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

SPI case needs eyes

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SkagitRiverQueen

A number of us believe that our old friend User:SkagitRiverQueen is back and socking in violation of her one-year ban, which as some might remember was enacted via a unanimous community vote. A checkuser has determined that a slough of IPs, plus two registered accounts, were all being used by the same user, but the behavioral evidence linking to SkagitRiverQueen has yet to be examined. Both registered accounts have been blocked, but determining whether this is SRQ would be important in deciding whether or not to extend her one-year ban (presumably to indefinite). If anyone can take a look and offer thoughts on a WP:DUCK determination it would help. Thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:18, 4 Jun 2010 (UTC)

Notified SRQ by email, asked if she had anything she wanted me to pass on. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

More eyes, please... uninvolved or involved. Unbelievable lack of closure. Clearly a quacking DUCK... Doc9871 (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

All the editors who have taken notice of this users socking is due to her behaviors looking like WP:DUCK. Her following User:DocOfSoc to obscure articles and also the comments the socks made that were in some cases identical to SRQ. What needs to be discussed is how to stop her IP's from socking and whether her extention should be made indefinite or changed to the time the socking was confirmed. That is my opinion on this matter anyways. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As CU on this case, I can say that SRQ accessed Wikipedia through the same means as the two recent socks, although from an apparently different location. Because there is no overlapping editing, this could represent a move or unreliable geolocation. There's no technical reason to believe SQR is not the same user. Given the behavioral evidence posted on the SPI, I think it's more likely than not that SQR returned as these accounts. Take a look at the SPI. Cool Hand Luke 12:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that SkagitRiverQueen ban for a year be changed to an indefinite because of use of multiple sock accounts. Also, if there is a possiblity to do any range blocks for a short period, say a month to 3 months, is doable than that should be done too. Opinions? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I would support that, but at the very least, SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should have his/her's one year ban reset, as per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Reset of ban following evasion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen ban discussion

I'm proposing that SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be banned and blocked indefinitely for socking.

• Support ban, as creator of this proposal. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I figured someone would close the SPI first, but since it's been around for two weeks with no word (except that all the suspected socks are indeed operated by the same user), I say that this is definitely SkagitRiverQueen socking disruptively in violation of her ban, based on the evidence presented in the SPI linked above; and her ban should be turned indefinite. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:05, 6 Jun 2010 (UTC)
• Support - She is well aware of what she has done and extending her block for a couple months doesn't remove the level of disruptiveness that followed in her wake. She's also very critical of the process, administrators and rules here. I think it should be extended to indefinite. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment a) This is the wrong page for this. b) The current recommendation for such discussions is to give things a week to settle following a precipitating incident before starting a community ban discussion. Jack Merridew 01:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - The week is over. Previous ban is still in effect, and should be extended to indefinite. And I want my glasses back, Jack... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - the sock case was opened on May 23, 2010, a full 14 days since the can of worms was opened. The precipitating incident was well before that. The evidence indicates a holistic disregard for the ban from nearly its onset and a willful thumbing her nose at it. To paraphrase MikeAllen below, "don't do the crime if you can't do the time." Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support – You break the rules, you pay the price. Mike Allen 03:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as present -- only support reset of one-year ban.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Maybe a little "blocker's remorse"? (welcome back to the fray, BTW ;P) Disruptive socking by a banned editor is very punishable, and appropriately so - that's why the community bans people here. You've "recused" yourself, I believe, in this matter already - thanks for "chiming in" again, though. Duly noted. Socking by a banned editor should result in an indefinite block... Doc9871 (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't really have a problem with Sarek changing his mind about his involvement in this, but I do disagree with simply resetting the ban. Considering the original reason for the ban, in combination with their continued nose-thumbing of the ban, I don't see why this is someone we want to have involved in the project. Are we really seeing any indication that things will be better once the ban expires? The issues were and are indicative of someone who isn't "getting it" and isn't interested in trying to "get it". To be honest I'm not even sure why the ban was originally proposed as temporary, but didn't want to make a big deal of it at the time. Generally people in these cases are banned indefinitely, until they express an interest in proving to the community that they can be trusted to contribute constructively. To have the ban simply "expire" with no effort on the part of the bannee (correct word?), and no evidence that the problem behavior has even been recognized by the user, is strange and inappropriate as far as I'm concerned. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:56, 7 Jun 2010 (UTC)

• Support I have the utmost respect for Sarek. I think that the disrespect and the lying she did saying she wasn't a sock when called on it on her sock accounts just shows she thinks she is better than the rules here. It took too long to get some attentions to this matter to begin with until Sarek came along. Sarek you did the right thing here. Unfortunately she couldn't wait it out and started to sock almost from the beginning. An indefinite is the right thing for this. She has no respects for the policies of the project and the project is better without the problems. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• SupportSocking this blatant could lead to nothing else. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - the only way to effectively deal with the problem. Socking is not the way to respond to a ban that had a timer on it, let alone any other situation, and doing so invites this response from the community. This is the correct page to be dealing with this, and it seems sensible to resolve an incident as opposed to leave it festering. There is no misbehavior by involved users here, and there isn't going to be (without sanctions being plonked on users who try to disrupt this discussion), unlike the other ban discussion, where some involved users refused to behave appropriately, admins and arbcom lacked the courage to intervene effectively, and the eventual ban process review that led to mostly flawed and and excessively bureaucratic proposals - those proposals are only effective (and applicable) to the users who historically have trouble conducting themselves appropriately; not the rest of the community.. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Letting an editor get away with this would send entirely the wrong message. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Strongly. She has been beyond blatant. She has lied and contradicted her former self in a self destructive manner. Although all ISP's can't be confirmed, I counted 26 socks on the Margaret Clark article alone and I believe socked as lately as the first week in June. This may not be the appropriate forum,but as a" Newbie" I was bitten almost to death by SRQ. She has no respect for anyone here in the Wiki Community. This has gone on far too long considering the extensive "evidence." It is unfortunate that an editor as talented and prolific as she was, has lowered herself to this level. I firmly believe we have no choice but to extend her banned/block to "indefinite." DocOfSoc (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I'm sorry, but socking to evade a ban is an enormous no-no. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 09:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I wish this would count as a vote. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 21:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack Merridew jumping the gun

Jack Merridew has campaigned tirelessly to do away with the use of color in filmography headings. During a discussion at WT:ACTOR in which he inappropriately canvassed support for his POV, a table heading for the purpose of formatting a table was presented. The consensus on the discussion was to implement the use of that template, as is, with the color included. A discussion was opened at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#The use of colors in filmographies regarding the color. Consensus had not been formed there as of yet, but Jack went ahead and removed the color, literally jumping the gun and disregarding the discussion at hand, claiming There is no demonstrable consensus for this color and accusing the respondents that supported the use of color as "a group of friends acting as a bloc"and again dismisses opinions ontrary to his own as Why should you and mebbe a half dozen of your friends be allowed to rule over some thousands of articles?. Note that he also claims that "Someone has been evading, by any and all means, a consensus against this ornament for far too long.", presumably addressed to me, while he totally ignores that just as many spoke FOR the color in the template as his cohorts support his POV. That is a typical ploy, diminish the opinions that are against him and demean the editors who oppose it. The truth of the matter is that is also inappropriate characterization and outright dismissal of the opinions of the responders and he uses that to disregard everything that has been said. In fact, there is also no consensus to remove it, either, which is what was wanted when this was opened for discussion. The consensus for the general use of color hard coded into the table was inconclusive at the discussion at WT:ACTOR and it is shaping up that the consensus is again split, with equal numbers for and against. There is no consensus to remove the color either. This is yet another instance of his pushing his POV on the discussion and his sole decision that the discussion supported his actions. The discussion highlights the guideline (NOT policy) at WP:ACCESS#Styles and markup options, which clearly and decisively sets an exception for the point that The Simpsons group would be allowed the use of the color yellow. I contend his actions were grossly inappropriate considering it still under discussion and considering that he has actively lobbied against the color, he acted in a biased way to imposing his POV on the imagined results of the discussion. I do accept that a small contingent who decided to use a very light gray color between themselves and then proceeded to write "guidelines and policies" set the "consensus" site wide for enforcing their choice. Consensus by force is not consensus, and in fact, the "site-wide consensus" has been challenged by this whole issue. The next step will be Jack trying to push through to remove the tables completely, something he has been quite vocal about pushing. P.S. Someone might want to take a look at the post I made at the pump page about Merridew's wikistalking, denigrating and harassing me, as well, if you care to. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think changing the color of the tables in the middle of the discussion was disruptive. It's not fair to the editors who are taking the time to respond at the Village Pump if JM can simply make a unilateral move like that. And while this isn't the place to argue the color issue, it does make it easier to read. And what is a film actor without an easy to read filmography? I don't think this should be such a big issue.Malke2010 22:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It may have been "jumping the gun", but I feel it was done in good faith. Your marginalization of "a small contingent" having written our "guidelines and policies", I feel, is an unfounded attack on Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.  Chickenmonkey  23:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, however you can turn it around. Don't muck up the discussion with trying to avert the issue. Show me proof that the standard table coding was not done by a small contingent. I don't think you can show that it was developed by a "large" contingent. And good faith is relative here, since Jack had less than stellar things said about him and he charged in there to make a pointy edit and before replying here, he moved on to another article to change it to blank tabling. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to feel -- and I'm not trying to turn this around or muck it up or whatever else you will accuse me of -- you seem to feel that any consensus that didn't involve you, doesn't count. Just because you don't know where the consensus is doesn't mean it didn't happen, and you should assume that the consensus was arrived at in good faith. Instead, you choose to take the same course that you're so offended of Jack Merridew taking: "accusing the respondents that supported the use of color as a group of friends acting as a bloc" and "a small contingent who decided to use a very light gray color between themselves". It's the same tactic and it's not very civil, either way. I've been a witness to this "relationship" between you two for a little while and I believe it is fairly equal. I repeat my suggestion, if the two of you can't find a way to be civil with each other, you should avoid each other. If you absolutely have to interact, I would suggest no further comments on each other and focus your attention on improving the encyclopedia. Obviously, you're free to take that suggestion, or not.  Chickenmonkey  08:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the reason why I've brought Jack's conduct re: me to this discussion. He absolutely needs to stop wikistalking and harassing me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Do NOT bite the developers

a small contingent who decided to use a very light gray color? One might root through the ancient history of MediaWiki:Common.css to find where the two shades came in to class="wikitable" but I expect it's old as hell, and mucking about in {{prettytable}} might dredge up older-yet history. One can't easily change this, either; it's now in shared.css, which requires developer access to change. These colours are bedrock; used on all WMF wikis and prolly most wikis running MediaWiki. Personally, I assume that these shades were chosen with considerable care with concern about maximizing accessibility and avoiding cultural sensitivities. Shared.css is for styling that underlays all the skins and the natural next level to consider overrides is Common.css and then individual skins. The most inappropriate level to specify a colour is hard-coded in individual articles. Jack Merridew 00:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't assume. And I find the insertion of the baby picture beside my post about this deliberately insulting and demeaning. Things regarding Jack need to come here to keep him honest. Consensus can change, which is the key issue to this table. You can't muster the consensus to support your stance and more editors, different editors, show up each time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume good faith of the devs; WP:COMPETENCE, too. Try it ;) The baby picture was funny and seems to have been intended to lighten the mood. Cheer up, Jack Merridew 01:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As I found out awhile back, the first photo on a given page will show up if you hover over the link, or some such thing. So putting photos on this page is not really the best idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think too many know that trick ;) Anyway, I hope you didn't fall for the suggestion that I posted the picture. I see it as a good faith comment by a neutral bystander. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Crap, Jack. There was no suggestion whatsoever that you posted the image. If I thought you did, I would outright had said that. You do enough damage around here without martyring yourself needlessly. There was no such suggestion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie cannot edit anywhere without Jack following behind trying to dehumanize and demean her for whatever personal grudge he has on her. His spitefulness has been noted many times, even by administrators... but nothing ever happens and he's free to follow WHL to the next page and rinse and repeat the same bullshit. Sickening. Mike Allen 03:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how Jack followed Wild here. The thread is clearly about him, him joining it to defend himself isn't out of line. That aside, can you please substantiate your accusations of wikistalking?— Dædαlus^Contribs 07:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, no one said he followed me to this discussion, I notified him, but he has suddenly appeared to disparage me on this very board in the past. I have been busy today with serious family issues, but I will gather diffs to show that he does. It will take a little time to do so, but they will be forthcoming. He also posts to IP editors talk pages against me just after I've posted there. There is no way he keeps those pages on his watchlist without following my edits. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that Jack has been banned before for wikistalking, it's not like there isn't a pattern of the same behavior that people are going to view him through the distinctly not rose-colored lenses of. Yet nothing much ever happens and the same group of fellow travelers defend him at each step of the way.Shemeska (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Um I was not talking about this discussion. Though the "accusations" are based on proof. Mike Allen 08:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It is also demonstrably true that Wildhartlivie responds in a predictable way whenever JM happens to end up in the same part of the project as her - to flame out, outright accuse him of wikistalking her and to treat his edits as malicious. This isn't helping, and may be part of the reason that people don't really pay it too much attention. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This. Seriously, I'll be the first to say I tend to like Jack, but these two have a seriously unhealthy focus on one another. Surely Wikipedia is big enough that a way can be found for them both to just stop interacting all together, and if you must be in the same discussion, then don't response to the other. Is there such a thing as a topic ban where neither is allowed to reference the other by name or suggestion at all? As it is, the back and forth between them is really derailing the entire discussion re the template issues, and seems to be coloring the responses some. From my view in reading the RfC--ignoring all the bad faith suggestions re canvassing (evidence?), accusations on both sides of having "blocs" and "cabals", etc--that the RfC was inherently flawed. One discussion was for the template, one for the color. The former ended with consensus to use the template, while the later ended for no consensus on using the blue color - yet the template discussion was for it "as is" with the color - resulting in opposing results. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've ignored a lot of shite. I see a solid year of evading the communities input about this effort at WikiProject Branding. All sort of tangents and misrepresentations. The RfC did get off poorly. It began as a sort of quick nose-count by WHL of whomever was watching WT:ACTOR. I bumped that thread up to an RfC and then commented. At length over—what?—six weeks? The arguments agianst the various messes and issues re these filmography tables are well presented in there. There is talk on VP(pol) about running an RfC on colour and I could warm to the idea. I want to see a route forward to cleaning up the considerable mess of code that's strewn about an in awful lot of articles. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And I've endured a whole lot more shite from you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack you know you've been following Wildhartlivie around. You showed up at many articles and conversations that you could have only gone to at the same time as WHL by using her contributions. The behaviors of Jack at WP:ACTOR shows the type of treatment he gives. He knows exactly what buttons to push on WHL to get her to respond in kind, and unfortunately she takes the bait way too often. Articles he showed up at are Cher, Charles Karel Bouley, Kate Winslet and the list goes on. He also goes to user talk pages where WHL is having a conversation with an editor like for instant User talk:Logical Fuzz and User talk:My account now (this one was proven to be a sock like she said it was.). These are just a few examples of Jack showing up to tell WHL whatever. There are a lot more of these but I feel this is enough of a sample to show that there is a problem that needs to be stopped. Thanks for taking the time to look, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: User WHL has a long history of reverting any changes she disagrees with as being 'against consensus'. This seems to be a clear case where there is no consensus to support her proposed change to color table headings (other than the usual suspects MikeAllen and CrohnieGal -strange that she accuses Jack of having a cabal or a cohort when these two seem to pop up in support of every controversial change she makes), yet she refuses to follow her own guidelines and leave well alone. Not only that, but to accuse a user of wikistalking her when in fact she is the one who is putting incivil and downright rude remarks about him on third-party editors' talk pages is utterly hypocritical. Suggest user WHL takes a long look at her own behaviour before drawing other editors to AN/I Little Professor (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Terima kasih, which is bahasa Indonesia for thank you. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Little Professor, you have your agenda for showing up and commenting here. I can substantiate that too. Removing embedded notes, which you were told to stop ring a bell? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I do remember you taking ownership on several pages, using hidden embedded notes such as this to enforce your 'correct' version of the article and claiming consensus backs your view, when in fact the evidence would appear to the contrary. You have a history of ignoring other comments about your ownership issues, taking them as personal attacks rather than constructive feedback about your behaviour. It's perfectly appropriate for me to comment on this issue when it turns up on AN/I again, that's hardly 'having an agenda'. For the record, I couldn't give two hoots whether the first line of a table is grey or blue, which is why I haven't commented on the RFC or the Village Pump proposal. The issue is your pattern of behaviour in attacking another editor for violating your ownership of pages, and the tenuous/false claims of consensus to back your personal opinion, which several other editors have commented upon. Little Professor (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Little Professor, you would have been a lot better off actually bothering to hunt the diffs you think you need to slam me. Your diff "proofs" are all wet. The use of embedded notes like this one have frigging nothing to do with ownership, they are used to help maintain a standard. Meryl Streep's article frequently gets hit by someone returning "Academy Award-winning", that's not kosher per the MOS. Your "proof" for that is not in accordance with NPOV or the MOS nor is it standard accepted practice. This in fact did contain a personal attack and a suggestion that I leave Wikipedia. In fact, you have a strong history of inappropriate editing and reverts. Inappropriately reverting a talk page post as vandalism and "gayness". Removing talk page posts and referring to them as "rants" [1] and removing 3RR warnings with "uncivil"[2]. Then there are the reverts were you just lulz [3] after being approached for leaving a template for improper use of the minor check mark that automatically appears when using rollback, even when the post specifically points you to the page that confirmed that. Then we have your total misinterpretation of posts that allegedly confirm things that other editors have said. None of this covers ownership or claims of false consensus. I believe Crohnie is right, you don't have a firm grasp on what is going on. Your agenda stems from being overruled by an administrator when you tried to remove embedded notes from articles and the bad faith claim of ownership you tried to use. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack, with the seemingly dislike you have for all of us at WP:ACTOR, why did you sign up for it? --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment @ Little Professor, have you even looked at what this is about? I don't pop up at every situation and I also don't always agree with WHL. I tell her when I do not agree via email so that what I say can't be turned around and used against her. What you are saying above doesn't fit the situation at all. There was a consensus at WT:ACTOR for the template with the color at least the way I understood it. The discussion was ongoing when Jack took it upon himself to start deleting the color from the template and was told to stop doing it by an administrator. (dif upon request but I believe it is at Jack's talk page or the template page, I'd have to look). You are coming to aid a friend, good for you. I do not deny I am friends with WHL and never have. It is recorded in the history of my contributions. That being said, I don't come to a situation without looking into the what is going on and getting the facts straight. Unfortunately it doesn't look like you took the time to do that which is an important step to take. Sorry, but you are wrong about this and I gave some difs. I can get more if needed upon request. I am done for today but I just couldn't let that comment of your's stand unchallenged. Have a good night. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"You are coming to aid a friend" - to my knowledge I have never had any kind of interaction with Jack Merridew before. I'd appreciate it if you would either substantiate or withdraw that remark. Little Professor (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And I would greatly appreciate if you would withdraw your unseemly arbitrary comment of, "other than the usual suspects MikeAllen [...]". Thank you. Mike Allen 01:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Little Professor is absolutely correct. Just about every one of the many disputes WHL ends up in can be traced back to her habit of claiming ownership over articles, reverting edits she doesn't like as "against consensus", and being rude to the editors who made the edits.—Chowbok ☠ 17:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The original RfC was quite a mess, sprawling over multiple subjects. It also raised project-wide considerations at a local level. At WP:VPP, there is currently a proposal for a specific, targeted discussion on table top colors with a wider audience, and I imagine that conducting such is the only way to resolve this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl is probably right about that, but I don't think this current noticeboard cycle is about the color of the templates. JM seems resentful of WHL's efforts on actors/film articles. He seems to pick issues just to get a predictable response out of WHL. WHL then sees the issue as an attack on her and the article. And then JM comes back with a provocative edit like reverting the color in the templates. This is disruptive behavior. It seems like JM is just challenging WHL's dominance on these articles. I can understand why she might be looking at every thing he does now as an attack. I think JM is a good editor, but right now the issues are clouding his judgement. And it's come to the point where there's overreaction on both sides. JM, my advice is just drop the color issue and start finding common ground with WHL. She's really very easy to get along with, and you'll find you both have a lot more in common than you realize.Malke2010 14:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates. Robofish (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As a note, I am working up a list of diffs to offer proof for wikistalking. That will be posted in a bit after I've assembled it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I am working on assembling diffs regarding his wikistalking. It is a lot more involved and detailed than even I recall. I will finish it tomorrow and post it here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have assembled some diffs that support my contention that Jack Merridew wikistalks me. I think it is better link than posted here as it will overwhelm this page. I might note that the page itself was nominated for deletion in less than 24 hours after I began assembling evidence by Chowbok, who also has a bad habit of following me around, but tacks on the overt action of posting on talk pages overt personal attacks about it. The link to the evidence I've assembled so far is at User:Wildhartlivie/Stuff. The deletion page, which has overall support to keep for this issue is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wildhartlivie/Stuff which also has some support for my contention that Chowbok, who nominated it for deletion, who incidentally is the only one saying delete, has a personal vendetta against me. As for the diffs I've assembled, they cover in most part and especially on the articles, about a six week period. There are still 3 months worth of diffs that I haven't gotten assembled yet, but they basically reflect the identical stalking, harassment and attempts to intimidate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Edits not with consensus

I do want to note right now that Jack Merridew keeps reverting the filmography at Scarlett Johansson from using the template that DOES have consensus for use, to a sortable table, saying the "color" doesn't have consensus. In fact, however, the template does have it. I put the templates back in tonight and within two minutes he reverted with no explanation. He has done this repeatedly to this article. The template has consensus for use and this is quite typical of Jack's conduct toward me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack changes the template to what he believes is consensus, and he's "jumping the gun", but you change an article to what you think is consensus, and that's okay? I believe, it would be best if any of these types of edits were withheld until after the discussion is concluded. That way, we'll hopefully avoid any further edit warring or disputes or personal attacks or any such things.  Chickenmonkey  08:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, JackMerridew should not be changing anything right now. And WHL is correct, the consensus is there to keep it. What JackMerridew perceives to be consensus seems to be the problem here. And I was not aware that JackMerridew has been previously banned for wikistalking. Administrators should take note of this previous behavior. Any editor here who feels they are currently, or have been recently, stalked by JackMerridew, please post diffs for Admins to see.Malke2010 14:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, for clarity, the table was not employing the template until Wildhartlivie added it, while the discussion is still going on. Hopefully, after the page is unprotected (if that occurs before this discussion ends), it will be left, as is, until the discussion ends. There's no deadline for Wikipedia and there's no reason to make such an edit that will clearly be challenged and result in a needless edit war. It just makes sense: nobody should add the template anywhere during discussion and nobody should remove the template anywhere during discussion. That way, hopefully, personal attacks and some wikistress can be avoided.  Chickenmonkey  19:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Um no. Jack knows full well that there is consensus for the use of that template. Also, he is the one who first added the template [4]. Then a couple weeks later, he goes on his "make tables sortable" tear here. I objected then, [5]. Jack proceeded to revert each time the template was returned, at one point calling me a disruptive editor and saying don't be disruptive. His buddy Chowbok jumped in to revert someone else here, in support of Jack, something he often does. There is no consensus for use of a sortable table and to remove the template. Jack knows that. And remembering the non-consensus supported "Tables by Jack" only came up because I was asked above to prove that he wikistalks me. That he reverted my edit within 30 minutes is even more indication of stalking. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that this issue, on that article, occurred already is further reason to avoid making that edit until after the discussion has ended. Also, honestly, I saw the edit, too, and I was going to revert it in favor of waiting for the discussion to end (just as was done when Jack edited the template).  Chickenmonkey  01:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack didn't say he changed it because of a consensus. Please go read what he said. Then Chowbok who's not been in on any of the discussion that I'm aware of changed it back to what Jack wanted because Jack wanted it. Their only reasons are that the sortable is better which is their POV. It doens't matter the article has been protected to their version so they should be happy. As for me, I don't understand why I should have to discuss my reasoning and they can just go and do whatever they want to without waiting for a consensus. It makes no sense to me thus I'm done for now. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This was a staged provocation by WHL. The filmography for Scarlett Johansson has been sortable for more than a month and she chose this moment to edit war over it. It's been discussed at WT:ACTOR#Sortable tables, and like everything not to her liking, the thread has been tied in knots by her and her fellow club members. My view is that something useful, like sorting, is moar important than their blue. George Cukor#Filmography seems to have survived as sortable, for now... Sincerely, Jack Merridew 16:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refactor your personal attack. There are editors who agree with WHL just as there appears to be an editor agreeing with you which got the article protected. We are not club members. We are members of a wiki-project that you are also a member of. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

