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

Threats to exterminate me, overdose of lead etc. on my User pages

Hi, I checked my User page and talk page today and found it had some very nasty edits made, threats, wanting me exterminated and given an overdose of lead and so on.

I have now undone the edits but they remain in the history record so I reckon right now it will be easy enough for someone to undo my undones and restore the abusive edits so it is not a satisfactory situation right now to say the least.

This is my user page and my user talk page - Peter Dow (talk)

The abusive and threatening edits have been made both by unsigned IPs interspersed with signed edits by one user called GeorgeFormby1

This is one such edit by IP of my user page to illustrate -

diff [1] IP 82.17.219.182

Helo, my name is peter dow and im a retard, i am a pathetic 47 year old nobody who has committed high treason against the Crown and should be traked down by mi5 and exteminatid.

The abusive threatening edits to my user talk page are

diff [2] IP 86.132.166.95

PETER DOW IS A MENTALLY ILL, DELOUSIONARY FRUITCAKE WHO NEEDS TO BE LOCKED UP FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.166.95 (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

and

diff [3] by IP 82.17.219.182

....Including, of course, the Queen and the entire Royal Family, When a government with some balls gets to power he'll get an overdose of lead-Duce Fox, Defender of the Realm and Crown 22:18, 12 August 3008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.219.182 (talk)

The pattern of edits on my user page done by IP 82.17.219.182 can be seen here [4] and you can see that that IP has been used for the abusive edits of my Peter Dow user page, and to edit, I presume, the culprit GeorgeFormby1's own user page. So if he thinks he is covering his tracks entirely by making unsigned edits he is mistaken.

The edits made by IP 86.132.166.95 [5] are not yet directly associated with anything else that I can see but it looks like the same guy in my opinion based on the timings of the edits - within a few days of each other.

So I need some administrator help to prevent this very malicious, abusive and threatening edits to my user page and to my user talk page.

I am quite new to Wikipedia and as a newcomer, it seems to be with Wikipedia user pages, is that, it is impossible for the user to protect his or her user pages from abusive and threatening changes - is that right? There is no way actually to take username ownership of your user page, to stop such horrible edits, is there?

So I don't know what action one can take - except initially to report the problem to the administrators. Do you ban editing from troublesome IPs? Well perhaps we can get to the solution once an administrator takes a look at the problem.

Thanks for looking at this and for helping as much as you can.

Peter Dow (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the edits have been oversighted (removed) from your talkpage history. Under the circumstances, the persons able to remove the edits are also likely to be looking at limiting such edits in future so I think this matter can be closed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me LessHeard vanU but the history of both my user page and user talk page seemed unchanged when I revisited those pages - no oversight removal of history edits which I could see - are we looking at the same Peter Dow (talk) pages? Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would advise you to request semi-protection of both pages at WP:RFPP to avoid such things from happening again. It is completely allowed to request such protection :-) SoWhy 13:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks SoWhy for the tip about semi-protection. I will now investigate that and take any action I can to protect my user pages. :) Peter Dow (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put level 3 warnings on both IPs talkpages. If you want to complain to the ISP the July vandalism on your talk page was from a BT IP - their complaint address is [email protected] and you need to send them this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Dow&diff=next&oldid=224544960. The August vandalism to your user page was from an NTL/Virgin IP address and their complaint line is [email protected] you'd need to send them this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APeter_Dow&diff=231534955&oldid=216438185 ref. Hope that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 13:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh. lol Thanks WereSpielChequers Peter Dow (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection will block any IP address from making any changes to your pages. Meanwhile, I'm wondering what an "overdose" of lead would be? That is, what would be a "normal" dose of lead? Anyway, if a registered user similarly vandalizes your pages, you could also get swift action by taking it to WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Overdose of lead" likely refers to shooting him or her with a gun (with lead bullets). It's a common expression. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha, as in "I'll fill ya full o' lead." Not good. And then there's the "exterminate" part, which means the authors probably watch too much Dr. Who. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Of the two the one I find more worrying is Special:Contributions/82.17.219.182. From the other contribs it could well be connected to user:GeorgeFormby1, who in any event has a user page that I would suggest an admin look at. I'm not necessarily saying that fans of Mussolini should be banned from Wikipedia, but threats of violence? ϢereSpielChequers 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like user:GeorgeFormby1 has anything to do with this. He simply removed an offensive sentence, which he may have spotted on RC patrol. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You think? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was these three diffs that made me suspect that user:GeorgeFormby1 might be connected to the vandalising IP. ϢereSpielChequers 18:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/user:GeorgeFormby1 submitted. I hope I only made one mistake in it. ϢereSpielChequers 14:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that this should be left open until the checkuser case is resolved. —Sunday ^Scribe 23:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GeorgeFormby1 has been investigated and closed, user:GeorgeFormby1 was using one of those IPs and is indefinitely blocked and his IP address blocked for a month. Hopefully that will end the matter, but I'd suggest an admin put appropriate notices on the blocked account then this thread can be closed. ϢereSpielChequers 06:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-semitic remarks and edits

I feel this comment by user:Puttyschool was completely inappropriate: "it is WikipediA not JpediA" - after this editor wrongly assumed that the Jerusalem Post is "for Jews only."[6]

I'm very new to Wikipedia, and these comments are completely unacceptable and incomprehensible in an environment which prides itself on promoting civility. I am trying to be very civil, but I find these anti-semitic and ignorant statement to be completely repugnant, and I'm not sure how to handle it appropriately. I feel that this person should perhaps be warned and watched due to their anti-semitic slurs and multiple reverts along those same lines.

I have seen quite a bit of anti-semitic attacks on both my user page[7] and one of the main articles[8][9] in which I have been editing. It is my hope that Wikipedia will take a firm stand against this serious problem.--Einsteindonut (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A message has been left for Puttyschool on his talk page. You might want to request that your user page be semi-protected if you feel it is a target for vandalism. All the best, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Erik, I will consider your advice and appreciate your action though I don't think I am able to see the message you left for him?--Einsteindonut (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:Puttyschool#JPedia. Corvus cornix_talk 03:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A relevant question

I don't agree with the revert of course but what would I say if someone said "this is Wikipedia, not Islamopedia/Hindupedia/etc"? I've heard these many times onwiki but would I leave a warning (stating that the remark was offensive) at their talk page just for saying that?

So why is it considered anti-semitism? Why that was considered offensive? Could you guys explain further? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 09:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an anti-semitic statement since the "J" clearly stands for "Jew" - and because Putty made the statement that he believe the Jerusalem Post is "just for Jews." It's an assumption that "Jews are trying to take over Wikipedia" and put their "Jewish" POV into it. It's highly offensive and completely anti-semitic. I don't fling around that term lightly. I believe the majority of Jewish people would agree. And by "anti-semitic" I mean that it inherently expressing hatred and/or disdain toward Jews. I would never use the other terms you mention when dealing with an Muslim or Hindu editor because I would never judge any editor based upon their religion, as this comment CLEARLY does. I find it troubling that I'd would have to explain this to what appears to be an admin with the power to block people. Do you feel it is OK to make comments about editors and their work here based upon their religion? Or to assume that their religion is taking over Wikipedia to the point that stating "this is not Jewish Pedia" is acceptable? I find it extremely unsettling that you don't comprehend this and no one else (with the exception of Aharon) understands. If I said something to the effect of "this isn't "Palipedia" to some Palestinian trying to make an edit, my guess is that I would be blocked and banned for hate speech. The double standards here are appalling and extremely unsettling. Regarding a comment about the threat of a lawsuit below, it was a remark in general. I'm not threatening to sue anyone in particular. I was upset at the time for various reasons. I certainly think that some of the misinformation on Wikipedia with regard to people, situations, and organizations is certainly someone's responsibility. When things are highly inaccurate and possibly defamatory on such a notable site as Wikipedia, I would think that those entities might wish to consider legal action. That's all I was saying. Not against any editors in particular but against Wikipedia in general, perhaps. Again---not a threat. But what are people and organizations to do when Wikipedia completely gets stories wrong? What if the information on Wikipedia leads to damage a person or institution's reputation and/or earning potential? What if information on Wikipedia puts lives at risk? Is any of that explained to all these editors here? I'm not a legal expert and I'm not sure about legal recourse, but I'm just asking. I fail to see how such a small statement with regard to legal action should be considered should be taken as a "threat." I just think Wikipedia editors and admins should be far more responsible, especially when it comes to allegations of "Jews taking over Wikipedia" (ie. "Jpedia")--Einsteindonut (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly an unacceptable thing to say of course. Puttyschool should stop immediately and refrain from using such remarks or he would get blocked. But believe me, not all people would call it "anti-semitism." Other people of different confessions may get offended if someone would use something like "hindupedia", "islamopedia", "hamaspedia", etc. That happens here and we just call that "incivility." It has been discussed several times here and unfortunately there has never been someting clear. I hope people would get to a resolution. My point is that we should be firm in dealing with all this BS (with no double standards of course). All we want is a better atmosphere. That is my point and that is why we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.

On the other hand, I'd like you try to wp:assume good faith. If I had to block your second account it is because leaving an account previously blocked and starting a new one can be seen as avoiding scrutiny. If everybody does so then it would be impossible to manage Wikipedia. And of course, you were not the only person I check-usered. In parallel, I'm finished here, since "faysal" blocked me is sad because first, we don't want people to leave just for the sake of leaving and second, because I never blocked you. I blocked your second account. You were pissed off and that I understand (and I didn't consider any of what you said as legal threat - it happens) but that doesn't mean you are correct and right (saying thanks you and fuck you). Really Einsteindonut, we try to avoid the words enemy and evil. pathetic. I had offered you my help but you chose to not assume good faith. You'd have already been blocked because of all that but admins have used their cool sense. I hope this is clear.

Again, I suggest that you better think about the message I left for you on your talk page. That has been sincere and I am not interested in wasting neither my time nor the time of others. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it very sad that I am the one getting reprimanded and told what I can and cannot say in this case. I would hope that you and others can pay attention to the CATALYST of all of this in which you have spent critiquing me upon and spend more time with regard to that problem as opposed to focusing the attention and onus of the responsibility on the person who complained about it. I hardly feel I'm wasting anyone's time here, especially when people continue to blame me for the response to the original problem, rather than the original problem itself. Everyone here seems very keen on focusing on the complainer and not the complaint. I find that to be extremely troublesome. Thanks for all the "advice" "Fayssal" - go ahead and block me if you wish. I don't really want to be a part of something in which people can get away with making anti-semitic comments and then people who react to them are the ones who get reprimanded and inconvenienced as a result. Thanks for your offer to "help" Fayssal, but I'll seek it elsewhere. --Einsteindonut (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(restored comment lost in earlier edit conflict)

I fade up from your method of twisting facts and my words, my comment was “it is WikipediA not JpediA” , “Jpedia” is completely not anti-semitic, is “JPOST” anti-semitic. Reserve your analysis to yourself, and speak only about yourself not about other editors« PuTTY^SchOOL 11:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(end of restored comment)

Puttyschool. Please refrain from doing that again. It could be that it is not considered as an anti-semitic remark but we all agree that it is totally unacceptable. Just don't do it again. Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 18:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut, I never imagined that you will remove my comments and others from this admin board, how dare you Please check Why Einsteindonut removed my two comments« PuTTY^SchOOL 12:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It was actually a pure accident. After you brought it to my attention I tried to re-add it, but then the page was updated and I got confused and couldn't. I'm happy to discuss whatever it is you were trying to say. In fact, I went back to try to find it and couldn't! I'm having some difficult times editing on these admin boards. I'm fine with whatever people want to say here though. There's no good reason for me to delete anyone's comment. I looked at that edit and i was trying to make a minor edit of my own stuff and I think I accidentally deleted yours. My apologies. I'm being 100% honest here. I'm ready to respond to whatever it was you said. I think you claimed that the JPedia comment was not anti-semitic. I'd be inclined to believe that it wasn't, but combined with the fact that you also claimed that the JPost was "just for Jews," that is what sealed the deal for me. If "Jpost" is "just for Jews" then certainly "JPedia" (in your mind" would be too, right? I mean, that's what you were trying to say, right? That Wikipedia is not "Just for Jews?" Yes, that is true, but that point had nothing to do with my edit, other than the fact that we were working on an article about a Jewish organization, and that I am Jewish. --Einsteindonut (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I fade up from your method of twisting facts and my words, my comment was “it is WikipediA not JpediA” , “Jpedia” is completely not anti-semitic, is “JPOST” anti-semitic. Reserve your analysis to yourself, and speak only about yourself not about me or other editors. you can focus only on my 3 words, dropping all other stories you have, like the GFDL license story. I think one of our arguments while reverting our edits was about your cutting and pasting from the JPOST article, then why you insist J mean Jewish, by the way is every “J” anti-semitic from your point of view or you select according to the circumstances, you can share your friends about your thoughts and ideas, but I’m not obligated to share your thoughts and ideas. About removing my comment, you removed two comments from two different places, is this "a pure accident", Wow, what a strange accident, which can’t happen in Wikipedia.« PuTTY^SchOOL 14:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Putty, it was the context in which you said it which made it anti-semitic. No, the "J" in JPost (which stands for "Jerusalem") is not anti-semitic. You later explained that you thought the JPost was "for Jews only"[10], therefore, by saying saying "this isn't JPedia" what you were saying is that Wikipedia is "not for Jews only" - meaning that you have some problem with Jewish editors here, or stories about Jewish organizations. Of course Wikipedia is not for Jews only. That is clear to me and everyone involved. I wasn't making the point that it is for Jews only, yet you felt the need to express that as I was trying to protect whatever it was you were trying to do to the article in question. Speaking of which, all of this is backed up by the fact that you originally marked the article in question for "speedy deletion"[11] along with some twisted rationale for why you didn't want it here from the very beginning. Ever since then, each of your edits have been questionable. With the comment that "this is not Jpedia" I find it extremely difficult to AGF with regard to your editing of the JIDF article or editing anything with regard to Jews, Judaism, or Israel. I fully understand that there are some serious cultural differences at work here. You are from Egypt and the record of state-controlled media espousing anti-semitic viewpoints is clear. Perhaps you have allowed this to impact you.[12] Granted, I would never judge you on the fact that you are from Egypt alone. I have many good friends from Egypt actually. However, your comment makes me seriously wonder what you feel about the Jewish people and our presence here on Wikipedia, involved with articles about Jewish organizations, etc. I maintain that your anti-semitic slur was very wrong and I feel very strong and swift action should be taken against it, and ANY hate speech like it. Contrary to whether anyone understands this, I am not over-reacting here. This is completely unacceptable. What's worse, is that he and others don't even get it. Since when does the religion of an editor matter? Why did Putty feel the need to mention that Wikipedia is not for Jews only? Perhaps he doesn't want Jews here at all? He certainly didn't want the JIDF article and he certainly feels the need to assert the fact that this Wikipedia is not just for Jews (despite the fact that no one claimed otherwise.) If he gets away with this, perhaps I'll start figuring out the religious and/or ethnic background of every editor and each time I revert their edits I'll make sure that they know that people of their religious and/or ethnic background aren't the only ones here. (I won't do that, but hopefully you get my point?) --Einsteindonut (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know exactly why you are talking about, you method makes me looses concentration, your statement about Egypt is completely wrong, I never heard it before, but I know most of your statements are based uponWP:OR .
I was reverting your edits as I documented in talk page for two reasons, i) unlicensed image with a very long unreasonable funny story ii)you added un-encyclopedic words as they appeared between quotes in the JPOST article, and what appear between quotes means that the words are not the JPOST point of view, about my assumption that JPOST is for Jews only, I’m not a reader for the JPOST newspaper, so my assumption was based on a few articles I read from the JPOST and this can be wrong, but this does not mean that JpediA is anti-semantic, especially my comment was not a general one as yours but was specific to you and your edit to the article. I don’t know too much about the history of the “J” but I took it from the” J”POST, and I was telling you that Wikipedia can’t use the same words as JPOST. Another point; please revise your contributions and tell me where is your NPOV from your first account till this one, and the next.....
So In order not to lose my main point I want to remind everyone I’m requesting blocking your account as you removed two subsequent comments I added in two different edits, and I want the history of this page to be checked I’m AGF but also it is one of my rights to know haw this was a mistake.« PuTTY^SchOOL 20:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The images licenses changed, as I mentioned. Also, apparently in your mind the "un-encylopedic" words are as follows:

"The JIDF claimed the group "actively promoted hatred, violence, murder and genocide." from: Jewish Internet Defense Force 'seizes control' of anti-Israel Facebook group

You tried to revert it, yet it still stands. I fully explained why I was placing it there in the talk section. Please stop acting like you don't know what you are doing and why you are doing it. You have made your opinion known in your request for "speedy deletion"[[13] upon this article's very first appearance, where you stated: They can help their country as they wish and by any mean...but outside Wikipedia pages So according to your "logic" a pro-Israel organization which is noted in reliable sources should not have any articles about them in Wikipedia. Who exactly did you mean by "they?" Why should "they" not be allowed in Wikipedia? --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:25, 7 September

I share FayssalF's analysis.

If this remark was uncivil and so, unappropriated, because it is contrary to wp:agf; it is not anti-semite. By comparison, I have been told several times, and I think with reason, that it was not wp:fr here...

More, I think the suspicion of anti-semitism made by Einsteindonut is also against wp:agf. And from my personnal point of view, the accusation of antisemitism here, is even worst, it is against WP:NPA.

In the particular context of Einsteindonut, who doesn't masterize yet all wikipedia policies, we should not give him the feeling "anti-semitism suspicion" is a good way out to solve the "content issues" he has with other editors.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, my point was addressed to the experienced admins (though no admin has commented yet on this thread) and Malik Shabazz who left the soft warning at Puttyschool's talk page. It was not addressed to Einsteindonut as he is a new Wikipedian.

On another note, I've just now run a CU on the vandal 75.3.147.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who left the swastika and the Islamic Jihadist flag at Einsteindonut's page. That lead us to here. I am not convinced of the response gotten out there and would ask some other admins to review though admin Luna Santin has already blocked the IP.

