by personal attributes (gender, nationality, geography, birthplace, political party, occupation, etc). If there is such a policy, though, then unless the categorization causes some technical difficulties or grave disruption, I would find it rather autocratic and out of step with the rest of the world, at least America, in terms of self-expression and personal freedom. Further, the fact that furry or GLBT users wish to self-identify is evidence of a lack of such consensus. The outcome here is anti-gay and POV in practice, even if not by intention. If there is no such policy, it exceeds a closing administrator's discretion to decide that sexual orientation isn't as worthy as some other distinction. That kind of decision has to be made project-wide and not rest on the whims and prejudices of a single Wikipedian. But why not just nominate this and the LGBT category for deletion review? Presumably the reviewing admin will overturn if there is a consensus to do so and no policy otherwise, and this admin will start to notice if his/her decisions are frequently overturned that they need to pay more heed to the arguments made. If that fails, then it may be time to consider AN/I, mediation, or whatever the next step is. What is the process if one has a reasonable dispute over the outcome of a DRV? Wikidemo 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See the DRV's here and here. --Kbdank71 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. It looks like we have a larger issue of people pushing an agenda against Wikipedias expressing their personal differences via categories, and possibly one of anti-gay bias. Still dangerous waters for admins to wade into, and a decision that should be made in a wider forum than a category deletion or deletion review, but not a clearly improper decision by the closing admin. This isn't my issue (nor, I assure you, do I feel so passionately about anything right now at the moment), but for people who do have a principled objection to the outcome of a DRV, what's the next step up the dispute resolution chain? Wikidemo 19:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, I nominated Category:Furry Wikipedians for deletion review. It was closed out because a small group have successfully deleted a variety of identity-based categories, and have used this to suggest that there is a "general consensus" to delete such categories. The closing admin of the deletion review apparently agreed with this, despite the significant support for the category displayed in response to the nomination. I don't think there is such a consensus, and the responses in this deletion show that others are of the same opinion. I think some editors - often the ones who are most actively interested in trimming categories - have been looking over time at various sparsely-populated or "joke" categories and saying "yeah, that's not useful". In many cases, they might be right. In this particular case, I and others think they were wrong, as was shown in responses to the original nomination. That is why these nominations got "keep" as a response rather than "delete". I don't believe they're pushing any particular POV myself - nomination does not signify an "anti-furry" or "anti-gay" bias, any more than attempting to delete a religious identity category signifies an "anti-Catholic" or "anti-Protestant" bias - but I do think that each category should be considered individually (I guess it is possible that they were attempting to implement this meta-policy in a roundabout way, but I doubt it). The assumption that they don't support collaboration is a little unconvincing, because where do you think WikiProjects come from? Successful projects are not started on a dime - they are at their root collections of users interested in a particular topic, and the easiest way to collect them in the first place and ongoing is to have an identity category. It is hard to show other tangible benefits to identity categories - just like it's hard to say why userboxes are worthwhile - but that doesn't mean there aren't any. Certainly where there is a demonstrated use for the category and no particular cost to the encyclopedia, they should be kept. Honestly, these I don't think the categories would cost anyone anything if they weren't constantly being nominated for deletion out of a sense of tidiness. The people who spent the time hunting them down and deleting them would undoubtedly like a simple rule such as "delete all identity categories", but I think an even better rule would be "don't bother nominating them unless a particular category does demonstrated harm." Then we could focus on the things that are actually causing a problem for editors - or, perhaps, on the people causing the problem ("categories don't start edit wars, people start edit wars"). GreenReaper 20:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with that... when I started the metalworking wikiproject, I had to go through quite a bit of effort to find members to consult, by looking at page histories to see who had edit patterns that looked like they'd might want to contribute to a wikiproject, etc - if there were a "Wikipedian Metalworkers" category, it would have made it much easier! Bushytails 01:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So, let's see: you (plural) didn't get the result you wanted in the UCFd discussion, So you posted a DRV. YOu didn't get the result you wanted there, so now you're posting here. At what point is this "asking the other parent"?

As far as I can tell, all the concerns illustrated above were discussed both in the UCfD and the DRV. And please remember that consensus, not voting, is how discussions are resolved.

That aside, I understand that identification can be considered a personal thing for some people. You shouldn't take the nomination personally, however. They were (and are) about cleaning up the Wikipedian category structure. If your concern is that you'd like a larger forum for the idea that "identification-based" Wikipedian categories should be kept, then please feel free to start a Village pump discussion concerning it. But please don't start attacking good faith editors because you didn't get your way. - jc37 22:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the result of the ucfd _was_ keep. Like everyone expected. The problem is that decision was ignored by the closing admin - "I disagree with what people are saying, so I'll just ignore them." This is not the proper way for a wikipedia administrator to act - except for foundation issues, consensus trumps just about everything, especially one person's opinions. That one category is but a drop in the lake of admin actions not agreeing with consensus or policy, and just serves as a good example. The DRV serves as another example - most of the "endorse" votes were about the content of the category, rather than the process of deletion - exactly NOT what DRV is for. Of the three remaining endorse votes, two of them were "because it's a sexuality category, and we just deleted those" - wrong because it's not a sexuality category, and wrong because having just deleted something else (in a controversial and abuse-prone decision) does not automatically make policy. That leaves only ONE actual endorse vote... the original closer defending his right to ignore all who disagree with his opinions. And he lumped it in with the unrelated sexuality categories as well. There wasn't actually ANY argument for endorsing the deletion made there other than the category-lumping one by the original closer, and several for its undeletion ("I don't really see consensus to delete in the debate, either numerically or by weight of argument. ... Starblind 16:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)", etc, indicating significant concern for consensus not being reflection in the decision) yet it was closed as "endorsed".

Your opinion is the category shouldn't exist. Fine, you are allowed to have that opinion. But you must keep in mind that the obvious result of the discussion was that it should - you were the only person to make an argument as to why it shouldn't, while every other person who made an argument said it should. As to good faith... while I try to assume it of everyone, I am forced to conclude otherwise in this case. Someone can not simply ignore one side of the debate and be assumed to be acting to benefit the community they just ignored.

This discussion isn't about a category, it's about the ability for an admin to say "my opinion is this side is wrong, thus I'll completely ignore them". As soon as that is acceptable, we might as well toss the concept of consensus out the window - something I hope no one here agrees with. Bushytails 01:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Busytails, you provided a link to the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Category:Furry Wikipedians. In it User:After Midnight says "Decision based on strength of arguments, precedent and the cited DRV. Many arguments to keep for a sense of community are given less weight as depreciated." However, you have stated that they said "I can choose how to weight arguments, and I chose to simply ignore most of them", "I disagree with what people are saying, so I'll just ignore them." and "my opinion is this side is wrong, thus I'll completely ignore them". Could you please provide links to where After Midnight said that he would ignore them? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe Bushytails was offering his own paraphrasing of what After Midnight was saying rather than providing direct quotes. However, that has been the effect - the consensus of the people who actually showed up at this particular UCfD was dismissed, due to prior deletions of different user categories. I was honestly surprised when I saw that closure, because it didn't seem to make sense. GreenReaper 10:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How can what After Midnight said be turned into "ignore"? His statement is quite clear and in no way dismisses the other arguments. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As there was only one argument to delete (and a weak one based entirely on the nominator's personal opinion), the only way the decision could have been "delete" is if the five keep arguments, summed together, were given less weight than a single weak delete argument. I believe this would fit the defintion of "ignore". Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

jc37, since when did being tidy become a reason to delete things that have shown themselves to be useful? Try to understand: You have deleted a whole lot of categories that nobody really cared about. This has been generally regarded as a good thing. You are now getting more people saying "keep" rather than "delete". This is the point at which to stop, and say "Mission accomplished", rather than start deleting things people have actually been using to build user communities on Wikipedia. The creation of a general rule for user identification categories to override such discussions is not required, nor desirable. These decisions should be made by individual consensus in UCfD, just like articles.

If you want a guide for nominations, consider "categories covering a topic smaller or larger than that which could reasonably be covered by a single WikiProject." This would exclude both the "silly small" categories such as "Wikipedians who are fans of Ozy and Millie" or "Wikipedians who like Amnesiac" (but not "Furry Wikipedians" or "Wikipedians who are fans of Radiohead") as well as the silly large ones, like "Wikipedians who read books" or "Wikipedians who like food". Basically, if you can't ever imagine having an "Infobox X", it's probably too small, and if that infobox would be a whole page by itself, it's possibly too big. In between that, it's the right size to start gathering a community of editors. GreenReaper 10:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the best answer to this "cause" of "IWANTIT" is to remind you all that the place to contest the closure of User:After Midnight was DRV. And DRV endorsed the closure. That pretty much puts a terminus on all your arguements about him. (And personally, I think you owe him an apology.)

But, to continue this "crusade" is risking becoming disruptive.

If you consider a "crusade" for getting admins to follow consensus, it might make a bit more sense to you. I believe "crusading" for proper admin actions to be far more useful than, say, crusading to break up all informal collaborative groups on wikipedia. (please note again that you were the _only_ person to provide an argument on the ucfd as to why they should be deleted... "IDONTWANTIT"?) Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before: If you want to start a discussion about the relevance of idetification categories in general, please feel free to start a talk page discussion somewhere. The Village Pump is an excellent place, for example. - jc37 11:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I did. At Wikipedia talk:User categories for discussion#Wikipedians by interest, well before the category in question was deleted. It was not significantly replied to, even though I pointed people to it in the discussion about LGBT Wikipedians. If I have to take it to the pump, I'll take it there. But I think you should ask yourself the same question about disruptive crusades. Nobody asked you to go around nominating these user categories for deletion. You thought it was a good idea, and you did it. And that's how wikis work, so I have no problem with that. But it's come to the point where what you are nominating them, and people are coming up and saying "hey, we were using that" - and actually telling you how, and have others come in without being asked and agree with that - and they're being deleted anyway. That's not good, not when there's no compelling reason for deletion but a sense of tidyness. GreenReaper 13:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is starting to border on being disruptive - DRV is the place to contest the closure of an XfD, and when DRV does not get you the result you want, that does not mean the appropriate "next step" is to seek out yet another forum of complaint in hopes of getting the result one wants. There is no process of endless appeals here. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You will note I discussed the DRV above - other than After Midnight's vote for proper colsure, there weren't any good arguments for why it should have been delete - the other "endorse" votes were all about content, and didn't mention the process of closure. Since the point of DRV is to discuss the process of the deletion, not to re-argue for/against the content, DRV failed at its purpose, so, as I was advised, I picked a better forum where the actual process of the deletion may be discussed. Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Bushytails, before I answer your questions here, could you please answer these for me? After I deleted the category, and my bot removed it from your user page, you made this edit with an edit summary of "go fuck yourselves. you know who you are. people who do nothing buy try to destroy wikipedia do not deserve the right to live." In the edit, you state "This user only has a userbox because certain fuckwits decided that categories, even for the purpose of helping to find users for collaboration, should be replaced by userboxes. If you see one of these fuckwits, please shoot them for the benefit of the encyclopedia, as they seem to go out of their way to try to destroy it, and ridding the planet of ilk like them can only help our goal of encyclopedia creation.". I would like to know, am I one of the fuckwits that you would wish for someone to please kill? And whether this refers to me or not, why should you be allowed to continue to edit on this site, where death threats are not permitted? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, you claim that an admin directed you to bring this discussion here, can you please link to this recommendation, since I see nothing in your edit history regarding any such conversation. Also, did this admin not also mention to you that "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting (you may use the {{ANI-notice}} template to do so)."? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You will note I re-worded that a bit less harshly, deciding threats might not be the best way to get the point across that certain users do not benefit the environment they're in, and thus shouldn't be in it. It doesn't change my opinion, however, that admins who ignore consensus are a major problem for wikipedia, and should be dealt with appropriately, as should users taking other actions that damage the ability to create an encyclopedia or the community that creates it. Don't forget we're here to create an encyclopedia, after all. Doing things that hurt the encyclopedia is contrary to creating an encyclopedia, and users doing such actions should not be here. (A single rogue admin action is _far_ more damaging than random vandalism, something that routinely results in long-term removal from the site.) And as I was advised on IRC, there will be no link (and, no, I was not advised of that. I also figured that as an active admin, you'd notice soon enough! :) Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So you were less harsh because "threats might not be the best way to get the point across"? I would have hoped that you withdrew the threat because it was immoral, illegal and uncivil, but it appears you withdrew it only because you were getting reverted on your edit or because you think it didn't help your argument. Either way, your credibility here is shot and at this time, you don't deserve further discussion from me. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You could, you know, actually try responding to arguments people have made. Attacking me won't change the issue. Bushytails 04:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You could, you know, actually try to apologize for suggesting that someone should kill me. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the strength of the statement made, but not for the message I was trying to convey. That I would do shortly after I see an apology (and not to me personally; I'm just one user of many) from the various users involved for their efforts to damage our great encyclopedia and the community that creates it... However, as I said before, this is the place for a debate, not for attacks. If you don't plan on responding to the actual arguments, one must assume you don't have a case. Bushytails 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I missed that. Is a permaban the correct response for a death threat? --Kbdank71 01:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

While village pump may be a better location to discuss the usefulness of user categories in general, this isn't about user categories; it's about admins ignoring apparant consensus when making closing decisions. Hardly appropriate for village pump... Bushytails 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Key phrase : apparent consensus. Consensus is not vote counting and it is not uncommon to see cases closed where the consensus reached was not even a majority opinion. It is not only a right but a duty of administrators to interpret a debate based on the strengths of the arguments therein, not just the numbers. In any case, After Midnight is an administrator because at one point the community deemed him fluent enough in policy to decide these matters and trustworthy enough to close such discussions. That you do not agree with his closure is painfully evident, and thus the problem was brought up at DRV. The discussion at DRV reinforced the fact that his interpretation of the debate was correct. You still disagree. Tough. That an admin "ignored" your chosen interpretation of "consensus" is not a reason to file a greivance on AN/I. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 04:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the DRV didn't reinforce the fact at all - the _only_ person to say process was followed properly was After Midnight himself! Perhaps you should actually check the DRV is question? Contrary to what DRV is for, all the other endorse comments were about the content of the item, not the process that was followed. Multiple undelete comments saying process was not followed, however. Hence why it's here, where a proper discussion on the process of closing might be possible.