JM, I shouldn't have to point out to you that it's trivial to make the template version sortable (I just did it there and it took me three seconds). Disliking the colour is all well and good, but let's not go misleading people as to what this debate is over. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that will need to be reverted ASAP, I believe. Most of the filmography tables use rowspans on the years and the sorting goes quite amok on those. I suppose it could be made optional somehow, like it seems you've done with the colour, and that could be useful. Making the colour and option is interesting, but we'll need agreement on the usage of that... Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And it was all reverted out, both on non-consensus grounds and that it broke stuff. I'll check back later. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, Dude, you've created the lamest edit war.Malke2010 23:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it began about 9 months before I ever edited any of this stuff. You prolly need to read the RFC. Anyone who thinks this is just about 'blue' is missing most of this. It's about a clash between the technical realities of large scale software development and anyone can edit. Most editors are incompetent^{#1, not #2} to opine on technical concerns. See also: WP:RANDY. Jack Merridew 03:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Which was the same basic malarkey that Jack spouted a long time ago when I asked him to explain what didn't work with the header being used. He told me essentially that I was too stupid to understand it, yet he explained it to a man. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Determined anon IP spammers

Can someone either block these IPs or initiate a rangeblock if appropriate? A few anon IPs from India keep spamming their website all over the wiki, wiping out inline references and external links in the process [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. I put a request in at the spam blacklist but there is a huge backlog going to May 25. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh nevermind, looks like someone at the blacklist page is taking care of it after all. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: The same IP range, plus some throwaway accounts, are now spamming another URL, perhaps a mirror of the same domain. [14], [15]. Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The articles have been protected, so it shouldn't be a problem now. Netalarm^talk 21:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? MER-C 05:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted and semi-protected it, MER-C. Sarah 05:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've also reverted and semi-protected Kalasalingam University and Tipper Gore and blocked the latest IP. We really need to get these links onto the blacklist as they're obviously not going to stop of their own volition. Sarah 04:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. This guy indeed spams a lot of articles... Netalarm^talk 06:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Right. Add the following to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (copy and paste):

\bkhatana\.net\b
\bnitcc\.co\.in\b

(Don't ask about an RFA nom, I have exams.) MER-C 05:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Added. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User Mk5384

Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is currently on a 1-week block following up on a 55-hour block for various forms of contentiousness. Venting is one thing, but he's threatening to sock and "settle scores" with various editors.[16] His talk page access is currently blocked, but I have notified him of this posting nonetheless. I pose this as a question of whether he should be indef'd and/or banned. I'm just one of many that he had a run-in with on the Black Jack Pershing article, and his approach seems to have gone on from there after he lost that battle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I had intended to bring up MK's behavior at RFC/UC, but this has now taken a much more serious tone. MK has been involved in a string of disruptive edits, personal attacks, and harassment like edits for quite some time. The complete listing of evidence links (which I had planned to use for the RFC) can be found here. -OberRanks (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps an RFC would be more productive than a discussion here. This editor clearly wants to make good contributions, but is having a really bad week. It must seem that everyone is against MK, and no one wants to talk about the real issues (as MK sees them). In my experience, "Unblock request / declined" is not a good venue for resolving such situations; nor is AN/I. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A bad week dating back to March? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, RFC would probably be best. In addition, if MK does return after his block and engages in even more personal attacks, it is likely he will receive an extremely lengthy block in any event. Same can be said if he uses sockpuppet accounts of ips while blocked during the next week. -OberRanks (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think an RFC/U would be a necessary first step here -- we shouldn't jump straight to a ban discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of holding off with the RFC/U until MK5384 is in a position to respond? Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

How about we open a RFC/U, but let him have access to his talk page, so someone can post what he posts on his talk page to the RFC? Then he would be in a position to respond. If he abuses his talk page rights again, he can be reblocked without talk page access, and the RFC will go on without his opinion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I had not planned to file the RFC until after MK was unblocked plus a few days as well to give the editor time to ease back into editing and perhaps calm down a bit. It still might not be necessary if MK returns, agrees to work with others, and does not continue to engage in disruptive behavior. Its really up to MK at this point. And, in addition, we're not dealing with a vandal or a troll, we're dealing with a productive editor who needs some help. I truly believe there is hope here. -OberRanks (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's possible that the threat to sock and settle scores was just bluster. If nothing of that sort apparently happens during the next week, maybe we should forget about that and just focus on future behavior issues, if any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would an RfC be a necessary first step? A block is to prevent disruption. We have an open ended threat of disruption. He should be indef'd until such a time that the community is satisfied there is no further thread of disruption. Has an RfC on a user ever solved anything? ever?--Crossmr (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

ObDisclose: I'm the "corrupt admin" that issued the initial 55 hour block, based on block record, and ignoring warnings and advice given to change approach. I have no strong view on what the appropriate next step is, just wanted to self-identify. Would be happy to see an outcome that ended up retaining a productive editor but lost the troublesome behavior. ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Doubt so, read WP:OWB for more details. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block

Considering the unsettling behavior and threating of block evasion, this leads me to believe that sooner or later we will have to eventually block him indefinitely. I agree on Crossmr's statement that requesting for comment on a user's conduct will never fix anything. Rohedin ^TALK 15:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If there were evidence of block evasion, that would be different (and would be covered by WP:EVADE, which says that e.g. a reset of the block might be in order). If there has been any disruption since the block began, please post diffs. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No evidence thus far, however MK stated he was going on a trip for 2 days and would return. If there is to be sockpuppet and/or evasion tactics with further disruption, over the weekend will be the time that it occurs. Based on MK's behavior, I too am beginning to believe that eventually this user will be indef blocked, but I will still file the RFC after MK is unblocked in the hopes that it does some good. -OberRanks (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Allegation of "puerile heckling"

Resolved

 – No admin attention needed. Wikiquette Alerts is that way if needed. Fences&Windows 17:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• 19:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC): John made this edit.
• 19:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC): Nev1 accused John of "puerile heckling" in this edit.
• Discussion ensued on User talk:Nev1#.22Puerile_Heckling.22.

  — Jeff G. ツ 01:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the noticeboard for things which require immediate administrative attention, not the noticeboard to alert everyone that two editors got into a silly little fight over nothing. Incidentally, {{UV}} needs curly brackets rather than square ones: all you've done is linked to the UV article twice. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Storm reached rim of teacup around 01:05, 9 June 2010. Occuli (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Block review: User:Valkyrie Red

Valkyrie Red (talk · contribs)

I've just reblocked the above user for continued violations of WP:BATTLE, disruptive editing, inappropriate canvassing as well as a personal attack here on one of the users he opened a battleground with. My action and intent were focussed on Talk:Trojan War, and it is only after I blocked that I took the time to read his submission at WP:WQA that appears to be about me (without him having notified me).

I affirm that my block was issued in good faith and in ignorance of his claims against me, but as he started action against me, I request a community review of the block, as leaving it standing unreviewed under these circumstances would not be proper. Thanks. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see more diffs supporting the month-long block. I'm entirely willing to assume your good faith here, but reading the past couple of days worth of diffs, I'm not seeing grounds for a one-month block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Compiling... Note that the length is due to repeated previous blocks for the same offenses. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm involved at the dispute at Talk:Trojan War. I don't think that Valkyrie's participation has been all that constructive, but I'm surprised to see a block. I see violations of WP:BATTLE, perhaps of WP:CANVAS. The personal attack listed here is small potatoes. Valkyrie has previous blocks, and in general seems excessively combative and unwilling to let matters drop...but I'm having trouble seeing how this justifies a block, let alone a month-long one. I would recommend unblocking, with the hope that Valkyrie understands certain elements of his editing are unhelpful. Perhaps a time-limited topic ban from Trojan War should be considered, but uninvolved editors should comment on whether that's necessary. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Diffs:

• Opening a new battleground straight off his previous 2-week block for similar offenses.WP:ABF on the rest of the editors
• [17] Another battleground at Talk:Kesha
• disruptive removal of several other users' comments
• [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] Hostile and antagonizing replies to reasonable objections
• [23] [24] [25] (after one of the contributors previously roughly agreeing with him moved to a compromise) [26] Inappropriate canvassing and further violations of WP:BATTLE
• PA on one of the editors in the opposing camp, the final straw.

While none of these taken individually may appear particularly damning, this is a long-standing pattern of disruption.

If you go back to his contrib history beyond his previous block, you will notice that this user always uses similar tactics: picking up a (seemingly) minor issue on which there was a previously standing consensus, aggressively arguing while assuming bad faith and casting aspersions, canvassing others with biased statements, refusal to hear or acknowledge arguments, misstating other editor's positions, claiming consensus where there is none, but beyond that, every single time, it's not about doing what's good for whatever article he's fighting on, it's about winning. When he doesn't get his way, he eventually resorts to PAs.

After a block expires he moves on to other articles and resumes the same style of disruption with other editors. As there is a consistent refusal to get the point, a month-long block after multiple previous blocks for similar reasons appeared appropriate (and in-line with a prior warning, see lower part of his talk page here if you still have the patience). MLauba ^(Talk) 17:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That last link was the most-useful one, actually. I'd recommend letting someone else block next time, but I think this one was indeed justifiable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Still doesn't see that it's his problem. The points he brings up aren't all that outrageous, but it's his continued aggressive behavior and his seeking of arguments that's really getting old and disruptive. I'm going to mark the Wikiquette alert as resolved now. Netalarm^talk 18:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

With the additional diffs I'm less surprised by this block, but I have to say that I see other editors getting away with this kind of behavior all the time. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to contribute an additional complication. A glance at the user's talk archive history and a more careful look at the user's talk history will show a pruning of warn notices, blocks and comments related to controversy. While I'm all for users managing their own talk space as they see fit, the actions here demonstrate a clear intent to mislead. Because of the continual gaming the system, I've exhausted good faith with this user and have ignored him as best as possible. I am surprised it took this long before the block length was extended to a month (5 previous blocks). Other users might be annoying, but that truth doesn't excuse this user's long history of disruptive behavior. I'd be hard pressed to find diffs where this user made positive contributions of any variety. Based on history, this user has demonstrated he or she is here for some reason other than creating an encyclopedia. BusterD (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Malcolm Schosha

Resolved

 – Obvious sock blocked for a year

Been having some trouble with a trolling IP for a few weeks now who was clearly a sock of somebody. Finally got aggravated enough to to open an SPI earlier today. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/173.52.182.160. Before i did so, i stupidly forgot to check the IP's global contributions, which i've just done. Here's a case of Malcolm editing logged out as the IP and correcting it.[27]. Malcolm is currently indef blocked, and has a long history of similar behavior under the username. Given his pursuit of me, i would have thought we had some history; but can't remember if I'd ever encountered him before. At any rate, this is a duck, and CU now seems unnecessary. It's a pain that so much sleuthing has to be done to confirm the obvious.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There are at least two members of arbcom who I gave my IP numbers (they change from time to time) and who saw no reason to intervene. Anyone who looks at my edit history will see I did nothing that was not useful to WP. Bali ultimate's complaints are base on problems he caused himself, and have nothing to do with my contributions. Ciao. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed block evasion. Thanks. Would love to know the names of the arbcom members who are enabling you though, Malcolm, before you go. Care to share?Bali ultimate (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Little more info. Here's the indef/ban discussion for Malcolm [28] which also says that Malcolm was, in turn, a sock of indef-blocked User:Kwork.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not ask at the arbcom noticeboard? There is nothing unusual in my editing. Many blocked users make useful contributions, and as I have said there is nothing in my IP edit history that has not been useful to WP. Bali ultimate's only basis for complaint about me is that I got in the way of his editing goals. Bella ciao, I must go and have other things to do. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Any reason a block should not be forthcoming? ClovisPt (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Block means block, yes this too should be blocked and the edits reverted per policy. If the editor wants to return, do it the right way and go to your account, put up the template and state your case. Why block or ban an editor if they only come back reincarnated as IP's or another account? This is not acceptable. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

TnXman blocked the IP for a week; however since it is so obviously a block evading sock and has been since at least the middle of April, on the basis that it's static I've extended the block to a year. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Only for background from a month back: User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive17#Malcolm_Schosha. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

copyios by User:Lib3rtarian

Lib3rtarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an SPA whose aim to promote the Movimento Libertario and its founders Giorgio Fidenato and Leonardo Facco on Wikipedia brooks no opposition -- certainly not Wikipedia's pesky copyright policy, anyway: the editor has uploaded File:Giorgio Fidenato.jpg and File:Leonardo Facco.JPG three (woops, four) times, despite multiple warnings on his talk page about the copyright problem. After they were initially deleted for lack of permission from the websites and Flickr account he'd snatched them from, he recreated the files, this time claiming they were his own work (somewhat implausibly, since he sourced them to third parties the first time he uploaded them).

He has since uploaded the copyvios File:First sowing GMO maize in Italy.jpg and File:Movimento Libertario rally in Pordenone.jpg, which, barring some intervention, will no doubt likewise keep reappearing as many times as they are speedied.

And just why, exactly, is EN hosting a bloated article manifesto about an Italian political movement and a pair of coatrack bios, authored by an editor affiliated with the organization, when the subjects aren't considered sufficiently noteworthy for Italian Wikipedia? Yeah, not sure either. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Answers' by Lib3rtarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sorry Rrburke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but I have just questions on the legality of Article-entry at Wikipedia English, now I do not think that you are within the project or Wikiproject Libertarianism and Wikiproject Liberalism to judge with the necessary knowledge and skills content of this page. In addition, the page has already been approved as a permanent discussion above. What happened in Wikipedia Italian is regrettable, unfortunately for political and ideological reasons tied to the users of the Italian version of our page and its content was deemed inconsistent with the present zeitgeist among users. L736E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that I remember how his approached in the past is not an authoritative source nor fair to have an objective version of events. I want also note that the presence of links to bibliographic reported refer to content on newspaper websites and third and authoritative information sites, outside the site of the Movimento Libertario. So I think your arguments are very disrespectful of myself and realized the purpose of the ML page. Bye.Lib3rtarian (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have deliberately violated the copyright because these images don't have any copyright itself. I also followed the instructions for compiling the most appropriate license for the photos, considering the examples already on Wikipedia without objection. ByeLib3rtarian (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Images which appear on the Movimento Libertario website are copyrighted. They are not in the public domain nor are they released under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license. (See for example, the bottom of this page which states Copyright 2009 All Rights Reserved) Copyrighted images such as these can only be used if they meet Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline. They do not. (See #12 of unaccepatble image uses). The only other method for allowing the use of pictures is for the copyright holder to give an official release for licensing by the procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Unless that permission is obtained at the Wikimedia Foundation WP:OTRS office from the original copyright owner, the images must be removed from Wikipedia. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The images have been deleted. I suspect from your note above, at your talk page and on the image's talk pages that you are profoundly misunderstanding the copyright law that governs the Wikimedia Foundation, User talk:Lib3rtarian. As our copyright policy points out, "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed." Even if you find an image on a site that does not indicate it is copyrighted, as User:CactusWriter rightly points out these are, you would not be able to import them without verifying that they are free, not simply widely used. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No opinion about other issues. Given plausible misunderstanding of copyright policy and law, I have issued a clear warning. I believe if this contributor persists in uploading images without verifying that they are usable, a block will be necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the reference to the website "2009 Copyright Rights" text refers to the kind of web structure of the site but not in particular to the articles or images contents, so that the articles and image in particulars are freely copyable on blogs and other sites (example http://liberalismoonline.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/giorgio-fidenato-contra-el-estado-italiano/ and this this site http://www.pnveneto.org/2010/01/pordenone-una-fredda-mattina-d-inverno-riscaldati-dalla-liberta-per-giorgio-fidenato/ is of another political party very close to the Movimento Libertario but the presence of this images don't create problems to the Movimento Libertario, the same images there are here in this blogs http://lasentinelladellalaicita.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/la-rivolta-di-atlante/ and in this http://www.buraku.org/2009/11/19/tuti-i-schei-in-busta-paga/ Where is the problem if the Movimento Libertario don't protest (and it doesn't protest for the use of the image in the correct context like this)?. Then if the problem is their bureaucratic permission, tell you to me that address the Movimento Libertario should send official email to Wikipedia English to request permission to usage the image so I can notify to them the next day. However, the contents of the article is also in line with the criteria of Wikipedia Project Libertarianism (I forwarded the application), so I hope that there are no other issues at least on the content of the article. Bye Lib3rtarian (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict]That the images are being similarly misused by other websites and blogs is not a rationale for compounding that error by uploading them to Wikipedia. Since they have been published elsewhere, they are presumed to be copyrighted unless there is proof to the contrary. You adduced no such proof nor attempted to. Instead, you then falsely claimed to be the creator of the works (after they had been deleted for lack of permission from the copyright-holder). Did you suddenly remember that you had created them yourself just before you uploaded them the second time, but the first time you thought they were by someone else?

Additionally, the claim that the article was deleted ("censored") for ideological reasons, which you have made repeatedly and which earned you a block for a personal attack on Italian Wikipedia, is false, self-aggrandizing and self-serving: the article was deleted because you could not produce adequate evidence of substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources to establish that the subject merited a standalone article (Hint: two guys and a website don't meet the threshold). Please see leave off the fantasies of persecution and see the General notability guideline and Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The post by CacturWriter included a link to what is needed to get the needed permissions for the images. Ravensfire (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Given his recent note at his talk page, I suspect granting him the benefit of the doubt was an error on my part. He says, "I uploaded the same image multiple times just because I have tried several times between the different Commons Licenses available at the time of the upload in an attempt to satisfy the licensing requirements of Wikipedia." The first time he uploaded File:Leonardo Facco.JPG, he placed "Oriana.italy" ([29])in the "author" field and listed its source as [30]. The second time he uploaded it, he kept "Oriana.italy" as the "author" field, but listed its source as "own work." The third time he uploaded it, he sourced it as "I (Lib3rtarian (talk)) created this work entirely by myself" and listed under author "Lib3rtarian". This does not seem like he was attempting to satisfy the licensing requirements of Wikipedia. It seems like deliberate copyright fraud. The first two times it was deleted (on Wikipedia; it's also been deleted twice on Commons), he was told how to verify permission, if he was in position. (He was told that in conjunction with other images, as well.) He's been given several block advisories in the past. Given what looks like deliberate efforts to obscure the authorship of that photograph and what seems to be a lack of willingness to acknowledge the issue, is a block at this time appropriate? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this user is interested in getting as much information about this topic onto Wikipedia as he possibly can and is not terribly fussy about how that gets accomplished or very concerned about whether the additions conform to WP policies and guidelines. That said, I have encountered editors in the past who genuinely appear to think that the "work" of uploading a file makes it their "own work." A little implausible here, perhaps, but there may additionally be a language problem that might justify extending benefit of doubt -- if you're feeling especially charitable. There'd certainly be no excuse next time. -- Rrburke (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that his response below and the one I've quoted at his talk page make a good case that it was not ignorance that led to his repeated violations of our copyright policy (in spite of clear warnings, including two explicit block advisories from March). It seems evident that he chose to ignore them because he does not take them seriously. I have blocked for 31 hours. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The images are useless public walk around the installation procedures images in Wikipedia are not the least understandable, in addition to being inflexible, I do not understand where is the problem in reference to a widespread image in the public domain. I noted then as Oriana.Italy or other alleged owners of the image on Flickr or other holders are not at all certain of the picture, nothing precludes their use (and thus an alleged harm to the copyright) on these platforms or improper transfer unsanctioned . Also repeat the question as surreal as Leonardo Facco, Giorgio Fidenato and the ML do not pose copyright issues ever to their pictures by their respective board on Wikipedia. Also do not understand why Rrburke continue to defend the shameful censorship suffered by myself and the Wikipedia page ML Italy, he doesn't not know that history, nor can know how to block user has deliberately prevented the update and after comparison being teased by people clearly definable certainly not liberals and libertarians and the inability to implement a serious debate has quietly allowed. Rrburke not know how to repeat the question of which interest is to deliberately (perhaps to please a few friends of Wikipedia Italy) I repeat my opinion as user is equal to that of the Wikipedia censors Italy, which have seen a movement-political party of their ideological rating as a "gang of dangerous criminals". I assume that Rrburke not even know the criteria and rationale to justify its hasty exit cancellation. Try reading the ML article heading and the various links to references / sources and see how the ML is not a combination of only 2 people but a real political organization in the Italian Territory with links to a culture (libertarianism) present in many countries (example Switzerland). The ML is a real movement-parties not a fake or not existing as others parties-movements that doesn't exist in the elections and in the society (but they are presents in Wikipedia Italy only because they have got a relation with some politicians or special interests in Italian politics and economic reality), news and newspaper and many websites in the references show what I write here about the ML. I know better than Rrburke the political reality and the italian libertarianism, I live in Italy and I khow also as Italian Wikipedia works than its English counterpart. So stop talking about a scam copyright since the ML never made complaints directly to the question in Italy and in this question in particular, I also received further informed consent of Leonardo Facco and Giorgio Fidenato in putting their pictures on Wikipedia. Moreover you who accused me of colluding with the two characters, when I could just be a person informed about the facts. I think that level of interest between the owner and Oriana.Italy The two main characters there is a great difference. I say give me a contact email and inform the owners of the images sent all the material for the consent. Do not create hype, since I have not stolen any plan on the H-bomb... Bye.Lib3rtarian (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Lib3rtarian's responses to comments here and on his talk page, as well as in his unblock request, seem to indicate that he is unable or unwilling to accept Wikipedia's copyright policy. If he refuses to operate within our rules, I think he should be indefinitely blocked, at least until we have a reasonable belief that he understands the rules and is willing to abide by them. He's talking about obtaining permission for the images, which is good but there's still the underlying issue regarding his broad approach to copyright matters. We need to protect the project and I think it's completely unacceptable to allow him to resume editing as long as he's still refusing to accept that he cannot just copy material from elsewhere and post it here and then claim it's okay because the copyright owner hasn't complained. His comments about "proper usage" and such also seem to suggest that he doesn't understand that we don't do permissions that limit usage only to Wikipedia and once images and other material are uploaded to Wikipedia and Commons under free licenses, they can be reused by *anyone* for *any* purpose and that includes way that he might not consider "proper usage". Sarah 05:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The responses by User:Lib3rtarian indicate that they are not simply someone who "does not get it" -- rather this is someone who understands Wikipedia policy but refuses to accept it. The example given by Moonriddengirl shows Lib3rtarian has actively attempted to subvert copyright policy through deception. If Lib3rtarian cannot be trusted to edit within the rules, than they will be need to be indefinitely blocked. At this time, I have seen no response from Lib3rtarian which instills my trust. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, me either. I will not myself extend his block, but I wouldn't think it inappropriate if somebody else did pending some plausible indication that he will abide by our Terms of Use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The editor appears to be attempting to evade his block by editing anonymously as User:109.113.45.247. I opened an SPI case, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lib3rtarian. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Misread timestamps: withdrawn, with apologies. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the above discussion and the comments on Lib3rtarian's talk page, I have upgraded his block to indefinite. I don't have a problem with giving him another chance, but I don't believe that he should be unblocked until we have a reasonable belief that he's taking the copyright policies seriously. At present, with his various comments dismissing the policy, claiming that the organisation didn't complain so what does it matter etc, I have absolutely no faith that if unblocked he wouldn't simply dismiss this whole conversation and just resume editing as before. So to protect the project, I think he needs to remain blocked until we get a credible undertaking to abide by our policies. Sarah 03:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

New editor's experience as evidence of guilt

Unresolved

I wanted to mention that I find the discussion on User talk:Inniverse disturbing. Inniverse was blocked as a sockpuppet by User:Kww on what seemed to be quite circumstantial evidence.

While I've had minor altercations with contributions and found him annoying as an extreme inclusionist, I felt that his edits weren't deliberately disruptive and didn't rise to the level of needing a block, so I rose to his defense. As did a few other editors.

I am disturbed by the block admin Kww's blatant disregard for assuming good faith:

• Kww implies that a new account can get into trouble if extensive Wikipedia experience is demonstrated from the start, and that this is evidence of sockpuppetry.
• Kww assumes that a new account showing experience and knowledge of policies must have had prior accounts in the past (rather than anonymous edits, or gaining experience through studying policies), and that this is evidence of sockpuppetry.
• Kww assumes that stale checkuser evidence revealing a geolocation similarity is enough to equate a nondisruptive account with a previously blocked sock.
• Kww asks questions of Inniverse in a "witch hunt" fashion such that, if Inniverse is indeed innocent, no acceptable answer is possible.
• Kww has created a Catch-22 situation where if Inniverse wants to make constructive edits as a registered user, he has no choice but to create another account -- and then be blocked because the Inniverse account has been branded a sock.