And Einsteindonut, I know you are new but please do not use sockpuppets. I am leaving Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) as your main account and blocking Wikifixer911 (talk · contribs) (which was already blocked once) and PeterBergson (talk · contribs) (the original one but with only a few edits) per wp:SOCK. I've not taken any action concerning Einsteindonut since this is your first time. As for the IP, I believe you used it accidentally three times or four, so please refrain from using multiple accounts. Puttyschool (talk · contribs) was also check-usered but came clean. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 12:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the contribs for the userids, it seems that they were used sequentially and not in parallel. I.e. it took a certain amount of time for him to settle on one id to use repeatedly and it wan't necessarilly deliberate sockpuppetry. Might it have been better simpy to ask him to settle on one and drop the rest?--Peter cohen (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is only deliberate use of mulitple accounts to create disruption. You could hardly call Edonut's other accounts "abusive". Hopefully he learns, but for now it's probably best to assume good faith. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The account should be blocked for legal threats anyways. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is abusive here and I made sure I didn't use that term when I blocked. And, he's left with the one with the most edits and the non-blocked one. It is like if he got no official history of sockpuppetry at all except this thread but this will be archived and we'll forget about it. I thought about it the way you did guys. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 17:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re legal threats. Someone needs to explain to him that stuff. He's so pissed especially that he got a warning for a pic he had uploaded. It is a bad day for him and I believe he can reconsider. No big deals. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 17:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fayssal, Thanks so much for handling this in a calm and equitable manner. I wonder is it possible for you to contact Eisensteindonut and explain to him what you did and why? I am also a newbie and I got blocked very quickly initially because of my bullheadedness but also because no one took the time to "state the obvious" the obvious of course being things that I had no idea about or of which I had different (and incorrect) interpretations. In other words, lets all go give Einsteindounut some free Wp support, to make up for the block.. Before the block I had offered to do some editing with Einsteindounut on a non controversial article together.Maybe you more experienced editors could do the same? Lastly, Fayssal, are you really interested in knowing why saying "Jpedia" is absolutely rude and possibly anti-semitic? Im not sure of the proper forum to discuss it but I spend four years as a Campus Director of a national Jewish organization and also headed others. I would be happy to provide further explanations, on your talk page or in email. I would do this for others too of course. aharon42 (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Aharon and welcome on board. I'll be using Einsteindonut's and your talk pages for the purposes you are stating. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

aharon42, "Jpedia" may be rude according to some editors POV, but sure it is not anti-semitic« PuTTY^SchOOL 11:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Take it from an Egyptian who knows. What is this, Egyptpedia? I assume I can get away with this, since no one wants to get on Putty's case for his remarks and since he is unwilling to even recognize what he did was wrong---thanks in large part to everyone focusing on ME rather than the catalyst to the problem. In any event, what can I really expect from people who are not Jewish? Do you see now why there are organization like the JIDF and ADL, etc? People don't even have a clue as to what anti-semitism is, and when it is there, no one even wants to do anything about it except "blame the Jew" for complaining about it. Thank you Wikipedia for proving something I already knew. Never mind. Case closed.--Einsteindonut (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know, is this another kind of drama? Can I say that your word is Anti-Egyptians, or you are also referring to Jews from Egypt and your word is Anti-Egyptians/Anti-Semantic as well? I don’t know how much time you need in order to learn, it is easy “judge the contents not the contributors”« PuTTY^SchOOL 21:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Both of you could do with a healthy dose of WP:AGF. Certainly the remark could be considered rude, but there's no need for this ridiculous argument -- just be the bigger person and step back a notch. If this sort of destructive bickering continues, there's a pretty good chance one or both of you will wind up banned from the article. Calm down and play nice. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem

About the block mentionned here above. It seems that Einsteindonut has a fixed IP. So when FayssalF blocked the IP, he also blocked the account... Einsteindonut didn't appreciate [14] but I think he doesn't understand. Ceedjee (talk) 13:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That's being autoblocked. "#1127998" unblocked. Please leave him alone as it may not be helpful. Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 14:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey... It is you who blocked him and that is the block that upset him...

Ceedjee (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I know Ceedjee. I was just hopping to diffuse the situation. The message you left him may have not been considered as helpful because of the timing. That's all the matter. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. :-) Ceedjee (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So the drama

This all relates to Jewish Internet Defense Force. As I mentioned previously, this seems to be spillover from a yearlong flame war on Facebook.[15]. There's excessive drama associated with this article. Some of the editors involved are affiliated with the organization. The organization comments on its web site about edits on Wikipedia, which seems to motivate their supporters and stir up their opponents. Despite that, the article is in reasonably decent shape. As an editing dispute, it's minor. The sides aren't that far apart. It bears watching, for civility and conflict of interest issues, but it's a tempest in a teapot. --John Nagle (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nagle, as I have pointed out over and over and over again, the JIDF had nothing to do with that flame war in question. They stated their reasons for their action and it had they never once expressed anything to indicate that anything in that article you keep citing had anything to do with their actions. Furthermore, being a fan and a reader of the JIDF site hardly makes one "affiliated" with the JIDF. However, it is helpful in that I can say that the truth of the matter is that they targeted the group in question because of its content, not because of some flame war in which they never took part. RS have expressed that their reason for their Facebook presense in the first place was because a group went up to celebrate a murderer of students. Anyway, your assumptions continue to be wrong on both accounts. I have explained this to you in JIDF talk and now you are trying to raise the same moot points here. No RS prove that anything the JIDF did had anything to do with a "flame war." This apparently is your wrong/off track assessment of the situation. From my understanding, the JIDF had no idea about the information in the article you continue to cite. I'm not sure why you're trying to raise the same moot points again. --Einsteindonut (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe Nagle is right on the money, actually. It's become clear that one or more editors at the article is a prominent member of the JIDF. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

More drama. The JIDF is displeased with me ("Wikipedia editors snooping email, invading privacy, making threats, etc.) for mentioning on a talk page the list of their officers [16] published on their Facebook page.[17]. They've since removed their list of officers. Some of what the JIDF has written could be construed as an off-wiki threat, but I'd prefer to view it as WP:TROLL and suggest ignoring them. --John Nagle (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please block Einsteindonut Account forever

Please check why Einsteindonut removed my comments from admin noticeboard, he removed two comments from two different places, it is not an editing mistake, so I suggest to block his account forever« PuTTY^SchOOL 12:48, 7 September 2008 (

It's best not to badger administrators with pleas as to what they should or should not do. Note whatever worries you, and leave it to their great experience and discretion to determine what, if anything, should be done. Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No Sir/Madam, I'm requesting to block the account for ever for the above reason« PuTTY^SchOOL 14:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

actually, I accidentally deleted one comment that I know of. If i deleted another one on this board, than that was an accident too. I'm happy to debate/discuss with you or anyone here, there, or anywhere. There is no good reason (other than a pure accident) that I would delete any of your comments in talk areas. Feel free to bring this onto my talk page if you wish, or re-submit them here. I really have had a difficult time editing on these boards and it is not my intention to delete anyone's remarks. My apologies if it appears that way, but it is true. --Einsteindonut (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut. Your edit has apparently caused a huge problem by messing up a page that now requires several people's work to fix. See below, the section, 'Board messed up SOME SECTIONS CORRUPTED so please can an admin notice this and help?' If it was an edit conflict consequence, you are not wholly responsible for that mess, provided you did not know what to do when there is an edit conflict. The least you should do if lower your sights, and start learning how to edit, without damaging this project.Nishidani

It was an accident which is easily caused by editors following the instructions given at edit conflicts. These instructions have now been changed in an attempt to reduce the occurrence of this problem. DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It was an accident and it has been addressed in other areas and I have apologized for it. Again, none of this has to do with the original complaint. Very interesting how all of this because about ME, and not the fact that someone made a very discriminatory remark with regard to religion on Wikipedia. Call it what you want here, in my hood, it's called ANTISEMITISM and I feel it's very important to call it for what it is, and I will continue to do so, when I spot it here, or anywhere for that matter, ESPECIALLY when nothing is done about it, but to reprimand ME for complaining about it.

Putty needs to know what he did was 100% wrong and why. He also needs to apologize as that remark is completely unacceptable, or else I should be fine making comments after each of his edits saying "what is this, Egyptpedia?" Or something to that effect and not face any sanctions whatsoever for doing so. THEN maybe people will get onto Putty's case (as they are doing here with me for some reason.) LAME LAME LAME. --Einsteindonut (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a word of advice - having "Wikipedia = worse than Goebbels" on your userpage may make some editors less likely to listen to any genuine complaints you may have. DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Soapboxing is bad, mm'kay? HalfShadow 21:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be dandy if the both of you two would just calm down and have some tea. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut, You know the only good point you bring is that one Egyptian, makes the Great WikipediA an EgyptpediA, wow how much Egyptians are great from 7500 year till now. Other points are not related to this section which is blocking your account.« PuTTY^SchOOL 21:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I know all about ancient Egypt. There was a reason I left. I hope you remember who built your pyramids and I'm sure you remember 1967, hence your disdain for me, the article in question, the JPOST, etc. --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not a claims, or some thing to remember, it is WP:RS, As documented in ancient Egyptian articles, Egyptian built the pyramids and the culture was before Jews, at the same time, the concept of building the pyramids is against (Jews/Christians/Muslims) religions. Every one wish to have this owner, we don’t mind, but our culture was a documented culture and we have all old documents. About 1967 and 1973 which you missed this is completely out of line and we forgot all about the two years, but we did not forget that Jews are our cousins.
Please report this Luna, he did not accept the tea« PuTTY^SchOOL 22:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Report what? That you're still egging him on? That he's still taking the bait? This isn't going to stop while you're both trying to get each other blocked or banned. There's more to civility than acting nice for ten minutes to get a leg up on somebody -- politeness isn't a one-shot thing. Both of you should really stop trying to take the high road, because you're both just coming across as squabbling children. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not trying to get anyone blocked or banned. I want some serious understanding from Wikipedia editors (rather than "you're being ridiculous!" and throwing the rule book at me, blocking me, checking me for socks, etc.) and I want them to help me to fully get through to Putty that what he said was not just wrong, but a serious personal attack based upon someone's religion. Unfortunately, no one sees it that way for some reason, which I find concerning. And finally, I want an apology for him after he fully comprehends what he did. The fact that none of that has even begun to happen is what "eggs me on." I pretty much tune out much of whatever it is he is trying to say since that comment and some of his other questionable remarks and reverts. In order to move forward, I need more affirmation that I make good points. He's actually egging me on far less than everyone else basically telling me that I'm crazy for having a problem with this. Civility should include something to the effect of, here you have an editor who tried to talk his points through and made a good faith edit. Another editor comes along and pretty much says "this ain't for Jews" w/out given a good reason for making the revert. It was very clearly anti-semitic. I'm just a bit shocked that others don't see it. That is all. Not calling for his banning or his blocking, but for more understanding from fellow editors, and helping me fully get through to him why it was wrong and why it was offensive, and a sincere apology. Since none of that looks like it's ever going to happen, I remain flustered. Trust me, it's more about everyone else response (or lack thereof) which is more frustrating at this point than anything else. It was beyond "rude" it was a fully personal attack on me and all Jewish editors on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the threats of blocking and bannings have apparently scared them so much that they are afraid to even come to my defense. I could care less if I am blocked and/or banned. It would say more about the problems with Wikipedia than it does about my activities here. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote on your Talk page, there are a lot of editors here who don't get it. Standing here and holding your breath until you get an apology won't enlighten them. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 01:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it was not "very clearly" anti-semitic. A statement like "Wikipedia is not for Jews" could be interpreted in different ways; it could be taken to mean "Jews are not welcome here" (which seems to be your take on it, and would indeed be a troublesome sentiment), or it could be taken to mean "Wikipedia is not only for Jews" (an interpretation which assumes good faith and allows the editing process to move forward, and in fact a true statement besides). Given Putty doesn't seem to have a fluent grasp of English, it's difficult to make authoritative assertions about their intended meaning. If you want others to share your highly negative interpretation of the original statement, you'd do well to stop flapping your arms about our willful stupidity and start demonstrating a history of problems from this editor. Evidence is a must when making such extreme claims. I will take no pains to defend Putty's rather silly reaction to all of this -- really, an apology and/or explanation would have done more to calm things down. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

:::The fact that one's religion would be mentioned in a hostile tone with regard to any edits is completely wrong and unacceptable. The fact that you are watering this down is troubling. The fact that you think "Wikipedia is not only for Jews" is somehow AGF is absurd. The fact that you just rationalized is concerning. I think I'll start mentioning everyone's religion when I revert their edits hastily from now on, since that is acceptable here. --Einsteindonut (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been said tens of times that it is NOT acceptable. The user has been warned and if he tries it again he'd get blocked. Who said it is acceptable? Really, don't think about starting mentioning everyone's religion when editing. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 08:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked you to stop hand waving and start posting evidence to support your claims. Response? More hand waving, now in bold. Very charming. My point wasn't "Putty attacked your religion and that's okay" but rather "I'm not convinced Putty attacked your religion." A temper tantrum does not convince me I'm wrong. Illustrating a history of problematic statements would be more useful, in that regard. If Putty continues to make problematic statements, we can cross that bridge; for now, it's not clear what admin action is needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was actually just summing everything up in bold. --Einsteindonut (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you put it behind you?

Einsteindonut, despite Puttyschool's offensive comment, I think it's clear that you're not going to get what you want: an apology or any sort of disciplinary action against Puttyschool. Despite what you've endured over the past 24 hours, please try to calm down. If you can, try to put this incident behind you — because it doesn't seem like anything is going to happen here — and get on with the business of improving the encyclopedia. Lord knows it needs improving. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 22:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Look Malik, about my comment, I apologize as it can be a misunderstanding comment, but I did not mean by JpediA the JewishPedia as he was trying to prove, and JPediA is not an anti-semantic word, and as you can remember I was calling you and other Jews editor to solve conflict issues, and I was working with you and Oblear and all editors without any barriers. But also check his comments, how may offensive comments me and other editors received from him from the day this article is created in WikiPediA, only as he don’t like what we did, so we must put a limit, what he don’t like we also don’t like, especially most of us don’t have COI« PuTTY^SchOOL 22:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in prolonging this discussion any further. Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 22:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Very calm actually. However, if no apology? Then I'm not putting it behind me. I am improving Wikipedia (in my own mind at least.) Who am I bothering here? No one is forced to read any of this. I want it to be known that I make a big deal out anti-semitic comments combined with efforts by people to revert my editing decisions I made after fully discussing them in "talk" without their collaboration or input with regard to anything I discussed as to why I was making the change to the article. This isn't just about the comment. It is the entire context (from Putty's first comments when the article was first nominated for deletion) - to his constant trying to take out important and accurate, well-thought out and discussed edits because of his own cultural conflict of interest and his own personal problem with the organization.--Einsteindonut (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I finished my tea, seems you don't like tea, all of us are improving WikipediA, can anyone comment on this« PuTTY^SchOOL 23:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm more of a coffee person (who's waiting for an apology.)--Einsteindonut (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Both Einsteindonut and Puttyschool really need to take a break from Wiki. At this point, both have made extremely offensive comments to each other, and which are therefore offensive to other Jews and Egyptians. Personally, I think the JPedia comment is anti-semitic, but I see no history of Putty posting anti-semitic POV elsewhere on Wiki. I have a hard time taking the AGF road though given his defense of stating it is not anti-semitic, which is no defense at all. I honestly do not think Putty understands why it is anti-semitic (he is not alone), but it is. He has given a sort of half-hearted apology, and I wish both you guys would leave it at that. Sposer (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sposer, I think I must also apologize “for the poor choice of the term”, According to my discussions with Michael Safyan [18] I found that if the term “might give offense…” to at least one editor, then it is wrong to use it. Sorry next time I will take care about every “J”.« PuTTY^SchOOL 20:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolutions?

I've personally given up on the Jewish Internet Defense Force article as it's too much of a battleground with baiting and conjecture well after everyone has been cautioned about such issues. The article is under Arbcom restriction yet the personalizing seems to not let up. I'm also uncomfortable with the original research to out anyone associated with the group - digging through Facebook and posting on wikipedia seems like a terrible idea when these people have death threats against them - to me that's a WP:BLP issue.

I would support full protection on the article - it's largely stable despite the ongoing quibbling - and possibly semi on the talk if trolling is also an issue. Banjeboi 23:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP issues when (a) all the people involved use pseudonyms and (b) they've published the "names" themselves. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 00:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced they are all pseudonyms - and just why are we diving into that original research on wikipedia anyway? - and, though I've not spent much time on Facebook, unsure they have really "published" this list. Two references were used to name David Appletree, do we have a RS that that is a pseudonym? If so we should state it, if not I wonder, given the death threats, if we should remove it. Banjeboi 00:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The crux of the matter and ways to resolutions

Let's see and clear up this mess:

Notes: Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles are under ArbCom restrictions.

On-wiki problems:

a) There's a total lack of AGF. Users from both sides of the fence still need to make big efforts to AGF and work together in peace. I applaud and encourage though user:Aharon42 and other people's efforts to make that happen.

b) Someone (IP) made this very nasty anti-semitic edit. The problem is that this user denies being behind those edits. 2 admins have investigated the issue.

Update: User is blocked for 2 weeks after some evidence was presented below.

c) Someone made this unaccaptable remark. That is totally uncivil and rude and should not happen again under any circumstance. If this happens again a block would be in order. Aharon49 has asked me to give my views on this and why I didn't consider this remark as anti-semitic. There's a big difference between attacking someone by saying "you are a dirty X" and "this is not Xpedia". It is still a gray area and the only way we'd know if it was really meant to be anti-semitic is to check the history of the contributions of the user who made the comment. We can still AGF until we get sure about that. So far, no indication of such a tendency has been noted.

d) Sockpuppetry has not been abusive as discussed above. Also, there are a few sleeper accounts belonging to one established user. I am waiting for some answers and explanations from some involved parties before taking action. I've made some checks and that covered a few accounts concerning parties from both sides of the dispute. My fellow checkusers can review that or verify the logs if needed.

e) Some editors have gone so far and got the names of some alleged JIDF people. This needs to stop (it is a precedent AFAIK). I suggest all names be oversighted (though the fact i am a member of the ArbCom, I have no oversighting tools). If this happens again blocks would be in order. We must respect the privacy of everyone as it is sacred.

Off-wiki problems brought here:

a) JIDF has tried to out and violate the privacy of Wikipedia editor user:CJCurrie. It says "[It is] currently updated for the time being, just because we feel like being nice....." I hope reasonable people at JIDF refrain from doing that. JIDF people must understand that Wikipedia editors are humans and outing them in such a shameful way instead of addressing the real issues or enter in a sincere dialog with our editors is not a positive thing.

b) It seems that JIDF is a bit obsessed with Wikipedia. Wikipedia has been faced with a somehow similar situation (see the CAMERA ArbCom case. Please read one of the important principles laid out by the ArbCom... "the purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. The use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.") It is for the best of everyone involved that this stops. Wikipedia is open to everyone and there's no need to push that hard to the limits.

c) The subject of the article (JIDF) promotes "some weird stuff" (check the link at the khaki/yellow box at the left column). This is not "defending" as in 'jiDf' but "attacking". JIDF sympathizers must think about balance and mutual respect before accusing others of "anti-semitism." JIDF website links to thereligionofpeace.com (tRoP). tRoP titles include nasty and crappy stuff such as "California Muslims Angered They Can't Incite Murder of Jews..." (I say: all California muslims?), "Why are Muslims Powerless? Short answer - too much religion, not enough education. Muhammad warned Muslims against pursuing "knowledge that benefits not" and they've been following his advice ever since..." (No comment), etc. Attacking a whole religion because of some bad terrorists is nonsense and I'd urge JIDF sympathizing editors to be aware of the fact that this creates a very bad atmosphere over here. Nobody is innocent. Hatred and nonsense comes from all sides (not necessarily one).