"Not a majority opinion" would be an understatement, and "strength of arguments" does not include "assigning zero strength to arguments I disagree with". All of the keep votes had relatively strong arguments, while the single delete vote had a relatively weak argument, so any application of unbiased strength-based weighting would still have ended in keep. Again, did you actually read it? Bushytails 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I participated in the DRV in question, which is why I am here at all. I did read the UCFD. The DRV found nothing improper with the UCFD and endorsed the result. Endlessly railing on against the administrator who closed the argument and making thinly veiled accusations of impropriety is not going to help your cause any. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsman banned

Ombudsman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor of two years plus, with thousands of edits and no prior blocks, was recently blocked indefinitely by Jimbo Wales, who noted in the block log that the name suggests a "role account". I doubt an editor of such long standing can be considered a "role account" and I don't believe Jimbo realizes this; in any case an indefinite block for such a tenured editor is not the only means of preventing the person from posting inappropriate links. I've posted a note on Jimbo's talk but he's rarely online so I doubt he'll even see it. Obviously no one should be wheel warring with Jimbo but maybe if anyone agrees with me they can mention something on User talk:Jimbo to increase the visibility? Milto LOL pia 19:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd lean towards Jimbo's side on this one. The name could easily confuse new users into thinking the user had some special status. Is there some reason why the name can't be changed to something less confusing? Ronnotel 19:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

? What? That wasn't the meat of the block, just an indication that Jimbo didn't realize the guy has made a career here. But if the guy's been editing for over two years and the username is a problem, then why don't you point out where it has caused a problem int he two years+ the guy's been editing. Surely such a problematic username has caused such problems given the long time of his activity. Milto LOL pia 19:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

While I can understand the confusion about the name, perma-blocking the guy seems more than a bit harsh. Couldn't he just have Ombudsman's name changed? -- _{Folic_Acid | talk}  19:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue is also the harassment block, not just the username. Milto LOL pia 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved at all in the BADSITES nonsense (no opinion implied either way there, BTW) but Ombudsman has been a massively tendentious editor for years on vaccine and psychiatry-related articles. His behavior resulted in an RFC and an arbcom hearing, and he was almost certainly editing in violation of his arbcom-imposed restrictions. I also think the name issue was raised in the past, though I haven't dug enough to find it. I'm amazed his block log remained clean until now. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not relevant to this issue. Milto LOL pia 19:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, yes it is, because you are promoting him as a good editor, when he was far from it. Skinwalker 19:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• There was some previous discussion of possible problems with this username. Concerns were also raised at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ombudsman. See also m:Ombudsman commission --JWSchmidt 19:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, but there's also the issue of the harassment and whether or not an indef block is the best way to deal with it. Milto LOL pia 19:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest renaming the account. Is that possible, or does he have to create another one? -- ChrisO 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest looking closely at Ombudsman's contributions rather than solely the length of his tenure. He's a highly tendentious soapbox-style editor, and recognized as such and sanctioned by ArbCom. Since then he's edited less frequently but no less tendentiously, generally throwing around charges of vandalism, whitewashing, etc. Here are some recent (and entirely typical) highlights:

• "Restore unscrupulously vandalized article" (for an article PRODDED and deleted without comment)
• [15] (not even sure how to describe this)
• More of the same

It would appear that Jimbo's block was based on repetitive insertion of a particular link, but before anyone agitates too strongly that this guy be unblocked because he's been here awhile, I would strongly encourage a more detailed review of his tenure and impact here. The username thing has been done to death and deemed not to be a violation in the past, but there is more than enough reason for this editor to be banned. MastCell ^Talk 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Block has been reduced to a week. I suggest those of you with other problems pursue dispute resolution, but my involvement here is done. Thanks everyone for your comments. Milto LOL pia 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Good job, Milto LOL pia. A permaban out of the blue did not seem right, at least I could not find a reason for it. Guido den Broeder 21:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The one week block seems reasonable. The attempted link placement seemed like a clear cut-case of trolling/harassment. JoshuaZ 00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Righteous block. Restoring links to harassment has zero tolerance. This is a very direct and clear message. Don't link to harassment. Especially don't restore links to harassment or revert those who are deleting them. It's unfortunate that editors want to soften written policy on this when in practice it is not soft and should not be tolerated. --DHeyward 00:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, there's no consensus for WP:BADSITES or anything similar. This is at this point well-established. The reason this was a good block was because it was linking to the site to harass, not because it was a link to an OH-NOS BADSITE. JoshuaZ 00:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Violation of COI by user:Avahram

There is an ongoing mediation about the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad initiated by myself hoping to reach a compromise with different parties.

Unfortunately the mediation has not gained any result since its beginning on 20 May. Since then, the article has been fully protected (except for a couple of days in last two weeks).

Today User:Omegatron unprotected the article with this reason "no justification for protection. mediation has been ongoing for months and is not a reason to lock the page. we don't leave entire articles in a protected state for months because of a dispute about one statement." and then User:Avraham, himself a party of mediation and previous edit-warring, reverted the article then protected it with this reason "Ongoing mediation".

The other problem is that in my opinion the current lead is clear violation of WP:BLP and completely POV for an article about a high ranking official of a state, me and some other users tried to reach a compromise with user:Avraham by adding his own response to the allegation in the lead. But this proposal was rejected by above user with the reasoning that it doesn't belong to the lead (but of course details of the allegation belong).

I would be happy if some third party user invistigate the issues of this article. --Pejman47 19:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation. It's distinctly less than neutral, in my opinion, but I don't think it's a reason that so egregious that it requires some kind of immediate action if there's ongoing mediation. I'm not going to offer an opinion on the utility of long-term protection like this, since I'm not familiar with the circumstances surrounding it, and the mediation. --Haemo 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI violations require edits "in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups." I am in no way related, either personally or professionally, with any groups whose interests are either pro- or con- the article's subject; unless Pejman is implying that because I am Jewish I am automatically considered incapable of editing the Ahmadinejad article. From my previous interactions with him, I highly doubt he meant something as insulting and ridiculous as that, so I am left to assume that referencing WP:COI was a misunderstanding on his part. Any explanation would be appreciated. -- Avi 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It means that you are an admin and you must not use your admin's previlage in an article that you edit-warred. I also told you the same thing when you edited this article when it was fully protected. (do you remember it?)--Pejman47 20:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Restoring the article to the stable, protected state, especially after an unauthorized unlock, is maintaining and protecting the project. The unlock should have been discussed with the locking admin, user:Riana, and the mediator user:Daniel. It was not, and was an improper use of admin tools. Restoring the stable and locked version was anything but, and I believe you know better. Omegatron, as an admin, certainly should know better. -- Avi 21:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean in here: Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad/Archive_17#Image, I got angry in the previous case nad also in this case (even if it seems illogical to you). But please do not use your admin's privileges' in a debate that some of the users are not admins. I hope your misunderstandings have been solved --Pejman47 20:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that your use of WP:COI in the title was a mistake, and you meant possible sysop priv abuse, a completely different issue. See above how protecting the project is the responsibility of the sysops and what actually may have been the abuse here, per WP:ANI#Admin edit rights privilege abuse. -- Avi 21:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I also insist that some third party admin investigate the protection level of that article. I don't see any logic for full protection of an article for about six months. --Pejman47 20:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The page has been protected since October 2, which is 20 days; a far cry from the six months (182 days) stated. -- Avi 21:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted too interject that if Plejman (he wasn't, i see) is implying thay your Jeiwhness is a COI, that could be a valid COI issue. (I'm Jewish too.) It would depend on what the article is about. For example, in an article about Jews for Jesus or Holocaust Denial or something Jews tend to be emotional over, I would not feel it inapropriate to site COI. Same with any ethnic or religious group. If COI doesn't mean everybody, it doesn't mean anybody. Basejumper2 04:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are confusing a point-of-view with a conflict-of-interest. While related, in the context of wikipedia policy and guideline they are two different things. -- Avi 05:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

StevenBlack repeatedly removing AfD template

Could someone else please talk to this user? I tried explaining the policy to him but he says I'm bullying him. It's my AfD nom and he's called me a whole bunch of names, so I don't feel right blocking him myself. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks  20:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed he's now moved it to the bottom of the page. Less problematic but still not where it belongs. -- But|seriously|folks  20:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply by StevenBlack: My view: It is simply not proper, nor fair to volunteer contributors, to be strafing a topics within the first few minutes or hours of a topic's appearance. I live, work, and play on Lake Ontario, and I have first-hand knowledge and experience in this area. If you look at my contributions I've given a lot to Wikipedia about Eastern Ontario. I've also been a Wikipedian for many years, and I've been operating a very successful technical wiki since 1999. I must tell you: I have NEVER been bullied like I have been bullied today, firstly by the arbitrary deletion of the L.O.W. topic by Butseriouslyfolks (with no backup available!) then the slobbering of that AfD box on the topic within the first hour, well that's too much! Please knock it off, and show due respect for nascent topics. - StevenBlack 01:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me the policy where it says articles with insufficient content and/or context should be left alone to "cook"? JuJube 01:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply: C'mon, that's disingenuous. Wikipedia is, by definition, a work in process. StevenBlack 03:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, what's disingenuous is you bypassing my question. I repeat, show me the policy where it says articles with insufficient content/context get a pass because you think other people will expand on them someday. JuJube 11:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

We're very pleased for your contributions — however, if there are concerns about the notability of a group you've written about, the correct procedure is to address them calmly and carefully at the proper venue. In this case, AfD. It is inappropriate to attack other editors, and to unilaterally remove tags. The first deletion was not "arbitrary" — the text was a copyright violation. --Haemo 01:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Please show how the text was a copyright violation. Also, the notability of the group in question cannot be ascertained in the first hour of a topic's appearance in an outline form. No? Thank you. StevenBlack 03:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The original article consisted of four sentences. One was copied verbatim from this page. Another was taken from part of a sentence but had two words changed. The remaining sentences were copied verbatim from a single sentence in the source, but split into two sentences with a few words added to one of them. That's a copyvio. -- But|seriously|folks  05:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As I explained in the discussion page before you deleted it, the description of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper was NOT taken from the website you cite. The website you site is a DIRECTORY full of such summary descriptions of related and allied groups. The text I posted was taken directly from the source: the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper website itself and was modified for NPOV and in other ways I deemed appropriate at the time for the very early stages, the first stages, of fleshing a completely new topic. I was only a few minutes into my work when you, sir, deleted my work in progress, with no explanation, no warning, and apparently, without ANY wider community oversight. You have been repeatedly accused of heavy handedness. I find your behavior boorish and not quite in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Do you know what I did this morning? I had to completely re-trace and redo my work because of YOUR BOORISH and ARBITRARY and INSTANTANEOUS application of power. There was no historical record of my work that I could find, and I have little recourse other than, in my utter frustration, to face a plethora of roused admins that you summoned from this very page. Please, STOP THE BULLYING. I have spent far more time defending this article's right to exist than I have spent actually contributing. Does anyone else find that warped? StevenBlack 09:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

ALSO: One of the so-called "copyright infringements" was (I assume -- I have access to no records) the line "Lake Ontario Waterkeeper is led by President and environmental lawyer, Mark Mattson and vice president, Krystyn Tully." That is a simple statement of fact in an article that was, at the time, barely minutes old. Can you please explain to me how this justifies your unilateral actions, Butseriouslyfolks? StevenBlack 09:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(link, since none has been provided before now.) Any particular reason not to take Chunk Rice's advice from 6.5 hours ago and userfy? Wouldn't that make everyone happy? --barneca (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

People: If you have problems with Lake Ontario Waterkeeper at this stage, less than a day old, then why not the same flak for San Francisco Baykeeper?? What about Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper?? What about most of those listed under "United States" in List of environmental organizations?? Is this, in fact, Wikipedia.us  ?? What's really going on here?? StevenBlack 03:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are other articles that should not be here. We're working on it. Feel free to help out and tag them. -- But|seriously|folks  05:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's disingenuous. Please stay on topic. The acid test here is, sir: does Butseriouslyfolks have the rectitude, and the courage of his convictions, to fight for the deletion of the San Francisco Baykeeper article, or is Butseriouslyfolks a wiki admin "bully" who is picking on a new article for petty reasons? See, in Wikepedia we have corporations documented down to the minutest detail in some cases. We have consumer-society products and excesses documented in minute detail. But is there no place in Wikipedia to document established, registered and active groups of people who speak for waterfront and the environment? I argue that there is PLENTY of scope for this in Wikipedia. Clearly you disagree. Butseriouslyfolks, plain and simple, put up, or knock it off. I wager that if you were to apply your logic to San Francisco Baykeeper, you would be soundly defeated and, in my view, rightfully so. StevenBlack 08:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly relevant to the topic. The existence or non-existence of other similar articles doesn't give any article the right to make an end-run around policy. (Also, this is wiki.en, as in English. We have plenty of articles about things outside of the United States, as indeed we should.) shoy 12:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Steven, AFD'd articles must remain up for discussion for at least five days - this gives you at least five days to ensure the article becomes suitable for Wikipedia. It's not doomed as soon as it is tagged. Many of our best articles are ones which were rescued from the AFD process. Neil ☎ 10:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that if the article is deleted that you ask any one of many admins willing to recreate material in userspace to do just that, and work on the article in your userspace until you are certain it will pass an AfD. That's what I've learned to do with my drafts, many of which are just random collections of links and notes... users with long positive contribution histories are given wide latitude to draft articles in their userspace, free of worry about whether the item already shows notability or not, as it's clear that the article is a work in progress. Just don't add it to articlespace categories or use articlespace specific templates that do that, till you are ready. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Getting tired of the personal attacks here

This diff is way over the top.--SarekOfVulcan 11:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I have given Steven a final warning. Neil ☎ 12:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

How much abuse do I have to take before I'm allowed to reciprocate in kind? -- But|seriously|folks  17:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

He's still at it. [16]. -- But|seriously|folks  17:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It is never appropriate to respond in kind to inappropriate comments. It is appropriate to seek third party intervention. Since I don't know either of you from Adam, let me take a look... GRBerry 19:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Never mind, already blocked for 24 hours by Neil. GRBerry 19:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Eric / Éric Cantona

As I am probably now involved, can an uninvolved admin step in and stop two French users changing all the instances of Eric in the Eric Cantona article to Éric? On one side we have prior consensus, Wikipedia policy (WP:UE), and all relevant reliable sources in English and French([17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]) saying it's "Eric" , on the other we have a French user who insists it should be "Éric" because that's how he spells his name, and the other citing the French Wikipedia (not reliable). It's too lame for RFC and as I've edited now, I shouldn't do anything more about it personally. Neil ☎ 21:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup. In English we spell Montreal thusly, not as Montréal. Raymond Arritt 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is getting silly. At one point some joker changed the word "maverick" deep in the article to "mavÉrick", which was reverted to "mavErick". It required an uninvolved editor to fix that edit. -- llywrch 22:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think someone was using "find and replace". Badly. Neil ☎ 10:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Irresponsible editing on Archimedes Plutonium

Later Addition

Although the page in question has been deleted, against the vote of the AfD, the discussion here is more relevant than ever.Likebox 23:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It has just dawned on me that the discussion here is not relevant at all. I apologize to Artie-poo, for falsely accusing him of smearing Mr. Archimedes Plutonium. He was not doing any such thing, and his comments were not libelous in any way. He was just politically well aware, through discussions with other administrators and as part of the Wikipedia aristocracy, that it was a foregone conclusion that the page was to disappear. As such, he was just trying to dissuade me from writing the page, by providing antagonistic pressure. I suggest that he could have done it in a way which was less liable to misinterpretation on my part.

I am very sorry that I misunderstood the situation. I am writing this here so that it is clear that I will no longer contribute to wikipedia. I only regret that I cannot erase my numerous contributions to date.Likebox 01:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to apologize to Ed Johnston, who also was in on the game.Likebox 02:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Beginning of the old discussion

I have been involved in editing the page Archimedes Plutonium, and I would like to bring a matter of some concern. The case involves unfortunate editing of the page, which I tried repeatedly to correct.

The editor in question is User:Arthur Rubin. Similar additions were made by User:EdJohnston.

The subject of the page was questioned about a murder, and I didn't know very much about the case then. I wrote that the accusations were groundless (specious was the word I used), and the next thing I know, it reads (specious). While I accept that in any other circumstances this is a legitemate and supportable tag, in this case the effect of the tag on an unsuspecting reader is to sew suspicion. It would have been more responsible to rephrase this section directly, instead of putting tags which have the effect of casting shadows on the subject's character.

Just to be clear about the known facts: Archimedes Plutonium was living in another state for two years at the time of the murder, and he was at home online at the time of the murder. The murderers were two teenagers who confessed to the crime, and fingerprints, boottracks, purchases, matched the scene. Nobody considers the case in the least bit open, and the chance that anyone else was involved is zero.

Further, I was writing about this as an example of the way in which this eccentric character has been harassed because of his notability.

I changed the tags, and tried different wordings, but each time the wording changed back to again be ambiguous about his culpability. No matter what wording I chose, I could not edit this page to make it unambiguous, despite bringing up the comments on the talk page of the two users. EdJohnston placed an incriminating link on the talk page of Archimedes Plutonium, and I had to place a link to a later page on the same site, where the whole thing is solved in order to (hopefully) correct the misleading impression that the previous comments made.