Inniverse may or may not be a sock of an old blocked account. At this point, I don't think that's relevant. There is insufficient evidence, only a circumstantial "possible" returned by checkuser. The point is, blocking this editor doesn't have the desired effect of preventing abuse, and Kww has demonstrated a "guilty until proven innocent" position that creates a difficult situation for the accused. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I will take a look at the situation. However, a checkuser "possible" plus behavioral similarities are usually quite sufficient to justify a block under normal admin response standards. See among other things WP:DUCK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

More often than not, an account that comes out the door know how our system works (especially the use of tags and such, though I merely use this as an example) tends to be a sock. I myself have never witnesses an 'experienced' new account that wasn't a sock. HalfShadow 18:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page, you'll see at least one other user contending that Inniverse's behavior is not similar to the behavior of the previously blocked sock. I just think this editor hasn't gotten a fair shake. My account "came out the door" with similar experience, although I concentrated more on article content than Wikipedia maintenance. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not for me to say, really. I have no actual interest in the subject, I'm just explaining the admin reasoning. George'll find out what's what, I'm sure. HalfShadow 18:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is going to take some time - there were 18 named accounts and dozens and dozens of IPs involved here, so doing an in depth user history comparison is not a simple task.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen this happen on more than one occasion by more than one admin. WP:AGF should trump WP:DUCK in most cases. What's the harm in letting a user edit until he/she misbehaves? At worst, the user turns out to be a sock and we block him/her and are done with it. Please, let's try not to alienate newbies because they are too knowledgeable. FunBob1986 (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The assumption here is that an editor who shows editing experience is a sock, and the fact is there are so many IP editors who make the jump to registering that it effectively becomes an overapplication of Occam's razor. I've looked over the page, but as I am not familiar what-so-ever with the alleged sockmaster, I can't review the block. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

First things first: most sockpuppets are blocked on nothing but circumstantial evidence. The whole system is set up around admins evaluating behavioural evidence, not checkuser evidence.

Second, the question is not that the editor is experienced. There are numerous new editors that show signs of having experience that crop up every day, and I don't run around on a blocking spree dealing with that. However, when a new editor shows up that has signs of experience and matches the behavioural pattern of an indefinitely blocked user, I tend to take action. When a new editor shows up that has signs of experience, matches the behavioural pattern of an indefinitely blocked user, and geolocates to the same medium-sized city as the indefinitely blocked user, it's highly likely that I will block him. Inniverse stands accused of being a sock of Azviz. Azviz had numerous socks:

• Beltline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thiruman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Olsys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rterrace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cochranerossst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alfnetwork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Varbas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wordssuch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Esasus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Unionsoap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Untick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14Ave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Iwelak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Look at those contributions: Beltline (talk · contribs) spent most of his brief editing career screwing around with prod tags. Rterrace (talk · contribs) was obsessed with prod tags. Alfnetwork (talk · contribs) removed a prod tag as his second edit. Varbas (talk · contribs) deprodded numerous articles. Wordssuch (talk · contribs) deprodded for a hobby. Primarily AFDs and prod tags for Untick (talk · contribs). Inniverse has spent his editing career doing deprods and AFDs. The parallel is obvious. I can only assume that people that are saying "doesn't look like Azviz to me" aren't looking at Azviz's socks.—Kww(talk) 21:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What policies and guidelines are being violated by deprodding? None that I know of.

So if an unrelated and innocent editor comes along with inclusionist tendencies that spur him to deprod articles, he gets blocked on suspicion that he's the same as a stale sock account? What recourse would such an editor have?

It is quite conceivable that there are many editors on Wikipedia, who don't even know one another, with similar editing patterns. If you're an inclusionist extremist, the most obvious activity you'd undertake is deprodding. That doesn't make someone a sock. It does absolutely no good to ask what prior accounts Inniverse had, if he had none. You're basically saying that an innocent editor will be blocked on an automatic assumption of bad faith, when the edits are not disruptive, only annoying.

I also find it incredible that Wikipedia doesn't at least record the most recent IP address used for each account. Valuable information that could prevent arguments like this could easily be avoided if checkuser worked properly. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If it were up to me, all IP information would be retained forever, and never discarded. What you are really objecting to is the whole sockpuppet detection/block process. It's primarily done on behavioural matching. Go look over WP:SPI, and see how many cases are processed on less evidence than this one. Having any checkuser information at all is the exception, not the rule. You treat "geolocates to the same city" as if it's a trivial point and it's not: I don't know exactly how many editors there are in Calgary, but there aren't thousands of them. The chances of such a good behavioural match and location match being pure coincidence are very small. The evidence in this block is stronger than it is in most. Misbehaviour from the blocked account is not required for a sock block, only matching behaviour. Evidence beyond reasonable doubt isn't required either, only evidence sufficient to convince one admin to block and all other admins that that block was not made improperly, even if the other admin would not have made the block on his own. There's certainly enough evidence here to clear that hurdle.—Kww(talk) 23:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been hesitant to weigh in because an AN/I can eat one's wiki-life for several days (grin), but I do not think Kww was too quick to act, nor was there an AGF problem. The current talk page doesn't tell the whole tale. The initial Inniverse as a possible sockpuppet review was here, redirected from my original post and was thoroughly considered (Including here) before anyone acted. The evidence is very strong that this user was a pro. I filed the initial request for a sockpuppet investigation and here is why: This user threw up some red flags for me when I went to the user's talk page to comment on a minor matter. (How the talk page appeared when I first saw it before my comment I noticed that Inniverse already had a pile of warnings on an account that was very very new, but for issues requiring sophisticated use of wikipedia. I checked contribs and noticed massive numbers of edits on each of the few days the account existed. I'm not an admin, but felt someone who was should take a peek. Usually when you see behavior that includes immediate proper use of syntax and templates, massive numbers of policy-style edits yet few article content contributions (most truly new wikipedians start by making article edits that are somewhat clumsy but improve with experience), plus dozens of daily edits and multiple talk page complaints on a brand new account, it's clear that someone with wikipedia experience is behind it. (talk page as it appeared immediately before the block) Then pleas of innocence combined with tenditious arguments are classic behaviors of people who make choices to be difficult on Wiki. Here, I respectfully beg to differ with those who say this user's behavior was not disruptive. Inniverse was already upsetting a fair number of other people. But the bottom line is if sockpuppetry itself is the first problem. And here, I think we have a sock. Montanabw^(talk) 07:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Inniverse on this discussion, copied from his talk page

The only account I have used are Julpet and this one. I have made other edits without logging in. Nobody has ever asked me the question: "What previous account did you have that caused you to gain considerable expertise in deletion related policies?". I was under the impression that I had annoyed other editors because I did not know what I was doing in relation to deletion discussions - but you are accusing me of being too knowledgeable? Excuse me, but that makes no sense. My talk page received several comments from users who were telling me to read the policy on deletion nominations and discussions to learn more about what I was trying to do. Earlier on this page it was pointed out by another editor that I was "almost certainly not Azviz, simply because [Inniverse] demonstrated an extremely superficial understanding of policy"[31] I thought it was my ignorance that you were upset about. Now you say my editing is too advanced? I was confused when I was accused by the admin who claimed that I made infoboxes on my first day editing as Inniverse. Take another look. It was a cut and paste. My first edits made were to try to perform a move by cutting and pasting the entire article into a new article name. I now realize that I should use a "move" to do this. I am just learning my way around Wikipedia - reading policy, cutting and pasting, and learning as I go. I am not guilty of what I have been accused of. Inniverse (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I will point out that the alternate explanation for the move behaviour is that the tag has moved, and is no longer displayed for accounts that are not yet confirmed.—Kww(talk) 22:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to some edits that you made as an IP? - Mgcsinc (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I will not point you to my IP edits as I have reasonable concerns for my privacy. Further, I now feel that whatever explanations I give will not satisfy those who have already made up their minds and decided upon their position. I am gratified to see that some editors have taken note that my account has been superficially judged by other editors who have jumped at conclusions and have slapped labels on me. I find it ironic the the blocking admin who is accusing me of having too much knowledge made this [32] comment to another editor with his 2nd ever edit (his first edit was to create his user's page). Conflicts are better resolved through discussion and finding a mutually agreeable solution. I will try to limit my involvement in this discussion. I hope and trust that common sense, fairness and the spirit and words of Wikipedia policy, in particular Wikipedia:Assume good faith are fully considered. I believe that I have the skills to be a good editor and I have respect for Wikipedia and its volunteer editors. I ask that you allow me to contribute to the project. Inniverse (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(Will someone be kind enough to add Mgcsinc's question and my response to the on-going discussion.) Inniverse (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You probably should note this anonymous edit from nearly a month earlier. Think that anonymous editor signed his edit KWW by coincidence?—Kww(talk) 04:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not accusing KWW of any wrong doing. I am just trying to make the point that even new editors can have legitimate editing experience. That KWW edited as an IP prior to creating his account supports my argument. Inniverse (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I do not know whether or not this user is a sockpuppet; though this is a difficult sort of judgment to make, I think Kww is possibly right because the answers above do seem evasive. However, it is not ideal that Kww should be the one who made this block, because the basis of the block was behavioral evidence that the user was unreasonably opposing deletions, and Kww will surely not take it amiss if I say he is known as a relatively deletionist editor. Suppose a new editor came along, and engaged in very frequent consistent deletion nominations, while showing a considerable knowledge of the deletion process to the extent it might possibly be sockpuppettry, but there was no confirming checkuser. If I blocked that editor on the basis of the behavioral evidence, though I might be judging the situation perfectly accurately, I would be doing wrong, because I am about as inclusionist as Kww is the opposite. If I encountered such a situation, I should have either bring it here or to another admin board, or requested that an admin who I knew had a different orientation in this respect evaluate the matter. Had I done the block myself , I would expect to be expect--certainly if I did it with the experience I have now-- to be reprimanded. In fact, as a new admin, I made a block where I came a little too close to the line of blocking potential opponents, and though the block was upheld, I was indeed advised to unblock, and I did so, and learned from it & I hope have never repeated it. It is no reflection on Kww, likewise a new administrator, that he should do the same sort of thing I did, and i expect he too will learn that the only safe way of using the buttons is to avoid anything that might be seen as favoring ones one's own inclinations, even when fully objectively justified. It's frustrating, because he and I must wait for others to take action when we know we could do it fairly, but if anyone might think it unfair, we do better to put up with the frustration-- if only so that the people who should be blocked get blocked without such a question arising. DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• That could be true, though sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and he blocked the user as a sock because he matched patterns that Kww was familiar with. As an aside, I'm pretty bloody sick of the battleground mentality between inclusionists and deletionists. As an outside observer who doesn't self classify into either camp, I wouldn't have made a "Kww's a dirty deletionist so of course he would notice an editor hindering his deletionist pogrom" connection (extreme hyperbole added for comedic effect, I know you didn't phrase it as such). Syrthiss (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I was asked by e-mail to take a look. I think any examination of my block log will show that if I have any pogroms, it's against socks, not articles.—Kww(talk) 14:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks, that was my point. :) Syrthiss (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

  • • Let us not pretending individuals do not have individual views about Wikipedia and that they can possibly influence our decisions without our being aware of it. This can be so invidious that the only protection against acting unfairly is to never act in a way that can possibly be perceived as unfair. As I said, with my relatively little experience of these investigation I think Kww was correct about the socking, and I accept his expertise in this area. That isn't the point. No admin should ever take action against someone whom he has a RW or WP ideological difference with, or where he might be perceived to have such a difference. I think I'm less an inclusionist that people sometimes think, but it's the way I'm perceived that matters. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Talk:Barack Obama

There's a slow edit war on Talk:Barack Obama based on an an anonymous user's comments (my reversion re-including them) being repeatedly removed by talk-page regulars who saw the comments as a form of trolling or disruption. However, I disagreed, and actually replied to the user pointing out that he did have a point where Obama's statement contradict the article, reality, and/or both. The discussion is currently live at Talk:Barack Obama#Proposal to update FAQ1, but there's still a dispute on whether the comments should be removed or kept; I believe they should be kept, as they do not violate any of our rules and they're actually productive (if a little incivil); however, other users don't think so. Thoughts? Sceptre ^(talk) 19:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an obvious and clear case of disruption by the anon ip.(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) And that is not even all the mass postings by the anon ip. The ip was blocked, and just ip hopped over and over. The talk page was protected, the disruptive portion of the posts removed, but the editor who started this thread reverted two other regular editors to re-include the uncivil attacks and disruptive posts. Dave Dial (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The IP was severely bitten by DD2K and others. He had a legitimate point and I can understand his frustration.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling question 1's answer "a lie" is not really the ideal way to discuss the subject rationally. And I'd like to know where he gets the notion that a 4th grader knows what kind of school he's in. I barely remember anything from 4th grade, and I do have a good memory. The real problem, though, is that this is just another trolling attempt to "prove" that Obama is a Muslim, and that is what probably accounts for most of the IP's general demeanor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You can honestly say you don't remember what SCHOOL you attended in 4th grade? You really think any reasonable person is going to buy that? Please... Remembering specific curriculum is one thing, remembering where you attended is completely different. I remember perfectly well that in 4th grade I was attending a parochial lutheran grade school. By golly I even remember my teachers name. *rollseyes*

I do remember the school's name, and where it was in relation to my parents' house, as we walked to and from. I knew its name but was not cognizant of it being a public school, it was just "school". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The IP was engaged by Sceptre and William S. Saturn, and settled down somewhat (full disclosure, I blocked one of the editor's IPs, who had adopted an aggressive attitude from the beginning of his edits, declaring Q1 of the FAQ to be, variously, BS and "lies" and editors to be "lefties."). Since there was a productive discussion going on despite the name-calling, I declined to block further IP incarnations or to protect the page. I don't think the rationale for removal of the IP's comments is particularly valuable. The comments are peevish, but repeated removal makes it all hard to follow and seems to me to have lost its point. The reverts are now between established editors and seem to me to be a waste of time. The page has since been protected. Let the comments stand. Acroterion _(talk) 22:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the real problem now is User:The Chicken costs $1 who is trolling the talk page and filing bogus reports at AIV.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The IP edits themselves are clearly inappropriate for any of a number of reasons, not the least of which are WP:SOCK and WP:DENY. The editor was advancing the fringe theory about Obama being Muslim, while accusing Wikipedia and its editors of being a liberal conspiracy - sound familiar? It is within the reasonable discretion of editors on the page to remove threads of this ilk, particularly after the anon was blocked and the page semi-protected to prevent them from making good on their threat to continue IP socking. Whether they should have been removed is a different question, one that is up to the editors there to decide. Generally the preference except in obvious cases of vandalism, bad faith, copyvio, etc., has been to leave a polite response that assumes good faith and responds to anything worth addressing, on the first go round at least, and then quickly archive the matter. Edit warring, on the other hand is bad. Bad, bad, bad. I note that the usually calm and wise administrator Nihonjoe has joined the fray, edit warring to restore The Chicken is $1's thread and issuing a block threat over it,[33]. If we're going to deny trolls their due, then as experienced productive editors we should not let ourselves be ruffled. The IP troll was simply being disruptive, but in the process raised one aspect to a fringe theory that the FAQ did not currently address. Dollar-chicken raises a seemingly earnest reliable source question that we can certainly deal with in a matter-of-fact way. Even if he were trolling, there's no reason to take the bait. - Wikidemon (talk)

The only thing I did was restore comments removed and refactored by William S. Saturn. The comments weren't trolling, and should not have been removed. He removed them, at least in part, because some misapplied {{hat}} tags were hiding a discussion in the section below it. If he had simply changed the second {{hat}} to {{hab}} instead of removing an entire section, then there wouldn't have been a problem. You can see an entire discussion about it here. Also, since you are discussing my actions here, you are required to let me know, which unfortunately hasn't happened yet. I review this page regularly, though, so at least I noticed it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 03:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I assumed you were on top of this based on your donning the administrators' mantle immediately below a notice that the matter had been referred to AN/I.[34] Please forgive me if I assumed too much. I considered a template to you, the IP editor, et al, but demurred in light of WP:BEANS and WP:DTTR. I recognize that you were attempting to restore order to a page that seemed to be chaotic. However, please do take a little more time to assess what's going on before taking sides and issuing demands. You restored some comments that had been deleted as trolling (an opinion that I, like you, do not share, although I do think it's quite possible that the editor who made them is a sock). I guess that's fine - reverting rather than WP:BRD to restore a disputed comment. But you said in your edit summary, "do not remove other's comments", a position that if interpreted broadly has been rejected for good reason on the Obama talk page. Inasmuch as there was no clear consensus, much less behavioral policy, backing up that edit, your doing it again and then threatening a block your new edit warring opponent over the matter, seems to be beyond the role of an administrator. I haven't followed all the side discussions on your talk page about the wikiformat mix-up, but whatever was going on a more cordial discussion among the established editors outside of the range of any IP SPAs would set things straight much faster than block threats and AN/I reports. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, given that fact that William S. Saturn came in with guns blazing rather than asking me why I had restored the comments, or explaining that they had been hiding the discussion below the section, I'm not sure how a confrontation could have been avoided. He immediately accused me of impropriety and demanded that I apologize to him. The ONLY thing I did was restore the comments (twice), fix the template issue, and let him know that continuing to remove the other editor's comments would be considered disruptive and would result in being blocked. The comments were not obvious trolling and should not have been removed. Period. There is no obvious connection between The Chicken is $1 and the obviously-trolling IP, so there was no reason to remove The Chicken is $1's edits. Whether The Chicken is $1 is a sock or not is a discussion for another time and place as there is no evidence of that here. There is very clear consensus to not remove edits which are not blatantly trolling or an attack of some sort, and there is very clear consensus regarding blocking those who persist in removing other's comments when they are not obviously trolling or making an attack. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that 99%. WSS should not have removed the comments or come in with guns blazing. Plus I did miss some of the sideline talks. WSS did make the connection between the IP and the $1 chicken, as simultaneous problems on the page. I think the Obama page people could use a little more discipline and order in dealing with the occasional glitch on the talk page, so my only issue is that the revert / block threat seemed hasty. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it may have been a little bit hasty, though it wasn't issued until the second time. I specifically didn't do it on the first time. I do agree about the Obama page people in generally. People tend to get way too worked up on that page (you should have seen the fun surrounding the Obama disambiguation page a couple years ago!). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have some experience getting worked up, so when I urge people not to do so, it's a "please don't do what I did" kind of thing. If WSS is reading this, can we agree to call it a day? We can work this out back on the talk page. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree to call it a day on this issue.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

break

anyone care to take a swing at dealing with the below? It's a block-evading IP hopper so I don't think there's any point engaging. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There you go touting you're "fringe theory" nonsense again. The answer to Q1 states:"Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6-10"; nevertheless HIS BOOK SAYS HE DID. Exactly where is the fringe theory?? And WHERE was I accusing Obama of CURRENTLY being a Muslim? When you incessantly delete posts without even verifying that the information IS INDEED ACCURATE, how would you expect me not to call you a lefty loony? They're the only ones refusing to admit Obama's past. So yes, I posted it over and over again until someone else less biased than you saw it and said - "Hey, the guy's got a point..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.235.176 (talk • contribs)

Not worth a response. Exhibit C for why this discussion should remain on the Obama talk page - IP socking. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh boo hoo. You have no response. Quit throwing little child like temper tantrums and deleting information that you "don't like", and you won't have these issues. You can't adequately rebuttal the information provided, so you resort to deletion and whining to admins. Sally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.21.199.144 (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What does the South Atlantic League have to do with this discussion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Complaint about lack of appropriate response from admins

Resolved

I'd like to apologize here at AN/I for mischaracterizing User:Verbal as a fool. I intended to do it on yesterday's thread, but it has been auto archived. Verbal is clearly of average intelligence.

Background

I had collapsed a thread, with this as the hat note: "Copied to COI noticeboard." and 10 seconds later, copied it to the COI noticeboard. Ten minutes later User:Verbal undid the collapse with this edit summary: "it wasn't copied there." and this on the talk page:

Please stop trying to collapse this section, especially with a misleading note... Verbal chat 20:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)(red added)

If you take the trouble to follow the above diffs you will see that my hat note was accurate - I had copied the thread to the COI noticeboard - and, ironically, Verbal was doing the misleading with "it wasn't copied there." Now, this is a very mild libel. But it is libel.

libel, n. In popular use: Any false and defamatory statement in conversation or otherwise. Oxford English dictionary.

In saying I collapsed the thread with a misleading hat note Verbal is implying something about me, that I am deceptive. I figured I would call Verbal on this tiny little bit of sleazy, rude, deceptive, disrespectful behavior toward me and, using English, my first language, economically and precisely, challenged him to back up the "misleading" slur with

Misleading. Mmmm. That seems... libelous? rude? ad hom? PA? How do you mean "misleading" exactly? Anthony (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC) (red added)

Rather than justify the slur, Verbal slapped a template on my talk page which said the above

"could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself."

No one but a fool would think the above could be construed as a threat of legal action. No one, but a fool. But a deceptive manipulator might say it. Which Verbal did, on my talk page and at an ANI thread he started about the incident. In the second sentence of Verbal's ANI thread he refers to my words as a "threat", and says he left an "educational warning" on my talk page. This educational warning linked to a page that said

"It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion."

Since my words were not a threat, and no one but a fool would construe them as such, what was I meant to make of this?

The next sentence said

"A perceived legal threat is not an immediately blockable offense. Instead, admins have to seek for clarification of the situation."

This was not done in my case. After 18 minutes "discussion", an admin posted this on my talk page:

"Really, responding to an "accusation" of being misleading with a claim of "libel" is over the top, whether or not you actually intend to take legal action. Dial it down a bit next time, ok?"

This is of course ... unreasonable. An accusation of being misleading (when it is false) is libel. That is the very word for it in English. It is not over the top, it is perfect, apt English expression. And "...whether or not you actually intend to take legal action. Dial it down a bit next time, ok?" was baffling. I was being rebuked but did not know why. So, I asked "What have I done wrong?" Another editor responded with a home-made definition of "libel" and

While there is no legal threat made, per WP:NLT, there is still the implication of an attempt at intimidation.

But WP:NLT only refers to language that could reasonably be interpreted as a legal threat. "Only a fool would interpret my language in that way." I'm sorry. I said it again. But I am explaining my thought processes at the time. Now I was being accused of intimidating someone. Still no admin, though several were watching the thread, had followed the guideline and sought clarification of the situation. No one asked me "What did I mean?" "What did I intend?" They were warning and rebuking me for the perfect use of the English language; acting as though the word "libel" is outlawed at Wikipedia, when, in fact, the guidelines simply say, if you think a threat is implied, "Seek clarification."

At AN/I I briefly outlined events leading up to the templating and followed with a statement (beginning with "I object to being called misleading...") telling the admins that Verbal's behavior demonstrates that he is a fool and, as they had now rebuked me and accused me of intimidation, their behavior warrants an apology to me.

An admin then blocked me. Another admin then called me an egotistical fool.

Remedy

It needs to be pointed out to Verbal that low level insults, like implying another editor is deceptive, are personal attacks far more toxic than "Fuck off, troll". He needs to know that smearing talk pages with that kind of devious insult drives away many more good editors than frank rudeness. Actually, I think he knows. The community needs to acknowledge it, and tell him that we don't approve.

The admin who rebuked me on my talk page for using the word "libel" needs to acknowledge that he made a mistake.

The admin who accused me of "implying intimidation" on my talk page needs to acknowledge that he made a mistake.

The admin who called me an egotistical fool needs to acknowledge that he made a mistake.

The admins who watched the farce and did not ask me to clarify my meaning need to be aware of what the guidelines actually say.