So any resolution would depend on the willingness of involved people from both sides to address the above points and reconsider their actions. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 06:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fayssal, thank you for laying out the issues. Your "on-wiki" points are nearly perfect, except for the history of Putty's comments and editing with regard to the JIDF article. The second half of your thinking with regard to "off wiki" stuff is problematic. It seems outside the scope of my original complaint, and I believe "on Wiki" rules do not apply to to off-wiki content. Regarding CJCurrie and the JIDF post about him he actually outed himself on Wikipedia itself. The JIDF didn't "out him," the letter someone sent to the JIDF officially outted him after the JIDF indicated that they know who he is through the information he had posted on Wikipedia itself. I believe if certain Wikipedia editors are going to mass vandalize the project in a serious and vindictive manner, and face no sanctions from ArbsCom, then things can happen off-Wiki (as we see in this case.) In other words, "on wiki" neglect of certain issues can bring about "off wiki" consequences. Had the situation been dealt with quickly and fairly, then perhaps the JIDF would not have gotten involved. I believe (since you are bringing it up) that perhaps an ArbsCom case should still be considered for CJCurrie's questionable edits and removal of all "zionism on the web" links (for the most part) on Wikipedia. It was vandalism pure and simple in response to Oboler's exposure of the Electronic Intifada problem, and CJCurrie got away with it, which I feel is indicative of other underlying problems within the Wikipedia project itself. The entire case regarding CJCurrie is laid out on the JIDF site is very telling. All of your points in the "off wiki B" section seem to be completely disregarded by editors like CJCurrie, as a matter of fact. Your "C" Point regarding "off wiki" content seems completely out-of-place and irrelevant. While you might have certain opinions about the JIDF site and the content they provide (which is completely unrelated to Wikipedia), it is still just that, completely unrelated to Wikipedia. Again, thank you for laying out the issues in a clear and concise manner. In summation, I believe your "on wiki" assessment is nearly perfect, though much of your "off wiki" assessment is "way off" and should be outside the scope of Wikipedia ArbsCom considerations.--Einsteindonut (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that you agree with my on-wiki points, could you please gently remove the "Wikipedia = Where the antisemites an anti-Israel POV pushers roam free. Where Holocaust denial and revisionism are given nice platforms, anyway" and "by all means, please overwhelm me with your rules and wisdom, because this system is clearly working to create great atmosphere for Jew hatred, demonization of Israel and the rationalization of Islamic terrorism" from your userpage? That would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 09:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fayssal, I'm not sure that the statements on my user page tie into your "on Wiki" points which were concerning one isolated incident as opposed to system-wide problems. However, some of your "off Wiki" points tie into some of those statements (especially with regard to rationalization of Islamic terrorism..) In any event, once a full scale (if there is such a thing) ArbsCom case with regard to the problems of CJCurrie happens and sanctions against him are implemented, I will reconsider my personal views about WP, until then, I can only go by what I have learned about WP and what I have experienced in my short time here. --Einsteindonut (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut. We cannot be a newbie for the rest of our lives. We cannot have one classroom for every editor. My request has been gentle and is part of the AGF stuff above. You are not in a position to set conditions on what we have to do and not. If you want to discuss CJCurrie stuff, I'll suggest you file an ArbCom case. For now, your userpage statements are not appropriate at all and go against our AGF guideline and it is clear soapboxing as explained to you above. The question of userpages was a bit complicated years ago and it is considered as something clear nowadays. I hope you take this as a serious request. You may not like it but we are not bargaining here. If you have substantive evidence to back up your claims please present it to the ArbCom. If not, defamatory content must be removed. People have asked you gently. If nothing changes, people get warned. If the problem persists people get blocked. If that doesn't help people get banned. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 10:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes Fayssal, this user DOES deny being behind those two edits. As far as I know I'm not blocked and nobody but you seems to be claiming it was me, so can you please leave me out of this absurd drama? My edit history speaks for itself. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Have I said the opposite? Have I accused you? I have the total right to have questions as other admins had. I've done the checks myself and all what I've done here is report what happened alongside other 8 points mentioned above. And yes, people are not blind to see that your edit history speaks for itself. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 08:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood you. All I know is that you've mentioned me here twice and now I'm asking you nicely to please leave me out of it entirely. I'm here to write an encyclopedia and I want no part of drahmaz. Thank you. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, you have made some edits to the JIDF article which weren't all that Kosher. I find it extremely troubling that you or "someone who happens to be within your ip range" vandalized my user page and the JIDF article with swastikas, which put me on the defense from the onset. It is my hope that WIkipedia will fully investigate the situation in order to make sure that "it wasn't you" as I personally find it TOO COINCIDENTAL. Therefore, I'm happy that your name is being discussed here so that we may get to the truth of the matter. --Einsteindonut (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today I listed that IP at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check. If any further discussion of NoC or the IP is needed, it may be worth another subthread. I may have more comment on FayssalF's substantive post at a later time. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI, combined with the fact that an IP address attributed to him was responsible for vandalism in the form of multiple swastikas on my user page and JIDF article, the following edits to the JIDF article are the reasons why I feel Nobody of Consequence is highly suspect:

Added "totally disputed tag" from the very beginning

Continued to litter the article with deletion tags

Oboler rightly calls him out on his vandalism through marking for deletion tags and he responds

All that being said, what can be learned here? Both "NobodyofConsequence" and Puttyschool had issues with the existence of this article from the onset. I believe neither one of them got their way as the article still exists, so they manifested their frustration in other ways. It's very telling when people demand that something be deleted so many times and then we have the opportunity to watch their subsequent edits to that article---especially when, by all indications, anti-semitism begins to seep out as it has (in the form of swastikas and "jpedia" comments combined with "the JPost is just for Jews" etc.

Don't get upset with the Jews who understand how these things work, but this is PRECISELY how it works, both on Wikipedia and throughout history a) People don't like Jews b) People would rather that Jews wouldn't exist c) Because Jews exist, that upsets people d) Anti-semitism rears its ugly head.

By the same token, an article about a Jewish organization which fights anti-semitism is bound to attract all sorts of clever and not so clever anti-semites who will do everything in their power to try to deny and/or mask their inherent hatred of the Jew, and especially of Jewish organizations which know how to detect it and fight back.

Considering Jewish history and the problems online it really shouldn't be that difficult for people to see how much everyone hates the Jew here. The fact that everyone is pretending to not see it is insane. If this entire episode was about african americans or homosexuals, then very strict sanctions would certainly apply, since that double standard happens in real life too. All WP is showing here is that it is a pure reflection of reality. If anything, I appreciate the opportunity as it allows me to understand these issues and patterns even better. --Einsteindonut (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I have no single doubt now. User is blocked for a 2 weeks. The rest is nonsense (referring to your a, b, c, and d points) and you better stop it for once now that the user is blocked. You also better keep that fight off-wiki. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 10:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fayssal, I appreciate the action you took. What determines the length of time? Seems to me anyone that would vandalize pages with swastikas should be banned forever, but I admit I don't know what determines these things. Promotion of Nazism (ie. Murder/Genocide, etc) is "kinda a big deal." I'm sorry if you think my points are "nonsense." Your telling me to keep that fight "off Wiki" seems a bit odd, considering you just helped me to acknowledge it and fight it. Anti-semitism, the promotion of murder, genocide, Nazism, etc., has no place on Wikipedia. My "fight,"if anything, ties right into WP's own rules of civility. I have just been using different language since I am new here. However, I do think it is important to call things for what they are, and let me be very clear, anytime I am talking about "anti-semitism" on Wikipedia, I am, in WP terms, talking about INCIVILITY. That being said, I urge people to do a "find and replace" in their minds in order to understand what I am saying. I would hope that fighting incivility and promoting civility would be welcome here. Again, thank you for taking action. I wasn't sure if providing links and everything was somehow against the rules until someone said that is how cases are explained. Of course, someone is likely to revert the block, as they did in Ashley Kennedy's case for her continued edit warring. These people who feel so strongly about the JIDF article feel that way for reasons, that's all I'm saying. Those reasons are not always so civil and taken in the context of their feelings about completely uncivilized political movements and the rationalization of those movements' actions, as well as peoples' edits regarding Holocaust denial and revisionism and their various supporters and proponents, etc. It's extremely telling. Most people don't just get on Wikipedia to write/contribute to articles about things in which they do not feel passionately about. In fact, that is the whole reason why I got on here and I'm sure if there was a poll, that would be true for everyone. Not everyone can be passionate about everything, but I don't think it is a coincidence that the same people would flock to the same articles with regard to certain topics in which they are passionate. In any event, that is how I come to my POV about certain motivations. I take the entire context of everything, not just seemingly isolated incidents. Nothing is a coincidence in my world, and I do not throw around any allegations just for the sake of throwing them around, and I always do AGF in the beginning actually. So when it seems like I do not, one can assume that I have good reason for that. I admit that sometimes I do not explain how I arrived at "C" without explaining A and B. However, please be advised that all of my conclusions will always have the facts to prove them. I don't do things just for the sake of doing them. I try to make valid points. Again, thank you for seeing my point, though I wish for him to be banned forever from Wikipedia. Anyone who promotes Nazism in my mind is the scum of the earth and deserves a serious reaction. In fact, well, I'll just keep that to myself since people can't make threats here. --Einsteindonut (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What determines the length of time? That depends on many factors and it is called admins' discretion. Fellow admins can review the duration and the block itself and make comments here or on my talk page. Block durations are not a problem. They can be tweaked if needed or if the initial one is not appropriate.

I said that You also better keep that fight off-wiki. It is probably my english though I don't think so. For me it means that you, in your quality of an editor, better keep Wikipedia free of fights (referring to "Jewish organization which fights...")

I wasn't sure if providing links and everything was somehow against the rules until someone said that is how cases are explained. Now you know that we don't make empty claims here. Only differences and evidences are accepted. That is to say that if you keep on accusing people without proof, you'd find yourself being blocked.

Of course, someone is likely to revert the block. Please AGF. This is the last time I'll be asking you this.

please be advised that all of my conclusions will always come with the facts to prove them. So far, you could only prove one (after this whole lenghty thread).

I wish for him to be banned forever from Wikipedia. If repeated, of course yes.

Anyone who promotes Nazism in my mind is the scum of the earth and deserves a serious reaction. As far as everybody is concerned here, nobody promoted Nazism. That was not a promotion, it was a nasty personal anti-semitic edit.

Now, Einsteindonut, have you read my last message regarding your userpage above? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 12:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info. Yes I have read it, can you please explain why I cannot leave it there? I'm sure it will change eventually, as I like to change things often, but if it doesn't break any rules I'm not sure why I should be required to change it until I feel compelled to do so. This does not mean I don't appreciate what has been done. You just brought up the CJCurrie case and I believe until that is revisited that I still have the same thoughts. I appreciate knowing that I can provide links and differences t o prove my points about certain things I find problematic. One area of disagreement, I'm surprised that you'd regard someone's multiple anti-semitic use of a Nazi symbol on wikipedia as not a promotion of Nazism. It was not just on my user page, but on an article for all to see as well (as well as the symbol of jihad.) In my mind, that's a clear promotion of Nazism and Jihad and not merely a personal attack, since it went on the article on the JIDF. --Einsteindonut (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that is not a promotion of Nazism. Please read marketing promotions and advertising campaigns to understand why it is not. The offending user's aim was clearly to offend you and not to market and ideology or a product.

I'll tell you why your userpage is problematic:

• First, have you ever read Wikipedia:Userpage?
• Second, I first assumed that you came here to complain about some anti-semetic stuff and other uncivil comments. Now, it seems that you are shifting your focus and getting interested in user:CJCurrie. Have you ever interacted with him? Have you ever edited together? No. So? Why are you focusing on him??? What strikes me is the fact that JIDF has been accusing this same user for a lot of things and that included posting an alleged picture of him. Now, that the offender is blocked for the anti-semitic remarks, what is the reason for keeping those statements up there? There's only one thing I can explain that; that you are here to pursue an agenda which can be targetting CJCurrie and accusing some other editors who don't share your POV. That is why your page is just soapboaxing and I do not see any reason why keep accusing other editors there. If you got problems with editors, you have to follow the dispute resolution process instead. If that fails then you have the ArbCom. Does this makes sense to you? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 13:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

your first point, i'll check it out. however, my point is that some of his post of a swastika and the jihadist flag on the JIDF article, had nothing to do with "me" per se. it was an attack against a wikipedia article and the organization in which the article was about. two separate incidents. one at me. another at the JIDF article, for the casual readers to see. have i ever read the WP userpage rules? i think i skimmed them. if there's something specifically i should know, let me know. lots of reading. have i ever interacted with CJCurrie? Yes, absolutely. Have we ever edited together? Yes, absolutely. On the JIDF article. When I saw his name and tried to edit with him and interact with him, I was reminded instantly of what I had read from ZOTW regarding his efforts to delete those links and did not think it was a "coincidence." I understand what you told me, but will have to learn the processes. Allow me to ask you this flat out---is there anything on my user page which clearly breaks any WP rules? If so, I will take it down, but I would like to know precisely why. I see lots of things on many user pages. For example, I have seen many people who have "i am for the right of the return of Palestinians" in little user boxes. Is that not soap boxing? I certainly think if people can take such political stances on their user pages, that I should be able to express some of the issues I have found with regard to Wikipedia? Then again, if I am clearly doing something against policy, then please clearly express it and help extract it from any articles explaining those policies. If not, then I think it's just your personal opinion that you don't like what is on my user page. Which is fine, but I don't see why I'd have to remove it so long as it is not breaking any rules. In any event, I have made some minor changes to some of the text which might be a bit better. I believe Dr. Oboler had already pursued the problems with CJCurrie to no avail. I personally didn't like CJCurrie's demeanor nor his edits w/ regard to the JIDF piece. That, plus all of the edits outlined by the JIDF are highly suspect of POV pushing, combined w/ the fact that he removed around 200 ZOTW links after the electronic intifada story broke, and i think you can see some problems. I don't think I'm accusing anyone of anything in particular on my page. I have some links that people can choose to read, or not. Again, I'll be happy to take stuff down if it is clearly against the rules and if I could get into some sort of trouble for it. I'll look into all those processes you mentioned. --Einsteindonut (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope Fayssal won't mind if I add a little instructive levity here about what Wiki is about. Apropos Einsteindonut's loose remark that

'Most people don't just get on Wikipedia to write/contribute to articles about things in which they do not feel passionately about

I am now straining the bean through a psychotic sieve as I try to imagine what passion drives those thousands of marvellous editors who contribute to or have written good articles on digamma, Brazilian copperfish, Lemba, Dot matrix printer, Theme, Escherichia coli, or Giuseppe Piazzi. Does one really need to be passionate about the Dujiangyan Irrigation System, Hemorrhoids, or Phlebitis to write about them? The point is, we are in here to contribute material of substance to over two million articles, and not wage cultural wars by waving the flags of political correctness everywhere, especially at imagined dust under invisible rugs Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I should also say that it might not require "passion" per se, but knowledge on something, and if not particular topics, then people have a passion for editing/writing in general and that is why they are here. Can you please explain what you mean by "straining the bean through a psychotic sieve?" It seems with the constant reminders of my own civility and to AGF and all the other rules that they very much are "waves of PC flags" though I am not sure what exactly you consider to be "imagined dust under invisible rugs" and who it is you think is waving flags of PC at them exactly. A veiled personal attack is still a personal attack. Or perhaps I'm just imagining things again. If there wasn't something under that rug, then someone wouldn't be blocked currently. --Einsteindonut (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We're in here to write articles, not conduct political battles, or dob in one editor after another (what is the count in here now on both sides, including below?) for administrative action or off-site criticism. Wikipedia has a very strong record for acting promptly and vigorously against any variety of racism, including antisemitism. Most editors know how to deal with it, We do not need specialist witch-hunters. Just as we do not need mirroring comments likening our collective and collegial work to the works of Dr. Goebbels, or assumptions that most non Jewish people are anti-Semitic. That itself is as troubling a quasi-racist quip as anything you yourself have adduced in here to support your campaign. In normal man's language it means, 'if you are not Jewish, you have a very high probability of being someone who hates Jews': most people in here, under that assumption, qualify in your stated view as antisemites, which is highly offensive to the entire community. When I noted it, I did not run to administration. As has been the case with many such statements, one ignores it. Enough of this. One establishes a reputation here by content-edits of quality, not by the volume of one's comments on other editors. This goes for Puttyschool as well.Nishidani (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"We're in here to write articles" - that's funny, I thought you don't do that anymore?[19] - where you say, "I've retired from editing wiki" Anyway, if you have proof of WP strong record on dealing with anti-semitism, I'd like to see. Regarding your with-hunter remark, I don't appreciate the personal attack. Also, regarding this comment I made, I'm surprised that you'd bring this up after you and I discussed it at great length and I fully explained why I said that and what I meant. Regarding reputation, I've never fared well among those who wish to ignore certain things. I'm not here to win a popularity contest obviously. If I was to do that, I'd know exactly what to do, but I'm not one to pretend that I don't have a POV on something and I'm not one to ignore problems or point out WP rules every two seconds. I'm just here doing my thing. I believe I have made some decent contributions, which are then batted down by people with the opposite POV. My interest are the I-P conflict and Jewish issues. It is not my fault that I am interested in working on things which have a high propensity toward some degree of controversy. Enough people didn't ignore some of my comments and actions (including CJCurrie and others), so I'm just learning how to kvetch from everyone else. Sorry if that bothers you for some reason. By the way, since you claim to be so keen on ignoring the things that bother people (or at least this is the advice you give) why don't you hone your own advice and ignore me and my complaints and comments and not call attention to them on your own talk page and on this board? Seems a bit hypocritical if you ask me, but have I asked you to remove anything? Have I asked you to stop? Nope! I say bring it on! This is fun. If people don't like it, as you said, "ignore it!"--Einsteindonut (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you find my truthful comment funny, I'm glad I've improved your day. To 'edit' means to contribute to texts, which I no longer do, as opposed to dropping a word or two of advice on talk pages to lower conflict and assist potentially good editors who have a problem or two, to get beyond their 'passions' and just write to the text with quality sources. This is an indirect way of assisting wiki in the drafting of articles, without editing. If this is 'hypocrisy' of the kind that you think 'fun', by all means, be my guest and laugh away. Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

FayssalF, Please check if this account J Hoffer (talk · contribs) is it another sock-puppets.
Einsteindonut, I don't know how you can find time to write all of this, it needs a lot of time from me to read all what you wrote, you will finish WikipediA papers, I’ll appreciate if you can provide a Summary « PuTTY^SchOOL 13:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Two quick comments:

• Contrary to Einsteindonut's assertion, I have not "outed" myself on Wikipedia. I did not contact the JIDF after they allegedly "outed" me on their site, nor did I encourage anyone to do so on my behalf. I don't care if people wish to criticize my edits (or speculate on my identity in private), but I do not take kindly to defamation, intimidation and harrassment.
• I've already explained my actions re: Oboler and ZOTW. If you believe I acted improperly, you may register a complaint in the appropriate forum. Posting what you allege to be my picture on your website is unlikely to benefit your case, nor that of the party you wish to assist. CJCurrie (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

More socks discovered

Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) == J Hoffer (talk · contribs) == Saxophonemn (talk · contribs) (the latter one using proxies).