After many days of back and forth, the wording eventually settled down to an acceptably unambiguous phrase, the intermediate stages were so fraught with libel, that I was on edge for many days. I tried to explain my concerns to Arthur Rubin, because at first I thought this was done out of ignorance. But his responses were so bureaucratic and unhelpful, and did not alleveate the dangerous ambiguity. Then I came to the conclusion that this was happening as a result of either gross irresponsibility or of malice.

A representative sample of the edits in question are contained in these links::[24] [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. The relevant comments made on the talk page Talk:Archimedes Plutonium under the section heading "Harrasment, Specious, etc.", although I later added a link and a bolded statement to remove insinuations of culpability. The comments on Arthur Rubin's talk page were made during the same period of time, and the briefer comments on EdJohnston page also.

I would like to point out that the amount of insinuation was so large, that I personally began to think that the two users had some extra incriminating information about Archimedes Plutonium. They never made a single mention of the fact that this case is closed, either on the talk page or in the main page. I had to actively read about the case in great detail to convince myself that indeed he wasn't involved, and then fight with them to get this wording into the page, again and again.

I believe these actions are a blight on wikipedia, and reflect gross abuses by the editors in question, whether they were done out of irresponsibility or malice. I hope that something can be done to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.Likebox 21:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I may not have been clear, but LB is using "specious" to imply "unjustified", but the sources only imply "inaccurate" (and not considered credible by the local police chief, who may not have involved in the actual investigation.) As for "harassment", you would need a source other than AP that he was unjustly harassed.

For what it's worth, that AP was home online at the time of the murder was not known at the time, and would have been difficult to verify even if it had been suspected. (If I had reason to believe I would be suspected of the murder, I could easily set up an anonymizer at my home PC, and connect through it.) The parenthetical remark is WP:OR, but can easily be seen to discredit the unsourced assertion that the police knew that he was home online at the time of the murder.

The "blight" on wikipedia is the recreation of an article deleted under authority of the AfD. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This would be perfectly legalall-right to speculate if the case weren't solved and you were speculating in your own home. To speculate that AP used an anonymizer to go out to another state, put on some teenagers boots, steal a knife from their home, stab a professor and his associate, put the bloody boots back in the teenager's home, and then go back to his home state is Original Research, and more fanciful than anything that Archimedes Plutonium has ever written.

The fact that sources do not say explicitly that he wasn't involved is because it is so bloody obvious that he wasn't involved that they don't feel the need to say it. The only reason the books mention him at all is because he is so interesting and notable. After the obligatory Fun Archimedes Plutonium facts, they go back to talking about the actual case, which goes on and on, and is eventually solved. If you were actually ignorant of the facts of the case, that would have been ok. It should only take a small discussion to explain that he wasn't involved, and the page would be reasonable. But I am not completely sure that you were ignorant of the facts of the case, when you persisted in making ambiguous edits despite pleading and begging on my part. All I was asking was to find some way, any way, to state unambiguously that he was not involved. Eventually, such a way was found, by me, after many, many attempts, but it cost me a few gray hairs.

In my opinion, this is the definition of irresponsibility.Likebox 22:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. But, AfD4 has closed with a delete outcome, so it probably doesn't matter. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether you disagree or not, the talk page needs to be kept as evidence for other editors to take a look at, and determine if indeed you acted irresponsibly, and if so, if any other actions need to be taken. The fact that the page has been deleted does not matter, because AP is notable enough and brilliant enough for his page to be recreated along largely the same lines in the future. Your possible wrongdoing, though, is evidenced in the talk page and discussion page. The evidence is overwhelming. The talk page needs to be looked at, as also the edits.

For future reference, the vote on the AfD was a definite keep, and the person who brought it up voted to keep, with no hesitation, and once he understood who AP was, wrote "I am withdrawing my nomination for various reasons. VICTORY FOR USENET".Likebox 23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This AN/I discussion has no relation to the page. I will only close it after the issue of irresponsibility is settled by a review by other administrators.23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Specious and inaccurate mean different things, especially in context. If you say specious, and another user says the sources say inaccurate, then a request for souring was valid. --Haemo 01:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read your comment carefully enough. He didn't say "inaccurate", he just put tags on the "specious" (although, to be fair, he later took out the ). Please go through the records. Then I changed it to something else. I didn't know what he wanted. I was completely at a loss.Likebox 02:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I know it follows the letter of the law. But I later changed the phrase to "Nobody suspects him of any involvement" using the present tense, and it got reverted. I tried "but he was never under serious suspicion" or words to that effect, and it got deleted, later it got to work the opposite effect of my intention. I racked my brain on this each time to come up with something new that would be OK with Rubin et al, but I couldn't think of anything they liked, and they wouldn't help. This was really jarring, because, I understand disagreements on dubious mathematical content. I also understand disagreements about notability. I understand the controversy about this page, and I sympathize. Even if the whole page is deleted, I understand. But this is an accusation of murder for God's sake. Where is the humanity? This is a human being here, and a human being that I respect very much. I thought I would get an apology at some point, or at least an acknowledgement of error. But all I got was more bureaucratese. This is not decent human behavior in my book, no matter what the disagreements on content.Likebox 02:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I was at 3RR, so could only tag, rather than revert and modify to a correct statement. I'd consider the suggested change a revert. Perhaps I chose the wrong tag. Do we have a NPOV-word tag? Thinking back over it, that would have been better than {{or}}, and {{dubious}} was inappropriate because the word "specious" doesn't have a clear meaning. I don't recall the "nobody suspects him of any involvement", but that seems biased in context, as it appears he really was a suspect at the time (at least, we have no evidence to the contrary). That one, I probably should have just corrected to: "the case is closed and he is not considered to have been involved." — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think your 3RR explanation is honest and convincing. I think that other adminstrators should take your word here and not do the to check the deleted history logs and see for themselves.02:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Constructive Suggestions

I have had some time to calm down, I am sorry I lost my temper. But I didn't sleep because I was worried those tags would show up again, and Plutonium would lose his job again or God knows what. I am still not going to contribute to Wikipedia in the foreseeable future, but I thought that it leaves everyone with a bad feeling if there is no resolution to disputes, and if all the comments are of a destructive nature.

So here are my editing suggestions, you administrative folks can do what you will:

1. The tags have got to go. They are tools of lazy editing, used in place of a thoughtful rewrite. I think there is a (very slight) possibility it just didn't occur to Rubin that tags can change meaning so drastically, even after I repeatedly tried to explain. If somebody wants to edit the page, let them edit the page by thinking and writing a sentence.
2. Recognize that any description, even a neutral encyclopedic one, involves some original reinterpretation in order to be coherent. It is ridiculous to assume that Wikipedia will be cobbled together from sentences and sentence fragments in scattered sources. Recognize that the editing process is political, and choose the political tools carefully. I think this is already recognized, and the policies in place are by and large sensible ones. But be careful to not whip out "original research" for something which does not involve a radically new idea, or a radically new synthesis of ideas. Be careful with the OR accusation, and use it for idea-units (paragraphs) and not individual sentences or words. The individual sentences or words should just be rewritten back and forth until they settle down.
3. Require edits to be made using a username. This will also cut down on vandalism. There is no reason that someone can't log in to make an edit, and there is no reason that someone can't make a new username if they want to edit anonymously. This is just to cut down on the chance of someone inserting tag-libel or other subtle vandalism.

And here are my political suggestions:

1. Get rid of the tools of brownnosing, those stupid (but well intentioned) barnstars that anyone can give to themselves and friends.
2. Do not select administrators by a vote of previous administrators. That's how aristocracies are made and perpetuated. It creates tiers of administrators and lackeys, who are vying for power. Recognize that wikipedia administration is a political office, and expand it slowly by some sort of vote restricted to non-administrators. Create separation of power, and make sure there are ombudsmen to control abuses of power.
3. In order to attract mathematical talent, it is essential that the people who contribute do not feel exploited. Writing a mathematical argument requires about ten times the effort of writing a usual exposition, and the work is underappreciated. You have to check and double check and yes, horrors of horrors, do original research. Otherwise your mathematical discussion will be shitty. In order to encourage mathematical contributors, you must assure them that their work will not get tagged into oblivion, and will be evaluated carefully. Fortunately for wikipedia, for the time being none of the current contributors can understand any math so the stuff all stays no matter how original and how good it is.
4. Do not allow academics to serve in any administrative capacity. They have an interest in perpetuating certain ideas and marginalizing others because that's how they eat. They should only contribute content. I do not have a PhD nor a serious academic position, so I can be fair to everybody. There is no reason that a layperson can't decide what is a competent exposition and what is not. But an academic administrator can just punish his academic competitors on a whim.
5. Be expansive in the topics you cover. I know there is a debate between the "restrictionists" and the "expansionists", but the debate is dumb. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia (as you say) and there should be no debate. All the "restrictionists" are people who want to keep something marginalized.

End of comments. I will know that someone is listening when the Archimedes Plutonium page is back up. I think that will happen when hell freezes over.71.176.115.195 04:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A curious case

User:KXS-KXS has declared that they are a "secret user", and appear to have no intention of ever editing articles. Instead, they seem to be planning some kind of social networking activity called the "brown monster club" (possibly involving giving prizes to editors for treasure-hunting?), and are constructing numerous templates for that purpose.

I've invited them twice to come and join the encyclopedia project, and it's clear from their replies that they have no intention of doing so. What to do now? -- The Anome 23:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hide him in your pocket for seeecret eeeeating. JuJube 23:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Surreptitiously slip in a WP:NOT#MYSPACE warning. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. -- The Anome 23:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And of course, point out to him that every 'sekrit page' of his is available in his Contribs. Poor dear. --Thespian 23:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm getting old and curmudgeonly, but I'd be inclined to block the account (at least until s/he voices some interest in building the encyclopedia) and delete everything seen here without looking back. MastCell ^Talk 23:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, it should all be deleted right away, and the user indef blocked. It may seem harsh, it doesn't seem like they plan on doing any real editing, see this edit, [34] totally ignored the message, and showing no sign of stopping.--Jac16888 00:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocking and deleting. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, with help from MastCell. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a general subgroup of users creating "secret" pages (which aren't secret to anyone who knows Special:Prefixindex) and "autograph books" (where people can parade around huge signatures that violate WP:SIG). I think some of these people need a serious reminder that Wikipedia is not MySpace. Maybe the autograph books and secret pages aren't intrinsically harmful, but they're a waste of time and database space for those who actually want to use this site as an encyclopedia. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Autograph books have already tasted the blood of wikibattle. Keegan^talk 04:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales would disagree with you, Elkman. This is a widely known quote of his about autograph pages (don't believe he made it? Ask him), which is shown below:

“ You keep asking how they [autograph pages] help build an encyclopedia. But you also link to Wikipedia:Esperanza. I think that is your answer, no? Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing. Unlike divisive userboxes, the autograph books seem to just be about saying hello and being friendly. ” — Jimbo Wales 13:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

--FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 04:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo may feel that way about autographs books, but i doubt he would agree with what User:KXS-KXS was doing, which was taking it way to far. I can see how elkman can not like them as they can open the floodgates for editors like KXS-KXS--Jac16888 10:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Potentially offensive comments

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here. Perfectly innocent comments involving the Cleveland Indians.

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to be reporting this but I recently saw a message from User:Sasha Callahan which could be potentially offensive to users. The message can be seen here. Thanks --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 11:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Are you serious? I think everyone with a brain knows she is talking about the baseball teams. JuJube 11:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Doesn't look to me like anything worth coming to WP:ANI over...unless the comments have been changed since you posted. A "swear word" in an otherwise friendly talk page note isn't something to get worked up about. --Onorem♠Dil 11:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Please tell me that this isn't in reference to her disparaging remarks about a baseball team. Please? I'm sure we all have more important things to find "potentially offensive" than that. Somewhere on that page she advocated 'kitten bonfires' and I just missed it... right? --CBD 11:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not reporting it because somebody may be offended by her references to the team but maybe she meant Indians as in the nationality? That is why I put potentially offensive, because I wasn't sure. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 11:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone comes to a discussion thread about baseball, sees a post saying "!@$# the Indians" and thinks they're insulting the ethnic group, they're probably not worth worrying about. I'd be more concerned about how they manage to tie their shoelaces every day. JuJube 12:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's also really cool how you neglected to tell User:Sasha Callahan about this at all. JuJube 12:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please can everyone calm down, this was a post made in good faith by The-G-Unit and he shouldn't be taken as an oppotunity to shoot him down. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The-G-Unit-Boss, I think that in the context of the discussion it is clear she was referring to the baseball team... at least, I don't think the Red Sox lost to a bunch of guys from Kerala. :] --CBD 12:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess it could be interpreted that way, to someone unfamiliar with Baseball. He might not know that the "Red sox" is a baseball team and might think they are some other group of some kind. A lot of militant groups have names that sound like sports teams, such as The Tamil Tigers. It's not a stretch to think that he assumed that she was insulting the ethnic group opposed to the sports team. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the mistake that I made. I am not familiar with Baseball and so didn't realise the context of their discussion. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 16:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought the Tamil Tigers were a baseball team. Neil ☎ 16:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's what Detroit's AAA club was called before they moved to Toledo... Rdfox 76 17:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear JuJube, not everyone on Wikipedia is familiar with the minutiae of "Big Rounders Played by Tobacco Chewers in Pyjama's", possibly because they have the goshdarned cheek to live outside of the USA (and Japan - does any other nation play the game?), but do indeed have brains. As you might guess, I was not bowled over by your comments and think you have found yourself on a particularly sticky wicket. Toodle pip! LessHeard vanU 20:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A few other countries play, particularly Cuba, who have the best baseball record in the world, winning 3 of the 4 golds at the Olympics. Neil ☎ 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Wtimrock second notice

Resolved

Unfortunately this is the second time I am reporting this user User_talk:Wtimrock, as his behavior has not changed since the last time.

Recreated a deleted article, again [35] - this article has been deleted twice and the same user reposted it twice as well as being the original author.

Removed maintenance tags [36] - including the CSD repost tag and a news release tag.

I last reported it here on AN/I but no action was taken then. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 14:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted and a stern warning was given...if this continues, let me know. — Scientizzle 15:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Theresa knott (talk · contribs) has issued a block... — Scientizzle 15:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually whilst you were doing that I was giving him an attention grabbing block. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Hope it works! — Scientizzle 15:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!! His refusal to respond has been the most frustrating part of cleaning up after him. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 16:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: He contacted me by email. I explaned what he was doing wrong and unblocked him. Hopefully he will now take heed. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I need an administrator

I am having an issue with User:Twsx and it's driving me crazy. We cannot reach a solution. I have taken this issue up before in conflicts of interest but nothing happened. In the music infoboxes for band pages we cannot agree whether the genres should have a line break or comma break. Apparently, no consensus has ever been made on this and we need one. There should be a conversation about it. I believe the line break between genres in the music infoboxes look much more ordered and that the comma break looks sloppy. We must have a consensus on this. He wants the genres in the infoboxes to look like they do in pages such as Linkin Park and I want them to look like they do in articles such as Judas Priest.Navnløs 19:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's highly trivial and not something that this page needs to be used for. Try requesting for a comment or posting it on some music related projects for more outside input. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Line breaks vs Comma breaks. Thats got to be one of the lamest disputes i've heard in a while. You do not need an administrator, you need Request for comment--Jac16888 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have to dispute this designation as lamest complaint ever, instead awarding that honor to the complaint about Sasha's baseball comment above. K. Scott Bailey 20:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually you need a life! One of you decide to let the other one win. Problem solved. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm ... how to say this nicely? Isn't it pretty clear I was joking, and I wasn't really trying to "win" anything against Wikidudeman? I thought it was, but evidently not... K. Scott Bailey 20:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Although the indentation might have suggested otherwise, I don't think that message was directed at you. --Onorem♠Dil 20:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep I was talking tothe OP I indented too much. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I will let him "win" eventually, i just enjoy his desperate, incivil reactions on my talk page while they last. For the sake of the argument: I think line break seperated lists only take up much more space while they are not the least bit more informative, or "prettier" (if you will) than comma seperated, non-capitalized lists. However, a discussion about this is was made and ended up in a "useless trainwreck from which no consensus can emerge", so it is indeed trivial. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 20:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Boyling Over

I happen to have been dragged into the middle of this situation. I initially reverted the blanking of User:Tim.Boyle and protected the page to stop the edit war, and because my initial thought was that there are thousands of Tim Boyle's out there, and I knew of no reason why any one in particular would be implicated. (I went to elementary school with one.) But since there are apparently good faith suggestions of potential liability (not threats), I thought it would be best to have others weigh in as well. It's certainly possible that there's something in the user's contribs that singles out a particular Tim Boyle. I'm amenable to unprotection, blanking, whatever, so don't be afraid of stepping on my toes. Thanks for looking this over! -- But|seriously|folks  19:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a hard time seeing how this could be libeling anyone as the IP removing the tag states; it's not like this is a unique name. That said, I think a courtesy blanking of the userpage is an option if the IP stops being so demanding.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Also note, anything tying this name to a specific person has been deleted.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Can an Admin. blank a User Page?