The Template Verbal slapped on my talk page must only be used for people who can reasonably be seen to be making or hinting at a legal threat. Never for people who just use the word "libel". Perhaps a new template could be made that explains how, in the past, editors have waved the word about in order to intimidate others; that is, perhaps a genuine attempt could be made at "education". Anthony (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply

I suggest this is closed as it was dealt with the other day. I certainly don't feel a need to go over it again. It's far to big a report for ANI. Also, it's my bedtime. Also, and lastly, to stop him getting in more trouble. Verbal chat 20:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for what I said yesterday; that was why I refactored because I knew the language I used could have been better. –MuZemike 20:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That being said, I recommend you read Wikipedia:Apology and what that entails. That was what I was getting at yesterday. –MuZemike 20:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What Anthony fails to understand is that legal threats and incivility and all that sort of thing are against the rules because of the intimidation factor. And unfortunately Anthony continues to try to intimidate, although it's fairly clear that it's not working. Verbal might have engaged in a bit of intimidation himself. Both editors just need to figure out a way to either get along or leave each other alone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Anthonyhcole blocked for 72 hours

Blocked 72 hours for "Verbal is clearly of average intelligence."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely this sort of logic ("no one but a fool would have taken my previous remark as an insult/a threat/incivil/disruptive") is not only self-defeating, but painfully obviously not a good idea to post here, of all places. Hmm. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, 72 hours is completely disproportionate for that. Anthony is clearly upset still about yesterday's block and this is just crashing down with a sledgehammer. I propose an unblock. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Spartaz, I don't think that was blockworthy myself. Incidentally, Anthony messaged me to come here, but why? Was this the thread where I asked "is libel a verb?". Don't see what I could do here. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably not blockworthy on its own, but reading the above diatribe, I'd actually leave the block be. That's just a rant disguised as an apology. You'll note he also describes Verbal as "a deceptive manipulator" and repeats the "fool" statement via a thin disguise of "I'm just articulating my thought processes". Leave him blocked until he can produce a retraction that doesn't sound like he's got his thumb on his nose and is waggling his fingers in the air. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I'm supposed to be intimidated into apologizing for saying he was trying to intimidate other users. Yeah. Not happening. The fact of the matter is that he is ranting about users trying to keep him from getting blocked before he was blocked. My only interaction with him was trying to get him to calm down. It kind of seems like the user is intentionally not getting it. --Smashville^talk 20:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Anthony called Verbal a fool again in his unblock request, which he received for calling Verbal a fool after being warned by two different admins. Then, he comes here and goes "I'm sorry, he's not a fool, he's clearly of average intelligence." Then, after I blocked him for that, he goes "gee, I thought I was being generous". If he had restricted his commentary to calling me corrupt, incompetent, whatever, big deal -- I got plenty of that in my Admin Review without blocking anyone. It's his unrelenting insults to Verbal that got him the block, and I don't see any reason to undo it at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGFing, I unblocked. Telling someone that they are "of average intelligence" isn't a personal attack. Just because it's not a compliment doesn't make it an attack. --Smashville^talk 22:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Support unblock This is a peurile block that smacks of vindictiveness, especially as it's made by Sarek - very poor indeed.  Giacomo  21:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Endorse block. For what it's worth, I think this block is entirely justified. Anthony should have seen it coming... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that this block will be overturned as quickly as it would be if the offending remark had been made by an editor with the credentials of say, User:GiacomoReturned, for example. Leaky Caldron 21:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Incompetent... lazy... ignorant... fools... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I unblocked. Clearly the ANI thread here was extremely ill-advised but there was nothing blockable to it. Yes, it was a demand for an apology when there wasn't really one warranted...and yes, he has had some fairly intimidating behavior...but is this anything more than a still fairly new new user that needs someone to explain to him, "Hey. Don't do that"? As for venting after he was blocked...I can understand that. All users involved are advised to simply drop it and move on. --Smashville^talk 21:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarek that was over the top, saying someone is of average intellegence is niether a compliment nor an insult, it means they're normal which is hardly blockable. Sometimes users may say someone is of average intellegence to point out that they should have forseen something, but didn't. In this case it was a good faith way of saying that Verbal isnt a fool. Personally what I see is a disgruntled editor who has some reason to be trying to seek an apology, though I personally think requesting it on on AN/I in the manner he did was poor judgement as it would have been better when done on talkpage or via email. Sarek, ease of the block button in future, if your too quick to push it next time you might just block yourself or worse Jimbo!   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support block, oppose the unblock Sarek was absolutely correct. In the context of what had previously happened, Anthony's comment was clearly a backhanded slap at Verbal. I'm not sure why people aren't seeing that, but it's perfectly clear to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is how I see it. How is "clearly of average intelligence" not some kind of implied insult? Rehevkor ✉ 00:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It is, no doubt. Perhaps folks are drunk on AGF or something. No editor should be speculating on the intelligence of another editor. We can judge competency, because we see the results, but to speculate about the intelligence (or other personal qualities) of the person making the edits crosses a line, whether it's expressed as "You're a dunce" or "You're clearly of average intelligence." (Besides, "fool" vs. "average intelligence" is a false dichotomy: highly intelligent people can still be foolish.) Anthony seems to have gotten away with his behavior this time, since people seem to have accepted his (to my perception) highly implausible explanation; I only hope that he doesn't take it as license to misbehave again. We'll see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock. It's absurd that Anthony is being blocked repeatedly just for pointing out Verbal's behavioural problems which nobody is doing anything about. He has not been doing so very nicely, but Verbal's attacks against editors he doesn't respect are often a lot less nice and he generally gets away with it. Nothing in Verbal's comportment on Wikipedia suggests that he should be offended by the insinuation that he is not of significantly higher than average intelligence. Hans Adler 00:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely reject BlackKite's assertion above

You'll note he also describes Verbal as "a deceptive manipulator" and repeats the "fool" statement via a thin disguise of "I'm just articulating my thought processes".

I did not describe Verbal as "a deceptive manipulator". Read my words, not your inferences. Verbal is not a fool. Haven't I made that clear? Don't put meanings into my words, please. Anthony (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

BeyondMyKen, Verbal is certainly of average intelligence. He may be of above average intelligence, but I haven't seen that demonstrated. Don't attribute meanings to my words that they don't carry, please. Anthony (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock Calling someone average is hardly a blockable insult. That Verbal would choose to interpret what anthonyhcole said as a legal threat would seem to support less generous characterizations. Unomi (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I try to be magnanimous. Anthony (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock per Hans Adler. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting contribution history from this editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

He has interesting contributions eh? Seeing as your giving out free contribution assesments, would you like to tell me what you think of mine and every other person here or would you rathor just run along now and do something useful?   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock, Smashville. I have to disagree, though. I think more than one public apology is warranted. This was not a trivial or vexatious thread. Anthony (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I agree that a public apology is warranted. By you, not by Verbal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Verbal stuffs up, says an editor is "misleading" (Instead of double checking his facts) and Verbal is the one who's owed an apology? All I can say is keep going Verbal   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I made no mistake in my editing, and merely asked for Anthony to be given a warning that his behaviour might get him in trouble if it persisted. Whereas, in return, I have been accused of "libel" (incorrectly), being a "fool" (repeatedly), of "average intelligence", being a "hypocrite", of "smearing", and "misleading", amongst other things, in this very report. And none of these stand up. Anthony's edit was misleading because he moved a large part of a conversation from where it happened to a different forum, without seeking editors permission, and I objected. It was misleading baecause the conversation didn't happen there or in the order Anthony's move presented it as happening. It was also misleading as no move had taken place when I first looked, and the second time he removed the text I had already removed the comments from COIN for the reason above, plus others (WP:TALK etc). Having the edits called misleading is not something to get so worked up about, and I would have explained if asked. In response I was accused of libel, and pointed Anthony to WP:NLT which has a section on this word (although most of has moved, as NYB pointed out in the last thread. At no point have I hounded Anthony, or pressed for action beyond a warning. I find some of the comments by people above a bit surprising in light of what actually happened, and people seem to have made assumptions and jumped to conclusions. I hope Anthony can move on and stop with the low level attacks. Lastly, note again, I'm not calling for any further action. Verbal chat 06:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is long past its sell-by date. I've marked it as resolved. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You picked it at the first ANI with this, SlimVirgin: "The whole thing started with this comment of Anthony's, to which Verbal responded with a warning template, and it was downhill from there."

• The NLT template, sensibly, links to WP:NLT.
• Here is where it went wrong. Wikipedia:NLT#Perceived_legal_threats was trimmed to a few sentences and the full section was moved to WP:Harassment on 22 Nov 2009,.
• The NLT template linked me to this Perceived legal threats section of NLT,

  It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. A perceived legal threat is not an immediately blockable offense. Instead, admins have to seek for clarification of the situation.

  and I concluded, reasonably, that it didn't apply to me. In context, it was obvious I wasn't threatening legal action. Obvious. This is when I began doubting Verbal's sanity. This is when I called him a fool, and reiterated that he had libeled me, and he took me to ANI.
• Had the NLT template linked to the full version of "Perceived legal threats", which explains that it is best to avoid using the word on Wikipedia even in a non-threatening way, I would have respected that and understood the actions of the admins, all of whom were assuming I had read the full version when they rebuked me for using the term again after being templated. They thought I was a recalcitrant ass, and treated me as such, I thought they were arrogant fools and dealt with them accordingly.
• For now, while the NLT template links to WP:NLT, I have restored the old Perceived legal threats section.

As for Verbal's disingenuous self-exculpation, I can't let that go. This is just for the record and I don't expect anyone to read it. This editor, Verbal, relies on you not following dif's. If you follow the dif's, there is only one conclusion you can draw,

• V: Anthony's edit was misleading because he moved a large part of a conversation from where it happened. False. I collapsed it, I didn't move it. [35]
• V: to a different forum, without seeking editors permission. False. Copied, not moved [36] and I introduced the insert with "This has been happening at Talk:Acupuncture. It is not appropriate there. It may be appropriate here. If not, just delete it" - that's called asking permission.
• V: I objected. The section was collapsed by another editor almost immediately after V's undo of mine and has stayed that way. He was just harassing me.
• V: It was misleading baecause the conversation didn't happen there or in the order Anthony's move presented it as happening. False. Not misleading because of the abovementioned introduction, because I put it in a blockquote; and, as for timing, all comments retained their date stamp.
• V: It was also misleading as no move had taken place when I first looked, and the second time he removed the text I had already removed the comments from COIN for the reason above, plus others. False. My collapse on the Acupuncture Talk page and insertion on the COI page happened within 10 seconds. I had them loaded on 2 browser tabs and launched them virtually simultaneously. Verbal's revert with the edit summary "it wasn't copied there" happened 10 minutes later. [37]
• V: I would have explained if asked. I asked.
• V: I was accused of libel, and pointed Anthony to WP:NLT which has a section on this word Very false indeed. It does now, because I restored it. The version you linked me to is on the left of this dif.

Also

• When he opened the ANI thread he called my use of the word "libel" a threat. Unambiguously. Twice in the first paragraph. It was not a threat. Never looked like one.
• In his second comment at ANI he said I was "making unfounded accusations of a legal nature." This, too, is an untruth. Anthony (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Anthony, please drop this. You're wrong and it's boring. You're not doing yourself any favours by going on like this. Please heed the warnings you've been given (or not, your choice) and move on. Verbal chat 14:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I was wrong in my review when I said remove I meant collapse. This was another problem, with two copies of the same conversation now floating around. Thanks for that correction. Verbal chat 15:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That's it? Follow the dif's for a portrait of Verbal. Anthony (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's it. And if it helps, I'm sorry. Verbal chat 15:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It does. Thanks. Anthony (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Nomoskedasticity repeatedly reverting valid changes on many articles

A while ago, I made several edits on various pages changing the term "Palestine", linked to Palestine, a geographic region comprising Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip. The articles had lists, for example, of the countries in Western Asia. So the list comprised of Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Palestine, etc... This doesn't make sense, because Palestine includes Israel, making the list superfluous and misleading. I changed the instances of Palestine to Palestinian territories. Today, Nomoskedelasticity has evidently gone through my contribution history, and systematically reverted every single change I made, with edit summaries such as "one person's "accuracy" is another's "inaccuracy" -- any particular reason you'll insist that yours should prevail?". This, even though I have repeatedly explained to him the reasoning for my change. In response to my most recent explanation, he sarcastically responded here, completely ignoring the issue and instead choosing to insinuate that I am just an ignorant Israeli who refuses to accept the "truth". Here are the diffs of all the reverts he has made, rendering the articles potentially confusing to readers. [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]. [44]I don't want to edit war with him. I'm tired of this. I just want this encyclopedia to be accurate and informative to readers, rather than mislead people and use superfluous terminology. Help would be appreciated. Breein1007 (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007 has a troubled recent history with blocks for POV warring -- this will help others understand the real problem here. He clearly prefers a world without Palestine -- he's entitled to his feelings, but I don't think this justifies cloaking this kind of change in the language of "accuracy" (as per his edit summaries). What's particularly telling about this issue is that he has failed to convince other editors at template talk Asia that there should be a systematic change along these lines. Anyway I can't imagine the reason for bringing this to AN/I. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Breein - Are you accusing Nomo of WP:HOUNDING? If not, this notification seems a little pointless. NickCT (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

On the content issue, I have a slight inclination that Nomoskedasticity is probably more in the right. However, this does meet the textbook definition of a WP:HOUNDING campaign. I see edits made by Breein1007 in May and earlier being reverted here. Going through someone's contributions history from several months before and making reverts like this is unambiguously hounding, unless there's a content violation of some sort.

A content disagreement is not a content violation.

Nomo - at the very least, please stop this at once while it's discussed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to refrain from continuing for now. I'm doubtful about the idea that WP:HOUNDING applies -- that one specifies "an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." The reason for my edits is not that, rather a genuine disagreement that Breein1007's edits along those lines are appropriate (particularly with the justification of "accuracy"); I only reverted edits of the type specified, there is not a more general campaign here against his edits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I did attempt to raise this issue on his talk page, here -- my inquiry was overlooked, perhaps? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not a solution. Of course he stopped; he already reverted all my edits. What am I supposed to do, have a discussion with myself? He completely ignored the justification I provided more than once, and rudely, in bad faith, assumed that I'm just some typical Israeli who doesn't want Palestine to exist. I have news for you, the typical Israeli does want Palestine to exist, and supports the creation of a Palestinian state. I am among those typical Israelis. The same cannot be said for the majority of Palestinians, according to polls. But that's a different story. This case is not solved. The wording is misleading and superfluous, and so far nobody has addressed those concerns that I made perfectly clear. Breein1007 (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So this is just going to get archived with no resolution? Telling a user to stop hounding after he has already reverted all my edits is not a solution to the problem. He refuses to discuss, ignored my explanation more than once, and now I'm faced with two options: continue the edit war and revert all his reverts, or give up and let the misleading text remain since nobody is discussing the issue. Lovely. Breein1007 (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else you're looking for. For what it's worth, going through your diffs, I tend to side with one or the other of you in several places. Palestine is very clearly not, per the technical definition, an independent country or nation. I agree that it is inappropriate to include Palestine among a list of "nations" in the area -- it's very definitely not a nation. However, there's a least one list among the diffs that refers to "countries or lands" in the area, and here I think one ought to include Palestine as a plainly notable "land" in the region. But, again, strongly agree that it's not a nation -- that's not really a point of view. Anywhere where lists are explicitly of "nations" or "countries" in the region, Palestine ought not to be included.

All that said, and that was a mouthful, this is a content dispute, and not necessarily an ANI matter unless it really begins to spiral out of control which, based on at least a cursory review of your respective contributions, it really hasn't become. Try and work it out on talk pages. Frankly, I'll gladly contribute there. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Outing by User:I Pakapshem

In this discussion [45], User:I Pakapshem deliberately used what he thinks is my real name (I am neither confirming nor denying it for privacy reasons). This is a clear, brazen attempt at outing. This was not a slip, it was not an accident, and it certainly is not necessary. I would like the comment redacted, and the editor sanctioned. Considering his particularly heavy block log, combined with immediate resumption of disruptive editing upon the expiration of a 6 month block (I Pakapshem's contribution to wikipedia consists of tendentious removals of any material pertaining to the existence of the Greek minority in Albania sourced or not, e.g. [46], for which he was blocked in the past and which he has now resumed with full vigor [47]), an indef block would not be inappropriate. He has been warned twice in the past that the next block would be indef [48] [49]. This is a disruption-only Balkan account, with exactly zero positive contributions to wikipedia, and even when he doesn't edit war he manages to disrupt talkpage discussions with incessant inane rants and flaming, the perfect example being here [50]. His deliberate attempt at outing is the final straw. Athenean (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Athenean, how would I Pakapshem know your name? I am intervening because I was involved in that discussion. Unless you disclosed it voluntarily how would he have known it? Please do not try to describe the "bad" character of user:I Pakapshem who just came back from his ban (which he respected in full), as many of us have a dirty biography here in Wikipedia per Arbmac decisions. You yourself, between User:Athenean and the prior userid (my understanding is that both belong to you), are full of blocks, so please don't make a point as far as User:I Pakapshem experience and enjoyment with Wikipedia has been. Can you state that you have NEVER made a mention to that name yourself? --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 21:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

First I am not going to confirm whether it is my real name or not, but I'll be damned if I know how he thinks that is my real name. For the record, I have never ever revealed my name in wikipedia! You coming here and suggesting it is somehow my fault is an outrageous attempt to blame the victim. I KNEW you would come here and try to disrupt my posting with something inane, but this too much even for you. I also ask that you remove my old username immediately, as I changed it precisely for privacy reasons. Athenean (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(after editconflict) Ok, I removed it, didn't know about your choice, my apologies, but it still appears in your very first edit. [51]. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 22:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Athenean's previous nickname was <removed> and that's where I derived <name> from. Nonetheless I didn't know it was againts the rules to use what I assume is somebody's real name. In no way did I brazenly try to out Athenean. I haven't been editing for six months but during those months Athenean got many blocks and restrictions so saying that I'm disruptive when he was threatening and making personal attacks like "Your disgust me" or "Your behaviour disgusts me" just a couple of weeks ago [52] shows that the one causing disruption is him and not me. Once again, I did not know that this was against the rules. --I Pakapshem (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I Pakapshem, can you make the link between what you said and what the prior userid was, so that an ignorant person like me, who continuously receives insults from user:Athenean, or the average Joe, can understand how they can be related?--_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 22:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

He clearly doesn't want his personal data revealed so I won't reveal it. Once again I didn't know that he was against that because this is public information, but now that I know it I won't repeat it. --I Pakapshem (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to reveal a diff, but can you confirm that it has come out from his own writings? --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 22:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I have removed the "outed" name from both this page (a lot of revisions needed to have their visibility restricted) plus on the talk page. I have not forwarded a request to CU, as it may be necessary for admins to be able to see the name depending on where this discussion goes. Athenean, when this issue is resolved, if you want the name permanently removed from the histories of both this page and your talk page, contact a CheckUser - at the moment, only admins can see it. I am making no comment on this issue.-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the redaction Phantomsteve, however there is still the matter of I Pakapshem's sanction. I do not for a second believe him when he says he "didn't know". He has been active for well over a year now, and he knows full well he is not supposed to do that. It was completely uncalled for, and a clear attempt to rattle me. Also disturbing is how Salmues is fishing for how Pakapshem deduced my name from my old ID. It's as if he is trying to figure out who I am. Athenean (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't care who you are Athenean, I was trying to understand how I Pakapshem would be able to find your name if you didn't disclose it yourself. In fact if you had disclosed it yourself, I Pakapshem would not be sanctionable, and you are just harassing him, disrupting his enjoyment of Wikipedia, and preventing him from making his contributions through this report. To me those names had no relation whatsoever. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 03:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Even if I had accidentally revealed it, that doesn't give him ANY right to use it. In fact, it's all the more reason for him not to reveal it. Where does it say that it's OK to out people if they have accidentally revealed their real name? I'm really starting to wonder here. Athenean (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

@Sulmues: It would be wise to respect this case without creating a mess. It seems that this childish play of disruption is repeating again and again here. If you have nothing to say please say nothing (not speculations and guesses)!Alexikoua (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it seems Pakapshem has already launched wp:npa's vios, characteristically he claims: I haven't been editing for six months but during those months Athenean got many blocks and restrictions As I see Athenean didn't receive a single block the last year.Alexikoua (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

[53] that's a block and an unblock when he agreed to be careful, so why are you saying that he wasn't blocked? I don't know how I Pakapshem found out about Athenean's name(if that is indeed his real name) but I have couple of questions. I Pakapshem claims that he found it because of Athenean's first username, so my question towards Athenean is this:Does your previous username lead to personal details about you found on the net?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

My previous username is none of your business. STOP grousing around about it. It doesn't matter HOW I Pakapshem thinks he may have found out my real name, HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY RIGHT TO USE IT IN PUBLIC WHATSOEVER. He did it casually, and knows full well it is unacceptable. And if you ask about any of my names again, I will report you as well. Clear? Athenean (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand the situation and I didn't ask you for any personal information. It's extremely hard to find someone's personal information online unless they themselves have added part of them or clues leading to them and that was the purpose of my question. I Pakapshem claims that he didn't know

he shouldn't do it and his comment wasn't associated with your personal information so why not agf it?. Btw about a month ago someone posted personal info of another user and I contacted an ARBCOM member to delete it but he told me that because the user himself had posted info that lead to his personal data it was considered public content, thus the user who posted his personal info wasn't responsible for anything.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The situation is none of your business, and your lawyering is tedious. Your questions seem directed at trying to help people discover my real identity. I have no reason to believe anything you or him say, and I have certainly never revealed anything to anyone, so for the last time, stop. If you comment on my old username again, I will ask that you be sanctioned. This is getting real annoying. Athenean (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:I_Pakapshem

It's more than obvious that the specific user was editting 'unlogged' (ip) during his six months block.

This edit: [[54]] (on 30 Sept.) was I_Pakapshem's (as he admits in the msg), while he edited in my talkpage evading a block he received that time. Because of this, his blocking period was extented [[55]] (30 September 2009 Moreschi (talk | contribs) changed block settings for I Pakapshem (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 month (account creation blocked) ‎ (block evasion)). No wonder the same ip address made a number of edits during this 6 months block period [[56]](Greek-Albanian topics included [[57]]). I'm sure that he made additional edits in the same ip range. But this only is enough to to prove that he did NOT respect his block.Alexikoua (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If he made two edits(that updated the article and were useful and not disruptive) a couple of months ago you bringing this now in ANI is meaningless and you being so sure that he made additional edits without a single dif to prove it is a personal attack so you shouldn't make such statements. It also seems that you don't understand the purpose of the block. Admins block users to prevent disruption to the project not to punish them, so your report of an edit that was made 2-3 months ago(and doesn't seem to be disruptive) is meaningless.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a block evasion while he PRETENDS that he respected his block. Thank you for agreeing that he evaded his block. Moreover, reporting block evasion isn't personal attack. Most important blocked user do not make ANY edit in any page (apart from their talkpage), else it's against the rules of this community.Alexikoua (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua now realistically you are the one who is trying to out someone and that someone is me. This edit that I made is of value and it's only one edit done two months ago. My block has expired for three days now and you're trying to get me in trouble for something that happened two months ago. As Zjarri said, admins block to prevent violations and not for previous mistakes that weren't even disruptive. To me this seems to be a clear case of personal attack and assumption of bad faith. --I Pakapshem (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Wikid77 canvassing

Earlier today, Wikid77 created the article Amanda Knox (note that this is what was created) after requesting unprotection of the redirect. The article was a clear POV coatrack, but is in the process of being edited. The article was nominated for deletion, and they have now sent messages to certain users canvassing for support: [58], [59], [60]. These users had all previously expressed an opinion arguing for the creation of the article at Murder of Meredith Kercher, and the message is far from neutral, and clearly is not in line with WP:CANVASS. The user does not see any problem with their messages however: [61].