While checking I've discovered some relatively unrelated weird and odd sockpuppeting but not related to Einsteindonut. I'll be discussing this with fellow CUers. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 14:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

if it's not related to me why do you have me with the "=" signs of everyone else?--Einsteindonut (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to some other established accounts (people unrelated to this mess and totally unrelated to you). Checking your accounts led to the discovery of another mess (totally unrelated) which I'll be discussing with the ArbCom. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 14:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What is this Einsteindonut: a)you were talking with me in talk page as two (sometimes three) different persons. b)you were reverting the edits using your long list of different accounts in order to go around the 3RR. c)What about your vote stacking, you put seven votes in each AFD. d)you are the only source of trouble from the time this article is created till now. f)in addition to your COI. Shame on you. Please delete this user from Wikipedia, and repeat all AFDs he voted on« PuTTY^SchOOL 15:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is time for you to change the way you act here. I hope this is clear. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 16:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to eat my words about the sockpuppetry not being deliberate. However I still think you need to tone your rhetoric down. If you document the voting by sockpuppets and they would be enought to swing things, you might be able to open a closure review.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) has been blocked for a week; several unblock requests have been lodged and declined. see hsi userpage and its history for details. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Compared with user Nobody of Consequence (talk · contribs) whose account is blocked for two weeks (from my POV for un-faire reason based on Einsteindonut WP:OR and long talks, but without following the complete history of the article), which leads to losing a very remarkable editor from WikipediA an editor without any WP:COI, is one week for Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) enough???
Sorry FayssalF, Every one here has the right to express his POV« PuTTY^SchOOL 15:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut has never been blocked for wp:OR. He is blocked for sockpuppetry.

Sorry for misunderstanding, What I mean is that "Nobody of Consequence" was blocked based on Einsteindonut unverified long writes/talks (hundreds of his line are listed above) and Einsteindonut talks are like WP:OR.« PuTTY^SchOOL 12:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding user:Nobody of Consequence. Unfair is your baseless POV and you are free to express it though I am sure it will stop very soon (in a few minutes). To know further about that, please meet me on AN where there is a discussion involving this.

And please complete this...Every one here has the right to express his POV... Does it stop there or can we include something like ...as long as they remain CIVIL and calm? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 03:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It is an open sentence anyone is free to append another sentence to it, but yours is good :)« PuTTY^SchOOL 12:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Fayssal. I was originally against the block on NoC as I had no idea why it had been enacted, but once explained clearly, I agreed with it. PuTTY, I would strongly advise that being right on a particular dispute (re Einsteindonut) and the fact your opponent is a sockpuppeteer does not make you immune to the rules and norms that apply here. Civility and no personal attacks have the status of policy here, and this isn't a game of sides where one wins and the other loses, it's a collaborative and cooperative effort. Orderinchaos 12:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Orderinchaos, to your knowledge, I joined Wikipedia just for fun as I like this site, and I did not come here to play games or to support a case or to join a group of editors or friends, or in order to win or my side win or any of the things I heard here..... what I’m saying is very simple, NoF account is closed for 2 weeks in less than 20min after EsT claims, (adding the tags by NoF was not wrong, check AFD results), and EsT account is closed for 1 week (check his rude and offensive words, socks+.. and COI), so I found that 2 weeks is UNFAIRE compared to the 1 week, and I think this was the reason why NoF(A professional editor) left Wikipedia and requested to vanish, I’m not asking why his account is blocked, I’m asking why this one took 2 weeks Punishment and the other only one week« PuTTY^SchOOL 13:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I can totally understand where you're coming from. I've dealt with more than a few tendentious editors in my time. And yes, decisions can be inconsistent with each other. We have 1,500+ admins (I'm probably way out of date with my figures, it may well be much more now) and they're not always going to agree. Such decisions may not be the final word. If this person came back and started doing the same things as before, it'd be fairly certain he would be blocked for a longer period, perhaps even indefinitely if it was serious enough. The reason is that we could then say "he was blocked for it before, he knows it's unacceptable, it's been discussed by the community, and now he is continuing so clearly the threat of disruption still exists." We don't just go around banning or blocking people as punishment, we think, "this person's actions are disrupting the encyclopaedia, if we take this action, will it help or hinder our efforts to reduce that disruption?" I also don't think pushing this particular line will help your case, and you need to think about it from the point of view that the people you're talking to and dealing with this time may well be dealing with any future case and you want to, as far as possible, not piss them off and keep them onside. I can tell you right now that the biggest killer of AN/I reports, apart from the fact few admins check this place because it's usually full of drama, is when it appears to be a two-way struggle and we can't identify who is behaving worse. That usually results in no action, or action against the wrong party. Orderinchaos 15:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite your meaning of pushing my case, I’m not helping my case, I want to know how things are going, but comments like mine and other editors (like me) will force the 1500+ admins to normalize in between them, other than this thanks for the information which is very good.« PuTTY^SchOOL 15:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on the disgraceful and checkuser-proven trolling IP edits. See the section here. Everything is resolved. Brilliantine (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, but still 2 to 1 is unfair, check all comments by EsT+Socks+.. then compare with what NoC posted on EsT page. In addition the punishments was before this detailed long investigation, we can trace edits date and time.« PuTTY^SchOOL 15:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Has User:J Hoffer atually been blocked? I can't see it in the logs. I also note that they haven't been categorised as socks like the other accounts--Peter cohen (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup. HalfShadow 17:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I must be looking in the wrong way. Turning to the Checkuser board, I'm confised about this user's status.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter, Einsteindonut has never denied J Hoffer being his sock. Confirmed 100%. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 03:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify that you did not mean we have to collect socks punishments plus the one week.« PuTTY^SchOOL 18:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are not punishments, nor are they intended to be. They protect the encyclopaedia from damage. Orderinchaos 12:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, the amount of pleasure Puttyschool seems to be taking from this is kind of sick. HalfShadow 16:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Half Shadow, “it is not the amount of pleasure”, GOOD Wekipediana are trying to show all facts and focus on all points and fine details in order to enhance Wikipedia, so when this thread is closed, then it is closed forever not a HALF close!« PuTTY^SchOOL 19:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User page as NPA problem?

Would an uninvolved admin please look at the user page of the blocked editor? As I think fayssal mentioned far up the thread, this user page text appears to violate NPA. If so, since the editor is blocked for a week, could the unacceptable text be removed? Thanks, HG | Talk 15:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Text deleted. I mentioned earlier in the topic that it seemed to be soapboxing, but nobody else has done anything so I'm being bold. HalfShadow 16:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This issue (among others) is being dealt with by the ArbCom. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 03:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This may not be worth full-scale arbitration. There's really not much happening in article space that affects the encyclopedia. Most of the problems indicate drama to attract attention, on and off wiki. There's apparently been a multi-year flame war on Facebook on this subject, possibly involving some of the same individuals. If we ignore them, maybe they'll go play somewhere else. In other words, don't feed the trolls. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalizing of Arjun MBT pages

The user By78 is vandalizing the Arjun MBT pages. This is supported by the Admin Jauerback. Admins Jauerback has misused his Administrative powers earlier as well and went to the extend of blocking me to support vandalization of Arjun page with inaccurate information. He has repeated the mistake again. Request warning of By78 from vandalization of the Arjun MBT page and request the removal of Admin rights of Jauerback for acting in a very irresponsible manner and preventing me from contributing to Wikipedia (Arjun MBT pages) in a positive manner. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I see an edit war but no vandalism.Geni 04:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Chanakya, Please assume that other editors are working in good faith on the encyclopedia and work to find a consensus talking with other editors on the article talk page. Your attempt to bring this here for administrator intervention is inappropriate or at the very least extremely premature. You need to discuss this constructively and in good faith on your own part on the talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

How can preventing a person from editing (me) can be considered a good action. I am not against someone editing the articles by providing sources. But what if he removes my edit completely. I had edited the articles by providing valid sources. Someone (By78) blanks those edits the Admin (Jauerback) comes and supports it. Is that not a violation of Wiki basic right or edition of the article by every person by providing valid sources. How can Wiki admins allow blanking of those good edits. No reason is given expect that he disagrees with me. On what? No one knows. Just disagree. No source provided to prove his point. This kind of behavior is unacceptable. I had provided detailed explanation. Admins says he is least bothered about the content. Then why is he the Admin. Revoke his Admin rights.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried asking them why they ar reverting you?Geni 17:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Chanakyathegreat, as I've tried explaining to you on your talk page and on the talk page of the article, I have no position on what the content of the article is other than it remain neutral and properly sourced. In the past, you have attempted to add content from unreliable sources that are outdated from which you tend to pull out your own opinion from. Your "attempts" to discuss the changes on the talk page have been solely to accuse others of vandalizing your work and to repeat the same poor reasoning on why your content should be included. Then, without ANY consensus, you make the changes to the article. Before you add any content to that article, you need to gain consensus to do so, because you obviously can't seem to do so without pushing your own POV into every sentence that you write. So, let's summarize what you need to do: 1. Discuss on the talk page without making vandalism accusations. 2. Gain consensus on the content, wording, and sources. 3. Add to article. 4. Rinse, repeat. Fairly simple, huh? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you might like to see WP:COOL? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 19:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A block for civility violations or repeated NPOV violations is not a cool-down block. But I see no mention of blocking here. Am I missing something? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 04:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Jauerback, you still is not acting as a responsible administrator. Absolutely agree that the article must be nuetral and the Admin must make sure that it is neutral. What you are doing is just the opposite. You are supporting someone who reverses my edits. Those edits I made was by providing valid sources and remember that this time I had not even removed any links or sources added by By78. I had tried to include the real issues with valid sources and explained the same in the talk page as well. Now why are you reverting my good edits.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you intentionally ignore everything that is said to you? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I challenge you to point out a single recent edit done by anyone that I had removed or blanked like By78 is doing. What I had done is provided more information and links. What I am complaining is that these edits with links are being blanked by By78. The reason in plain explanation is hatred. Jauerback, If you can provide proof of me doing anything against Wiki rules, I will quit editing the Arjun MBT pages, If you cannot prove it I suggest you quit being an Administrator. Are you ready to take the challenge. This challenge is not just to Jauerback, anyone who thinks that I am wrong in this issue can take up this challenge.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a waste of time to list the occasions where Chanakyathegreat pushed his POV by reverting other people's edits because he has demonstrated an amazing capacity to ignore reason and facts. I don't try to use reason with my cat because she cannot reason as humans do. In Chanakyathegreat's case, I am convinced by now that when it comes rational thought, he distinctly lacks it. When faced with overwhelming evidence supporting a position he does not like, Chanakyathegreat will simply resort to making groundless accusations against other editors' integrity as opposed to focusing on debating the points in contention. The edit history for Arjun is for all to see. Chanakyathegreat doesn't have a leg to stand on. In fact, Chanakyathegreat has exhibited a pattern of POV pushing. For those who are interested, simply check out the discussions for "Great Power" and Chanakyathegreat's own talk page regarding this topic to see how he tried in vain to get India listed as a great power, only to be repeatedly rebuked by fellow editors for POV pushing. As for the Arjun article, also see its discussion page to see the extent of Chanakyathegreat's blatant POV pushing and lack of rational thinking capacity. The consensus on most of Arjun article's content was reached a while back, yet Chanakyathegreat stood alone in his stubborn refusal to acknowledge facts, despite his repeated claims of strictly adhering to truths. Chanakyathegreat, simply claiming to side with truths/facts does not make you stand on the side of truths/facts. You have to earn such accolades by action, and action is where you consistently failed to live up to your self-proclaimed reputation for factual integrity. It just goes on to prove how irrational you truly are that you have resorted to challenging people to "prove" the accusations of your POV pushing, seeing that the discussion pages and edit history for "Arjun" and "great power" are littered with the dirty laundries of your POV pushing. This is really sad, bro, really sad. By78 (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to win over by accusing other rather than stick to the topic of why are you blanking good edits and why you should not be blocked for such an action. Now don't come up with more accusations against me. Answer this. Your point that it was the summer trial that the tank has problem has been debunked. Hopes you accept it and changes the article back to the version that I edited. Now please don't reply with more accusations against me you are like that, you are like this you.. Thank you. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Tip number one: No labeling anything as "hatred." That, in itself, is "hatred."

Tip number two: If this is the only reason for which you want to revoke Jauerback's admin rights, you still need a little more to go on.

Tip number three: If you would like to present your argument, I suggest you do it after some time off, perhaps after a nice walk in the park or a hot cup of tea. Then, come back.

Trust me, the way your argument stands, even if you are right, it is hard to believe if it comes from someone who might be so full of anger that his judgment is clouded. I am not saying that you do have clouded judgment; I am only suggesting that that is the perception you are giving to others, judging from the tone of your writing.

Rest, meditate, vacation... Just take your mind off it a moment then come back. —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 23:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

La Pianista, I can prove you wrong. By78 reverts and accuses the other contributer, just have a look at his contribution list.[20] His recent contributions are attempt to put the negative versions about the Arjun MBT and also made an attempt to deliberately hide certain facts while editing the the Economy of India page. I agree that one is free to edit any page in Wiki but Why should one hide facts and try to put only the sad affairs. It is deliberate attempt believing that it is the right way to tarnish the image of one nation. Now can you disapprove the above and say that these things are not done because of hatred. If not then what else is it?

Regarding anger, I don't have it guys. I want the rules of Wiki to be upholded and the person given freedom to edit the pages by providing valid sources so that truth remain in Wiki pages. Also I request that the Vandalization like blanking pages need to be stopped immediately and the spreading of hatred, unnecessary accusations against a person is also stopped in Wikipedia.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I had provided proof for the summer trial being successful and the problem with the winter trials. I hope By78 will understand and change his opinion of the issues being from the summer trials. Hope that he revert the page back to the version that I had edited.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

By78 is vandalizing the Arjun MBT talk page as well. In the comparison chart the Arjun status is put as doubtful by him. The tank is in service with the Indian army 43rd armoured division. It's already inducted and the status must be active. I had even provided the source. He knows it well, but still has reverted the talk page. These are the reasons I say that By78 is doing these kinds of things deliberately and he need to persuaded by Admins from such kind of anti-Wiki actions so that his contributions are for the good of Wikipedia rather than such vandalization. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Detailed explanation has been provided on the content of the edits. Also the apprehension of By78 about the summer/winter trials has been explained to him. Do anyone like to know anything more about the edits or is there any question regarding the same. I will be editing the page and hopes that it will not be blanked. Any violation of accusation will be reported here to keep the discussion of Arjun MBT talk page clean. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There you go again. You should know that participation in Wikipedia is voluntary, provided that you adhere to a certain set of guidelines, which you are all too willing to ignore. You want to stay, but you are not willing to abide by the rules: I really do not have a solution for you. I think you should follow your own advice, which I directly quote below: "Wikipedia towards its demise The quality of articles is hit. Vandals are allowed to push their own version with a single source without realizing what is it. No constructive discussion takes place about the subject. Attempts are made to present an older, wrong western viewpoint trying to tarnish other views. Truth or reality is hidden under the guise of neutrality whereas none exits. The Admins not only abuse good contributers but helps Vandals or directly indulge in Vandalism and don't use their brain. Rules are brought out punish good contributers rather than punish the culprits, just like some oppressive regime. THERE IS NO FREEDOM IN WIKIPEDIA ONLY THE FREEDOM TO VANDALIZE PAGES. If this continues WIKIPEDIA IS DOOMED FOR EVER. I quit contributing to Wikipedia. Thank all for the cooperation. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)" Your proposal sounds reasonable to me. By78 (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jauerback, you have reverted it again. This is what By78 has to say."If you truly believe your content for Arjun is based on consensus, then I invite you to edit the Arjun article. Go ahead, be my guest. Don't stop editing the Arjun. Stand up for your views. Go! By78 (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)"

It seem good behavior and how you came to the conclusion that it is "this wasn't based on consensus and you know it; your talk page discussion was a dare, not an agreement."

Jauerback, you still did not explain consensus on what. Allowing incorrect information to stay is not consensus. It's supporting vandalism. I don't want to do it. If there is any error in the edits that I made and anyone is pointing out that error by providing sources. I will accept it. Let there be constructive argument. Let the content of the page be with correct info. Kindly answer my question, consensus on which part? Which edit of mine is wrong?Chanakyathegreat (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Chanakyathegreat, please take this discussion to the talk page of the article, reread what's there, and you'll find all your questions have been answered numerous times. You're needlessly cluttering this page up and not accomplishing anything. Oh, and once again, please read WP:VANDALISM again. You continue to misuse it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Jauerback, it's the other way around. I had answered to all questions in great detail. Please check the Arjun MBT talk page.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Chanak, I'm done with trying to explain things to you and trying to direct you to things you should read. You either refuse to do so or you simply don't understand. The current version of the page is what the consensus (please click on that link and read it for once) was by several editors before they ALL complained about you coming in and whitewashing the article with misinterpreted information and outdated sources. As I've told you before, I DON'T CARE what you all decide (keywords: ALL DECIDE) to do, however you must establish a consensus, which you have repeatedly failed to do. Once everyone (and as it stands for right now, that's just you and By78) agrees on the content, then you can feel free to make changes. However, until then, please stop wasting your time on this board and on my talk page bloviating on this topic. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Jauerback, my latest edits after that has been reverted by By78 is all from the latest reports. [21] is from July 12 2008. Similarly [ http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=326338] is from June 17, 2008 and all links provided is the latest ones. By78 is not ready for consensus. First he had not provided any source to dispute what I have edited. The only thing done is accusation like POV pushing etc etc. I had explained this to you as well in detail. Then why is my version wrong and his version correct? Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Jauerback, I would like to point out to you that consensus is required on something disputable. Here explanation has been provided to By78's about his misconceptions including the Winter/Summer trial mixup. Now the requirement for consensus falls on him. That is after understanding the issue he must not revert my edits or in good conduct revert to the version of my edit. This has not happened. But Jauerback, you are reverting it to the incorrect version by By78. This is the problem. Hopes you understands it.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I ask you this again: Do you intentionally ignore everything that is said to you? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, another Sarah Palin thing

Could I respectfully request a neutral admin to look at the contribution~s of Booksnmore4you (talk · contribs), specifically at Political positions of Sarah Palin? Personally I think this is POV-pushing, especially on such a high-profile topic, but I really don't want to do the edit-warring thing. Kelly ^hi! 19:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've only had a very quick look, but the edits look pretty well-sourced at first glance. Who defines what is NPOV in situations like this? Brilliantine (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Was blocked 20 hours and counseled by User:Tznkai, an admin apparently recently back from 30 months off. GRBerry 02:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Books was blocked for 3RR violation after specific (on his talk page) and general warnings (On the article talk page) as well as truthful, if snippy comments in edits on that page by other editors.--Tznkai (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

On the talk page there, there was a peculiar claim concerning this editor. I don't know how convincing the claim is, but wanted to highlight it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And it appears that the editor has essentially confirmed that he has indeed been soliciting assistance off-wiki [22], while simultaneously trying to paint the entirety of the claim as outrageous and false. I have no idea if the identification of the current account with the account inactive since June is accurate or not - but if that identification is not accurate then there is at least one more current editor that has been soliciting such assistance for these articles. With the alleged older account inactive for 19 days before the current account began editing, and no topical overlap, I can't see a reason to go the WP:SSP route at the moment. Tznkai has cautioned the editor about such soliciting on the article's talk page. GRBerry 04:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey alleged real-life stalking/harassment

After last year's Arbcom decision, I swore I'd stay out of all things related to Merkey. I'd still be doing that if he hadn't decided to harass me in the real world.