I'm new to wikipedia rules and would like to know if Admins are allowed to blank a user page. I'd like to hear from various people. Thanks. Lookzar42 20:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Depending on what is on the page and whether the user is a regular contributor or a dead account, blanking it may be the right way to deal with inappropriate content. What user page do you have in mind? — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at controversial articles for COI and POV, and I followed back to this user user:Shia1. The original page, I restored. Before my restoration, I found the page had been blanked. It's not a lot of blanking, but it seemed suspiscious to me as it was blanked by the same person the user had been in conflict with further down in the edit histories. It didn't seem to me the message on the user page was specific enough to warrant this action. Basejumper2 20:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blanked userpages an many occasions and have deleted them too if they are being used innapropriately (not for the good of the encylopedia). However admins do not go around blanking userpages willy nilly. . Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm this is a tricky one. Normally I'd say people who get banned for sockpuppeteering lose any right to say anthing on a userpage. However on closer inspection I see that the account was not blocked, no sockpuppets were named and no evidence posted. All we have is the admin in question's say so. I'll ask him to comment. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That admin has been gone since August so you may wish to try email. Asking via a vandalism template ^[37], seems suspect, however. El_C 20:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked User:IZAK as he was the one to remove the ranting. Agreed that using a vandalism template looks a bit dodgy but will assumr good faith. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty sophomorically provocational. El_C 20:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

When part of the user's goodbye message is that the "harrassers know who they are, and that they will be judged in the final Judgement," I see nothing wrong with denying them that indefinite soapbox. I'd probably be in favor of removing the sock tag also if no evidence has been presented. --Onorem♠Dil 20:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we need WP:NOT#ESCHATOLOGY? Raymond Arritt 20:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with departing users soapboxing. No one reads their userpages anyway. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with removing the text from User:Shia1, if that user has actually left WP. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I found it worth puting the lightest vandelism template up specifically because the blanking appeared to me to have been done by an individual the user had been in conflict with. Basejumper2 03:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What made you think it was vandalism? — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And then you re-added it after an admin (moi) reverted it as vandalism? It doesn't add up. El_C 03:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It made me think it was vandalism because it appeared needless and personally motivated by the conflict I just mentioned. Frankly the message seems silly to me, and I can’t see why it would NEED to be erased.

If you go to the users talk page, you'll notice he complains about the admin in question banning his friends who use his computer as his sock puppets. There's no evidence or trial for those sock puppets that I could find; but earlier in the user page personal discussions with another user mention user:Shia1 is going to have a friend named Yoeli at his house.

Further down, user:Shia1 is temporarily blocked for using sockpuppets by the admin in question, one of those sockpuppets he’s accused of using if you click on the sockpuppet tag is called Yoel23. No evidence was presented. He rants wildly about the unfairness, but, again, seems to be given no opportunity to defend himself.

The user then left that final message on his user page. Then the admin the message evidently refers to blanks it. That's why I felt it was vandalism. I felt it was most likely motivated by personal conflict and not an administrative necessity. The language of the message just didn't seem harsh enough to warrant a blanking of it.

So I checked to see if the user was banned, thinking that banned users pages are blanked. I saw that he wasn't. That's when I decided it was probably vandelism. So I went and looked for the lightest vandalism tag I could find, and left a message on the admins page asking if he had done it by mistake.

El C, I don’t understand your question. Perhaps use more words. Doesn’t add up to what? When we discussed this, you seemed unaware the reason for the tag, and felt I had added it because of the sockpuppet tag, and were unaware of the blanking. But the reason I added the tag back, after it was removed is because I went to the page to see if there had been a response to my question. Instead both the tag and the question had been erased, so I re-added it hoping to get a responseBasejumper2 03:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In any case it appears that I followed the tabs in the history page wron and it was IZAK that balnked the page, so I apologize to the vandelism tag. Basejumper2 04:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, I was asked by User Theresa knott (talk · contribs) on my user page [38] to come to this discussion and tell how I know that the account of User Shia1 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet. The short version of my answer is that I looked at the options on the line that reads "See block log and lists of suspected and confirmed accounts" on the {{sockpuppeteer}} template on User:Shia1's user page and clicked on "confirmed accounts" which leads to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shia1 (created by User Jayjg (talk · contribs) on 24 June 2007 [39]) and which lists two more of his sockpuppets, User:TumbleRumble and User:Yoel23. What follows is the longer version of how I got to User:Shia1's user page: I came across his name and comments when I was involved with the problem of another notorious sockpuppeteer Daniel575 (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (7th) and in the course of my research I read Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (6th) and it is on that latter page that I came across lengthy comments by User:Shia1 matching the vitriol of blocked User Daniel575 (talk · contribs) and his most recent suckpuppet User:Eidah who deployed the most vile curses and slander during Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 22#Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism (during which it came to light that an admin Y (talk · contribs) was perfectly aware that User:Eidah was in fact a sockpuppet of banned User:Daniel575 and did not take action to stop him.) During September 2007, looking into User:Eidah's violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL by his usage of violent cursing and hateful diatribes during the CfD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 22#Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism and the discovery that it was "widely known" that User:Eidah and User:Daniel575 were one and the same users and by following User:Daniel575's editorial trail leading to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (6th) and coming upon the rants of User:Shia1 there so that when I clicked on his page I found that by then User:Shia1 had already been blocked in June 2007 as a sockpuppet/eer by admin Jayjg (talk · contribs). When I saw the rant on his page consisting as it does of "religious" curses "... the harrassers know who they are, and that they will be judged in the final Judgement" I deleted only those comments as unbefitting what should be on a sockpuppet's page (they should not be allowed to have the last word and in any case don't belong there or on any user blocked as a sockpuppet) and left only the initial {{sockpuppeteer}} template placed on that page by User:Jayjg, but since then, some anon has reinserted them [40]. I have given my side of the story. I do not know how or why User:Jayjg came to the conclusions he did and took the actions that he did back in June 2007. But knowing his work as an editor, admin, and as a former respected member of ArbCom, I am absolutely certain that he acted appropriately and with all due justification. Thus, the answer to the question that I was asked by User:Theresa knott can only be answered by User:Jayjg as I was neither privy to the initial and ongoing reasons, nor involved with blocking and banning of User:Shia1 as a sockpuppet/eer. Thank you, IZAK 05:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your enlightening comments. (Also, I was the anonymous restorer of his user page. I just hadn't signed in while surfing.) Point of fact, however, User:Shia1 is not banned as a sockpupet or sockpupeteer, so there's no worry about giving a banned user the last word. Also, his statement is silly and jeuvenile, but not particularly offensive, certainly not vulgar, and doesn't name anybody so as to be damaging in that regard. It's his user page, and if he wants to return, it should be left intact as he left it.

I'm very curious as to why he was ever tagged, however, seeing as his explenation that he used a shared computer is evidenced by his discussion page where at least one of the sockpuppets is referenced as a seperate individual in a personal conversation on that page. Also he makes the claim that none of the accounts listed as his sockpuppet are ever used together on pages during a dispute? Is this true? Is there a way to confirm this? Is it normal to block someone as a sockpuppet without a sockpuppetry trial or evidence being presented such as in the link presented above,Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (6th)? If there is no reason to believe he is a sockpupet/eer, I think the tag should be removed. If the same goes for the accounts listed as his sockpuppets, they should be reinstated as its very possible they were legitimate users who got booted out of wikipedia without being able to present evidence. .Basejumper2 05:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Addition: I just spent some time going through the history that user:Shia1 posted on his talk page to defend himself. If he posted it truthfully, he only edited a single article with user:Tumblerumble and user:Yoel23. They seem to argue with each other, and nobody else except the banned sockpuppet of Daniel575 is involved in the discussion. Basejumper2 07:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Basejumper: As for the broader questions you ask about who, what, when, how and why any pages are or should be tagged or untagged by admins I leave that for the others to decide and I shall not get into that policy debate because I honestly have not given it any significant thought, and I don't intend to. The only reason I removed User:Shia1's silly remark, is that having coming out of a heated set of discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 22#Category:Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism, and then bumped into identical comments at a page that seemed to be a "guilt by association" user page with curses such as "... judged in the final Judgement" it deserved to be removed in my view. I still think those hateful comments should go, but if you like them, keep them. I am honestly very puzzled why you even care. It makes no difference to me, honestly as I cannot recall having a single exchange with User:Shia1. However, the fact that banned User:Daniel575 hails him as a buddy that he knows personally (see User talk:Shia1#Hi [41]) was enough to convince me that these are two "birds of feather" that it is best not to allow to "flock together" on Wikipedia for they shall only join up for WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT. That's my take on things, and I don't really have much more to add. Sincerely, IZAK 10:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. To be truthful, I added the vandalism tag only because I thought blanking a page was always vandalism. In the course of our discussion here, however, I think we've uncovered something larger which is a user types that he left due to harassment, we find an accusation of sockpuppetry, no evidence of the accounts having been used as sockpuppets even if they were the same person's account, and evidence that almost certainly one of them wasn't. That's what keeps me interested beyond just saying, "Sorry, I misunderstood what vandalism is." I want to know why this user was tagged without a similar process to this,Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daniel575 (6th), and I want to know if his rantings and ravings about politically motivated harrassment against him were true, because wikipedia is not the place for that, if there is a place for that. Basejumper2 11:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's see: The user has left. The person who tagged him as a sock has left. So there is no what on Earth that you can peronally know anything more about why he was tagged so. End of mate! Move on, this one is in the past and done with. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Only User Jayjg (talk · contribs) could answer all those questions and as you have been told, he is presently on leave. May I remind you that while you are spouting all sorts of rules here, there is another dimension to Wikipedia governance, such as Wikipedia:Ignore all rules whereby even an admin who is confronted by a complex situation and has been privy to all sorts of matters decides in good conscience that he may take action as he sees fit. This action is further reinforced by the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding" and finally see: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee: "... Until the beginning of 2004, Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales dealt with all serious disputes and was the only person with the authority to ban users who were not engaging in simple vandalism (straight-forward vandals could be blocked by any administrator). This role has now largely been passed to the Arbitration Committee. Wales wrote: 'The Arbitration Committee [...] can impose a solution that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the exception that I reserve the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve the whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster. But I regard that as unlikely, and I plan to do it about as often as the Queen of England dissolves Parliament against their wishes, i.e., basically never, but it is one last safety valve for our values." – January 2004. To request Arbitration, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. The Arbitration policy details the rules and procedures involved." May I also draw your attention to my critiques and warnings at User talk:IZAK#Sockpuppet? and at User talk:Lookzar42#Reminder what puppets & co really evoke. Thank you for your close attention to these matters. IZAK 12:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy is back