This should be seen as part of the wider behavioural problems from this user at Murder of Meredith Kercher. They have been blocked a few times now, and yet continue with the same sorts of behaviour (just look at the history of the article and their comments in the history of User talk:Zlykinskyja). As such, Wikid77 should be topic banned from anything to do with Murder of Meredith Kercher or Amanda Knox. Quantpole (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Question, who is the "we" he keeps referring to? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea, but presume it is anyone who agrees with him. Quantpole (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Those 3 user-talk-page messages I sent were Friendly notices that the article was available for editing. I stopped sending messages when I noticed the general announcement had been posted within the same hour, at article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" as follows: "Prepare to be amazed: Amanda Knox, complete with lovely painting is now up. Quantpole (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)" (diff: [62]). Disregarding the WP:Sarcasm in that message, I think the user, who posted it, is the same user who initiated this ANI topic on canvassing. I did not realize that before; note: I am being accused of posting one-sided messages, but failing to post a general notice, by the person most likely to know that the general notice had already been posted, before I could do it. This charge of canvassing seems to be trying to catch me on a technicality. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support a lengthy topic ban. Every block he has is a result of editing the Meredith Kercher murder article. A topic ban seems like a good way to keep a productive editor out of trouble. AniMate 22:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This silliness has dragged on long enough... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - I agree with AniMate that we don't want to lose a productive editor, and that a topic ban should help prevent that -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - Productive editor who at these articles is a complete time sink for many other people, and as shown by their edits today, do not appear to understand - even after it has been explained to them many times - why they are editing in a non-collegial manner (which has now spilled over into disruption). Black Kite (t) (c) 23:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• COMMENT: The 3 posts I made were Friendly notices: I notified users, on their user-talk-pages, who had expressed interest in editing the article, that the article was open, but that there was an ongoing AfD and that the article might be deleted, regardless of merit, due to opposition. I did not recommend they, either, edit the article to prevent its deletion, or contest deletion at the AfD. I did not even link the specific article-AfD, so there was no text that even prompted them to access the AfD page, much less edit it in any particular fashion. The article announcements, to 3 users, who merely expressed interest in editing the article, is not a violation of WP:CANVASS to sway a discussion. I merely informed them that the article might be deleted, even though it was open to editing at this time. I did not pressure them or insist that they express an opinion at the AfD, and did not even provide a link to the AfD discussion. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I still say this runs afoul of WP:Votestacking. Regardless, your editing in this area has been problematic. I think an extended vacation from it is necessary, even if it is not voluntary. AniMate 00:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Black Kite. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 00:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban to prevent further disruption/canvassing over Murder of Meredith Kercher. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, since blocks do not appear to be reinforcing the strong message that Wikid77's contributions on this subject continue to be counter-productive. SuperMarioMan 03:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment about current behavior of Wikid77 Since making a comment here, Wikid77 has left another note for a user here. It's more neutral, but full of pointiness. He has also created an essay at Wikipedia:Notability_outranks_POV_disputes. I'll let others judge if it actually makes sense or not, but it appears to be an extension of the arguments he's made at the AfD (and some stuff about Joran van der Sloot I presume). Finally, he's recopied the longer coatrack Amanda Know article to his sand box again [63]. These are not actions most people would take when facing a topic ban. AniMate 05:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The extra "note for a user" that I posted, on the same day, was to a frequent editor who seemed to be unaware of the article, and by the way, had expressed an opposing viewpoint, not a case of me only notifying users of a single viewpoint. As for me continuing to edit the material, I am not currently banned from the subject, and I was the one who created the article text now debated at WP:AfD. Banning me from discussion of an article I created, one day earlier, is a serious problem. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support as per Black Kite. Dayewalker (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support editor admits he only notified a handful of friendly editors, the use of canvassing is appalling. This is the best option to keep an apparently otherwise beneficial editor. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't say the editors I notified were "friendly editors" but you raised a good point: I notified 3 people who wanted to edit the article, even if their edits were contrary to mine. Thank you for defending me on that point. Those 3 user-talk-page messages, I sent, are termed Friendly notices in WP:CANVASS, announcing that the article was available for editing. I stopped sending messages when I noticed the general announcement had been posted within the same hour, at article "Murder of Meredith Kercher". -Wikid77 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Agree with Bwilkins. The Amanda Knox issue is a wikipedia systemwide issue that needs discussion, not topic ban. Some obscure murderers get articles (some even survive AFD). Some point out "other crap exists" but if articles are subjected to AFD, the AFD process should provide a fair and consistent path. See WP:SimilarTreatmentIsOK. Also BLP1E is raised but it is applied differently. Since murderers are common topics in Wikipedia, perhaps the crime wikiproject could develop better guidelines. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this whole event is to determine the level of notability of Amanda Knox, in a system-wide discussion, at AfD, rather than limiting the discussion to only readers of "Murder of Meredith Kercher". For that reason, I omitted the more private birthdate/parents part of the bio, and focused on her life as a college student (taking online courses), Italian comparison to Carla Bruni and 3 court trials: Kercher, defamation, and new trial about Kercher. Instead of trying to limit views about the article, I have recommended the article be considered by a wide range of readers, such as those from Italy, Germany (etc.), who might only notice the article when discussed in the, system-wide, AfD. Creating an article, as a preparation for AfD discussions, is not a disruptive activity, but rather an action that encourages wider participation. I hope that clarifies why a "productive editor" would create an article, while telling the authorizing admin that it will likely go soon to AfD. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the user themselves no one has argued against the proposed topic ban. How do these things get wrapped up? Quantpole (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Mootros

Untill today, I didn't know that what happened to me here on WP pages was a clear harrasmenet. according toWikipedia:HARASS#Posting_of_personal_information, it stated that any editor who tries to reveal the identiy of any WP user is to be considered harrasment. I was subjected to this by user User:Mootros several times, and suffered from this, however as a new user, I didn't know at that time that it is something to report. I think it is time now since I now I know.

1: He tried to reveal information about my IP, possible work/study place here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive616#User:Kushsinghmd (originated from a range of IPs in Canada owned by McGill University and Bell Canada) Mootros (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

and again said:

2: Talk:Research_fellow#Courtesy_break Are you not based at a McGill University? I thought that's in Canada. Mootros (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

is this acceptable behaviour ?

I am asking for a severe punishment to this user for harassing me and for deliberately violating WP rules.

also All these personal information (whether or not it is true) including the quoted information in this incident report should be permanently deleted from all WP source data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs) 19:28, June 9, 2010

An IP address is not the same as posting location information, and if you yourself reveal said information (i.e. clearly editing with both your username and IP), then it is not considered "outing" as you have voluntarily posted that information publicly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

He had no knowledge that this was your IP address, only that someone editing using the IP was editing the same page you were editing, so he wasn't outing. Inadvertently editing while logged out may reveal your IP address, which is noted at WP:LOGGEDOUT. His speculation about your location wasn't wise, but if it hasn't been repeated it doesn't amount to harassment. Fences&Windows 01:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• so if this is not harrasement, then what is value of trying to get into such personal information like this, which includes IP, location and possibly work /study place?! why should one publish it, and even more deliberately asked me ?!!! Kushsinghmd (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Kushsinghmd, I thought you agreed previously to stay away from Mootros? Why am I seeing you at ANI again about this? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agreed to stay away, and I think I did. This is an old issue (before the agreement) and it hasn't been resolved cause simply I didn't know how could I categorize the violation, untill today, I know the best terminology of that previous act. Kushsinghmd (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Old issue means it should stay old. Don't be bringing up the past. I think there is a rule about that somewhere. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that was not discussed in the past, therefore I wouldn't consider it old. Plus the fact, that I am offended that such material is on WP for all this time, while the faulty is set free with such unacceptable deeds! Kushsinghmd (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, considering you have your email address posted on your profile, I find it odd that you think his questioning if you were a specific IP to be offensive. A simple google search on said email reveals far more, including your real name and your previous username here, than an IP. If you have privacy concerns, I'd recommend having your own user page oversighted instead of complaining about such a general question that does not really tell anything about you as you could have simply said "no, not me". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Anma raises some good points. I think this should be oversighted and swept under the rug and you two go back to not talking to each other like you had previously agreed upon. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Anma: Email is not a personal thing, and you can't identify anyone from his email unless it is an institution email.

@ all:Please someone answer my question: what is value of trying to get into such personal information like this, which includes IP, location and possibly work /study place?! why should one publish it, and even more deliberately asked me about it using that information ?!!! is there any good reasoning other than harrasement ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Please all, think about this first before you comment. If by some way or another I knew the IP of you, and I knew that you are located in University of Oxford. And while severely disputing and in the top of discussion, I tried to tease you to show you that I know where are you and said: Hey, how is the weather in london. Till here could be OK, but even more I continued harrasment, saying: hey, isn't the univesirty of oxford is in London? think this is all in UK!... is there any value from such odd discussion, other than me showing that I know your personal information and that I can get you !!... please if you can provide me with a better reasoning, please do.

Please remember what should one do if got any personal formation about another WP user ? according to WP itself, they should NEVER talk about it. WP even states that if a user retracted his public information, that information should not be revealed by any other WP user anymore.

Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what Mootros did (on which I have no knowledge or opinion), Anma's warning is a really big deal. Please do a simple google search on your own email address--you name, phone number, location, and interests are all immediately available. You've self-outed, so to speak. Doesn't matter to me, but it seems pretty dangerous in this day and age. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

First that is not true. I did the google search as you asked, and I got 4 irrelevant results. Therefore it is almost impossible to get such specific personal information through a free web email. And please do the search yourself, to make sure. Second, please someone answer to my question: what is value of trying to get into such level of details about personal information like this, which includes IP, location and possibly work /study place?! why should one publish it, and even more deliberately asked me about it, using information he collected and thinking it was right?!!! remember that this was at the most heated moments. is there any good reasoning other than harrasement ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 05:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Kushsinghmd

Resolved

 – This is the stupidest argument I've seen on ANI in a while; and that's saying something. NH, (a) stop baiting someone who is clearly upset, (b) being an SPA is not a wikicrime. K, (a) stop responding when someone is baiting you, (b) stop treating everything as a battle. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't look here, it will make you despair for the future of the project

It pains me to bring this up, but does anyone think that Kushsinghmd might be a single-purpose account? Seems the user's only edits have been to the page Research fellow and when that was blocked, his edits shifted to Talk:Research fellow. The only other edits have been to userpages and ANI. User seems disruptive, doesn't seem to want to follow agreements made on the user's talkpage by myself to end the dispute with User:Mootros. Just seems to be narrow focus. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Claims not true: I had edited in addition the following pages: Research assistant Research associate Covenant of Umar I Therefore, i would urger you to make a better investigation. it is clear that user Neutralhomer after he failed to convince me to withdraw my above report of being subjected to harrasment after a clear failure of answering my question, so he thought about directly attacking me, yet he used false evidences and claims. Thanks, and next time try to e more accurate. Kushsinghmd (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC) All along the same lines. Also, this isn't an attack. You have edited primarily the Research fellow and Talk:Research fellow pages since you made this account. That is a single-purpose account. You also have decided to go against our agreement and dig something out of the past up and bring it to ANI. So, yeah, I think it needs to be addressed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC) isn't this what you said above "Seems the user's only edits have been to the page Research fellow and when that was blocked, his edits shifted to Talk:Research fellow." ?! now after being exposed of false claims, you are trying to broaden the scope or what ?! is this Covenant of Umar I , within the same scope ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC) It is interesting that you say I broke the agreement. Though I have already responded to this above , but since you are repeating yourself, so would you please put the agreement here clearly and what I said in the agreement, thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC) ...and this is what I mean by "disruptive". Kushsinghmd, a couple edits here and there doesn't make up for the fact that 99% of your edits are at Research fellow and Talk:Research fellow. You can try and side-step the fact all you want and throw mud back at me, but you have edited the same page and talk page more than any other page by far since you showed up May 8. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC) So I hope that every one is seeing how user is defending his false claims, after stating ONLY Page, now saying most, are you seeing the loop?! he didnt admit that he didnt know or he was wrong, no he is trying to correct himself by continuing beng offensive. And if he just gave himself a moment, he would have known that my edits to covenant of umar havent been edited since then, so why would I keep editing or disputing ?! however my edits to RF, has been several times falsely labelled as vandalism, and opposing party started an edit war, therfore that lead that most of my contribution were diverted to this area. BTW, I am not the one throwing the mud, it is clear, that You have nothing to say above in response to harrasment, so you came here. Kushsinghmd (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC) ...and I won't say anything on any "harrasment" since if you did what you agreed upon, you would have never seen anything from Mootros if you were steering clear of him. Above two editors have told you that you have self-outed yourself and you just blindly tell them they are wrong to continue on violating your agreement. So, forgive me if I am not a little pissed at you for wasting my time a couple weeks ago and if I am not a little pissed about being lied to. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Why didnt you put the agreement as I asked you to do so ?! Please do us all a favour, and show us what agreement I broke, thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Sure....see here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Ok, so this clearly shows that you falsely claimed that I broke the agreement, Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Wow...everyone is wrong but you. Interesting. OK, admins, figure out what to do here. I wash my hands of this user and his persistant "I didn't do it" and "I can't here you" crap. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Yes I am astonished as well from people who asks other for things they don't do. Have you thought to tell yourself what you are just telling me?! so Why don't you set yourself an example, and consider yourself wrong, rather than trying to hide you above false claims ?!!!!!! Kushsinghmd (talk) 06:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC) I would like to report, that user Neutralhomer failed to notify me on my user page, which according to this page regulation, he should have done so once he completed this report since I am being involved . Kushsinghmd (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC) So...why would it matter if he is an SPA? Just wondering, as reading over WP:SPA merely seems to indicate that some people may give him a higher level of scrutiny...there isn't anything inherently wrong with being an SPA, right? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC) I have seen alot of SPAs blocked for just plain being SPAs. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC) and I have seen all kind of users being blocked as well! hope this information will help you Kushsinghmd (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Why is User:Kushsignhmd's userpage apparently copied from User:Leo III, including the email address? Fences&Windows 19:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC) As far as I can tell, that is Kush's old account, unless he really did just copy the whole thing without thought. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC) That's is a very good question and I guess you are expecting an answer, and here is my answer to you Sir: NON OF YOUr D BUSINESS, that's MY page, and Please MORE FOCUS ON THE ABOVE COMPLAINT Kushsinghmd (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Kushsinghmd, chill. There is no need for copious amounts of bold and italics and stinging comments. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Exactly: there was no need for you to say the word carp yesterday ! same for those users: There is no need to discuss the content of my page here, when The section topic is a report of harassment. I hope that some users will have a better judgment, and try to use their logic a bit more, cause for me it is really amazing. It is like you are in class teaching a class in mathematics, then you get this stupid student asking you completely off topic questions in greek history!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC) I do believe you are confused. This section is about you being an SPA and now possibly a sockpuppet. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC) It is also interesting that you have been pointing the finger to all my reactions, and never dealt with the cause. You say stop using Bold and italics, yet you didn't tell others there is no need to discuss content of personal page here!!!! You asked me to consider myself wrong , but you didn't consider yourself wrong!!! so i am not sure if we can call this inconsistency and double standards ?!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs) Oh and carp is a fish. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC) SO what brings crap to our discussion ?!!!!!!!!! Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Just correcting your spelling. Oh, please sign your posts with the 4 tidles ~~~~ - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC) DON'T GO OFF TOPIC TO MY SPELLING or signature. AGAIN: WHAT MADE YOU USE THE WORD CRAP IN OUR DISCCUSION EARLIER ???????? don't be embarrassed to answer sir Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Again with the copious amounts of bold. When you can stop doing that (which is "shouting") we can talk. Perhaps about getting you to leave Mootros alone and move onto another page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC) again false claims. Cause it was first small case,but you didn't reply. So I capitalized the letters for you to see, so you are trying to play loop hole games here. also Don't try to go off topic to Mootros. 4th time, lest you have the courage this time to answer: what brings crap to our discussion ?!!!!!!!!! Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Well, I was hoping you would catch it, but since you want to know...look here. You wrote "carp" (the fish) for "crap". Now that we covered that...Mootros, leave him alone. Move onto another subject, topic and page. You have a serious case of WP:OWN on Research fellow and Talk:Research fellow. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Sir, I guess You have a lack of expereicne in dealing with cases. Having another case, doesn't elminate old ones!! so that's not a valid way to defend Mootros or defend yourself by bringing up new cases. again 5th time: no bold, no capitalizing, do you have more excuses not answer why you used the word crap?! come on, Please don't be afraid Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Read above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC) I read above, but you still didnt answer what bring this word into our discussion ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crap Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC) I guess you already know the meaning of the word crap especially in interjection way you used it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crap, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=crap Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Neutralhomer, I believe Kushsinghmd is referring to your comment, above: I wash my hands of this user and his persistant "I didn't do it" and "I can't here you" crap. You have, if I may say so, failed to wash your hands of this user. Which is no crime, though I fear you're in danger of prolonging an unhelpful thread. Kushsinghmd, I couldn't care less about "carp" or "crap". I am far more interested in whether or not the original comment about you being a SPA was correct or not. Carping on about Neutralhomer's earlier comment is a distraction and is unhelpful. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 22:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why I didn't get an edit conflict with you when I closed this. Feel free to reopen if you think it would be productive, I was just trying to get these two to give my watchlist a rest. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Feel free to reopen" - for the love of all that's good in this world, no ;-) TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 22:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, is there a chance that you admins can work on the primary problem first, instead of reopening secondary issues ? thank you for you positive interventions Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Xtzou

Resolved

 – No need to reassess GA's that were passed by this particular sockpuppet account. MastCell ^Talk 20:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Risker has blocked User:Xtzou as a sock of a blocked account. This is a problem for me as Xtzou was my GA Reviewer. Since he has been blocked as a sock, does that void my GA article's review? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is any reason to believe that the review was not carried out properly then to do so would seem needlessly wasteful. A quick look at their history shows that they were involved in a lot of GA reviews and I couldn't see anyone questioning Xtzou's ability to review. Which article are you referring to? Someoneanother 02:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

More an issue for WT:GAN than ANI, but if the review is complete, you needn't do anything. If the review was incomplete, just remove his note from WP:GAN for another reviewer to take it up. As an aside, I'm slightly curious as to which block was being evaded. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I took it to WT:GA per Risker's request. He also said since it is complete, it isn't a worry. I was just worried that since he was the reviewer that would null and void the review and the GA. I will leave the post at WT:GA up just in case anyone else wants to comment. Thanks HJ. This can be marked resolved if you wish. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I demand request to see some evidence. Xtzou was probably the best GA reviewer we had. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Answered on User talk:Risker. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Curious as to who they are supposed to be a sock of, as I'm not seeing any template on their user page. Technically, the GA review should be CSD under G5, and the review reset to allow a legitimate reviewer redo it (so basically would revert back to being a nomination). However, in my various experiences with socks, whether something they created and done is reverted/deleted seems fairly dependent on who the socker is. Personally, I'd want the GA reset myself, just to avoid the question of whether it was done correctly. At min, you may want to ask another valid GA reviewer to just check over, make sure the GA review was done correctly, and to basically "take ownership" of it to validate the result. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • They are confirmed to be a sock of User:Mattisse. You can see the discussion on User talk:Risker, as indicated above by William S. Saturn. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • For the record, unless someone finds a serious flaw in one of the GA reviews, I would not be inclined to alter or redo any of the assessments. I did take a look at some of the reviews and articles whilst reviewing the situation, and I did not see any inappropriately lenient or stringent GA reviews; they all appeared to be reflective of the quality of the article. Risker (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I concur with Risker's assessment. No need to redo the GA review. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire

I'm starting this here because I've been involved with the user on one AfD. The userbox (which I've already nominated for MfD indicates this user's intention (which he's carried out on over 20 articles earlier this evening) to !vote to delete in any article that's been nominated for deletion, and hence for rescue. In many cases, he has added ARSnote early in the discussion, giving the false impression that the article had been flagged for rescue that early in the discussion.

I'd request that the user be formally admonished for such behavior and directed to participate in a collegial, rather than overtly partisan manner in the future. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Tell me you didn't use your tools to revert all his edits. I can see you did, but what were you thinking? AniMate 05:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

And upon further investigation I see you are in an ongoing dispute with him. Unacceptable. AniMate 05:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what he did. See my complaint below at Wikipedia:ANI#User:Jclemens abuse of rollback rights. Jclemens claims that I blindly vote to delete every page listed on ARS. However, he is fully aware that I have voted to Keep several articles listed on ARS, and I have skipped over others that I couldn't conclusively determine a vote for. His comments on my user talk page prove that he was aware of this. The rest of my comments on this matter can be found below in my own complaint. SnottyWong talk 05:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain to me how I could possibly be aware that you reviewed articles for deletion and didn't comment one way or the other on them. Which ones were those? Jclemens (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So, AniMate, let's explore that. Did I block him? Nope. Did I unilaterally topic ban him? No, but I did ask him to discuss here before continuing. Did I change anything related to the one AfD on which we're actually in dispute? Nope. Am I an ARS member? Nope. Was I the one who threw the {{rescue}} on the article related to the one AfD on which we're actually in dispute? Nope. So, how much more uninvolved do you really want me to be in the face of reactive disruption?

So really, here's the sequence of actions:

1) I rescued an article.

2) He !voted delete after I'd added reliable sources.

3) I pointed out how his efforts failed to dis-establish notability.

4) He went and !voted delete on a ton of other {{rescue}}'ed articles.

5) He created a userbox touting his efforts and their motivation.

6) I MFD'ed the userbox, reverted the AfD's in which I was uninvolved, and brought my actions here for discussion.

Again... how is this me becoming emotional or misusing tools? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am a tad concerned that an older user with a totally uneventful edit history suddenly became almost 100% involved in deleting articles on 28 March 2010, almost as though he were a totally different editor. Out of the last hundred AfDs he has !voted on, he has a total of 5 "keep" !votes. From March 2007 to 26 October 2009, he was absent from AfD entirely. I fear that by so acting as a pure predictable !vote, and becoming known, that his !votes will achieve the same value as Ikip's did on the other side. Collect (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the account has been highjacked? Unlike Ikip, Snottywong gives valid reasons for his opinion, and hasn't been disruptive. Verbal chat 12:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jclemens abuse of rollback rights

ALSO SEE Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JclemensZacharyLassiter (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jclemens has taken it upon himself to rollback all of my recent !votes on multiple, unrelated AfD's (approximately 20 of them). His reasons for doing this are the following:

1. He has interpreted a personal userbox that I recently created as a de facto admission of guilt to bad faith editing.
2. He has become emotional during an argument we've been having on an AfD for (presumably) one of his articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up.

Jclemens has not made any attempts to contact me for an explanation of my userbox prior to rolling back all of my !votes (unless you count the MfD he started on the userbox). Furthermore, this message he left on my user talk page proves that he is fully aware that I have voted to both to keep and delete the various AfD's in question, which proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that I have not been editing in bad faith. These keep votes were made long before any of this happened, and long before the userbox was created.

It's apparent that Jclemens is letting his emotions get the best of him, and using his rollback rights to act on those emotions. I respectfully request that all of the rollbacks he has performed on my edits be undone. Whether or not his rollback rights are taken away (or some other punitive action is taken) is not something I can comment on, but I will leave that up to the admins who can better make that judgement. SnottyWong talk 05:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've skimmed the edits he reverted. All were reasonable delete or keep comments, with rationales that showed Snottywong had actually looked at the articles. Personally, I think you should ditch the userbox, but Jclemens pretty clearly abused his tools here. I'd undo his reversions but I'm going to be off for about an hour. If nothing has changed when I get back, I'll undo them myself. AniMate 05:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no question in my mind, AniMate, that many of his rationales were otherwise appropriate. The rate, focus, and virtually unanimous skew of his !votes, combined with the initial version of his userbox, clearly show bad faith. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the rate focus, and skew do not imply bad faith. Come on. If SnottyWong's single goal in life is to prune wikipedia of non-notable pages, and he's found a way to find such pages, then there is nothing bad faith about that. The box is arguably an attack, but even that does not imply bad faith. Please assume good faith. ErikHaugen (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

1) Please post diffs that you allege show me "becoming emotional".

2) I did, in fact, contact you after I had reverted your disruptive edits. Please highlight a requirement that disruptive editors be contacted before their disruptive edits are corrected.

(Interjection by DustFormsWords) - WP:AGF suggests you probably shouldn't be declaring edits disruptive at all until you've talked to the person who made them.

(response to interjection: You may feel free to insert "which I perceived to be", if you prefer) Jclemens (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

3) Prior to this discussion you have changed your userbox to be less directly offensive. Let the record show that I interpreted the prior version of the userbox as prima facie evidence of bad faith, not the revised version.

4) My rollback rights are not a discrete privilege; as an administrator, I would have to be desysop'ed for them to be removed.