In the ArbCom case, Merkey claimed multiple times that I had criminally stalked him, see [23], [24], [25], and [26]. Arbcom decided that I had WP:HARASS'ed Merkey [27], and banned me for one year. After my one-year ban was up, I returned to Wikipedia and began editing on subjects in which I have an interest, keeping in mind my de facto topic ban relating to Merkey.

ArbCom also issued Merkey a one-year ban for other reasons, and this ban has been re-set twice [28] for evasion from different IP addresses that have been connected in some way to him:

• 166.70.238.44 and 166.70.238.45 where a tracert ends at a host that includes 'jmerkey' in the name
• 69.2.248.210, which resolves to Calculated Research & Technology, which lists a company named Omega8 as a partner, which is the exclusive distributor of Merkey's "Forensic Filesystem" according to materials on a site that Merkey controls.

I wouldn't bring any of this up if Merkey hadn't escalated things dramatically in the real world. When he began editing from 69.2.248.210, I was certain it was him based on the topics chosen and the fact that the IP address could be easily linked to him. Did I say a damn thing? NO. I let other people notice it and handle it, and this was the proper thing to do. I monitored the situation closely, but made no comments at all. The last thing I want is to have any dealings at all with Merkey, not on Wikipedia and certainly not in the real world. I also don't want certain people to start jumping on me and claiming that I'm an SPA against Merkey.

But this is really serious when you make phone calls and trying to mess with peoples' lives. What's he going to do next, show up at my house?

On 25 June 2008, Merkey called my employer and tried to get me fired. He asked to speak to HR, and told them who he was (including providing a phone number), and "you've got a problem employee on your hands." He then claimed to have checkuser results from Wikipedia indicating that some large percentage of my edits to Wikipedia were done from an IP address that resolved to my employer. He never asked directly to have me fired, but his choice of words made it clear he expected I would get fired as a result of his call.

In the ArbCom case, Merkey accused me of stalking him, but then almost a year later, he called my employer and tried to get me fired. Now I'll say this: if he had called them at the time that I was allegedly stalking him from my work, that's legitimate ("one of your employees used your computer systems yesterday to harass me in an internet forum"), but a year later? After I've left him alone completely in real life? That's way over the line. I want nothing to do with him, and almost one year after my last interaction with him on Wikipedia, he decides to move his battle from Wikipedia to the real world.

There's not a whole lot Wikipedia can do, other than make a very bold statement that this kind of behaviour cannot be tolerated. Considering at least two legal threats during his ban period (a direct legal threat [29] and a veiled threat [30]) in violation of his legal threat parole, and in light of his behaviour in stalking me (the very thing he unjustly accused me of during ArbCom), I ask the community to permanently ban Jeff Merkey from Wikipedia. Pfagerburg (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Several weeks ago, I contacted the checkuser ombudsman to determine if Merkey's claim that he had checkuser results was true. Obviously, he doesn't have access, but I wondered if he had managed to get someone else to divulge information to him. After some delay, the ombudsman replied that there is no information in the checkuser tool indicating that my IP addresses were accessed or disclosed. That seems like a good clarification to add, that checkuser was not actually involved. Pfagerburg (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering that Merkey has been indef'ed before and managed to get unbanned [31], this block should get a footnote that it is permanent and irrevocable. How many blatant violations of WP policy (NLT and BLOCK mostly) do you need? Coupled with real-world behaviour to bring his grudge from WP into my employment? Indefinite and irrevocable, please Pfagerburg (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If the facts are what you say they are, I would support extending the ban on Merkey to indefinite and irrevocable. I suggest you email the arbitration committee (see the email addresses listed at WP:ARBCOM). Buki ben Yogli (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to sail too close to the WP:NLT wind, surely that telephone call would be slanderous? Brilliantine (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it's that simple. Merkey is a bit of an oddball but it's undeniably the case that he has also been royally trolled on and off Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No matter how badly other people have trolled him in the last year, there's no justification for messing with me in real life. Other than reporting his real-life harassment, I have pretty much left him alone this past year, especially here on WP. From my limited understand of the situation, messing with people in the real world is part of what got Daniel Brandt indef'ed. Pfagerburg (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Guy, you've been in contact with Merkey before. Can you get his version of events here? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded - while this could be a serious situation, proceeding down the road with anything related to this based on one side's claims is a procedural and ethical mistake. Merkey's side of the story should be asked for and heard. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thirded - he deserves his say, even if it will probably involve a lot of wikilawyering. Let him e-mail his comments to Guy or someone else of his choosing. Pfagerburg (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support indefinite ban. Harassment is unacceptable, period. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Block has been implemented. — Werdna • talk 07:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've noted it on the related arbitration page. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the block but I have unsalted his talk page if he wishes to participate to this discussion via that channel. His userpage remains salted (now extended to indef). Kwsn (Ni!) 13:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Pfagerburg, how did you verify it was Merkey that called (and not the GNAA)? --Duk 20:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The person who called presented himself as Merkey, and provided a phone number which I presume is Merkey's. (No, I don't have the phone number; HR would have it.) He followed the pattern that I became accustomed to last year - claiming that I had stalked him, threatening to sue me, and asking that somebody (in this case, my employer, previously, admins or AbrCom) do something about it. Like the old way of spotting sock puppets prior to CheckUser, it fit too well to not be Merkey.

Something else I thought to mention: I'm not the only person who has had an apparent vendetta from Merkey spill over into the real world. I will not divulge the details publicly, but the gist of it is that someone who criticized Merkey off-wiki (and was never on WP) found out that copies of his message board postings were sent to someone who is in a position of authority over him. As in my situation, it happened several months after the alleged wrong. This person has communicated many more details to me privately, and I cannot offer those details to anyone here, unless/until I get his approval. Pfagerburg (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Merkey has commented on this issue yet (if he is even aware of it), so there's no confirm or deny. He has denied other things in the past, such as posts made to LKML where the headers clearly indicate that the e-mail came from a machine under his control, and of course denying that he was behind the posts from the anonymous IP's noted above, despite what Occam's Razor (to quote Sir Fozzie) had to say about that. He's welcome to deny it, but that doesn't constitute proof that he didn't do it.

The person at my work who took the call is out of town for a week, but I will check with him to get more details when he is back. I have a few aces up my sleeve that can prove whether or not it was Merkey, if that becomes necessary.

If it turns out that someone impersonated Merkey (essentially a variant of a joe job), I will 1. offer my apologies to Merkey for this AN/I, 2. request that his ban be reset to the 1-year term that was previously in effect for block evasion (by SirFozzie as of 12 Aug 2008), and 3. provide any information I have (including the phone number if it is made available to me) to assist him in tracking down the responsible parties, if he so chooses.

Duk, I can't get the absolute confirmation from HR until next week. Some of the information will be of a confidential nature (such as the phone number which he provided, the name of the person he called, the company where I work), so posting it here doesn't seem like a very good idea. Pfagerburg (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank's Pfagerburg. So we don't really know if this was Merkey or someone impersonating him. I think we need to hear from Merkey. Did your HR person have caller ID?

As I pointed out above, Merkey has claimed impersonation before. Pfagerburg (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

To Werdna, let's not go hog wild on the infinite blocking based on well meaning hearsay that is based on well meaning hearsay. --Duk 11:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The person I need to talk to is out of town until next week. Let the infinite block stay for now; it will be easy enough to back out later if it is proven that someone impersonated Merkey. If not for Werdna's block, Merkey would still be under 11 more months of block for ban evasion anyway. Pfagerburg (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

< See also message from Merkey. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Now on foundation-l too. MER-C 10:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like nothing more than to leave Merkey alone, and receive the same in return. However, I cannot overlook Merkey (presumably, not conclusively proven yet) calling my employer and attempting to get me fired.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the person with whom I need to speak is out of the office until Monday, the 15th. When he returns, I will ask him for his notes, which included the phone number that the caller provided. I am confident that we can come to a conclusion as to the truth of the matter.

By the way, I saw the edits in early August before they disappeared. After an "I'm not Merkey, he doesn't work here" denial, someone posted an edit to the 69.2.248.210 page with the summary of "your company switchboard seems to think otherwise." The IP responded with an edit summary about stalking. And shortly thereafter, the edits disappeared, possibly oversighted. So Merkey does (or did) work for CR&T, contrary to the denials that he posted.

What's the old legal adage "false in one, false in all"? Pfagerburg (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel like I ought to explain the delay in handling this. The best time to bring this up to Wikipedia would have been right after it happened, back in late June. However, I erroneously believed that I could not do so at the time, since my ArbCom-imposed block still had a month to go. Seeing that Merkey had his block re-set for editing from an IP address, I was not eager to re-set my own block by posting the incident here while still under a block.

Once my block expired, I began looking for the appropriate page to post a question to the CheckUsers and find out how Merkey got CU results. I found the proper page, but it listed an e-mail address (facepalm - so I could have e-mailed them immediately, block or not) and sent them an e-mail. The ombudsman committee replied that they would look into the matter, but it would take a little while. So I waited. A month later, I inquired again, and was told "sorry for the delay, no, nobody CU'ed you." And that was 1-2 days before I started this AN/I. I do wish we could have dealt with this when it was fresh in everyone's minds, but I hope you will understand why the delay. Pfagerburg (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Time for User:Ricky81682 to go?

No further action required. See content below. --VS ^talk 07:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I just happened to have found this place and I'm greatly concerned about Wikipedia's future viability if we allow people like Ricky81682 to run amock destroying the hard work of people like Kirker (and smearing people like AlasdairGreen27) just out of a personal vendetta. We need to immediately stop him and I would suggest a long hard block to make sure he doesn't edit here again. Look at the destruction he caused above at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Urgent_block_review_please. We cannot allow conduct like to go unnoticed and I think someone should go to Jimbo and stop it right now. 76.171.201.224 (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For someone who has just found this place, you sure do know the ins and outs of it already.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

[EC] I agree Ryūlóng and I just happened to find this notice (and I admit have been editing for a long time). Indeed I couldn't add another word to your synopsis of this complaint.--VS ^talk 07:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This IP has one other edit back in august 5 and guess who else is involved?[32] Ricky. Looks like sock puppetry to me. Considering a Checkuser request.--Tznkai (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User:kirker has a recent history of conflict with Ricky and Rjecina, and a distinct lack of civility in much of it, writing tone seems suspicious. Anyone else want to weigh in before I submit a checkuser request on 76, Kirker and AlasdairGreen27 for block evasion?--Tznkai (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Let it go. There has been a mass of checkuser and sock allegations going back forever. Let's not add to it. It's probably meat puppetry anyways. Just offer an opinion at the other section and close this nonsense down as resolved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the IP address looks closer to a series of crazies I annoyed late last year with another article. I wouldn't be surprised if it's not even related to these guys this time. I've been here long enough to annoy plenty of groups, some of whom I guess have nothing better to do than complain when they see me. My personal favorite was this chaos, including threats to complain to an Indian government minister. Seriously, people take things WAY too seriously. Can someone else just mark this as resolved and leave everyone on their way? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai certainly has an ingenious style in smearing. I followed his link to an earlier contribution from the anonymous editor IP 76.171.201.224 - the one about which Tznkai said "guess who else is involved?" In fact Ricky81682 was mentioned that earlier time along with others, and unless I misunderstood, there was absolutely no conflict between the Ricky81632 and the anonymous editor. Rather the reverse, I'd say.

I wonder what Tznkai means by my "suspicious" writing style? Perhaps we will be enlightened in the course of his sockpuppet investigations....

Rick81682's advice to "let it go" is a cop-out. Tznkai has set a hare running and should have the guts to follow through with a sockpuppet referral. For that reason I am removing the "resolved" tag (it plainly isn't resolved) and putting this item back on the noticeboard. Is that a legitimate procedure?

(Oh, like some others, I have only now found my way to this item. I was looking for a sockpuppet allegation against me that was allegedly entered somewhere here by Rjecina. All the links seem to be dead, and I haven't really fathomed the archive process yet.) Kirker (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on this matter over at User talk:Tznkai#Sock thing at ANI and mentioned AlasdairGreen27 and Rjecina there. Those who are wondering about any new sockpuppet complaints that might concern them could look at WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/Brzica milos etc, filed on 8 September by Rjecina. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Because of administrator Tznkai my "pathetic" "small-minded mentality" [33] will not start another "idiotic" [34] try to block Kirker. In my thinking he must recieve reward, but we are having new warning...

Can somebody show me place where I can start meatpuppets actions because of edits Kirker and AlasdairGreen27 on this page, in articles Magnum Crimen and Miroslav Filipović--Rjecina (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina, cut that out right now. You are not helping at all. Stop with the allegations completely. A lot of them have been proven false, so quit repeating them to try to gain the upper hand. Otherwise, this thread was already archived not just once but twice. Can someone please manually archive this section, and split out the subsection below with a link? I really really don't like my name being dragged into this many threads. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ricky81682: an acceptable level of adjudication?

Ricky81682 blocked me for 31 hours, citing that I had refused to respond to complaints about me. He took that decision ten minutes after putting a notice on my talk page that I was the subject of a complaint. Was I really in error for failing to respond within ten minutes? I have put that point to him and no answer was his reply. He says that I refused to respond to a complaint against me a few weeks ago, but the record shows that I did respond. The only other complaint against me was in November 2007. I never knew about it, no action was taken against me and the complainant himself was banned. I have put all this to him too. No answer.

Why was it Ricky81682 who leapt in to deal with the present matter? Another editor put to him that he had a clear COI (conflict of interest?) - a point he seemed to concede. And someone else suggested that a block of 24 hours instead of 31 would be appropriate - a point which Ricky81682 ignored as far as I know. I asked him if there was a procedure whereby I could register a complaint against him, but again no reply.

I was blocked in response to a complaint from Rjecina, who is a disruptive and negative presence on Wikipedia as would be quickly realised by anyone skimming his contributions. One charming example, and this on a TALK page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II_persecution_of_Serbs&diff=prev&oldid=233977689

Rjecina also pushes a POV agenda but I concede that he might not be detached enough from the issues to realise that he is doing it. In answering some of his assertions, I said I was doing so only in the hope that others might see what an idiot he was. This was a flippant remark in the course of a substantial and reasoned response, as Ricky81832 knew well. As Ricky81682 also knew when blocking me, Rjecina had asserted among other things that my parents were born in Yugoslavia. (This was a desperate attempt to undermine my credentials as a disinterested editor.) Moreover when challenged, Rjecina went on to say that if I claimed otherwise, he would not trust my answer. (It's all there on my talk page.) And this is a guy about whom I am asked to assume good faith, LOL.

Set against the general pattern of Rjecina's behaviour towards me, my incivility was a trivial matter. I would never waste my time entering formal complaints about Rjecina's pathetic conduct, and I assumed that in return he could take robust responses on the chin. Obviously not.

In presenting his version of my history on this page, to justify his actions, Ricky81682 chose to put into my mouth a paraphrase of what I actually wrote, in order to suit his own agenda.

Ricky81682 stated that I cannot work with others. Anyone who looks at my editing history in the Ante Pavelić article for instance, or Stepinac, will see that he displays only his own ignorance with such a statement. And anyone looking at the Miroslav Filipović article will see that I am primarily concerned with bringing some of the crap on Wikipedia's Balkan pages up to the standard achieved in many other areas of the encyclopaedia. Sometimes I do this in the face of pathetic whining from editors like Rjecina, obsessed with pushing their small-minded agendas. Rjecina hates the Filipović аrticle as I have rewritten it of course (see its talk page), but there's nothing he can do about it despite his best efforts, since it is self-evidently non-POV and is comprehensively sourced throughout. I suspect it is his frustration over this matter that drives some of the wilder allegations of sockpuppetry etc that he makes against me.

In responding to an earlier complaint against him on this page, Ricky81682 proudly drew attention to a previous commotion in which he involved himself. A surprising response in view of his professed concern to spread sweetness and light. He has also said he will apologise if his blocking of me was unreasonably hasty. Where will he put such an apology, if it comes to that?