DreamGuy is back, for barely 24 hours, and is already getting into a dust-up with another user over on the Jack the Ripper page and on his talk page. DreamGuy is subject to an arbcom ruling from a case during which he was absent. IMHO he is in violation of the case's rulings, specifically the AGF requirements (especially this edit comment), but as I had a (IMHO minor) editing conflict with him a while back, I do not feel comfortable taking admin action against him myself. So could an uninvolved admin please take a look at the arbcom ruling and his latest escalating dispute, and decide if enforcement of the arbcom ruling is required, or at least a warning that he's across the line. - TexasAndroid 20:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you ask him what's it abut before coming here? El_C 20:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dreamguy is subject to a behavioral editing restriction. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. Seems straightforward. [42] is incivil and assumes bad faith, therefore blocked for 24 hours. Neil ☎ 20:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not responding to my question, why is that, Neil? El_C 20:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, El_C, I thought you were asking TexasAndroid. And I do apologise for failing to respond to your question for a whole 4 minutes. It doesn't matter what it's about. The case was closed just 8 days ago and is abundantly clear - any incivility or bad faith from Dreamguy = block. Neil ☎ 20:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no further comment at this time. El_C 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think your question was directed at me, not Neil, but I've been trying to parse just what it is you wanted me to ask DreamGuy about before I came here. I'm really not sure what there is to ask. What the dispute on the JtR page is about? I'm not really certain that matters. The arbcom restrictions are about his behaviour, and are not mitigated by the subject or even whether he is right or wrong in his debates. - TexasAndroid 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're just not a very curious person... El_C 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Off to WP:AE with this thread, please. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. You're right. While I generally followed this case, I try to avoid ArbCom drama as a general rule, and forgot that there was a specific board for these reports. I think that this one is pretty much done for today, and if I have further reports in the future I will be sure to send them to the correct place. - TexasAndroid 21:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't this have just been a warning instead of a block? Given that there is history between them, and he put it fairly civilly given how he sees it? AGF is fine, but it gets tricky when there has been bad blood in the past. There was still room for admin discretion here - you could have talked about it with him without threatening to block or blocking. If he was being difficult/disruptive enough to warrant a block, I doubt one of the people he was disagreeing with would have followed him back to his talkpage to discuss the mattter. Petenotrepeat 22:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the blocking admin failed to address the administrative rollback that DG reverted (which does not appear evenhanded) or any of his other claims, I deem the current duration to be sufficient and I have granted DreamGuy's unblock request. Thx. El_C 02:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem with El_C's unblocking. DreamGuy needs to realise reverting good faith edits with incivil edit summaries and accusations of stalking are not helpful, and was pretty much mandated against in his Arbitration finding, and hopefully he has now done so. Neil ☎ 07:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I do have a problem with Arthur Rubin showing up, seemingly out of the blue, to click the rollback button. Out of respect for his on and off wiki work, I wouldn't call his action baiting, but seeing his past dispute with DG, greater sensitivity was due. El_C 08:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. Is it worth asking Arthur Rubin not to revert DreamGuy's edits? If they are poor edits, someone else can revert them. Neil ☎ 10:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As Neil says, reverting good faith edits with uncivil edit summaries and accusations of stalking are not helpful... unfortunately I think Neil failed to look into the incident and chose to interpret a legitimate complaint of inappropriate behavior as mere namecalling. I believe that anyone who would take the time to look into Arthur Rubin's history of conflict with me -- by going to articles he had never edited in the past solely to blind revert my work without giving any rationale -- should honestly question whether there could be any good faith explanation for this behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_the_Ripper&diff=166375433&oldid=166349952 His edit that I reverted] removed several footnotes I added to give scholarly references to sections that were tagged as requiring cites, removed a correction to an author's name that had been misspelled, added in old versions of the article so that whole sections were duplicated unnecessarily (the victims section ednded up being sections on their own as well as subsections of the main one), and otherwise cannot in any way be considered an improvement to the article. Seriously, can anyone look at the content of that edit and give an encyclopedic rationale for that behavior? Based upon the content and his long history of similar actions in the past, it seems safe to say that it was a blind revert for no other reason than to undo a series of edits I had done recently. While ArbCom ruled that I need to be more polite and more civil, the interpretation of the admin that was made here functionally means that anyone can take any action against me they want and if I make mention of it *I* will get blocked for it. If I say someone is harassing me, especially when the action in question was so blatant and in line with his past methods of the same abuse, admins must accept the possibility that such a claim is not mere insults but an accurate reporting of what's going on. It's a question of good faith and civil behavior on the part of admins enforcing rules, and the admin who blocked me did not entertain that possibility and chose to interpret it in the most unflattering light. Certainly if someone vandalized pages over and over and I revert another edit with the comment that it is vandalism I would hope nobody would block me for making mention of that. But who really knows, as there's no rhyme or reason to these things and no attempt to give a reasoned explanation for them after they happen. The mere presumption of wrongdoing without discussing it anywhere is all that some people need to try to justify their actions, which certainly has turned the whole Assume Good Faith and Civility policies on their ears. It seems to me that there needs to be more structure to these kinds of actions. As it stands the people who have a history of conflict with me can now do what they want and just shop around for any admin willing to interpret things to their side of the dispute.DreamGuy 16:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, DreamGuy, it was User:TexasAndroid, not Arthur Rubin, that made the complaint here. And from what I read, Neil did give a reasonable explanation for your short block. It seems to me that it might be advisable to just take a step back for a bit - your own comments here aren't really complying with WP:AGF either. After all, you are subject to the ruling of the ArbCom, and as such, you are going to be held to a stricter standard.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  17:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Who made the complaint doesn't change the nature of User:Arthur Rubin's edits. You may disagree with my opinion of Neil's edit, but the admin who unblocked me agreed that there was no reasonable explanation, and other admins have also said via email the same thing.DreamGuy 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to split semantic hairs here, but if you're referring to El_C's comment about unblocking you, I think you might be reading a bit too much between the lines. Of course, I can't speak for El_C, but then again, nobody can except him. If he has an issue with Neil's block, I'll them handle that between themselves. As for what others have said via email - I can't really comment on that either, since nobody you and they have seen those. In any case, I'd just offer my friendly $.02 - given that the ArbCom has ruled on your need for civilty, I'd take that ruling seriously and take an extra moment or two prior to posting, even when you feel like you're being baited or needled. Better to handle things calmly via the proper channels than to say something that might be regretted later. Cheers  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  18:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, DreamGuy's edit seems to have added material that should be somewhere in the article, but it broke sections which were already there and should remain. What are my choices: Revert to the pre-DreamGuy version, which is at least consistent, if incomplete; leave DreamGuy's version, which is not at all consistent, and had a few broken references; or spend 4 hours verifying sources, even if they were all available online? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, while that sounds like a nice explanation after the fact to the people who don't check the content of the revert you made, your edit comment on your own talk page shows an entirely different motivation for your action. Your characterization of my version of the article as "not at all consistent" and "broken references" is not accurate. Simply put, I am not sure how you intend to prove that you are not harassing me when you have today twice edited my own talk page despite the fact that I and a number of admins in the past have specifically told you that doing so comes across as harassing, you have argued with me about the block in edit comments on my talk page, and you are clearly watching my contribution history (as you showed up out of the blue to edit Jack the Ripper in the incident in question here and today have commented on an edit I made to false memory on your talk page). Honestly, if you want to show good faith, stop editing my talk page, stop watching my edits, stop blind reverting me with no rationale offered, and go on about editing Wikipedia on your own without worrying what I am up to. If you are unable or unwilling to do that then I think my case has been made for me. Good faith does not entail following me around after admins have warned you off. DreamGuy 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I decline further comment, unless invited, except to say that El C frequently used "unjustified" for any action that he considers incorrect, whether or not "justified" or required by Wikipedia policy. As for false memory, I've been watching the article for some time, but didn't have the time to do research as to which of the edits you reverted were justified, although I think very few of them were. I'm afraid that "most" is not supported by those references, even though it's almost certainly accurate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the block I made, and the revert Arthur Rubin made ([43]), I think I owe DreamGuy an apology, which I shall now go and make. Neil ☎ 22:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Libellous material on AFD

An AFD has been started on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlaneShift (computer game) by User:SpigotMap and User:EvanCarroll (possibly a sockpuppet since they're both from Houston) to get the article PlaneShift (computer game) deleted, but the nominators have been using the AFD as a way to defame the director, Luca Pancallo, and his open source project [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]. Not much of what they say here in the above diffs can be backed up, and I don't appreciate their defamatory personal attacks against Luca—who has also edited Wikipedia [50]—or his project. A closer look into SpigotMap's very first edits on Wikipedia will reveal his conflict of interest: He has played the game under the pseudonym Link and has been banned from the game for quite a while [51] [52] [53] (for over five years to my knowledge), and he only registered a Wikipedia account to make sure this article gets deleted. SpigotMap aka Link is also the only reason Freenode staffer SportChick is in your IRC channel. Tuxide 21:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Edit: Removing Christel since that person is no longer on the channel Tuxide 03:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the diffs you link appear to be innocuous. Statements like "the license is authoritarian", "It is a luke warm game", "proprietary junk", "I hope this project dies", are clearly not libelous or defamatory under United States law. Any suit based on those statements would be dismissed instantly. The first diff, with reference to "normal Luca lying about the project", is the closest thing, and it is obviously an expression of opinion (ie, protected) - not to mention that it's difficult to see how Mr. Pancallo could prove that it materially damaged his reputation! IANAL, but this kind of silliness is wasting everyone's time. Admins are not going to block anyone for saying mean things about your favorite person or project. <eleland/talkedits> 02:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Luca Pancallo has made it quite clear that this can be sued over, since he has no way to back up his statements, and the only reason such a case would not be accepted is that his project is not-for-profit. I have no reason to assume good faith in SpigotMap due to his first edits on Wikipedia and because I know him well enough. Furthermore, there really is no point to blocking anyone—he is already well known for ban evasion among Freenode staff, so it would be impossible to ban him here. My reason for bringing this up on AN/I is to address this to the closing admin. Tuxide 03:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid Mr. Pantallo is incorrect. Libel is defined as a defamatory falsehood - that is, a knowingly untrue statement of fact which places the subject in a negative light. Statements of opinion, on the other hand, are protected speech under the First Amendment. As far as I can tell, all of the statements you refer to are statements of opinion and thus are not actionable libel. (Disclaimer: IANAL, but I've studied media law extensively.) FCYTravis 09:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor correction: He can sue; he just doesn't have any chance of winning, for the reasons that Travis states. I'd also advise Mr. Pantallo to stop talking about suing people for on-Wikipedia statements, or else the IP from which he's making those edits could end up being blocked per WP:NLT. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Vegas

Resolved

We have a persistent-self-confessed anon vandal here. [54] Can we have semi-pp on the page please? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 22:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And a short block on User:86.130.55.4 since he's also vandalising vandalism warnings and has said he'll come back! --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 22:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Page now being vandalised by User:89.241.157.159 . He's got to get the message --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 22:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

IPs blocked. As the IPs keep chaning, I threw a one week protection on the article. IrishGuy ^talk 22:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham and Birmingham, United Kingdom

A rename and revert by a new user has left the Birmingham article without an edit history. The edit history is now at Birmingham, United Kingdom. Could someone do the appropriate delete and moves to fix it please? Ta. Mr Stephen 23:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

User:BrumBoy1234 moved Birmingham to Birmingham, United Kingdom, did a cut and paste move of the content of the article to Birmingham, then blanked Birmingham, United Kingdom and put a speedy delete tag on it. I have reverted the speedy delete tag, would somebody please move it back? Thank you. Corvus cornix 23:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Should be done. – Steel 23:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Thanks. Mr Stephen 23:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, dear - looks like Birmingham redirects to itself, and Birmingham, UK redirects to Birmingham. And the content is nowhere to be found. Am I missing something here? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 23:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am just getting redirects to each other and i can't find the article history anywhere. Did you edit conf with Maxim, Steel? Woodym555 23:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The edit history was in Birmingham, United Kingdom, but it now seems to have gotten lost. Corvus cornix 23:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Maxim went and re-broke everything after I fixed it. Joy. – Steel 23:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[thousand edit conflicts] And now a third admin has fixed it. – Steel 23:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been to Birmingham. I doubt if I'm alone in rejoicing its disappearance, even for a few minutes. Only in Wikipedia! --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I can empathise with that :P – Steel 23:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's back.  :) Corvus cornix 23:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I used to live in Birmingham!. Brummies will unite ;) It has been fixed now. The logs look a mess though! Woodym555 23:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately only 6 people attended to this meet-up. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A couple of thousand people set off - but they ended up in Alabama ;-) B1atv 07:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There were seven at this one, the trend is heading upwards. If and when we have one in Chester, I may finally have no exuse for not coming. Neil ☎ 07:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Could he have been trying to get the history deleted? See also this vandalism from earlier: [55] —Random832 19:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Ashtoman3333

• User:Ashtoman3333 has been engaged in some fairly inexplicable behavior since mid-September, including overwriting articles like Cheers and Me, Myself, and I and creating quite a list of articles without context or sourcing (see his deleted contributions in particular at Special:Contributions/Ashtoman3333). His userpage, deleted on October 21st by User:Pascal.Tesson, was itself an elaborate musician bio that was apparently fictitious. On the 20th of October, I asked him to explain his purpose in creating these articles and that biography, but he did not respond to my question any more than he has responded to the warnings he has received on his talk page. He was blocked on October 21st and immediately upon return recreated his most recently deleted article, JAMM Band, which still sources to a non-existent Myspace page. It does not seem that this editor is interested in seriously contributing to the encyclopedia. Given my long history of addressing his behavior, I would appreciate other evaluation here. I have informed the editor of this conversation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there's a long term pattern of vandalism / creating inappropriate pages. Maybe a final warning that the next time he steps over the line he'll be blocked? --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pitching in. I hope he'll listen to your warning. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Webridestv

When this article gets deleted again, can somebody please salt it. See the Deletion Log. It is a non-notable website that has been deleted 3 times already, and about to be 4. The user keeps recreating it though. - Rjd0060 01:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've given the editor a specific note with a pointer to the policies that govern these types of articles and invited him to come discuss it further at the drawing board if he needs further assistance. His previous attempt to create that page seems to me to indicate a genuine effort to meet guidelines, but he doesn't seem familiar with them. Hopefully, after reading those policies, he'll either be able to create the article properly or will decide that the subject doesn't qualify per guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Eastren07 deleting material

Eastren07 (talk · contribs) has been deleting material from the article on British government minister Jim Murphy, and deleting related discussions from the talk page. Eastren07 uses no edit summaries and has not responded to warnings or to requests to discuss any concerns about the article.

• The revision history Talk:Jim Murphy is littered with edits by Esatren07 deleting material, and none in which any material is added about perceived problems with the article
• The revision history Jim Murphy is similarly littered with content deletions by Eastren07: [56], [57], [58] and [59].
• Eastren07's only contribution to his/her user:talk page was this deletion of requests to stop deleting

Two other points:

• Eastren07's only other edits have been similar deletions from the article Kenneth Macintosh
• Jim Murphy is the Labour Party Member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for the East Renfrewshire in Scotland. Kenneth Macintosh is the Labour Member of the Scottish Parliament for Eastwood, a constituency with the same boundaries (i.e. covering exactly the same area). I suspect that the username Eastren07 indicates an editor supportive of the Labour party in that area, who simply wants to delete any material, however well-sourced, which is considered unhelpful. (Note, BTW, that the discussion at Talk:Jim Murphy has been in favour of the eventual removal by me of some well-sourced but grossly unbalanced material on Murphy's current ministerial role).

So far as I can see, Eastren07 is a SPA with a possible COI, who has refused all requests to discuss concerns. Please can someone either block this user now, or issue a further warning and monitor for further misconduct? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• The editor appears to have stopped (for now). If this behavior keeps up, report it on WP:AIV and reference this discussion. Thanks, Caknuck 05:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• The editor's pattern of contributions has consistently been to perform a batch of content deletions within minutes of each other, and then to do nothing until the another day. So it doesn't seem quite right describe him/her as having "stopped", just as having finished that day's deletions.
  But you're right, I should have taken to this to WP:AIV, and I'll take there if/when the deletions resume. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisting Website

The editor Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding ref links to the article Ahwaz territory that link to www.al-moharer.net. See diff, [60]. [Note added by Sarah: Guys, please be careful with these links. Admin Gnangarra said his antivirus and firewall went off when he followed one of the links. Sarah 02:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)]

This website is particularly disturbing and promotes terrorist activity against the US government and the Iraqi government: "The organization basically represents Iraq and comprises all the Iraqi people and its legitimate and bona fide resistance forces which the occupation wants to destroy, with the Iraqi national armed forces as a high-priority target." [61]

Again, "Rise up Iraqis! United like the fingers of one hand! Expel these US' swindlers, crooks and rogues! These who fled their countries of origins to loot others or to escape their pariah conditions.. Reject their mentally sick local puppets who lived on welfare that the Western countries grant to handicapped, and mentally ill. Aren't these who claimed to be mad are nothing but mad!" and "Bloodthirsty US rapacious and debased rogues.. You will pay dearly for your crimes!" [62]

Among other things, this website contends that there are "more similarities between Post-9/11 America and Third Reich Germany than just over-reliance on Blitzkrieg tactics. We finally determined that the two nations were following parallel political courses." The author of that articles is, supposedly, a US military officer. [63]

Another quote from a different article, "October 2nd, 2007, will be a milestone date in the history of the Movement for the Liberation of Iraq from American and Iranian Imperialism. On that day, the Supreme leadership of the Jihad liberation struggle, which is comprised of 22 fighting factions of the Armed Iraqi National Resistance, was founded." [64]

There are more, you can find them for yourself. I don't find any mention of Ahwaz anything on the site. I suggest that this site should be blacklisted, but I don't know who to take that to. I do not know if this individual is dangerous or where he is editing from. Note, I am unsure as to how secure this website is regarding viruses, etc. --Strothra 02:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for the sake of transparency, this article was the subject of this AFD and is currently under this DRV. Sarah 03:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