Overall, if the user is going to be less blatant about blanket !voting deletion on anything flagged for rescue (With the exception of Upstate New York, which proves nothing) and going to fade into the rest of the deletionist camp, then there's really nothing particularly actionable here. But !voting in ONLY debates flagged for rescue, doing so in an overwhelming one-sided manner, and explicitly stating in a userbox the ARS-centric motivation for doing so is disruptive editing. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• From my (non-admin) perspective having come into the matter, they were bad reverts, admittedly triggered by what was (at that time) a pretty inflammatory userbox. Jclemens doesn't appear to be escalating the matter (other than in the heated response above), it's certainly far short of being worthy of a block or a de-adminning, so surely there's not much to be done here other than ask everyone to consider more friendly ways of interacting in future? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens, please undo your rollbacks. There is indeed something actionable here, but it isn't Snottywong's edits, or even his userbox. Your argument is defeated by the fact that we have dozens of different ways that deletion discussions are sorted and lists created all over the place. There's no difference in someone electing to participate in discussion where the ARS has tagged an article, and electing to participate only in discussions about history, biography, transport, LGBT issues, or Hornepayne. Frankly, I am hard-pressed to understand why you think misusing one administrator tool is different than misusing another. Risker (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So, Risker, if a user were to follow every LGBT AfD, !vote delete on most of them, and then created and placed on their user page a Userbox saying how proud he was to be reducing the homosexual influence on Wikipedia, that would be OK? I gotta disagree. Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A (very) brief search through the ANI incident archive reveals that this may not be the first time that people have had a problem with Jclemens' actions as an administrator. Perhaps a review of his adminship is in order after all. I have not gone through the past complaints in detail as I'm about to get off for the night and go to sleep. I will take a look in more detail tomorrow to see if there is a pattern in the past complaints. If anything, it's obvious from his comments above and his continual arguing that he still doesn't understand what he did wrong, despite the fact that no one has taken his side yet. SnottyWong talk 05:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So, rather than defending your edits, you'd rather this focused on the person who cleaned up your disruption? Yeah. All past complaints on my administrative actions are available for public view.... Including all the people who've previously commented there, for instance. I welcome the scrutiny. Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Snottywong seems to have voted perfectly normally in all the AFDs that he was involved in, he included a vote, and a valid and pertinent policy reason. His edits at AFD were not IMO in any way disruptive. On the other hand, you've gone through and removed a whole bunch of votes based entirely on his philosophy expressed on a completely different page. This is both wikistalking and disrupting the AFD process.- Wolfkeeper 06:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So you don't view the expressed motivation for the edits to "counteract the implicit canvassing by the Article Rescue Squadron" to be in any way disruptive? That is, even when editors are clearly acting in a partisan fashion, as long as they follow the letter of the law, they're OK? Isn't that what WP:POINT is all about? Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Just revert the reverts, Jclemens. Even if you were right about bad faith, this wasn't the appropriate action to have taken. The closing admins are on the whole sharp cookies that I have a lot of respect for, and they're not going to be tricked into unwarranted deletions by spurious arguments. If an AfD turns on something Snottywong said it will be because it was a good argument, and that's the best reason for letting them remain I can think of. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, my impression of the whole matter is that Snottywong got frustrated with other editors (as we all do from time to time) and created a userbox expressing that frustration. When it was pointed out to him the userbox was offensive, he immediately changed it. It doesn't indicate anything more than very natural emotions, a momentary lapse of judgement, and a general willingness to work in harmony with an often difficult community. Extrapolating it into a series of bad faith edits is, itself, something that overlooks the principle of assuming good faith. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You left out the bit where he jumped into more than a score of AfD's flagged for rescue with the expressed purpose of deleting them in between the part where he got frustrated and created the userbox. Other than that, I don't disagree with your summary. Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If he'd gone through and just typed "Delete not notable" or similar next to every rescue-tagged AfD, then you might have a point about WP:POINT. But on the ones I've looked at, he did include valid rationales (i.e. on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZipcodeZoo he says "All refereces are primary" and he's right). So it wasn't just a case of blind !voting - I note he took over an hour to comment at all those AfDs. You can argue about the motivation behind it, but you can't remove valid comments based on your own opinion of his motivation, I'm afraid. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Spending an hour sounds like a lot of work... but then you consider he !voted in over 20 (anyone feel like counting the exact number?) and has asserted that he looked over more rescue-flagged AfDs and didn't comment in them. I've never disputed that he included valid rationales, just pointed out his disruption in doing what he did. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT is when you're actually disrupting the wikipedia by actually doing something you disagree with to prove the point. Following the letter and maybe spirit of the rules is to be admired; trying to keep every single article because it might, someday, be reliably sourced, even though it isn't at the moment (which is more where some of the ARS are coming from) really isn't on. We need rules in the Wikipedia, they minimise arguments.- Wolfkeeper 06:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make this about the ARS. This is about Jclemens abusing his administrative tools. AniMate 06:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. We're here because I requested a review of my remediation of User:Snottywong's disruption. The fact that some want to focus this on me isn't particularly unexpected, though. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This isn't the first time Jclemens has used tools unwisely to "defend" the ARS (of which I am a member). He should revert and be asked not to use his tools in this area again except in cases of obvious and clear disruption. Verbal chat 07:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This was obvious and clear disruption. Again, I'm not an ARS member and never will be. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Claiming that you are not a member, when you are so closely tied to the ARS, does not make you uninvolved and is not particularly convincing. Please justify the clear and obvious disruption with diffs in the section you created below. Verbal chat

I'll agree there was obvious and clear disruption... from you Jclemens. His AfD votes were supported by policy, and you have zero support for your actions. Undo them now, please. AniMate 07:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to someone else reinserting those edits, but if you want me to do them myself, I need to be convinced that the edits are themselves not disruptive, not merely that my actions were out of proportion to the disruption. That may seem like hairsplitting, but I won't re-do edits that I personally believe are disruptive. Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Time to start answering some questions

I've directed questions in the above thread to a number of users. If anyone would care to convince me that my actions were incorrect, the way to do that is by engaging in civil discourse. I would welcome it if any editors, and not simply the original editors to whom those questions were addressed would focus on my position that Snottywong's edits were in bad faith and disruptive. Once his actions have been appropriately evaluated by the community, then we can look at what I did in response to them. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please justify removing AFD !votes that had valid and relevant rationales. Verbal chat 07:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The edits were expressly made in bad faith, as evidenced by the original version of the userbox under discussion. I rolled them back as disruptive and explained my rationale to the affected editor. Jclemens (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did not check all of the diffs, but [64], [65], [66] & [67] do show an irresponsible use of rollback. Rollback is used to revert vandalism and vandalism only. The edits you reverted are clearly not vandalism. The Wikipedia definition of vandalism is very narrow; and in these 4 cases you silenced Snottywong's comments on the AfD. That is disruptive editing, as your edits represented a damage to open discourse. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be operating from a position that those were legitimate edits, which I do not. I have never called them vandalism, I have called them disruptive. Jclemens (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Under what criteria is it disruptive? I see a valid !vote with a proper rationale. If adding {{ARSnote}} is disruptive to you, you discuss with the user. You do not rollback every edit the user makes. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Rollback should be used only for reverts that are self-explanatory – such as removing obvious vandalism; to revert content in your own user space; or to revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit."^[1] The edits you reverted do not fall under that description. Jafeluv (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You're referring to the user-level rollback policy. I rolled back his disruptive actions as an administrator who was uninvolved with the AfD's in question. Is there an assertion there that all administrator use of the "rollback" button is restricted by WP:ROLLBACK? I've never understood that to be the expectation. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The principle is the same. Do not wikilawyer. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm, what? Of course the policy applies to administrators as well. Where did you get the idea that it didn't? Jafeluv (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a claim that rules don't apply to admins is going to go down very well. Verbal chat 07:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is why RfA can't have nice things. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it amusing that the guy succeded 80-2-3 > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

wat Jafeluv (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

HAHA, sorry, my bad. I meant this. Still amusing though, 77/2/0. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 08:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

For reference, the reverted AfD !votes can be seen here. Jclemens also warned the user on their talk page, saying "Were I not already involved with you on one discussion, I would have already blocked you for disruptive editing." Jafeluv (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

To answer a question you posed to me (So, how much more uninvolved do you really want me to be in the face of reactive disruption?) If you're to involved to block, you're too involved to do mass rollback. I want you actually uninvolved. AniMate 07:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to see anything which justifies Jclemens actions, and he has admitted to being involved in a dispute with this editor about AFD. Jclemens, please stop this and don't do anything like it again. Verbal chat 07:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Stop" what? I've not done anything related to the user or dispute in question since I raised the issue here. Jclemens (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

By "stop" I mean undo your actions and either apologise or withdraw gracefully, and not repeat such disruptive tool use in relation to the ARS ever again. Verbal chat 07:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an odd usage of stop. I will apologize when and if I am ever convinced that my actions were wrong in that Snottywong's behaviour was not disruptive. So, if you want an apology for him... by all means, address the topic of his actions, rather than my response. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you noticed how much support your actions have? Unless you are able to show how each one was disruptive, please undo your rollbacks (which also broke rollback rules). Verbal chat 07:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The rollbacks have already been reverted by myself and others, except one that had already been closed. I've asked Sandstein to revisit the closure, just in case it would have affected the result. Jafeluv (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This would be a while different issue if Snottywong had just gone ahead and voted delete on all the articles while giving simple reasons. However, looking at his edits, it looks like he indeed did look into the subject and voted reasonably. His votes were, in my view, clearly not vandalism or disruptive. He was participating the the AfD process legitimately. Regarding his userbox, I believe his changing of it after receiving a notice shows that he is acting in good faith and has no intention to disrupt Wikipedia. Netalarm^talk 07:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there has been no evidence presented of any wrongdoing by Snottywong, whereas Jclemens misuse of rollback has not drawn any support. Verbal chat 07:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing others' comments in an AfD is not a step to take lightly. Even !votes cast by sockpuppets are typically just stricken, with an explanation. Removing !votes cast by someone whose philosophy you disagree with is a very troubling lapse of judgement. I understand that you were concerned about the userbox, and starting the MfD was not an inappropriate response. However, moving on to mass rollback -- apparently without awaiting any response from the editor in question or any answer to your "Is this disruptive?" question -- is very questionable. That you still do not appear to believe you've done anything questionable is... baffling, frankly. This isn't good conduct for an admin. Shimeru 09:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Closed - proposer has agreed to give Jclemens more time to reflect.

Jclemens is asked not to use his admin or rollback tools in disputes related to AFD or the ARS, unless it is clear action against vandalism. Verbal chat 08:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Reluctant Support. First the user has to acknowledge that rules do apply to admins. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 08:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC) wholly unneeded kneejerk reaction. Spartaz Humbug! 08:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC) This isn't the first time Jclemens has done this, and I'm not proposing a desysop. He has failed to justify his actions at all. Claiming that rules don't apply to admins s going to far. Verbal chat 08:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Spartaz has asked I give jclemens more time as this is out of character. I don't see a problem with this. Hopefully it can be resolved. Verbal chat 08:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose - foolish proposal. The amount of discussion here is inadequate making any such proposal premature in the absence of evidence that he has continued to use rollback inappropriately. The user has expressed a desire to be persuaded that the edits were not disruptive rather than a desire to continue rollbacking in that fashion in such discussions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC) ah foolish, we meet again - and again unnecessary. He has not expressed such a desire, he has stated that he is correct and he would do the same again. Unless I've missed him saying he wouldn't, in which case I'd withdraw my support for my proposal. What is your view of jclemens actions here? Verbal chat 08:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Jeclemens inappropriately used rollback; that doesn't mean we shouldn't give him an opportunity to be voluntarily compelled by the community via RfC/U rather than involuntarily through a formal restriction. I said this proposal is foolish due to its premature nature. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose He still thinks what he did was right. AniMate 08:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC) For the record, I mean oppose. What you're proposing should go without saying. His actions are not acceptable here. This doesn't go far enough. AniMate 08:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we ratchet down the hysteria?

Okay, we all know that Jclemen's use of rollback was wrong and that DRV is going to overturn and relist any AFD closed as keep if it has been tainted by having a vote struck, but am I the only one who thinks this is wholly uncharacteristic for an experienced, sensible and very well balanced editor? Please can we step back and give Jclemens space to review his actions and hopefully self correct without the pressure that this bout of ANI hysteria has injected into this dispute? I can't help worrying that something is affecting Jclemens and that we need to avoid making it worse. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

He decided to rollback 20 or so edits by a user who didn't do anything wrong. If he wasn't an administrator, his rollback would be removed. Administrators shouldn't be held to a different standard. AniMate 08:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not arguing at all that he was right in his actions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, administrators should have a higher standard. Admins are trusted by the community as a whole, whereas rollbackers only need the trust of 1 admin. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 08:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean support above, but anyway I'm willing to give jclemens more time to cool off and then explain his actions. Verbal chat 08:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I should have phrased that as a question, apologies to AniMate. Verbal chat 08:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. AniMate 08:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I appreciate your willingness to stand back a bit and give Jclemens some space. Ratcheting down here will help and there are plenty of DR options available if given them space to think doesn't help. Anyway, thanks again for listening and being reasonable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, let's give him some rest. But I would support a temporary suspension on rollback on AfD, at least until this matter is resolved. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 08:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Put it this way; if he does it again before the matter is resolved, a more serious remedy would be considered. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, any repetition would probably lead to summary desysopping which is a significant enough act that we shouldn't allow the ANI lynchmob to add extra pressure on Jclemens that might further erode their good-judgement. That's why I'm asking for space. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is looking for his head, but an admission that this was a wrong action would go a long way to shutting this down. If he's unwilling after some time to reflect... AniMate 08:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this was a very serious breach of the trust we place in administrators to commit to the principles of Wikipedia. Reverting !votes on AFD is implicitly assuming bad faith, and in the situation there was very little justification. Rollback should only be used against vandalism, and it was simply cowboy adminship to resort to it in this situation. If Jclemens is unwilling to apologise or at least understand that he has made a mistake here, I think his position in the community should be re-evaluated. Thanks. Claritas § 12:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Can I ask what the people posting to this ANI hope to achieve? Going on at length here is likely to ratchet up the drama level. If there is actionable evidence of misuse of admin rights, JClemens should be subjected to a request for comment in the first instance. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• (And I'm not saying this because Jclemens's actions were appropriate; they weren't, but a long dramatic discussion here helps nobody.) Stifle (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Part of the problem is that if this weren't an admin they would have had their rollback rights removed pronto, and there wouldn't be any more drama. The appearance of this is that being an admin means you are protected if you misuse tools. Quantpole (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • No arguments from me on that one. But if it is desired that Jclemens should be subject to a sanction, RFC or RFAR is the appropriate place for this. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• (EC) It looks like User:Jafeluv has already reversed all the rollbacks, so that part of the issue is dealt with. The problem with it being done at all is two-fold: first, as already well noted, this was a wholly inappropriate use of rollback. If Jclemens felt Snottywong's AfD comments were disruptive, he should have left a note or struct them, but only if he had been an uninvolved editor. Considering the back and forth between these two at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up, it was wholly inappropriate for Jclemens to take action against Snottywong in any way at all. Rather, he should have done what he did finally do here, leave a note (though far more neutrally noted and with a better dose of WP:AGF) here so that a neutral admin could review the situation. As for his complaints against Snottywong, I think Jclemens did over react and let his issue from the AfD spill over into his view of the edits. Like others, I reviewed Snottywong's comments, and all were grounded in policy and showed that he did actually look at the articles and issues in question. This is not a newer editor doing rampant deletes or keeps, and he wasn't doing a copy/paste blast. The userbox, while amusing, was probably a bad idea while in the middle of doing AfD reviews, but I can at least understand Snottywong's frustration. Some basic civil discourse would have likely gone a long way here versus rolling back and then MfDing the box. I agree, the hysteria is over the top and it seems several folks calling for rollback rights to be removed do not realize that it is technically impossible without desysopping (which most of the same folks seem to agree is going too far). I think the main thing needed now is for Jclemens to take a step back (hopefully with a good night of sleep) and see how his actions seem inappropriate, admit the error, and move on. My non-adminny view. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• The fact that Jclemens continues to not admit the error is what is causing this discussion to continue and escalate. The fact that he performed the rollbacks is one thing, and could be chalked up to a mistake or emotions getting out of hand. The fact that he is an admin on Wikipedia, and he still cannot see or admit that he did something wrong is what is truly troubling. I find it hard to believe that an admin can't understand that a userbox is an opinion. It might be humorous, it might be totally fictional or false. You can't base your actions as an admin on someone's userbox. If I create a userbox that says "This user likes to kill infants by twisting their heads until they pop off", then you can't use your CheckUser permissions to find out my IP address, call up my ISP and find out my address, and call the police to come arrest me. Userboxes aren't evidence of anything (even if they are poorly worded and are suggestive of an admission of bad faith edits), especially when there is other evidence which suggests that my edits are not in bad faith. SnottyWong talk 16:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• To be honest I think that the ARS system is a primary cause of this. It is actually a form of canvas, you're inviting people to an AFD to vote keep; and it pushes the idea that you shouldn't ever delete anything. That's not... it... we have standards. We have to have standards. The ARS needs to be watered down, I agree that if articles can be rewritten or improved then they should do that before the AFD closes, but the guys from ARS (including Jclemens in the particular AFD that triggered this) are fairly consistently voting to keep articles that have no reliable sources at all; on the grounds that it 'might' be referenced later. On that basis absolutely any unreferenced article can be kept forever. We're supposed to be summarising reliable sources not unreliable sources. That needs to stop right here, right now.- Wolfkeeper 17:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC/U?

ALSO SEE Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jclemens

• Being somewhat new to the world of admins abusing their tools, I have not yet had the privilege of contributing to a RfC or RfArb. I would like the opinion of other uninvolved users here as to whether a discussion on this matter should be started at WP:RFC/U. It appears that this behavior is a pattern with Jclemens. To be clear, everyone makes mistakes. However, admins in particular need to be able to realize and admit when they've made a mistake, and they should be capable of apologizing and fixing their mistakes. Especially when 50 people tell them directly that they've made a mistake. The pattern that I'm referring to is that Jclemens appears to be unusually resistant to admitting that he has made a mistake. He generally responds with relentless arguments and wikilawyering. A review of some of the past ANI's involving him show a fairly clear pattern: [68] [69] [70]. My feeling is that Jclemens has not yet learned from his mistake (and even still, at this time, has not yet admitted any wrongdoing with respect to this situation). This troubles me. Not because I need an admission of guilt or an apology from him for my ego or for my fragile emotions, but because I truly believe that this is behavior unbecoming of someone who is trusted with admin tools. Please let me know if you think this behavior warrants further discussion at RFC/U, or if starting such a discussion would be out of line or unnecessary in this case. Thanks. SnottyWong talk 18:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No point. It would be quite simple for an admin to say to jclemens that due to their misuse of rollback, they should not use that feature for the next x weeks/months. As I have said above, if they were not an admin, there would be no discussion, as rollback rights would have already been removed. Forcing people to jump through hoops like RFC/U over something like this simply shows that the admins commenting here are not interested in fairness. They should treat admins the same as those without the flashy bits, or not be an admin. Quantpole (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

However pure your intentions it doesnt seem unreasonable to have decided your delete voting spree along with the confrontational user box might have been disruptive or at least likely to cause a WP:Battle. Jclemens likes a peaceful accademic environment, including when that means going against the interests of the ARS. for example a few weeks back he deleted a thread on the ARS board advising that a squad member was in trouble on ANI. With hindsight, Jclemens seems to have been wrong to roll back your edits, but as you say everyone makes mistakes. As fellow volunteers it doesnt seem either best practice or collegial to insist on an apology unless we've been personally insulted. It especially doesnt seem helpfull to start time consuming proceedings against an admin who is clearly overall a massive net positive. Please take note of what Spartaz has to say, he isnt exactly known as an inclusionist. :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't require an apology from Jclemens. However, I believe as an admin, he should be capable of admitting that he made a mistake, and fixing that mistake. As it stands, Jclemens continues to argue that he was right, in the face of all of the admins and users who have told him otherwise. Another admin had to revert his rollbacks, because he was unwilling to revert them himself. It is this reluctance to admit one's mistakes which troubles me, and if there is a clear pattern of this behavior, then should this person really continue to be an admin? That is the question I would like to get comment on in an RfC, but being unfamiliar with the process, I'm unsure if it would be appropriate. However, I'm leaning towards starting an RfC. SnottyWong talk 21:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If you believe it warrants an RfC, then I would say go ahead. That's what RfC is there for. Before you do, though, you should be aware that, aside from the time and attention involved, you'll also be inviting close scrutiny of your own edits. Sometimes these things boomerang. Best to know what you're getting into. Shimeru 21:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable - A new hater This crossed the line. Talk about WP:Battle. The title of the section says it all. - Josette (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Barring some sort of intervention from ArbCom, an RfC/u is the next step here. Since there has been virtually no support for Jclemens actions (aside from FeydHuxtable, an extremely loyal ARS member) I don't think you have to worry about any boomerang effect here. AniMate 21:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have a problem with that discussion. I thought it was kinda funny actually. SnottyWong talk 21:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Agreed...as did creating User:Milowent/userboxes/ARSRevolution in obvious direct response to the current MfD leaning towards keep, their own remarks in the AfD that apparently started this conflict between JC and Snotty, and leaving this note on the Snotty's talk page[71]. That said, honestly, she is not the worse for promoting the Battle mentality of ARS...if any RfC is needed, it needs to be in dealing with ARS as a whole. The canvassing (both on and offsite), constant personal attacks, battle mentality, etc etc. Far too many are making such remarks as that, that people think it is "more fun" to delete articles than edit them, and other such crap. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback has the potential to be abused in a content dispute. The ability can be granted or removed by any admin. Therefore, it is seen as an "easy-come, easy-go" tool, and there are explicit guidelines and limitations surrounding its use. In many ways, it is like Twinkle or other generally available tools - it doesn't give you the ability to do anything that any other ordinary editor cannot do; it just makes those actions more convenient. This is rollback, as it is seen by the majority of Wikipedians. For admins, things are different, because rollback is bundled with the real tools - the ones that do things that non-admins cannot do, such as block editors and delete articles. In this case, it's very unfortunate that Jclemens used rollback, because it has distracted discussion about what he did with considerations about how he did it. What is the difference between what would have happened if he had not used rollback, and where we are now? The edits were, after all, reverted by ordinary clicking on ordinary "undo" buttons. The difference is, of course, that people are calling for the other tools to be taken away. And of course if a non-admin had done this they would have lost the rollback bit. Any admin could have removed it, and a week later any other admin could have restored it in good faith. That isn't an option here, and we shouldn't be treating this situation as if it was. Two good solutions to this sort of situation - which is by no means unique to this admin - might be to unbundle rollback from the admin bit, such that it truly becomes an easy-come easy-go low-power tool that can be taken away from admins just like anyone else, or to recognise that the technical details are less important than community consensus, and impose a ban. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say rollback per se was the problem. I think the choice to revert (removing others' comments from an AfD) was the primary wrong. Use of "admin" tools to do so might've been an additional lapse in judgment, but this isn't a situation where using "undo" instead would've made things okay. Shimeru 01:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Unbundling rollback would be a good idea, but until then I don't see why you need community bans to limit the use of rollback by administrators. All that needs to happen is another admin says "Due to your misuse of the tool you are not allowed to use it for (however long)". That way admins are treated the same as ordinary users. No need for extensive discussions or anything. Quantpole (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens' Responses

In this section, I will post three different sections dealing with what I perceive to be the three outstanding questions:

1) Can administrators use rollback on non-vandalism edits?

2) Were Snottywong's actions disruptive?

3) Was I sufficiently impartial to be addressing the perceived disruption?

Comments are welcome, but I'm going to be responding in stages, and it may be some time between posts. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Administrator use of Rollback on non-vandalism edits

Here's what the current instructions are for the Administrator use of rollback.

• Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback “Conventionally, administrative rollback is only used to revert simple vandalism or large amounts of mistaken edits (such as when a bot malfunctions). Using rollback to revert conventional good-faith edits is frowned upon because it leaves no useful message to the editor you are reverting and implies you thought their edit worth nothing more than the treatment of a vandal.”

“The "rollback" button also appears on the "Contributions" page associated with each editor. If you have examined a number of individual edits by an editor and determined that they all deserve(d) to be removed (for example, they all consisted of inserting the same WikiSpam), you may decide to roll back all recent edits by this editor. This can be done using the "rollback" buttons on the editor's contributions page.”

• Help:Reverting#Advanced_features “if you use the rollback feature other than for vandalism (for example, because undo is impractical due to the large page size), it is courteous to leave an explanation on the article's talk page or on the talk page of the user, whose edit(s) you have reverted.”

At the same time, it's clear this topic has been a point of discussion for the last several years. This smattering of past discussions seems vaguely representative, and it definitely shows that while “administrators must only use rollback on vandalism!” is one position, it is not universally held.

• Wikipedia:Admin_accountability_poll#The_rollback_button_should_only_be_used_in_cases_of_clear_vandalism.2C_or_reverting_oneself
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive15#Using_rollback
• Wikipedia:Non-administrator_rollback
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive173#Administrative_rollback
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive617#Rollback_misuse From a cojuple of weeks ago.

Thus, those who assert that administrators are held to the same standard of usage (vandalism only) as non-administrators clearly have some backing for that assertion. The instructions, as currently written, do not prohibit my actions.

At the same time, it is clear that those speaking up in this thread believe that the actions I've taken do not mesh with current expectation of administrator rollback use. I would encourage those who believe that current instructions to administrators on rollback use (the top two links, above) differ from expected norms to modify those pages, perhaps starting an RfC as appropriate. I, as any other administrator, am incapable of reading the community's mind, and encourage full and prompt updates to relevant pages when the community's mind has indeed changed. Jclemens (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't wish to wikilawyer; however, Wikipedia:Rollback feature does not discriminate between admins and rollbackers; the fact that the lead reads

The rollback feature is a very fast method of undoing blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense. The name derives from the data management term rollback, meaning an operation that reverses the effect of changes made to a database.