All in all, I would say that at the very least he needs to take a little more care over the matters in which he chooses to involve himself, or step aside so that progress can be made in a subject-area of Wikipedia that falls woefully short of an acceptable standard. Kirker (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a place to be uncivil to other editors by calling them pathetic. Consider this a block warning for personal attacks.--Tznkai (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

On the off chance this isn't clear enough, no more personal attacks, or I'll issue a block. Subject to another administrator's review of course. For the next 24 hours, no further warnings will be issued on this matter.--Tznkai (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I was making no personal attacks - just putting cogent complaints about what seemed like unreasonable behaviour. That much, at least, Wikipedia should be able to live with. Moreover I described no-one as pathetic but described Rjecina's conduct as pathetic. But let people form their own views about that by looking at the record. For instance the Magnum crimen talk page (say from here onwards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Magnum_Crimen#J._A._Comment.27s_revision_.28September_2008.29) Kirker (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally Tznkai showed how little he knows about my recent squabbles when he gratuitously floated a fatuous rumour that I'm a sockpuppet.Kirker (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Kirker, calling someone's actions or them pathetic is a personal attack and will not be tolerated. An apology is encouraged, but not required.--Tznkai (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Kirker, I'll put a way an admin once told me. It's hard to people to determine who is doing good edits and who is doing bad edits. Incivility, on the other hand, is clear. Acting uncivil makes it harder for people to take you seriously, no matter what you do. You can either take that as constructive criticism or ignore it completely under the guise of "I do good work, so I can act however I want." Regardless of everyone you work with, Rjecina seems to be a problem. Again, as I've asked, if Rjecina is doing something wrong, please explain with specific diffs. Pointing to a talk page and saying "they are disruptive" isn't helpful. I saw you mentioned the sockpuppetry allegations, which I've warned about (here albeit too late for your tastes, I guess). I agree that this checkuser request may be a bit much, and again, you should simply warn Rjecina and report on that conduct. Long diatribes again and again aren't helping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Ricky81682, some of that I understand. My spat with Rjecina comes down to this: if he fabricates gratuitous assertions, for instance about my parents, and follows that by saying he is not going to believe any denial I may make, he forfeits any entitlement to an assumption of good faith and I will happily make facetious references to his own parentage as I did on your page. If he dishes it out, he should be able to take it, without running off to the admins at the slightest pretext. But he knows that when he does complain, he will always win, simply because I could never be bothered to complain about him. Kirker (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"He did it first!" does not work as a excuse here. Wikipedia is not a playground. Have you not worked out yet that retaliating in kind provokes escalation? DGG (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

DGG, lighten up! This might not be a playground, but as I don't get paid for editing here, I'm entitled to a bit of fun. (f I get banned, big deal. Kirker (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Eldereft Engaged in negative WP:OWNERSHIP/edit war WP:TROLL activities

I have tried to seek WP:3 mediation with user User:Hrafn, but in response User:Eldereft claims that tangential comments from other editors preclude it's two party guideline: [35] (Eldereft is not a contributor to WP:3, my request was removed apparently to aid Hrafn, whose activities have not been commented on favorably from two previous WP:3 in which I and he have been involved: Talk:Relationship between religion and science#Third Opinion and Talk:The Christian Virtuoso#Third opinion) He has also begun to tag informally approved and review articles in a way that I believe can be fairly categorized as a negative form of WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:TROLLing to make a WP:POINT. Examples are recent edits with User:Hrafn to [36] and [37]. The Issues in Science and Religion was reviewed positively as a stub in Talk:The Christian Virtuoso#Third opinion. The List of science and religion scholars was reviewed by [38] User:Rocksanddirt and I have sought Rocksanddirt's counsel before adding this list's link to other article's See also sections. [39]. User:Rocksanddirt responded here [40]. (The point is that these articles have had some review and oversight other than by me.) I would like User:Eldereft's recent tags to be removed since the actions are non-wikipedia hyper-verification standards done in order to make a WP:POINT and ask that he or she stop tagging my articles further. The issues are really with User:Hrafn, but User:Eldereft appears to be intentionally interfering to make a WP:POINT with the WP:3 process. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Firefly322, your whole rant is based on a failure to assume good faith. If articles lack reliable sources for notability or are based on a neologism which isn't in use, they're subject to review. As for others becoming involved in your mediation, you seem to have forgotten that you named several other editors but failed to provide diffs of the alleged problems you had with these users. Last I saw, the case was stalled awaiting information from you. . . dave souza, talk 19:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As a Christian involved with a non-religious person (Hfran), the accusation that this is a failure on my part to assume good faith (WP:AGF) seems an ironic one. Moreover, The underlying issues have really between User:Hrafn and me and others have just recently join in and are tangentially going along with User:Hrafn. A clarification at WP:3 seems necessary, to me. For if you are refering to the WP:mediation cabal, then that process doesn't work here, because I am one editor with a dispute with potentially several (those who are going along with User:Hrafn). The resources required are potentially enormous and I believe beyond those of a single editor. That process seems really set up for a bi-lateral multi-party resolution. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved: sorted out by a response to your belated post to Eldereft's talk page. Pity you didn't think of doing that before posting here.[41] . . dave souza, talk 20:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC) The question of keeping the item up for WP:3 is resolved, but evidently there are still questions of Firefly disputing tags. Hope all is now clarified, bedtime for me. . . dave souza, talk 21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is not my strong suit, but I do periodically contribute Third opinions (both successfully and not so much), as Firefly322 may be aware. The first edit in question, removing Firefly322's request, was performed after checking into the situation; most relevantly, I found this section indicating a consensus to merge with another page. Since the post mentioned only "the existence of talk page's main-space article", I judged the matter to have been resolved. The subject area is something that interests me occasionally, so I then performed the indicated merge. As I am passingly familiar with both Hrafn and Firefly322 (and some of the other editors involved in the merge consensus), I would not have presumed to offer an independent third opinion, but I considered myself to be by that point operating outside the strictures of WP:3O. I am not sure what WP:POINT I am supposed to be making, but when I found Firefly322's re-addition I issued an apology. This was a full day after the event, but still prior to this present thread. The preceding diff also contains my notification to Firefly322 that I had prodded List of science and religion scholars.

Tags I have placed recently include aforementioned prod and a request for page numbers. Possibly this latter is the motivation for "hyper-verification standards"? That article contained 46 citations to the book that is its subject, but provided no indication of where in the book an interested reader might pursue the topic. This is manifestly not an indication of any suspicion on my part that the statements being supported are dubious; I find it perfectly credible that the book treats these topics.

Interested editors may note that there is currently Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-02 Relationship between religion and science. I am not at present a party to this case, but it concerns this family of articles. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Firefly322 - would you please expand on your views concerning a putative relationship between religiosity and willingness to assume good faith? - Eldereft (cont.) 21:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. In order to correctly assume good faith, one must have developed a discernment as to what faith means. Anyone can claim that WP:AGF has been broken and anyone can claim that they are WP:AGF, but unless one has some sense of what faith is, what it is to truly believe in someone or something, then the word faith when spoken or heard is weakly meaningful if not meaningless. So I don't see how WP:AFG works where an editor is consistently crude towards me and has stated that he is of no faith. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(interposting) dave souza comment about WP:AGF seems outside the bounds of wikipedia guidelines, because even per wikipedia guidelines assuming good faith is a two way street that depends upon certain mutual things. These things are partially outlined here: WP:No personal attacks#Consequences of personal attacks and WP:Civility#Apologizing. Hfran rarely apologizes a rare example, nor does he or she recipocate in words of kindness. (I tried a friendly word of kindness, Hrafn never responded.), and again see what Talk:Relationship between religion and science#Third Opinion mentions about someone's questionable civility on the page with which I have had to deal with Hrafn quite a bit. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that saying about people in glass houses can apply here, since as far as i can tell you're fairly serious above about suggesting that atheists and agnostics can't assume good faith. I assure you that this is highly objectionable, and that such views make it likely that this project is not for you. 86.44.21.173 (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(interposting) Just to address the comment posted by this IP-address, that seems to suggest that taking core policies like WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL seriously is bad, in particular my pointing out their two-way street requirements. I take faith in all forms very seriously. That is what motivated me to write the Young radicals article. Here a powerful form of faith was adopted by group of scholars that I feel is a metaphor for what I suspect is the majority of editors here on wikipedia. In fact, I was thinking that wikipedia WP:AGF is of the variety held by the Young radicals. Considering their accomplishements and influence and my respect for them (that's why I bothered to put the stub together), I think these efforts of mine strongly suggests that I am open to faith in all forms. Nevertheless, per wikipedia policy, faith is a two street, not a one way one. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a rather complex response to rather a simple issue, but I note the clarification. Perhaps you might think about expressing these thoughts, if they are worth expressing, in the benign environment of a userspace essay, rather than when in a dispute, where they take on a personal nature. Very nice stub. 86.44.21.173 (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to second anon's conclusion: it is highly objectionable to suggest that non-religious people are incapable of sincerity, which is Wictionary's synonym for good faith. That is a grave insult to all such people. --Hordaland (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If sincereity and faith are synonymous, then the phrase assume good sincerity would carry about the same amount of meaning as assume good faith. That, I suspect, is something no one at all would take seriously. So I think there is an error in your logic here. --Firefly322 (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You are misquoting me. --Hordaland (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the prod notice. The inclusion criteria for the list need attention, that is a content dispute, not a reason for deletion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that Firefly322 has seen fit to draw me more centrally into this rambling complaint, I'd like to clarify a few matters that (s)he has raised:

1. Firefly322 has absolutely no idea what my religious beliefs are. (S)he is merely speculating wildly.
2. The statement Firefly322 made about my religion appears to be claiming a moral/ethical superiority based solely on his/her religion, relative to my own purported beliefs. I do not consider such claims to be conducive to WP:CIVIL discussion, and quite frankly find them to be offensive.
3. As to WP:No personal attacks, Firefly322 has accused me of being a "troll" and repeatedly accused me of being "evil".
4. Far from WP:Civility#Apologizing when (s)he erroneously stated I has introduced new material, and I pointed out that this was actually old material, erroneously deleted, Firefly322 proceeded to complain bitterly.
5. The reason that I did not respond to this olive branch (referenced above) was that I could think of no way to respond that was neither discourteous or dishonest (given my low opinion of the quality of his/her edits) -- so I simply followed the rule of 'if you can't think of something nice to say, don't say anything.'

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn has revealed something about his religious beliefs [42]. Hrafn went through a period where he was in fact WP:TROLLing (Aydin Sayili comment was part of that period), following me onto an obviously unrelated project: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's Menu Song, which is probably the easiest example to understand. A typical example of Hrafn's evil commentary (this here is the second time I've ever used the word on wikipedia) is where he says I violate WP:AGF and then goes on to use thank you feciously, bangs out the word "Bullshit", and tells me Put up or shut up. [43]. Other editors have been subjected to his put up or shut up comment: [44]. And Hrafn has used troll against other editors: [45]. Hrafn has even called other editors work intellecutal masterbations. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Firefly322 has dragged me into WP:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-02 Relationship between religion and science and the list prod is being discussed at the appropriate talkpage, can we mark this as closed? My anonymous friend from across the puddle notwithstanding, I am willing for the sake of drama-reduction to ignore the blind assertion that I am philosophically unequipped to assume good faith. Hrafn, you may of course pursue the matter here, but I would prefer that it be done in a new thread if not inconvenient (or possibly an RfC/U, based on the volume of conduct-related comments people have added to the MedCab). - Eldereft (cont.) 18:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how Eldereft can associate with Hfran after exposure of the volume of WP:UNCIVIL comments. Eldereft's comments seem naive in regards to Hrafn. And I do believe that Eldereft has shown a penchant for falling in with the wrong crowd. All the same, close this for now. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder

Resolved.

Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs) is requesting unblocking. He was most recently blocked by User:Prodego for "Disruption through repeated legal action." Guido had been previously blocked for legal threats; Prodego undid that block on August 1, apparently because the legal issues had been totally resolved. Then, on September 4, Guido posted a non-specific note [46] about his involvement in another legal dispute; according to the analysis of other admins this edit was the immediate reason behind the block. Guido now says that the legal action he referred to in this recent edit is already resolved, and wants to be unblocked. So what remains is the question of whether Guido ought to be indefinitely blocked for having taken legal action repeatedly. AFAIK, these two incidents are the only ones. Guido quite strenuously argued against being blocked the first time, as there was a question whether the legal threat took place on the Dutch (nl) Wikipedia or here. So I don't see a repeat abuse problem here, and furthermore, at the essence of WP:NLT are two points: (1) keep legal actions from interfering with Wikipedia, and (2) don't use threats of legal action to try to influence Wikipedia articles or editors. Neither one of these was a problem here. It would have been better for Guido to not mention the legal issue at all, but he certainly wasn't using Wikipedia as an inappropriate channel for communication. And the action was apparently based on off-wikipedia acts, not about Wikipedia editing. So I'd like to see an unblock here. Mangojuice^talk 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me note that I'm opposed to pressing Guido for details about what this legal issue was, per the spirit of both WP:AGF and WP:NLT (i.e. Guido mostly kept it off of Wikipedia, we should try to do the same). Mangojuice^talk 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have some residual concerns, mainly related to the tone of m:Requests for comments/Dutch Wikipedia - unblock request. While projects are not related and we ban people other projects welcome, I still have questions as to why Guido didn't want this discussion brought to ANI. MBisanz ^talk 20:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think something that needs to be made very clear before I feel comfortable unblocking this user is the fact that this situation will not happen again, he will no longer make legal threats and even if he has engaged in legal action with another user it will not be mentioned here. Tiptoety ^talk 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems more reasonable. It should go without saying - but it's better said than unsaid. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Users should not bring up legal action, period. Not as a definite threat, not as a pointy allusion. Based on what I've read to date I'd support an unblock with a caveat of "Don't ever mention legal threats again" and if he sincerely wants to avoid disrupting wikipedia because of a legal issue, use {{wikibreak}}. GDB tends to make and cause a lot of noise wherever he goes, intentionally or not, but hasn't quite reached the point of irrevocably breaking the community's patience. Regards Meta, what happens off wiki(.en in this case) stays off wiki. Unblock, but I'd have this as his final warning about invoking mentioning the legal system. WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules^(simplified) 21:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That was brought up after the first situation I believe. Prodego ^talk 21:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Slightly better reaction this time, slightly less overt discussion. Shows a small amount of learning, which is better than nothing. WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules^(simplified) 21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Guido has agreed to no longer mention any legal action on-wiki. Tiptoety ^talk 21:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think Guido is evil or beyond being brought round. He is clearly very angry about the sabotage to his pet project. I suspect he will get over it in time; I am optimistic that the risk from a second chance is low in this case at this time. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither did I when I unblocked him, and I was quite optimistic too. I do not have a problem with second chances, I routinely give them to anyone who has any indication at all of an intention of collaborating. Third chances don't work the same way. Prodego ^talk 00:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So, I'm seeing thoughts running both ways, here. Per Tiptoety, Guido has agreed to no longer mention legal action on-wiki, and that seems to be the main request from the editors here. Is there consensus to unblock? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm always for giving people a chance. Reblocking him if it restarts doesn't cost anything. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be substantial support for unblocking; Guido has been appropriately warned at this point against any future situations. So I've gone ahead with the unblock. Mangojuice^talk 20:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mangojuice. Note that the guideline WP:NLT is currently being discussed. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat on Tim Boetsch

Resolved

 – User indef blocked per WP:NLT. User has contacted Foundation regarding legal action. — Satori Son

It's probably nothing, but I just discovered this legal threat on the Tim Boetsch article (an IP wisely removed it). I'm guessing the threat is in response to this act of vandalism by an another anonymous IP. The user that left the legal threat is named Tboetsch. The editor could be a fan or the subject defending himself in response to the vandalism. Either way, figured it wouldn't hurt to report it. I've also notified Tboetsch of this thread. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

blocked. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just in the process of advising him on why legal threats are not appropriate and what would be the best course of action if his article is vandalized again. Perhaps you could give him some advice on how he might get unblocked? Thanks. — Satori Son 13:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I've just AfD'd the article (not in response to this thread; just one of those moments when everyone edits at cross-purposes collaborates at the same time). EyeSerene^talk 13:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Kind of crappy timing from a WP:BITE perspective, but I understand your rationale. — Satori Son 15:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Like I say, I didn't get there from this thread (in fact, the thread caught my attention due to the name of the article I'd just been reading). It was a hugely unfortunate coincidence. However, I've now withdrawn the AfD nom, as notability seems to have been established. Hopefully no harm done :P EyeSerene^talk 16:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocking a new user seems harsh if no-one told them the rules first, especially if they just read something like that about themselves. --Nate1481 14:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

They need to be blocked until their identify can be confirmed, anyway, surely? --Tango (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we block for that while confirmation is pending, but either way Guy has posted a note on their talk with email contact info. — Satori Son 15:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We block them indefinitely until the legal threats are rescinded. Considering that the user has since called the Foundation offices to continue the threats, I feel it well justified. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I read the policy, and I can understand the reasoning, However a more empathetic comment on the talk page might have helped avoid the phone call. --Nate1481 16:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I was never really objecting to the block, I just wanted to make sure the guy was politely told what was going on and what his options were. Obviously, it's a Foundation issue now and I'm restoring the "resolved" tag. — Satori Son 21:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Just a comment here. Some anon added a nasty uncited defamatory (i.e. false) factoid to the article, with the result that the subject was hurt and upset and tried to fix it. I've had those revisions oversighted now. Could I please ask that in future if people see someone who is obviously the article subject, obviously completely new to the project and obviously complaining about a gross violation of policy, that they take the time to remove the threats, explain nicely to the person why what they are doing is wrong, and then if they continue the threats they have at least been warned. we know about WP:NLT, defamed article subjects do not (in fact ,a lot of them know nothing at all about Wikipedia except that it allowed some idiot to write vile things about them). This is the front line of Wikipedia's PR - how we handle bad edits to articles about real people. The user was not the problem, the anon adding uncited defamatory material was the problem, the user was just reacting to it. That's not to condone legal threats, but the NLT policy exists to stop people threatening each other with legal action, not to give us a way to block angry article subjects on their first edit. If I had a dollar for every OTRS complaint that mentioned legal action then I would be rich, but the vast majority go away if not happy then at least mollified. Banninating people for saying "WTF?!?! I'll sue your ass!" when they see crap written about them in article space is not really in the spirit of NLT, I would say. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, I did exactly that. Someone else blocked at the same time I was posting to his talk. And clarification to WP:NLT on situations like this would be welcome. — Satori Son 16:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Guy on this. I think it would be wise if the NLT policy could be clarified on these matters. The policy is a good policy, overall, but there is a very unfortunate sequence of events that happens far too often. A BLP attack victim sees something horrible in Wikipedia, and I think we can all acknowledge that they have no moral responsibility to become Wikipedians to fix it. Some of them react in ways that we, as Wikipedians who favor reasoned discourse over threats, find inappropriate. Sure, and why not? They are being unfairly attacked and they are hurt and angry and they have no idea what our rules are. That's not their fault. Banning them on the spot for a legal threat is not a very helpful response, usually. Now, some people like to show up as anons and issue legal threats just to cause trouble, and telling the difference between the two can be difficult. So I am not criticizing any particular action here. I just think that policy needs to reflect reality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, We have an essay related to this type of scenario, see WP:DOLT. Maybe parts of that can be used to fix/update WP:NLT? Keeper ǀ 76 22:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism persists[47], I've requested semi-protection as this is on going & these changes may want oversight too. --Nate1481 07:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotected. See also the debate at WT:NLT. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:G2bambino

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – What part of "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department" was unclear, please? dispute resolution is second on your left down the hall. Mind how you go. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's that time again. He's been around here before. I tried posting at WQA, but he provided his usual wikilawyering, and ignored his incivility.

He has been warned about rude edit summaries before. And continues to ignore the warnings.

He has been warned about uncivil behaviour before. And continues to ignore the warnings.

He has been warned about violating WP:AGF before. And continues to ignore the warnings.

To be more specific, when he is blocked, he always claims he'll be a good boy now, promise. And continues with the exact same behaviour as before.

Insults directed at other editors here, and in edit summaries here, here, here, here, and here.

This user is on some sort of crusade to make articles 'pretty' by removing whitespace. A long discussion here has failed to make him understand that 'removing whitespace' is a formatting issue that can only work on his computer. Despite him quoting the very same thing at me, he doesn't quite get it. He is being rude, condescending, and insulting. Another attack here, and (yes, I understand this is technically allowed, but it's part of a pattern) removal of the personal attack warning and notification of WQA here, more incivility and accusations, and yet another attack here, accusing me of being 'disingenuous' when removing images, when the actual issue was his failure to look at the page. He later made a smarmy 'apology'. Further attacking on his talk page, accusing me of warping the rules (which, given his extensive wikilawyering on a wide variety of things, is a bit of a laugh), and implies that any sort of community sanction against his behaviour is irrelevant to him. Indeed, right here, he states unambiguously that debating WP:Civil with him is pointless. Given his long history of incivility, that's hardly surprising. More incivility, and in the comment actually lying about what I am doing. Another [48] lie; claims I no longer wished discussion of the 'images' issue at my talk page; my actual statement was: "Do not reply on my talk page again; I do not wish to see any further personal attacks" (here), and "I wish to make this clear: STOP. POSTING. HERE. Your abuse is not welcome, your dishonesty is not welcome, you are not welcome," here.

uncivil edit summaries seem to be a trademark, as does blithely ignoring what other have to say, and that's just from the past couple of weeks. This indicates to me that this editor is less concerned with the health of the encyclopedia as much as he is concerned with getting his own way. I would also point out his general wikilawyering of policies, while conveniently ignoring several that apply to his own behaviour. I'm beginning to think that this belongs at RfC/U, as he is continuing his standard "I'm going to ignore everything you say until I get my way" thing at this talk page; unfortunately it would seem that from the times he has been invited to participate in arbitration he does not do so.