First I would just suggest removing the link as an unreliable source. If that doesn't work, then you could considered listing it at WP:BLACKLIST as a spam web-site. Not sure it exactly fits what that was set up for, but it certainly seems like it might do the trick. Ronnotel 03:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the editor adding the links? I think that simply his addition of them is disturbing - should an admin not review that behavior? Is this vandalism - should I add vandal tags when he does this? --Strothra 03:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not exactly the message that the governments in London and Washington would want conveyed, and I personally deplore calls to arms from any side; but leaving aside the flowery rhetoric, this is a website for or by those engaged in armed insurrection against the current Iraqi regime (or armed resistance, depending on PoV). Depending on POV, that may be seen as a wonderful thing or something to be expected or something terrible, but I see nothing wrong in referencing or linking to that site where such links are relevant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Rise up Iraqis! United like the fingers of one hand! Expel these US' swindlers, crooks and rogues! These who fled their countries of origins to loot others or to escape their pariah conditions.. Reject their mentally sick local puppets who lived on welfare that the Western countries grant to handicapped, and mentally ill. Aren't these who claimed to be mad are nothing but mad!" and "Bloodthirsty US rapacious and debased rogues.. You will pay dearly for your crimes!" seems to be directed at the whole Iraqi population and put into context promotes violence against US and Iraqi forces - it doesn't matter your POV, unless you're for violence you're not going to find this a reliable source. --Strothra 03:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(after 2 ecs)I've already removed it and I do not believe it is an appropriate site for us to link to. And I do think there is a problem here with this website, the editor, the various sockpuppets and this article. Sarah 03:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there's a problem with the socks, but I do not think they are the same as Hisham since the socks seem to have a far superior command of English.--Strothra 03:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The latest sock has been blocked by Ryulong Sarah 04:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The website is clearly anti-American and anti-Iranian. But guys, you showed no evidence so far that it promotes terrorism yet you label it as a "terrorist" website. The link added by that user relates directly to the subject of the article. It is not a call tp violance but an article from a different POV about the Iraq-Iran conflict and its relation w/ Ahwaz. Please read it and do not fear about your firewall and anti-virus going off as if it was the case neither Strothra nor me would have read it while still having them on. You could argue using WP:RS and biased source as an argument instead as Ronnotel said but it is clearly not a "terrorist site". Most of the terms used are limited to "resistance" and "liberation". There is no bombing or mass killing mentioned. Please let me know if you got some clear mention to that. I have no particular interest on the issue (or in politics in general) but you guys have participated at the AfD so the idea of a content dispute comes to mind. I hope i was fair. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)Note: This is also used as a source for a statement on Mujahideen Shura Council#Insurgency in Iraq (external link #12). It is also used as an external link in it:Michel Aflaq and is used on 3 pages in ar.wikipedia: ar:العرب وإيران, ar:يهود أشكناز, and an image ar:صورة:Khaled abdelmajid.jpg. Mr.Z-man 03:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal, I understand the content dispute issue, that's why when Strothra raised this with me, I advised him/her to bring it here and why I noted at the top there the AFD and DRV links. Thank you for your comments. Sarah 04:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The behavior of the use in question is another issue but i am going have some sleep in a while. Someone else can please have a gentle word w/ him. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Fayssal. It's clear, however, that it's Ba'athist and supports violence against the Iraqi and US government forces which I think still strongly goes toward the WP:RS and NPOV arguments. I'd hardly call the site a call to peaceful resistance. To be fair to Sarah, the terrorist label was my own - I point that out because you wrote "guys." Please note that I added a level 2 linkspam warning - I'll add a note that the website above is what I'm specifically referring to by it. --Strothra 03:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually i read it in English because it wouldn't make sense if i have read it in Arabic (basing my arguments on a version different than the one you used -the english version). Well, as i said, i am not involved much in politics and i'll leave that to the community though i'd have used WP:RS and biased source to end the story. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. No worries Strothra. I know you and i know Sarah and i know you are acting in good faith as always. It is not personal and i know of course that it was you who used the title but that wasn't my focus. I was more responding to both of your comments in general. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just realized I copied only part of the website address when putting it into my browser and so I kept getting the Arabic main site. I apologize for the confusion.--Strothra 03:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the article itself should be up for deletion, but any severly biased content that was there before should be kept out. Some of the rhetoric you're describing is the same garbage that you'll find in a lot of far-left propaganda(the false parallels between the Third Reich and post-9/11 America), but it's still easy to see why this is more of a Ba'athist site. I assumed it might've been a Sunni jihadist propaganda site as well, until FayssalF pointed out that it was Ba'athist. I added a biased source tag on a site about some far-left political party in Bangladesh a month or so ago. ----DanTD 20:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User calls me a WP:DICK for linking to policy

Recently, User:Rjd0060 called me a dick because I'm linking to policy, and went on to say "Most of us are as familiar (if not more familiar) with these policies/guidelines as you are." When I asked him not to jump to conclusions and make such strong accusations, he went on to say that I was "show[ing] everybody how smart [I am]." (See here for the conversation, which I won't rehash here.) Can someone please jump in here and diffuse the situation before it gets any more out-of-line? I'm extremely busy, and don't want to have to waste Wiki-time (or real-life-time) dealing with an issue that could be diffused by an admin or third party stepping in and asking this user to respect policy and other users. Thanks. --Cheeser1 05:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have explained to the user that it was not intended as a personal attack. If you (admin) think it was, then I guess you can warn/block me. Please go and read the conversations though, as the whole context is not explained here. - Rjd0060 05:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. This is all about whether or not one should link to policies in an AFD debate? Get a grip. Then get a life. You both have wasted too much time on this. It doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong. Just go do something else on Wikipedia. Or, failing that, leave your computers and go do something else in the "real world". Then maybe you'll get some perspective and get over this little squabble.

--Richard 07:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? This is a complaint about a personal attack and abusive comments, not about the issue of linking (yes, it is extraordinarily petty, which is exactly why Rjd0060 was so far out of line for hurling an accusation/attack at me for it). --Cheeser1 07:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

He said he didn't intend a personal attack. What do you want? Rjd0060 please apologise for causing offence. Matter diffused. 08:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.90.193 (talk)

WP:NPA clearly states that the intent (or inability to articulate himself in a way that is not construed as a personal attack) is not relevant: Wikipedia discussions are in a text-only medium that conveys nuances and emotions poorly; this can easily lead to misunderstanding...personal attacks are not excused because of these factors (not to mention the more broad Comment on content, not on the contributor.). And then there's WP:DICK, clearly stating: don't bandy the criticism about lightly. Calling someone a dick because they link to policy "too much" is definitely bandying things about pretty lightly (especially when it's all a product of his bad faith assumption that doing so is an attempt to make myself feel smart). Such a flagrant and inappropriate personal attack / accusation may be worth letting go, but not when the editor in question insists that he has done nothing wrong. --Cheeser1 10:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Must...resist...urge to comment [65] EconomicsGuy 13:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I do apologize that the user interpreted this as a personal attack, as I've said a couple times, that is not how it was intended, at all. I have respected the users wishes and not pursed this anymore (on his talk page) because as he said above, he's to busy to waste his time with this? I will repeat myself one las time and after this, I will not leave any more comments about this, because I do have other things to do: I sincerely apologize for the fact that Cheeser1 misconstrued a comment as a personal attack, but it was a big stretch on his part...IMO anyways. I also believe that this discussion needs to come to an end, so that we don't waste anybody else's time, like this user's. - Rjd0060 14:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on this is a waste of everyone's time. Did you read the part about copeing with being labeled a dick? And this part: "Are you here to contribute and make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault, get your views across, or be the one in control? Perhaps secretly inside you even enjoy the thrill of a little confrontation. This may not make you a bad person, but to everyone who is busily trying to build something great, you become an impediment. People get frustrated, rancor ensues, the atmosphere changes, and the whole project suffers. Are you here to give, or to take?". By bringing this here, it looks like maybe you may be. Jeeny ^(talk) 15:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith. Let's open the door for people to hurl about dick accusations left and right because it's not like anyone respects civility - it's too much of a hassle. --Cheeser1 15:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this thread since I saw it. I think the dick essay is useful for self reflection but should never be used to refer to another editor. It's like placing {{User warning-mentalhealth}} on another editor's user page. But we have an apology, and everybody reading this is now on notice that dicking somebody may be taken as offensive. So don't do it again! -- But|seriously|folks  18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mostly agree with BSf above, however the "apology" seems disingenuous. If I call someone a dick for no reason, and then say, "I'm sorry. . .that you perceive that as an insult" when it is in fact clearly meant to be an insult, well, that's a non-apology. Better to just remove the link and say "I shouldn't have done that" with no apology at all. Overall, I'm pretty disappointed with the general community response here. And also, I think links are helpful, but they are especially appropriate in the AfD which started all of this link because there appears to be more than a couple of single purpose new accounts weighing in there. R. Baley 19:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The apology that I have given, is the only one I am going to give on this matter. It isn't my fault that people cannot take some constructive criticism on things that I have opinions about. Because that is all this is, difference in opinions. I didn't intend it as a personal attack, I think I would know what my intentions were better than anybody else would. So I am not going to apologize for saying it, as some people could benefit from reading that essay. I've apologized for the fact that people misinterpret comments that I've added, but thats it. I will say that had I known the comment would this much nonsense and a trip to ANI, I probably would not have said it. I don't know what this continuous conversation is going to help. - Rjd0060 19:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Onideus - blatant troll violating WP:BLP

Resolved

User:Onideus has just left a nasty little note for me on my Talk Page because I speedy deleted the Onideus Mad Hatter article as an attack article. The little gift on my Talk Page doesn't bother me much except that he seems to be a single purpose account whose purpose is clearly trolling and violating WP:BLP.

I'm torn between trying to explain Wikipedia policy to him and just asking someone to block him as a SPA.

Since I'm now the target of his attack, I think it's best that I just report him here and let a neutral, uninvolved admin deal with him.

Thanx.

--Richard 06:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a review of his contribs will indicate that blocking is clearly called for here. --Richard 06:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Gogo Dodo. Hut 8.5 09:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:butseriouslyfolks - Harassment

Can somebody please show first steps towards bringing a harassment action against User:butseriouslyfolks for his actions on User:StevenBlack and in Lake Ontario Waterkeeper?

Is it possible, in policy, that an admin user be formally removed from interaction with specific users, or topics?

See, with this premature AfD that he instigated, completely disrupting article development, he's evidently not a disinterested party and I see no NPV at all here. Can this topic be confided to watchers in the Environment Project, perhaps? I don't know if User:butseriouslyfolks is qualified to deal with the article's subject matter, or me for that matter.

Please consider this a formal request. StevenBlack 07:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

BSF is an administrator, and even if he weren't, anyone on Wikipedia is "qualified" to deal with anyone else. I don't see how someone can be unqualified to deal with another editor. BSF may have AfD'd the article prematurely, and he has certainly been open to discussion. He has done nothing, as far as I can tell, to harass, attack, or undermine you. On the other hand, you (repeatedly) removed the AfD notice, which is strictly prohibited. He nominated an article for deletion, in good faith. Bad timing, yes, but in good faith, which you're supposed to assume he did. To others, please note the ongoing at the Wikiquette alerts board here, regarding Steven Black's noncompliance with AfD procedures, his comments on BSF's talk page, at the WQA, in his edit summaries, and from the article in question. --Cheeser1 07:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm, BSF's five posts to the thread vs. your 17. Who's harassing who here? JuJube 07:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If anything, my early AfD accelerated development of the article. It was an A7able stub before it was listed for AfD. The author's getting a crash course, but I think he's starting to understand what the deficiencies are and how to go about correcting them. I only wish he would be more civil, but with the volume of stuff I delete, I'm developing quite a thick skin. (Really, it's all skin and no fat. And if you believe that . . . ) -- But|seriously|folks  08:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment; even if the AfD was premature, it did spur people (involved and not yet involved) to jump in and start making sure that the article established if/how the subject met notability policy. I do wonder why Steven Black requires a "crash course" (not to mention why his behavior seems to reflect an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia) - he's been contributing for years. --Cheeser1 08:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is troublesome. Also, I assumed from all of the procedural difficulties that he was new here. -- But|seriously|folks  08:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This editor seriously needs to cool down. Hostility, incivility, personal attacks, and frivolous complaints against others. Perhaps an uninvolved admin would like to assess the situation and take appropriate action, if necessary? --Cheeser1 08:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with butseriouslyfolks stepping back, as I have been requesting for a while now? SarekofVulcan definitely should step back, in my view. StevenBlack 14:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody please show first steps towards bringing a harassment action against User:butseriouslyfolks for his actions on User:StevenBlack and in Lake Ontario Waterkeeper? / Try reading about "WP:RFAr" if you're really interested. ¶ Is it possible, in policy, that an admin user be formally removed from interaction with specific users, or topics? / It's possible for any user to be so removed. ¶ See, with this premature AfD that he instigated... / Er, which "premature AfD"? ¶ Please consider this a formal request. / I don't understand how a series of questions, comments and musings can be a "formal request". Anyway, you make a formal request on some page designed for formal requests. -- Hoary 11:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary. I have left a mediation request with Daniel, the mediation chair. StevenBlack 14:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You do realize you have to be civil with other editors, during mediation? You'll need to improve in this area if you're going to get anything out of mediation. --Haemo 19:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Torchwood

The Torchwood Institute does not exist. Lots of Wikipedia articles write as though it should exist. It is a fantasy. So why write it does? When I tried to fix it they said I was being a vandal. I'm not. I put the template {{bad}} on it, but they took it off and deleted it. Why is everyone out to get me? There's a conspiracy! I am not commiting acts of vandalism, I am correcting errors in an otherwise rather useful encyclopedia. your information on Torchwood-related articles is rather rubbishy and could do with a good cleanup. I say, don't you know? Der loewe schlaft nie!

--Blickmaestro 07:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[66] - You remove just the Torchwood point.

[67] - You remove Torchwood, but leave the very similar Doctor Who point.

[68] - Again, just Torchwood

[69] - Again, leaving Torchwood, but keeping the two Doctor Who points

[70] - Just Torchwood

[71] - Just Torchwood.

Now, here's the kicker - Torchwood is made up. It is just the fantasy of Russell T. Davies on a 15-32 inch screen once every week. So you're not doing a service to the Institute, it's fictional. Either remove all the trivia or none at all. Because they way it looks right now, it seems you're on a systematic campaign to suppress any mention of them. Will ^(talk) 09:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith here, Blick, then I think you are suggesting that the articles are written in an in-universe fashion. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) may be of interest. Typically, articles or sections you feel are written in an in-universe manner should be tagged with {{in-universe}}. Neil ☎ 09:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It is plain from the very first line of the Torchwood Institute article that it's a fictional organisationor is it?. Anyone reading other articles referring to it, if not aware of this, can follow the link to the main article. That is, assuming Wikipedia readers are not so gullible as to believe everything they read. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 13:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also many of the examples removed such as this one are explicitly fictional. This looks to me more like someone who isn't a fan of Torchwood than anythign else. To be clear, Blick whether or not one likes a given spin-off or fictional organization is not connected to whether or not it should be mentioned anywhere. If that sort of thing did matter, I'd probably delete all the articles related to Powerpuff girls. JoshuaZ 17:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd

Revert war going on at this page, the image in question is being removed with claims of BLP breaches. The image contains Labor Premier of Queensland Anna Bligh, 23-year old Nicholas Rudd, federal Labor leader Kevin Rudd, and Grace Grace, Labor MP for Brisbane Central, at Labour Day 2007. I believe it to be completely relevant to the article of Kevin Rudd. I would appreciate assistance and clarification of why this user should be able to remove this fully legitimate image added in good faith? Timeshift 08:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Even though it's in 3RR territory now, it looks to me that the issue is fundamentally a content dispute - you want to keep the picture, and Brendan doesn't. Have you considered starting an RfC?  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  12:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We'll see how common sense and community consensus goes first. The Australian political editors and admins are all more or less aware of this issue. Timeshift 13:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Brendan is clearing his talk page including the AN/I and 3RR tags. Timeshift 14:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Point being? As admin User:Sarah told you here, "Brendan can remove messages from his talk page if he wants to. They remain in the history as a record, so there really isn't a problem with him removing them from his page. In fact, removing messages confirms that you have received them, so the editor cannot claim later that they never saw the warning. If you guys want to continue ... discussing this, I advise you take it to your own pages." --Brendan [ contribs ] 15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Per talk page. Timeshift 15:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ken Macdonald/User:77.101.77.131

Resolved

77.101.77.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is consistently vandalising the Ken Macdonald article, often cliaming to be the subject's son, or writing about the supposed son e.g. [72][73]. Some of this vandalism has been quite sneaky, e.g. [74], changing the article subject's middlename, which took quite a bit of checking to determinethat the original was actually correct. However, it tends to be hit and run vandalism, with a few days between each attack, so despite 2 reports by me to WP:AIAV, the IP has not been blocked. The contribution pattern convices me that only one user is contributing from this address (no useful contributions have been made), the address is assigned to blueyonder, so is probably at least semi-static. One previous 24hr block has been made at the start of the month, but the block was probably over before the user attempted to edit again. In addition to Ken Macdonald, the user has also made repeat attacks on Impetigo and Alan Dicks. Is there any chance of a block of 5 days to a week, which should actually prevent the next attempt, and maybe make the user get bored? David Underdown 08:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually since it's been going on for a month at least I put a month long block on. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Theresa, I seemed to be the only one watching the Ken macdonald article so it was getting a little frustrating. David Underdown 10:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Apelbaum

Serious sockpuppet or meatpuppet problems here. Or WP:COI. Or WP:CIVIL. Take your pick! -- But|seriously|folks  09:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll go with regular sockpuppetry and COI, with a side order of CIVIL.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  12:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Requests for registration

FYI, a user has been waiting for approval on this list for more than 24 hours. The list appears to be only sporadically monitored. Will somebody please add it to their watchlist? Thank you. The Transhumanist    10:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Yabbadabbawho

This user repeatedly makes the same POV edit to Mary I of Scotland. I have given him a welcome, and later a warning, and he deleted the latter from his talk page with an offensive comment. I don't want to be the one to block him - any thoughts on how best to deal with this? Deb 11:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I added another (hopefully friendly) NPOV warning to his talk page. I'd say that if he keeps it up, maybe a sterner warning about NPOV, then perhaps a short block to drive the point home. The account is a little suspicious, though - either he's a quick learner about the intricacies and culture of Wikipedia (account was created on 7 October), or it could be a sock account.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  12:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered about that. Thanks, anyway. Deb 18:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This edit summary is problematic. Corvus cornix 18:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just warned them for it, and for the edit-warring. --John 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about merging without concensus

I cannot find all the relevant diffs. However the issue is the following. I suddenly found one day than an article I was working on, zaojing, had been redirected to another article name Caisson (Asian architecture), without any warning or discussion. The editor had copied material and its associated references from zaojing to Caisson (Asian architecture) which he had been working on and redirected zaojing to his. I inquired on ANI, asking what do to.