Rollback is available automatically to all 1,727 Wikipedia administrators, and there are 3,489 accounts with the rollbacker permission. In total, 5,216 accounts have rollback rights.

leads me to understand that all users who can use the tool are expected to follow the relevant guideline, especially Wikipedia:Rollback feature#When to use rollback & Wikipedia:Rollback feature#When not to use rollback (in the latter, by the way, there's a reference to the fact that admins can't have it removed, short of being desysopped). I don't wish to appear naive, but, since admins are just editors who can use more tools than the average Wikipedian, I don't think that they can be expected to follow a different set of rules. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree that the instructions to administrators on how and when Rollback can be used differ from those given to all users. While it's reasonable to infer that WP:ROLLBACK applies to administrators, there are plenty of other indications that it has not been universally so held, including the explicit directions on administrative use which allow far more leeway. Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In other words, the rules which everyone else has to abide by don't apply to admins. It's nice of you to say so so plainly. Quantpole (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Have they ever?  Giacomo  07:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well no. But usually there is some sort of pretence that they're the same as the rest of us, just with a "mop and bucket". Quantpole (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Snottywong's disruptive AfD edits

At the time User:Snottywong first commented in the AfD, he made reference to the ARS. The article had been tagged for rescue by another editor and Snottywong's immediately prior edit was to the AfD of another page that had been tagged for rescue. As you might guess from the titles, 010 Editor was the first article on the list of articles flagged for rescue, 50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up the second.

At this point, it's reasonable to suspect that Snottywong, who has never been previously involved with the article, only participated to (as he would later admit) “[attempt] to counteract the implicit canvassing by the Article Rescue Squadron by regularly reviewing articles tagged for rescue, and voting to delete most of them.” No biggie—he's not being disruptive at that point.

Well, everything is proceeding along just fine. Snottywong engages in some typical AfD shenanigans, attempting to put words into other editor's mouths, denies the reliability and sufficiency of reliable sources, and whatnot. While annoying, it happens all the time, and sources tend to win out. At that point, Keep !votes clarly outnumbered deletes.

Later, I notice a new thread on my watchlist. This prompts me to investigate Snottywong's contribution history, where it is clear that he has systematically gone through and !voted delete on only articles tagged for rescue, with a single keep vote for a no-brainer keep (Upstate New York), and then proceeded to crow his derision in a userbox, which has since been modified after I nominated it for deletion.

Snottywong's spate of editing to AfD's constituted disruption, by his own admission. Cynics may well note that his only “crime” was admitting he intended to “counter-canvas” the ARS. His own userbox, since toned down somewhat, explicitly admitted bad faith by both accusing the ARS of canvassing and explicitly stating that his intent was to influence the deletion process by only commenting on {{rescue}}-tagged articles. Thus, no matter that his rationales were relatively reasonable, he fundamentally violated WP:HONESTY by giving presumably valid deletion rationales that had nothing to do with his actual motivation expressed in the userbox. That constitutes disruptive editing, in my interpretation and action. Jclemens (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Given that you'd seen that and drawn those conclusions, Jclemens, what would've been the most appropriate response?—S Marshall T/C 23:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Given the reaction of the community to what I did do, had I to do it over again, I would have simply removed the non-chronologically placed {{ARSnote}}s and manually marked his edits with an {{spa}}-like note in each affected documenting his pretextual voting. Jclemens (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, it sounds to me like Jclemens has learned from this, which means we're already in one of the top 1% of AN/I threads for achievement.—S Marshall T/C 00:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not completely convinced. So would Jclemens be happy if all of the people that frequented ARS had their votes labelled with "an {{spa}}-like note" to indicate their pretextual voting. To be honest that would probably be fairer than what he's proposing, a fair number of their votes are along the lines of "This article is currently without reliable references, even though people have looked, but could be referenced some time before hell freezes over, maybe, so I'm voting KEEP!!!!!". The fact that they're a member of a group of (largely) inclusionists also needs to be considered perhaps? I mean if they're on the up-and-up and not effectively vote stuffing they wouldn't mind, right?- Wolfkeeper 03:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Absolutely! If anyone uses a {{rescue}} as a flag to get votes without improvement, that's a misuse of the ARS. Now, the ARS are pretty much guaranteed to be inclusionists, so if one stops by, improves the article, and then MORE stop by and say "great job!" to the first guy and !vote keep... that's fair game. Article Rescue (whether or not done by ARS) is for taking worthwhile articles that don't initially meet standards, and doing the actual work of improving and sourcing the article such that by the end of the AfD discussion, the nominator's rationale no longer makes sense because the objections have been answered by improving the article. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but how is labelling a long time contributor a single purpose account a positive way to handle the original situation? Could you imagine the uproar if every ARS member was labelled {{spa}} at AfD? Quantpole (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Involved, or not?

WP:INVOLVED is without a doubt the least clear of the guidelines at issue. Seriously—go read it now.

What are “cases in which they have been involved”? Does the fact that Snottywong and I disagreed in an AfD prohibit me from reverting his disruptive edits to entirely unrelated AfDs? Apparently, some Wikipedians think so, but the last time I reverted another admin's AfD closure on the basis that he had been INVOLVED with me in a prior dispute, I was chastised for invoking INVOLVED in that fashion. Really: every time I think I know what the limits of INVOLVED are, I'm told I'm wrong by someone. I would genuinely appreciate it if that section of the policy were discussed and clarified.

My fundamental reasoning was that Snottywong's participation in an AfD in which I was already a participant did not restrict my ability to correct his disruptive actions in other venues. The concept that an editor can start a dispute with an administrator as a way to prevent that administrator from taking corrective action is WP:BEANS material, but that appears to be what many editors are suggesting. The pretextual !votes in ongoing AfDs were clearly in a position to cause (admittedly minor and non-urgent) damage to the encyclopedia by contributing to presumably otherwise encyclopedic material being deleted, and called for a remedy.

I intentionally avoided the most straightforward immediate solution to Snottywong's disruption—blocking him—in part on the basis that that would affect his ability to participate in the AfD in which we'd been disputing notability. (The rest of the rationale, somewhat ironically, involved my lack of desire for drama that I anticipated might follow such a block, as well as the fact that he was not currently making disruptive edits. I intentionally chose rollback as a least invasive method to repair the disruption) Likewise, I considered and intentionally avoided remedies, such as the single-administrator-imposed topic ban, which have had poor community support in the past.

Overall, I think the suggestion that once an administrator is INVOLVED with an editor to the bare extent of disagreeing in an AfD, that administrator becomes forbidden to engage that editor in an unrelated corrective action is not supported by the current wording of WP:INVOLVED, which states in part “Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'.”

Since INVOLVED is the most ephemeral of the policies, I accept the community's feedback that I should refrain from fixing such disruption myself in the future, with the caveat that the appropriate policy section really needs to be clarified to encompass current consensus. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Overreacting is bad

SnottyWong overreacted to Jclemens actions. Then Jclemens overreacted to SnottyWong's actions. Now ANI is overreacting to joke section titles like "A new hater". This looks like Conflict escalation. How about dropping the sticks and walking away from the matter. If Snottywong makes clearly wrong AFD !votes then we can discuss this again. (Meanwhile, Snottywong has opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jclemens, someone please make a statement saying that the dispute has been brought out of proportion, so I can endorse it.) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, overreacting is bad. But then so is stuffing an article with dubious references in the hopes that no one will check them, so that it will be kept at AFD, which it now appears that Jclemens was doing with article in question. Jclemens apparently overreacted when he was more or less found out by SnottyWong. And the majority of of the keep votes in the AFD are ARS members. None of this is filling me with warm fuzzies.- Wolfkeeper 05:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. Every reference is legit and I have accurately characterized each one in the article and discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Man, Wolfie, you're giving me a bad trip with all your negatively tinged comments about ARS. No matter, I'm off to vote keep on articles like Milowent's High School Lunch Schedule (2001), because its my impression that you think that's what editors who like to improve content do. I feel bad now that I ever noticed Snotty's dumb 'ol userbox and commented on it at ARS talk with the (intended to be humorous) "new hater" comment. Some people get more upset than I do about sentiments like Snotty's about being in favor of deleting all possibly marginal content. I take a more long term view, because from what i've seen, deleted verifiable content almost always returns to the project in some other article (or even in the same article recreated), so deletion is not very efficient at improving the project. We add 10x more articles per day to the project than we delete, so this is inevitable. JC was doing a good job with that article, regardless of whether the consensus ends up deleting it. There was no evil cabal to save an article about an admittedly vacuous 2005 TV special on former child stars. However, I have started an article on Gary Coleman's first feature film, User:Milowent/On the Right Track, which I could not believe was not already covered. It received widespread press coverage, including reviews from Gene Siskel and Janet Maslin. All are invited to participate and drop this drama. Its a funny movie. Gary Coleman stars as an orphan who lives in a locker in a train station. Who wouldn't love that?--Milowent (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that adding refs you don't seem to have read is a form of lying to the reader.- Wolfkeeper 06:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I read every single ref I added. Pretty sure I read every single one which was already there. I have Lexis-Nexis access, which means I can access content that Google cannot. On what basis would you presume that I'd added anything without reading it? Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

i'm glad JClemens admitted his fair share of blame... i agree that makes this AN/I less dramatic... people who make mistakes with no regrets need a warning to learn their lesson... but i think jclemens showed that he's learned that he can find a less dramatic way of handling this stuff.. i hope snottywong will consider scaling back the drama too. i'd hope he could try to generate more light than heat on issues that bother him like ARS... his userbox is creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND by borderline-attacking a specific group of editors... and it really would be better for wikipedia if everyone took a step back from the borderlines of incivil behavior... at least i hope he doesn't make a habit of borderlining and he's actually been civil and reasonable to me personally... as for ARS i think it might be fair to ask that someone who adds the rescue template should be obligated to add "this article has been tagged for rescue" to the deletion discussion itself just so it is easier to police for canvassing versus good faith improvement... again i think that's a fair improvement that would reduce drama.. Arskwad (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

National Review Online directs readers to ongoing AfD

An extremely misleading National Review Online blog post has publicised Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect‎, which I started yesterday. I fully expect that this will have some disruptive effects on the AfD; it would be helpful if people could keep an eye on it to keep any mischief under control. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it be worth semi-protection of the AfD to prevent disruption? Mjroots (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look as if there's been a whole lot of actual disruption yet, so that seems premature. The "not a vote" banner has been added already, and AfD admins are generally pretty good about handling AfDs that have had outside traffic driven to them in this way. If we get a lot of vandalism from new accounts and IPs, we can semi it then. Shimeru 09:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

i've had the complete opposite experience.--Crossmr (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That blog post has been up for well over 24 hours now. Looks like the good readers of NRO are not terribly disruptive. Good to watch it, though. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone block this IP?

Resolved

 – Now blocked by me for further vandalism after my warning... Bencherlite^Talk 12:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

212.44.42.66 keeps vandalising Junior Apprentice and it appears that they have a history of bans. Thanks. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds as if WP:AIV would be the place for this? David Biddulph (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ya, incidents like this go to AIV, but there's only one recent warning (and 3 incidents of recent vandalism). I'd suggest issuing more warnings before you report this. Netalarm^talk 12:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c x 2) WP:AIV is really the place to ask for vandalism blocks. However, since you're here, I see three problem edits but no recent warnings, and I'm not inclined to block at the moment (generally warnings should be left first before a block is made). Instead, I've left a "level 3" (of 4) warning, and if vandalism continues, please report this at AIV. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 12:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

When an IP has a history of blocks (I see four previous blocks [72], escalating from a few hours up to three months), and where vandalism resumes shortly after each preceding block has expired, there's no need to issue additional warnings. This is not someone who has made an innocent mistake or who might be confused about what the effects and consequences of his actions might be. AGF, as they say, is not a suicide pact. Just reblock (as you've now done). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Redaktor

User:Redaktor has made two arbitrary edits to Gaza flotilla raid in less than 24 hours, violating the WP:1RR restriction on the page. Each of them contained multiple reverts for numerous points which were extensively discussed and agreed upon in the talk page, and also multiple POV insertions. Their first edit was undone following a discussion and agreement on the talk page. They have been warned on the talk page and their user page repeatedly. Despite that, they made another edit. The diffs are [73] and [74]. --386-DX (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Your diffs are wrong, I think you're mistaken about how much they reverted. Their actual edits to that article can be seen by looking at their contributions. They been warned for 1RR and NPOV for these edits already, and they not edited since. Any repeat of such actions and I will happily block if made aware of it. Fences&Windows 17:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Will someone kindly explain what I am guilty of? I did not intend any POV and thought my edit was purely factual. And I didn't realize I was reverting anything! Sorry if I have trod on anyone's toes. --Redaktor (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Ucomarketing

Resolved

 – Ucomarketing (talk · contribs) is blocked indefinitely for promotional username and edits. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate if someone could review the recent edits by Ucomarketing (talk · contribs) of University of Huddersfield. It seems fairly obvious this editor works for the university and some of the edits may fall foul of the NPOV policy due to the conflict of interest. The "Uco" in the username, Ucomarketing, probably means University Campus Oldham which is part of the University of Huddersfield, so potentially there is a username policy issue in addition to the NPOV/COI concerns. Whilst I have warned the user about editing this article due to the apparent conflict of interest, I am cautious about getting any further involved due to a relationship I have with the university and so I would very much appreciate attention from someone else here. Thanks. Adambro (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the edits, I'd have to agree. All of their edits to that article have been very promotional in nature and they seem to have a pretty clear WP:COI issue, especially seeing their one response (the note on your page)[75] mentioning that "we need to update the University profile information". You've already left them a warning, and I've left another, but as they seem to be ignoring the fact that their edits have now been reverted by at least three different editors and your explanations of COI, an admin may need to step in to more fully get their attention. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Spam-username blocked. Name and edits show clear promotional intent. JohnCD (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Block request

• PolskiNarodowiec1985 (talk · contribs) (notified of this thread)

This nationalist/racist rant and the all non-constructive contributions should suffice for an indef block/ban, ex ovis pravis non bona venit avis. Note that the rant was posted after they had received a whole bunch of warnings already on their talk page. The account has been quiet for four days now, but the ability to return should be disabled given that mindset and record. The subsequent IP edit is also of concern:

• 24.21.40.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

That Vancouver IP deleted a comment made in 2006 (!) as racist, accusing the editor of being an asshole and the like. Whether or not the IP is right in deleting the 2006 comment, they deserve at least a stern warning for the language used, and it should be checked if it was not the above user editing while logged out (quack quack). Skäpperöd (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The comment that the IP deleted is the following one: Polish chauvinists need to lighten up. Changing the name of a wiki page would not boost polish per capita GDP, which is (surprisingly to the Poles) much lower than Germany's, not to mention other Germanic nations like Switzerland. It's sad that the once glory of Danzig is gone and now it's slowing being transformed into a slavic city. The civilised world now treats Danzig as a lost city like Athens and Constantinpole. The city is still there but it will never be the same. In my opinion such comments are not acceptable and the IP was correct to delete it.  Dr. Loosmark  17:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The comment from four years ago was hardly worthy making a fuss about though. I've warned PolskiNarodowiec1985 for their attacks and NPOV violations; if the reappear and continue more of the same, let me know and I will block them. I have also warned the IP who reported this for making personal attacks. Fences&Windows 17:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Received uncivil comment by REGICUAZA who is also exhibiting WP:DE after repeated pleas to stop.

Resolved

A new user has been reverting long-standing edits on the article List of best-selling albums worldwide with non-reputable sources, and has also written rude language on my talk page (it had to be deleted by another user using WP:HG).

Initially, I just thought that this user didn't understand how to edit correctly, but even after repeated civil attempts, and a comment on the user's talk page, the user did not stop.

I do not know what to do. Reverting their edits is becoming very tiring, and I don't think they know the conseuquences of their actions. BalticPat22Patrick 19:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

taking a look. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, 1) you are both in violation of the 3 revert rule. So stop reverting. That being said, he is making a number of changes, and while you are correct that blogs are not reliable sources, his changes have included yahoo.com, which IS a reliable source. Finally, the comments on your page were not rude, they are an attempt at him communicating that he is frustrated by your reversions. So, in summary, it looks like this user wanted to contribute something, misunderstood a rule, and you ignored his efforts to communicate with you. Doesn't appear like any action is necessary at this time, but you both need to review your editing styles and communications. ⇒SWATJester

^{Son of the Defender} 20:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, his edits have been reverted by another user. Secondly, I did communicate to him (on his talk page), and he wrote on mine in response to what I wrote to him. Personally, I think my communicaton with the user was more than satisfactory. He just chose not to heed my advice to read the rules of WP:V. Also, I am aware of the revert rule that I broke. I do try to avoid that as much as possible. Lastly, I did find his comments rude. He didn't need to use that sort of language, regardless of what he thought. It's uncivil and unwarranted. I've been here long enough to know when someone is being curt, and I didn't appreciate his comments. Thank you for researching this, though and I hope I don't have to be forced to come on here again. BalticPat22Patrick 02:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

He wrote on your page words to the effect of "You are frustrating me, haha thats a joke. I'll let you edit it then." There's nothing rude or inappropriate about that language, and definitely nothing uncivil about it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

IP 83.38.89.212

Resolved

See [76] where he makes a clear attempt to make it seem like Christian1985 is making a threat. Instead, I suggest that the IP has gone far beyond the pale in this ongoing harassment, and should be blocked - that sort of edit (clearly from one of the IPs who have harassed him in the past) ought to be sternly trampled upon. Collect (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted and blocked. I've dealt with this vandatroll before, and will smite any further reincarnations brought to my attention. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor

• 99.141.254.167 (talk · contribs)
• 99.141.250.125 (talk · contribs)
• 99.142.7.232 (talk · contribs)

This newly arrived user seems to be a sockpuppet account. He has been removing images and adding unsourced captions to History of the race and intelligence controversy in an unhelpful way: he never refers to WP:RS, just his own extreme point of view. All the images added to the article were carefully chosen to match and complement the text: the reasons for removing them are irrational ("unnotable" for Cyril Burt, Lewis Terman, Stephen J. Gould, etc, etc) and verge on vandalism. He has removed images with captions which were multiply sourced, evidently without bothering to check any of the sources: he just knows he is right. Some of the images were newly uploaded to wikipedia after painstaking research and have been transferred to commons by others. This editor has adopted a similar WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude on PIGS (economics), which has included forum shopping [77][78] and edit warring on the article against an established editor. I would request that these articles be semi-protected or that this edit warrior be blocked. His edits are tendentious and none of them seem geared to helping improve content on this encyclopedia. He seems to pass WP:DUCK as a sockpuppet (possibly of a banned user?). Mathsci (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it be related to any at [79] [80] or [81]? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not know. Two sockpuppets of User:Jagz have been blocked recently, but he edits from Florida. Thank you for semi-protecting the page, which I requested a while back. Mathsci (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

These are my only edits to that article, or related subjects. My edits are civil, well-reasoned, supported and constructive. Mathsci has taken exception to my pointing out that the people pictured in a Weather Underground FBI poster[82] were neither involved in the incident mentioned nor had even formed their organization at that time. He also takes exception to a well supported and informative caption[83] to Galton's image that I added - as well as every single edit, possibly even character, I've typed. I have made no edits to the article text itself, my only contribution has been in relation to images and captions. The numerous false, general and unsupported by even supposition accusations that he's made are hardly appropriate.

And yes, for those wondering, I am that 99.X ip editor that gets hauled here from time to time for being well, an ip. One would hope that my possibly 30,000+ edits over what is now approaching a decade would at least allow me to point in my defense to my supported, civil and honestly constructive good faith edits in my defense. Thank you for your time.99.141.250.125 (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Very few of this IP editor's edits seem to have been constructive. He first removed almost all of the images against consensus because "wikipedia is not a gallery". But each image was intimately related to the text and often the captions were sourced: this is common for history-related articles, at least the ones I've helped write as a wikipedian volunteer (Porte d'Aix, La Vieille Charité, Europe#History, Auguste Pavie, Handel organ concertos Op.4, Robert Yerkes, etc, etc). At each subsequent stage the IP editor provided constantly changing reasons for removing the same images, almost all of which contradicted wikipedia policy. I have no idea how an editor suddenly chances upon an article like History of the race and intelligence controversy currently under discussion in an ArbCom case. In circumstances like this there is zero prospect of good faith editing, just common-or-garden disruption for its own sake. Of course this IP editor might have some plausible explanation ... he might also tell us if he has previously edited under a registered wikipedia account and, if not, how he is so familiar with the noticeboards cited above on which he has forum-shopped. Where are those 30,000 + edits of which he boasts? Mathsci (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) One of the interesting things about your style Mathsci is your ability to just produce a bunch of unsupported, general and quite uncivil accusations. Just saying something doesn't make it so. You've now made numerous accusations against me and still more self-serving mischaracterizations. My diffs and ref's have been produced to support my claims, and my edit history is available to you - please support your claims. At this point you resemble nothing so much as a Tasmanian Devil cartoon throwing off all manner of attack in the hopes that someone else will unthinkingly repeat the unsupported.... Hardly activity constructive to the encyclopedia mission.99.141.250.125 (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

On at least one of these images 99 seems to make a good case. This image has been challenged and hence policy requires that it be directly supported by a reliable source. I also note that this is a content dispute and there seems to have been no attempt to resolve it by dispute resolution. 94.196.199.229 (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

My editing style, dear newly arrived editors, is based on encyclopedic knowledge (you know what we academics teach to people in universities), neutrality and academic sources. On the other hand 94.196.199.229 seems to be an editor that has suddenly materialsed here, possibly through off-wiki coordination. How on earth does such an editor in his first two edits comment on a talk page and then WP:ANI? Which off-wiki websites have an interest in issues connected with "race and intelligence", linking folks in such separated places as Sheffield and Illinois? Um, well, ... Mathsci (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Race and intelligence but I saw a notice of this thread at User talk:99.141.254.167 (which I had been the original poster to and so it was on my Watchlist). I've had a very poor experience with this editor also. I'm the editor having problems with this 99.141.*.* at PIGS (economics). 99.141.*.* persistently over-writes the text with a new version and fails to productively discuss these changes on the talk page - or say what the issues with the current text are. My main concerns relate to synthesis, OR and his/her approach to sources in general.

Third opinion were got during the forum shopping exercise pointed to above but 99.141.*.*'s ears appear to be closed to these. He/she overwrote the text again today. I was going to post to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal (or simply ditch my interest in that article) but since this thread is open ... --RA (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

RA, I restored the version that you supported as, "That looks much better. I still have some issues but the approach is a better grounding than the previous version from an encyclopediac point of view IMHO. ... Nice rewrite. A very good basis for the article going forward."(1) I also have fully engaged you on the Talk page where you have failed to respond (with the exception of your withdrawn comment) in nearly three days. Our issue is simple, one sentence.99.141.250.125 (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you happy to go to mediation (actually Wikipedia:Third opinion is more like it)? --RA (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to your talk page.99.141.250.125 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied with a suggestion. --RA (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Time for the community ban of Brucejenner

He has made many sockpuppets for almost a year now and I'm surprised he has not yet been banned. I propose a community banning of Brucejenner to hopefully force him to give up. 188.28.83.178 (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have been speared by checkuser. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Libb Thims/Saudi Carnot

User:Sadi Carnot was banned by ArbCom for 1 year for creating hoax/fringe articles such as human molecule, human thermodynamics and human chemistry (see deleted edits for originals). These promoted the odd ideas in the self-published books of an author called Libb Thims. Carnot has just created a new account User:Libb Thims, and has begun to replace his self-promotional fringe theories in Wikipedia and seems to compare his previous ban to book burning and himself to Galileo. I recommend reverting the spam/COI edits of Thims and blocking him for an extended period of time, since I don't think Thims is here to improve the encyclopedia. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I shudder to see this editor back. That said, you'll have to point out to me what he has done that would allow anyone to block him. Human molecule seems to check out, and his edits to Steve Fuller (sociologist) are to point out that Steve Fuller thinks the whole concept is hogwash. He has taken the step of identifying himself as linked to the old Sadi Carnot account. I think he bears extremely close scrutiny, as his previous contributions consisted of subtle vandalism by chronic distortion of references, misrepresentation of sources, and outright fabrications.—Kww(talk) 22:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Human_chemistry for an analysis of the claims that this is a real field of study, not a metaphor or joke. The first sentence of the "new version" of the human molecule article bears a strong resemblance to the one that was previously deleted. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with that AFD. I lobbied for an indefinite ban on Sadi Carnot on the basis of that group of articles. It didn't happen, so we can't act as if it did. It won't take much for me to support a block on the basis of him having returned to his old ways, but he hasn't quite done so yet.—Kww(talk) 22:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That Human molecule seems to check out is... dubious. 2600-odd atoms of iron? Every hemoglobin protein include four heme groups built around an iron atom, and hemoglobin is around 30% of every red blood cell; which means that 2600 is at least five or six orders of magnitude too small for a single cell. Even being extraordinarily conservative about the number of red bloodcells in the average human (10¹³) is generally accepted), that "formula" would be some 18 orders of magnitude too small. — Coren ^(talk) 02:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Checks out" in the very limited sense of "accurately reflects the statements made in the quoted source."—Kww(talk) 03:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I am against banning Sadi Carnot. I think that the whole focus on him before he was banned and after he was banned was not healthy. Before he was banned his edits were wrongly accepted as gospel and after he was banned, the focus was only on removing his book promotions. But the fact that the core thermodynamic articles were deeply flawed eluded everyone until I became involved in that area (that was after he left in 2008) and rewrote articles such as Helmholtz free energy and Fundamental thermodynamic relation almost completely; they are more or less in the same state today as after my rewriting.