His ongoing editwarring at Monarchy of Canada is likewise ridiculous; citing "policy doesn't say I can't do this, so too bad for you" is wikilawyering at its worst. Especially since the editing in question (image moves) shows that, again, he not only does not understand formatting, but also completely ignores his own statements.

Indeed, on the talk page he acknowledged he had said that pages display differently on different computers, and that computers had not changed how they work in the intervening 60-odd days, without providing any sort of justification as to why he may make cosmetic edits that appear perfect only on his computer, while other users (me, and he's accused me of being on some sort of vengeance thing, but I learned from my mistake on July 4 at the Order of Canada article) are reverted as soon as they do so.

A bit of history.

G2bambino's incivility, propensity for nitpicking and wikilawyering, and generally adversarial and antagonistic behaviour is evident from the very beginning of his time here. He's been brought to ANI before, and for some reason was not censured at that time.

He has been blocked ten times since June 2007, one of those times for selectively editing another user's report of his behaviour at WP:AN3, which rather clearly shows that he doesn't care about the truth, just getting his way. Indeed, on his most recent block, his request for being unblocked included attacks and incivility against another user.

I will not deny that he has made useful edits to the encyclopedia. However, his long history of disruptive commenting, abuse, rude edit summaries, multiple violations of 3RR, lying, and antagonistic behaviour towards other editors is not excusable, nor is his utter refusal to amend any portion of his behaviour. Or to simplify: his complete refusal to understand and abide by WP:Civil is not defensible, and does not belong here.

Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 20:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps my opinions here will be seen as tainted considering I have had some contact with G2- all totally civil and been involved in a dispute with PrinceofCanada. However, this report seems to me to be totally biased, PoC recognizes no responsibility for this dispute and seems to treat his perception as absolute. I am fairly certain this is a calculated attack on G2 by PoC because of their dispute over EIIR and Whitespace, if you look at the talk page you can see PoC is the one who first abandons WP:CIVIL with his choice of provocative language. Also, does Wikipedia not have some form of Double Jeopardy system? Gavin (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC) I have done further investigation into PoC's actions, please have a look at how he delivered the message to G2 that he was intending to take action against him. User_talk:G2bambino#Your_choice. Gavin (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What double jeopardy? G2 ignored the WQA, did nothing to modify his behaviour. Calling this a 'calculated attack' is itself a violation of WP:Civil and [{WP:AGF]]. Tsk. That the dispute began with the whitespace issue on the EIIR page I do not contest. However, it is part and parcel of the same issue: his utter inability to understand how formatting works, and his assertion here, he says that something 'looking awful' is merely POV, and yet here using it as justification for his own edits. (Not to mention acknowledging that such changes are only from his viewpoint here, again ignoring his words on the subject on July 4). Indeed, the lack of civility began when he started using words like 'hideous' to describe my functional edits. Furthermore, my dispute with you boils down to "when a situation is already bad, adding snarky comments does nothing to make it better." And if you're going to talk about how I delivered my notice, you should also note (if indeed you are attempting to be unbiased) his response: that it is 'irrelevant', clearly showing that he does not care about community standards and sanctions. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 21:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See, when you make statements like "utter inability" do you not feel you are maybe being, even just a little, provocative? Also, I read his response, I took it to mean that his opinion on what you chose to do was irrelevant, it was an improper way to deliver such a notification anyway. (Also, my opinion that this reads as an attack does not contravene WP:Civil and as I recall you can only assume good faith up to a point.) Accusing someone of wikilawyering implies they are being sneaky and manipulative don't you think? Gavin (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I am describing the situation accurately. I explained to him in extremely plain English how the fixbunching template works, for example. Four or five times, I think. And yet he kept claiming that I was doing other things with it. That is either inability to understand, or pretending not to understand. Further plain-English explanations of how code is rendered, how it renders differently on different computers, and how (using his own words!) making cosmetic changes to fit one computer doesn't work, were all likewise met with either incomprehension or unwillingness to understand. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 21:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As for 'wikilawyering', he's well known for it. Date changes in the article on Autumn Kelly (Talk:Autumn Phillips) would be one excellent example. The more pertinent example here I showed above: claiming that something looks bad on his computer is justification for editing, but my claim that something looks bad on some computers is, apparently, to be met with a narrow reading of style guidelines and a response that if it doesn't violate the guidelines it is therefore okay. He applies policies when they suit him, and ignores them when they don't. Can't have it both ways, I'm afraid. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 21:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

His behaviour on Autumn Phillips's article hs been disgraceful. He argued and argued about date format, despite me refer to MoS. I then got 3rd parties involved via MoS talk (he has very reluctant to involve others), was quickly told he had been wrong & should not have changed format. But he still ignored it and changed it back. He will never listen to others or comprimise, and personally I have felt bullied by him.--UpDown (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

His inconsistencies is not case for an ANI action, the fact is I see a dispute which has gotten heated and escalated. You were part of that and contributed to the escalation- do you think that is untrue? As I read over what other users have to say about the ANI action I suspect they too think that maybe there is equal blame on both sides. I am going to go back to my first piece of advice on this situation, allow yourself to cool off- then go back to it. I think that you are clearly upset, as demonstrated by your decision to leave the project. Are you sure that you are in the right emotional state to make such a complaint right now? Gavin (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

When his inconsistencies are part and parcel of the accusations, namely incivility, violation of AGF, and wikilawyering? Yes, they do belong here. I do think it is untrue that I contributed to the escalation. G2bambino refused to listen, refused to acknowledge direct questions posed to him, refused to acknowledge that he was doing what he had told me not to do, refused to even entertain a compromise (though kept claiming he was trying to be cooperative!), and so on. Further, I would welcome you not commenting on my emotional state, as it is a) irrelevant, b) none of your business, and c) unless you live with me (which I doubt) or interact with me in person, you do not know what my emotional state is. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See, I think you are partly responsible, as someone who has had a dispute with you before, you do tend to belittle other users, insult them and impose superiority over them- at least that is how I feel about it. Also, I think your dead set on your views here with no room to change them, I will wait to see what an admin has to say about this dispute, I suspect he will agree that it takes two to tango. (also I reserve the right to pass comment on anything, per my human rights) Gavin (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you think I'm responsible. That's your prerogative. You're also wrong, but that's also your prerogative. And yes, I am (strangely) set in my views: multiple abuses of WP:Civil aren't okay, attacking other users is not okay, belittling a user for using the same justification you yourself used is not okay, ignoring your own statements on the matter is not okay... shall I go on? And while you may reserve your right to pass comment on anything, one would suggest you look up the word 'tact'. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:JzG has resolved this issue, it is in the wrong place. I agree with his judgment, it is an attempt to resolve a dispute on a talk page by discrediting the opposition. I suppose, this issue is over. Also, the "tact" comment is an example of an insult. Gavin (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. Commenting on someone else's emotional state when you actually have no idea what that state is, is rude. Not tactful. Thus, suggesting you look up the definition of the word. Additionally, I dispute Jzg's 'resolution' of the matter. You'll note that I am no longer participating in any dispute on any talk page with G2. You will further note that I am no longer editing any mainspace articles. You will further note that G2 has done an excellent job of discrediting himself, as has been laid out quite conveniently above. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, OK...(oh and btw if I acted in a non-tactful manner that does not mean that I am unaware of the definition.) Anyway, perhaps to dispute this you have to open up ANOTHER complaint on the Dispute Resolution page so that you can then come back and dispute the G2 situation here...(wouldn't that be wonderful red tape.) Gavin (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In that case, please refrain from further personal comments for which you have no basis. I have notifed Jzg that I disagree with his (her?) resolution. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I refrained the first time you asked me too...Gavin (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Guy who declared this issue gave the following advice: "My recommendation is that you avoid G2, but if you can't leave the articles he edits alone and vice-versa then you need to use the dispute resolution process." Hopefully both parties involved will take it and get back to editing constructively. :) Gavin (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trouble users

Resolved

 – No further action necessary. cauldron 18:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What happens with unresolved cases of trouble users? I just read about a user blocked many times but he didn't changed his behaviour. What happens with trouble users? --Nice book I read (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

typically, the blocks get longer. But what is the specific problem you are having? DGG (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe a glance at this user's contributions would be enlightening. I don't see a need for further action at this time. GRBerry 04:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Coordinate conversions

Resolved

Nothing for admins to do, it is a content matter and should be discussed with the user either on their talk page or in the relevant place.

Please advise this editor to refrain from doing his probably well meant "conversions" which unfortunately destroy content ([49]). Previous reminders ([50]) have been unsuccessful, he leaves it to other to cleanup behind. It appears that he was blocked in the past. -- User:Docu

This is a complex dispute which can be seen mostly at WT:GEO#coord template one year on. My take is that Docu (talk · contribs) has demonstrated incivility and disruptive editing. —EncMstr (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

On my talk page, EncMstr quotes my requests to Pigsonthewing fix his erroneous edits/ his reversions of my repairs as samples. This is really strange. -- User:Docu

Thanks for this edit using {{coord}}. —EncMstr (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This user has recently returned from a one year block as enforced by arbitration here. One of the reasons for this block was his refusal to remove this personal attack from his userpage, as presented here. Upon returning, the user has restored the abusive paragraph to his userpage. Given his history of confrontation, I do not wish to become involved in an edit war by attempting to remove it, so I pass the matter to the administrators for their consideration. 91.104.24.172 (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. This is very disappointing. Bare minutes after User:Docu seeks to involve admins in work Andy Mabbett is doing, this comes up. Qui bono? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not Docu. Feel free to request a checkuser if you wish. I am the same user as above who reported this, however (dynamic IP). At the time I was unaware of Docu's section regarding Pigsonthewing, I assure you this is a coincidence. 91.106.50.21 (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And what's your purpose? The controversial piece of text is seen by some as a personal attack, by others as a well referenced summation of Andy's thoughts on Leonig. Andy would not have been able to construct the paragraph has Leonig not tgiven him the ammunition. Leonig's shoulders are clearly broad enough to cope, given the to & fro between the pair over the years. Exactly why do you think that starting this whole anti-Andy cycle over again is for the good of wikipedia? Can't you just leave the poor bloke in peace, and let sleeping dogs lie? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

When he leaves Leonig alone. He's already been made aware that continually adding that section of his user page will not be allowed (he's been blocked for it in the past). If he continues to readdit, he will be blocked again. SirFozzie (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This being the Leonig who made comments like "you prick", "this prick" and "this" (read that last one yourself, I won't repeat it) towards Andy. Neıl ☄ 10:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Past history doesn't come into it, we assess edits on their merits. Andy's edits are fine in this instance. Orderinchaos 06:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is Docu carrying over a year-old grudge trying to get Andy blocked again. Neıl ☄ 10:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I was noting there's no grounds to block him - if ArbCom had have intended to block him indefinitely they would have done so, the fact he's come back after a one-year block suggests he's served his time and should be treated with the good faith any other user is so long as he behaves, which by and large he has been doing. Orderinchaos 20:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The above IP posts have no relation to the problem I raised. Besides, I have not participated in "Pigsonthewing 1" and "Pigsonthewing 2". -- User:Docu

In addition to the samples above he hasn't fixed yet, his recent edits show similar hasty conversions which leaves out information ([51], [52]). It lacks "display=inline,title". It would be interesting to know why he selected these two articles for manual conversion. Are they done mainly for pages I added or for which a requested help to fix them? It would probably preferable his would would refrain from doing manual conversions on coordinates. I'm glad EncMstr has withdrawn part of the above comment also made on my talk page. -- User:Docu

Docu, if you have a technical issue with Andy's work on geometric coordinates, then the place to discuss it is not on the Administrators' noticeboard. The place to discuss it is on his talk page. I know you have already posted there, but in future you should consider explaining your concern fully, and carefully, as your previous message to Andy was obtuse and did not actually explain what your problem was. I am not surprised Andy was unable to respond appropriately. All your messages are along the lines of "please fix it" or "you broke it again" without explaining what he did wrong. You could also discuss this at WT:GEO. There is nothing here requiring administrative action. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes, like so: ~~~~. Neıl ☄ 13:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Docu is using 4 tildes (presumably); another editor and I have both requested him to change his signature because it doesn't provide a link to his user or talk page, and doesn't timestamp his posts (User_talk:Docu#Signature and related discussion on WPTalk:Signatures); he has so far refused. Exploding Boy (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that Pigsonthewing wrote part of {{coord}}'s documentation, he should know how the template work. Anyways, I gave him a detailed explanation on how to fix the coordinates. BTW can we discuss "Pigsonthewing 2" and signatures elsewhere? -- User:Docu

QuackGuru and Kelly going at it

History abounds here so I'd like uninvolved admins to step in and separate these two. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Might I note this. Tiptoety ^talk 20:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, QuackGuru came along to push Kelly's buttons. He is revert-warring her sandbox, currently at 9RR (not a typo). All his edits are WP:POINT to a user's user space. Quack is there to incite Kelly, nothing more. --mboverload@ 21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Quack is way overboard here. rootology (C)(T) 21:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Agree with Mboverload. It's a sandbox. Quackguru is repeatedly removing a link to a wikipedia mirror of a historical version of an existing article, citing BLP. The version is still in the page history, not deleted or oversighted. I'm too involved to block, don't need the drama. Keeper ǀ 76 21:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The edit war is User:Kelly/sandbox 2 and [53]. It's over this link. rootology (C)(T) 21:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Note to editors: Kelly actually wrote the first iteration of that page, and did an AWESOME job at it. It was toned down but her contribution lives on. That webcite link is to show how much she worked on that page and is simply a memento IMO. --mboverload@ 21:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, lamest edit-war of the month! Quack blocked for 100 hours for sheer nuttiness. Moreschi (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See his block log. Wowzorz! --mboverload@ 21:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Good block. Ronnotel (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Great! Tiptoety ^talk 21:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I had just final-warned QuackGuru, but I fully support this block. Even in a Utopian best-case scenario with regard to QuackGuru's motivation, this was unacceptable edit-warring in another editor's userspace. There is no BLP exemption to 3RR here, and QuackGuru's reverting is poor form on many levels. His block log speaks for itself. Good block. MastCell ^Talk 21:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Good block. Chillum 21:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Support block and duration. Keeper ǀ 76 21:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, should this guy still have the admin tools based on that block log? Wizardman 21:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, Quack is not a admin. Tiptoety ^talk 21:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• facepalm* Well, I guess technically that's good @_@. Dunno why i thought he was. Wizardman 21:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Should that guy still have editing privileges based on that block log? Nonetheless, a well-earned vacation may do the self-proclaimed Guru some good. Good block. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on that block log, we should consider a multi month block for bad behavior.--Tznkai (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, given Quack's history, I would support a longer block. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

He's about two blocks away from needing a second page to list them all. I look at such a lengthy series of blocks and realize how little I've accomplished. :) The odd thing is that QuackGuru was a vigorous defender of User:Pulsifer's BLP-questionable sandbox page trying to link Sarah Palin to an Alaskan secessionist movement. I guess the POV is only supposed to push one way, eh? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm leaning towards an indef if Quack comes back and starts up any shit, because this is simply unacceptable behavior out of any user. His block log is lengthy, and I hope that it is referenced upon the next block. seicer | talk | contribs 00:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that half the entries in his log are unblocks and adjustments. (hell one even has the summary "ömglol"). Viridae^Talk 00:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Too true. The log indeed is not pretty, but just counting the lines isn't as important as reading them - and finding out the reasons for it. I see a block withdrawn by the blocking admin as a mistake, a block on 1 September 2007 (5 lines), a block in December 2007 (2 lines), a block in February 2008 where it proved necessary to disable email (3 lines), a block in March, and the current block. Five blocks isn't great, but it isn't nearly as bad as the 14 lines that a quick glance shows. Reviewing the history, it looks like the December block was for edit warring around the usual Larry Sanger issue. So that makes 4 of the 5 blocks for edit warring, with the 5th for canvassing via email while simultaneously hypocritically complaining about someone else (who had on wiki given notices to editors on both sides of the issue, but QG chose to only mention the notices to one of the two sides in his hypocritical complaint). Additionally, in the 1 September incident he also got his talk page protected for {{unblock}} abuse and had an emailed unblock request declined subsequently.[54]. There was prior discussion of mentoring, should that idea be pursued? GRBerry 03:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Good block. However, I don't think imposing an indef block is going to necessarily be endorsed by ArbCom, if the action is appealed. A community sanction needs to be attempted first - probation, a revert limitation, or mentorship proposal would probably be appropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• It's a long block log (and thanks to GRBerry for doing more than just counting the lines), but the block prior to this one was 6 months ago, so a look at the contributions history is needed. If there were six months of productive edits leading up to this block, then that would be a mitigating factor when considering further blocks. If, on the other hand, the summer was mostly spent on vacation, then the blocks would be "close", and that would be of concern. Overall, I agree with GRBerry - "Five blocks isn't great, but it isn't nearly as bad as the 14 lines that a quick glance shows.". Carcharoth (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support 100 hour block, but not anything longer. If that doesn't work, consider indef then, but 100 hours should get the point across. Everyking (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Poetlister & Co page deletions

I notice that since the exposure of Poetlister and Cato as the same user, and while further investigation is going on, the user pages of all these have been deleted. The reason given in most cases is G6 ("Technical deletions & non-controversial maintenance"). I'm thinking this is 1/ unhelpful right now, and 2/ quite poor timing, given that these are still being referenced for case purposes. I would like to ask they be undeleted for the time being, at least until the dust settles.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety ^talk 22:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You missed several: User:Bedivere/huggle.css, User:Bedivere/monobook.js, User talk:Taxwoman/articles, User:Taxwoman/articles, User talk:Newport/Archive1, User:Londoneye/contributions, and User:Londoneye/watch. --NE2 23:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, Maxim is doing some fancy work, it will all be done here shortly. Tiptoety ^talk 23:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we've got them all restored... although I may have gone through more fancywork than I should have (the undeletion script didn't seem to like the bluelinks, but I had a feeling not all of them were fully restored, so I redeleted everything to make sure, but I think in most cases Tiptoety had it right... {{trout}} deliverable to my talkpage if someone fits it necessary, and I also recommend User:AzaToth/twinklebatchundelete.js which makes mass-restores so much more easier.) Maxim (☎) 23:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• I actually know one of the people who was affected by this. 63.46.33.196 (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It'd be helpful if someone could recreate Alwyn Pritchard and webcitation it before redeleting.Proabivouac (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It it possible to webcitation google cache? Because if so, google cache is your friend. Brilliantine (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, but the look of the cached article is horribly degraded. scratch that, it looks alright.[55] I was thinking of the mirrored copies.Proabivouac (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)In any case, I have cached the google cache with Coral CDN in case it goes away and the article stays gone away. Brilliantine (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Proab, if you still wish for a copy of the Alwyn Pritchard page (or any other pages), let me know and I can temporarily userfy them for you. A quick note that I deleted the various subpages reasoning that the deal was done and that further evidence gathering was effectively pointless; given PoetlisterTaxwomanYehudiCatoRuncornNewportLondoneyeGuy has left, anything else is just fishing for salacious gossip, and the only person who would benefit from these pages existing -mostly lists of Jewish people or poets, or copies of watchlists (to avoid having to log in to various accounts to see them?) - is the person behind the Horde. I still believe that, but no issues with these being undeleted. Neıl ☄ 10:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's only that we'd linked to the Pritchard article in note four, but the link has been changed to a redirect to some totally uninvolved person.Proabivouac (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Strange (legal?) threats

Resolved

Vancedecker (talk · contribs) (who a month ago made some very trollish comments towards Jimbo [56]) has left these bizarre threats on Talk:Intelius. I don't know what to do with him, letting you all know. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked for the SEC comments, which would be taken as a legal threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Good call. I really hope we don't get bunches of "shorts" (and their counterparts) on talk pages for companies here. The boards and newsgroups were enough of a cesspool in the late 1990's. Protonk (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Passing the baton

Resolved

 – for now. Blocked for 12 hours.