• Orignial ANI complaint:[75]. An admin posted on User:PalaceGuard008 talk page that a MERGE process was the method if informal discussion did not reach agreement. He has removed this message from his talk page so I cannot give a diff.

A third party I contacted said that each article name was equally valid and he could not recommend one over the other. He suggested involving other opinions or drawing straws. That message is also removed from PalaceGuard008's talk page so I cannot give a diff. The zaojing article information is focused on a much earlier time frame. Meanwhile, both the other editor and I have been working on our articles, his with the material and references copied from the one I am working on. I researched the article name question and suggested a merge of his article with Coffer as being more appropriate.

Meanwhile, I was distracted by User:Cyborg Ninja who stalked me to the article talk page and entered into the discussion. Cyborg Ninja has since been warned for stalking and personal attacks regarding me, including these posting on the talk page of Caisson (Asian architecture):

• [76]
• [77]
• [78]

Now I find that PalaceGuard008 seems to have responded to Cyborg Ninja's advice and has kept the material and associated references from zaojing incorporated in the article he is working on and removed the MERGE. PalaceGuard008 responded by saying I said the issue was closed. I did not. I was referring to the advice from ANI to use a MERGE, so that issue was closed as the merge templates were in place:

• [79]

So despite my arguments to the contrary on the article talk page including the suggested merge of his article with Coffer, the material and references copied from zaojing remain where palaceGuard008 copied them. I have asked the Architectural portal for advice on correct terminology. The article I was working on zaojing is actually part of a larger article on Ancient Chinese wooden architecture. Not only is the material copied from this article and placed into the one he is working on, but the references he copied are incorrect for the purpose and time frame he is using them for. I reverted the page back to the original status before the incorporation of zaojing material and references and including the MERGE. PalaceGuard008 has reverted to the version including material and references copied from zaojing.

Please advise on how to handle this situation. I would like to get the Architecture portals input as coffer, cupola and other terms are very similar and we need a common understanding. The Wiki Commons also uses the term "round ceiling" and "caisson" interchangeably.

Hope I am stating the situation clearly. Thanks! --Mattisse 12:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I have notified PalaceGuard008 of this ANI posting on his talk page. --Mattisse 12:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there anothr forum I should take this problem to? I don't care anymore about the redirect. I just don't want the copied text and references there. Mattisse 14:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Merges (or unmerges) are best discussed on the talk page of the destination article. If the content should come out because it doesn't make the destination article a better article, it should be discussed on the talk page of the article it is in. If you want it removed because you were the original author, you should read the GFDL and realize that it ceased being solely yours the instant you pressed the "save" button; see also WP:OWN, and what is needed is 1) in the history of the merged to article an edit summary indicating that material was merged from the original source and 2) {{R from merge}} on the redirect. If you just need a third opinion, use the WP:3O or WP:RFC processes to gain ourside comment. GRBerry 19:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks question

I asked a question recently about User:Cyborg Ninja's personal attacks and stalking of me. As a result, she was issued a warning by an admin:

• [80]

Cyborg Ninja disputted the warning, so the admin issued a further explanation:

• [81]

However, Cyborg Ninja continues her personal attacks on me on her talk page. In response to an editor's suggestion that she have a "Fresh start", she replies by repeating the personal attacks on me.

• [82]

Is this allowed? It is her talk page, but she is continuing the stalking for which she was given a warning. Thanks, --Mattisse 12:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't read like personal attacks to me. Neil ☎ 12:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

More like sour grapes on the part of the complainer here, imo. --Martin Wisse 13:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess you mean me. Sour grapes for what? Yesterday she was warned by admin for stalking me and posting personal attacks on me on others talk pages and discussion pages, but the links above indicate she is still stalking me. Maybe you are saying that I am being oversensitive. It is just that she already did a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2 over one incident that received no support whatsoever. I do wish she would stop stalking me. However, the talk page complaints indicate she still is stalking me. That is my problem. But I will try to be less sensitive. Thanks! Mattisse 15:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should be happy that I am so darn interesting to someone that they bother to stalk me! In my real life, I do not command such interest! Mattisse 15:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at this please

I am supposed to be writing my thesis so I dont have time to keep any eye on him: [83]. Thanks. Viridae^Talk 12:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, thats unusal, perhaps a username block is necessary, name matching what they added suggests a role account.--Jac16888 13:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I found it unsual that there was only one post, so I am giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming they though fys may have been interested...? Viridae^Talk 13:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I know, i din't mean they should be blocked straight away, it was just a suggestion for if they continued, could some form of soapboxing. Now get back to your thesis--Jac16888 14:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Visca el Barca's userpage

Resolved

Can someone please pay attention to the userpage of Visca el barca (talk · contribs); there are several statements which are outright derrogatory, and several which are pure trolling, and explain him what Wikipedia is about. As I was involved in several disputes with him, I would rather not leave an impression of impropriety. Duja► 13:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

WTF is all that junk on that page? I think this could actually be a violation of home-land security laws in the United States as the message clearly supports a well known terrorist. Plus, it's extremely inflammatory, and trust me, I'm very hard to inflame. That rubbish doesn't need to be in any respectable encyclopedia and I encourage it be deleted due to obvious trolling. 68.143.88.2 13:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with above, that is not something we want on Wikipedia. I think we should do a checkuser (just to be safe and see where this person is, be it some kid at a school or an adult) and delete the userpage outright. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 13:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh. Very blatant trolling, IMHO. I support the page-blanking.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  13:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User's been blocked indef, obviously (not by me, I got beaten to the block). Apart from the junk on his userpage his edits consisted almost entirely of POV-pushing via edit-warring on Bosnia-related articles, and goodness knows we don't need more disruptive, tendentious editors in that corner of the encyclopedia. Moreschi ^Talk 14:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

After seeing this, I was about to do the same, but it would have been kinda lame 7 days after; thanks to the rouge colleagues for stepping in anyway. Duja► 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The slogan goes like "Visca el Barça!! Visca Catalunya!!. I thought the user was a Catalan nationalist until i realized it was not the case. So from the username you can understand that this is a troll. At least if i were a Catalan i'd have protested against my favorite rite being used as a trolling tool. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

State Flags on Radio Market Templates

Resolved

User:Rfc1394 is adding animated state flags to radio market templates in several states. These appear to be good faith edits, but they flags are against rules. I will do my best to revert, but if someone could, please, give me a hand, I would greatly appericate it. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 13:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Goodness - he's been busy. Yeah, I can help out.  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  13:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help :) - NeutralHomer ^T:C 13:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure.  :)  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  14:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ban IP 216.56.26.2

Resolved

This IP (Special:Contributions/216.56.26.2)has a long history of vandalism according to his contibutions page. Can he be banned, we had to revert his changes several times yesterday on the Woody Guthrie page. Dannygutters 14:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a shared IP belonging to a school so the vandalism is highly unlikely to be by the same user. I'll put an anon block on it for 6 months. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc frivolous 3RR warnings

Callmebc (talk · contribs) issued frivolous 3RR warnings to me for 1 rv [84] and Jmcnamera [85] for 2 rv. This somewhat dilutes the meaning of 3RR warnings. (SEWilco 16:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

I added a note to his talk page, advising that he disengage from the apparent revert war (as you also should do), and discuss on the talk page, submit a request for comment, or come discuss the matter here. Cheers  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  17:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think this is so frivolous actually. I was under the impression that 3RR still applies even if it's gamed, and given SEWilco's edit history, and most especially Jmcnamera's, it can hardly be considered a "frivolous" warning. Why don't we just let the Admins decide how frivolous it is if I do end up having to go ahead with the 3RR -- I will provide some evidence for my claims. -BC aka Callmebc 17:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As stated in the Talk page, we've been waiting for him to continue the discussion at Talk:Killian documents and Talk:Killian documents authenticity issues. He's instead trying to fluff up the summary in this other article with material which he is not discussing in the main articles on the topic. (SEWilco 17:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, there is no "discussion" going on Talk:Killian documents and Talk:Killian documents authenticity issues because SEWilco and a little army of sockpuppets, meatpuppets, and anonymous IP addresses don't actually "discuss" anything -- it's all about obstruction and gaming. Go look at the history of the "Mother's Day" insert that SEWilco made a while back for instance: an unsupported anecdote written by some supposed ex-service buddy of Bush, William Campenni, that appeared in a conservative/right wing newspaper, the Washington Times. Every single major point in the anecdote is contradicted by official DoD records. If this was a normal, less-political article, it would have been enough to just point out that it was just an anecdote from an unreliable source in order to have it removed, never mind having it completely contradicted by official military records. But the Killian wikis are not normal articles, so a massive, utterly absurd revert war resulted that spilled over between the two main Killian wikis. Just look at SEWilco's last series of comments following yet another summary of the problems with the Mother's Day anecdote: [86].

Those are not the comments of someone genuinely interested in actually "discussing" anything, nor are they of someone genuinely interested in "improving" an article. Likewise with the Killian section at United States journalism scandals -- he's already reverted back yet again to a laughably POV'd older version with the pretense that it's actually a shorter "summary" and with, of course, no real discussion on the Talk page [87], just cryptic comments related to the other wiki's but not the one that the Talk page is for. I have to wait for another day to deal further with this, but in the mean time, curious and hopefully responsible Admins might want to check out this little, um, "cautionary tale" I had put on my Talk page [88]. -BC aka Callmebc 18:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Regiment

Resolved

Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This user has been causing a disruption on Template:Racism topics. He insists upon adding three articles to the template even though he has been asked multiple times by multiple editors for documentation which he has yet to provide. He has stated that the articles list the groups/ideologies as racist but the articles only state that some small groups which are at best polar opposites consider them racist if anything at all. He has been reported at the 3RR noticeboard once for a violation in spirit if not in letter of the 3RR rule and he recieved a 3 hour block. Since his block has expired he has made three more reverts on the page. Most concerning about this individual is his use of abusive language in accusing editors and Wikipedia in general of racism. CJ 17:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

After I made this post, I checked the page again. And Regiment is now in violation of 3RR. CJ 17:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins, see here. Also, check the talk page. His "posse" has tried to practice apologetics, before getting me blocked, then asking for sources afterwards, then disagreeing with the nature of the source I MIGHT provide, even though Mexica Movement already describes the racial supremacism inherent within their agenda, even though some editors have refused to include statements from critical sources which use the term itself, "racist", in their criticism of Mexica. Who says that articles like that have to be sanitized? Who says that White people can't complain when Mexica treats them like shit? Its all edit warring now, since he has refused to accept sources from people he doesn't like. CNN isn't a good enough source? What about YouTube recordings of Mexica demonstrations and hate marches? That's plainly wrong right there. He doesn't really want to hear the other side, but he wants you to bully me. He set up the revert war just so I'd bite the bait and break the 3RR, but he's a vandal in my eyes and Wikipedia deserves to be an NPOV community. Regiment 17:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur CJ 17:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have chosen to not be NPOV and freely admitted it several times. Regiment 17:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside view: From a look at the related talk page section, editors asked for sources to indicate that the additions to the template were proper, were told they were being politically correct, and then declared to be "ideologically aligned" with the groups in question. YouTube videos are not considered a reliable source, as was pointed out on the talk page. Regiment appears to need to review Assume Good Faith and WP:CIVIL at the least, provide reliable sources for his/her argument, and really consider that coming off a block for disruption only to go on and do the thing he was blocked for (violating 3RR in the process) once again is probably not a good idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Another outside view: both have broken 3RR. I think the page needs bit of protection to let the war cool off a bit. Spryde 18:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If I've inadvertently broken 3RR, although I don't think I have because all I've done is remove unsourced content, then I'll take whatever comes. All I've asked for from the very beginning is a source and some civility. CJ 18:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Regiment is engaging in revisionist history. With the very first removal of his additions to the template (at 5:40 on 22 October), Crownjewel82 left a message on the Talk page (at 5:46) asking for "some clearer documentation of a specific racist agenda". Another message before Regiment's 3-hour block asked for WP:RS and explained that adding articles to the template without them was WP:OR. After his block, I left another such message at Template talk:Racism topics and a longer message at User talk:Regiment#Template:Racism topics. In the message at his Talk page, I again explained WP:RS and WP:OR; I also wrote about WP:AGF and the proper approach to getting his articles into the template if, in fact, they belong there. His claim that nobody told him he needed sources until after he was blocked is pure nonsense, and his behavior today is unacceptable after several editors have gone to such lengths to explain appropriate WP process to him. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 18:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• This user has now been blocked for a week following a report at AN3. The reasons for the block given [89] were deliberately breaking the 3RR having just come off a block for a previous 3RR violation, POV pushing and personal attacks concerning other editor's motives. I also noted that he did not constructively engage in discussion of the disputed edits. In short, we don't do it like this (well we shouldn't anyway) and I chose a length of block designed to clearly signal that the behaviour isn't acceptable and will not be tolerated. As with all my admin actions, this is open to comment, review and adjustment by others. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

75.162.105.19 (talk · contribs) on Andrew J. Moonen

Hi, Merope asked me to post this here after a WP:AIV report. This IP has advocated "vigilante" action against a BLP article subject here, and is making other incendiary edits with this summary. I'm not sure if any action should be taken but wanted to bring it up here just in case. • Lawrence Cohen 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

HaggerdlyOldMan (talk · contribs)

We all know "Hagger?????????????????" is constantly used by vandal Grawp. This account was UAA'd but declined. He has not responded to my comments and has not made any edits since he registed. Anyone think sleeper account? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I would watch the account. I though "Haggerd" was the correct spelling ("Haggard" is I have since found out). I have heard of a lot of people call themselves similar things so I would merely watch and wait. If they contribute positively, super! If not, the +10 sword of blocking, dicing and julienning can be used. Spryde 21:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm suspicious. Most people with any self-esteem wouldn't describe themselves as "haggard". -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to watch Haggerdoldman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), created on 10/8. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey bull, you're not a Merle Haggard fan? I think he's great! --SGT Tex 21:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I declined the UAA report as there have been zero contributions and they could easily be good-faith accounts created by someone who doesn't spell well. I am watching for contributions from the first account and the second now, too. There have been HAGGER socks active since Haggerdoldman was created (Oct 8) which I hope means that it has nothing to do with HAGGER. But these socks are extremely disruptive. We could block the accounts and use a personal message explaining why (rather than {{subst:unb}}. I'd like more input here. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should wait and see if the account becomes a problem. I also think people are starting to jump at shadows here. --Carnildo 23:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Do ya? Well, what if I told you that checking up on this report indicated that the following were all the same person?