Reading something ridiculous about human chemistry is not going to do much harm. But reading a flawed explanation about basic thermodynamics can do real harm; clearly the focus on Sadi alone did not help to correct this more serious problem. Count Iblis (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, somebody who sounds like they are making sense and who pretends that they are an expert in a subject can inflict real damage on our articles. In a sense I'm asking for preventative action here, since once Thims' "ideas" have been spread about some more it will take a long time to unpick his tangled web. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Request about Athenean

Athenean is a user who currently is under a 4-month editing restriction of 1RR. He has been blocked several times and in the past has also been under another 3-month 1RR in Balkans-related topics Since he was put under restrictions he has become extremely agressive and makes constant personal attacks like this one.

• Athenean's from his first edits after joining wikipedia in 2007 exhibited a battleground behavior. In his third edit he asked on the WikiProject Greece talkpage from the other Greek users to unite and fight against the nasty Albanian propaganda

• Athenean's reverting explanations(wp:idontlikeit often are based on defending attempts to claim Greek history and heritage
• Athenean also has edit-wars frequently in Cyrpus-related articles. His edits are based on his ethnic purity belief that The reason Greek and Turkish Cypriots are so similar is because Turkish Cypriots are basically Greek Cypriots who converted to Islam
• In the past Athenean has supported content of User:Haiduc who promoted pro-pedophilia articles. Athenean supported with a keep vote Haiduc's article Albanian pederasty, in order to preserve defamatory content regarding Albanians[84]. This attempt was pointed out by many users, like Moreschiit is highly disappointing to see the usual Greek nationalist crowd turning up here to keep this, mostly to spite the Albanians
• Personal Attacks, Threats and Harassment:
• Against Sulmues (talk · contribs):[85][86][87][88] [89][90]
• 'Against Kushtrim123 (talk · contribs):[91][92]
• Against Balkanian`s word (talk · contribs):[93]
• Against ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs):[94][95][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ZjarriRrethues&diff=364009810&oldid=363959708] [96]
• Against Joe the Dessaret (talk · contribs):[97]
• Against Piasoft:[98]

Many of his edits involve the region of Epirus, important in both Albanian and Greek history. From the start Athenean's goal was very specific Not only is Epirus and its inhabitants uncontestably Greek, but they have been so from earliest antiquity

As he explained in his first edits in 2007 he intended to fight Albanian propaganda. Some of his edits while fighting against Albanian and other information he considers propaganda :

• reverted seriously pov albanian version. makes you think himara is a suburb of tirana or something
• sneaky but ineffective
• His battleground and spa mentality to prove the absolute Greek character of Epirus goes as far as adding the category ancient Greek cities in Gjirokastër a city founded in the 12th century AD
• must remain vigilant in the face of Albanian nationalism While reverting to a previous established version Athenean, in this edit Athenean decided to add his own POV by making Saranda an Albanian majority town as 94% ethnic Greek.
• Removing whole referenced sections Where di you come up with this CRAP?
• The current treatment of the Greek minority by the Albanian government reveals an intense paranoia
• Removing whole referenced sections Illyrian is NOT the ancestor of Albanian
• Accusing User:Future Perfect At Sunrise of upholding double standards Mighty generous of the Wikipedia community not to ban "the lot of us". Imagine that. In any case, you can spin this however you want, but "we take into account group X's sensitivities on this particular matter but not group Y's " is still a double standard, no matter what.
• Further accusations against Future Perfect At Sunrise regarding the Republic of Macedonia[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greece&diff=prev&oldid=208064475 Your doctrine of "I made the map, ergo I can call it whatever I want and to hell with MOSMAC" applies to maps I make as well as maps you make]
• Battleground mentality regarding Slavophone minority of Greece let's cut the crap, shall we?
• Accusations regarding numbers of the Greek minoritynumbers are impossible to come by, as a result of deliberate Albanian government policy.
• Removing(edit-warring) notable Slavic Macedonians from notable people sections of modern Greek cities articles:I don't see how she is notable, and wikipedia articles can be created by anyone. A wikipedia entry by itself is not sufficient to establish notability.nope, no English language non-RoM sources are used to establish notability. A minor politician with no fame ooutside her country.Since the section is entitled "Notable people", the criterion for inclusion is notability. Ethnicity is only a criterion for POV-pushersper WP:NOTABLEthe usual makedonskian POV: Let's find every trivial politico and insert him in Greece-related article to make Greek Macedonia seem more "Macedonian"not notable, not from kastorianot a SINLGE English language WP:RS used to establish notability, burden of proof is on you, not meper WP:NOTABLE and WP:NCGN (Jagnula Kunovska Athenean was removing as not notable was a member of the legislature of Macedonia and founder of a major political party).

Athenean edits articles related to Cham Albanians, an Albanian minority in modern Greece(Epirus periphery) and tried to diminish their presence by edit-warring continuously.

• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albania&diff=prev&oldid=184680409 the only Albanians there are post-1991 immigrants This is a characteristic example of what Athenean has tried to promote in all his edits related to this population.
• While there is a vibrant Greek minority in Albania, there are no more Chams in Greece. Not one.
• Long time edit-warring by removing(edit-warring) Albanian names from Cham Albanian settlements[99] [100] [101][102][103]not a single native Albanian speaker.

[104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116]

• Removing(edit-warring) whole referenced sections regarding Cham Albanians as redundant or not notable paragraph is redundant per WP:NOTABLE(the supposedly not notable event is the Assembly of Preveza)
• Removing notable Cham Albanians no english-language refs=not notable(searching in google books reveals many references about the person, but Athenean decided to ignore that) really? because is says (in Albanian), and the title is albanian, and the author is albanian. do you think I'm stupid or something?)rv, not notablerv POV-pushing

individual is not notable. Stop this.Not ok to have half the article taken up by one trivial individual Eventually he stopped removing Jakup Veseli a signatory of the Albanian Declaration of Independence as not notable from the notable people section after intervention of rollbacker User:Blurpeace. It is sure that if Blurpeace hadn't intervened Athenean would have continued edit-warring.

• Starting AfDs about (Cham) Albanians politicians with support under restrictions users(no article was deleted):
• [117][118]

[119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] Athenean started all these AfDs to delete these Albanian politicans some of which were born in modern Greece. User:Phil Bridger pointed out that: I'll note that we still haven't had one delete opinion here from an editor without a Greek or Serbian point of view. Do you really think that trying to delete mentions of important people from your neighbours' history will do anything other than reduce the respect that the rest of the world has for your nation?

• His nationalist tendency and disruption is such that he even called UNESCO productions about Albanian culture as lunatic [128][129][130]

Conclusively, I ask from the administration to indefinitely ban Athenean from Balkan topics including articles, talkpages, discussions about users that edit them etc.--I Pakapshem (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll say it preemptively: Athenean, don't bother responding to this, it's not worth it, and we don't want to have yet another megabyte of squabbling between the lot of you guys. To fellow admins: consider banhammering the complainant, for the truly odious battleground mentality demonstrated here, which is more or less all he has ever done on this project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There are too many links to ignore it, so I suggest someone uninvolved review it. In fact I myself won't comment but leave it to admins.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think my report is reasonable and should be checked by neutral people. For example calling other people disgusting like Athenean has done is extremely dirsuptive.--I Pakapshem (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Support this report. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 21:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Another childish initiative by Pakapshem, just after his long-term block (which he hadn't even respected and edited unlogged) launches the most funny&bad faith report. Agree per Fut..Alexikoua (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Another insult by one of the close collaborators of Athenean, after a latent baid faith report on one useful and non disruptive edit that I made while on ban. --I Pakapshem (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Athenean yet again displaying arrogant and disruptive behaviour by editing out with the comment "pfffffft!" the simple notice of User:Sulmues here: [131]--I Pakapshem (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ban Both user:I Pakapshem and user:Athenean: its clear they both are being uncivil and disruptive. ZacharyLassiter (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't thing that a 2 days experienced user can have a good picture of all this mess. The case is clear: Pakapshem is an EMBARASSMENT in this community. Already two administrator wonder (Fut. Perf. above and Edjohnston [[[[132]]]]) why he has not received his indef ban yet.Alexikoua (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua why are you insisting on ignoring his report and making personal attacks against him? This is a very disruptive violation of civil. I have told you all before to comment on the content of the report not the user who started it.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

AdonisBlue

This 'new' editor (21:20, 10 June 2010) AdonisBlue (talk · contribs) created (21:20, 10 June 2010), has started removing references to "Greek" from articles ie Finiq, Phoenice and/or changing it to Albanian. I recall something about a sock doing this? Anyone recall? --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 21:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It seem the report I was thinking of is immediately above this section re Atheanean. --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 22:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Mathsci (disruptive & tendentious)

The user Mathsci is throwing a fit and trashing discussion at this talk page:[133] Here is but a representative sample, here he adds repetitive text without thought:[134] Note the turning on it's head of Wikipedia practice & policy, rather than support items for inclusion he demands secondary sources from those who question an items notability. Providing a secondary source (and creating a new standard equal to that we require for inclusion) to support an argument for non-notability is upside down. Also note that numerous sections do include supporting refs which are used to support arguments regarding weight and accuracy. One such section in which he demanded a ref - had Five supporting cites. Five.

Numerous examples exist from just the last few hours, one editor made the simple observation, "This image has been challenged and hence policy requires that it be directly supported by a reliable source." Mathsci's response? He told the Ed. to basically stuff it.[135] Then comments from Mathsci's regarding his ownership of the article, "Unfortunately you (a) don't get to edit the article and (b) don't get to dictate what discussions here are about." all interwoven with a ceaseless litany of unsubstantiated, uncivil and irresponsible accusations of the lowest kind. Absolutely deplorable behavior and beyond acceptable standards. Yet, it appears to be stock in trade for Mathsci. 99.141.250.125 (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(There's a related thread above. --RA (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC))

(ec) This editor probably should be blocked. At the moment he is supporting himself by citing papers written by Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer on twin studies. [136] This is a primary source, written in 1939 by a German scientist considered as an expert in Rassenhygiene, who in 1942 solicited from his former assistant Josef Mengele at Auschwitz concentration camp blood samples from the corpses of twins for his experiments in Berlin. The edits of this IP editor constitute trolling in the worst possible taste. He now states that, because the article was a transcript of a lecture given to the Royal Society, it is therefore acceptable as a WP:RS for writing wikipedia articles.[137] Comments like this are certainly not good faith editing in any sense of the word. His contributions at the moment seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel: he is somewhat reminiscent of Fourdee (talk · contribs), banned by Jimbo. Mathsci (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Breathtaking. What a remarkable mischareterization of a discussion over this sentence: "Removed Burt, not notable and undue weight - Twin studies have been academically documented continuously to this day from back over 100 years...." The entire exchange can be found here:[138]. Everything from my simple claim that Twin study's have been conducted for over 100 years - to the astonishing application of Godwin's Law ... .99.141.250.125 (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

{ec}I'll also add that his reprehensible, unjustified and unsubstantiated attack on me here above is but further evidence, if any were needed, that Mathsci is eager to stoop to any level in his uncivil efforts to harm. His near every sentence is an accusation that I'm a Fucking Nazi - and he does it all the time. Absolutely disgusting. Me: "Twin study's have existed for over 100 years". MathSci's reply, "You're a Nazi." Just one of dozens of exchanges in which Mathsci always stoops to questioning - nay implying, another Ed's motives. Unacceptable.99.141.250.125 (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

At no stage have I written, "You're a Nazi". I have written on this page that your editing patterns suggest sockpuppetry. Mathsci (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. You're a liar. You compared me to Fordee[139], you tied me to extremists, "Regardless of secondary sources like that, he, like those on many external websites," and you attributed my thoughts to those of a Nazi seeking to further POV in almost every exchange, often without even the pretext of decency "The primary source you have produced, however, reveals a lot about yourself." ... etc, etc,...99.141.250.125 (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It is true that the article has been semi-protected precisely so that this kind of disruptive editor cannot edit it. Above, he doesn't feel any need at all to refer to the 1995 book edited by Nicholas Mackintosh on Cyril Burt, Cyril Burt: Fraud or Framed?. Regardless of secondary sources like that, he, like those on many external websites, simply happens to know the WP:TRUTH. Mathsci (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

For those interested, here is the link that 99.141.250.125 supplied [140]. Mathsci (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why 99.141.250.125 is using such extreme language ("Fucking Nazi"). Perhaps, when he has calmed down, he could explain why exactly he used the above reference, since he was evidently aware exactly who the writer was and his position as director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics in Berlin during World War II. Is he playing some kind of elaborate game on wikipedia? Mathsci (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

WTF has any of this to do with me challenging a captioned portrait's claim regarding the over 100 year history of Twin study's? Are you somehow trying to argue that I'm wrong - that Twin study's don't date back 100 years? Or are you just trying to demonstrate how obnoxiously disruptive & tendentious you are? Get a grip. And somebody please stop this madness. .99.141.250.125 (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are the editor who chose to cite a 1939 paper of Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer to make your case: he became a member of the Nazi party in 1940. You could have chosen any other paper by any other author, but no, that's the one you chose. Please could you clarify why you cited that paper? Mathsci (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You called me a Nazi because I cited a lecture given at the Royal Society entitled "Twin Research from the time of Francis Galton to the Present Day" to support my simple contention that modern Twin study's dated back over 100 years to Galton.

To call someone a Nazi in order to avoid the subject, a subject that was the anything but contentious or disputed claim that Twin study's date back over 100 years, is a textbook example of the most egregious disruptive & tendentious editing. Your disgusting behavior is truly unacceptable. Seriously, I find your easy, common and repeated use of character assassination on myself and others to be a true stain on the project.99.141.250.125 (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Serious allegations of this nature normally require some kind of diff. I've searched the talk page for "Nazi" and I can't find any statement that vaguely represents what you're claiming. Are you perhaps looking at the talk page of another article and mistaking me for another editor? Meanwhile, could you please answer my question about your specific choice of source. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Does it get anymore disruptive & tendentious than to have a treacly little troll ask this, "Meanwhile, could you please answer my question about your specific choice of source." immediately following my just posted statement to which he is directly responding, "I cited a lecture given at the Royal Society entitled "Twin Research from the time of Francis Galton to the Present Day" to support my simple contention that modern Twin study's dated back over 100 years to Galton." You're either unable to comprehend simple statements or you're a seriously warped individual that derives joy from frustrating your fellow contributors. .99.141.250.125 (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The funny thing is that, despite these protestations, Burt Affair exists. Mathsci (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

My only point, my only wording, my only simple sentences have never said anything other than twins have been subject to study continuously to this day from more than 100 years ago - and you're a lying scumbag Troll to continue to mis-attribute all these other outlandish claims to me. Your actions here really do bring into question your character. It's not a pretty sight.99.141.250.125 (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Lying scumbag troll"? Too far. 24h. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ahem. AN IP who has only been editing for 2 days, almost exclusively in this topic area, 2nd edit ever is a Mathsci revert? Obvious sock is obvious. This is the sort of bad-faith AN/I fishing expedition that should be frowned upon. Tarc (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been editing here since before 9/11 and may have more than 30,000 edits at this point. And no I really don't feel like getting an account at the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" today. Forgive me if I'm not feeling all that wikihappy after being called a fucking Nazi for daring to state that Twin study's date back over 100 years. .99.141.250.125 (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You would have to provide diffs to support this kind of allegation; and you have not yet explained how you came to quote Verschuer and an 1874 paper to support your claims about twin studies. Nicholas Mackintosh's 1998 book IQ and Human Intelligence has a succinct statement about Cyril Burt's fabrication of evidence on twin studies on pages 75-76. That's the normal way these things are checked on wikipedia. Nobody will believe your claims about being a regular editor of wikipedia. They would if you were editing under a registered account. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you doing, writing an example sheet for "disruptive & tendentious" editing? How many times do I have to respond to your bullshit? Here's the verbatim quote response I posted above, which itself is a quote ... of a quote: "Does it get anymore disruptive & tendentious than to have a treacly little troll ask this, "Meanwhile, could you please answer my question about your specific choice of source." immediately following my just posted statement to which he is directly responding, "I cited a lecture given at the Royal Society entitled "Twin Research from the time of Francis Galton to the Present Day" to support my simple contention that modern Twin study's dated back over 100 years to Galton." How often do you wish to repeat the same lying bullshit?

And frankly, your behavior and complete absence of ethics, honesty or decency does little to encourage me to associate myself more formally with a group that would allow such people as yourself such leeway. 99.141.250.125 (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Caden

I've tried to be patient, i've asked the kid to cool it. Just won't listen. There are two problems; endless accusations of censorship and conflict of interest and; no attempt to argue his point (i.e. "is too!" "is not!" etc...)

Over the past week or so:

• June 2 "The biggest problem I see here is the non-stop distruption of Bali ultimate and PhGustaf who appear to be working together as far as I am concerned after a long look at both their history. Both remove well sourced content WITHOUT consensus, both are POV pushing non-stop, and both are trying to censor the article. This is not how wiki works. Caden"[141]
• June 2 Ouside editor opines that he liked some edits that i made. Caden: "Nope sorry I disagree. The current version is the biased, censored POV of both Bali ultimate and PhGustaf. It is NOT neutral at all." [142]
• June 3 comes to my talk page to ask if a conflict of interest is why "you're fighting so hard to remove anything that sheds a bad light on (The New York Times) in regards to the Holocaust" (and no, I haven't stopped beating my wife either). I told him I had no involvement with the paper, now or ever. He also asked if i'm "working with PHgustaf to control the article." I told him I wasn't, that my only overlaps with that editor are in public forums on wikipedia. At this point, he responds: "::I don't believe you. Not a single word. As for your cheap shot above, I'll ignore your childish attack on me. And feel free to take action against me all you want. I know how to handle bullies like you. But do remember, the next time I see you accusing IPs as "socks" or next time I see you attacking newbies I will be sure to report you to ANI where you will be blocked. You are warned." (The Ip in question was soon blocked as the sock of a banned editor; the other editor has been around for 2 years, though i've probably treated him a little roughly). I told Caden to buzz off.[143]
• June 10 (didn't edit between June 3 and today) Says in response to another editors question about whether i'm willing to work with that editor that neither I nor two other editors are willing to collaborate and that "all three are working together to censor truthful (sic) facts" ... "call my honesty bad faith or whatever bullshit wikipedia excuse that you can find to hide under. I'm tired of the game playing by Bali and his team." I ask him to stop personalizing a content dispute, and stop with the attacks. He responds: "And why don't you stop your distruptive agenda driven goals here? What's your relationship to the New York Times? Why are you fighting so hard to protect the New York Times? You called the IP and Cimicifugia "liars" but the only liar I see here is you" etc... I did in fact call the IP (a sock of User:Malcolm Schosha) and the other editor liars earlier; perhaps my use was unkind. It's possible that massive cleanup i did on that article (which involved misrepresntation of the contents of multiple sources) was the result of a misunderstanding on the part of the other editor. [144].

What intervention am i seeking here? Just someone getting the kid to desist with the attacks, particularly the assertions of an agenda and a conflict of interest, and to either engage with actual content questions if he wants to participate or shove off. As some know, I don't much care for civility game playing and everyone goes off the handle now and then. The problem here is that he won't stop, and his participation on the talk page seems to only be about stirring up a fight (even the sock of Malcolm had something to contribute about the content, much as i disagreed with him).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed the history of Talk:The NYT/Holocaust article who's exact name I forget and don't want to look up, and a few related user talk pages, I agree that Caden needs to dial back the attitude. I've had a run-in or two with Bali, if I recall correctly, so this is not an example of one of his friends saying this. Caden, you're being disruptive on that already-charged talk page, aren't helping, and are doing some of the things you're accusing Bali of doing. If your talk page discussions are not productive, then look for other steps in the dispute resolution process; don't turn it into a battleground. Bali, while I'm here, you'd make things a lot clearer for outside reviewers if you'd take a little more care with emotionally charged words like "lying", or saying things like this, even if you feel goaded. People calling each other names makes it very difficult for uninvolved people to figure out what's going on and intervene, or indeed, for outsiders to have any desire to do so. That said, this is not a "pox on both your houses" opinion; Caden, you've stepped over the line a little, and need to scale back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Having been here before with this user, I've left him a message. Completely up to him whether he takes any heed of it, of course. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Hblackhawks

This user has already been blocked for abuse of editing privileges [145]. He then made this edit [146] that triggered another warning [147] for using the talk page as a forum. He then decided to make another degrading comment [148], then blanked the page [149]. I think this has gone far enough. Nicholasm79 (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

His post-block comments don't seem that bad to me, I'd just advise you to stop watching his page. There's no need to get into an argument on someone else's user page, especially when they're indef blocked. Dayewalker (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The comment didn't seem to violate WP:CIVIL, and it's within a user's right to blank their talk page. He's blocked, so I'd suggest that we just let it drop.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If you say so. I have no issue with him, and he can blank his own talk page, but I don't think he really has the right to make snide comments about other editors or Wikipedia like he did. Nicholasm79 (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, editors who are blocked are disallowed from removing current block notices from their talk page, so I have restored the block notice. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It depends on how and when they remove talk from their page. It isn't a user's "right" to blank their talk page. Users do not own their talk pages. They are given some latitude with them but it is not carte blanche to do whatever they want.--Crossmr (talk) 07:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Don Martin (public affairs)

This is a strange one. This AfD focuses on a land developer in Austin who also published a book of old postcards from the area. I question the notability of this individual, but the most aggregious aspect of the article is the other editors involved, all of whom seem to have some personal motivation to ensure the article only focuses on the positive aspects of the individual's life, while circumventing any attempt at adding data (verifiable) that would balance the article. I seem to be the only editor on this AfD who thinks the article should be deleted, except for the original nom, and the others are viciously adamant that it be kept, which smacks of WP:COI and WP:NPOV. I have had edits I've made to the article reverted when the edit was intended to make the article more concise and encyclopedic, while the edit reversions always favor showing only the positive aspects of this person. It is believed that some people close to the individual are actually editing the article while he himself has weighed in on the discussion page, which leads me to believe he might have been writing it himself at some point, possibly while signed in as someone else. Additionally, the name of the article is actually the name of his business, which seems a method of using Wiki for free advertising. Some outside help and opinions would be appreciated. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Investigating. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you on the AfD, but the consensus is overwhelmingly to keep. Part of the problem with this article is that the things that seem like a resume here are actually also sourced assertions of notability. That being said, it's difficult to identify which one of the users involved would be the COI users -- since the article looks fairly decent at the moment, I'd suggest that the additional eyeballs from the AfD ought to keep whitewashing out, and if there's further problems try the COI Noticeboard or other DR measures. But I'm not seeing any obvious admin action needed here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment per the subject of the article requesting input of uninvolved editors I have made an RFC Talk:Don_Martin_(public_affairs)#Review_of_Nightmare.27s_Removals_of_Citations ZacharyLassiter (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

67.187.229.14

67.187.229.14 (talk · contribs) was blocked for 1 month as a sockpuppet (of whom I don't know...probably another IP). The block having just expired, the user has resumed the exact same activity (genre trolling) with a vengeance...26 POV-based genre changes in the last hour, without any sources or discussion, often removing sources to genres he/she doesn't agree with. Already warned with {{Uw-genre2}} but no reason to suspect the warning will be heeded, as numerous warnings had no effect the last time around. Suggest an immediate reblock for a longer period of time. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support ZacharyLassiter (talk) 06:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support No doubt the ban has had absolutely no effect whatsoever. GetDumb 07:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)