An admin passes the baton

The background

A few days ago, Prom3th3an (talk · contribs) struck part of my comment on a request for arbitration, calling it a "flamatory and WP:BAIT remark". Ryan Postlethwaite reverted, and I left a comment on Prom3th3an's talk page, telling him not to do it again. He then responded, accusing me of "blood lust" and being "on whichunt", and tossed an AGF warning template on my talkpage ({{Uw-agf2}} to be exact). After I responded, Prom3th3an removed my response with an extremely childish edit summary, struck my previous comments (as he did on the arbitration page), and added a talkback notice on my talk page. Of course there was no new message for me on his talk page, and this was just part of his childish game. The remaining discussion can be see on my talk page, here

Today's fun

Sciurinæ (talk · contribs) commented on my talk page, pointing out that Prom3th3an had continued to alter the content of other users' comments, after I gave him a final/last warning. Since the last warning was in response to his editing of my comments, I opted to give him a second "final warning" as a block would have been inappropriate (diff was much earlier in the day; relatively minor; Tango clause). I told him to post here if he truly believed I was acting inappropriately, but he removed that suggestion with yet another childish edit summary (and again struck my previous comment). Much of this comes with the territory, but he's moved on to referring to other editors as a couple and lovers. Anybody with a clue stick handy? Also note he's offering to adopt other users, which I think is very misguided. An independent word of advice on Prom3th3an's talk page would be appreciated, so I'm passing the baton. Cheers, - auburnpilot talk 02:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry - I've been keeping an outside eye on this. Prom3th3an just doesn't seem to get it, and he's be warned sufficiently now about altering other peoples comments. I think you should stay away from blocking him (simply because from what I know about him, he'll call foul on any block you place on his account). Let me know if you encounter any other talk page changes he makes. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I'll keep a watch on his edits, and given his sufficient notices and warnings on this, a block would be in order if this sort of behavior continued on. It's entirely unacceptable. seicer | talk | contribs 02:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just beware of the dreaded Whichhunt, my son - The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My two cents are above, cheerio   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed. I believe this would be the nail in his coffin. Thanks for the comments, all. - auburnpilot talk 03:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Outsider's opinon: Time for a civility block, as he seems unlikely to stop the aggressive provoking. ThuranX (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours. This needs to stopped. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 04:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he's conducting an experiment of some sort, to see how long it would take to get blocked. He found out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

He has made an unblock request, one claim he made is that WP:TE is an essay, not policy. It's been declined by Kurykh. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Kurykh is exactly right that although WP:TE is an essay, it is an essay about the reasons why TE is a form of Disruptive Editing, the prohibition of which IS policy. I thoroughly support his explanation of the decline. ThuranX (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sarah_Palin_protection_wheel_war#Statement_by_User:Prom3th3an Note what his statement said at the same ArbCom case, which is an awful example of not assuming good faith. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 06:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if some further level of dispute resolution will not be required here. Prom3th3an originally began feuding with Deskana, than me when I intervened as an uninvolved admin, and now AuburnPilot. It seems like there is a definite pattern of disruption and incivility developing here. MBisanz ^talk 12:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Prom3th3an is a train wreck happening before us and its not hard to see what's going to happen shortly without some dramatic u-turn in his approach. Reading this, you have to wonder what went wrong. Moondyne 12:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How often do we see this happen? The light that burns twice as bright.... CIreland (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You'll find out soon enough, when his block expires. Although he has promised to be good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Dont put words it my mouth please.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I was executive-summarizing. Your actual words are: "ill give both parties the apology that they are due. I accept the block and that I was out of line, Im not contesting that" and "You have got reason to trust me, because I know that you'll just block me again and for longer if I dont agree to the above." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, both those unblock requests were denied, along with the terms of which they were requested.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for suggesting that you might be willing to improve your approach to your activities here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Okey, and I'm going to say this thread is done, nothing more to do atm. MBisanz ^talk 17:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ultimate might need to be protected

In the last 5 days, a couple of editors and I have reverted at least half a dozen attempts to inappropriately change the lead image on the Ultimate article. An admin might want to semi protect the article for now if you guys think its a necessary move. Thanks! Noneforall (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I see, Ultimate is a disambig page with 1 recent incident of vandalism, so no need to protect it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean Ultimate (sport)? Nate • (chatter) 04:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the one. Some recent winner of some flying frisbee event is using the page to brag, in childish fashion, about their victory. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

One or two reverts on a single day does not merit full protection. I'll semi-protect for a day and a half. Bearian (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:166.70.238.43

I don't know what one word of this means but it looks like trouble so I thought an admin should check it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Refers to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jeffrey Vernon Merkey alleged real-life stalking/harassment Brilliantine (talk) 05:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that WP:OUTING going to be allowed to stay there? Corvus cornix_talk 19:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:John Jacob Wilson Alueminous

Resolved

 – Socks and master blocked. Thatcher 15:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to think here, but I'm assuming that this user is either a sock account, or something more. Either way, per the contributions(and the ones that stand out to me), I believe this should be looked into. Something fishy is going on.

First, this series of edits is the user copy/pasting past warnings and block messages from some anon account to his or her talk page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

The user then creates their talk page with the {{rollbacker}} tag, as seen here.

The user then creates the monobook.js page, a page not usually found within 13 minutes of account creation, with the text importsript:'(vandalizeandscrewupuserpages)', as seen here.

The user's first actual contributions are three oppose votes to RfAs, with the first speaking of incivility, and the last two just the same copy, again speaking of incivility: 1, 2, 3.

This user then made several edits to different articles, all with the edit summery of references, while the edits themselves have nothing to do with references, and are in fact placing <--! --> markup to several different lines, hiding the text. Here are two instances of this: 1, 2.

Since the filing of this note, the user has continued to engage in such activities as listed above. Thank you all for your time in reading through this.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 06:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

None of these are worthy of blocking though. . . --John Jacob Wilson Alueminous (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they are, if you are found to be a sock of some other user, which I'm pretty sure you are.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 06:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a big "If" --John Jacob Wilson Alueminous (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Right much suspicious. And didn't you used to be John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ye, back in the day :) --John Jacob Wilson Alueminous (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking at his edits... almost all have been vandalism, incivil, or show a much higher degree of wikiknowledge than the average bear. I suspect it's a sock as well... he's done just enough that we can't call him a "true vandal only account" but just marginally so.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be doing all of this based on the inference that I'm a sock. High level of wikiknowledge, voting at rfa, or removing comments from my talk page is not considered vandalism. Cheerio --John Jacob Wilson Alueminous (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think that a user can only be blocked for vandalism, not so, block evasion or illegal user account is another reason.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 06:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"Block Evasion" - How can I evade a block if I haven't been blocked before, and what makes my user account 'illegal' --John Jacob Wilson Alueminous (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A brand-new user jumping right into the things you've jumped into, as if already editing for a year, practically screams "Sock!" A red flag in a stocking shape. The admins here recognize the signs, and they weren't born yesterday. Well, some of them were, but most of them are grissled veterans. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Who cares if he's a sock or not? These edits 1 2 3 4, among others, are a variation on page blanking vandalism. Indefinite vandalism-only block and be done with it. --JaGa^talk 06:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly care, to see if there are any other puppets we don't know about that. Sometimes checkusers reveal sockpuppets that you thought weren't sockpuppets.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 06:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. He should definitely be investigated. I was under the impression he wouldn't be blocked if he weren't proven to be a sock; seems to me he's done more than enough to earn that block regardless. Sorry if my comment came off wrong. --JaGa^talk 07:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Daniel (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Likely a sockpuppet of Fatal!ty (talk · contribs) whom I blocked yesterday for one week for vandalism and other shenanigans while logged out and using bad hand accounts. Compare edits to User talk:Gogo Dodo by John Jacob Wilson Alueminous and Fatal!ty's sockpuppet Thewikiqediarollbacker (talk · contribs). Thatcher 07:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Also common opposition to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Synergy. Thatcher 07:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
    • His parting comment, something about "Good luck with Thatcher". And probably not Margaret. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Do his various "votes" tonight need to be weeded out, or does it matter? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I think most if not all of the votes have already been weeded out. The comment RE Thatcher was to do with Daedalus's request on Thatcher's talk. He was clearly keeping an eye out. Which is pretty damning in itself. Brilliantine (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Kudos. Obviously he was playing a game to see how long he could get away with this. Not exactly subtle. If it weren't for the AGF philosophy, he would have been blocked in about 5 minutes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
            • I'll be glad when this is done and over with, but seeing as how the sockmaster was blocked, and a user account was created, I doubt this will, in regards to the idea that his ip may either be dynamic, or he is using multiple access points. I suspect a very long next few months.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 07:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
              • Seems I'm right, that's the account's first contribution, by the way.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 08:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
                • Yep, and look at 2 socks already created since then (and blocked): [57] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Late to the party as always, but, given the concerns over socking, did anyone go to WP:RFCU? I can't see an entry there. --Dweller (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher is a Checkuser, why start a case there when he can just come along and give a pre-emptive result here? Brilliantine (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My main interest here was what to do about my one week block of Fatal!ty, but since he has continued to make vandal accounts, I'm just going to up it to indefinite. Thatcher 15:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Hrafn

Request that user be asked to stop tagging articles and that an admin try and enforce this. He/she says that this is an ownership issues that I may be blocked for ([58]), but I believe his tags are quite impartial and done not so much as to aid wikipedia as to pester me, because of our ongoing dispute resolution ([59]) and other encounters such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's Menu Song. --Firefly322 (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• tags
• reason for tags
• third party editor reinstating tag
• personal attack calling me a "troll"

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Firefly, as your second link shows you've started mediation as a dispute resolution, and despite requests have failed to provide diffs clarifying what your dispute is.[60] The fact that others have problems with your woolly writing is something to resolve by improving your writing, not by flying off into disputes whenever that's pointed out. Disclaimer: I'm named in Firefly's mediation case, but lacking diffs I'm not sure why. . . dave souza, talk 09:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:67.165.69.84

Resolved

 – IP possibly reassigned. No vandalism within past two weeks. cauldron 18:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/67.165.69.84 has made seventeen edits, each and every one adding "Saucy McFoodlefist" in some way or another, mostly to obscure lists and articles and many of which weren't reverted until I just did them. Plainly this address is being used solely for vandalism.  RGTraynor  14:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Or it was, on August 14, 15 and 21. Nobody's used this address for 20 days, and the comment you left today refers to an edit made August 14! Exploding Boy (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Your point being? If it were a vandal acting within the last couple hours, I'd have taken it to AVI.  RGTraynor  15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's every chance it's a dynamic IP and has been assigned to someone else by now. Brilliantine (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My point being that there's absolutely no point in warning someone for vandalism nearly a month after the fact, and that no-one's used the account for almost a month now anyway, so there's really nothing to be done here. Plus, as pointed out above, it's an IP: anyone could be using it. If someone using that IP starts editing problematically again, we warn, then block, as usual. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Seth Whales

This user has insisted on duplicating information, and adding information based on less-than-credible sourcing. Most of the sources in question were not an authority, and all of them had been referenced entirely out of context. For example, the same style applied to this comment would suddenly frame me as saying that all of this user's sourcing was questionable. More information lives at Talk:A4232 road. This user seems to be insistent on playing the man rather than the ball, and then has the audacity to make nonsense proposals under the guise of being "willing to compromise", when these "compromises" are one-sided and invite conduct contrary to policy - an equivalent compromise would be "give me $10 and you can have your $5 bill back". I also consider the participation of User:Haydnaston as suspicious - this user comes out of nowhere to make a revert, and promptly disappears again.

• a weasely accusation of vandalism
• attempting to shift blame
• misrepresenting the quality of his sources
• referring to this as "vandalism"
• claiming they are not going to revert (and then doing so)
• because I pointed out that the offer was not a "compromise" by any definition, this apparently makes me "an uncompromising individual"
• proposing a bogus "compromise", and accusing of sockpuppetry

There is no question that any of the edits concerned could be vandalism, so at the very least I suggest that the user's rollback is revoked. As the user has continued to revert even after a block has been made in the matter, I believe further censure is appropriate, in particular since I ceased any activity on the article concerned well before the block, and have once again ceased activity. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The user's confrontational attitude can be nicely summed up by the fact that they have invited a block, and again made a further attack after being warned. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was a good idea to issue a 'final' NPA warning when no earlier warnings were given, especially if you can't be sure an admin would agree with you. Both of you need to take this to dispute resolution. -- Donald Albury 19:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Watching this debate from the side, and having revert issues on another Article. I feel strongly that it must be made clear that edited wars have become rather a common recurrence with User 217.36.107.9. I am sure that 217.36.107.9 actions are in good faith, but there seems to me to be a lack of sensitivity to other peoples work. More discussion before actions would, I’m sure lead to less conflict. Also the slapping of warnings on users talk pages is not a good recipe for a peaceful editing community. A little more respect and cooperation would go a long way here.

 stavros1  ♣  22:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin censoring news of possible Wikiquote deletion

• Meta is discussing the deletion of Wikiquote, so I left a note with a link to this debate at the Pump.
• The post was censored a few hours later by self-proclaimed "rouge admin" User:Mr.Z-man. The deletion was made under a false pretense since a single post on the Pump is hardly "canvassing", and the post could have been amended if needed instead of suppressing the information entirely.

How an admin is allowed to act like that (and augment the apparence that something's fishy) I'll never understand. 62.147.37.92 (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the English language Wikipedia? Corvus cornix_talk 20:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant to all wikimedia users, particularly users of english projects - english wikipedia just happens to be one of the largest projects. --Random832 (contribs) 20:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquote is pretty much worthless. It doesn't have the kind of rigor demanded in wikipedia, so it's all OR; and it's generally run in a sloppy way - you might see the same quote several times within a given subject. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't believe the problem is that it's worthless, but that it is a liability. There are entire farms of egregious copyright violations in there, and no requirement for any sort of actual, you know, quotability of the material. — Coren ^(talk) 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The thread was basically telling people to go and oppose the thread on meta. I have no problem with linking to the discussion, but please write such messages neutrally (as I said in the edit summary, if you had bothered to read it before reverting me and coming here). "There is a discussion on meta about disbanding Wikiquote" (with a link) would suffice. And then using words like "censored" while at the same time inviting me to amend it to make it neutral? And thanks for informing me of this discussion. Mr.Z-man 21:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And yes, leaving a biased message is considered canvassing (campaigning, to be precise). Mr.Z-man 21:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering the heat we took the last time we sent a notice about a Meta discussion, I'm not sure canvassing in the WP projects about this is a great idea (and that the people at Meta will thank you for it). -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• My personal scorefile gives -5 for censorship and -7 for suppression, less than -10 and you're in the "Nutters: Ignorable" category. Just for info, you understand. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about broken diff in original post which has since been repaired

This is kinda off-topic, but am I the only one getting a really, really weird diff when clicking on the link above? One side of the diff shows an edit from Talk:List of German proverbs, the other the actual revert, and the title says "Talk:List of German proverbs, Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)" o.O --Conti|✉ 23:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Same here. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC) It looks like two characters were truncated from the original diff given ("79" should follow at the end). Here's what it should be: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28miscellaneous%29&diff=237518501&oldid=237507479 -- interesting -- I didn't know you could even "diff" between two separate pages. Antandrus (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Ah, that explains it. So you can basically diff any page with any page? That's weird. --Conti|✉ 23:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC) I never knew that... perhaps it's new? --Tango (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing blocked for edit-warring personal attacks.

Those of you with long memories will remember this user, who has twice been banned by the Arbitration Committee for a year at a time. This user has just come off his second year long ban, and has gotten back into one of his old, bad, habits, which is edit-warring a section on his user page accusing another user of being a stalker. He refused to stop edit-warring that section in, despite a consensus on ANI at the time (see User_talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive_13#Your_.22stalker.22_paragraph_on_your_userpage and sections below that for his intransigence on the issue). He's now returned from his second ArbCom ban, and is edit-warring again. I have blocked him 24 hours for it. I am bringing up this fairly uncontroversial issue because another administrator, User:Neil, who probably wasn't aware of the previous discussion (I'm trying to find the diff of the ANI discussion for it), and wasn't sure that it was controversial. SirFozzie (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive263#User:Pigsonthewing Is the previous discussion on this. SirFozzie (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, so soon? That's too bad. You made the right call here. Shereth 23:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruption of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

A poll (that multiple editors have already stated does not have options available that encapsulate their actual views to begin with) has started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date format resolution attempt. This poll (initially launched in terms of "voting"; I have adjusted the language) was already further undermined by (since-reverted) inclusion of a "the vote so far" summary embedded in the middle of the poll (a strong biasing tactic). Now, one participant invested in this debate has launched a second, "run-off" poll to "vote" (that editor's words, not mine) on which of two options from the original poll to choose between, before the first poll has concluded (it's only been running for a few hours), and despite both criticism of the original poll and criticism of the use of outright voting as a substitute for consensus-building. I have tried to get the point across both at that page and the talk page of the user in question, Greg L, who reverted removal of the pre-emptive second poll). I believe the second poll to be genuinely disruptive and a massive PoV-pushing exercise. Disclaimer: I have added a !vote to the poll, but I do not have a particularly vested interest in the outcome of it, which is actually so far going pretty much the way I would like, and is a tempest in a teapot anyway. This ANI report is about an editing behavior issue, not a topical viewpoint. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)