1. Wutizevrybudylookingat? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Haggerdoldman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Saidpenny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Untilwhen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. Darkranch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Givesnaked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. Givesnake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. Iamzlookinatyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. Poetboats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
10. Giantgrawp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Oops, look at that last one. Quick, get the spray gun! (I've not blocked 'em yet). However, that being said...HaggerdlyOldMan isn't a 100% certain match as the rest of these are, but is indeed highly suspicious. So yeah, keep a close eye on him. And leave me a note if he starts acting up. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So HaggerdlyOldMan is not related? –Crazytales talk/desk 01:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

He's suspicious, but he isn's as much of a slam dunk as everyone else. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've blocked all of the above, with the exception of HaggerdlyOldMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). However, If someone wanted to block that account, too, I'd be ok with that. I have tagged them as socks of User:Grawp.-- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please block User:207.197.77.194 and delete all of their edits from the history?

User:207.197.77.194 has been adding somebody else's phone number to a large number of articles, that needs to get out of the history of the articles. Corvus cornix 21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Snocrates on Laie Hawaii Temple

User:Snocrates is unilaterally deleting historically relevant content from Laie Hawaii Temple without discussion. He refused to discuss his reverts on the talk page, instead referring to me as a "dimwit" when I contacted him on his talk page,[90] claiming that I'm the one who needs to discuss his deletions.[91] Now that he has finally arrived on the talk page, he is insisting that structure-related articles cannot have history sections. —Viriditas | Talk 21:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at this. It's mostly a content dispute where (IMO), Snocrates has appropriately explained his removal of the history section. Unless I missed something, he's not saying that history doesn't belong in architectural articles, just that the history in this article doesn't belong. He was uncivil in that edit summary and I'll leave a comment for him on his talk page about that. Hopefully this helps. Into The Fray ^T/C 23:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Snocrates didn't "appropriately explain his removal of the history section" until 21:33 on October 24. Prior to that, between 21:24, 23 October and 20:02 and 21:31 24 October, he failed to use the talk page. User:Snocrates deleted your message[92] claiming that he had "civilly asked" me not to edit his talk page. You will not be able to find any such message because he never made such a request. I watch the Hawaii recent changes watchlist very closely for vandalism, and after seeing Snocrates delete content from Laie Hawaii Temple without explanation on the talk page several times, I contacted him at 21:38, 24 October 2007.[93]. Apparently, during the time I was writing this message, he added a comment to the talk page at 21:33, approximately five minutes previous to my posted comment.[94] Nothing was said about editing his talk page. At 21:39, 24 October 2007 he deleted my message with the comment "Undid revision 166840410 by Viriditas (talk) already placed discussion on talk page, dimwit". After you warned him about civility, he replied, "what is my alternative when people choose to edit this page when I have civilly asked them not to? "pretty please"?[95] Contrary to Snocrates's claim, no such action by Snocrates ever occurred or was recorded in any edit history or summary. It is also important to point out that Snocrates's first edit to Wikipedia was to declare himself an "exopedian" who is "extrememly uninterested in trying to talk with other users here or on other talk pages".[96] This seems to go against the basic, fundamental Wikipedia idea of collaboration and is not conducive to editing. Further, looking at Snocrates (talk · contribs) in depth, I see a continuing pattern of deletion without discussion related to LDS articles. This needs to be looked into by other administrators. —Viriditas | Talk 03:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to do a range block?

Ras Kass is being hit by really offensive vandalism. It started with 142.29.133.72 (talk · contribs) who has had multiple warnings, and is now switched to 142.29.133.47 (talk · contribs), and then back to the original vandal again. I don't know how range blocks work, but would it be possible to range block the IPs in their range for an hour or two? Corvus cornix 21:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nasty stuff. Blocked the /24 for a few hours. Raymond Arritt 22:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Corvus cornix 22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Conservative321

Conservative321 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly changing BCE to BC and CE to AD in articles, is blanking articles about gay topics, is repeatedly removing references to global warning and greenhouse gases, all without discussion (even going so far as to changing references to BCE in Talk pages that were put there by other users). I'm on uw-v3 on him/her, I tried to point them to the MoS discussion on dates, but they are either not reading their Talk page, or are ignoring it. With a User name like this, it looks like they've come here with an agenda, does somebody want to be less brusque with them than I usually am? I do try to be helpful, but sometimes I come across as more incivil than I intend to be... Corvus cornix 22:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, other people have reverted their edits over the last couple of days, but nobody made any comments on Conservative321's Talk page explaining the problem with their edits. Better communication, hm, people? Corvus cornix 22:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that this [97] can be taken as a response to Corvos' notifications and clear explanation of policy regarding ... what do I call it? ... year labelling conventions?ThuranX 23:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, that's a meaningful response. Thanks for the heads up. I guess I'll have to continue with a uw-v4 next time, followed up by a WP:AIV report, if they continue. Corvus cornix 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

When you file reports at AIV or elsewhere you should point out that this likely is the same person as Conservative765 (talk · contribs). Raymond Arritt 04:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Gee, the username isn't that big of a hint towards their objective? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

user:Sarvagnya's deletion of Talk:India page content

• Earlier today I made this post on the Talk:India page about some potential problems I foresaw with the rotation of images being currently tried in two sections of the India page. (I had earlier organized the straw poll for/against this rotation here.)
• Almost immediately after I made the post, user:Sarvagnya deleted it in this edit, with edit summary, "this is a discussion page. not a blog. blogs are free, go find one and record your idle musings about your "vivid experiences" with encarta or whatever."
• user:Sarvagnya's edit was soon reverted here by user:Dwaipayanc, however, user:Sarvagnya re-reverted here with edit summary, "rv abuse of talk page. see WP:TALK and WP:NOT."

This is not the first time user:Sarvagnya has done this to my Talk:India posts.

• He deleted my post there in late August 2007, (see here).
• He then made a post in early September 2007 on the Talk:India page here, which ended with, "For now, I reject all of Fowler's filibustering as nonsense. Can somebody tell me why I shouldnt delete all his nonsense as rank abuse of a talk page?"
• This in turn elicited a polite but firmly opposing response here from user:Abecedare.
• However, when user:Sarvagnya persisted in the very next post here and, moreover, accused me of "defecating all over the talk page," he brought on a more aggressive response here from user:Hornplease, who threatened to report user:Sarvagnya to Wikiquette alerts.
• I should add that user:Sarvagnya is less than forgiving when he is at the receiving end; my edit once here that merely put his out-of-chronological order interruption in proper chronological order, elicited this response from him, with edit summary, "i will add my comment where I think fit.. stop moving other people's comments around!"

If user:Sarvagnya has some genuine complaint against me, he should pursue it in the relevant Wikipedia forums, but I am tired of his deleting talk page content. Some one needs to warn him in no uncertain terms that this can't go on. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As a comment, this was also posted on WQA here, which seems a reasonable place for it. (And there's a response there). In the future, please don't cross-post. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:28736285Bimbo0129547623094Wales

Resolved

 – Blocked, as were subsequent socks

Would somebody kindly block 28736285Bimbo0129547623094Wales (talk · contribs)? Thank you. Corvus cornix 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If This account was only created today, why are they able to do page moves already? Is it because the pages being moved are in User space? Corvus cornix 22:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there's no autoconfirm requirement for general page moves... — Scientizzle 22:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[98] :*Cough* Gah! 3 edit conflicts Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Anything with "Bimbo Wales" in the name can be hardblocked on sight as User:Connell66 socks, according to the response to an IP check I filed. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I added "Bimbo Wales" to the blacklist for that username-watching bot thingy yesterday, so they should generally get taken out pretty quickly. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm also adding the sockpuppet notes as per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#Bimbo Wales. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Corvus, i thought you were already an admin! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. :). Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah.  :) I don't really want to be, either. Thanks. Corvus cornix 22:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy

Please take a look at Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. Editor Eleemosynary continues to remove information just because he disagrees with it. There are cited United States Army memos, in PDF format, being cited. These are RS and perfectly valid. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Content issue. Please discuss on the talk page or pursue a content RFC or third opinion. (However, one might wish to take a lesson from the Killian documents fiasco and wait to see if these pdf's from the drudge report ever get authenticated. ) Thatcher131 02:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's more than a content issue. Eleemosynary has continued to lob personal attacks at User:Bluemarine (a.k.a. Matt Sanchez) long after that user stopped contributing to the article. These are homophobic attacks designed at discrediting the Bluemarine through Bluemarine's past experience in the gay porn industry. Eleemosynary has engaged in these personal attacks in edit summaries [99] [100]. I gave a polite warning to Eleemosynary regarding the homophobic violations of WP:NPA, but Eleemosynary called this "nonsense" and "trolling," [101] and instead decided to use even harsher and more homophobic language. (A prior warning was given in the context of a debate, and this not as polite: [102].)

In the past few hours, Eleemosynary has twice called Sanchez "Dirty Sanchez," [103] [104] a homophobic slur, one made to associate Mr. Sanchez with homosexuality and certain sexual acts that some people find rather disgusting and/or laughable. Contrary to Eleemosynary's claims, it is not a nickname given to Sanchez in the porn industry, where he did not use his own name, according to the article at Matt Sanchez. It was instead given to him by those who wished to defame him. Eleemosynary feigns ignorance of what "Dirty Sanchez" means, but one look at his history reveals his true nature. I have been very patient with his homophobia, but how many times must he be warned and his attacks tolerated before action is taken? Calbaer 04:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Reign of Terror

Resolved

Please lock the Reign of Terror. Its being repeatedly vandalized by non-users. AllStarZ 23:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week. Please refer to WP:RFPP next time. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee (From COI/N & BLP/N)

Copied as posted to BLP/N, where it was referred from COI/N.

Yesterday, new editor User:Shogun108 arrived, stating his declaritive intent to clean up the article[105]. I tried to clarify things about how we work via citation and consensus, but he was adamant that most o the stuff should be folded into 'political positions' or lost because it was negative about HuckabeeTalk:Mike_Huckabee#New_Editor_on_a_mission.. This AM, I found the following section, Talk:Mike_Huckabee#Regarding_new_editors, which explains that Shogun108 is one of a group now actively campaigning to 'fix' the article. They were solicited to fix it. One editor actively solicits peopel to become editors to game consensus: "Better yet, since edits run by consensus at Wikipedia, the best case scenario is for SEVERAL editors to keep the Huckabee entries honest. If only ONE editor from "here" changes things, the trolls will gather support and beat the one editor down. The rules are very loosey goosey over there. I've fought the good fight on several issues, and unless I get support, the lefties will gang up on you. " That editor's comment match this edit[106] by User:Mactogrpaher right down to the rationale and comments on the message board. Although Shogun108's comments seem less absolutist, he is still here as an SPA whose only edits are about Huckabee, and who came here specifically to 'clean up' the Huckabee page after solicitation off-wiki. Further, mactographer's comments indicate a generally dismissive tone about WIkipedia, so it is unlikely he will actively work to conform to our standards, and again, a solicited editor. I further wonder if Mactographer's open call to flood the page doesn't count as recruiting Meat Puppets. Thanks for reviewing this. Additionally, two editors at COI/N found this report credible, as seen here Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Specific_off-wiki_campaign_to_purge_Mike_Huckabee_of_criticism.. Shogun108 is proving to be a SPA as well, please see his contribs: Special:Contributions/Shogun108. // ThuranX 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Further still, there is an IP into the mix now who seems to self-identify as Mactographer, but who can sometimes be bothered to sign in, and other times not. I'm Assuming AGF, and posting this here for ease of reading the releveant sections. I don't hink he's seriously trying any SOCK-ing with that, but that 24.6 IP is his.

I brign this here because although it got reviewing support at COI/N, BLP/N has been silent, and I'd like to cut this off fast. Extortionistic behvaiors like 'you better keep that other page the way I say, or I'll do what I want here' is NOT how we do things. Beyond that, I think the evidence above is quite clear. ThuranX 23:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had some good discussions with ThuranX and I seem to get along fine with him/her. However, I think the statements suggested here and the organized cabal is a bit of a stretch at this time. I was part of the discussion and I read the "extortionistic" behavior completely different and did not take it that way at all. I'm not saying that ThuranX is wrong, perhaps (s)he's had more experience with picking out such behavior but I'm just not seeing it yet. Morphh ^(talk) 2:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Active CANVASsing off-wiki to force POV edits into an article by getting new editors to constitute a new consensus is a problem. Demanding that I personally assure the state of another article, or else he'll do stuff to the Huckabee article? That reads like an extortion attempt to me. It's a stupid and crass attempt, one without teeth or credibility, but all the same, nothing like that should be alloweed to stand, and no editor should take it, nor any article be vulnerable to it.

More to the point, this campaign will continue, and Admins need to jump in now to help protect articles from such POV warriors. ThuranX 03:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any force POV edits and I haven't seen any force for a new consensus. I see a blog that is concerned about the neutrality of the article and discussing it, with a couple of editors working to address what they believe is bias. This is how many contributors start in Wikipedia, via articles of interest. I don't see any extortion. He didn't demand the article stay any particular way or that ThuranX keep it that way. He only stated that if a justification was used to remove an image on several articles, that if that justification was invalid on the other article, he would revert the removal on the discussed article. I'm wondering who the POV warriors really are... Morphh ^(talk) 3:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Trolling and vandalism

This troll who is posting here at the ANI has been very active at WP:RFCN. This is one of the cases reported before withdrawing it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User:78.146.211.125

Resolved

Already in violation of 3RR & has recently vandalised my warning on Talk:Blizzard Entertainment. Could we have a block please? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

User:86.142.155.71

Resolved

History of vandalism this evening. Just blanked IP report from his talk page. Already warned. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 00:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place for reporting standard vandalism, you're supposed to give the full set of warnings, then, if the vandalism continues, report them at WP:AIV--Jac16888 00:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Long-time infobox disrupter

Resolved

74.12.148.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has for months (under other anonymous IPs as well) disrupted infoboxes. The pattern of edits is always the same. S/he removes captions in the infobox, removes references in the infobox, removes the country name in the place of birth/death, replaces birthdate/deathdate templates with sole dates, or adds a fair use picture in the infobox when a fair use photo cannot be used. Could some admins warn the user about their behavior? It's been going on for far too long. 140.247.131.86 01:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

 Note: Blocked by Riana (talk · contribs) for vandalism. ( arky ) 03:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Race warrior

The Murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom has been a contentious entry, to say the least. Things have been relatively calm lately, until this edit. Its obviously inappropriate and has since been removed by another editor. I threw a final warning down on his talk page, but is this kind of edit ever acceptable. There's race baiting, clear WP:CIVIL violations, and a vague threat (which he did remove). His other contributions for the most part seem to be linking various celebrities to various ethnic groups, and he tried to do something on the page for Nazism (red flag)... but isn't this the kind of editor who should be banned on sight? AniMate 01:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In case it wasn't obvious, this report is about Mortifer. AniMate 01:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)